Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive definition dispute

Naming dispute

This page deals with the subject of proper categorization and naming of articles related to computer, video, and arcade games, but especially video games and computer games. This is ongoing, but not in any bad sense.

This section tries to define the problem and all terms involved and describe proposed solutions. Important sections have been formatted and bolded for increased readability and skimability of larger sections. Feel free to edit this section to reflect the current state of affairs more clearly.

Note: This argument has been going on at the talk page of video games, computer games, (a whole bunch of other places), and this category page. While the category page deals mostly with the naming of this category, the other pages deal with the resulting confusion for the reader. However, both problems stem from the same root cause.

This entire dispute/discussion should be placed into it's own page?

Apologies if this misses any arguments, please fill them in.

Problem Summary

The main issue is that there is no popular term used only to describe interactive, computerized games. There are some, but they are bound to the platforms.

Computer game:

Purely, refers to a "computer controlled game".

Conventionally, refers to games played on a personal computer.

Video game:

Purely, refers to "games with some form of video display (video display: screen that receives input from a computer)".

Conventionally, refers to console games, and perhaps arcade games.

So purely, a video game is a form of computer game.

And arcade games? An arcade game is any form of electronic game (the parent category) that has been designed for public play - so usually a console/computer with a display, inside a protective box, controls included. Note that pinball is an arcade (and computer game), but not a video game.

The problem arises when considering the fact that most people, hence most articles, associate video games with console and computer games with PC. The respective "Special:Whatlinkshere/" pages seem to affirm this.

We're left with the following structure:

woozle-wozzle: the pure form of "computer games", detached from platform

computer games: computer-only games

video games: console-only games

Proposed solutions

Move explanations to video and computer game distinctions

For: the articles currently only talk about distinctions, there is no encyclopedic view. Start fresh.

Against: many articles link here

Merging of video and computer games

For: they are duplicates because major parts of both describe 'woozle-wozzle'.

Against: conventionally, they are seen as different (PC vs console). Gameplay, history, commercialization, development, are all different.

For:: granted. How about merging and explaining the difference?

Against: Then you have the longer and more complicated article to deal with

Against: There is a lot of distinction (PC vs Console) in the two articles themselves.

For: There is a lot of redundancy as well (the current split up of woozle-wozzle).

Cover-all

For: one page should show the relationship between various games, and give the novice a general overview on the topic.

Cover all term (category page)

Suggestions include electronic games, video games, computer games, software games. The first part of #Cover-all has arguments for and against each.

A vote was held for using 'video game'. 4 supported, 10 against. Of the against, many favored a name change, major candidates being electronic games and computer games.

Solution

In terms of the articles, the current 'solution' is detailed at Talk:Computer and video games#Structure

In terms of the naming of this category, there appears to be no solution, apart from the current naming.

--Slike 08:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cover-all

(from: Category talk:Computer and video games) I feel we also need something that covers Computer games, Console games, Video games and Arcade games in one fell swoop. I suggest that we rename this, and all its subcategories, Electronic games. Oberiko 16:57, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Easier to make Console and Arcade games subcategories of this one, and adding Category:PC games or something similar for games played on the personal computer. -Sean Curtin 20:59, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also, "electronic games" is vague enough that it would be expected to cover unrelated material, such as pinball games and slot machines. -Sean Curtin 21:05, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As I said before on Talk:Timeline of video games, "video games" should be the umbrella term for all of console games, computer games, portables and arcade games. "Video game" is 1) short 2) the most commonly used term, and 99.99% of the games in question for this category use video. Fredrik (talk) 21:27, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you want to be accurate, they would all be under "computer games" because they all use computer processors. Depending on what definition of "video" you use, text-based games (like interactive fiction and some MUDs) are disqualified as "video games". Either way, this has come up on talk:video game and talk:computer game in the recent past and the consensus seems to be to leave computer/video game articles separate but to put lists (and by association categories) of computer/video game related topics together. -Sean Curtin 22:31, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

True, but "computer games" is very often used to mean "PC games as opposed to console games", even on Wikipedia (in fact, PC games redirects there). Anyway, what I said above was mainly in reference to the "timeline of video games" pages, which are essentially about the video game industry (which also produces the non-video computer games), and naming of articles (where "computer and video games" is unwieldy). I'm actually fine with the current naming for categories. Fredrik (talk) 22:44, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

One could argue that "computer game industry" and "video game industry" refer to different things as well, but that's more semantic than I plan on getting. -Sean Curtin 00:20, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia should tend to categorize based on accuracy rather than what is "very often used" (if that usage is not the most common usage). "Computer games" is more accurate and definitive than "video games". gracefool 11:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Considering that we already have Console games, perhaps we can change our definition of Video games to be the coverall (even txt-based games are shown on a Video display)? Otherwise console and video are just a synonyms. Oberiko 01:53, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think we should get rid of console too, and start listing games into categories by specific platform (PC, NES, PS2 etc), and adopt these and Category:Arcade games into a general "games by platform" category. -Sean Curtin 02:32, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think we should keep console, but only as a parent to XBox, Gamecube, SNES etc. Console games wouldn't include any articles for any specific games. Oberiko 02:38, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps but Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Dictionary.com and The American Heritage Dictionary all give support to Video Game applying to any game that's presented on some kind of video screen, covering Arcade, PC and Console. Oberiko 02:38, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Electronic Games would also cover Simon and Talking Battleship. Video, as Oberiko points out, really describes output to a video screen, whether a computer monitor or a television. Considering that, with the XBox, there are very few games that are exclusively computer games anymore, I think the need to distinguish console and computer games is increasingly minor. Probably better to call it all video games than have redirects and split information. Snowspinner 15:06, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

When deciding about ontologies, don't forget that there are audio games that are computer-driven but do not use a video screen, not even for text. I suppose the younger generation never had the experience of consuming long rolls of paper playing adventure on a TTY. I saved one of these, but I think the paper disintegrated later - another little bit of history vanished. Stan 15:56, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that could be solved by an explanation within Category:Computer games that states it is for more prevalent modern Video games only, and provide a link to Category:Computer audio games.

Either that, or just have Category:Computer video games as a child of both Category:Computer games and Category:Video games. Computer games would then include Category:Computer audio games as well. Oberiko 17:06, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Both seem rather awkward, and there are plenty of purists who will object and then act on the objection by editing everything in sight. "Computer and video games" includes all the right keywords and doesn't need explaining. Stan 02:10, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there will always be people who will argue that they ought to be listed as X and not Y. Better to be inclusionary than to provide fodder for a potential edit war. -Sean Curtin 02:33, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, due to the amount of cross-over, this category would have to be changed to Category:Computer, video and arcade games so as to include everything (having arcade as a totally separate category without a similar parent (Games) doesn't make much sense). I feel that unless an explanation can be provided for a flaw with Video games becoming the umbrella and Console games being specific to consoles (which is very convenient and now technically correct), then we should go ahead and do it.

Frankly, I'm curious how many people actually don't consider PC games and arcade games to be video games. Oberiko 10:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's simple - arcade games have dedicated hardware (the cabinet at least, and usually internal circuitry), while console and PC games use generic hardware. So arcade versions of games are always software-hardware combinations, and you can't describe them as if they were software alone. However, I do consider "arcade games" to be a subcategory of "computer and video games", so there's no reason to retitle the wider category to mention "arcade". Stan 15:12, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It can't be a subcategory. It's not, by current definition, a computer game or a "Video game", hence the need for the umbrella. Right now, it just seems like a lot of work to incorporate a specific, non-universal POV that's not even technically correct. Oberiko 22:19, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What is the "it" you're referring to? Not clear from context. Stan 16:35, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Vote on video game being an umbrella term (3/10/1)

(from: Category talk:Computer and video games)

Support

Oberiko 12:23, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Fredrik (talk) 17:51, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Horst_F_JENS 19:28, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
GuloGuloGulo 22:51, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Stan 16:33, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Prefer "electronic games" as the umbrella: as someone said above, that includes pinball, etc, but "video" does not. Robin Patterson 00:23, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Concur with Robin Patterson; would "video" games include text-based games? Finn-Zoltan 21:41, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Prefer "computer games". "Video games" is becoming increasingly outdated as consoles become more like PCs. gracefool 11:04, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Prefer "software game" or another alternative. Greyengine5 17:37, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
Computer games and video games are side-by-side. Computer games are definitely not a sub-category of video games. I have made edits in Computer_game clarifying the differences between computer and video games if you want to check it out. Ajbperc 17:44, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Also prefer "electronic games". [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 19:16, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
Prefer "electronic games" – Foolip 11:44, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Prefer "computer games". The term "video game" not in common use here (UK) and inaccurate as already described. With many titles being released on both PC and consoles I fail to see the point of the distinction of "console game" at all. --DamienG 00:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think "computer games" is accurate, as consoles are really just computers anyway. However, video games refers to any games that have graphics on a TV or monitor, and I like that the best. However, certain arcade games like skee-ball and pinball aren't included. "Electronic games" should be the umbrella for everything, with video games directly under it, and computer and console games under that, as shown in the image below. –Andre (talk) 20:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Sean Curtin 03:54, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Comments

I think the best way for us to solve this would be by voting on it. I don't know how long votes normally last, so I say we close this one week from now on June 25th.

One week is a little short - two weeks would be better. People often don't notice that a vote is happening, then don't feel bound by it later if they didn't get a chance to weigh in. There's a place to advertise votes too, forget where. Stan 16:33, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you (or anyone else) learns where we can advertise this (I posted at the Video game discussion), by all means feel free to add it in here. And two weeks sounds reasonable. July 2nd is when we'll close this vote.

July 2nd has passed and the vote is inconclusive (3/3/1), should the poll time be extended or the question clarified? --Flockmeal 01:39, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

I think we should revise it. I'm thinking the question should be if we will label all sub-categories are that exclusively video games (ie no relation to pinball machines, interactive text etc.) as such. An example is the current Computer and video game franchises which would be shortened to just Video game franchises. Also, perhaps the creation of Category:Video games which would be the sub-category of Category:Computer and video games and deal with the entire video end. Oberiko 10:15, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Zork series qualifies as a franchise. -Sean Curtin 22:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I personally feel that Zork would be best left under interactive text, which wouldn't be under Video games. We wouldn't need to specify specific franchises for those types of games, as there are probably less then about 5 worth writing Wiki articles on. Oberiko 00:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I propose that Video games from here on out be known as an umbrella for Arcade games, Console games and Computer games as oppossed to being a synonym for console games.

Someone has listed it at the right place Wikipedia:Current_polls Robin Patterson 00:28, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I should clarify that Electronic games would be the umbrella for ALL of them (Pinball, LCD display games, video games, Simon (game) etc.) See the image for what I propse.

Computer non-video are pretty non-mainstream so I'd rather link to it or have it as a sub-category of computer games (but the primary emphasis of the category would be it's video games). Oberiko 01:21, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. This isn't really about the "electronic games" umbrella, but the "computer and video games" sub-umbrella. The only real options seem to be "video games", "computer games" and "computer and video games". Perhaps the poll should be changed to include several options instead of just yes/no for one. Fredrik | talk 01:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What do you have in mind? Right now I'm focusing on the Video Games including computer, arcade and console as the change, but from a comment above, I think some people have the impression that I want it to be a super umbrella for everything. Oberiko 10:24, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why not just use "computer game" right below "electronic games" and avoid making further distinctions? With the amount of games these days turning up in the arcades as well as home computers and consoles you could easily get into a categorisation nightmare. Consider a page that covers games in a franchise that has appeared in arcades, on home computers and and consoles? I think this concept of distinct categorisation, like the term "video game" echo's of the past. --DamienG 00:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Games (electronic or otherwise) can be classified into practically an infinite number of categories. Even "games" itself is a relative term that can be defined however one wants (subjectively, objectively, relatively--whateverely).

Electronic games is such a broad category that can include arcade, computer, console (Playstation et al), handheld (Gameboy et al), pinball, video (another term for arcade and console), etc games.
Arcade games include pinball games ("pinball machines") since they are usually in arcades (where the term "arcade game" originates).
Some games appear in arcades, on consoles, on handhelds, AND on computers.
To confuse the matter, I could consider arcade games, console games, handheld games, etc to be computer games since the devices that run them are, essentially, computers.

I think it's best to just let people classify a game however they want since it all circles around eventually anyway.

-Eep²

A few comments from kelvSYC:

It's all about the definition. I use the following:

arcade game - found in an arcade
video game - has graphical output (eg. board games that use DVDs as part of their game equipment)
computer game - played on a personal computer
console game - played on a video game console

In summary, a computer game is distinct from a video game and a console game, and may or may not be electronic (you can't say that a movie trivia board game that uses DVDs for "name the movie the clip was from" is an electronic game, but it is very much a video game):

A hiearchy based on my definitions:

Arcade Games
 -> Video Arcade Games (also: Video Games)
 -> Solid State Pinball Games (also: Pinball Games, Computer Games)
 -> Parlor Games (eg. foosball, billiards)
Video Games
 -> Computer Video Games (also: Computer Games)
 -> Console Video Games (also: Console Games)
 -> Video Board Games
Console Games
 -> Console Audio Games (also: Audio Games)
 -> Console Games by Video Game Console
Computer Games
 -> Computer Audio Games (also: Audio Games)
 -> Text-Based Computer Games

kelvSYC 05:28, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What about software game as the umbrella term for computer and video games. I have not checked to see if this had been mentioned, but it does seem to offer some advantages. The primary thing being that non-video computer games could be included, and things like pinball are more easily excluded then with electronic gaming.

The term might have some conflict from 'computer simulation', but I think that its acceptable to leave sims as sub-genre of software games. I suppose that pinball type games that make use of software could end up getting excluded, but perhaps pinball should just be a sub-genre of arcade games. Greyengine5 17:28, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

I think "Advanced Electronic Games" could be used to cover computer/console games, while obviously excluding simpler games such as Simon. This, of course, leads to the problem of how to define an electronic game as advanced, but at least it's another word we have to throw around. --Eel 01:04, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Invention of terms, even if they seem logical, falls somewhat outside our charter, which is to document the world as it actually exists, garbled terms and all. Wikipedia:No original research is more about theories than terminology, but worth rereading anyway. Also note that an invented term is not going to be the "most common" unless it already is the most common, in which case you wouldn't need to invent it. :-) Stan 03:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'Software game' might serve our cateogorization purposes and is decently well used. Google returned a total of about ~2 milltion hits for "software game" and "software games". I think it works better then video games anyway. Greyengine5 15:55, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

Google isn't as useful as it could be here; most of the hits seem to be on things like "software, games", "software/games", "software's games", and as far as I know, there's no way to look for the term proper. I'm not sure that it will be enough to stop randoms from showing up every few months and saying "everything is all just video games anyway, why not call it that?" Almost all video games are both "computer games" and "software games", so you're exchanging one less-used blanket term for another that's even less-used. "Computer and video games", while longer, has the advantage that everybody will know instantly what the category is about, and that it's broader than just consoles or just PCs. Stan 18:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was just pointing out thats its not a "original term". Software games- i.e. games that are software- include both video and audio computer games as well as all the console games, and most arcade games. The issue here was finding a replacement for "Computer and video games", which I would be happy to keep. If were going to have replacement though, I think 'software game' works very well as its 'out there' and is a valid word for covering those areas. Greyengine5 19:11, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

I recommend, as an editor of a respected gaming magazine, that the blanket term of "videogames" be used to describe all games that would fall into the category of "video games" on the above hierarchy chart. I feel that a single word is necessary to represent this vast spectrum of games. If Bootylicious can be in the Oxford English Dictionary, then videogames can be represented by a single word. When the old terms no longer adequately describe the new, a new word must be formed. Vonguard 05:21, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So Mr. Pseudonym, do you think we're so gullible as to take you at your word that you're an "editor of a respected gaming magazine"? 1/2 :-) Let's get a user page with some real-world info in there! (Feel free to check out mine for an example.) Of course, it's still no guarantee you'll be respected :-) but empirically the odds are better. Stan 06:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Go pick up a copy of Game Developer magazine. Read the first page after the table of contents.

Vonguard

New cover-all term proposed

What about using the phrase "digital games" for a blanket term? It does not have the burden of different meanings to different people as it is a new one, and it seems to cover all the necessary terms. It is also sometimes used in game research contexts (e.g., Digital Games Research Association). RandomMonitor 15:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objections? No support? No nothing? (Wrong place to propose this as nobody reads it anymore?) RandomMonitor 14:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for structure change

It is proposed that a general article on Computer and video games be created to give an overview of the topic for the novice, and provide links to other, more specific articles for the passionate. This article is being drafted at Talk:Computer game/Computer and video games. It is proposed that the articles on Computer game, Video game, Adventure, Interactive fiction and Arcade game would remain, but focus on elements that are unique to those subcategories. Please edit, and discuss! Mark Richards 23:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plea to merge (Oct 2003 - Feb 2003)

(from: Talk:Computer game)

I think we should bite the bullet and merge the computer game and video game articles. There has always been crossover between the two and really PC's can just be seen as another video game platform. Each article currently mentions games that are in the other 'category'. The only disadvantage is that this saddles us with the cumbersome phrase "video and computer games", but I think I'd prefer that to having the 'computer game' article as a tiny terse article. Tempshill 19:05, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think they should be kept separate. Most of the video game consoles have a lot in common and they are not general purpose computers. Computers are distinct in that their main input device (i.e. mouse) is unavailable on the consoles and allows for different types of games and gameplay than is possible on consoles. I agree, however, that there are games that can be equally enjoyable on consoles or PC's, but this is not always the case (e.g. The Sims on the consoles is very different than on the PC). Additionally, I don't want to have to type "video and computer games." I like being able to just use video game. If we do merge them (which I don't think we should), we should just collapse the article into "video game."

Just my $.02... —Frecklefoot 20:26, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

We have the two because they are distinct categories with distinct histories, recent crossovers notwithstanding. For instance, there is a long history of free and open source computer games, while video games are almost uniformly proprietary and commercial. If the two are merged, you end up with an awkward portmanteau where you have to describe one type and then the other, basically ending up with two separate articles interleaved. It would be like trying to merge the Roman Empire into Italy; yes, they existed on the same land and lived in many of the same places, but they are distinct subjects. This article is missing a whole bunch of content that won't ever fit nicely into the video game article, such as the details of early developments on mainframe and academic computers, textual games, etc. (I suppose this is because most videogamers are totally unaware of computer game developments, and think the world began with Pong, Spacewar being the Neanderthal precursor.) Stan 20:38, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I believe the need for a central category that describes "interactive computer game" is much greater than keeping true to unfortunate definitions. Console and home computer based games are meerly implementations of the general idea of "computer games". Please see my probably badly placed entry under the Talk:Video_game page. I'll be attempting some changes, starting with the draft page. Seeing another variant of all this may move things along, if not, "revert" is always available. Slike 19:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please can we merge Computer game and Video game? I see the discussion above, but we already have Adventure game and Interactive fiction. There is much duplication and it is frankly very confusing. 209.102.127.120 05:25, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What duplication do you think you see? Stan 05:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, the text of the first section of both seem to be a fairly redundant justification of why, in theory, if not in practice, there is a difference. I just think that we could build a better article if we combined the material and had sections. The stuff here about text adventures is also redundant. It's not waste of space I'm concerned about, so much as readability. Mark Richards 22:01, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Excluding the external links and related articles, there are essentially three paragraphs:

CG: A computer game is not necessarily a video game, or vice versa; for instance a text-based role-playing game could be played verbally by a blind person, which is clearly no longer a "video" game, and the first generation of video games, such as Pong, used dedicated electronic circuitry not even remotely resembling a computer. VG:

CG: The usual distinction today is rather subtle; a game will be a "computer game" if it is played on a general-purpose computer, but a "video game" if it is played on a computer that is specialized for game playing. Computer games will typically feature a wider assortment of direct controls exploiting the full computer keyboard, while video games tend to use more layers of menus, or motion sequences (up-up-down-left, etc) via the game controller. The most important distinction between computer and video games arises from the fact that computers have high resolution monitors, optimized for viewing at close range by one person, while home video game consoles use a much lower-resolution commercial television as their output device, optimized for viewing at a greater distance. As a result, most computer games are intended for single-player or networked multi-player play, while many video games are designed for local multi-player play, with all players viewing the same TV set.

VG: However nowadays there in terms of genre there is a thin line between computer games and video games. Arcades are still based on gameplay than can be quickly caught on, and work according to progression though levels. Many games intended for computers are now just as much prevalent on videogames, both having many of the same selection of titles. This is due to the fact that videogame has increased its technology so dramatic over the last few years, that it can handle games that at one point were only operational through computers.

CG: Formerly, video games tended to need and use less computing power than computer games, but with the increasing power of video game hardware, that distinction is nearly erased, and many games are now produced for both computers and video game systems. Video game manufacturers usually exercise tight control over the games that are made available on their systems, so unusual or special-interest games are more likely to only ever appear as games on general-purpose computers.

VG: Video games are made by developers, sometimes individuals, but almost always a team consisting of designers, graphic designers and other artists, programmers, sound designers, musicians, and other technicians. Most video game console development teams number anywhere from 20 to 50 people, with some teams exceeding 100. The average team size as well as the average development time has grown with the maturation of the industry and technology, and this has led to regular cases of missed deadlines and unfinished products. See video game industry practices for more information.

I just feel that this could be trimmed. Mark Richards 22:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I see a couple dozen words of possible duplication, WP has duplication on far larger scale elsewhere. The fundamental problem is that a "computer game" is not a "video game", nor vice versa, so if you merge the two, then you're going to have to spend time in the merged article explaining why an article on video games is discussing non-video computer games, or conversely that what people think of as video games are actually secretly running on a computer behind the scenes. So either you have a longer and more complicated single article, or you have a small amount of duplication, at least enough to explain the cross links. A bunch of people have thought about this one already, as you can see from poking around various talk pages, and this is the compromise that seemed most satisfactory. You could try tightening up video game, it seems to attract random redundant verbiage on a regular basis. Stan 23:12, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What if we merge the article, calling it Computer and Video Games, and explain the difference in the first paragraph? Nearly all of the material in both pages is applicable to both - what do you think? Mark Richards 02:50, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Then you have the longer and more complicated article, because the differences are more than can be described in a paragraph, and for readability the lead paragraph needs to be a short and simple summary. From a mechanical point of view it's also undesirable because there will be thousands of redirects that will have to be fixed with a long pipe - "[[Pong]] is a [[computer or video game|video game]]", everywhere. So to save 2-3 sentences of duplication, you end up with a harder-to-read article and make extra work for hundreds of editors, now and in the future. Think about the big picture, not just the two articles. As an example going the other way, I created the list of computer and video games as a single list because there would have been massive duplication and confusion had anybody attempted to maintain two separate lists. Stan 04:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I can't really see the problem, especially as so many games are in practice both, plus this page is really three paragraphs of a pretty unconvincing justification for the difference, and no real information about computer games. The pong example isn't really a big deal. Anyway, would you mind if we had a crack at it here? Talk:Computer game/Computer and video games Let's see what it would look like, and whether we all still hate it? Mark Richards 19:01, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but bleah - your example is exactly the kind of article we don't really want to see; instead of the table being an ignorable sidebar as we do for tables like taxoboxes, the reader has to decipher it to make progress through the article. Just to stereotype :-), the "can't really see the problem" attitude seems to be characteristic of video gamers; people who play computer games really hate that attitude, since the distinctions that you dismiss are important to them. I'm still not clear on what burning problem you're trying to solve with this change. The examples you gave of redundancy border on the trivial, and simply don't justify the massive effort of changing thousands of articles. Stan 19:55, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you hate the table, that's a tiny issue. My motivation is that to have one article that discusses both will help people understand the relationships between them and the differences. If there are real differences they can best be explained by comparison with the other. Give me a hand on the proposed article, and let's see if we can come up with a version that you don't hate! :) Mark Richards 20:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You're assuming that I share your desire for the single article, and it's just a matter of how to word it. But in fact I already spent time on this question months ago, thought about it, looked at the text and the pattern of links, and decided that two articles are the right way to go in this case. So you need to convince me that the two-article approach has some sort of fatal flaw that a single article will fix, and so far you haven't come up with anything that sounds to me like an actual problem. Let's finish with the "why" before proceeding to the "how". Stan 20:45, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, actually we wouldn't have to change thousands of articles—the links to video game and computer game would just be made into redirects to Computer and Video Games. But, I'm actually in the camp of keeping them separate. The line between them is blurring, but they are still two distinct subjects. —Frecklefoot 20:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why one article? Basically the series of articles on C&VG are very fragmented and confusing, with bits of information all over the place. Computer game Video game Adventure Interactive fiction Arcade game - I think we need one page that shows the relationship between them, not necessarily eliminating the separate pages, but tying them together a bit more. The Computer Game article doesn't actually contain anything except justifications for the two being historically, if not practically, different. All three paragraphs on the page refer to Video Games, and it seems that the differences are best explained by comparison of one to the other. Mark Richards 20:57, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I started work on the proposal so that people could look at what an article like that might look like, and iron out the things that drive them crazy about it before making a decision. Mark Richards 20:58, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

BTW fixed the table - what do you think? Mark Richards 21:36, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think computer game and video game should stay separate. The differences between the two may be subtle but they are pervasive. --Mrwojo 04:12, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Merge reasoning distilled (Feb 2004 to May 2004)

OK, let's think about the "fragmented and confusing" problem that Mark mentions. Now logically, "computer game" is a more general concept than video game (there have been non-computer video games, but the number is very small), so if one wanted to discuss the general notion of computer-mediated games, computer game is the place to do it. On the other hand, I'll wager that the 90% of readers looking at video game don't care about all those fine points; they want to know the top-selling games of last year, or when the Nintendo 64 came out, or who Mario is based on, or the difference between first-person and third-person shooter. So that article needs to be a sort of massive switching station, setting context and efficiently sending readers off to the subtopics they want to know more about. The link to computer game will be there too, and the other 10% will go that way. Another way to look at it is to compare with our biology articles; vertebrate is very general, while mammal is more specific. There is some unavoidable duplication, but no one would seriously suggest creating a vertebrates and mammals article. Getting back to computer game, it does need expansion; there are a lot of general principles that should be written, I have some books to distil into article content. Stan 05:31, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You will find the article at Animal, surely you're not suggesting we remove Animal because vertebrates and mammals are different? What you are suggesting with Computer games and Video games is indeed analogous to this. Still, if there is no interest in this, I'm not interested in crusading for a change no one else wants. Mark Richards 18:35, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To Mark, vertebrates and mammals are not different: mammals are a specific subset of vertebrate. Likewise, computer games are not a specific type of video game, nor are video games a subset of computer games (of course you could define these terms any way you like to make them fit, but we're dealing with the current definitions). There exists an intersection between video games and computer games and that is what we are trying to emphasize.
To Stan, I think there are a great many video games that are not computer games, if you define "video game" as a game that is played on a video game console as the article does.
I think Stan's suggestion to create a "switch" to computer game is a good one. Currently, video game has just one link hidden in a paragraph that is easy to miss. It'd be a good idea to create a section on computer games (such as the genre section does for each video game genre) with a breif explanation of the differences and a link to the article if the users care to delve deeper (again, just as the genre section does).
I am not happy with the second paragraph of the video game article. Many people call computer games "video games" and arcade games "video games." But Stan is right, there are many computer games that are not video games, but there are many computer games that could be considered video games. I think we need to work on both articles to clear up the differences.

Just my $.02... :^) —Frecklefoot 19:14, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sure, perhaps my concerns could just as easily be addressed with a clean-up of both articles. Am I the only one who thinks Computer game is pretty useless right now? Mark Richards 19:20, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It could certainly use more content. Add some stuff and we'll be happy to "edit it mercilessly" - I always seem to get sidetracked onto other things myself. Stan 19:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, I for one have been a devout computer gamer long enough to want to keep the distinction and separate the two, but I think elements of your proposed atricle above should definitely be implemented in the computer game article, because frankly, right now it just sucks. It's a very disappointing entry for such a complex subject, and it needs to be cleaned up and heavily elaborated upon. Perhaps we should begin start a new subsection here and start reorganizing the computer game page by sections, assigning specific writers per section. Then something might get done. I'm new by the way, Wikipedia is awesome >8). Lord Shitzu 20:58, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Just go ahead and spew out a bit of verbiage on something that seems most obviously missing. Another approach is to list out here what you're thinking is missing - sometimes it's actually in another article, just needs to be linked to. Also a good idea to check out connected articles to get a sense of what we have. Task assignment is less effective typically, hard to get a bunch of commitments. Stan 22:18, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Figures... okay, I shall have to think about it. Lord Shitzu 02:08, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

Sure - perhaps one of the first things we can do is to clarify the definitions - while I agee that not all computer games are video games, it seems like all video games are computer games - sure, you can find examples of very simple analogue computers for the first games, but they are still computers, or, at least, the direct ancestors of computers? What do you think? Mark Richards 19:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

move to computer and video game distinctions (Jul 2004)

Hey I'm brand new here so I don't know how big this debate about the whole video game/computer game thing has been, but I have gotten my feet wet writing... This particular topic has nothing to do with an encyclopedic view of "Computer games". If there are no complaints, within a few days I'll move this article to Computer and Video Game Distinctions and see how things go. If a Computer game article is meant to live, then somebody will have to start writing. Ajbperc 20:32, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I suggest studying the "what links here" list for a bit - those are all the places that people will come from to get to this article. What should they see when they get here? For instance, what will somebody coming from Colossal Cave Adventure want to know about - the current sales figures for the Xbox, or how computer games work in general? Stan 20:54, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)