Talk:Adventure (1980 video game)/Archive 1

sprites?
I'm gonna try to capture the sprites of the freakin duck. anybody want 'em? would it be OK to add a sprite sheet to this page? --Nerd42 04:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Geniality
The man who made this game is a genius. Jesus! With little square and points he made a beauty like this!


 * Judging by the photograph here, he is an evil, sinister genius. -Ashley Pomeroy 04:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Adventure II
Apparently, a homebrew sequel is about to be published for the 5200 on the original 32K cartridge format. should this be mentioned? and should a new page for it? There also seems to be a different sequel for the Atari Flashback 2. - 64.142.92.20 01:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actual screenshot of the easter egg...
I have one. Found it rifling thru some old kodachromes. The date is Aug 1980. It is a photograph of a television screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducatipaso (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * They're easy to come by. Do a Google Images search for "atari 2600 adventure easter egg" or variations.  And, of course, there's already one on the article itself. Xihr 02:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the insperation for zelda?
Ah the hours of fun... a square slaying dragons, finding keys, and saving his kingdom.

Besides the square part, it sounds like The Legend of Zelda could there be a link between the two? (pun intended)


 * Could be, though the original Adventure could have been more of the inspiration for both as well. You'd have to find a reference (i.e. an interview with Zelda's designers, etc.) stating what their influences were to put that in the article though.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds highly speculative to me. How many games have had primitive graphics to display characters, keys, dragons, and saving the world?  Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Xihr (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Returning links to clones / ports?
Can we bring back the list of clones and ports? It seems to me that many people reading this article will immediately wish to try out the game. Perhaps they were removed for copyright reasons? They were removed in this edit. (Yes, I know I have a unbiased interest as the author of Adventure: Revisited) --Peter Hirschberg (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter - they were removed because the guidelines state they're not allowed. Yes, a lot of it has to do with trademark/copyright violations.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Invisible dot location
The invisible dot (not grey unless shown against a wall) is in the White Castle, not the Black Castle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.201.122 (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's in the Black Castle. Xihr (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, its definitely in the Black Castle (I just retrieved it myself less than an hour ago, for the first time in probably about 25 years), within the Catacombs (in a secret chamber only accessible by the bridge; it is located in the very south-eastern corner of that chamber). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I meant to type "southwestern," in the perhaps unlikely event that my probable typo has thwarted anyone in the search for the invisible dot. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Killing Dragon from Inside His Belly?
My memory is a little fuzzy, but wasn't it possible to kill the dragon after it ate you? The conditions, I recall, meant you had to be holding the sword in the upper left or left side of the player dot (since the dragon attempts to eat you from the right). Once you're eaten, you can wiggle your character around within the belly, subsequently "slaying" the dragon if the sword you're still carrying makes contact. Once dead, it was a simple matter of "walking" out of the corpse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.31.106.35 (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

After you are eaten, the dragon no longer checks for collisions with the sword.--67.173.78.158 08:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I do believe it is possible to kill the other two dragons, other than the one who has eaten you, provided they are willing to impale themselves on your sword. It certainly is a peculiar game, the way it never actually ends when you die, but rather events just keep on transpiring, such as when you are eaten by a dragon, and the dragon is picked up by the bat, and you get taken for a ride all over the kingdom.  Or when you get eaten by one dragon, after you're already in the stomach of another. You can also do some very odd things with the bridge, such as using it to access (from a completely different screen), the ramparts of the Gold Castle.  Plus, if you pull down on the joystick while you're in game select mode, the little man-cube will appear at the bottom of the screen, and you can actually cavort across the game select menu, such as it is (it consists primarily of either a "1," "2," or "3." KevinOKeeffe (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the bat swap the sword for a dragon that has eaten me, and impale (and thus slay) the dragon in the process, on numerous occasions. Also, I'm inclined to agree with KevinOKeeffe's aforementioned belief. -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

IPhone port
What is the wikipedia policy basis for excluding the Iphone port? I realize that it has been alleged to be unlicensed, however that is an issue external to wikipedia. The port is noteable, and available through a Apple Store which generally considered a legitimate outlet. Certainly a note can be made in the article that there is a dispute over the licensing, but I see no applicable wikipedia policy that would exclude this text. Dman727 (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no "alleged violation", its a homebrew clone that the author did not get permission to use the properties for. Wikipedia has very strict policies on promoting copyright violations and the video game project, which this article falls under, also has very strict guidelines against them.   A hack game being available on an iPhone store also does not meet  notability requirements, it must be extensively covered by reliable and notable secondary sources to differentiate it from the plethora of other Adventure clones available across various platforms, including said author's open source PC clone which this is a port of. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, the argument might very well stand on WP:notable, but that was not reason listed for reversion. In terms of copyright violation however, do we have a WP:RS that asserts that it is an unlicensed clone?  If not, then your assertion would fall under original research WP:OR FWIW, I'm giving the Apple Store a certain amount of credit here, as I would be somewhat suprised that they would participate in software piracy.  Nonetheless, I'll leave it off, for now, unless I find sources that assert notability, however if you could kindly direct me to the policies and source requested, I would sure appreciate it. Dman727 (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Re posting from my talk page. As stated, the policies of WP:COPYVIO and guidelines of WP:VGSCOPE under Exceptions are clear, and something that we are very vigilant about.  There is also no demonstrated licensing on the author's site, including when questioned on it (you'll see my question in the commentary, and all future posts by me regarding this issue were ignore and not approved for posting), nor was Atari very happy when I discussed said violation with them.  In contrast for example, the Adventure II author's site clearly states permission was given.  Yes, illegal activity can be discussed, providing the subject itself fills notability requirements.  If you can find reliable and notable 2nd party sources that show this iPhone clone "has achieved notability because of their far-reaching impact on the game(s) they are based on.", then certainly they can included just as various notable clones are in other articles (i.e. there notable were clones of Pac-Man in the arcade at the time of Pac-Man, or clones of Pong on the pong console market in the 70's).  At the moment, its just another Adventure clone on another platforms and does not enhance the article in any shape or form, other than to promote that a clone is available on the iPhone store. It needs much more notability beyond that. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. I think the notability concern is reasonable, although the fact that ports are being created 20 years later is indicative and telling of the games impact.  I'm wavering on the copyright issue.  Your research on this is certainly telling, but so is Apple's failure to recognize this as it a violation as well. I will be curious to watch this to see if Apple removes this from distribution.Dman727 (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, its not Adventure itself that needs to demonstrate notability. Its the iPhone clone that has to prove it "has achieved notability because of their far-reaching impact on the game(s) they are based on."  And its not a port, its a clone - it was written from scratch, or as the author states on his site, "simulated".  Yes, I was surprised Apple allowed this and I know Atari's legal is going to be contacting them (they have their own games they're trying to sell in the iPhone store).  You'll notice, I do contract work for them, so it wasn't that hard to talk to the people in charge of this - it was not licensed.  Maybe Apple passed it because it was a free app, or because whoever they have passing apps is not familiar with the issue or that the game is a still exercised property.  I know there was talk over at AtariAge guessing what Apple will do about it as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish I had seen this before I added what I added (and Marty/Wgungfu reverted). It's getting to the point that I have to read an article's entire talk page before I can think about editing that article! Sheesh! -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"The Mite"
When I first heard about Warren Robinett's Easter Egg, circa 1980, (it took us until '82 or '83 to figure out how to do it, but we were aware of it earlier, albeit more as a rumour than as a concrete belief), every person who referenced the invisible dot from the Black Castle's catacombs (just other 11-year old boys and such attending school in the southwestern part of the Santa Clara Valley ie., Los Gatos, Saratoga, etc.), invariably did so not as "the dot," but rather as "the mite." I wonder why that name in particular was so in use in my area? Could it be because we only lived like eight miles or so from Atari headquarters in Sunnyvale, and had (somehow) picked up on what people who actually worked for Atari called it? Or did everyone call it "the mite" back then? Was it featured in Atari Age (and perhaps referenced as "the mite?" in the pages of that publication?) Does anyone else remember it being referred to as "the mite?" KevinOKeeffe (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there were plenty of localized names for it. I've never heard it called that, the literature doesn't call it that, and Warren Robinett doesn't call it that.  Your closeness to Atari headquarters doesn't really mean much unless you and your friends had direct contact with the people involved there, which it sounds like they didn't -- and wouldn't, since Robinett deliberately concealed the existence of the dot from his employer.  Xihr  08:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just in addition - it was only initially concealed. Once word got out about it, they used it as a publicity tool. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, it wasn't just my "friends" who called it "the mite." It was everyone I ever met 25-30 years ago, who was aware it existed.  A lot of these people were very vague acquaintances (like several guys I met one time, and never saw again).  A lot of the kids I went to school with had parents who worked in the high-tech industry, and I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that one of them had a very close connection with someone working at Atari at the time.  While I grant this is just a vague, and probably unprovable hypothesis, it was not simply a term my circle of personal friends used.  For that matter, it was the only thing I ever heard it called by anyone, until I later conversed with people about it during the 1990s (by which time, the term "dot" seems to have become standardized).  I'd be very curious to ask Warren Robinett if he recalls that term; maybe I'll see if I can email him.


 * I'm also very curious about Atari using the dot/"mite" as a publicity tool. How did this work?  Was it written up in Atari Age?  If we can track down something about this, it seems like it'd make a good addition to the article (assuming it doesn't mention it already; I'll have to check). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In the early 80s, most of the people in my clique had Atari 2600 consoles. One of them had a subscription to Atari Age. He learned of the easter egg from an Atari Age issue, and passed the news to the rest of us. He specifically described it as an "easter egg", rather than a "dot" or a "mite". We assumed that "easter egg" was the term used in that Atari Age issue. -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Another unusual occurrence in this game.
Hi. Sorry if this is not formatted correctly as this my first time using the discussion section. Okay, here goes...

If my memory serves me correctly, I believe it was possible for the player to become stuck in a wall. The best case I can think of is if the player was using the bridge to cross through a wall. While attempting to do this, the bird would come by and steal the bridge. The game would not end, the player would just be stuck in the wall.

Does anyone else recall this?

68.194.131.63 (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC) anonymous user


 * Yep, that's correct. (Except it's a bat, not a bird.) 28bytes (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Plug 'N' Play TV Game
The version that I have on the TV Plug 'N' Play has many differences fron the original game.

1. The dragons are pink, orange, and purple instead of yellow, green, and red.

2. All the colors are faded, Example, the gold castle is a pale beige/yellow.

3. My least favorite one, the esater egg is altered! It does not display the text "Created By Warren Robinet" In it's place is in small horizantal letters "TEXT" and you may not come out of the room at all unless the game is restarted! Computer tech0001 (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's because its been recoded for the internals of the plug and play, which is either a NOAC or Winbond, depending on the plug and play. Only the Flashback 2 actually reduplicated an Atari 2600 on a single chip. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The plug it in and play tv games atari does change the game. You were right about the first two differences. And you were partially right about the third difference. The message is replaced by the word text, but you CAN come out of the room. Also, the grey dot is easier to find because the catacombs darkness is black instead of grey. It's very lame that they had to replace the message with the word text. butat least they didn't remove the easter egg entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.1.187 (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Computer science code review
It would be cool if someone found a source for an analysis of the computer science concepts inside the game, if one exists. Warren Robinett has told me that he was a computer science student at UC Berkeley, where one of his professors was one of the inventors of C and of Unix, which were relatively new things at the time. He supposedly synthesized some concepts from C and Unix, into Atari 2600 machine code: a primitive multitasking kernel which provides the game's many background behaviors and possibly the multiplexing of sprites; data structures; and I don't know what else. He's given lectures on these programming subjects for Adventure, such as at Classic Gaming Expo in Las Vegas. I'm pretty sure he said that the code foundation was so substantial that it was reused in Superman. Any Atari 2600 programming is wicked hard, but seriously, this is extraordinarily far out stuff that comes from a person who went on to become an early researcher of virtual reality and nanotechnology. Take my 12 year memory with a grain of salt, but it's worth pursuing. I would hope that someone has a code review in as least as much detail as did the guy who hacked E.T. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Racing the Beam book has a pretty good amount of technical information about how the 2600 worked, and an entire chapter dedicated to the design of Adventure. I'll read through it again and see what's in it. There's also the Robinett essay (which can be read online here), although that's a pretty high-level examination of the game. —Torchiest talkedits 20:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Source quoted without citation
An article I wrote was referenced twice and directly quoted once in this article, but on May 5th, 2014 the citation was removed while keeping the references & quote, which I think currently makes those passages effectively cases of plagiarism.

This is the last version that still had the citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adventure_%281979_video_game%29&diff=prev&oldid=598227273#cite_note-robinett2012-5

The reason for the edit only mentions the Atari catalogs as sources, so there is no reason given why it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derboo (talk • contribs) 13:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

UK release?
Making a new section for this. At least in the UK the order was Superman -> Space Invaders -> Adventure. The complete prior to its debut was: Air-Sea Battle, Space War, Out Law, Video Olympics, Breakout, Basketball, Surround, Brain Games, Superman, Backgammon, Space Invaders (the newest at the time), Basic Math, Blackjack, Code Breaker, Hunt & Score, Skydiver, Min. Golf, Street Racer, Bowling, Indy 500 and Chess. Though I am not sure about the UK release of Combat or Star Ship - I'm not very well versed in Atari... Though if it helps, the Basic Programming, Golf and Slot Karts were released afterwards. By all means, it was Spring/Summer 1980 when Adventure hit the UK. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Issues concerning NPOV, verifiability and citation overkill
The first citation for source no. 2 is presented as NPOV, while in fact the statement it cites is POV from Warren Robinett.

This paragraph is also all POV from Robinett, but presented as NPOV: "Despite discouragement from his boss at Atari who said it could not be done,[4] game designer Warren Robinett began designing a graphic game loosely based on the text game in 1977.[5] Robinett handed over the code for Adventure in April 1979 and left Atari soon afterward. In June 1979, as an outside consultant to Atari, he updated the code to add an attract mode graphics effect, and to fix a bug.[6]"

The article also contains several citations of sources to establish the 1979 release date that a) were either published after the statements they're used to cite were first posted on Wikipedia or after the statement that was used to establish the "fact". b) do not give any insight in their sources or fact checking process. (This alone is a big problem vor verifiability, especially when the fact itself is disputed)

It is therefore not possible to verify whether these are circular citations derived from Wikipedia, or not. Circular citations are warned against in Wikipedia:Verifiability

"(There is also a risk of circular reference when using a Wikipedia article or derivative work as a source.)"

Simply assuming the works are NOT derivative of the Wikipedia article is WP:OR or worse (as is assuming the other way). Therefore their reliability is highly compromised. The citations for 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are affected by this.

The sentence that's backed by the citations 7 through 10 is also Wikipedia:Citation_overkill

Derboo (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Correction: Reference 9 is not affected by the aforementioned circularity issue (but has still a big question mark for reliability, since "b) do not give any insight in their sources or fact checking process" still applies) Derboo (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Derboo. Your diligence is remarkable, and this kind of thorough collaboration is exactly what Wikipedia's veracity requires.  I saw that User:Torchiest had recently gotten highly enthusiastic with research, and I wished that I could help verify any exuberance vs. reliability of those contributions.  I always would want to do so with any ambitious contributions, and that back-and-forth is part of the fun and goodness of Wikipedia.  But I don't have those books and stuff.  In the case of the release date, it seems like several citations would be a good idea, simply because that particular information has been controversial, or at least it seems that various sources are possibly unreliable on that particular information.  Isn't that true?  That's my understanding, and I personally am awaiting Torchiest to review things. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 18:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not add source #2 to cite the date in the lead. I added what is now source #1 to cite the date in the infobox. In the paragraph quoted, it already contained sources #4 and #6 when I started working on it.  I added source #5 for the 1977 start date.  Smuckola, you should be able to go through Google Books to verify almost all of the new information I added.  Derboo, there is a source published in 2008  that indicates that the game was published in 1979. Significantly, it mentions that the game came out before Superman, which was published the same year. —Torchiest talkedits 21:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not really important who added what, that doesn't change the reliability issues. The fact that so many publications list a 1979 date is worth nothing when their sources are unclear it's very likely that all of them come from the same single source, namely the Interview with Robinett in #2. Problem is we don't have any peer reviewed academic work to rely on, and all these journalistic retrospectives usually don't have a very high quality standard concerning minute details like that. The only correct way to deal with this is to list the game with an unknown release date, eliminate all unreliable sources, and leave the statements by Robinett (also the one whose citations got deleted, see the above section) as first party POV speculations concerning the release date, because there simply aren't any facts known. Derboo (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There are two books that mention 1979 in addition to the video game website articles. Speculating on whether sources are based on the Wikipedia page and are therefore circular is tangential and shades into original research. We can only report what reliable sources say.  If they are reliable, that's all we need to know.  The question would then be to examine each source and determine two things: one, is it reliable; and two, does it support the claim being made in the article. —Torchiest talkedits 02:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Speculating on whether sources are based on the Wikipedia page and are therefore circular is tangential and shades into original research" Yes, but just assuming they are NOT circular (or not based on a first party's POV) without the publications providing any evidence for that assumption is not only WP:OR, but BAD OR. There are no books on the history of video games that can be considered reliable, due to the almost non-existance of peer review and proper editorial control. Derboo (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks, Torchiest, I'll take another look. I just haven't had a chance to review everything since this all went down.  So I'll hopefully do so, with a close eye on what everyone's saying here, because I'll enjoy that anyway. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * To be clear, your concerns and Derboo's are distinct. He is focused specifically and only on the release date. —Torchiest talkedits 02:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not entirely correct. My second point on POV does not involve the release date. Derboo (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't sample the new source directly on google books, but the quoted passage is a non sequitur: "Warren Robinett began work on Adventure in 1978, which, according to him, gives some validity to the copyright date of 1978 found on the Atari cartridge and manual for Adventure. But the actual code was finished and turned over to Atari in June of 1979, making 1979 the actual year of release." The fact that the "code was finished and turned over to Atari in June of 1979" does not warrant the conclusion that the game was also released in 1979. Also, everything is still POV of the same first party (Warren Robinett) as all the other sources: "according to him"... The article also still quotes the article published at http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/history/history6.htm ("though in a later statement he noted that he "didn't truly know for sure", but that he was certain the game was definitely available by June 1980.") without giving the citation (there is a citation link after the sentence, but it links to another source that doesn't contain the information) Derboo (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Another error: Citation #1 is used to reference the 1979 release date, yet on that page (a timeline of the history of the Atari VCS) it says "1978 Atari’s VCS Adventure by Warren Robinett", with no statement as to whether that is supposed to refer to the game's conception, completion or release. Derboo (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That was discussed in the section "Wrong release date" above. The online text isn't the same as the printed version, for whatever reason.  I changed the ref to another page in the book that lists 1979. I also added the ref from 1997 indicating 1979 to the infobox. —Torchiest talkedits 03:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The online version says 1980 on that page 163. :/ Either way, there is no indication where that publication got its release dates, and there is no indication that it is well-researched or properly fact-checked in that regard. And once again, the 1997 source is neither reliable (because of POV) nor even valid to back the statement (because of the non sequitur). Derboo (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I commented in the above "Wrong release date" thread, but I wanted to take specific issue here with the idea that all sources published after the publication date of a Wikipedia article represent circular references. This is completely false. If there is evidence that Wikipedia is used as the source (especially in instances where the source is explicit about it) then it's necessary to exclude this material. But where there is no indication of circularity apart from the date then it's wrong to assume circularity of an otherwise reliable source. Surprisingly to some, Wikipedia isn't intended to be a vessel for Truth with a capital T, but rather it is intended as a reflection of the prevailing scholarly views. The basic premise behind an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is that the reliability of the articles comes solely from the sources it uses. If we as individual editors know for a fact that sources A, B, and C are the only ones that are correct about a fact and that sources D through Z are all wrong, then it's not our job to censor the facts from D through Z even if it's in the interest of Truth. At best, both claims should be presented along with relevant sources. The strength of the claim is to be determined by the reader based on the sources. The editor must rely on the scholarship of the sources whether they were released before the Wikipedia article or afterward. Any other methodology would mean that Wikipedia can't cover any early coverage of newly released media, well-vetted retrospective sources after famous industry figures die, or even ongoing political incidents. It's not original research to assume scholarship and research (instead of Wikipedia-based plagiarism) from scholars and researchers. -Thibbs (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have never argued for Truth, only against the unreflected parroting of unreliable sources. All known secondary sources either quote POV Warren Robinett (who has willingly conceded that he himself cannot confidently claim his POV is reliable, but the source documenting that fact has been purged from the Wikipedia article) and/or have significantly doubtful reliability - questionable, unexplained or simply nonexistant methodology. Frankly, none of the quoted sources fulfills even the most basic requirements of scholarly method, and most don't even aspire to. Outside of the interviews (which - again - are quoting first party POV that has been demonstrated to be unreliable), none of the other quoted sources even try to be/contain scholarly examinations of the release date. That's why none of them can reasonably be considered a reliable source on the matter. Derboo (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Unreflected parroting" is a harsher synonym for "non-interpretational reporting". If there is reason to question the methodology used by the RSes then this should be given full consideration, but if the reason to question it comes from the fact that it isn't explicitly presented in the source then I have to disagree that it poses a major problem. Scholars like Bogost can in general be relied upon to apply scholarly methods to in their research even when the end product is a populist text. If we open up all RSes to selective interpretation by the editors then we turn Wikipedia into a forum for publication of original thoughts and that's explicitly not what Wikipedia is. The tried and tested solution to sources that conflict is to present all significant viewpoints. It is left to the reader to decide which of the RS-supported significant viewpoints she favors. -Thibbs (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Non-interpretational reporting did not take place here. All sources (with the exception of those that are explicitly presented as POV Robinett) here are used interpretationally. 1# contains a logical fallacy, a nonsensical statement right there in the quote. 2#, #16 and #17 juxtapose the title of the game with a year, while at no point it is made specific whether this is supposed to refer to a conception date, completion date or publishing date, all of them are interpreted as the latter. #18 States "In 1979, the first all-graphics adventure game appeared", which can just as well mean "came into existence" but is interpreted as "was released to the public". #19 specifically states "created by Warren Robinett in 1979 for the Atari VCS" but is misrepresented as a source listing a 1979 release date. Derboo (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at the merits of the sources themselves yet. I mainly wanted to register disagreement with the "simply assuming the works are NOT derivative of the Wikipedia article is WP:OR" claim from the top of this thread. I'll try to take a look tonight. -Thibbs (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK so I took a look at the sources now. I don't see any logical fallacy in the quote from #1. You'll have to explain what you mean by that. #16 and #2 seem to do a bit more than simply juxtaposing a title and a date: when #16 speaks of "Adventure's 1979 publication" I think it fair to interpret this as claim regarding publication date, and when #17 #2 speaks of "Warren Robinett, as he designed and programmed Adventure, the first graphical adventure game, for the Atari VCS in 1978" I think it's fair to consider this a claim regarding the design and programming date. Note, the quote from #2 comes from p.5 and not p.163 as cited. I can't see p.163 in Google's limited view. Similarly, I can't see #17. The line from #18 does speak of an appearance date, but it also lists Adventure as "Adventure [1979]" on the previous page and given the author's convention of using this format to present release dates for all other games discussed, I think it's not too far of a stretch to assume he means "release" when he speaks of "appearance". I agree with your assessment of #19: creation date is not necessarily the same thing as release date. So I see a 1979 release date supported by sources #1, #16, and #18; a 1978 design and programming date in #2 potentially conflicting with a creation date of 1979 for #19; and I can't make out #17 at all. Looking at just these sources there seems to be broad agreement on 1979 as the release date. Do you have additional sources that point to a different release date or that otherwise casts this release date into question? -Thibbs (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I did explain the logical fallacy of #1 a few posts before, but here goes again: "But the actual code was finished and turned over to Atari in June of 1979, making 1979 the actual year of release." The fact that the code was finished in 1979 (which also still is POV Robinett in this account) does not make 1979 the actual year of release. That's a nonsensical conclusion. The one does not automatically follow from the other, because there can be any amount of time between the two dates. Regarding #17: "Warren Robinett, as he designed and programmed Adventure, the first graphical adventure game, for the Atari VCS in 1978" -> Where does the source say that? It's definitely not on the cited page 2, and I can't find it anywhere in the book. I've missed that second mention in #16, sorry. #18: Where does the author define that convention? Derboo (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I meant #2 instead of #17.... Like I said, I couldn't actually see #17. I fixed it above. Regarding #1, I'm not sure it's intended to be a logical argument. I read it kind of similar to this statement about my morning: "I made coffee and drank it while I watched the 6:30 news, then I took a shower and got dressed, so I must have left the apartment by 9:00 at the latest." In this case the "so I must have" isn't intended to be interpreted as "as a logical consequence of which I". In other words the author of #1 doesn't lead the reader through a formal proof for the release date given, the release date is just presented in context with the creation date. Obviously this is just my interpretation and yours is probably different, but I think contradictory sources of equal or superior reliability are required to refute the date, not attacks based on a lack of evidence of academic rigor. The logical fallacy (if any exists) comes in the form of an argument from ignorance - that since we have no proof of the RS authors' academic research there must therefore be no academic research. -Thibbs (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Countersources: The most important source was already quoted in the article, but it got removed. It contains quotes of explicit clarification by Robinett that qualifies his previous statements concerning the publishing date as based on mere assumption rather than first hand experience and thus not reliable. It's also the only source outside of previous interviews that demonstrates scholarly consideration of the release date, and it demonstrates that no facts that serve to determine the release date are known: http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/history/history6.htm There is also a public comment made by Curt Vendel, co-author of Atari Inc.: Business is Fun, where he declares that in his research for the book, no evidence to back the release date could be procured: http://blog.hardcoregaming101.net/2012/07/adventure-game-released-in-year-of.html#comments  Then there's the two catalogs with different product codes which also got removed, both dated 1980 and both claiming that the game is "coming soon". To assume that the date on the catalogs is not reliable is the exact same kind of "interpretational reporting" like assuming sources that don't bother to reference their own sources and were published after the initial establishment of an claim (through Robinetts unreliable POV account) are likely to be based on that unfounded (as demonstrated) but established claim. Lightly dismissing (and purging!) one but defending the other is a serious sign of a double standard. Derboo (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK that's weird. I'd actually read that HG101 article years ago and since then I've read several academic papers about the problem of determining accurate release dates for old video games prior to the modern better-documented era. There are clearly problems with the article you've linked, though. First of all it's written as a hatchet job against Wikipedia and its editors. The author clearly has an axe to grind and the tone is rather more vindictive than academic. Secondly, much of the evidence is inferred rather than direct (old advertisements that include the words "coming soon" and catalogs that fail to list the game in their 1979 listings, etc.). As far as direct evidence is concerned, the author quotes Robinett as saying "I am pretty sure the Adventure cartridge was released during the 1979 Christmas season. But [...] I did not actually see an Adventure cart in a retail store prior to Jan. 1, 1980. So I guess I don't truly know for sure." If even on careful reflection Robinett still says that "I am pretty sure the Adventure cartridge was released during the 1979 Christmas season" then I don't share the author's view that Wikipedia is dangerously distorting history. HG101 is listed as a situational source at WP:VG's RS board and the piece does give the issue of the release date a pretty thorough coverage so I would be fairly comfortable linking it from the article in some manner (either as a source in a subsection of article devoted to controversy over the release date or simply among the external links), but I can well imagine that there might be objections to it from the community. Including it would probably require further input from others. I'll write to the WP:VG board for outside views. -Thibbs (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Secondly, much of the evidence is inferred rather than direct" -> It is, because direct evidence is not available. As the article shows, this inferred evidence stands opposed to no evidence at all for a 1979 release date. The article does not propose to take a 1980 release date for a fact, only that no existing evidence supports a 1979 release date (as long as there is no evidence for an earlier date, the facts do weigh in favor of 1980, but the evidence is hardly sufficient). Robinett says he's "pretty sure", but he also makes clear that his conviction is based in faith, not in facts, that he believes it was released in 1979, but he has no means to know. "But I was in Europe during that time. People were definitely playing Adventure in early 1980.", and "Anyway, the Adventure cart was definitely out in the world by June 1980, and had been out there for a while. My belief is that it was released during the 1979 Christmas season, but I did not actually see an Adventure cart in a retail store prior to Jan. 1, 1980. So I guess I don't truly know for sure." Article as vindictive: The (second half of the) article is not a strike against Wikipedia, it is a warning against shoddy practices and a call to improve the state of video game history reporting overall. And I have to repeat: Assuming that a catalog dated 1980 announcing the game as "coming soon" is a lie or erroneous is heavily interpretational reporting. If any of the later journalist works with a passing mention(!) of "1979" are reliable sources, then these catalogs are, too. Derboo (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose the only purely reportorial way to use the catalogs is in support of a claim that "By 1980, Adventure was listed as 'coming soon' to XYZ department store (or to XYZ magazine subscribers, etc.)." Making the leap to "therefore the game must not have been released until 1980" is original research. A long time ago (6 years or so at least) there used to be a caveat to WP:OR that simple logic was allowed in cases like this, but that was struck down due to abuse and unwarranted extrapolation in the name of logic by invested POV-pushers so it's no longer available. Direct support is needed whenever it's a contentious issue. Again, I'd be happy to include the "purged" article in the external links or in a section discussing the date, but it's not an unassailable source and I anticipate that there might be objections to its inclusion. I wonder if anyone else has any opinions on the matter. I've left a note at WP:VG asking for outside views. -Thibbs (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I can clear a few things up with the Racing the Beam source, as I actually own the physical book. Here are the three places it mentions Adventure with regard to dates: On the HG101 source, where does the information for this quote:
 * Page xi, which is titled Timeline and has a list of events, has this line: "1979 Atari's VCS Adventure by Warren Robinett."
 * Page 5: "This was done by Warren Robinett, as he designed and programmed Adventure, the first graphical adventure game, for the Atari VCS in 1978." I see this statement more as indicating when the coding was happening. It doesn't mention release or publication here.
 * Page 163, which is in the book's bibliography, is where the Video Games section of it begins. The line I'm referencing says: "Atari. Adventure Atari VCS. Programmed by Warren Robinett. 1979." Bibliographies list the year of publication, so this doesn't requite any special interpretation.
 * "I returned to the US in early 1980. I am pretty sure the Adventure cartridge was released during the 1979 Christmas season. But I was in Europe during that time. People were definitely playing Adventure in early 1980. (...) Anyway, the Adventure cart was definitely out in the world by June 1980, and had been out there for a while. My belief is that it was released during the 1979 Christmas season, but I did not actually see an Adventure cart in a retail store prior to Jan. 1, 1980. So I guess I don't truly know for sure."

...come from? I removed the supposed original source of the information (archived here) because it did not support the claims about 1980, and didn't mention anything even close to what is quoted in the HG101 article. I generally agree with Thibbs. We can mention what the game catalogs said, but we can't make the jump to release date information. The other sources explicitly give release dates, and if they're reliable, that's that. —Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 14:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "I suppose the only purely reportorial way to use the catalogs is in support of a claim that "By 1980, Adventure was listed as 'coming soon' to XYZ department store (or to XYZ magazine subscribers, etc.)." -> Yes, that is all that can be claimed on the base of these sources, but they must not be ignored, as they are in the current version. (The catalogs do not have any specified adressee, btw.) "On the HG101 source, where does the information for this quote (...) come from?" -> As it says in the article, the author contacted Robinett directly, so it is a new interview ("When I contacted Warren Robinett, he was so kind as to clarify this perceived conflict from his memories:") Thanks for the quotes from your printing of Racing the Beam, I think the middle one had gotten mixed up with another source number in our conversation. Derboo (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Just quickly noting here that I've added a summary of the different evidences for release date section to the "Wrong release date" thread above. Ideally we'll get a good number of neutral outsiders to help us come to a compromise agreement, but if this fails then I think the next logical step is to go to RfC. It's time for a resolution to this issue which has apparently been going on for over 6 years. -Thibbs (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

So what would anyone accept as a reliable source here? We can't too well just not have a release date. Tezero (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry—I think I split the conversation. I think we came to a conclusion at czar  ♔  15:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)