Talk:Tennis for Two

1997 rebuild at BNL
Apparently Peter Takacs and colleagues at BNL rebuilt the game in 1997. I seem to recall the BNL site mentioning that at some point, but I can't find anything about the rebuild on the site now. However, it is reverenced elsewhere, including the introduction to the Pong Story site and a BBC News article. --Brouhaha 07:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Video game
I have taken out a line saying Tennis for Two was a video game due to concerns from Wgungfu. I'm not convinced, how is this not a video game? The definition from our own page is "a game that involves the interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device." What's the issue?--Cúchullain t/ c 02:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Very specifically, the next line states "The 'video' in "video game" traditionally refers to a raster display device" (the two paragraphs are ones I helped construct after a compromise with several other editors on video games in the literall sense vs. the more modern general term). This is important when discussing "first video game" and "one of the first" which you keep trying to add and had already been gone through here.  In the patent defense cases for Ralph, William was first brought to light by some of the other companies as an attempt to show prior work and invalidate the patent.  It did not work, and Ralph's "pioneer" patent was upheld.  Quite specifically, video game is defined by the courts as a game played on a display source using a video signal, which is a raster display device that recieves an actual video signal.  Likewise even in the "video device" link of the sentence you quoted:  A display device, also known as an information display is a device for visual or tactile presentation of images (including text) acquired, stored, or transmitted in various forms.  William's device was an analog computer hooked up to an oscilliscope, which is a directly controlled beam that is moved about under direction from the analog computer.  There is no video signal, and no image transmitted, aquired or stored.  This was also the problem with spacewar when it was presented as evidence and struck down in court. --Marty Goldberg 02:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It still needs to be mentioned, as the game frequently comes up in discussion of the "first video game". It's one of the important moments in the development of video games.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've tried to add a sentance addressing this. Perhaps you can alter the wording to your taste, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't just delete it again - it's important to establish why this subject is notable. --Cúchullain t/ c 03:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You could mention that its erroneously mentioned as one of the first video games and then direct people to the First Video Games entry that discusses that in more detail. Its importance to the history of video games is more of a footnote - nobody had heard of it until it was brought up in court.  It was put together and set up for a brief moment in 1958 and put away.  There are no direct ties to it and any other game or development in video game history, it influenced nothing.  Spacewar, by comparison, has a direct correlation to the timeline and influenced later developments.  A lot of the confusion regarding the promotion of Tennis For Two being a "first video game" is by Brookhaven (for obvious reason) and some writers back at that time (late 70's/early 80's) who latched on to the idea and decided to promote it as such regardless of what the courts decided. --Marty Goldberg 03:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant that to the history of video games, it is noteworthy as an interesting footnote. But more importantly, the game is only notable in and of itself because of its place in the history of video games. In other words, there would be no reason to have an article on it but for that, so that needs to be mentioned explicitly.


 * On another note I'm not sure about it not being a video game; it obviously depends on definition, but I've seen multiple references to Tennis for Two as either the first video game or one of the first. Perhaps if and when this article is expanded, the various conflicting definitions and the game's ultimate place in history can be clarified in more detail.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The specific technology used for the video display may have once been important for a patent case involving the Magnovox Odyssey, but who in the world cares about that anymore? Seriously, to call this not a videogame is patently nonsensical. 98.110.168.52 (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * People who care about specificity and correctness - i.e. an online encyclopedia. And an oscilliscope is not a video display, so mentioning about "specific technology for video display" doesn't make much sense on your part. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Some more info
The anatomy of the first video game. Leaving here for later reference. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

VG Collab
Here are some sources that may work to improve the article: —Ost (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * - May not be WP:RS, but this says TfT is the 2nd video game, following A.S. Douglas’s OXO from 1952. Several other sites mention it as the second game, but same problem with RS.
 * I'm currently content filtered from viewing, but its blurb calls OXO the second video game ever
 * has some history on OXO
 * discusses the multiple "firsts"
 * - May not be WP:RS, but this says TfT is the 2nd video game, following A.S. Douglas’s OXO from 1952. Several other sites mention it as the second game, but same problem with RS.
 * I'm currently content filtered from viewing, but its blurb calls OXO the second video game ever
 * has some history on OXO
 * discusses the multiple "firsts"
 * - May not be WP:RS, but this says TfT is the 2nd video game, following A.S. Douglas’s OXO from 1952. Several other sites mention it as the second game, but same problem with RS.
 * I'm currently content filtered from viewing, but its blurb calls OXO the second video game ever
 * has some history on OXO
 * discusses the multiple "firsts"
 * has some history on OXO
 * discusses the multiple "firsts"
 * I worked in all sources except the IGN page and the GGL page. —Ost (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is neat.
A web app that faithfully simulated the oscilloscope and knobs would be really cool and probably popular. Some college kid with free time reading this, here's your chance :) --67.54.192.53 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Reassessed as C-class
I'm putting this down to C-class, for a few reasons. While it is well referenced, it is pretty short, and has plenty of room for expansion. The development section needs to be reorganized and broken into multiple new sections for gameplay and legacy, the latter of which can be moved behind the reception section. —Torchiest talkedits 22:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Quote
Do you think I should just drop the quote-in-a-box thing altogether? I think it looks kind of dumb without at least quote marks around the text, and I don't like the page-width quotes, but all the quote templates seem to strongly discourage using the templates for the purpose I'm using it for here- a quote that's not repeated in the article text. -- Pres N  00:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's completely correct in every possible sense in any medium inside or outside of Wikipedia, it isn't wrong and doesn't look wrong, and is exactly as intended by the principles of copy design. Just like all the rest of my changes. Your perception of it is mistaken, sorry. — Smuckola(talk) 00:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I thought we were having a civil discussion about what looks best visually in the article. I didn't realize that "a box with text-space-attribution without so much as a dash first" and "all the images in a running line down the right" and "a specific device that was dismantled nearly 57 years ago should be talked about in present tense" were universal principles of copy design for online encyclopedias. -- Pres N  00:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Today's edits
Concur with Indrian. A site saying Tennis for Two is not a game is clearly WP:FRINGE. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Lets take this discussion here instead of reverting back and forth, please. The issue is essentially this edit, namely the addition of a definition of "video game" that would exclude Tennis for Two, sourced to a Next Generation article that is a summary of the first 4 chapters of the book Electronic Nation: A History of Video Games by Steven L. Kent. Note that I can't verify this book was ever published; this excerpt of chapter 2 implies that it was written in 1997, but the works cited of Mark J. P. Wolf's 2010 The Medium of the Video Game refers to it as "forthcoming". It's possible that it was converted into The Ultimate History of Video Games (2001), as per this 2015 interview. Anyway.
 * Without being able to see the source, the definition of video games provided seems to be just Kent's own. It's also a pretty odd one- both Indrian and Tenebrae (above) disagree, as do I. A definition of "video game" that requires a score or end condition excludes Minecraft (never ends, no score beyond a leveling system) or No Man's Sky (never ends, no score), which are both universally considered to be "video games", making the definition a poor one on the surface. I also think that even if it was a good one it's not a very useful addition to the article- the sentence before states that Tennis for Two is "considered under some definitions to be the first video game", and that "some" was intentional on my part, as there are definitions that would not consider it a video game at all (this one, I guess, and ones that require a video-signal monitor rather than an oscilloscope). -- Pres N  19:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I concur with everything PresN says and would further add that the recent accusation in the edit notes of POV pushing on my part is as unhelpful as it is spurious. This is a classic WP:FRINGE theory in that this definition would exclude many products universally considered "video games."  In addition to the examples above, this would also exclude the very first home video game system, the Magnavox Odyssey, which was incapable of keeping score, which means it's table tennis game "never ends" in the same way as Tennis for Two.  There are several good arguments for declaring Tennis for Two not to be a video game, but this is not one of them.  And POV?  I don't really care whether history calls it a video game or not: I am just against half-baked nonsense definitions like this one. Indrian (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indrian, your comments both here and in the edit summaries are classic POV pushing rationale; you continually argue from the premise that if a viewpoint is considered wrong by a Wikipedia editor, it should not be referenced on Wikipedia. I'm happy to drop the issue if consensus is against adding the info in, particularly since PresN has provided a rationale which is much more in line with WP policy. But using edit summaries like "Some definitions are very silly" and then saying POV pushing is a baseless accusation suggests that you either have no idea how WP works (and I know you well enough to know that's not the case) or are long overdue for a wikibreak.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't speak for Indrian, but I believe it's clear that WP:FRINGE applies. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, replying to a thread over two months later basically just to mount a personal attack and *I* need a Wikibreak. Interesting... Indrian (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)