Talk:Adventure (1980 video game)

Unrelated to Crowther & Woods' Original
"The game was conceived as a graphical version of the 1977 text adventure Colossal Cave Adventure." That statement is in error. Except for its appropriated name, this particular Atari videogame is nothing like, and unrelated to, Will Cowther's and Don Woods' original text-based game. 97.113.157.8 (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * From one of our sources


 * --M asem (t) 18:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good find! You know, the Atari game may have been inspired by Adventure, as many, many games were--and continue to be--but the two are so different as to defy direct comparison. One thing that might be said, given the Atari game's utter simplicity and lack of interactive text, is that Atari's Adventure would be a good introduction to the basic concepts of D&D-influenced games for younger kids. 97.113.157.8 (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

First in genre
So several citations have been added that claim it to be the "first action-adventure game". This is problematic for a few reasons. Video game history is pretty weak and several Atari games are basically forgotten if they haven't been re-issued a dozen times. per WP:STICKTOSOURCE we can't just change wording to "one of the first" if that is not what the article states. I'd love it to be a solution, but if its not, it should not be phrased this way. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Superman (1979) article states it belongs to this genre as well, and it was clearly released first.
 * 2) Three sources have been added. The IGN and BBC articles state it is the first. The IGN article is a bit dated and sources that are more seriously delving into the topics should probably be seen first.
 * 3) A journal article has been added as well. I don't have access to this, but the article in question appears to be about a different game entirely. Can we get a quote stating what we are trying to pull from this?
 * If there is a conflict between being the first and one of the firsts from RSes (as well as the fact we know Superman released before Adventure), we clearly should default to the more conservative statement, that being "one of the first". If it truly was the first, then "one of the first" still covers it. And at that point in time, there wasn't an Activision or other third-party system for Atari - we know exactly what was distributed by Atari by that point, if there was truly any well-known earlier game, it would have already been identified by sources. M asem (t) 19:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also to quote the journal article (which is about Colossal Cave Adventure aka Adventure) — M asem (t) 19:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * that's solid. Why not just use that and drop the other cites that do not state what they say. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Because you raised the doubt related to "Superman" being released first (though I know of no source that attributes it as the first) so its just fair to say one the first, using multiple sources that support that possibly contentious claim. It's either the first or one the first, from the various RS cites, and that's just to prevent others contesting that with multiple sources. M asem (t) 20:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, if we leave it as "the first" it could be tagged with Template:Contradicts_other. It clearly came before Adventure, and Superman features the same gameplay, which I believe both articles state. Personally, I would tread really carefully with saying anything is the "first" anything, as there is always something going to sneak along and contradict it. Regardless, it fails WP:STICKTOSOURCE currently, so I'd lean towards dropping the IGN and BBC articles. One is about Easter eggs, the other is about best selling games, these are relatively weak sources to pull from when they aren't about the subject in question. Also, please do not remove the mainteance tags until we've come to a conclusion that isn't breaking basic Wiki rules (such as the one I linked to above). Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Saying "one of the first" when there are a mix of sources that claim either "the first" or "one of the first" is not a violation of STICKTOTHESOURCE, that's just common sense writing when trying to summarize multiple reliable sources which may have slightly different claims. It makes no sense to add a contradiction tag at all, which will never likely be resolved if left there simply because the history around Adventure has been solidly written about. It would be different if we had articles that claimed Superman as the first action-adventure, alongside articles that claim Adventure being the first, and then we'd have to figure out how to resolve that conflict. But "first" vs "one of the first" is easily resolved by using the latter term. M asem  (t) 20:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a violation. Imagine changing "the first" to cross the finish line to "one of the first" who crossed the finish line. Nobody would accept that. Per the rule, "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication." This is the issue with the IGN source and the other. Why not just apply the journal that doesn't have the issues? Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Determining who crossed the finished line first in a race is a fact. There's no subjective measure. Here, we're talking about the fact that a genre, far better defined well beyond the point of release of either Adventure or Superman, was retroactively applied to these titles, when there was no such thing as genre (or at least, beyond the simplicist categories Atari used), so we have no absolute fact of what game was the true "first" action-adventure. Just that we know Adventure is considered the first or one of the first by sources, but we cannot objectively make that determination. M asem (t) 04:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably true, but again that's not what the source says and not what is being said in the article. Also, that's basically true that of several mediums that genre are retrospectively referred to as such but as it stands, I would suggest re-writing the sentence to actually match what one source says that can't be easily disproven. Either that or remove it as it's been proven untrue and letting it sit would be contradictory with the other article.Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We are not talking a full blown contradiction. Distinguishing whether it was THE first or one of the first is on the level of nitpicking, as long as it stated it belongs on the very early end of the action adventure genre history. M asem (t) 18:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Right. That's not the point, the point is still that you are not stating what the source says, and have a source that is stating what you say. Leaving as it is, would allow anyone with access to the more accessible articles to change to what it says. This is why WP:STICKTOSOURCE is important here, as your are changing what you are claiming from the article. You don't seem to want to acknowledge what WP:STICKTOSOURCE means, so why even use an out of date citation? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Something "out of date" in this context would be an article from the early 1980s before there was general agreement as to what the "action-adventure" genre was. Nothing's out of date here, its just, as I said, exactly when any game is considered "action-adventure" prior the broader agreement on that term is going to be somewhat subjective between sources. And what's sourced there is only a subset of what's out there. We do have an issue that Robinett himself, in a 2015 GDC talk, called it the first action-adventure game, which, may not necessarily be wrong but is a first-party claim and one we would avoid, but that's also been parroted by other sources later, so using any of those to support being the first is just not effective. There is zero harm to call it "one of the firsts" with the sourcing we have and that's out there.
 * It would be a far greater problem if we had multiple sources claiming another game (say, like Superman) was the first. That's where there's a true contradiction in sources would exist and we'd have to find a different route. But this is just a matter of being more conservative on what some claim is the first while others are less aggressive about that. M asem (t) 12:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well here's one from a more contemporary source here. Regardless, the point isn't that it's a contradiction, the bigger issue is you are not saying what the source says, and have only one that states this. If there is no further discussion without changing the topic which seems to be the case, I see really no issue with removing the cites which are weak articles about top selling games that just use the genre as a brief bit of trivia about the game. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's just a google search result, you might have put the wrong link. M asem (t) 12:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Aw nuts. Fair. Here is the correct link: here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In that book it cites to Replay, which I checked via borrow g it from the Internet Archive, and it appears the relevant cite there would be to page 119, which does still say effectively the first game.
 * My question is basically, ignoring how to cite it, what you think we should be saying there at this point. M asem (t) 14:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've already said a few times "one of the first" is fine, and you have provided the journal article cite which claims to back this up. I just don't think we should use citations that say it is the first, if we are trying to say something a bit different. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I am not in a position to easily create the cite to that Replay book but that plus the journal article at least would support that. M asem (t) 15:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably okay. You could always cite the Superman book without much of a headache, but looks like you went forward and cited the Replay book. I've re-phrased the sentences and removed one (but not the other) tag and re-phrased some later sentences in the article to make it consistent. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * When it is clear there is an origin source for a claim it is far better to use that than the source that repeats it (as well as make sure the repetition was correct). M asem (t) 12:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Any further comments or anyone? Not sure if you are busy or have moved on, but as conversation has halted, I'm leaning towards a situation to not use sources on material that contradicts other articles which do not seem to have contradictory content and stick to a more contemporary source that has given it a bit more thought. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)