Talk:Video game

Please add the section "Terminology"; also, discussion of merges and summary style
Hello, I was unsuccessful to find in the article why it is called "Video game". I will be grateful if someone add a section for its terminology. Thanks.--Editor-1 (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. The most likely reason is that at the time early video games first appeared, computer terminals were often called video display terminals. The original computer terminals were teletypes (glorified typewriters), then text terminals were created by adapting cathode ray tubes to display text.  Before then, CRTs were primarily used as televisions to watch video, hence the name "video display terminal."
 * But this is all original research on my part and we can't add it without a reliable source. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, never mind. It turns out this is all explained in History of video games.  This is why it's usually a dumb idea to fork out history articles in the first place, because then the main article often loses such important context. So there is no need for a terminology section. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the sections History_of_video_games and Early_history_of_video_games both have bad title and are misplaced, it is better to merge and then move them to the main article, because the terminology is something that should be in main articles, not their child articles. I asked about this in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style right now.--Editor-1 (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, we definitely should not have separate History of video games and Early history of video games articles; that's just ridiculous, and its at very least a WP:CONTENTFORK if not a WP:POVFORK. Separate history articles are sometimes needed for length reasons, but WP:SUMMARY instructs us to ensure that the key points of the spin-off article are summarized in the main one, and that hasn't happened here. So that should be fixed, even if we just merge those two spin-offs into each other without merging that result into Video game.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am agree with you, now where to find a laborer to do these works?!😆😅--Editor-1 (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of thing to just build a consensus toward, and when it's clear what the end result should be, either various of us will slowly work toward it over time, or someone looking for a "Covid-19 lockdown" project can just tackle it all. WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am coming to this from a completely different angle (as I have been working to fix the video game console article, and making a better history of video game consoles article that goes separately for that, which to the history of video games article that creates a lot of duplication (about the console generations, which should still be touched on now can be smoothed out).  That said, I don't know yet if that means the Early History article can be moved back in or not, but that probably also goes back to looking at *this* article Video game and shuffling things off as to make at least some room for a brief "origin" section to lead into the History of video games article, and thus add in some of the terminology aspects. The last few sections on this article definitely can be trimmed to point elsewhere. --M asem  (t) 22:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep. WP:SUMMARY is the guidance here.  It is proper that History of video game consoles exists as an article, since it's primarily about a specific class of hardware, and development for them, and marketing of them.  That history should be capsule-summarized at History of video games into which Early history of video games should re-merge.  How to treat the console material at the H.o.v.g. article depends on how that is finally arranged; it would probably be best as timeline-integrated high points, though if the thing is structured more sectionally by platform type, then it might make for a summary section.  At Video game, an even more compressed history of just the "mega-high points" should exist as a History section, basically compressing H.o.v.g. into a few paragraphs.  And of course H.o.v.g.c. should also be summarized in Video game console.  So, much of the finer-grained duplication between H.o.v.g and H.o.v.g.c. should compress out, into H.o.v.g.c., just leaving the high points in H.o.v.g.  What the high points are to include from H.o.v.g.c. in H.o.v.g. and in V.g.c. may differ, since one is a sweeping historical overview of the entire concept and market, while the other is a narrower context of just consoles.  I would expect more points from H.o.v.g.c. to appear in V.g.c. than in H.o.v.g. (and fewer still in Video_game#History).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, one thing that has to be done at h.o.v.g. is pull out much about the console generations and specific consoles to focus on trends across all sectors; console generations need mention (and at some point we're going to want a time which will likely overlap the console timeline with key factors), and certain key consoles - Odyssey as the first, NES as the system that recovered the industry, etc. - will still be highlighted. H.o.v.g.c. is where sorta want it now because from there you'll see that each generation has a more detailed breakout eg first generation of video game consoles that talk the detailed history in that segment and specific comparisons, all within summary style.
 * The only thing that I'm getting to this is that I'm not sure at this stage how this will leave the Early history article. I'm not saying it can't be brought in, but I need to see what happens first after the necessary pruning and reworking leaves this at. I doubt h.o.v.g. would grow significantly to prevent that. Also, consider that the Early history is a GA, so that's also an issue to resolve. It would seem to be a goal, but I would not force it until the rest of the history article is ready to accept the Early History article. --M asem (t) 03:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging Early hovg into the main Hovg article. The summary in the Hovg article is probably too long right now, but to merge it would require either chopping it apart in order to keep from overburdening the article, or having every section be that long and therefore leave the Hovg article incredibly long.
 * Frankly, the idea that the best way to cover the 70+ year history of an entire medium is to cram it all into one overblown "history of" article without child articles is baffling. The fact that the Early history article is a GA is not the problem with merging it. The fact that it's a 15,000 word summary of 24 years of the pre-commercial history of a medium while the parent article tries to cover both that and it's expansion into a multi-billion dollar industry with tens of thousands of games over 70 years in what I presume will not be 200,000 words is the problem. Honestly, I'm having a hard time reconciling the thought process of "we don't need a child article for the messy pre-commercial era because all of video game history should be in one article" + "we definitely need to keep the comparison article between the NES and Master System + also-rans because consoles need an entire tree of articles". -- Pres N  04:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also oppose merging "Early history". There's definitely a lot of redundancy, forking, over- and under-scoping, etc. across these articles. I think Masem is on the right track here and we can reexamine the whole messy constellation of VG history articles in the context of his finished product. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And I have found a source, it is not the cleanest source but they have backed up with snippets to show where it comes from, which I'm satisfied with. (Basically, a term falling out from the need to describe these games in vending trade magazines). --M asem (t) 23:06, 3 August 2020 (021 (UTC)

"Computer game" synonym for "video game"?
Is "computer game" really synonymous with "video game" as these two words are treated in this article? I ask because according to the first sentence in the lead section of the article "PC game", "computer game" is a synonym for this word.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As this article states "Computer game" may also be used to describe video games because all video games essentially require a computer processor, though the term typically is reserved for games played primarily on personal computers." - We're not saying that computer game is fully synonymous with "video game", just that it may be used in some cases. --M asem (t) 19:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That statement is North American-centric; in other English-speaking parts of the world, "computer game" usually means any kind of video game. Popcornfud (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * However, do we have a source for that? I can sorta believe it in the countries where personal computing was more popular than consoles like UK/EU, but we would need a source to discuss that distinction --M asem (t) 23:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , can sorta believe it I'm telling you, it's true! But yes, obviously we'll need a source to add it. It's kind of an annoying bias in the article I'd like to fix. Popcornfud (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I found some sourcing that gives reason that "computer game" may be used interchangeably with "video game" in some places. --M asem (t) 16:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can provide plenty of examples of UK RSes using the terms interchangeably, but for this article we really need a RS explaining that the terms are used interchangeably. Popcornfud (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The source I found is from a Wolf/Perron book, so that should be fine. --M asem (t) 16:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't see you'd updated the article. Thanks for that. Popcornfud (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead Pong image
Taken to talk after consensus was requested. File:Pong (28684491143).jpg is an evocative photo, but an idiosyncratic one. Videogames are very rarely played on 10" high television sets with dinner plate sized controller wheels. I replaced it with File:American Truck Simulator at Gamescom 2015 (20429525295).jpg as being a photo of a game on a regular-sized screen, but this apparently might have copyright issues. What would be a better photo? Pong on a regular television set, such as File:Pong game on TV.jpg? --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that an image of Pong being played on a TV 10x the normal size of most TV's isn't a very good representation, however the issue with the image you uploaded is the depiction of American Truck Simulator, which is a copyrighted game made by SCS Software. The thing that confuses me is the image is licenses under CC-SA-2.0 (Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alive 2.0 Generic) so it should be fine to use? ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because the Flickr user tagged it that doesn't mean the image is free of copyright, as that user cannot claim copyright on ATS software. That user released their photo as CC but the replication of the ATS screen is a derivative work, so it still has copyright ties to ATS. --M asem (t) 14:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. That makes sense. I had a feeling that was the reason. The copyright on the image threw me off though. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I know this the lead image was previously discussed (here) after it was changed to an image of freedoom and changed back to the Pong one. I somewhat understand your point as perhaps Pong image could an example of one for suited for Early history of video games/Early history of video games but at the same time it does demonstrate an iconic, well-known, established video game with players playing one (though I understand the controllers/setup are slightly unusual). I am not sure File:Pong game on TV.jpg is an improvement as it does not actually show any player(s) actually playing it. If the 'ideal image' was a player playing a 'regular game' on a 'regular setup' (like your suggested one at desk with a monitor, or alternatively on a sofa with a large television) it is difficult as the screenshot gameplay image are usually always copyrighted (except for those few games that freely licensed, like 0 A.D. (video game), which is how we are able to have an extended gameplay video on Let's Play). Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 14:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_playing_video_games has a lot of photos with screens kind-of visible, but I don't know how many have actually been checked and considered de minimis. How about File:Universum TV Multispiel 2006.jpg, though? Pong on a sofa, from a different museum. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that almost any nominal concept of a video game today is going to have copyrighted screen elements. The Pong graphics are simple enough to not qualify, and while being played on an oversized screen is atypical, we're also showing pretty much the first commercial successful video game, and that it is a specialty museum display. I don't think there's any issue with it. --M asem (t) 14:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do agree that a more "typical" video game image would be a better lead image if it were possible to get round the copyright issues. Popcornfud (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Any objection to File:Universum TV Multispiel 2006.jpg? --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * With no objections raised, I've replaced the giant pong screen with this museum photo. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It may be worth thinking about finding an "ideal" photo of someone playing a regular game on a modern, regular setup, and just editing a different game onto the screen, one which doesn't contradict the setup being used. Should be a relatively easy photoshop job, putting a rectangle over another rectangle. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Indie_video_games has some games which have released screenshots for free use. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Citation Needed on AAA Gaming leading to lower creativity in Opening paragraphs
In the 4th paragraph, this sentence appears: "In the 2000s, the core industry centered on "AAA" games, leaving little room for riskier, experimental games." This is an opinion that should either be removed, or reworded and given citations as to who believes AAA gaming prevents riskier, experimental games. MisterDogHeart (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's sourced in intro of the "History" section. --M asem (t) 15:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe both places need a rewording, then. Right now both in the history section and at the top, the claim is made as if it is an objective fact and not the opinion held by video game historians, breaking the neutral point of view guideline. MisterDogHeart (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022
Please remove the mention of chess from the lead; chess itself is not a computer game, and every computer-based iteration I’m aware of can’t be played without a video display. Maybe it’s referring to early text-based chess games?, but at best the claim needs clarification. 151.132.206.250 (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Many early chess programs, dating back to the 50s, were text only. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can that be clarified in the text rather than broadly referring to all chess games? Text adventures are by definition text-based; chess games are not. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I think it's pretty clear that chess computer games are being discussed based on the prose. Computer games are not all video games—for example text adventure games, chess... It's clearly speaking of computer game versions of chess. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Then can we change it to read that they may not depend on a graphics display? Because the majority that are played today certainly do, despite our categorically saying they do not. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I made it, first, computer chess which covers hardware versions. And added a may in there tl be clear that a display may not always be required. --M asem (t) 16:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Clears up any possible confusion that we’re saying something unfactual. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

See also section
Does anyone have a problem with me adding Women and video games to the see also section? I know it says to add any related links to Outline of video games, and I have done so. However, women and video games seems like a very closely related page to this Wikipedia page and is not currently linked anywhere on the page. Who says we can have Lists of video games and List of accessories to video games by system linked in this see also section but no others? I understand there is probably a desire not to let the see also section become overloaded but I see no consensus for these two links or limiting the section to only these two, so I ask if we can please make an exception to also allow the inclusion of this one link. Helper201 (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's too specific of a link. That page is linked through video game culture though. --M asem (t) 03:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Terminology
The Terminology section claims that all video games require a computer, which I find misleading, since some early games such as Pong or (despite it's name) Computer Space did not use any kind of computer or processor. --217.149.173.6 (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There was some type of fundamental computer circuit that meets the definition of a computing device. They may not be what today we think of as computers, but they would fit the definition of what computers were back then. --M asem (t) 12:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue
— Assignment last updated by OneGoodNut (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Yanlzhu (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2022
Change the tense of 'involves' in "Video games,[a] also known as computer games, are electronic games that involves interaction" to 'involve' for subject-verb agreement. Andrewdimola (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Highway 89 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2023
change http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/220936/spacechem-used-as-educational-tool-in-schools/ to https://animeallstories.blogspot.com/2023/05/the-original.html Adarsh0209 (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Archived source is infinitely better than a blog, which is not WP:RS Cannolis (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture
— Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2024
At the bottom this says its an American invention, but reading this and Early history of video games it seems like it could be an American or British or Canadian invention depending on what you call a video game or what you call an invention. It should be changed to say this instead of just saying its an American invention. 2A02:C7C:6424:5500:599E:DE08:3FED:1914 (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ removed the non defining category. M.Bitton (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow this is interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.204.185.176 (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)