User:Chris Key/Sandbox
[INTRO NOTE][1]
The scope of video games
Like other games, video games have a clearly defined goal[2] and are bound by rules, but unlike other games, those rules are rarely fully and explicitly stated. Rules in board and card games are abstract; little to nothing indicates them to the player. Video games, however, are represented by virtual worlds[3] that usually imply at least some of their rules. Their visual representation, or graphics, is one factor that distinguishes video games from other types of games. The other distinguishing factor is their algorithmic logic. If a game were governed by database computer logic, a DVD screen menu could qualify as a video game if someone decided to create rules for it. The algorithm is a program containing the set of procedures controlling the game's graphics and sound, the input and output engaging the players, and the behavior of the computer-controlled players within the game.[4]
The commonalities between video games ends there[5]. There is a bewildering variety of video games. The dissimilarities between Dance Dance Revolution, which requires players to physically input dance steps on a pressure-sensitive playmat, and a word puzzle game on a mobile phone, seem far more obvious than the similarities. Thus, the need for categorization into both genre and platform.
Genres
Like other media, video games are sorted according to genre, but unlike film or literature they are usually classified independent of their theme or setting.[ref]An exception to this rule is the survival horror genre. The term does entail certain gameplay features, but it is primarily concerned with aesthetics.[/ref][6] Instead, gameplay is the main criterion for categorizing games. An action game is an action game, regardless of whether it takes place in a fantasy world or outer space. Within game studies there are no universally accepted, formal definitions for game genres, some being more observed than others. For a comprehensive list, see video game genres.
The emergence, evolution, and success of video game genres depends on both technology and the congenital behavior of producers and consumers.[7] Companies naturally want to minimize risk, and it is safer to imitate a successful platform game or shooter than to attempt something different and risk commercial and critical failure. Consumers, likewise, tend towards what they know, rather than chance wasting their time and money on something they know nothing about. Game genres develop as technology progresses but innovation is moderated by commercial constraints and by the conditioned opinions and expectations of players.
Platforms
Though numerous, video game genres are rivaled in number by the systems, or platforms, that video games are available for, which include home consoles, personal computers, arcade boards, and handheld systems such as handheld game consoles, PDAs, and mobile phones. Each type of platform has advantages and disadvantages. Handheld systems offer portability at the expense of larger screen size and better graphics and sound. Arcades are generally technologically superior to consoles[8] but they are not designed for home use. Personal computers may be extensively customized to suit the player's preferences, but cutting-edge computer hardware is expensive and the vast number of options can baffle inexperienced computer users.
Due to these advantages and disadvantages, some genres are better suited to one kind of machine than another. Real-time strategy (RTS) games, for example, are well suited to the PC because of the mouse. Historical advantages also explain why some genres flourished or continue to flourish on one kind of machine--for example, platformers on consoles, since computers did not smoothly scroll horizontally at the same time that the NES did. handhelds for short games like puzzle games.
Platform prominently factors into the question of scope. In 1958, William Higinbotham designed Tennis For Two, an electronic game which simulated a tennis match on an oscilloscope. Years later, his testimony was called upon during legal attempts to break the Magnavox video game patent obtained through their development of the Odyssey, the first home video game console. The court ruled that Tennis For Two did not use video signals and so did not qualify as a video game. As a result, every company that entered the video game market was forced to pay a settlement to Sanders Associates, the company that supplied Ralph Baer, the "Father of the Video Game," with a team to develop the Odyssey.
A history of video games[9]
[SNIP]
The contemporary video game industry
Such complexity comes at a price: High-budget games' production costs can be greater than US$20 million and development teams larger than 100, with different studios for animation, sound, marketing, and so on. In the industry's infancy, however, programmers were individually responsible for creating every element of their games—the same person who created the concept was also responsible for the coding, the art, and even the sound effects. Hiroshi Yamauchi, former president of the world's largest video game manufacturer, Nintendo, established the distinction between game designer and game programmer when he asked a young artist named Shigeru Miyamoto to create an arcade game with the company's head engineer, Gunpei Yokoi. Their product, the absurdly titled Donkey Kong, was a stunning success. Not long after Donkey Kong's release, Masafumi Miyamoto (who bears no relation to Shigeru) founded Squaresoft on the premise that it would be more efficient to have graphic designers, programmers, and professional writers work together on common projects. Considering all of the elements that comprise a game--the graphics, the design, the sound, and so on--division of labor was a sensible, inevitable step.
Publication and distribution
As video games grew in popularity, division of labor necessarily expanded beyond their development and into their wider production process. The earliest video games were created and distributed on mainframe computers. As personal computer games went commercial, hobbyist game developers formed a cottage industry, selling their games by mail order or personal delivery. Richard Garriott, creator of the Ultima series of games, briefly distributed Ultima's predecessor Akalabeth himself on floppy disks stored in Ziploc bags until a software company bought the rights to it and published it in 1980. Two years later, Silicon Valley entrepreneuer Trip Hawkins founded Electronic Arts, a company whose raison d'être was to publish rather than develop video games. The conception of the video game publisher established the dominant model of game production.
Hardware manufacturer > Game developer > Publisher > Distributor > Retail > Consumer
Much like the book business, small, independent developers who are not owned by or affiliated with a publisher generally need a separate publisher (for funding) or distributor, yet big companies perform all of these functions in-house. Publishers expand the user base for their games by releasing them in different regions and for different platforms. The former is done through localization, or publishing games abroad; the latter, through porting, or rewriting games to run on different systems. Both processes are problematic. In localizing games, publishers must not only translate them but also adhere to legal or cultural norms; in porting games, they must account for differences in system attributes and architecture. To alleviate the burden of localizing and porting games, publishers often outsource those tasks to smaller developers suited for the job. And to simplify both development and porting, PC games, and, to a smaller but growing extent, console games, are usually built around a central piece of software known as a game engine.
Recently, new market models have threatened to supplant the old one: namely, digital distribution, a term encompassing multiple business models. Retail services such as Direct2Drive and Download.com allow users to purchase and download large games online that would otherwise only be distributed on physical media, such as DVDs. Other services, such as GameTap, allow a subscription-based distribution model in which users pay a monthly fee to download and play as many games as they wish. In this way, the video game industry is on the verge of a fundamental restructure....(http://www.mcvuk.com/news/36665/Square-Enix-Consoles-set-for-extinction)
Market structure
Video game manufacturers have sought to capture a wider market through not only simplified distribution, but also accessible design. Games like Guitar Hero and Wii Sports, designed to be unintimidating to the casual player or non-gamer, represent a recent industry-wide push to court untapped demographics. Such a lucrative market is bound to attract: The economic enticement of the video game industry has drawn some of the biggest companies in the world to join the fight in the so-called console wars. Often they are electronics companies (like Sony) or toymakers (like Bandai) or both (like Nintendo) since their R&D divisions are suited to video game hardware development.
Unlike other media players, video game hardware only runs proprietary software. A DVD can play on any DVD player[10], but a Nintendo game can only run on a Nintendo system. Nintendo could expand their user base by developing their games for other systems as well, but then consumers have less incentive to purchase a Nintendo system; hardware manufacturers recognize this dilemma and so insure--through internal game development or exclusivity deals with third-party publishers--that they have games available only for their system. The industry's manufacturers could collectively adopt a universal hardware standard and share the spoils, but the current market structure enables them to collect handsome royalties from game publishers. This is necessary because the video game industry has adopted the model of the razor business: Give away the razor to sell the blades. Sony will sell you a PlayStation 2 at a loss, in the hope that it will make a steep profit on the games.
Video games in public discourse
[SNIP]
Controversy[11]
[SNIP]
Game studies
[SNIP]
Gamer metaculture
It is precisely this contention that rankles many game enthusiasts, or gamers. Gamers have established a subculture that has been supported by and expanded through the Internet. There now exist thousands of online discussion forums dedicated to video games. Like members of many other subcultures, gamers have developed and use their own jargon, with an especial fondness for initializing the names of games, platforms, and genres. These forums almost always include a board for "off-topic discussion," or anything not directly related to video games. [12]
Massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) like World of Warcraft are inherently social endeavors because cooperation is necessary to progress. As Tom Chatfield writes in Prospect, "[the game] Eve Online involves players ganging together to build spaceships. One of the first of the largest class of such ships took a consortium of around 22 guilds—just under 4,000 players in total—eight months to complete, a task that involved complexities of training, materials, role allocation and management that would put many companies to shame."
- ↑ This article is missing an opening section.
- ↑ I would disagree. Games such as Final Fantasy and Space Quest often don't let the player know their goal until about halfway through the game, which I would say rules out 'clearly defined'. Games such as World of Warcraft have no specific goal, but instead a variety to choose from and then some more that you can make up as you go along. While you could argue that the goal is to reach level 80 and defeat the top raids, tell that to the person who has a level 19 twink or the person who has a top arena rating. Then you have things like Second Life or Endless Ocean which don't actually have any goals at all. Point taken. Maybe the goal isn't clearly defined, but there is almost always some given goal to reach, even if there's no end game condition. I don't know much about Endless Ocean, but if I recall right there's the goal of photographing as many sea creatures as possible. I can't speak for Second Life, but that seems to really push the definition of 'game.'
- ↑ The term virtual worlds has quite a specific meaning, and only applies to a handful of games. Hm, that's true. How about 'digital worlds'?
- ↑ I am certain that even a DVD screen menu uses algorithms and logic to control the menu's graphics and sound, react to the input from the user, etc. Good point. I think that was more of a (sloppy) placeholder example than anything. It has been a while since I've reviewed everything I wrote.
- ↑ I disagree. Video games rely on player interaction, otherwise it is not a game but instead is a simulation, movie or perhaps even a screensaver! You also have not mentioned the more obvious requirement of "using an electronic controller to manipulate images on a display screen". I'll address the last point first: I edited out a bit about the graphics requirement reading "a changing or changeable display" but removed that part because I was experimenting with the wording. As for the first point, yes, play interaction is a requirement, but that strikes me as superfluously true--I mean, the same point (that it isn't a game unless people are playing it) applies to every game.
- ↑ Resident Evil and Dead Space have very different themes and settings (one is sci-fi), yet are both are survival horror. I would say that there are enough gameplay features to remove this footnote. Also, this is not the only genre to have some aesthetic aspects. Adult video games spring to mind, and you could also say Sports video games as well. Good point about adult and sports video games. However, with regard to Dead Space and Resident Evil, their themes and settings may differ, but the intent is the same: to inspire horror. The very name survival horror implies some sort of aesthetic choice. Even if we broaden the exception to include adult and sports video games, I think it's an important disclaimer.
- ↑ Really? Innovation is a big thing in video games... If it were not then the Wii and the DS would not exist. Maybe I'm wrong, do you have any further reading on this? Perhaps I worded it too strongly--maybe I should have pointed out that those are limiting factors?
- ↑ No, not really. Specialised yes, but superior no. True. But historically they tended to have better graphics because they are more dedicated than game consoles. I guess that advantage has pretty much been erased though.
- ↑ In my opinion, this entire section seems like it needs a lot of work. It currently seems to give a lot of detail about computer game hardware, but little in the way of details about computer games themselves. Also, it gives a lot of detail about the 80s and before, yet only a single paragraph to the 90s and after. I would suggest making this work the start of the History of video games article, and providing a broader overview for this article. Agreed.
- ↑ Not true... regions apply. Good point. Maybe I should say regardless of brand?
- ↑ Again I would say just do a brief overview and link to Video game controversy
- ↑ This seems irrelevant. This is a feature of a huge amount of non-gaming forums too. Yeah, in my original draft I had related this line to articles talking about the ability of video games to bring about social change through connectedness...I'm fuzzy on the details now, but I accidentally left this line in.