Talk:Multiplayer game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

All the computer and video game content is now at Multiplayer video game. This page should obviously be for the more general concept. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, but in moving everything to the video games, you moved the history section. Some of the first multi-player computer games were played on Glass TTYs (character/terminal based, prior to raster/pixel based units). Spacewar, often credited as being the first was certainly, by any rational definition, a "video game".

That is - the first Multiplayer computer games were these video games. Its not clear that anyone would think to go there looking for that history.

So ... someone should add some text here to say that that's where the history is, or move the history section back or make some sort of compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.88.58 (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I played Spacewar on a PDP back in 1970s, loading the program on paper tape and so was part of this history. But I don't consider it a multiplayer game or special in the history of multiplayer games. For thing, it didn't allow more than two players and so doesn't qualify. But to help out I'll add a See also section in which useful navigation links can go. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I like what you did with the links. I'm pretty sure the multi-player version of Spacewar never left MIT - but I have no first hand knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherCaldwell (talkcontribs) 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You should check Special:Whatlinkshere/Multiplayer game. Many links point here and most of them are from articles on video games. While I don't think this move harms those links (apart from the double-redirects that need fixing), it does make them less specific. --Mrwojo (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The authors of articles about computer/video games seem to have the habit of assuming that these are the only types of game. This is obviously incorrect. AFAIC, games are much more general than their components and a given theme such as Star Wars is often rendered into the form of a computer game, card game, board game, miniatures game, RPG and more. Editors should allow for this and avoid recentism. I'll be doing what I can to help myself. Note that I got into this because I saw that the Category:Multiplayer video games has been proposed for deletion. You might like to look into this as I have no strong opinion on that myself. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that it's a problem of recentism and I additionally think it's technological systemic bias. Should someone go through and change links in the articles that link here, where appropriate, to multiplayer video game? The topics are so closely related that it probably doesn't matter, but I wasn't sure. --Mrwojo (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have experience of making such a systematic, repetitive edit to so many articles here. Perhaps someone in a related project can clean this up? But first, you should see the number of articles I've turned up which seem to cover the same ground. See See also. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Multiplayer game moved to multiplayer video game. I see your point about the articles on similar topics. --Mrwojo (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Controlallbackspace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.72.128 (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Contesting the Move[edit]

I've never heard the term "multiplayer" to be used in any other context than that of "multiplayer video game". The meaning of the compound constituents may apply to all kinds of more-than-one-person playing, including gambling, video gaming, stage acting, or performing on a musical instrument, but I believe it is completely irrelevant in case of defining the compound itself. The word is almost exclusively used in terms of computer and video gaming, and I think this is the meaning that should be mainly reflected on this page, perhaps with the option of providing disambiguation links for more esoteric applications of the term. If word etymology is the main arguing point here, see,"skyscraper" does not refer to any "sky scratching" agent, "breakfast" does not describe instant smashing techniques, and "football" does not denote "ball intended for foot"nor is it anywhere described as a "multiplayer game". I vote for moving Multiplayer video game back to Multiplayer game, especially considering that Multiplayer video game may be misleading for people who view "video games" and "computer games" as two somewhat distinct terms.

Additional arguments:
a) as mentioned above, Special:WhatLinksHere/Multiplayer_game is completely dominated by links from articles related to electronic gaming
b) the current content of Multiplayer game is basically non-existent and provides no noticeable value except for random linking to various forms of video and board games
c) The term "game" in its original sense is already used to imply interaction multiple players. I believe the term "multiplayer" was introduced in video game menus in attempt to differentiate between between single- and multiple-user oriented content, which is a very significant distinction in video gaming.
d)http://www.google.com/search?q=multiplayer+game

I'd like to hear some thoughts and possible counterarguments on this subject. If no one directly opposes this after a period of time, I may revert the move personally. By the way, that (2008) Oxford English Dictionary reference doesn't really lead anywhere. I haven't been able to find any strict definition of the term online.

Rankiri (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sorry. i understand your thoughts, and I appreciate it. however, right now the two articles are on two totally different topics. I understand the rationale for merging; however, if we have two different subjects here which are covered well in two different ways, i'd rather not have to give up one of them, (even if that one is not as strong as a separate topic as the other). --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for expressing your opinion. My whole point is that "multiplayer game" and "multiplayer video game" are, by all practical means, interchangeable terms. We can link to party game and card game and sports in a Multiplayer Game (Disambiguation) kind of reference (even a "multiplayer games out of context of videogaming" type of article subsection would work), but, as far as I know, no one uses the term "multiplayer" in regard to those activities. As of now, multiplayer game is basically empty - one simple definition and several examples (most of which link to videogames or group games that don't use the term), - so I think it wouldn't be accurate to argue that the article covers a separate topic. Would you still disagree?Rankiri (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong OPPOSE This proposal seems absurd on it's face. Considering that the word "multiplayer" is used in both titles, what you are suggesting is that GAME = VIDEO GAME, as if no game that has more than one player can possibly exist outside of an electronic medium. This is ridiculous. Bulbous (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess it won't get as much support I hoped it would. Just for the sake of clarification, I'm arguing that whoever used "multiplayer" in both titles was initially mistaken about the modern use of the word "multiplayer", not that "GAME = VIDEO GAME", which would of course be ludicrous. It is a well-known fact that most non-electronic games require multiple players. By that reason alone, no one ever calls football a multiplayer game. I've never heard of poker, tic tac toe, chess or board version of Risk being called multiplayer either. They are, in fact, multi-player games, but as I said in my earlier argument, "multiplayer" in today's culture has a "skyscraper-like" specific meaning that goes beyond "multiple" and "players" and practically always refers to videogaming. I'm not a linguist, but get this impression from living and hearing this word both in Europe and the U.S. I also googled the phrase, and run "multiplayer" through Time magazine's article search engine where it only found videogame-related results. I may be in minority, but I still strongly believe I have a valid point there. Rankiri (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If you feel so strongly that "multiplayer game" implies "multiplayer video game", then why would you want to complicate the issue by moving to "multiplayer game"? You would be leaving a word that some people (seemingly a majority) feel is an important distinction. If you kept it at "multiplayer video game", everyone would know what was meant, even if some did feel that "video" was a redundant word. Bulbous (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I see it as simplifying the issue, not complicating it. I believe most people who "technically" look for the term "multiplayer video game" type in "multiplayer" or "multiplayer game" in their search engines. I also would like to urge you to find a good example of the word "multiplayer" being commonly or validly used in non-videogaming context, not only for the purpose of asserting my position but for my possible understanding of yours. If it is not (or, comparatively speaking, very rarely) used in such a context, the primary description of "multiplayer game" should refer to the most used definition of "multiplayer game", which in this case would be a multiplayer component of videogaming. Again, I see the word "skyscraper" as an almost perfect example of what I'm trying to express here. Rankiri (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
And yes, people do refer to football as a multiplayer game. Here is an example. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see the word reference on the first linked page. Besides, an occasional use of "multiplayer" back in 1973, long before the advent of videogaming... You have to agree, it's not that convincing. How would you comment on the search results that don't show the use of alternative meanings of the word or on any other points mentioned above? Regardless, I've already stated my argument line and it seems to be in disagreement with all the 3 responders, who sadly didn't provide any solid persuasive arguments in regard to their viewpoints. I'll refrain from further commenting on this until somebody invalidates my arguments instead of disagreeing with them, I see a convincing example of the word "multiplayer" being commonly or validly used outside non-videogaming context in today's speech or culture, or my position gathers more supporters. Rankiri (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of players[edit]

Rankiri seems to think that a twoplayer game is a multiplayer game. This is not the case and this is the main point of the citation of the OED which makes this clear. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You really want to make it personal? As with my earlier arguments, there's a lot of actual and factual proof to support them, not a vague and unaccessible dictionary reference that may not even apply here. I'm still not sure, does it define "multiplayer game" or just "multiplayer"?
I've been involved with the gaming industry for more a decade, as a game developer, game reviewer, and simply game player. No one I know (and I know about 50 people directly related to the industry) ever bothers to differentiate between 2-player game modes and, say, 4-player modes unless it is a separate game type, such as 2P Co-op or Versus Mode. Other than that it is all commonly called multiplayer gameplay, i.e. a type of gameplay that supports more than one player playing the game simultaneously. You will never hear anyone distinguishing between 1-on-1 and 2-on-2 types of deathmatch and you will never see a separate "non-multiplayer" game menu for starting less than 3-player deathmatch, less than 3-player co-op game or less than 3-player capture the flag game. It'll all be under the Multiplayer section of the game, which, along with the mentioned "more than one" definition of the prefix "multi-", already clearly qualifies it to be a multiplayer type of a game. Frankly, I'm appalled that I need to defend this, since I think it is commonly regarded as common knowledge among those who are interested in video gaming or it shouldn't be discussed in such an affirmative manner by the ones who are not. I'm also curious about you one moment defending the term "multiplayer game" on its semantic value and disregarding the semantic meaning of the prefix "multi-" in less than a heartbeat. Here are some quick Google results and dictionary definitions that support my argument. I don't feel like deep researching on a subject I see as superfluous and way too personal.
Again,
Thousands of specific "2-player co-op" search results, my personal expertise in the field, and, more importantly, the dictionary definition of the prefix "multi-" disagree. The OED reference does not describe the exact term, and, as I said, "several" is "being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=several&x=0&y=0), which is not enough in terms of describing such multiplayer video games as MMORPGs that may involve hundreds of thousands of players. If this edit war continues, I'll be requesting a third opinion in the active disagreements section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankiri (talk
  • This is my definitive answer on this subject. Please restrain from future reverts unless you can disprove my arguments.
"Several", according to the Oxford dictionary is "more than two but not many", multiplayer, according to the very same Oxford dictionary (according to Colonel Warden - the reference link is invalid), is “Designed for or involving more than two (esp. many) players". The use of "several" is obviously invalid and contradictory. Besides, the prefix "multi-" can mean "many; much; multiple", "more than two", and, more importantly, "more than one". When I checked Oxford Online Dictionary, I found no Colonel Warden's alleged definition of "multiplayer game", or even "multiplayer". What I found is the Oxford's definition of "multi-" that says "combining form more than one; many (multicultural). "2-player multiplayer game" is a valid phrase, both from semantical and popular sense.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/multi?view=uk
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=multi
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Multiplayer+for+2%22
  • First of all, the OED is simply the most authoritative dictionary available. Second, these aren't definitions for multiplayer, but rather just the prefix. Using them to try and extrapolate a definition of a different word is original research, particularly considering that we have a reliable source as to the whole word already. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: merge to Game. Mergers are not common outcomes at RM and I often point people to WP:PM rather than simply close as merge, but the consensus here is clear enough I don't think there should be any problems. I'll tag the pages like after a AFD closes as merge. Jenks24 (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)



Multiplayer gameMulti- and single-player games – We have no need at all of separate articles on multi-player and single-player gaming, broadly speaking. A single article should, rather, cover what the difference is, and use a WP:DESCRIPTDIS title like "Multi- and single-player games". This will then also provide an obvious redirect target for a large number of "what do we do with these things?" redirects like Single-player, Singleplayer, Single-player game, Singleplayer game, Multi-player, Multiplayer, Multi-player game, Multiplayer game, etc., as are under discussion at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 11#Single Player. A previous RfD deleted a lot of these (thus the redlink in the last sentence), simply on the basis of us not having a clear place to send them, and them going to a video-gaming article specifically was not acceptable because the terms have broader applicability. We obviously actually do have that article, it is simply too-narrowly named Multiplayer game.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Omni Flames (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Single-player games are apparently covered at game... is there a reason that the content of this article cannot be merged to game instead? --Izno (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What Izno said. Merge this poor chap into game, or, better still, game classification, as it has very little content specific to multi-player games. No such user (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge to game per arguments above. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 04:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

When?[edit]

Hi, why hasn't this been moved yet? --Dolberty (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)