Talk:Video game/Archive 4

Removed a line from the discription of casual games
It read, "Note: Most games made by Gabe Newell are casual games." opinion and a crock of sh*t so, yeah, it's gone.

Game Sales section not up to date
The Game Sales section needs an update, as the sales presented here are from 2004. By then even the Xbox 360 wasn't on the market, let alone the Wii or the PS3. Since then the sales have gone up quite a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholewa (talk • contribs) 17:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The sales section also has listed sales from 2006 in a 2004 NPD report? They can tell future sales as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.251.79 (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's true. In the past few years, the prices for xbox 360 games have gone up ten dollars. Perhaps it's due to the enhanced graphics and gameplay. All in all, the game sales section should be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfilibert (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Check the grammar!
I know it's a stupid mistake, but it's important to check that an article doesn't have grammar or spelling mistakes. If we don't, Wikipedia will be taken as a very informal encyclopedia.

For example: "A video game is an electronic game that involves interaction with a user interface" USER stars with vowel, so you should put AN instead o A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.166.89 (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the use of a vs an is decided based upon the first sound of a word, not letter. In this case, user opens with a hard sound and so it should not be preceded by an an. Khalfani  Khaldun  04:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Floppy disks
Video games are VERY educational. They help with school, like MUFFINS I have heard that video games used to sell on floppy disks, but now they are no longer sold on floppy disks. Could someone tell me upto what date and what year video games were sold on floppy disks? Enco1984 (talk) 07:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a tough question. I don't think there is any formal tracking of this. It's conceivable that there were games released on floppy into the early 2000's. Major distribution of computer games on floppy would have run from around 1980 till around 1999 though as prior to that games commonly came on cassette tape and by 2000 the CD-ROM was ubiquitous enough as a distribution method that it made more sense from a cost standpoint to provide a CD. Off the top of my head the last major games from a top tier publisher sold on floppy that I can recall were the Yoda Stories and Indiana Jones mini games LucasArts released in 1997... that's just an example... 2007 was the big turning point for floppies in general as that was the year several manufactures dropped the product line and by 2007 computers were commonly shipping without a floppy drive. I hope that gives you somewhere to start from.BcRIPster (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember when this was happening. I say the cut-off point for most game makers was the period 1994-1996. LucasArts last large games to get floppy releases were Sam & Max in 1993 and TIE Fighter in 1994. After that they went CD, except for the smaller Yoda Stories and Indy mini-games. In that period I remember games also stopped shipping with MIDI soundtracks in favor of digital recordings, such as Command & Conquer, which was another thing they could do since they didn't have to make a separate floppy release. Davhorn (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As you say, a little after '94 would seem to be at least the start of the switchover to me, which would roughly have coincided with the release of Win95... Personally, a pre-released copy of Win95 was when I started using CDs and I'm sure there were floppy-based games around then... But as BcRIPster said, it's pretty hard to guess... Tr00st (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd say more like '78 through mid to late 90's. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Recommended additions
hi i just wanted to ask if it was possible to mention about epilepsy (esp. photosensitive epilepsy) as it regards to video games. i believe many games now have a warning on them about this and i do not see any mention of it in the article. thank you. Apolovsky (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, what should be added though? Epilepsy.com has an article about it, but as it says: "Reports in newspapers and on television have heightened public awareness that playing video games can, in rare cases, trigger seizures, but there is no scientific evidence that video games can cause epilepsy." Davhorn (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong reference
Reference 26, regarding the average age and other demographics, links to the wrong article. I'm new here, so I don't know how to fix it. I suppose this is the article it is supposed to direct to http://www.ibisworld.com/pressrelease/pressrelease.aspx?prid=133 Hope somebody could fix it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstandby (talk • contribs) 07:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Custom game program
Is there a totally 'predetermined' game-making program - sort-of a game mould (which would make games to be played on a simple standard Windows GUI (a card/window with standard buttons)) in which one can quickly create icon-like static graphics visually representing custom game characters, give them abilities and other characteristics through built-in parameter options (no programing language knowledge required whatsoever), and then play it on X x Y grid - say 20x15 (with some simple graphics (square tile bitmaps for the background and obstacles))? An extremely simple program for a simple game, looking more like WinMines game than a common roll-playing game (only, of course, you would have action panel to the right of the gamefield). (the concept I have in mind is that players engaged in a match of such game arrange all their game characters/units (or the time runs out) and then the turn is executed simultaneously for all).

The other kind of game-making program I would like to know of if it exists is Crimsonland-like game-making program (2D, photo-realistic graphics, fixed top-down perspective).
 * This isn't the appropriate place to ask. That being said, it may be worth mentioning in the article that most games these days are built on existing game engines.--Mrcolj (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to open up the discussion further but take a look at Game Maker (close to what you've described) or M.U.G.E.N. As for the subject of "most games" being built on existing game engines. That's probably true, although you would want to find a solid reference to a source who has done an exhaustive audit on the subject before stating it as a fact. I would bet a more simplified "X # of the top Y games in the last Z years pre-built game engine technology". For some reason I thought I say a report about this that was a puff piece for the Unreal Engine, but I would bet there is an unbiased evaluation floating around out there as well. BcRIPster (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

An inefficient sentence
"The word video in video game traditionally referred to a raster display device.[1] However, with the popular use of the term 'video game', it now implies any type of display device." I'm just declaring that I edited that sentence down. The evolution of the term "video" doesn't do much for the article, and isn't quite accurate. It didn't originally mean "raster" except that raster graphics fed to an analog CRT was all that existed. The patent they reference doesn't use the word "raster" once.--Mrcolj (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence as written is correct. The reference to the patent is for clarification. While the patent does not specifically use the word Raster. A "standard monochrome and color television receivers" refers to a raster based display technology. In this case raster refers to the approach of outputting an image to a screen in a series of scan lines. Historically video games were based almost exclusively on this type of display technology. It's less about the evolution of the term video, and more about the evolution of the method of viewing. So again, the sentence as written is correct. BcRIPster (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, BcRIPster is correct on the function of the sentence. Likewise one would expect an encyclopedic article to cover what the term originally referred to vs. it's evolution to it's current usage - a source of confusion for many, as evidenced here, especially when applied in hidsite. It originally referred to a raster or television display, which is what a video display is, as opposed to other methods of non-video display.  You're under the incorrect assumption (as are many) that simply because a CRT is used that makes it a video display.  Video specifically refers to the presence of a video signal, and in the court's definition of the time, a video signal hooked to a raster or television display.  Vector crt's have no video signal.  I.E. the "video" in "video game" is there for a reason. Throughout much of the 70's they were referred to simply as "tv games" as well, and it was during the early 80's video game explosion that the term began being applied much looser by the press and in pop-culture, eventually growing to it's current usage. I would point you towards Ralph Baer's good book if you're interested in learning about the history of the early industry. Ralph's patents (including the one used in the example), are the first in the industry and were/are considered referred to as the pioneer patents by the courts. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on term "interactive entertainment" that was added to opening paragraph
So, at some point someone added the term "interactive entertainment" to the opening sentence. While the term is often used as a descriptive noun for the video game industry, as I understand it, it originates from the 70's with the first attempts to create live, real-time user feedback driven cable programming (eg, push the button on your remote to vote). Additionally, I'm not sure if it qualifies as a term that people would automatically associate with video gaming in general.

Unfortunately my attempts to find an appropriately dated reference related to early cable TV have been stymied by a combination of uses by "Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment" and Microsoft's WebTV patents.

My question though, is this really appropriate to have this term here? What's everyone else's thoughts? BcRIPster (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that as well. Don't think it belongs either, to vague a term - lots of things are "interactive entertainment". --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll leave the question hanging till next week and if there isn't anyone jumping in with a compelling reason to keep it, I'll strike it from the paragraph. BcRIPster (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's gone now. BcRIPster (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger discussion
I suggest merging Graphical video game to here. While I feel the information is accurate, it's just a stub article that could just as well be explained here. SharkD  Talk  14:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, graphical video game is little more than a dic-def at present. I also don't think the term is in use, given the recent dearth of text-based video games. –xenotalk 14:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete altogether  Redirect and delete info.  I see nothing supporting the content, which smacks of WP:OR and gives zero references.  It reads like someone's attempt to differentiate between text computer games and games that use graphics.  Confusing at best, since even text games that use text to represent maps and characters (ala Rogue, DND, Deep Deadly Dungeons and Escape from the Ascii Trolls) are employing "visual images". --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not quite true. The old mainframe games didn't use graphics (and couldn't be relied upon to have any type of screen at all :) ). The term is in common use when describing this transition period. See:, , . It's also used when talking about translating PnP games to the computer. SharkD   Talk  17:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's incorrect. The page doesn't state what you say, the irony is your discussion of "graphics" is in fact more exact than that content.  All it states is "any game which employs visual images", which is to broad for the intended purpose - the text games mentioned previously also employ "visual images", i.e. their visual images of maps and characters (some updated real time).  Your supportive references also are lacking, the paper you cite uses the term once in the entire page and gives no attempt at definition, the second doesn't use it at all and is a blog, and the third also uses the term once and gives no definition - let alone it's a mishmash of conflicting terminology.  And that's also incorrect about "the old mainframe games", you're over generalizing.  Many used terminals capable of displaying what are called character graphics, the same as early home computers used. Mainframe systems like Plato also used terminals known for it's graphics support. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet the character graphics weren't utilized very much before Rogue, and most roguelikes appeared well after graphical systems were commonly available. I don't think it's fair to cherry-pick a genre that is mostly a modern cult/clique phenomena that is intentionally low-tech. As for my second link, you need to look closer.


 * Searching for "graphical game" produces a lot more reliable hits, though there's a second meaning of the term specific to game theory as opposed to game design. SharkD   Talk  02:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but that's way off. A) I used Rogue as one example of several, there was no cherry picking.  I also could have listed Star Trek, Empire, 3D tic tac toe, Orbit, Life, Geowar, or a slew of other 70's mainframe and home computer games that used both plain text or character graphics based visual images. Portraying text games with graphical elements as some sort of modern phenomena is factually inaccurate, and irresponsible at best.  B) Your repeated claim about what was "commonly available" is just that, a claim.  C) I stand by my statement, the second article does not include the phrase "graphical video game", and it is simply a blog. D) Regarding your search for more references: once again, the article in question you're proposing to merge is for "graphical video game", not "graphical game".  If you've been doing searches for "graphical game" instead of the proposed merger's actual title and definition, I can understand where your confusion is coming from then. D) Finally, again the fact remains that none of what you're stating has anything to do with what is being opposed - All the proposed merged article states as a definition is "any game which employs visual images", which is to broad for the intended purpose - the text games mentioned previously also employ "visual images", i.e. their visual images of maps and characters (some updated real time).  None of what you've claimed regarding supposed availability, popularity, or any related sidetracking debate has anything to do with that fact. Bearing that, I see no merit in the content in that article and bringing it here.  At the very least, we're in agreement that the article in question in no way deserves it's own entry at Wikipedia. So far consensus is split in merging it to here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A few points:
 * 1) Explain to me the difference between "graphical video game" and "graphical game" in this context?
 * 2) You're assuming that the author wasn't only referring to console-based text games under his definition of "games which [don't] employ visual images." Under the broader definition games that use characters as elements of larger images would also fit. The "Many or most of the video games which are most well-known" part also make me not believe this, though it's not 100% conclusive.
 * 3) I would still demonstrate that the "raster only" definition is in use. At least sometimes. Which I believe it is, and which would preclude deletion (following minor modifications at least). Your focus on "correctness" at the expense of all else leads me to believe you are ignoring that Wikipedia is about what "is" &mdash; or what can be demonstrated as being believed &mdash; not just what "is right". Just because an opinion isn't 100% correct doesn't mean it's not worthy of inclusion in one form or another.
 * 4) You're right, the current sources don't support this definition.
 * SharkD  Talk  06:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see this is just going to keep going and going. The statements about my supposed focus and my supposed objection to "what is" are just not accurate.  This article (video game) currently reflects "what is" and includes all visual electronic game mediums, including computer games (text and graphical).  Even this whole discussion has been on discerning between graphical video games vs. text video games, and so I'm rather shocked then at your point 3. Regarding point 1, honestly, the difference is not that hard to discern when you're looking for sources - the article is "graphical video game", the definition given is for "graphical video game", the definition being argued is the unreferenced "definition" for "graphical video game" given at "graphical video game".  Looking for "graphical game" and assuming context does not back up the current attempted definition "graphical video game" - you yourself said about multiple meanings to the term "graphical game".  You can't state the term "graphical video game" is common, and then try and back it up with the term "graphical game".  Just as you stated "The old mainframe games didn't use graphics" when they clearly did use both graphical elements and graphics as shown.  The definition the "graphical video game" article was going for could indeed be changed to a simple one (displaying elements or all game play in a graphical manner vs. simply describing it in text) and you may actually be able to  synthesize a definition from contextual sources as you're trying.  That again though has little to do with the fact that the information in that article as it stands, including it's definition, is a poor attempt at describing it and gives no value to what's already in this article as BCRipster mentions.  I'm not opposed to expanding what's already here (in the video game article), through valid references.  A section discussing the differences of non-graphical games vs. graphical ones should have been added a while ago, especially since "computer games" was merged to "video games" by the project. And if you find them, I'll be happy to work with you and help.  I honestly believe we both have good intentions here, but different viewpoints on what's being stated.  And I honestly think it's just time to wrap it up and let other people have their say.  Maybe an RFC over at the project is in order as well? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, from the standpoint of deleting the other page. The topic is already covered in this page. BcRIPster (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anywhere where the topic is discussed in the article. "Text based adventures" are briefly mentioned in the Multiplayer section, but that's all. SharkD   Talk  06:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to get into this argument with you since you and Wgungfu already beat it to death. Suffice it to say, "graphical video game" is like saying water is wet. Do we need to have a wiki page for "wet water"? The page already covers that video games use graphics in that it talks about video games being generally defined by their graphical output. If you want to add a sub section talking about the nuances of textual vs. graphical games that is probably fine but it's not just a one-liner. See my related comments below. BcRIPster (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My gut says redirect, but I see the argument for deletion as well. Really, the only leg a redirect argument has is that the term is a possible search term because the content in graphical video game is basically original research at this point. A proper section in this article would require some serious research because the nuances of our language allows from some different interpretations of the "graphics". I remember a similar issue with trying to define "platforms" with limited sources. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC))
 * It should be noted that even even the text in text games were sometimes referred to as text graphics. Take for instance the old text based Star Trek game from the 70's. I first played it in highschool in the mid 80's over a 110bps teletype connection into the school districts mainframe. The teletype would output the screen to a printer role. You would type the command, hit enter and then the teletype would kick out the next screen of data received from the mainframe. The "graphics" consisted of strategic placement of characters like "+, -, |, /, ^, *", etc... to create the intended visual representation. Quite a few early mainframe games were played like this. These were considered text graphics and clearly fall into a middle zone not accounted for in the page being discussed for merger and throw water on the idea that mainframe games didn't use graphics. "Graphics" is to subjective a term... how about the next evolutions ANSI graphics? VT graphics? Both of these are just extend text fonts, not true graphics in the modern sense. I'm just calling this out to note that the subject "what is a graphical game" is way more complex and nuanced than you might suspect. BcRIPster (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For sh*ts and giggles, here's another twist on this ASCII art from 1934. BcRIPster (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In regards to a redirect, I think that sounds like a good idea. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect: Doesn't hurt to have a redirect there, even if it isn't a frequently-used one. The old text-based games (which I've most often heard referred to as "text adventures" rather than "video games") can be properly summarized as a subset of video games in general.  But NOBODY in this day and age refers to video games as "graphical video games" - the term is redundant, and its only significant use in the industry occurred when non-text graphics were first starting to be used for games.  Also, regarding the discussions above about what constitute "graphics": The term does not have to refer to any specific method of presenting a game.  Any method, whether lines, ASCII art, polygons, bitmaps, vector beams, LCD blobs, you name it, can be regarded as "graphical" when its application goes beyond simply writing words to a screen.  The term "video game" is largely recognized as meaning "a game whose presentation is generated by a computer and presented on a display device [screen, TV, etc.]", but is generally agnostic as to what the exact implementation is.  That means that you don't really need to argue about what subclasses of computer games are "video games" so much. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow up- so what's the going on with Graphical video game? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Looking at the above, it looks like the majority consensus is/was to not merge the article here, and replace the article itself with a redirect to here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like we're not going to get any more comments. I think redirecting it here would be fine at this point. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

I believe that it would be acceptable to merge the two articles with the "text adventures" added into the " history of video games" section.Witeink ρεβῼ 01:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witeink (talk • contribs) I've removed the discussion notice and redirected the other page to here. I think that closes the matter.BcRIPster (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Gambit Gaming Network
Another great place I have found is http://www.gambitgaming.isgreat.org/

Video Games and Anime, as well as a growing community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.159.40 (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit
Quoting edit summaries:
 * H3llknw0z: "OR to proper sentence, cannot say "despite" like that if it's not sourced"
 * 68.199.67.123: "no offense but, look at a fucking video game box. shall I put a montage together?"
 * H3llknw0z: "the reference applies to only 1 fact, not both and WP:BOP is not on me. Connecting the facts like that is WP:OR."
 * 68.199.67.123: "buddy, I don't recall telling you that the burden of proof was on you. now stop being such a WP:JA and arguing semantics with me, kay? Your last edit changed *nothing* about the sentence."


 * I provided a valid reason for my changes. I have not removed the fact you added. I also did not say that you put any burden of proof on me. And, although my edit may not have changed the meaning, it did change the referencing.
 * You have added an unsourced statement and linked it to another already referenced statement. There is nothing in this source that corresponds to the fact you have added. What my edit changed is the attribution of reference to avoid original research.
 * Lastly, please refrain from using ad hominems towards me as this serves no purpose in improving the article. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 19:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Brought you down to Earth a bit though, right? Perhaps I shouldn't have been as aggressive as I was, but in all fairness throwing various policy articles at me didn't thoroughly explain your point, that the reference applied to *both* statements with the sentence structured like that. And you implied that I claimed that BOP was on you with the third statement listed above. Also, I think George Orwell would've liked to have a chat with you about your word choice. Plain English makes just as strong of an argument and makes you look a little less pompous.--PJDEP (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition to what I said above, your first attempt at fixing the sentence wasn't particularly coherent. "Although/however" is simply a better word to use then "also", which didn't work within the context of the passage. That was my initial beef.--PJDEP (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Terminology in "Overview: Platforms" section.
When this section was last heavily revised the use of the word "standard" in the second paragraph in my mind was used to imply "commonly used" vs "Standard Definition TV". Someone has recently augmented the second sentence of the second paragraph by adding "high-definition" so it now reads:

"A "console game" is played on a specialized electronic device that connects to a standard or high-definition television set or composite video monitor."

Given my perception of the original intent of the sentence, I feel that the inclusion of the words "high-definition" are an unnecessary qualifier and also change the context of the word "standard". Does anyone else here feel this current version is a reasonable structure for this sentence or should it be reverted and maybe a more specific word than "standard" used to clarify the original intent? Thoughts? BcRIPster (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well... it's been a few weeks without comment so I have gone ahead and changed the words "standard or high-definition" to "common" to restore the original intent of the sentence. If someone has a better wording to use than "common" let's talk about it as this still may not be the optimal word to use here. BcRIPster (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Addition of non-technical origins of play in History section.
This is the text that was added:

Video games draw from gameplay patterns that have emerged repeatably within 5000 years of recorded history, influenced by sports, board games, roleplaying games, card games and wargames.

I like the notion of expanding this area to cover a non-technical side of the history but I disagree with the presentation in this sentence. I don't believe we need to invoke "5000 years" here unless we want to open up the religious can of worms that is associated with it. Plus this sentence leans heavily on table top board games which are clearly an element of gaming but not as heavily as this sentence implies. Finally who is this author and what is the provenance of this blog that it qualifies the author to be citeable?

Like I said, I like the idea of expanding this notion but it needs to be a little more comprehensive if we're going to do it. BcRIPster (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it belongs in the section. That section is just a summarization of actual early history with a pointer to an actual full history page.  Someone's personal thoughts and theory from their blog on the history of social games belongs in another section or in the history article itself.  To expand it to include that theory in the summary, I'd really need to see evidence that it's a widely held viewpoint.  That's lots of theories that could be tied to the rise and creation of electronic and video games, but then we'd be talking about a regular section again and not the brief summarization this is supposed to be. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You make a very good point. I think I'll agree with you on this and let it go. By the way, thanks for that catch on the other change made in that "Early games" paragraph in that section. I was so busy considering the other insertion that I missed it. BcRIPster (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Programmers
The main reason why video games are popular is because most gamedesigners programm the games to CHEAT. That makes it a lot more difficult win. Almost impossible to some. it is the difficulty through the cheating that can be addicting and it is mainly unnoticed by the player. In other games, the Download games, that are played online with other players have two flaws. 1: Glitches that allow the player to do things other can not do. 2: Hackprogramms from other websites that are specified for the game, allow the player to do things others can not.

a few Hack examples (these are specified on shooting games like "Cross Fire" or "Wolf Team"): -wall-hack: allows other players to shoot throu walls -aimbot: every hit is a head shot -life-hac: very long survival time or invincibility -all-hit-hack: every shot hits (not necessarily the head)

Discussion about Interactive art merger proposal
I'm not sure why the person proposing this didn't setup a voting block but I'll voice my thoughts here anyways. Personally, this probably is worth a link from the Video Games page to a page about this kinds of art, but I'm having a hard time seeing how to integrate the two pages. Interactive art, more often than not IMHO has nothing to do with what would be considered a video game, or a game of any kind for that matter. Granted a small number of games (IMHO mostly indi titles) aspire to also be interactive art. I think I'm against a merger. BcRIPster (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, I'm against a merger for the same reasons. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just came across this. I'm not certain when the merge was first suggested and so far this is the only discussion that appears to have taken place. There's no good reason to merge Interactive art into this article. Interactive art is an established term and has nothing to do with with video games. Some interactive art employs video games but that would make video games a subset of the former. In any case, there seems to be an agreement here that merging is not really necessary so I'll be bold and remove the merge tag on the other article.  freshacconci  talk talk  17:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was on July 1st. At this point it's safe to say there's no consensus for a merge. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)