Talk:History of video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated C-Class, Top-importance)
Gamepad.svg
Video games portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Too much focus on consoles?

It'd seem the article completely ignores computer games on and around the second half. This is supposed to be history of video games, not history of console video games. --Shadow86 (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats true, but if you read the entire article, you can see that he/she is geared more towards consoles, not because they are better, but becasue there is more to cover at the moment on console games. PCs do have a lot of selections and come out with a good number of games, but other thatn landmark titles such as World of Warcraft, Crysis, WCIII and other games such as Half Life, there really isnt anything that the console playing gamer will recognize immeditely upon reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.104.146.56 (talk • contribs)
Well, there's things like Games For Windows, and PC gaming hardware. Progress on nVidia's GeForce and ATI's Radeon graphics card ranges could go in. -- Sabre (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
And the flop that is DirectX 10. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, I can't agree more. For example, just try looking for Doom. It's surely one of the largest landmarks in PC-gaming history, not least because of its move beyond the painter's algorithm. There is also no mention of Half-Life as anything but the technological basis of Counterstrike. Admittedly, other genres (notably RTS's) are better covered. I agree that recent PC-gaming technology is ignored. There is, for example, no mention of the words "pixel shader".

I too wouldn't be so surprised if this were the article on History of console games, but I was redirected here from History of computer games. I feel there might be merit in separating the two, since their histories have been separate and, in my (perhaps limited) experience, their fan bases are quite separate. Just a suggestion though... Warrickball (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is fair to say that computer game and console game history are not intricately related. In the United States post-crash, it is true that for over a decade the paths of action-oriented console games and strategy/simulation-oriented computer games diverged as an older hobbyist crowd embraced computers and a yougner crowd embraced NES, SNES, and Genesis, but this ignores the world-wide context. In Europe, computer game players trended younger than their U.S. counterparts, and if you look at the popular games of the 1980s on the Spectrum you will find arcade conversions, shooters, and arcade adventures more like the console games found elsewhere. In Japan, it is impossible to ignore the correlation between computer and console games because Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy would not have existed without computer RPGs like Black Onyx, Ultima, and Wizardry. Even in the United States the boundries get murky when you consider EA, a successful computer game company that grew huge in consoles, or Activision, a console company that saved itself in the face of the crash by moving to computers and later came back to consoles.
This argument really fails, however, when you look at the last decade of video game history. The FPS has gradually moved from the PC to the console with games like Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, and Halo, and I see no way one could discuss the history of those games without first talking about DOOM, Quake, and Half-Life. Heck, even contemporary FPS games that appear in both forums like BioShock do much better on consoles than on PCs, where traditional gaming has been on the wane in the United States as MMORPGs and other products garner more attention. The computer RPG has basically shifted to the console market as well with companies like BioWare and Bethesda that began with innovative RPG products on the PC (Baldur's Gate, Morrowind) debuting and optimizing their current RPG products on Xbox or 360 (Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect, Oblivion). In short, the history of computer games and other video game media are closely linked and should be discussed as a single unit. I agree totally that the current attention paid to computer gaming in this article is insufficient, but hey, no one is stopping any of you from doing some editing to change that fact. I see no sense in going to talk to complain about something you can just fix yourself. Indrian (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advance of 3d gaming

Needs to be researched and added to the article. In 1992, Wolfenstein 3D and Ultima Underworld were full pseudo-three dimensional first person games. In 1994 System Shock 1, a fully polygonal game (with sprite-based enemies) was released, and Descent, which is widely known and remembered as "one of the first" 100% polygonal 3d games, was released. Console gaming was introduced to 3d games with Tomb Raider and Mario 64 as the two most iconic titles in 1996. 71.126.104.9 (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 8th generation and the Pandora console?

Which generation does the upcoming Pandora console belong to? Out of laziness you could say that the 7th generation isn't over at all, but when you look at it, 7th generation handhelds (GP2X, DS and PSP) all came out in 2004, as the Pandora is bound to come out in summer 2008, 4 years later, when a generation is easily considered to be roughly 5 years (and the Xbox 360 came out exactly 4 years and 1 week after the Xbox), and also considered its vast technical superiority (a developer has reported running the console stably at 900 MHz, which is a few times more than the PSP could, also it has a 800x480 screen which is 3 times the PSP's 480x272 screen resolution), sounds like you just can't put it in the same category as the DS, GP2X or PSP. Besides a generation doesn't have to end for another one to begin.

So, is the Pandora the first 8th generation console to (soon) be, and shall 2008 be marked as the beginning of this generation? --89.127.175.78 (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the entire concept of catagorizing hardware into arbitrary generations is meaningless in the first place..Asher196 (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes another "open source" console that has yet to come out (anybody remember the Phantom?) doesn't belong in the article. Wikipedia has clear policies on advertising, and frankly I'm surprised the entire Pandora article hasn't been put up for deletion yet. Date of release has only a small part to do with a "generation", that's usually decided by a combination of technology, chief competitor, and date. Likewise, with concrete references by gaming publications and the industry. I.E., the Dreamcast, Xbox, GameCube and PS2 are all the same generation because of those three standards. PS3, Wii, Xbox360 are the next. A yet to be released hand held with no actual market presence has nothing to offer except a brief mention in the current generation. You have to wait until it actually hits the market and establishes a presence in the market to get reviews calling it a "next gen" product. Everybody calls their own product "next generation" when they're first coming out, that's part of marketing. If it truly represents a beginning of a next generation, it'll be defined as such by reliable third party sources after it hits the market. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds very reasonable --89.127.175.78 (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW - I've called for a semi-protect on main article page because of the edit warring from the other anonymous ip's. That basically temporarily blocks all anonymous ip's from editing the page for a specific length of time. If you want to contribute to the page during that time, you have to register for an account here. And I'd strongly recommend it regardless of that, if you plan on sticking around and contributing to other articles as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the first newsletter dedicated to video games?

The article contains the following:

"In 1988, Nintendo published their first issue of Nintendo Power magazine, becoming what could be considered the first newsletter dedicated to video games, inspiring such magazines as Game Informer and PlayStation Magazine."

During the early 80s, there were many video game magazines that covered the industry, including Video Games, Joystik, Video Gaming Illustrated, Electronic Fun, Electronic Games, etc. Atari, Activision, Imagic, Coleco and others had their own newsletters as well.

The trade magazines of the coin-op industry, Replay and Playmeter, date back to the mid-70s.

Could someone please tell me if I'm reading that sentence incorrectly? If not, it should probably be removed.

Cheers.

129.82.250.202 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I read it the same way that you read it and have removed the odd claims made for it. - X201 (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed for first issue of Nintendo Power

The first issue of Nintendo Power was the 1988 July-August Premiere Issue, as noted on page 5 of that magazine. The cover featured a "clay" Mario, a subheading that read "Premiere Issue 1988" and a cover price of $3.50 even though a large yellow star contains the words "Free Sample Copy."

Page 5 contains both a US and Japan staff listing, as well as this line:

"Nintendo Power is published by Nintendo of America Inc. in conjunction with Tokuma Shoten Publishing Co., Ltd.

There do not seem to be any other identifying characteristics, such as an ISSN number.

Cheers.

[edit] About the Seventh generation

Am I the Only one who thinks it's wierd that the seventh generation starts with the N-Gage? Doesn't that fit better under sixth generation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.89.41.157 (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


129.82.250.158 (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:MGS screen psx.jpg

The image Image:MGS screen psx.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting the sixth and seventh generations as prose

I have rewritten (am rewriting?) the sections of the sixth and seventh generation as narrative prose to match the tone of the rest of the article, containing basically the same info as the bullet lists and organizing it into generational trends rather than as a strict chronology.

You may, of course, feel free to undo and/or nuke it in its entirety. ;-) Porphyrous (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seventh Generation cites

There are alot of claims made in that section, like PC gaming declining and PS3 declining etc.. While this might be true in general (most likely only for the US) there are citations for those and other claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.82.192 (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think finding GOOD references to factual information on that kind of topic is going to be very hard to find. Frankly with the amount of online gaming going on, I don't think PC gaming is declining... same goes for PS3 with their popular titles. I don't think you can relate that kind of information to video game sales alone, because the claim is that the gaming itself is declining..... keep in mind that a lot of the PC gaming industry sale isn't recorded because of high levels of piracy, and I'm sure the same can be said for other consoles as well at a lesser impact. --Poet  Talk  18:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I definitely agree. I just added a few citation needed tags to push the problem areas. There are some seriously big claims made and we desperately needed sources.--LostOverThere (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology of console video game generations

In this article, which purports to summarize all of the history of video games, there were links to six of the seven console generations, with no link to the article about the First Generation. Instead, the section "The golden age of video arcade games" appears to be in its place. The link to the "golden age" article is appropriate but the "First Generation" also needs to be included in this article in some way. For instance, one must navigate to the article on the "second generation" of console games in order to see that a first generation article exists. It seemed prudent to add a link to this page so that all seven generations are listed here in a consistent format. I placed the link under "The Dawn of Console Gaming" but if anyone has a better idea of how to list the First Generation in this article so that the First Generation is listed in a manner consistent with the other six generations, please go ahead. MJB2015 (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs to be restructured

The structure of the article is console-centric - particularly from the seventies onwards. For example, PC gaming's history does not follow the generational waves that consoles do and this article's structure is inappropriate and inadequate when describing video games in the PC context. It would be interesting to have an analysis of how the different markets are at once both self-contained and cross-fertilising. If the PC market is currently on the decline (perhaps temporarily), it might be interesting to understand the different factors at play.

Handhelds hardly get a look in - I would have thought that single-game handhelds from the eighties (such as Nintendo's Donkey Kong) are worthy of a mention as a precursor to the Nintendo DS (and for their sales success).

This is also a Western-oriented article. The huge, innovative and thriving Asian markets are largely ignored - we only read about those things that successfully cross-over to America & Europe.

There is no discussion of the impact of video games on culture and society, and vice versa:

- the convergence with home entertainment (home theaters, media centers, HD, wide screen, surround sound)
- changing gamer demographics and the opening-up of new markets
- persistent virtual worlds, such as Second Life and the blurring of the definition of "game"
- video gaming addictions and other health concerns and how this has affected games develpoment
- ratings controversies, censorship and the claim (and counter claims) that video games cause antisocial outcomes 
- the growing character levelling industry (paying people "offshore" to level your character)
- the growing profession of video gamers and video game NPC actors as well as tournaments and conferences
- the impact video games have had on other media such as film (film spin-offs and game cross-overs)
- video gaming's growing economic impact (the claim that gaming is a larger industry than the film industry)
- communities that form around video games (guilds, modding communities, fan sites, collectors)
- the topic of abandonware and copyrights for assets that have no viable owner
- software piracy and digital rights management and the impact this has had on game development
- virtual in-game assets having real-world value and being traded (on eBay, for example)
- the subject of obsolescence, loss of gaming artefacts (e.g. arcade PROMs), museums and emulators
- the use of games in marketing, recruitment and propaganda

Finally, because the last half of this article is mainly a history of console gaming, it doesn't discuss the development of genres nor the changing fashion of subject material.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Morsera (talk • contribs) 22:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of what you suggest is material that deserves to be covered some where, but I think it is largely beyond the scope of the main article, which has to summarize major events. Most of the topics above would need there own daughter articles, I think, rather than having information added here.
As for your PC vs. console argument, you might be suprised how well historic breaks in the PC market coincide with console generations.
The first generation (1972-1976) period marked the rise of gaming on mainframe computers, from Star Trek in 1972 through Adventure and Dungeon. The second generation (1976-1984) marks the period that home computers first appeared in the form of the TRS-80, PET, Vic-20, TI-99, and, later, the Spectrum and C64. The most popular computer games in this period tended to be arcade clones, while PC-specific genres such as RPGs, wargames, and adventure games, both interactive fiction and graphical, began to emerge.
In 1984-85, the home computer market went bust just as the concole market had in 1983-84. The third generation period (1985-1989) marked the full flowering of the point-and-click adventure, the CRPG, and military simulation games in the United States and the heyday of more action-oriented fare in the United Kingdom. The period was largely dominated by the C64, Apple II, and Spectrum, but a shift to 16-bit computers began with the release of the ST and the Amiga and culminated in the rise of the VGA standard on PCs, leaving that computer poised to take over the market.
The fourth generation period (1989-1994) marked the coming of age of computer gaming through the VGA standard, the Sound Blaster, and the promise of multimedia. Populous, Sim City, and Civilization illustrated how the GUI interface could result in complex strategy games that were simple enough to enjoy more widespread appeal, 7th Guest and Myst brought mainstream recognition to ponit-and-click adventure gaming, and Doom ushered in an era of hardcore action-gaming that allowed PC gaming to flirt with the popularity of console gaming for a short time. In Europe, the Spectrum petered out as a game platform as the Amiga took over the market with hits like Lemmings and Sensible Soccer.
The fifth generation (1995-2000) marked a transitional period in PC software. The interactive movie fad came and went, taking the point-and-click adventure down with it, while the military simulation games that were big hits in the late 1980s now had small appeal compared to the new emerging mass market brough on through 3D technology, first-person perspective, real-time gameplay, and the Internet. Command & Conquer and Warcraft II ushered in the RTS genre (not the first games, but the first big hits), Quake demonstrated the power of 3D and the allure of the internet, Starcraft and Half-Life marked high points for narrative in gameplay as well as massive sales of many millions, and Ultima Online and Everquest hinted at a new frontier.
The sixth generation period (2000-2005) saw the rise of the casual phenomenon. Pop Cap games was founded and unleashed Bejewled and Zuma, while Maxis unleashed the Sims and brought unheard of sales to the platform. Meanwhile, the single player experience began to melt away as Unreal Tournament, Battlefield 1942, Call of Duty, and Counterstrike turned the first-person shooter from a solitary fight for survival into a dynamic team game with more varied objectives.
The seventh generation (2005-present) is not over, so its themes cannot entirely be known, but so far it appears the story is dying retail, the rise of digital distribution through services such as Steam, fierce debate over piracy through P2P services, and the juggernaut that is World of Warcraft.
Sure, maybe the section names should be more generic so as not to appear console-centric, but it is hard to argue that console generations do not create natural breaking points in computer game history as well. Indrian (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


I'd argue that a comprehensive history would discuss all relevent events and not merely the major publishing or hardware releases events. I agree that it is not possible to put all this material into the one article and so a restructure would be required, along with daughter pages, in which case this article would become more of a master index/summary.
Retrofitting the history of other platforms into the structure that suits the history of consoles is really quite an arbitrary thing to do - just because we can doesn't mean we should. We could come-up with countless other ways of structuring the timeline. For example we could base the structure on major technical breakthroughs or on the development of the gaming market (the opening-up of new markets and quantum leaps in video game consumer populations).
As indicated in the article header, we need more citations in this article to substantiate the claims made in the article. We also need an agreement on what constitutes an event worthy of inclusion in this history (Pop Cap, while a producer/publisher of excellent products with an innovative business model, arguably hasn't had the impact that, say, Space Invaders had).
Morsera (talk)
Any breaking of material into sections is arbitrary by definition. Breaking along the lines of console generations is useful because it is possible to structure computer game and arcade game history within a similar framework and therefore discuss all three facets in a coherent manner without much jumping back and forth in time while also keeping each chunk relatively small so the audience is not overwhelemed with information. Also, I think you should reconsider the importance of Pop Cap, etc. Space Invaders began a process of interesting the mass market in arcade games just as Pop Cap was one of the opening salvos in the current mass market video game appeal. I imagine more people have played Bejewled than have played Space Invaders, and Pop Cap needs to be mentioned (not covered in depth) for its role in the market shift that has slowly brought a larger audience into gaming.
As for your other categories above, most of them are not historical in nature but rather anthropological. Obsolescence really has no bearing on video game history itself, only on society's ability to play old games. Video game addiction and whether or not it exists is a societal issue that would need a whole daughter article to explore, and since the research is still in its infancy, has not really had a historical impact yet. The growing character levelling industry and the selling of virtual items are basically unique concerns of MMORPGs and similar online prodcuts and are better covered there than here, where they make barely a ripple in larger video game history. Abandonware and copyright is a legal matter that has little to do with the evolution of the industry. I agree that demographic shifts, convergence with other media, piracy, persistent worlds, and the ongoing violence controversy have enough impact to be covered in a general history article, but the rest is either too niche or not historical enough in nature. Indrian (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
So, let's break the history up into the most significant milestones (which undoubtedly includes the release of console generations), but let's not pretend that the "generation" labelling applies to anything other than consoles.
I was using a comparison of Pop Cap and Space Invaders for illustrative purposes - I wasn't stating a position. Pop Cap may or may not be worthy of inclusion - this isn't the point I was making, which was: (1) we need to agree some way of benchmarking significant events, and (2) that we need to back-up any claim with cited evidence. We couldn't include Pop Cap on the basis of your imagination, for example ;-). With regards to point (1) - what is the criteria for inclusion? Again, continuing the illustration, 'Bejeweled' may indeed have been played by more people (evidence?) - but has it had the same impact as 'Space Invaders'? How do you measure this? Which one opened-up the biggest market? Which one racked-up the most playing hours? Which one generated the most revenue (in present terms)? Which was the more revolutionary? Influential? I am not proposing any answers - my point is for an item to be included it must meet certain criteria, and have provided a significant, sustained and substantiated impact with the same order of magnitude as the other items in the history.
As far as the points I have raised, if they have significantly impacted the history (or evolution) of video games then they have a place here (whether or not they are anthropological). Depending on the criteria, they may or may not warrant inclusion and there are surely be others that should be included. The list was just a brain dump to generate discussion. So I am not precious about the list, but I am suggesting that the current treatment is superficial, unsubstantiated, unbalanced and incomplete particularly in the later half.
Morsera (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC).
I agree entirely with your last sentence, though I have no plans to try and add the missing information to this article myself. I also agree that generations should not be used as section headers, I merely believe that the generational timeframes dovetail very well with developments in all sectors of video game entertainment and therefore provide a good framework for breaking up video game history. I don't believe the article needs to be greatly restructured as your subject header implies, which is why I posted a response, but I certainly believe it needs to be refocused and greatly expanded to do the topic justice. Whoever wants to try that, I wish them luck. Indrian (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Where to begin...

"Beginning with PCs, a new trend in casual gaming, games with limited complexity that were designed for shortened or impromptu play sessions..."

I'm not so sure that the Sims qualifies as a casual game. It isn't the kind of game you play for 10 minutes, it isn't shareware and it isn't from a small internet based game publisher. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fanboy in the least, I just don't think it can accurately be labeled a casual game. Also some casual games [Like Airstrike 3-D and Geneforge] often appeal to a different crowd than the one's who play Bejeweled and Diner's Dash.

There is no mention of single player flash and shockwave gaming which has been on the rise for the later half of this decade. There is too little mention of browser based mmo's [which seem to have taken a significant share of the market in the latter half of this decade].

Also, the sections of this article are incongruously placed. Someone needs to chose whether to arrange the sections by chronology, subject or whatever and stick to it. Also, there is hardly any mention of Macintosh or Windows in the late 90's which I clearly remember to be equally notable portions of my gaming experience [and possibly more predominant than consoles at that time].

Someone should really take the time to fix this article. It's a real mess in probably more areas than are mentioned on the entire discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.194.84 (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Generations?

Am I the only one who thinks classifying the various gaming generations is ridiculous? This is not the first time I've heard of different "gaming generations" before, but I've never seen it classified into different years like it is in this article. As well, I see a lot of the information is pieced together to FIT into a generation, when the article itself should be discussing trends in general rather than different hardware available. Additionally, a lot of the claims in the latest generation are way off and have no statistical or factual information to back them up, and again it seems like information is being pushed into a generation (about hardware, false trends to gaming) just fill the section.

I also see that the 6th generation is from 1998-2008, and the 7th is from 2004-present.... how can 2005-2007 be in the 6th AND 7th generation? This must have been a typo, but again I think it's related to the fact that nobody really understands when a "generation" begins or ends, and the date has been played with too many times. With the 5th generation it's the same. The section says 1994-2002, but the 6th starts in 1998. ARGH!

If anything the generations should be defined by decades as the article itself is. Example: Gen 1, 1970s. Gen 2, 1980s, etc.. However, even if you went and did generations like that, you would be completely ignoring obvious gaming trends (for example the release of the NES so very late in the 80s should not end a generation a few years into its release).

My vote is to completely remove the "generations" and place the information into different sections based on trends. Keep in mind that a lot of the sections can be broken off into different articles. There should be different sections for all of the different types of gaming (arcade, console, PC, handheld, etc) and then further broken into generational trends from there.... not all slapped together into different generations that nobody can decide on. --Poet  Talk  19:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've had issue with the use of generation, especially as several consoles never seem to fit within the "generation" qualifier.陣内Jinnai 22:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Generations can be concurrent. There are still PS2 games being produced and the PS2 is still produced, so that continues the 6th generation. A generation in my view ends when production for the last console is ended and begins when the first console is introduced. 68.63.241.215 (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] History seems pro-console/handheld

With the exception of early mentions, the article (and all generation articles related to this) are pro-console/handheld despite the term "video game" being widely used to also include "computer games". The article bases generations solely on consoles and completely ignores the computers. This is becoming more of an issue as lines begin to blur between computer and console as well.陣内Jinnai 21:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  • If you would look through the talk page, including a thread just a few posts above, you would see this is brought up every so often, and I am usually the one responding. To restate in brief, all the console information in here belongs but there should be more info on computer games as well. The solution is for editors to add that information. Not an issue that really needs a new talk thread. Indrian (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I posted this because I added the {{bias}} tag so it was clear why I added it.陣内Jinnai 04:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, well that makes sense in a way. I confess I did not notice. I do not really think that is what the neutraility tag is for. There is no POV pushed in the article whatsoever; it is just woefully incomplete. We should wait for others to weigh in, of course, but I would be inclined to remove the tag. If you can think of a more suitable tag to get your point across, I would have no problem with you adding that. Indrian (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Changed the tag.陣内Jinnai 18:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
          • That is much better, thanks. Indrian (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
            • I still believe it may fail WP:NPOV since the history is broken down based on console generation, which appears to advance the position that video game advancements are based on console generations and that after their introduction they are what's important. This is also the problem with the articles themselves as well. Putting PC game advancements inside them would be breaking NPOV because they aren't generations as has been pointed out.陣内Jinnai 04:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Genres

Should we be listing various levels of Video game genres in the genre advancement when we list a bunch? I'm thinking unless there is a specific innovation of a particular game, we should use the broadest genre when listing a group of them such as genre innovation of the 1980s.陣内Jinnai 22:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_video_games"