Talk:Video game/Archive 2

message: I was wondering if there is like a regional section for videogames, eg. American Video Games, Japanese Video Games, British Video Games, Middle Eastern Video Games.... Well you get my idea. Richardkselby 01:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean in the article? Well, I guess if it has any relevance you are free to add information. There is a section about computer games in the broader culture though, maybe that's a suitable place to add some information about regional differences, for instance which countries tend to make which kind of games, and what games are popular in which countries. That is: if anything sensible can be answerred to these questions: one should watch out for subjectivity and over-generalization. But maybe such an approach is more interesting than making a list of countries and saying what games they made, because for a lot of games, it doesn't really matter where they're made. I mean, well, okay if you're playing DDR it's pretty hard to NOT notice the fact that the game was made in Japan. But if I'm playing UT2004, I have no idea who made it and where, and it doesn't really matter I guess. Also, in the article about video game controversy there's a section with cultural aspects in different regions. You might want look there, if it were only for some inspiration. Greetings, (RagingR2 09:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regional

message: 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)
thread_title: Classification Disputes

message: 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/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)
thread_title: More on extern links

message: 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
*Open Directory - Video Games category - random choice
*Zeal.com - Computer & Video Games category - Over 40,000 subcategorised site profiles
— Slike | Talk | 04:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: what are mobygames and cpberlore chiefly good for? The underdogs should be linked by abandonware. — Slike | Talk | 16:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removal and explanation

message: 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)
thread_title: Structure

message: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: (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)
thread_title: To do

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Created a paragraph mentioning the controversy with a link to the main page.  — Wikipedical | Talk | 20:53, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Video games create violence

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: External links

message: 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)
How about http://www.la-arcada.com ?
:Why?  What does it have that is impartial and pertinent to this article?  Does it have ads?  Does it have pop-ups?  Do we really need it? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link request 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: 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)
replies: text: Why dont we merge those articles into this one. After all they are part of the topic.--SalomonMuriel 05:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: History Section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sections with main articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Independent Games 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well put. Removed. The cleanup tag does it's job just fine without it. --82.7.125.142 18:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What major revamping? 

message: It's obvious to me that the article in question should be merged into computer and video game industry, not this one. --82.7.125.142 20:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm getting rid of the merge template 

message: I am trying to start a Wiki city but need support and would like to know who would join
--Dr. Mahongany 16:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Game Wiki City 

message: well?
Pece Kocovski 08:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the any video game companies in australia? 

message: This page has been vandalised. I'm new to this and don't know what to do about it so just thought I would flag it up here.
::Happens quite a bit see Wikipedia:Vandalism for further information. Normally, unless its particularly large in frequency, we just revert to the previous version of the article. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page disruption 

message: I'd just like to point out that there is no history of computer games, only consoles. Patheros 23:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Computer Game History 

message: Somebody changed the first three subsections of the History section to show statements that aren't very helpful. Someone needs to change this back. 12.64.152.170 20:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correctly reverted the article to remove vandalism. Mysterius 21:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History re-write 

message: pong was the first video game, so shouldn't a picture of pong be on this article? dposse 18:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if you can get one. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: actually Naughts and crosses was the first video game. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, but pong was the first game to be widely available to consumers.  --Coolcaesar 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That can be said, but that doesn't change the fact, that pong is NOT the first videogame nor the origin of videogames. ;) In fact many consider 1958's "Tennis for Two" to be the first one. Ap2000 03:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, many do not - including the courts.  Tennis for Two used an oscilliscope for display, there was no video or video signal, hence it was not considered a "video" game.  Same goes for Nauts and Crosses, which used a lit panel for a display.  --Marty Goldberg 03:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pong 

message: New videogame wiki, maintained by Carnegie Mellon University:  Article by BBC:  Not on list of wikis yet. Shawnc 18:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game Innovation Database  

message: This article is biased. An entire section is dedicated to the benefits of gaming, but there is considerable research to the contrary. The positive aspects are not verified, and the negative effects (beyond the whole violence issue) aren't mentioned at all. There is research that video games might have a negative effect on cognitive development and on social behavior. Beyond that, a habit of gaming for hours at a time must be somehow correlated to physical health problems such as obesity. These issues must be addressed to make the article a fair and valid one.
: There is an entire page dedicated to the Video game controversy. I think the intention of that small paragraph is to simply highlight some of the more outspoken views on it. --Roy Laurie 21:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look mister anonymous editor, while I agree that certain video games can have negative effects the whole idea of video games in general is not bad. Playing them for hours on end is not a good idea, but gaming does have positive aspects and I don't see why we have to always be perseverating on the negative aspects. Board games like checkers were once thought about negatively too, you know, but no longer. Scorpionman 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias 

message: I've read through this article and I think that it's a bit messy in places and unencyclopaedic in others. Examples such as "Some research[6] suggests videogames may even increase players attentional capacities..." or "Nintendo's choice to use cartridges instead of CD-ROMs for the Nintendo 64, unique among the consoles of this period, proved to have negative consequences. In particular, SquareSoft, which had released all previous games in its Final Fantasy series for Nintendo consoles, now turned to the PlayStation; Final Fantasy VII (1997) was a huge success, establishing the popular"...
The article doesn't flow well, has some akward sentence construction amongst other things, and I think is in general need of a cleanup. Mouse Nightshirt 19:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messy - needs a fix 

message: This section has been bothering me for a while; I finally sat down and really went to work on it.  In my opinion I improved it big time, so I have removed the "improve and expand" it was tagged with.  I have high hopes for this article. :-) LearningKnight 03:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What the Player Gains

message: I'm trying to remove links to the perspective disambiguation page.  A few video games link to it, as they refer to "first person perspective" or "third person perspective" (so far I have changed Hang on).  Sadly none of the items from the disambiguation page deal with the thing properly, and I can't find a suitable video game link to sort it out.  I have, for the moment, opted for a wholly inadequate perspective (graphical) (literary perspective is another good bet for this, but I am still not convinced) but was wondering if there is space here, or elsewhere for a quick "third person, first person" style of game section, then I could clean things up to point to that bit of the article.  Otherwise suggestions for the disambiguation are welcome (including delete it!)LeeG 00:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More disambiguation

message: What the Heck is up with all this random vandalism that's been going on with this article?  I mean, thats entirely all I want to ask here.  I fail to understand why this article has had so much vandalism befall it.  It's nothing most of us can't handle, but still... --Joseph Collins 02:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Vandalism 

message: Seems unencyclopedic (particularly in the History section) and sometimes POV (pro-enthusiast, anti-business). For example: "Another factor that led to the demise of the home gaming market was the fact that many of these games that were being produced were just ill produced games with no play value whatsoever, all in order to take advantage of the game craze." 68.9.116.26 03:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that sentence is very POV. From what I've read, everyone has a different opinion of what led to the demise of the home gaming market. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone?

message: An important game that made the rounds at colleges with DEC video workstations was the "Colossal Cave Adventure".  Unless there is serious objection, I'll include this "Beginnings" section of this wiki. YORD-the-unknown 19:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colossal Cave Adventure 

message: Articles fails criterion 2a of the good article criteria. Once this has been addressed, you can renominate it for good article status. If you disagree with this, you can seek a review. Thanks, JimmyBlackwing 13:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Criterion 2a" ...or in other words, needs better references or sources. -- Buuneko 08:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted as a good article

message: Electronic game redirects here, but would Simon (game) qualify as a computer or video game? We either need a split or we need to more broadly define the scope of computer and video games. --Tristam 15:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not all electronic games qualify as video games.  Electronic games needs its own article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the article's title 

message: there is a game that came out in the early to mid 90s that i wanted to get but i dont know the name.  I know bits and pieces about it but not the name.  It is a role playing game set in the future.  Its about a guy who gets on a cruise ship and gets captured by a pirate ship which he joins.  On the cruise ship he talks to the captain and meets her daughter which i think he ends up saving i think later.  The cool thing about this game is that you can type in your requests.  At the beginning i know you can go to a bar where there is an alien dancing and you can type in what you want to drink.  I know that there is an alien cab driver and if you dont pay him he shoots you and the game is over.  Any info on this would be appreciated.
MT soil MN roots 02:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might try poking around on MobyGames or Home of the Underdogs. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MT soil MN roots I need help finding the title of a game... 

message: This section should be removed. It is terribly incomplete. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of ANY system that doesn't allow for multiplayer gaming! Certainly, the preceeding paragraph mentions systems that didn't get included in the list. Bulbous 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Systems that allow for multiplayer gaming

message: We should probably include something on Microsoft's initiative to promote pc as a gaming platform. If it works, it can have a huge effect on the views people have of the pc. It has the chance of revolutionizing the pc as a gaming platform in the views of people, and can change everything.
*The PC is the main platform for certain games, eg real time strategy is predominant on PCs, as are FPS (although common on consoles, i remember a figure showing that PCs had the vast majority of FPS players.) and obviously MMORPGs. I thus think revolutionised is far too strong a word. Mouse Nightshirt 16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Games for Windows 

message: I think someone should make a new topic of video game cheats for the hell of it.Naruto editor 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like some of these? :> Marasmusine 19:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheat codes page 

message: The truth of the matter about video games is that they are truly eating away at the brain. People who spend hours on end on video games are more likely to get lower grades. Video games, in my opinion , are one of the many (and I say many meaning more than I can name) reasons for bad grades. They cause people (children more specifically) to turn away from studying. Then the parents get report cards and ask their kids why, the kids tend to say "I don't know". Does this not give a reason to dislike video games? Miapowell 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  eating away! 

message: "Replayability" is a term coined by the gaming press, very familiar to gamers; but it's a bit of an odd one, not sure if you'd see it in any dictionaries. Should the term be clarified, or Playability have its own cvg article? Marasmusine 07:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replayability 

message: it has been proposed that multiplayer game be merged into this page. add your vote with support or oppose. feel free to leave extra comments in the comments section. Scepia 02:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed merge 

message: *Oppose — The Multiplayer Game article needs serious re-writing. Adding it here just makes more work. Bulbous 21:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: voting

message: The page Jurassic Park (video game) is both..unconcise and..makes it hard to find info on a certain game..making a disambig page would be rather difficult. Maybe take information off each and make a stub for each game to be expanded? I am making an article for just one of these and It would be hard to incorporate it into this messy article....Help needed on the section in general..many thanks Fethroesforia 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed..or joint help.. 

message: This article requires cleanup. It needs to be written with a NPOV. Spell check is needed as well. Pac-man image needs fixing. Jacroe |  Talk 19:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've mopped up some recent poor edits; were there any other particular sections with bias? Marasmusine 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Support and am willing to help do some of the work involved. A video game is "a game that uses a video device as its primary form of feedback" which includes computer games. This term has been misused on Wikipedia for much too long now. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support and am willing to help do some of the work involved. A video game is "a game that uses a video device as its primary form of feedback" which includes computer games. This term has been misused on Wikipedia for much too long now. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: Video Game/s
*(Article intro about mabey programming. development. popularity, effects on society, ect.)
*Production and development
**Artwork(how the models are created, for example doom creatures whewre originally molded in clay before they drew a design on paper then rendered the concept art digitally)
**Rendering Technologies
**Coding
**Debugging
**Cross-platform Porting
**Manufacture and Distribution and media formats(Ei. CD, DVD, Catridge, ect.)
**Marketing and Advertising
*Platforms
**PC game
***Intro(Overview of the platform and interface operating systems ect.)
***Similarities to all platforms and how they are becoming more like the others
***Differences
****Benefits
****Drawbacks
***Associated hardware and peripherals
***Conclusion
**Console Game
***Intro(Overview of the platform and interface)
***Similarities to all platforms and how they are becoming more like the others
***Differences
****Benefits
****Drawbacks
***Associated hardware and peripherals
***Conclusion
**Handheld
***Intro(Overview of the platform and interface)
***Similarities to all platforms and how they are becoming more like the others
***Differences
****Benefits
****Drawbacks
***Associated hardware and peripherals
***Conclusion
**PDA
***Intro(Overview of the platform and interface)
***Similarities to all platforms and how they are becoming  more like the others
***Differences
****Benefits
****Drawbacks
***Associated hardware and peripherals
***Conclusion
**Cellphone
***Intro(Overview of the platform and interface)
***Similarities to all platforms and how they are becoming more like the others
***Differences
****Benefits
****Drawbacks
***Associated hardware and peripherals
***Conclusion
*Genres
**RPG
***Decription
**MMORPG
***Decription
**FPS
***Decription
**Strategy
***Decription
**Puzzle
***Decription
**Platformer
***Decription
**ect.
Apples and oranges are fruit, but not the same. I agree with digital convergance statements these are true. But these industries, console gaming and pc gaming, apparently want these games to have distinct identities. The structure I propose provides an unbiased way of looking at all video games, and then drills down the specifics. Any gamer, programmer, 3d artist, developer, producer, on any platform with any operating system would be happy to contribute and have a place to add thier perspective evenly and fairly.M jurrens 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting diagram, although I'm concerned about just how much content you're suggesting for a single page. I guess in my mind I see this page as a very high-level overview of the subject matter where it introduces the many elements. Drill down on specifics of a platform, genre or information on detailed development practices and methods would be stand alone articles. Exposition on the finer differences of what currently (and historically) has defined a platform might better be left to the individual pages for each grouping. Especially when you consider how technology continues to change and these platforms evolve and transform. BcRIPster 19:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well then that suggests that "Video games" and "production and development" and "Genres" should be the main aticle under video games and these different game types would be justified as being seperate articles, based on platform, of thier own. There are communities of gamers that have specific knowledge about each gaming platform. To say computer doesent always emply gaming, as well as PDA or cellphone. Computer games, PDA games, and cellphone games, have a different set of interfaces, capabilities, and limitations. M jurrens 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You could either have an article that pertains to each in great detail. Or a section under each device platform that specifically addresses gaming. So a vote about what goes where would problably solve this delimma. M jurrens 19:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Add  # Support  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
=====Vote - in support of:  "Descrete sections addressing games specific to the device, under that devices page, Ex. Cellphone, PC, Video game console, Personal digital assistant would have a gaming section, with Video Games as the main article."=====
=====Vote - in support of:  "One large article with a little bit about all games of all platforms, under Video Games"=====
=====Vote - in support of:  "Seperate Pages for each game type, Ex. Personal computer game, Console game, PDA game, Cellphone game, with Video games as the main article."=====
# Support  I believe this is the way to go. Option 4 seems close to what I believe is an ideal configuration, but isent very different from what we have now. I still think that having a straight shot "Overview then, specifics links" would be optimum IMO. M jurrens 20:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, thank-you.BcRIPster 20:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then I would have to say that the #4 item addresses that foundation of that structure. If we can agree on that, then something such as developing templates or other such business becomes a secondary conversation.BcRIPster 20:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good, lets rock, We just need to work on exorbing the perspective parts from this article into video games.M jurrens 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then we are closer to the goal. First we need to get the page renamed/moved. What is the durration normally expected for something like that vote to play out, or if it's quickly appearing to be a consensus can that wait be short circuited? Also did anyone have any feedback on my alternate opening for the page that I posted above under "Suggested new opening for this article if moved"? BcRIPster 22:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The vote I proposed above was intended to satatisfy the verdict asnd initiate the transfer of materials to video games, I was hoping other people would be involved. 
You apear to be a leader in this community so your opinion would be most qualified IMO. Therefor I think for the most part we can all procede with the consesus from the vote before mine as well, that yes we should move elements that are general to video games, elements pertaining to PC gaming to PC gaming, console gaming elements to Video game console, or create an article about Console gaming platform. Then I think we should do as you have said and break out and add to the genre article series, then link it all to Video games and mention in the genre articles which platforms they are commanly written for. We should use supporting information contained in this article in the video game article that gives a decent overview of platforms and genres and deal with the specifics it the perspective, platform and genre articles. Unless there are aany objections we would just mention the changes as we go and everyone can contribute and work at it. It is wikipededia so we are all free to contribute and modify as long as we remain within the consesus of what is believed to be the ideal way of going about it.M jurrens 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I suggest this structure

message: :Add  # Support  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
=====Vote - in support of:  "Descrete sections addressing games specific to the device, under that devices page, Ex. Cellphone, PC, Video game console, Personal digital assistant would have a gaming section, with Video Games as the main article."=====
=====Vote - in support of:  "One large article with a little bit about all games of all platforms, under Video Games"=====
=====Vote - in support of:  "Seperate Pages for each game type, Ex. Personal computer game, Console game, PDA game, Cellphone game, with Video games as the main article."=====
# Support  I believe this is the way to go. Option 4 seems close to what I believe is an ideal configuration, but isent very different from what we have now. I still think that having a straight shot "Overview then, specifics links" would be optimum IMO. M jurrens 20:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, thank-you.BcRIPster 20:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then I would have to say that the #4 item addresses that foundation of that structure. If we can agree on that, then something such as developing templates or other such business becomes a secondary conversation.BcRIPster 20:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good, lets rock, We just need to work on exorbing the perspective parts from this article into video games.M jurrens 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then we are closer to the goal. First we need to get the page renamed/moved. What is the durration normally expected for something like that vote to play out, or if it's quickly appearing to be a consensus can that wait be short circuited? Also did anyone have any feedback on my alternate opening for the page that I posted above under "Suggested new opening for this article if moved"? BcRIPster 22:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The vote I proposed above was intended to satatisfy the verdict asnd initiate the transfer of materials to video games, I was hoping other people would be involved. 
You apear to be a leader in this community so your opinion would be most qualified IMO. Therefor I think for the most part we can all procede with the consesus from the vote before mine as well, that yes we should move elements that are general to video games, elements pertaining to PC gaming to PC gaming, console gaming elements to Video game console, or create an article about Console gaming platform. Then I think we should do as you have said and break out and add to the genre article series, then link it all to Video games and mention in the genre articles which platforms they are commanly written for. We should use supporting information contained in this article in the video game article that gives a decent overview of platforms and genres and deal with the specifics it the perspective, platform and genre articles. Unless there are aany objections we would just mention the changes as we go and everyone can contribute and work at it. It is wikipededia so we are all free to contribute and modify as long as we remain within the consesus of what is believed to be the ideal way of going about it.M jurrens 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: # Support  I believe this is the way to go. Option 4 seems close to what I believe is an ideal configuration, but isent very different from what we have now. I still think that having a straight shot "Overview then, specifics links" would be optimum IMO. M jurrens 20:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote - in support of:  "Seperate Pages for each game type, Ex. [[Personal computer game]], [[Console game]], [[PDA game]], [[Cellphone game]], with [[Video games]] as the main article."

message: A consensus is fairly clear in the discussion you started above.  You should continue that discussion rather than essentially bringing it up again in another form.  This vote is a waste of time. -- mattb @ 2007-01-19T20:35Z
:Agreed, thank-you.BcRIPster 20:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I would have to say that the #4 item addresses that foundation of that structure. If we can agree on that, then something such as developing templates or other such business becomes a secondary conversation.BcRIPster 20:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good, lets rock, We just need to work on exorbing the perspective parts from this article into video games.M jurrens 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then we are closer to the goal. First we need to get the page renamed/moved. What is the durration normally expected for something like that vote to play out, or if it's quickly appearing to be a consensus can that wait be short circuited? Also did anyone have any feedback on my alternate opening for the page that I posted above under "Suggested new opening for this article if moved"? BcRIPster 22:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The vote I proposed above was intended to satatisfy the verdict asnd initiate the transfer of materials to video games, I was hoping other people would be involved. 
You apear to be a leader in this community so your opinion would be most qualified IMO. Therefor I think for the most part we can all procede with the consesus from the vote before mine as well, that yes we should move elements that are general to video games, elements pertaining to PC gaming to PC gaming, console gaming elements to Video game console, or create an article about Console gaming platform. Then I think we should do as you have said and break out and add to the genre article series, then link it all to Video games and mention in the genre articles which platforms they are commanly written for. We should use supporting information contained in this article in the video game article that gives a decent overview of platforms and genres and deal with the specifics it the perspective, platform and genre articles. Unless there are aany objections we would just mention the changes as we go and everyone can contribute and work at it. It is wikipededia so we are all free to contribute and modify as long as we remain within the consesus of what is believed to be the ideal way of going about it.M jurrens 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No vote

message: This page was moved from computer and video games to here, video games.  But this is incorrect, it should be video game (singular) per Wikipedia standards!  Can someone please fix this?
Also, the opening text was not replaced with the rewrite, which we haven't even finished yet!  Please chime in here with any further comments. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW I'll have suggested changes tonight and I'll go ahead and start integrating with the main page so that we can get term consistancy fixed. Someone appears to have jumped the gun on the move. :/  BcRIPster 15:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking at the pages in question, I note there is a rather non-trivial edit history at Video game.  I'll probably just swap the histories of these two pages (Video games and video game), because there seems to be no reasonable way to merge them.  (One has non-trivial content from 11/01 to 12/04, and the other from 3/03 to the present).  If you see these articles disappearing and reappearing over the next few minutes, don't be alarmed. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All done now.  Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No worries. We'll get it all sorted out. Thanks! BcRIPster 01:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I think we should replace (at least part of) the current text with the re-write.  It's much clearer than the mess that's there now (though I didn't read all of it).  My eyes started bleeding after the first sentence. — Frecklefoot | Talk 02:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Whew... that's about all I had in me tonight to work on this. The remainder of the article still needs work but we're quite a bit along now.BcRIPster 06:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, another thought, what does anyone think of the notion of adding one or two high profile examples next to each genre?BcRIPster 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move gone wrong

message: Now that this step is moving along, I would say we need help in propagating this restructure out across all of the "CVG" space. Any thoughts?BcRIPster 22:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat related to the subject, I just changed the redirect for Computer game to Personal computer game (instead of video game). I hope everyone will agree this makes more sense? --ADeveria 14:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted it.  Computer games and video games are interchangeable phrases describing the same thing.  For an example, see .  Computer games normally refer to the same thing as video games, things referring specically to "Personal computer games" normally stress so, as you can see with magazine titles such as PC Gamer etc. - hahnchen 19:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Is the plan to rename all the "...computer and video game" categories as well? That would be a big job :> Marasmusine 21:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in fact that is being discussed here. It is being suggested that a project page be set up to cover the work. Also to hahnchen's comment. In common use they are interchangeable, but technically they are not. Rather than start this whole row up again, please look above for the original discussion on this subject that triggered current events. BcRIPster 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, I've been helping out with a few category renames but User:Caerwine has reverted some redirects, saying that The name should not be changed without going through CFD. So I don't know if I should continue or not. Marasmusine 23:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what to do on filing the CfD, but since this has already been talked about quite a bit here and on the WP:CVG talk page, I personally I think we should keep working on this. This is a correction of terminology issue from my perspective.BcRIPster 01:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video game migration... next steps... 

message: In regards to BcRIPster's statement above, thanks.  I still think it could be better and simpler (as mattb and I prefer), but I'm not going to edit right now.  Let's discuss here what the opening paragraph should state.  Then, when we are all in agreement, we can go ahead and change it on the article.
No, this is not the normal wiki-way.  But since this game is so high profile and so many editors want a say in what goes into the opening, I think this is the way we should handle it.  Otherwise, we'll just go on reverting and stepping on each other's fingers.
My vote for the first sentence in the opening is what I stated above, namely:
:A video game is a game which uses a video display as its primary form of feedback.
Please add your comments on this opening sentence below.  I think we can move onto the rest of the paragraph (which can discuss things such as controllers, etc.) after we have this hammered out. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First comment: "video display" needs to link to something pertinent and general (as mattb pointed out).  Any suggestions? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it really looks like Display device may actually be the most top relevant item we could link to.BcRIPster 08:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A video game is a game which uses a video display as its primary form of feedback.
Are we ready to tackle the second sentence? Does everyone agree on this version? — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm ok with it, although I still think it useful to have the (or "videogame") qualifier in there to avoid the 1-billion spelling fights that will ensue. FWIW,  I've been swamped with the CVG->VG Catagory rename issue and haven't had the time to dedicate on this page rework over the last week. BcRIPster 18:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A video game (or videogame) is a game which uses a video display as its primary form of feedback.
I understand you being occupied with other stuff.  Personally, I'm taking off in a couple of days and would like to see this resolved before then.  If not, s'okay, life goes on... — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The opening

message: FWIW, I've been working to come up with a good analogy to this whole situation, and I think the best comparison is the efforts to get people to quit labeling all animated programs as "cartoons". A cartoon is generally considered to be something comical or exaggerated. Programs like Lain, or the movie Ghost in the Shell 2 are not comical by any stretch of the imagination, but that doesn't stop U.S. readers from calling them cartoons because they are animated. Calling them cartoons confuses people and then you get parents taking their kids to watch Spirited Away as a "Disney cartoon" and not getting what they expected. Should we still call them cartoons? I don't think so, and slowly but surely the terminology is getting corrected in common usage. But, there will always be people spitting fire that if it's animated it's a cartoon, or whatever... or if it's not a cartoon then it can only be anime, but anime is considered to be the label for all Japanese animation (including comical), so where does U.S. based, adult (not porn) themed animation go for a label?!? But, that's another fight for another day, on another page =) BcRIPster 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the definition of Cartoon changed behind our backs. I call both cartoons and animae cartoons. I think animae are cartoons, like a subcategory.--Can Not 23:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FWIW thoughts on analogy to Video Game vs Console Game naming issue 

message: There have been many studies where they have compared a "Video game brain" to a Non video game brained person has actually been catscaned, and the results are astonishing! Does game http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/ (posted by 205.123.123.204 on 18:19, 14 February 2007)
You are way over reaching, and your statement is wrong. The article did not say video games are bad for you. The implication of the article is that violent video games may be bad in that they reward violent thinking (and it goes on to speculate that this might apply to all media). There are many studies to show that video games in general also help stimulate higher reason skills and co-ordination (positive). There are also studies yet that show that intense, extended play within simulated 3-D environments has an impact on depth perception (possible negative?). What's your point other than attacking games in general? BcRIPster 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video games are bad for you... 

message: -- Search for the word "gay" and "your mom" Spixels 20:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I made the correct change. If it's not right, let us know. McKay 22:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks right to me. –Pomte 23:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: This article would be allot more interesting if it had some more pictures to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.253.187 (talk • contribs) 
:I agree, but unfortunately, fair use keeps our hands tied on this. — Frecklefoot | Talk 12:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, we just have to find some open source games. Hmm, technically, games that ship with level editors technically allow certain derivative works to be created. Wouldn't it be legal to create screenshots and release them as CC? McKay 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actaully, we just need to find press release pictures - which are fairly common for more recent games, and just take a little more digging for older.  Typically a studio or publisher releases sets of screenshots, etc. for public use and reproduction to promote the game during its development and launch. --Marty Goldberg 17:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or better yet, just take some screen shots yourself of the game and post them. I'm not talking about copying them from someone else's site. I'm saying run a game system into a screen capture card and capture photos of the game(s). This would fall under fair use as long as you release your rights to the photo. BcRIPster 21:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But this flies in the face of fair use, AFAIK.  "Fair use" states you can use excerpts of a work (such as a game screenshot) to review or discuss a work, but you can't use it outside of that context.  So, we can use screenshots in articles about a particular game, but can't, for example, use a screenshot of Civilization in an article about video games in general. — Frecklefoot | Talk 12:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Frecklefoot is right here. We can't just take random screenshots, and copyright them, because the game manufacturers still hold the copyright on those. Also, I think press release photos also don't qualify, for the reasons freckle mentions. McKay 14:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures