Jump to content

Talk:Video game

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.7.125.142 (talk) at 18:40, 15 January 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:CVGPeerreview (add a new section)

Classification Disputes

Everything related to merging video games and computer games, and the proper naming and classification of computerized games has been moved to Moved to: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and Video Games/Definition dispute — Slike | Talk | 02:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Over at Category talk:Computer and video games we're holding a vote to determine if Video games should, from here on out, be an umbrella term for Arcade games, Computer games / PC games and Console games. Head on over and vote! Oberiko 21:51, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Moved publisher text

Moved this text to here:

Key Video Game Corporations
  • Nintendo -- Creator of numerous console systems and several long-running franchises (such as Mario and the Donkey Kong series).
  • Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. -- Online home to Sony's entertainment division.

This text refers to video game publishers, which is not what this article is about. Nintendo is listed on the video game developer article, which is where it belongs. I'll add Sony to the list there. —Frecklefoot 13:36 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Kudos

Kudos to Ajbperc for his edit to the General section. It now reads much better and gives a clear description of the distinction between computer games and video games. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:51, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)


Removing external links - adding ODP links

Wikipedia is not a links repository, correct, but I don't understand how deleting quality external links and adding a link to a directory of 42919 sites (95% of them suck...), is going to make this category more useful to its readers. I come here and read the articles, then I want to find good sites to download games. If you point me to a directory of 42919 (!!) sites, where only very few are worthy of my attention, then I wasted my time coming to Wikipedia.

Why not delete the "News, reviews, downloads" links and add a link to http://www.dmoz.org/Games/Video_Games/News_and_Reviews/ Why not delete all useful external links from Wikipedia and just add a link to ODP?

The problem I have with that section in particular is that it's not very encyclopedic (IMO of course) and that it's the subject of many reversions of inserted ads (see the history). In the whole hour and 9 minutes since you restored that section it has already been added to and reverted once. It was a bold edit to see if removing the "specific downloads" section would significantly reduce the pointless back-and-forthing going on.
I linked to the ODP because it covers the topic at hand more generally and also because it lists 37, not 42 000, Windows games download sites which seem to be about on par quality-wise (and the ODP actually includes Linux and Mac games for example). Not all of our links are clearly described (such as this "freeware download" site). Don't worry, I'm not going to remove those links again, but I am interested in the debate. :-) (BTW, you can sign/date your posts here with four tildes ~~~~.) --Mrwojo 23:46, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I totally agree with you when you say "it's the subject of many reversions of inserted ads" but it's up to us to delete those ads, I know it's a lot of work (I'm new with this editing thing, but I can help) but we don't have any other alternative. Deleting all useful links is not the answer.
The "freeware" site you posted is a good example of what we should delete, the description is wrong (flash games, not downloadable games) and I hate sites that keep trying to install weird things on my computer.
PC Gaming and Windows Games Download are so-so... bad design, lots of text and not enough screenshots, plus the games are boring, but I like all the others, they are clean, without lots of ads, and they all have good games. As a reader of this category I find them useful.
ODP lists a lot of outdated sites, some of the links don't work and some descriptions don't match the site's content, it's a good idea to link to the ODP but we should have a few quality external links as well. It makes it easier for the readers/gamers, like me :) (thanks for the tip about the four tildes) Camden town 14:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Welcome to editing! Anyway, you're right that removing all the links isn't helpful to readers. I'm a bit harsh on open-ended lists in the Wikipedia (since they seem to invite continuous growth or reversions). I'm satisfied that there are editors watching over it. --Mrwojo 17:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I believe that potential abuse (as seen in the next heading) is another good reason to be careful about the types of list wikipedia allows. I'd like to state that while convinient, these links are more distraction than helpful pointers. This is not a link repository :) if I was a user researching computer games, sites that host games or give reviews of specific games would be of very little related interest. Internal links marked "examples", which lead to articles such as MMORPG, Tetris, Grand Theft Auto, however, would be much appreciated. There are better ways to encourage growth than by 'appealing to all users, be the appeal encyclopedic or not".
A link to an example site with game downloads should be under free games sites a link to which would be under this article's "see also". Game news, game reviews, etc. sites should likewise be under their respective articles. Outgoing links should supply the user with supplemental information, not "you may now have an interest, here are some sites that usually interest those with an interest". While a sample of a typical computer game (I strongly recommend a neutral, interesting "classic" game, on a site without advertisement), links to random sites that one user may appreciate and another may not are subject to wikipedias accepted form, and not the preferance of a user. There are other sites that may act as a collection of "your reccomended games related sites", like a personal blog.
If I have not refuted the argument "I come here and read the articles, then [for reasons seemingly unrelated to my original scholarly endeavors :)] I want to find good sites to download games", please state so. If nothing arises, I'll be removing the links on my next pass. — Slike | Talk |

Hm, this has cropped up again. An anon user, 208.253.250.114, removed some extern links which were most likely superfluous. I breathed a sigh of releif when I saw this. "Finally, someone has gotten rid of some of the junk," I thought. However, Camden town came along and restored them. Personally, I beleive that, in some cases, less is more.

Case in point: A recent study showed that when given more choices, rather than fewer, consumers are more likely to buy nothing at all. Researchers found that when customers were presented with 20 brands and types of jams, the majority bought none at all. When given a choice of just 2, most purchased some.

I think the same holds true for Wikipedia: let's just give a few high-quality links rather than 500 crappy ones. I think we should actively trim the extern links that provide little quality content and keep just the ones that are great. If a subject is small and there are only two links that have anything to do with it, it's okay if they're not super-great. But for a subject as huge as this one, I think it's our duty to distill what is good and what isn't and just keep the A+ ones. Just MHO... — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:33, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Hello Frecklefoot :)
If you check that user's contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=208.253.250.114 you'll understand why he/she removed some external links...he'd probably remove all in a few days time. He keeps adding his sites (http://www.GreenAppleGames.com and http://www.play-casual-games.com ) to Wikipedia, and they are quickly deleted by other users. As you can see they have the same content and layout, they seem to be some kind of mirror of http://www.reflexive.com. I think he was so angry he decided to delete all "download sites" links. He deleted 2, but I bet he'd do the same to the others. This is why I restored them, it was pure vandalism. Camden town 21:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Camden town. Though I concur that the deletions were probably vandalism, I still would like to see the list trimmed down to just quality sites for the reasons I mention above. Just my POV. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:52, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Closer inspection

Most of the "download sites" are roughly the same. Given equal links, we should prefer the (actual) freeware sites over those trying to sell games (especially if they only offer crippleware downloads). These links should be removed:

--Mrwojo 16:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should remove all the links to download sites. Links to specific product sites for products we have specific articles on are OK, but there are simply way too many freeware and shareware sites for computer games in general. Given equal links, by the principle of NPOV we must either include all or none. There should be no problem filling the external links section in this article with links to information sites, articles and the like instead.
If on the other hand someone creates computer game freeware download site... - Fredrik | talk 17:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you for the most part, but was hoping to add a clear guideline to define which links are appropriate. My "given equal links" implied "all else being equal", not that I thought they were entirely equal. Just now I found the same idea in the proposed external links guidelines. --Mrwojo 18:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removal and explanation

People have a tendancy to add games sites they frequent to this article, which I think does nothing to aid the reader. I propose that the following rules/points be considered when adding a site:

  • please seek approval on this talk page before adding an external link, and provide good proven reason to link
  • this is not a site for personal reccomendation. I found that most links had no clear intent other than to let the user know about "this cool site"
  • non critical sites with slow load times, abundant flash, etc are not accessable
  • was the major topic of a game site mentioned in this article?

The following is a list of sites that have been removed, and my reasons:

(is it just me, or do (did) the link descriptions all sound like unprovable sales pitches?)

News, reviews, and downloads

  • ShackNews.com: random news bits. Users reading 2004 in video gaming would be barley more interested?
  • CyberLore.net: a site with opinions on the greatest games
  • EuroGamer: why this one over others?
  • GameRankings: not removed. seems to give real statistics - how accurate are they, and yrom what sources?
  • Gamersreborn: why this one over others?
  • GameSpot: not removed. google searches for "computer gaming news" "gaming" and "computer gaming" return this site as #1
  • GameSpy: why this one over others?
  • IGN PC: why this one over others?
  • Linux Games: needs to be moved to pc games?
  • MobyGames: why this one over others?

Specific download sites replaced with a link to google. (no, not really, but I hope you see my point :)

Directories

— Slike | Talk | 04:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I dislike "corporate" gaming sites like GameSpy, IGN (which is really low-quality and ad-filled). I think from those and ShackNews / EuroGamer / GamersReborn (crap), only GameSpot should be kept. GameRankings' rankings are based on the reviews from other sites, so it is objective in a way, it's the reviews themselves that aren't. I say keep that too. I'd keep CyberLore too, it's useful, even if not that "big". I don't know about linux games so I can't say how good LinuxGames is. MobyGames I'd defintelly keep, as it's an useful (and open-content) database of games, probably the gaming website I use the most. I think there are some other websites that could be added, like The-Underdogs.org - the king of abandoned and under-rated games. --82.76.81.56 10:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
what are mobygames and cpberlore chiefly good for? The underdogs should be linked by abandonware. — Slike | Talk | 16:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've never heard of CyberLore, but MobyGames is to computer and video games as IMDb is to movies and television. I'm mostly neutral on them though: They have many games and the developer's entries are unique, but I've found many small errors there (notably in release dates and genres). --Mrwojo 17:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've replaced the directory site with a link to MobyGames. I'm pretty neutral so far, but am opposed to having more than 3 links. A review site, a 'news' site, and catalog site, all having a good reputation are a good trio. A user created walkthroughs/guides site wouldn't be so bad either. — Slike | Talk | 20:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Structure

This section discusses the current structure of of this article. Since the subject is of importance and a major point of contention, please keep this section at the top. If you would like to propose changes to the current implementation, please add comments under the below Comments section.

Computer and video games is currently the umbrella article of the entire subject of computer gaming, be it on pc, console, handheld, arcade, or otherwise. This umbrella article sees a game as "a virtual universe, particular instances ("new game"/"load game") of which are controlled and enforced by a computer".

The goals of this article are to direct the user to what they're looking for in regards to games, and to describe what a game is (see computer and video games#Description).

Computer game and video game both direct to this article. People clicking on the two will likley want to know what a "game" truly is (as per the description above), what to expect of it, and so on.

However, this umbrella article recognizes the fact that video game commonly refers to console game, and that computer game refers to games played on the home computer. Some disambiguation must exist. The article provides links at the top, if applicable, to pages detailing console games, and (there is no page for personal computer games).

One problem is that these specialized articles tend to degrade into "a console game is different from a computer game because...". An attempt to resolve this problem must be made in this umbrella article, by providing a concise overview of various platforms on which "computerized games" are played.

The specialzed articles should/may include:

  • a brief overview
  • a brief history, and a link to the long history (e.g. History of video games).
  • technology involved
  • social and economic points of interest and concerns.

The arcade games article is a good starting example of what a personal computer games and console games article should look like.

Comments

First, I'd like to apologize for going ahead with all of this. I did not find many parts of the discussion until I had already started (though I admit I may have gone ahead anyways), and many parts of the discussion were stagnant. If I'm doing something you disagree with (or agree with), please, let me know, as I'd really appreciate any form of feedback. --Slike 09:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To do

(when tasks are done they should be removed, and the comments under them)

personal computer games and console games need cleanup.

Thanks to those that cleaned up the split — Slike | Talk | 02:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Trends and attitudes is currently small, but is really a rather large subject, and needs expansion.

Popularity is too large, the few points could be given in fewer words. Halving it may help?

Game modification should be merged into game mods?

Complete 'See Also' List

Now at List of gaming topics, comments at Talk:List of gaming topics

Tennis for Two

It is incorrect to say that this is not a computer game. It is, it is just not a digital computer game. So it is certain, without exceptions, that all video games are computer games. Fredrik | talk 01:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A digital computer is "a computer that represents information by numerical (binary) digits". [1]
An analogue computer is "a computer that represents information by variable quantities (e.g., positions or voltages)". [2]
There aren't many, if not any, analogue computers in existence as COTS products. Using the term "digital" is simply marketing since all modern computer appliances are digital computers. Adraeus 07:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The intro

I favor Fredrik's version of the intro (see both). Leaving out the vid sentance and replacing it with "also called video games" fails to define video game on it's own. I think that the way to interact is not contained within the game. "Electronic" is redundant, since 'computer' is mentioned. Setting refers to the same thing as universe, but is not mentioned beforehand, may be confusing. The linked personal computer entry is not about the IBM PC, so macs need no mention. I do appreciate your work though, and don't mean to discourage you by being so rabid about definitions.— Slike | Talk | 05:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I prefer my version too. - Fredrik | talk 15:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I too preferred Fredrik's version. --Mrwojo 15:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I'm afraid I disagree very much with one paragraph of Adraeus' edits (the top one). See changes. A 'game' is not a simulation, though some games are (but are more than just a sim). Only some games, typically MMOs, use a relational database, the rest persist info in other ways - in either case, persistance is irrelevant at this point. And "[...] client and/or server-side software required for player interaction with the traditional business rules layer replaced by a gameplay rules layer" will be, I think, veeeeery confusing for those unfamiliar with 'business rules' and the like. Also, it implies that game development/etc is a child of business applications, but that's minor. — Slike | Talk | 07:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Definition was from GameDev.net. By the way, you're using a limited interpretation of "simulation". See [3]. Adraeus 07:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would hope that that defenition is geared towards seasoned developers as a kind of "well, just think of it as...". You must agree that it would seem very confusing to the average reader? As for sim, yes, however, that limited interpretation is the one a reader will likely hold: [4]. — Slike | Talk | 07:33, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
GameDev.net's dictionary is created by contributions from visitors, like the Wikipedia, so our own definition is as credible (or more so, since we're having this discussion). Also, the definition is almost word-for-word the same as the one at GameDev.net, which is bad.
Is our "virtual universe that players interact with in order to achieve some goal" based on some other work not referenced (it seems at least inspired by the definition of game in "I Have No Words & I Must Design")?
I also question WordNet's definitions. For example, it defines computer game as a "game played against a computer" and video game as a computer game. So Battlefield 1942 played against bots is a c-v game, but multiplayer is neither a computer nor video game? --Mrwojo 15:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(I think I wrote most of that part). The last thing I read that would have helped with that definition is The Art of Computer Game Design, and I believe that for the most part, it's very similar to I Have No Words & I Must Design (as both have a very nice discussion of what a game is), but that was 4+ months ago, and I don't think they go into definitions of computer games that much (or at all?), so I think we're plenty safe.
Any definition we make is just as good as any we find, as long as we go about making it the right way, which I believe we are. — Slike | Talk | 20:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is almost a year old and the intro still reads very awkwardly. There's a request for an expert so I'm going ahead with some intro changes that bring it back in line with the stuff under Structure on this talk page that says it should be about things common to both types of game. Starting a sentence with "Technically" is confrontational. Also, the terms aren't interchangable since "computer games" encompasses games that don't include video. If they were, we should call this computer games or video games, not computer AND video games. Weefz 12:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Computer

If I'm correct, the term personal computer refers, or technically refers, to a computer running a running Windows, Linux, or several other operating systems, but it does not refer to Macs. Would the term home computer, perhaps, be more correct? ✏ OvenFresh☺ 17:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

while no conflict exists with the mac (standard def of personal computer includes macs), it seems slightly more approriate. However, two points - "personal computer" is a much more popular term (PC, not HC, etc.) and also, there'd be quite a lot to change for dubious clarity. — Slike | Talk | 06:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I prefer "desktop workstation", but I'd settle with "desktop computer". Be aware that both "personal computer" and "desktop computer" mean slightly similar things and include console game systems. [5] [6] Adraeus 07:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
According to WordNet, "personal computer" does not include console game systems because console game systems are designed for multiple simultaneous users. (See my caveat on WordNet above though.) --Mrwojo 15:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In normal UK usage, 'PC' doesn't include Macs (its what used to be referred to as 'IBM-compatible', I think), but its a moot point - as far as I'm aware all Mac games are ports of PC games. --Dolphan
"Home computer" refers to the various computers popular during the 1980s and early 1990s (AppleII, Commodore 64, Atari 400/800, Amiga, Atari ST, etc.). It's not used much anymore, but could still refer to various home models of computers. "PC" refers to IBM PC compatibles, which could run DOS, Windows, Linux or various other operating systems. But it does not refer to the Apple Macintosh since it uses specialized hardware.
BTW, not all Mac games are ports of PC games! Many are, but it is not universal. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite tag

I've added the cleanup-rewrite tag because this article is somewhat confusing and ununderstandable. It also inaccurately describes what video games are. Also, video games are not computer games, even if that is what the name implies, and the articles should be separated as this just causes confusion. "Bushwhacked" does not mean getting whacked by a bush. We should treat these terms as what they mean. User:Oven Fresh/sig 00:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Video games were accuratley described, first in one sense of the word (the technical dictionary definition of "game with a video screen"), and then in the second sense (the "a video game is a console game" definition). Your view seems to be absolutely grounded in the second. If you are going to suggest that video games are not computer games, "even if that is what the name implies", you better have a good reason for supressing the first.
Read what this article is about, as in "A computer game is a game composed of a computer-controlled virtual universe that players interact with in order to achieve a defined goal or set of goals". Console and PC games are definitely moreso similar than they are different. The difference between the two is the method of player control (keyboard&mouse vs handheld) and the resolution and size of the screen. And that's all. This does lead to some genres of game being more appropriate for one or the other - that's genre, and does not change the "game"ness of either in any way.
I think you see some vast distinction between a game on your computer and one on your console and are completely missing out on how absolutely similar they are. This article is about the similarities, the things that make this type of gaming distinct. There are two articles about two different implementations of this "...game composed of a computer-controlled virtual universe..." concept.
I strongly suggest that you share your views in the talk page before calling for a complete rewrite. I don't know what others think, but I think how your view of the article as "confusing and ununderstandable" stems from you, and not from the article. Explain what you think is wrong with it. —Slike2 18:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I dont see absolutly nothing wrong with the article. I myself wrote a nice chunk of it, specially in the History part and someone deleted the whole thing. You bettr talk about things before you cange them. Its not your encyclopedia alone; its everyone's.--SalomonMuriel 01:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'ome Compyooter wood nae work cos wot aboot the pooor sod ee werks at 'offis? wot wood ee doo den, ee? ee? Ees nae at 'ome, is ee? ah jus' thin' wi shud stik wi' personal compyooter
I think the problem might be use of the term "computer games" which, at least in the gaming community, is somewhat obsolete and among some people can conjure up images of older games like the text-based Infocom adventures which most certainly are NOT video games. Neither are MUDs which are still played on PCs and Macs by a lot of people. I would agree that PC games (the common term these days) should have their own category since there are lots of games playable on a computer that aren't video games and hence would only be included in this article due to the word "computer" in the title. Visual does not equal video. The discussion page on PC games is much quieter, so I'm off to make some changes there that back up my point. Weefz 21:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links, yet again

Kmg90, please refrain from reverting my reverts :) You may have noticed the attempt at a sign directing you to the talk page. While rel="nofollow" prevents people from using wikipedia to spam (boost the pagerank of) their (favorite) sites, the addition of "whichever links anyone would like" should still not be allowed. I would not like to see, for example, a list of 10 or 30 links to relatively random "helpful" sites. I think that 3 is a very reasonable number, especially considering that each one of the links that we have now offer the user virtually zero information to supplement this encyclopedic material. So please, before changing that clearly marked section, propose why your link is better than those given, or why we should have more than three. I'd be more than happy to agree with some good reasoning. Slike2 02:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I seem to have missed your comment. I changed my own writing back to what I had originally wrote, your generous edit was: "IGN: because IGN UPDATES THERE NEWS and other things than any other SITE!"[sic]. My response to this is: why not make an artice about gaming news sites, or better yet, a list of gaming news sites and attempt to add it there? Gaming news offers the novice reader nothing except confusion. You state that the IGN updates their site more than others, which makes it better - that's your opinion. But does pagerank agree with you? No, it does not. I searched for "gaming news", "game news", "video game news", "computer game news" (etc.), and I did not see the IGN returned as a top hit for any of those. On top of that, it's a corporate site. Further on top of that, this isn't an article about gaming news, it's an article about c/v games. You don't learn about china by watching chinese news, just as you don't learn about america by watching american news. If you pointed the reader to a forum or a singe article on gaming, I think that that would be better (though still inappropriate). IGN is entertainment, and not a learning resource. Slike2 21:19, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about adding a link to MobyGames [7]? It's a non-commercial site--all they do is catalog electronic games. They also have reviews, but it's totally free--they don't sell anything. Many of our computer and video game articles link to it. Thoughts? — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:08, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Computer_and_video_games&diff=9925708&oldid=9913453 was the (my) edit that dropped it. I have nothing against it. I don't really think that any of the links help with "what is a video game", so I'd prefer 0 and a note and link to a gaming sites article, but hey. I think that three is a good number, if you think that we should add a fourth, I'd ask if we can get rid of one of the ones we have - if no, then by all means add it. I'm editing based on a hazy notion of what contributers/readers want to see (as opposed to people that can click an edit button). Slike2 04:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not many articles' external links directly relate to the question "what is a [article topic]?". Most are about the topic in general. Major, broad-focused sites like MobyGames are useful links here in that regard. -Sean Curtin 20:36, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
Right. I see nothing wrong with MobyGames, but I'd rather it be excluded than 10 random, redundant, and equally pointless (this last one is my POV) be included. If we allow any link at all, what's to stop any link at all from being posted? A second argument is what is the intent of external links? I don't think that it's to allow us to suggest favorite sites to each other. I can find plenty of fun sites to add [8], but should I? A third argument is: would you place CNN's national news section under the US article? Just because the article and the site share the same subject matter (and so is likely to be interesting to the enthusiast) does not mean that we have to link to it. Summary: I wouldn't like a list of 10+ redundant sites to be at the end of this article. Slike2 02:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How is posting a GAMING RELATED WEB SITE SPAM!
Definition of spam: Unsolicited "junk" e-mail sent to large numbers of people to promote products or services. Sexually explicit unsolicited e-mail is called "porn spam." Also refers to inappropriate promotional or commercial postings to discussion groups or bulletin boards.
And the site is not inappropriate User:Kmg90
You feel that it is not inappropriate, I feel that it is. You won't be able to convince me otherwise unless you do more than flatly state your opinion. My points above outline why I feel the way I do. As for spam - on wikipedia, spam is what an editor feels is intended to promote something to the reader as opposed to trying to help the reader. When you ignore a clearly marked message that asks you to show some consideration by talking things over before adding something to a touchy section, I tend to think that you may not be all that helpful. Slike2 02:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm against "spam links" too. I didn't think MobyGames qualified as a spam link, but if adding it will encourage others to enter spam links, then it doesn't need to be added. I only brought it up here because of the comment in the section.
How about stating in the comment that all additions will be reverted unless discussed here first? Then we can add the MobyGames link and feel justified when we revert all other links that others add? :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:42, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and I've modified the comment. I vote yes on MobyGames, and no on any corporate site. Slike2 21:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think I agree; to this end, I think we should remove gamespot and add metacritic. Tempshill 18:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about this. I don't like corporate sites mainly because I don't think they're deserving of attention. Gamespot is however the leading site (says google), and I don't think that should be ignored only because it's corporate. Thanks for your rewrite, by the way. Slike2 20:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goals

Slike2 said: player forms their own goals

In that case, we may as well say:

  • An automobile is a wheeled vehicle that carries its own motor and allows the driver to achieve some goal
  • Mathematics is studied by mathematicians in order to achieve some goal

and so on.

People always do things with some goal in mind. This phenomenon is not intrinsic to computer and video games, and therefore irrelevant. Fredrik | talk 03:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The defining aspect of games is that they include a goal as part of their definition. A game is a world, and things that you must clearly do in that world. 'Mathematics' and 'an autmobile' are just means to an end, they don't actually include goals as part of their definition (the goals are, respectively, "satisfy curiosity" and "move from one place to another"). Yes, it's clear that you use them for those goals, but the point is that the goals, or ends, were known before the means to achieve them. Not so in games. Games define both goals and the world at the same time. If you'd like, "achieve a goal" could become "achieve a defined goal", but I don't see a need.
Now, you're obviously referring to "software toys" when you remove the mention of goals - software toys have their own article. My add on to that was that even with toys, it's still important to mention defined, or objective goals. Take the new WoW. Clearly, it's a software toy, as there are no "winning conditions" (something meaningless as far as games go that the phrase "software toy" convolutes into existance, but that's my opinion). But, there are clear goals: level up. And there are clear goals in sim city: build a big city. Sure, they're a lot less linear, but the goals are still there. Winning conditions are not, but winning conditions are not mentioned here. Slike2 04:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I wasn't aware of the term "software toy". The distinction is vague, though. Fredrik | talk 05:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is, vague and kind of useless. Personally, I think they're the same thing (toys and games) - goals exist in both. Unfortunately, the sim city guy got confused and thought that not providing a winning condition somehow means you aren't providing implied goals. And I don't see any regular person calling the sims a toy. Slike2 09:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam?

Anon editor 209.164.32.131 (talk · contribs) added the following external link, http://games.consumerelectronicsnet.com/, which looks like it is possibly borderline spam, or at least a low quality link. Could someone more knowledgable about computer games please investigate. BlankVerse ∅ 13:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, per the warning in that section, we can just revert it since they didn't bother bringing it up on this talk page first. I see someone's already done it, but if that happens again--someone adds an extern link without discussing it here first--just revert it. The comment in that section says that will happen if they don't discuss it first.
I know the warning sounds un-wiki, but this article is a huge target for spam links, so we added the warning to help curb the spam links. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:54, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Video games create violence

I think there should be some reference to video gaming considered to make kids violent (I don't think so), there should be some info on that controversy. vaceituno | Talk | 00:00, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

That discussion, covered in an entire article, is located at Video game controversy. Its linked to via the List of gaming topics page. So it's covered, just not in this article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:49, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Created a paragraph mentioning the controversy with a link to the main page. — Wikipedical | Talk | 20:53, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I propose adding MobyGames to the external links. It's a 100% non-profit website, unlike some of the other sites which are there, like GameSpot. Since it's a standard site to link to for articles about console or computer games, I think it's pertinent and should be added to the list. I'm bringing it up here per the note in the External links section. Any objections? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, for the exact reasons Frecklefoot stated. Coll7 05:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MobyGames is not 100% non-profit. It is a 100% doesn't earn a profit. There is a difference. In the seven or so years of its existance MobyGames has not earned anything you would call profit nor has it paid the founders any real money. Revenue from ads and the buy button go to paying for bandwidth and buying servers etc.--Flipkin 19:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add a link to my site at the end of the video game article. It is a history of video games, and I feel it would add some historical perspective to your entry:

The Dot Eaters: Videogame History 101 http://www.thedoteaters.com

Is that okay?

Thanks for asking. Most articles you can add extern links to as you like, but this one has become a big target for people spamming their own sites. There is a History of computer and video games article where your link might be more appropriate. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

"See also" section edits

Added internal link to cfg category page and edited labels of all three links for clarity. Glad to discuss! Checked likely link paths from Wikipedia Main to this article and they seem good. -- Sitearm | Talk 02:40, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Magazine disambiguation line shortened

I removed the dates from the magazine disambiguation line. The shortened text fits on one line. The dates were unnecessary (they're in the magazine article). The links distracted attention from the magazine link which is the important item in the line. Glad to discuss! -- Sitearm | Talk 02:49, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hello. I noticed there were many pages linking to this article via a redirect from video game. I've edited over 150 pages so far, correcting links to point directly to Computer and video games. I ask that if anyone has the time, to help do this. You can see what pages link to video game here: Special:Whatlinkshere/Video game. --Daniel Lawrence 09:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Computer games and console games, not "video games", term used only in the USA

The term "video game" is used only in the USA and the majority of people in the world are not American. --Chaosfeary 13:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what? I'm not American. I'm Canadian. I use the term video game. I know lots of people who call them video games. I don't like being referred to as an American when I'm not. Maybe there's a better wording that actually includes people not living in the US, because I know the term video game is widely used up here. Not sure about other places that use the term. Can we get a source for other locations? Optichan 14:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, nix that to "the continent known as North America". Pretty sure it's only the US and possible some associated islands like American Samoa and so on, Canada and possibly Quebec (when they speak English) who use the term "video game". Nowhere else, I'm pretty sure, but if anyone from countries excluding those defined under the previous sentence wants to comment it would be great. --Chaosfeary 18:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My friends in the UK use the term video game, and my friends in France say "jeux de vidéo" (games of video). Besides, you didn't have consensus for the huge amount of page moves. Please get it first. Andre (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I should point out that American English speakers are a supermajority of English speakers (see [[[English language]]), and the whole idea of playing games written as computer programs was pioneered in the United States.
We have other Wikipedias for other languages for other parts of the world. In the meantime, the English Wikipedia is supposed to reflect how people use English (which is why we have an article on California and not Kalifornien or however people in other countries spell it). --Coolcaesar 04:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Colombia and I use the term video games. I talk with americans and british people on a daily basis and I dont think I've heard the term computer games or console games come up in any conversation. (English is not my native language tho).

The phenomenal inaccuracy of that Naming section annoyed me so I changed it without consensus. I was bad. At least it's accurate now. See here if you need to see natural writing from UK gamers. Or Kotaku for Japan and/or the US, I'm not sure where they're all based. I have never heard a gamer use the term "interactive entertainment media" and I doubt I ever will unless they're being ironic. Weefz 00:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

The history section was highly POV and rehashed info that's just a click away elsewhere in the History of computer and video games and Console wars articles. I trimmed it way down to give a thumbnail of our roots and made the links to the other articles prominent. If in so doing I cut something others feel deserved to be covered here as well please edit it back in. Coll7 01:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont we merge those articles into this one. After all they are part of the topic.--SalomonMuriel 05:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's good information, the problem is that the resulting article would be too long. For me this article is already 9 printed pages and the history article is 15. Although the topics are inextricably related, they can each stand on their own, which proves best organizationally. --Duozmo 13:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what was there should stay there. The articles you linked are far more complete; but are too large for someone who is only looking for a short-to-medium detailed information. What do you think? --SalomonMuriel 04:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think 3 paragraphs (where it is now) is just about the right length for a summary. It's definitely a tough call as to what to include / exclude, but personally I think it's at its sweet spot. --Duozmo 01:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What?

The genres section is retarded. I don't think a game has ever been refered to as "Goth" and if it has the term being used as a video game genre is absolutely ridiculous. The author didn't even mention FPS's in the genres section and it was right next to a pic of Halo, what's up with that?

I agree. We should change it to the commonly accepted genres (FPS, TPS, RPGs, MMORPGs, Survival Horror, Racers, Fighters, Adventure, Action, Simulators and Strategy(both RT and Turned)

Sections with main articles

I noticed the removal of text in the sections that also have a main article. I think even though a main article is present, a section should always have a brief description. The main article refs. are IMHO there in case I want to know more about a specific subsection. The article is less readable now. What do you think? Felsir 12:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to create the descriptions, be my guest. You'll have to do it for "Game play" as well, though. Kyle key 07:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Games

I've not noticed anything about indie gaming anywhere on the article about independently developed games. Considering the size of the indie/hobbyist game development crowd, and pundits (such as the people of The Escapist) stating that these people will become increasingly important, I find that this is quite the oversight. On the other hand, I can't really think of any way of adequately expressing indie gaming in this article. Help, anyone? --coldacid 15:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Throw in a quick mention that not all games are developed by mainstream companies with large teams. There's a section devoted to indie development in Game development that you could expand or link to indie gaming. Weefz 13:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Jobs

Uh..... I really don't know how to say this, but, the article really still needs to be edited, whoever thought to put "mobile phone gaming" in the article was totally crazy. Also, the whole "too many links" thing needs to be taken care of because someone put it back in.

I also think more examples games of the genres need to be put in. I thought of that just the other day. I don't meen to be bossy sounding, but this article needs to be finished, or we'll have some idiot come and erase the entire thing, then we'll be right back where we started from, crap!! fatherdontdance 14 jan, 2006

What major revamping?

Can I know why this article is marked as going through an "expansion or major revamping"? There isn't any mention of it on this talk page, let alone a Todo list. --82.7.125.142 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I suspect the insertion of that template was a very subtle form of vandalism. The article has minor problems but nothing requiring that template! --Coolcaesar 18:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. Removed. The cleanup tag does it's job just fine without it. --82.7.125.142 18:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Video_game&oldid=35295542"