Talk:First video game

message: I made this article to initially curb all the "claims" to such-and-such a person being the FIRST creator of a video game. This article intends to discuss the history dispassionately and allow the reader to form their own opinions as to who indeed created the first video game. Drumpler 14:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also relied on two initial sources, neither of which are primary (except for the patent), so any additional sources would be appreciated. Bear in mind, this is a stub and so it needs to have time to grow. Drumpler 14:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, it was not dispassionate and glossed over the court's definition and statements on the very same site you used as a main reference.  Ralph has not "claimed" anything, he was legally backed up and in fact still gets called on to testify in video game related suits to this day.  I fleshed it out a little more given these facts and the resources you cited. --Marty Goldberg 15:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  What wasn't dispassionate? Thanks for the help, nonetheless. Drumpler 15:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I see where the misunderstanding arises. Thank you for the clarification. Drumpler 16:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made some grammatical changes. Nothing more. :) Drumpler 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. :)  I think all parties involved are equally important in the history of things, so don't get me wrong.  And it was a good idea for you to set up this stub (though somewhere down the line its probably going to be merged in with another current entry when someone gets the inkling to do it).  But as a writer in the industry, it seems I see this confusion pops up all the time and the plethora of web pages that present personal opinions over the years haven't helped the matter.  Dave (my friend that runs Pong Story) has tried to clear it up with his amazing resource site, and Ralph just released a book last year that goes in to it all in great detail as well.  But it seems its not always enough to avoid the confusion because Video Games in the popular sense have gone on to become a generic term for any computer/electronic game in any display environment.  I've even seen the old LED handhelds from the 70's and 80's (Mattel Football, etc.) refered to as a "video game".  --Marty Goldberg 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can understand that. It is nice to have someone in the industry helping with this article. I, myself, am just an avid game addict who is aspiring to one day sit on my arse, learn some code and write my own games, a challenge that becomes daunting when I see that the industry is now in the millions. :-P So what I know is merely what I can glean from books and sites on the subject. But yes, I did believe the topic deserved its own stub/article and I think one can flesh out all the different sides of the issues neutrally. Thank you for clarifying my own terms. Drumpler 16:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd also like to add another "source of confusion" is within the game industry itself. Steve Rabin, who wrote the book I cited, is a senior software engineer at Nintendo of America and likewise attributes Higginbotham with the creation of the first video game. Question is, which definition are we to rely on? The court's definition? Drumpler 16:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's because Nintendo tried to use that position as well in court and lost.  They wound up having to pay Sanders as well.  --Marty Goldberg 16:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Might actually work better reworked as an intro paragraph?  That way its followed up in the text by the cited examples you have.  --Marty Goldberg 17:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I just did, shortening it considerably. That intro could probably be expanded, though. - DavidWBrooks 21:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with removing the "so again it can't be classed as a 'Video' game" part, it was redundant.  But the first half of the sentence should still be worked in since now there's no actual mention of what it used to display the game.  --Marty Goldberg 02:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. I actually was going to work it in after I removed it, but didn't know where to place it. I think you did well. Drumpler 04:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial Discussion

message: Okay, now I'm confused... (:-/)  My original wording seems to have crept back in! I was going to agree with that revision Drumpler made, but object to some of the other wording that got put back.  I don't like the statement that NIMROD was "Released" on a particular date, as if it was a PS3 or something.  There was only a single unit that was rather 'exhibited' to the public for around 6 months.  Unless someone has good reason for that wording I'll go and revise it again. Pete G. 23:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had reformated to be similar in structure to the other paragraphs (which all start with the year introduction), which is probably how that happened.  I just changed "released" to "presented" then and added a few more things to coordinate with the information in the Wikipedia article on NIMROD.  --Marty Goldberg 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NIMROD

message: Apparently the original wasn't properly sourced. I do not know how to do that, so if anyone feels up to task, that's something that can be done. Drumpler 10:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it back, provided a source for the original.  --Marty Goldberg 16:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Odyssey or Other Filler Image Needed

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(first_generation)
UR NOT ADDN CHASE FROM 1966 MADE BY RALPH BAER B4 PONG NOR DUZ THIS ARTIKL SPECIFY WEN PONG WUZ IN ITS 1ST ERLY PROTOTYPE STAGE WHERE IT WUZ AZ EXCLUSIV N UNCOMERSHAL AZ MISSILE SIMULATOR FROM 1947
:I think I speak for everyone when I say, "Uhhh.....what?".  Please turn the caps key off and use full english when writing comments.  This isn't a cell phone, and you're not a hax0r.  --Marty Goldberg 18:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured it out. It's an acronym for "Help, I'm trapped in a CapsLock key factory! Send help and a Strunk & White manual!" - DavidWBrooks 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CHASE AND PONG YEAR 

message: I think this article should be renamed to History of early video games since that is what it really covers. I'll do that unless there is consensus to not rename.  The article is not really about the first video game, so the tile is slightly misleading as to the content.  Vegaswikian 21:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is not what it covers.  The entry was created to specifically address the contested topic of what is a video game and what is not, what was considered the first (the Odyssey), and why.  The very first paragraph specifically addresses what the purpose of this entry is, so there's not much confusion there.  Video game history is already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia.  --Marty Goldberg 22:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is still somewhat misleading.  How about First video games or Early video games or List of first video games?  The current title implies that it is about the first video game, content not withstanding.  Vegaswikian 22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because none of those would be accurate, and would be misleading themselves.  Once again, this entry was designed (by a group of us) to discuss what the first video game was and was not and why.  Naming it what you want is misleading to the intent of the entry, because those early games are not considered "video games" by the definition.  Hence what this entry is about.  Likewise the title and content was reached by consensus. --Marty Goldberg 23:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of early video games 

message: The definition section seems to me to say that computer games are video games. To me (and I suspect other retro enthusiasts) computer games is a better term; having "Adventure" in a list of "video games of 1972" is just wrong when so many people played it on printing terminals. Now, I realize that there is no perfect term; as pointed out, digital games doesn't cut it (no Tennis for Two), and electronic game could include anything with an audio amplifier in it, but I know of no video games that are not computer games, but can name computer games that are not video games; I think this article, all the "video games of 19xx", and probably a bunch of other articles and categories could use a rename of video game -> computer game with redirects for the video version of the name. And computer game has to be separated from personal computer game; right now it's a redirect. Thoughts? -- Akb4 (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably not aware of it, but everything under "computer games" was merged to video games this last year by consensus at the video games project. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  why? Did no one point out that not all computer games are video games? -- Akb4 (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but because the term is used so generically now they didn't care.  I had a hard enough time getting the actual definition in to the leading paragraph of the Video game article.  That's also what lead to this article, which tries to show the strict definition of the term.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: He is generally credited as the "father" of video games as we modernly define them. The point of the whole article seems to be that there are different definitions of what video game means, and as such, there's different starting points for each definition. Of one definition, he had the first. Sergecross73 msg me 20:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-video computer games 

message: Wasn't there a racing game made in 1971? I cant recall the name of it, but I saw it at the skating rink and the date clearly stated 1971. Coolman1250 (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would of had to of been an electromechanical (em) arcade game.  The first video arcade game was Computer Space in '71.  Video arcade driving games didn't appear until 1974. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racing game? 

message: It says the Odyssey came out in 1966 or 1967 and the Computer Space in 1971, yet, in parenthesis, it says Computer Space "predated the Odyssey by six months."  I just happened to notice this, and I'm not going to work on this article, but I thought it should be pointed out.
:You're mistaken or missreading it.  The article clearly states "was released in May 1972 by Magnavox under the name Odyssey." and only that work began on it in '66. Likewise the statements regarding it predating the Odyssey are in relation to it's market availability.  The games Baer and company created in '66 onward (and based their patent filings off of), that eventually were released as the Odyssey in '72, still predate Computer Space. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradition 

message: The article starts with a lawyerly definition that is contrary to 1) common usage outside the retro video game community and 2) the actual contents of the article. For support, it cites a historical video game enthusiast site. I cannot find significant support for the notion that "video" implies raster outside of wikipedia. More formal sources differentiate, for example http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4267555.html says "The raster technique is used in most video display monitors and in virtually all television receivers.". The body of the article does a better job of describing the fine points of this distinction, and I suggest changing the intro to a broader and less argumentative definition like "'Video game' may refer specifically to electronic games played on a television-type raster display, or more broadly to any graphical electronic game, including computer and arcade games played on a vector display. "  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.216.240 (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) There is nothing contrary in the definition portion of the article.  Current common usage is addressed per the "with the popular catch phrase use of the term "video game", the term now implies all display types, formats, and platforms" statement.  2) Video refers to a raster display method and television by definition , or "relating to the transmission or reception of a televised image" or "the technology of electronically capturing, recording, processing, storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a sequence of still images representing scenes in motion."  Or as Webster's defines it - "video (adjective): being, relating to, or used in the transmission or reception of the television image" and "being, relating to, or involving images on a television screen or computer display", computer displays using the same raster or pixel process.  A video signal represents an encoding and transmission process of pixels to reproduce, i.e. rasters.  There is nothing in your given patent that contradicts this or what is pesented, likewise what is presented in the landmark patent of the industry which I will happily change the reference over to (even though said "historical video game enthusiast site" actually meets reliability requirements having been used as a reference in publications and books). 3) The confusion in this case arises that both use a CRT, however a CRT does not imply display method or a transmission signal.  A vector driven CRT is not a video display - there is no video signal present, nor signal decoding to generate an image.  Rather instead it uses a direct control of the CRT's beam by the computer or electronic device (in the case of an oscilliscope) to generate images like an etch-a-sketch, or what is traditionally called an XY Monitor or "Random Scan" display .  Unlike what you claim, the process of how a vector display works and it's difference to raster/video is more than well documented outside of Wikipedia.  There is no argument that vector/XY/Random Scan displays were used in the coin-op industry, that does not however make them video displays.  Nor does it rewrite history to how the term video games arose - arising to describe the TV technology encased in all of the early video coin-ops referred to collectively by their manufacturers and the media as TV Games, TV Tennis, Space Age Game, video action game, electronic game, television skill game, and video skill game and video game.  (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of "Video Game"

message: Someone should add "the earliest known interactive electronic game" created by Edward Condon in 1940 called Machine to play a game of NIM. Here is patent: http://www.google.com.tw/patents?id=TwVTAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.153.44.206 (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's an electro-mechanical game.  No different than pinball and other EM driven games. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: NIM wasn't made by Edward Condon, it was invented by Raymond Redheffer, and in 1942 according to documentation.  From what I've read so far, and there seems to be even less about NIM than there is about CRT Amusement Device, it used a radar/oscilloscope screen for a display. 71.168.246.159 (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Machine to play a game of NIM (1940) 

message: There is obviously slight confusion about the what Nim is in this article. In the first mentioned game it is said that Raymond Redheffer made a playable "NIM" device in 1942. But when you click the link attached to "NIM" it takes you to the article about electronic modules while the rest of the "1942: NIM" section apears to be referring to an electronic device that plays Nim. Also, many other times in the article, the game of Nim is reffered to as NIM. Capitalizing the letters actually makes it mean something different. just my $0.02.
72.26.85.168 (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point - I'll fix it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NIM, N.I.M., and Nim 

message: Continuing the long discussion from above, I think the confusion - my confusion, at least - comes from the fact that the "chess" subsection is different than all the other game subsections ("Nim" "Tennis for Two" etc). 
Despite the introduction saying the whole "History" section includes "events and earlier technology that paved the way for the advent of video games", all the other subsections concern a single actual game, a single developing team, usually at a single time ... but the "Chess" subsection doesn't concern any game at all, just pre-game development covering a long period of time and multiple developers. It never (unlike all the other susbsections) mentions anything that's a video game like Oxo or even the 1947 missle simulator. It's out of place. 
I'm not quite sure what the solution is, but as it stands, something should change - either a true "paving the way" section written, or the chess subsection be sharply redone. 
In my humble opinion, of course. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The solution is exactly what you picked up on, which is what I mentined earlier as well - each section needs only a single example, not a whole list. The chess section should only have a single example that represents the advent of that technology in relation to a visually interactive game.  Simply having a computerized or electronic chess game is of course not enough, it has to have been interacted with visually which of course then shows it's place as a step forward towards actual video games. What's there currently needs to be rewritten to reflect it's visual nature if there is one.  The turing statement is of course unimportant to the needs of this article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chess section is different