Talk:Video game development/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Only computer game development?

This article doesn't deal with the development of other forms of game because there is nothing to say, really. I can imagine a development proccess in other forms of game would be "typically, a person gets an idea, makes a prototype, and then pitches it". I may of course be proven very wrong, but at this time no articles seem to exist to do this.

The reason that this does not redirect to 'computer, arcade, and video game development' is simple. That's a huge article name, and there's no way to properly break it up. Computer games and video games are fused by pure definition, however, 'computer game' usually refers to games played on the home computer while 'video game' refers to those played on a console. Arcade games are now more or less console games in a box that has a large TV, though there are of course exceptions. There appears to be no word commonly used to describe virtual or simulated games, so both video game X (e.g. development) and computer game X point to their combination - computer and video game X. From there, if anything specific to either remains, the user can navigate to console games arcade games and so on. Slike 01:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A few years ago, a popular industry conference for computer game developers was renamed from CDGC (Computer Game Development Conference) to GDC (Game Development Conference). While the previous example is by no means conclusive, it does point out that the industry itself agrees with this point, that "computer game" may be too limiting a term to describe the modern digital interactive entertainment industry. JamesRB 20:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Game development refers specifically to video game development as far as I've heard it used, but as applied to physical games it would be synonymous with game design, concerning the development of the concept, mechanics, and mechanisms. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

In its original form this artilce—how should I say?—sucked. So I rewrote it. It borrows a lot from my other article, game programming, but it couldn't be helped. None of it was a straight cut-and-paste, all the content was edited to apply to this topic. Edit as you please. Comments? Criticisms? Questions? Please post them here. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:00, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I also removed a lot of content from the "Indie" section and created a list out of it (since that's essentially what is what anyway). I put it in a new article, List of indie game developers. Perhaps it could be renamed to [[Indie game developer]] or [[Independant game developer]], but that's where it is now. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:29, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think the Durability and Stability articles could go as one. Xsoldier 16:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a "Durability" section. Do you mean "Duration"? That's unrelated to Stability. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

This article was posted on Wikipedia: Peer review. Below are the comments from that page.

I recently completely rewrote this article, but haven't gotten any comments on it. I'd like some feedbacks on where it could be improved or expanded. It has some material similar, but not identical, to game programming (which I also wrote). — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:02, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • It probably needs a category or two. I saw at least one typo in the thumbnail description. There are still board games being produced, and they all have game developers. — RJH 23:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I found & fixed the typo. :-) True, many board games, card games and other types of games are being developed. However, we don't have articles on the development of any of these. Once we do, we can specialize the titles of the articles. Currently game development is the only article we have and there is a note at the top that states it is about video & computer game development. Do you think I should move it to something like "Video game development" before we have the other articles? — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:06, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Many of the sections are 1 or 2 sentences. These should either be expanded or deleted. Also, some references would be good. Sayeth 16:23, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I went back and expanded the stubby sections. Everything I stated in the article is backed up by Tom Sloper's web site, which I link to. Do you think I should move it from External Links to References? — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:06, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

— Frecklefoot | Talk 17:37, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wording

"A typical modern video or computer game costs from USD $1 up to $15 million to develop."

I assume the sentence is intended to mean "one to fifteen million dollars to develop".

Yes, of course. Even for an "indie game," $1.00 is way too low if you factor in time spent and stuff like power.
I noticed your post on another game industry article. Some advice to a newcomer:
  • New posts on Talk pages belong at the bottom, not the top.
  • Sign your posts. Even though you don't have an account, you should always sign your posts. You can do this with 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is preferred, as it also leaves a timestamp.
  • If you find something wrong or unattractive, be bold and fix it. This is a wiki and that's what it's all about. :-)
Anyway, I hope you like it here and decide to stay. If so, please get a (free) account. — Frecklefoot | Talk July 5, 2005 21:14 (UTC)

Information boxes

Does any agree that the 'The Importance of Regression Testing' and 'What is an asset?' information boxes are unnecessary and confuse the flow of the article? Also, the 'What is an asset?' box is not rendering properly in Firefox (at least for me anyway). Remy B 15:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I originally added the infoboxes (when I wrote the article), but this is the first objection I've heard to them. But I concede that they are very non-standard.
I used them because I couldn't figure out a way to explain the term "asset" without writing a whole article on it (it needs to be explained, but it doesn't deserve a whole article—it'd forever be a stub). I also thought it was important to point out the case where insufficient regression testing on a game caused a huge headache.
Sidebars (which is what I intended these to be) are used extensively in paper encyclopedias, but I know we're not paper. Sidebars aren't a Wikipedia standard, so I have very little backing for keeping them. However, I added them to help clarify a few terms, not ruin the flow.
Perhaps if Firefox rendered them properly you might see their utility. I tweaked the code for the "What's an asset?" box to make it match the "Regression testing" box. Did that help? Do you still object? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:37, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Amateur sites external links

I removed this subsection from the External links section. I'm sorry, but it's just a huge invitation for linkspam. The article says very little about amateur development, so we don't need links to several personal projects. If we ever have an article on amateur game development, I guess they can go back in. But until then, I think they should be left out:

Any objections? — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

GameDev.net is, in my opinion, much better than the above links. But I didn't do much more than a quick skim of them. They have been having some issues with their server lately, but hopefully they'll sort it out soon. If anyone else knows of links to development and programing communities that are presented as professionally and as informative as gamedev.net they should be added into articles here. --Talroth 20:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

I've created a userbox for those who are interested in game development. Add {{User:Scepia/game dev}} to your user page and you'll get this:

game
dev		This user is interested in video game development.


- Sylph 09:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there any video game companies in australia

I'm intreseted in working at at computers, but maybe games would be as good?

so are there?

Pece Kocovski 01:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Check Gamasutra.com. They have worldwide game development job listings. And, yes, there are game developers located in Australia, quite a few, AAMOF. For example, the developers who created Freedom Force (Irrational Games) are located in Aus. HTH — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you very much 

Maplomi promise1 (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Making one's own games

I hate the "Making one's own games" section. I hate it. I've hated it since it was first added. It's poorly written, even though I tried copyediting it a few times. Since when is Wikipedia a "how to" site? Isn't there a how-to wiki somewhere (maybe even a sister site) where it can be moved to? It just seems totally out-of-scope for Wikipedia. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has disagreed, I've gone ahead and removed it. It detracts from the quality of the rest of the article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Most of us old timers in the industry started out making our own games, I'm happy to see a nod to that in the 1980s text. Fnagaton 08:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Old post, but for future reference on this matter, see: WP:NOTHOWTO. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
That was removed a long time ago and it was a how-to then. Above proposes to add an overview about the start of game industry when individual programmers were able to make games by themselves. Any usable sources? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Writing

How come the article doesn't acknowledge the writers? I'm pretty sure that the dialogue in MGS didn't magically coagulate out of a pool somewhere. And what's the job of a scenario writer? 154.20.135.89 06:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and add that if you know what they do. A lot of that stuff comes from the game designers. Larger games may have pools of copyrighters and some games may have professional writers for storylines and, as you mention, dialog. But none of the games I've worked on have. — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
All major games have some sort of writing staff, since I guess the release of the N64/Playstation. Scenario writers are usually the ones given the credit. Problem is, I have no idea what exactly a scenario writer does (although it redirects to script writer when put in to Wikipedia). But it's I think odd that no one gives them recognition, as there are obviously stories in the blockbusters (Half-Life series, Final Fantasy series, etc. etc.). If anyone knows what they do, then they should add the information.
As I said, in my experience, the game designer(s) do all that. They write all the scenarios, the dialog, etc. (I've never heard of anyone called a "scenario designer", do you mean level designer?). This isn't so hard to imagine, given that most game designers have a writing background. For games with a great deal of dialog and scenarios, some professional writers may be hired (or used) to write additional dialog and storylines. But, as I said, in my experience, none were ever needed or used. So until someone can dig up some information on this (and I doubt anything beyond Original Research will be found), we can't add it to the article (please don't forget to sign your posts, ~~~ or ~~~~). — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Lol, no no, I don't mean a level designer, I mean a scenario writer. Like Kazushige Nojima for Final Fantasy VII or Jun Akiyama for Kingdom Hearts. You can check the entries in IMDB for a plethora of games for the scenario writer credits. There are sometimes many of them credited as scenario writers. Do they at all differ from script writers? Or are they just called Scenario Writers because so much of the game has no scripts for it, only cut scenes? 154.20.135.89 23:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea. Will have to wait for someone else to respond or find something on the Internet. — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The writers are now acknowledged under Designer section and in Game designer. This probably needs more, though. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs citations

The article needs citations. Yes, it has a references section, with two references in it, but there's no inline citations. Inline citations aren't necessarily required, but as it is know it's currently impossible to know what information in the article is covered by those two references and what still needs a citation. Unless, of course, the entire article is based on those two sources, but I doubt that. --Rodzilla (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


I think just like you, for example in duration says "Most modern games take from one to three years to complete." but how did he now :S, really need citations --200.10.255.182 (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Woo-hoo!

Kudos to anonymous editor 207.172.69.74 who did a significant copyedit on the article. S/he cleaned up a great deal of awkward language and strange constructs. It reads much better now! Who was that masked man? — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Product manager

I removed the following paragraph from the article:

For some projects, a product manager may be employed, acting as a chief visionary.[citation needed] Their job is to ensure the producer and the team deliver the product that was originally envisioned during pre-production, and that the game targets the right audience, and has the right unique selling points.[citation needed]

I added the {{cn}} templates before removing it. The role described here sounds precisely like a game producer, though it says they oversee producers as well. Most likely this person is an executive producer, but producers are already mentioned. It was most likely added by someone unfamiliar with game development. In my 14 years in game development, all "product managers" as described by this paragraph were always called producers. I removed it pending references. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 11:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

When develpong games at Microsoft, they are called "Product Managers" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.37.159.196 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how many levels of management there is for a team. What I would call the "producer" for a project is basically the manager of the team who manages the other section leads (like lead programmer, lead artist etc.) and the person who buys the pizza before going home to leave the team working late into the night. ;) I also see no mention of the industry (certainly in the UK) famous APAC. Fnagaton 08:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Large-scale bias

This article seems a bit biased towards covering the large-scale, big-budget console and computer games. A lot of games are around that are freeware or shareware, are quite simple, and likely the work of one person. Commonly flash is used for such. The article really needs more about the whole spectrum. Individual one-man projects may not be 'commercially successful', but collectively they matter. The most played computer game may well be Windows Solitaire after all. 128.232.228.174 (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

But that's only because it comes bundled with the Windows operating system. But I do recall it was the work of one programmer, not that it really matters. This article is mostly about large-scale game development because that's what I have experience with (and I'm the primary author of this article). I don't have anything against garage development, and haven't removed any information about garage development, but no one has added any. And Flash is only one medium for garage development (plenty is done in C, C++, Java, C#, Visual Basic and things like Dark Basic—finding a "primary" one would be next to impossible and would probably change monthly).
So, if you know anything about garage development and can artfully work it into the existing article, please do so. But I know that garage development differs across all the developers of such games and likely doesn't follow any formalized process. So trying to document such would be futile. It can be mentioned, but not covered as thoroughly as professional development since professional development is more mature and controlled. Just MHO. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The article is still very biased, but that comes down to lack of sources. Although, a more significant portion is devoted to indie now. It still needs sources, of which there are little. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Bass-Ackwards

According to Official Xbox Magazine issue number 94, p. 96, games are created by graphics, sounds, chracter models, and physic mechanics BEFORE writing a script for voice acting and cutscenes. It's hard to say whether or not this article says somewhat of the same, or the opposite. 勇敢な要素 (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Voice acting, especially outsourced, would come last so all lines can be read together. Similarly, the less trouble 3D designers have for cutscenes, the cheaper/faster the work. So that would also be put last when all the models/textures/whatever are ready and voice actors available. However, sources are needed for this info and for now it remains OR. I have no access to the magazine you quote. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Nah - I've worked on games where it worked one way - and other games where it was the reverse. There is no "one true way" to do this. It entirely depends on the nature of the game and the scale of the development. We'd often make a tiny single playable level (we'd call it a "vertical slice") with all of the parts in there and working - when that 'works' - we'd move on to make the other levels. Other times, yes, we'd make the game with 'stand-in' voice acting - then record the voice talent near the end. But there is no firm, definite order. SteveBaker (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
That's why it's OR and needs sources. It's not in article and I hope noone plans to add it straight off. I just gave some reasons for how it may happen, so if anyone finds it in a reference or two, a passing mention can be made. Half the article is written in a way majority (or documented majority) do things, because that's what the references say. P.S. That also reminds me there is no mention of vertical slices in the article.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

This article is currently under attack from an anon user, who keeps inserting (the same) vandalism into the article (an example of the repeated vandalism). Can someone with the power please semi-protect this article, until the anon user gets bored and moves on? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem everyone? I don't understand how the repeated reverts are considered vandalism. I feel that they are an accurate and objective based addition that adds to the depth of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.154.177 (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, wise guy. You said you wanted to discuss your repeated additions, that everyone—including me—keeps reverting. Your addition is this:

"Indeed, the consumption of copious amounts of alcohol, marijuana, and hookers such that the game may be completed in a time manner. If and only if the deadline is met, then a party of significant caliber with many orgies."

On what do you base this statement? Do you have a quote from a reliable reference? While not all statements in Wikipedia articles need references, statements as wild as this one do. In my 15 years in the video game industry as a game programmer, I have never seen anyone drinking alcohol, smoking pot or playing with hookers while at work. Anyone doing such things would find themselves swiftly fired. And doing such things would be counter-productive. Drinking and smoking pot dulls the mind—not what you want when trying to meet a milestone. The allusion to "many orgies" is just as ludicrous. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 03:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please Mr. Freckle, I beseech you to listen to my words of wisdom. I'm not an idiot, nor am I an ignoramus. We must gather together and learn what we can as we move towards the future. Do not judge my way of life or the perspectives that I share with others, I know that what I have said is valid and sound. It will not be denied! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.145.27 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing "the" before "Producer"

This article contains: "Doing these Producer aims to create a solid production plan so that production can be started when needed without delays." I believe it should be: "Doing these the Producer aims to create a solid production plan so that production can be started when needed without delays." I'm not good at grammar so I may be wrong. Producer could be an individual named thing in which case "Doing these Producer aims to create" is correct. Like "Doing these John aims to create" but I think its more like "Doing these the professor aims to create". Also why is it capitalized? I would change this myself but I don't have permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colwem (talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it a did some "proper" copyedit given that the style is very non prose.—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  19:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


Typos and other errors

Typo: Section: Overview Second paragraph, fourth sentence: change "mix" to "mixing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.57.164 (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not really a typo - "mix of genres" is the target of "experiment with". Sorry, I am not familiar with proper names of grammatical constructs. I'll rephrase for clarity. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  18:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move at this time. Ucucha 13:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Game development → Video game development — Relisted. As I read this, there appears to be a consensus to move, the opposition is from not using parenthetical disambiguation in the name. So if the proposal were for something like Game development → Game development (video) (and so on) (or some other description other then video which seems to have issues) it may in fact have support. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of ambiguity and improvement of consistency for topics solely related to video games. See WikiProject Video games talk. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  19:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are the two main reasons:

The current talk page responses indicate a strong support for this.

I have removed the "game programmer/ing" article from the proposed moves as I have been convinced by the arguments below that these are unambiguous and thus better suited without the "video" prefix. I still stand by the other moves, namely per WP:NCDAB (pointed out by Pcap), that "Video game <article>" is similarly viable to "Game <article> (video games)"; and that it should be the former for consistency. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  17:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The section below is copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#"video game" or "game" naming convention for topics?:
If the topic is solely related to video games then that should be made clear by the title, 'game' is a very broad term indeed. Getting too worries over an extra word here and there will make things a lot more complicated than they need to be IMHO. Game development is just about video games and that should be clear from the title, for instance. Someoneanother 18:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
If the articles are specifically about video games, then their names should be changed to "Video game ____". "Game ____" can refer to other types of games, e.g. "game theory".--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm in the "game" camp unless there is a conflict. In that case, lengthen it to "video game". — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm for videogame everywhere. Since you know games, such as The Settlers of Catan are developed too, and they aren't videogames. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Headbomb; it seems a bit narcissistic to believe that the rest of the world automatically thinks of video games when they see "game" as an adjective. Terms like "game design" feel like insider terms to me, if only because video games are implied in the context of where the terms are used. Even if there are no page for general game design, testing, etc., I think that we should strive for a title that is precise rather than broad unless we want other types of games to be included in the article. —Ost (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Using "video" part definitely removes ambiguity and biasing. Clarity is definitely gained; I agree with that. All these articles are purely video game based and any new material about other game types would be seen as "messing articles up". I was basing my opinion largely on VG naming convention, which apparently may need revising. I suppose there is no real need to keep things short just for the sakes of keeping things short. As I said, consistency over nitpicking.
If some more editors agree with having "video game" prefix instead of "game" prefix in industry and topic related articles, could this be called a consensus and "officially" put in the naming convention, so that no more issues arise and admins can refer to this when moves/renames are requested/done? —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  21:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
"Video game" sounds like the appropriate term. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC))
i like consistency and think we may as well say "video game". afterall this is the videogame wikiproject and not the game wikiproject. there's a reason the project decided to be 100% clear... Shooterwalker (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Skipping comments by SteveBaker and H3llkn0wz, directly copied and posted below by editors themselves.

I requested RfC to have a bit more broader inputs on the matter before I add anything to the policy or rfm any pages. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  13:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm still in the camp of using "game" and only "video game" when a clash exists. I don't think it's "insulting" traditional games. After all, when I tell people I'm a game programmer, they don't say, "Oh, really? What type of board games do you program?" Really, a lot of these terms apply only to video games, and further disambiguating them where it's unnecessary is just cumbersome. I'll go by whatever the final consensus is, but I don't think tacking "video game" on every article about them is necessary. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
As I said, the perspective here is about consistency and less about bias. And I do not agree about this being "cumbersome". Perhaps slightly less aesthetic; but definitely more unambiguous.
Does not seem there is much outside input on the matter. I am still cautious about basing move requests based solely on opinion of vg members. (Also bump against bot who may or may not be smart enough to not touch rfc'ed sections.) —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  11:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I'm outside input! :P. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I requested moves on Talk:Game development#Requested moves; perhaps this shall generate more input. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  19:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Using "game" and "video game" interchangeably is confusing. Let's just stick to "video game" and only use "game" when referring to a blanket term. The "video" part simply means "any display technology".--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The section above is copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#"video game" or "game" naming convention for topics?:
disagree: I'm a full-time game programmer - and neither I, nor my colleagues call outselves 'video game programmer'. The reason for that is that "video" is an obsolete term dating back to when computers that people used for playing games were almost always connected to TV sets - or perhaps were game consoles (also connected to TV sets). The Wiktionary definition of the word "video" is:
  1. Television, television show, movie.
  2. motion picture stored on VHS or some other format.
  3. (dated) VHS.
...none of which applies to games on the Internet or games on a cellphone or on a PC monitor. In the modern world, "Video games" tend to imply console games.
Ergo, all of this conversion from "Game <whatever>" to "Video game <whatever>" is wrong both from a language usage point of view - and from a practical usage point of view. If you wish to make a distinction from board games, then "Computer games" would perhaps be a better choice.
SteveBaker (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Copied from VG Talk response:
It is quite interesting that you draw conclusion from the term "video" alone. If we wish to quote WT, there is a perfectly fine definition of "video game":
"A type of game existing as and controlled by software, usually run by a video game console or a computer, and played on a video terminal or television screen. Controlled by a paddle, joystick, joypad, mouse, keyboard, or a combination of any of these input devices."
What I wish to have is consistency first and unambiguity second. Such names may be in conflict with everyday usage. The article content does not actually contain "video game <whatever>" and instead contain "game <whatever>". The argument is only about the article title. If I understand you correctly, your argument is about "video" part being wrongly used here. However, my understanding was that VG Project had settled long ago that "Computer game" is a subset of "Video game". In fact, the WP:NCVG states that "video game" is preferred over "computer game". —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  12:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
You are forgetting something really important that Wikipedians all too often forget: It's "truth" first, then (in far, far distant second and third places), "consistency" and "unambiguity". The truth is that game programmers are not called 'video game programmers' - they never have been (I've been in the business off and on since the 1970's) and probably never will be. Consistency and unambiguity have to take a back seat. SteveBaker (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, as a former game programmer, I disagree with the move simply on the grounds that it's unnecessary (right now). I held the title "game programmer" often in my career, but never "video game programmer"; the term just doesn't exist. I can see your desire for consistency, but how is "game programmer" ambiguous? How do you "program" a board game? Or a card game? Or any other type of game but a video game? I still disagree on the move of the articles simply based on the fact that there is no need now. When a conflict arises, move then. Peace, love, joy. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
He-he, don't make me write up semi-stubs for other game types. :)
The majority of opposition seems to be directed at game programmer/ing articles specifically because these are unambiguous as it is. The largish matter is still the article group as a whole - game design, game development, etc. I can certainly appreciate your point of views and I myself wanted to keep everything just "game" at first. But I still believe this borders on nitpicking rather than consistency. I also understand that "video game <blah>" is not an actual term in most cases. So again - make things consistent first. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  14:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I support all the other moves, but oppose the move of the game programmer/programming articles. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose moves: Nobody says "video-gaming", they just say "gaming". Likewise, we don't need the video anywhere else. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Trails blazed) 23:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody says video game industry, they say "game industry"; nobody says video game console, they say "console"; nobody says video game genres, they say "genres"; and so on and so forth. By your argument, should all such articles have their "video" part removed? I highly doubt I would get any support if I nominated them for moves to "Game <whatever>". In fact, I doubt I would get your support. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  00:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
If you said "gaming industry", "game consule" and "gaming genres, you'd get my vote. Why we adding unnecessary extra words? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 07:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Precision and consistency I presume per WP:AT main points 3 and 5. Also, "video game" is preferred over just "game", briefly mentioned in WP:NCVG. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  11:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Evidence: Please note...
  • As I (as a working game programmer) and User:Frecklefoot (another game programmer) have pointed out - the term "video game programmer" is simply never used in the industry - it's a completely incorrect term for people who write the software for games/video-games/computer-games.
  • Do a Google search on "game programmer" (don't forget the quotes because we need the words to be adjacent in the text) and you get over a quarter million hits. Do a search on "video game programmer" (again, don't forget the quotes) and then you only get 31,000 hits. Clearly the latter term is much less frequently used...which is reasonable because it's wrong.
  • The (video) game industry has a trade organization IGDA (The International Game Developer Association) - note that they do NOT cover board games, card games, etc - and they don't have the word "Video" in their title. This organizations web site is http://www.igda.org/ - and they have a 'Search' box. Once again, search for "game programmer" and "video game programmer". The former produces 58 hits on the IGDA site - the latter produces just one hit - and tellingly, it's in a forum post from a person thinking about starting a career in the business - someone who is clearly not yet familiar with the lingo. Every single other reference is to "game programmer"...no great surprise to me.
  • How about this approach: Take a look at User:SteveBaker/List_of_game_companies_in_Austin_Texas - there is a list of every (video) game company in the city I happen to live in - which is probably the second or third biggest city in the world for game companies: Austin, Texas. There are about 40 of companies here - and I've collected links to almost all of their web sites. Most of them have "Jobs" pages - go through them and find one that says they are hiring a "video game programmer"...you won't find a single one. BECAUSE THAT TERM IS NEVER USED. They also don't often call themselves "video game companies" or "video game developers" or "video game publishers". This "video" prefix is almost never used in the industry. To the extent that the "video" prefix IS used, it's by the general public - and then only when they are talking about "video games" because the general public feels the need to disambiguate other kinds of game. But that doesn't happen with programmers because there are no programmers of other kinds of game out there.
While I appreciate the desire for consistency - that's ALWAYS trumped by correctness - and in this case, the correct term is "game programmer" - anything else is just wrong. If there were (hypothetically) some other kind of job that was commonly called "game programmer" (I can't think of one because as soon as a board game or a card game or a pinball table has software added to it - it ceases to be a board game or whatever and becomes a computer game and the job of "game programmer" is still not ambiguous. But let's suppose that happened somehow. Then the correct Wikipedia-standard way to handle it is not to deliberately go and mis-name one of the articles to make it different - it is to create a disambiguation page of some kind and suffix the name of the second and subsequent articles with a disambiguation clause in parentheses. So if there were such a job as someone who programmed board games - and if by some curious coincidence, they too called themselves "game programmers" - then we'd have to call that second article "game programmer (board games)" or something like that. But screwing up the name of this article is madness.
So, there you have it - lots of evidence for the "don't rename the article" point of view - and in particular, a cite to the industry 'governing body' - which is definitive IMHO. Now - those of you who want to rename this article had better start thinking because so far you don't have ANY references to support "video game programmer". Also, recall you need consensus to change the article - no consensus means no change - which means you've gotta convince maybe 50% of the people who have responded so far to change their minds. I don't think that's going to happen.
SteveBaker (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I am unsure why you need to explain to me that "video" part is not used in such a patronizing manner. I have already said it myself several times before. I am yet to disagree with anyone on this. Your "evidence" probably shows this better than claims made before, but it doesn't change the fact that noone's denying that in the first place.
Also, your comment is very "programmer" part centred. I assume you imply other articles as well as you did not mention many?
Finally, as I have already said, my initial preference was removing the "video" part from all the topic articles. I went the "video" path because there was strong VG member support for it and I like consistency. The articles are named as they are only because the initial creator put them under these names or undiscussed moves were made.
I am not pushing my personal opinion here. I am happy either way. And on the side note — only Frecklefoot (regarding progr. article), Purplebackpack89 and you have opposed the moves so far. I don't know why we need to resort to counting members. My VG Project talk discussion did not attract many opinions, so I made an RfC which attracted no comments, so I had to make an RfM. It just so happens it ended up supporting "video". What I strongly oppose is the division of 50% articles saying "video game" and other 50% saying "game". Rest assured I will nominate all the "video game <blah>" articles to be moved to "game <blah>" should this RfM fail.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  12:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I apologise if my detailed 'evidence' came across as patronizing - I didn't intend that. We programmers are intensely logic-driven people and the desire to provide a complete explanation with detailed backup is just a part of our character! I was unaware of previous discussions - I only watchlist Game programmer.
Here is the logic: You need "video game" but you can't have "video game programmer" - you need "game programmer" and you can't have just "game" so kablooie! No consistency is possible because to force consistency causes either confusion or untruth - both of which trump consistency. Since we cannot have consistency - we must simply consider each article's name on its own merit. Here are my arguments for each:
  • Video game → Game -- Completely out of the question. "Video game" is clearly correct here - it's both unambiguous and in common use by laymen (although less so within the industry where the meaning of the word "game" is generally inferred from context).
  • Game programming → Video game programming -- I hope you'll agree that identical reasoning applies here...I can prove it if necessary, but it's pretty obvious because the activity and the person that carries out that activity are named the same way.
  • Game design → Video game design (and by implication: "Game designer") -- Here we have a couple of problems. Game designers are never called "video game designers" - but then people do design board games - so there is scope for ambiguity. We have to research the question: "Do board/card/book game designers simply call themselves "game designers"?" (I don't know the answer to that - but I suspect not). We must also ask ourselves: "Is it really necessary to separate out board game designers from the game designers that work in the video game industry?". IMHO, there is very little to say indeed about people who design those other kinds of game - it's nothing like the massive activity that video games are and there is no harm in having one article that covers all sorts of game designers. I know a couple of designers who have worked in both video games and collectible card games - and from their perspective, the difference in the two roles is not that large. So, unless a lot of information about the design of non-computer-based games comes to the fore - I think we can cover both "game design" and "game designer" without splitting the articles up - and therefore without the need for disambiguation. Should we ever need to disambiguate, we should follow Wikipedia guidelines and have "game designer" (for video games), "game designer (disambiguation)" and "game designer (board games)" as needed.
  • Game art design → Video game art design -- The word "design" rarely comes into use, the phrase is usually just "game art". Similarly, we have "game artists" and definitely not "video game artists". This is the same problem as for "design" and "designer" - so here we could aim for consistency.
On balance - I think I'd drop the "video" prefix for everything except the end-product "video game" - and in that case, we'd want redirects from "Game (video)", "Game (computer)" and "Computer game" - with the article actually being called "Video game".
SteveBaker (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
"Programmers are very special people".[Bethke, Erik (2003). Game development and production. Texas: Wordware Publishing, Inc. p. 41. ISBN 1-55622-951-8.]
Again, I have to point out that I am perfectly aware that none of the terms actually use "video" part in real life. You seem to reiterate this remark again and again. Although my point is different from your counter-arguments, I will reply in good faith.
  • You present a fact that "we need "game programmer"". You have initially assumed something that I do not agree with. The article title should be the conclusion of this discussion not the axiom. This serves to demonstrate that you have made up your mind. Nevertheless, I shall address the two more prominent of your points:
  • Forcing consistency in our case does not cause confusion. "Video game <blah>" tells more about the content than "Game <blah>". I personally find it amusing that people would get confused by an additional word. I also find it unlikely for the reader to become confused by the title because they think it supposedly represents the exact common usage. The article contents make it very clear that "video" part is not commonly used.
  • Forcing consistency in this case does not cause untruth. There have not been and never will not be any claims that the correct term is "video game <blah>". Adding additional descriptive words to a term does not make it wrong. There is nothing untrue about "video game <blah>" as long it does not argue that this is the actual common term.
The way I see it is this. Do we want: 0) all articles "Video game <blah>"; 1) all articles "Game <blah>"; or 2) mostly[1] "Video game <blah>"?
I hate to see it #2. From a similar choice of #0 and #1 — I chose #0. Simply because there is more support, it is less ambiguous and clear, and it is more beneficial for community. Our discussion could already power several small articles should we had devoted time to that.
[1]Mostly because: Video game developer, Independent video game development, Video game director, Video game producer, Video game publisher, Video game journalism, List of video game companies, List of video game developers, List of video game publishers, List of video game industry people, List of video game websites, Video game console, List of video game consoles, Video game console emulator, Video game industry, Video game controversy, Video game music, Video game genres, Video game addiction, Video game culture, Adult video game, Music video game, Multiplayer video game, Handheld video game, Racing video game, Side-scrolling video game, Video game content rating system, Video game art, Video game packaging, Video game music culture, List of video game musicians... The support for "video game" from VG Project is simply more prominent. And VG Project members are the ones who by large sustain these articles. return; —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  04:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
So, please scroll back up, re-read my response marked "Evidence" - and either refute it by presenting some evidence of your own - or admit that I'm right. Merely saying that a bunch of people here think it's a good idea is no kind of answer in the face of reliable sources such as the IGDA (check WP:CONSENSUS). There is no such animal as a "video game programmer". SteveBaker (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
You are right. Your evidence proves that the common term is "game <blah>". Agreed. This is the fifth time I am agreeing on this. Now, please address the issue itself. Your evidence fully proves 1 point from naming conventions - "recognisable" title. Agreed. General population recognises this title. This was not denied or challenged by anyone. However, you then compare my arguments against your evidence. Your evidence does not deal with Wikipedia titles, it deals with proving the common titles. My arguments deal with the titles, the naming convention. My arguments do not contradict your evidence. You provided only two points why "video" part should not be used — you said that using "video game <blah>" creates confusion and untruth. I replied to this above, but you did not comment. I believe I provided valid reasoning that the reader will not be confused and will not mistaken the article title for the official term. Do you disagree on this?
We are cross-referencing several major points of the WP:TITLE guideline here. I believe a small table should clarify the suitability of both title variants. I wish I started this RfM with this table. As I said, I started the discussion on VGTalk supporting "game <blah>" but have now convinced even myself otherwise.
Point "Game <blah>" "Video game <blah>"
Recognizable Yes.[2] Yes.[3]
Easy to find Yes.[4] Yes.[5]
Precise Partially.[6] Yes.[7]
Concise Yes.[8] Partially.[9]
Consistent No.[10] Yes.[11]
[2] Common term in reliable sources - ample evidence by SteveBaker.
[3] "Video" is a descriptive word that does not impede the meaning. Recognition of "video game <blah>" being "game <blah>" is obvious. I know of no cases where one would mistake the article title for another topic due to "video" part. Is there any evidence that general population gets confused over titles containing "video" part?
[4] Self-explanatory – common term. Unless ambiguity exists.
[5] Easily found. For external examples, First Google hit on "game console" is Video game console in WP; second Google hit on "game developer" is Video game developer on WP even though game developer is a dab page; etc. For internal example, "game console" redirects to "video game console". I do not see any issues with finding the article within WP or from outside search engine. Is there evidence that it is harder to find "video game <blah>" than "game <blah>" when searching for "game <blah>"?
[6] Game may encompass larger context than article contents. Some pages, such as previously mentioned Game art may be ambiguous to general public. Some pages, such as Game design may be ambiguous in certain cases. Some pages, such as Game programmer are unambiguous.
[7] No ambiguity. "Video game" fully encompasses and does not exceed the article context. Removal of "video" part reduces precision. There is no over-precision as such title is the shortest title to describe the topic truly unambiguously (except rare cases, such as "game programmer").
[8] Cannot be shortened without contesting other articles.
[9] Can be shortened usually without contesting other articles. However, as mentioned above, the "video game <blah>" is the shortest unambiguously precise variant. Shortening of title per this point will also degrade the suitability for other criteria - it would no longer be truly precise or consistent.
[10] Minority of articles are "Game <blah>".
[11] Majority of articles are "Video game <blah>".
Sorry about the programmer jokes before. It was intended as a friendly gesture. You may have seen this as making fun. I am a programmer myself.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  15:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I think I see the problem here. You are fixated on this as a question of renaming ALL "game <blah>" articles to "video game <blah>" - and I'm saying that this naming scheme is appropriate in some cases ("Video game" is certainly the right title for that article), but demonstrably inappropriate in other cases ("Game programmer" is right, "Video game programmer" is decidedly wrong) and it is a matter for some further research in other cases (Do the designers of board games call themselves "board game designers" or just "game designers"?).
If there are two classes of people who use the same name for their jobs then we have scope for ambiguity and we may need to disambiguate "Game designer (video games)" from "Game designer (board games)" according to standard Wikipedia guidelines. But if those people call themselves "Board game designer" then that's the title of their article and Game designer is for computer games.
For example we have "Map" for the common case and Map (mathematics) and Map (butterfly) for others - we don't go around giving articles awkward or incorrect titles like "Mathematical map" just to avoid the problem. You see this everywhere: Pluto is the dwarf planet - and Pluto (Disney) is the dog...not Cartoon Pluto...not Mickey Mouse's dog or The dog that Walt Disney drew called "Pluto" or whatever. So if there are really two kinds of people who do different jobs and who each call themselves "Game designer" then we do one of two things:
  1. If there are two articles that need the same name, we create "Game designer (video games)", "Game designer (board games)" and we make "Game designer" be a disambiguation page. (This happened in the case of Mercury where we knew there would be articles about the planet and the element in advance).
  2. If there is one, well-established article and a second one is added, then we leave the first article as-is ("Game designer"), we stick the disambiguation in parenthesis afterwards for the less common cases ("Game designer (Board games)") - and we create a "Game designer (disambiguation)" diaambiguation page - and we put: "For the article on people who design board games, see Game designer (board games), for other uses see: Game designer (disambiguation)." at the top of the article. That's the correct thing in this case because it's pretty unlikely that anyone will ever find enough material to write an article about board game designers anyway.
What we don't ever do is to finagle the situation by finding awkward names for articles to try to kludge our way out of the problem...which is precisely what you're trying to do by calling the article that is about "Game programmers" by the completely incorrect name "Video game programmer" - which even you agree isn't right. That's not the way Wikipedia works...period.
In the set of articles that are being discussed here, some can appropriately be named with the "video" prefix - others cannot. The principle point at issue here is your continued insistence that consistancy and disambiguation is somehow more important than giving articles the right name - and that's just not how Wikipedia operates.
As I keep telling you: Truth trumps consistency every time.
SteveBaker (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand your point. But I am not proposing disambiguation. There is no conflict with other articles. I am proposing article titles which I believe are slightly better than existing ones (excluding the "game programmer" one). Our case is not the same case as with Map (mathematics) or Pluto (Disney) or many other cases, where you cannot say "Mathematical mapping" or "Disney's Pluto" because that just sounds confusing. "Video game", on the other hand, has descriptive and clear meaning. "Video game designer" is more precise than "Game designer" and it does not confuse anyone. So, yes, I am proposing a naming scheme that I believe is almost always appropriate. The only inappropriate use so far may be the "video game programmer".
An example. "He is a programmer." "He is a game programmer." "He is a video game programmer." "He is a video game software programmer." Is any of these statements untrue? If I follow your principle that only "game programmer" is the "truth", then the other three sentences are false. My point being — just because something is always implied and thus not commonly used, does not make it "untrue". You imply that "video game <blah>" is wrong because "game <blah>" is right. Both can be right. One can be used much more commonly than the other. But both are still right. Our purpose is to introduce the reader to the article context with the article's title. I believe "video game <article>" serves this purpose better than "game <article>". I have already given a detailed reasoning for this in the table summary above.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  21:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Except that "video game programmer" and "video game software programmer" are both tautologies. Neither is a phrase that is used to any significant degree - all game programmers are programmers of video games and all game programmers are programmers of software. We don't go around calling "car mechanics" something like "four wheeled gasoline or diesel powered car mechanics" because (a) all of the extra verbiage doesn't add an ounce to the meaning and (b) it inadvertently and incorrectly excludes people who work on 3 wheeled or electric cars - so it subtracts meaning. So we stop refining the category of "mechanic" once we have reached an unambiguous level of description. Same deal here. "game programmer" is a necessary subdivision of "programmer" but "video game programmer" doesn't add further meaning to that (and, if you read the definition of the word "video" - it actually subtracts from the meaning by implying that game programmers only work on console games and not PC's, phones, embedded games, web-games, etc).
Again, I am aware what common use is. Regarding "video", see my reply for point "Precise". Also, I have already mentioned that "game programmer" article is the unambiguous exception to this discussion, yet it remains your central point. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  00:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
If you STILL aren't convinced, let me try and attack this from a different direction. I've been hacking around in Wikipedia since April 2005, I have made over 20,000 edits - I think I'm pretty familiar with the rules around here. The guidelines are there to break these kind of disputes. So how about we take look at what WP:TITLE says:
Every Wikipedia article must have a unique title. While not always possible, the ideal title is:
  • Recognizable – Using names and terms commonly used in reliable sources, and so likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article.
  • Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles).
  • Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.
  • Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief.)
  • Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles.
Of these five criteria - which ones do "game programmer" best meet - and which do "video game programmer" fit best?
  • Recognizable requires "names and terms commonly used in reliable sources" - and I think I've conclusive proven that "game programmer" wins here. You don't seem to disagree with me about that.
I agree "game <topic>" articles are recognisable. But so are "video game <topic>" articles. I am yet to meet a person who would not recognise both. You said it yourself, these are tautologies, equally recognisable. Regarding use in sources, which is your major point. As I said, all the sources establish context before mentioning the terms. Wikipedia titles establish context before introducing content. My proposed naming scheme is in no way less recognisable than your supported naming scheme.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  00:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Easy to find demands that we use terms that readers are most likely to use. If (as I've shown) 90% of Google hits are for "game programmer" and only 10% for "video game programmer - then we must deduce that "game programmer" wins here also.
  • Again, you are referring to the common term used. Thus people google "game programmer". And it does not matter if article is "game programmer" or "video game programmer". The hit will be #1. Wikipedia also has redirects. Both article titles are equally easy to find.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  00:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Precise - but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic. Adding "video" is less precise - not more precise - because the definition of the word "video" doesn't include a whole bunch of games that game programmers work on. The only thing that suggests the use of "video" is that the general public have used the word "video" incorrectly when they say "video game". So "game programmer" is more precise.
  • As I quoted WT before, "video game" encompasses all display technology games. This has been adopted by general public, as you also say. This has already been established by consensus long ago. Video game is common term for console/pc/mobile/etc. games. The article itself says so. I already replied to this and you did not comment. I am not sure why this is even under debate. "Video" does not subtract any meaning, it in fact enhances it. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  00:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Concise - Which is briefer? "game programmer" wins again.
  • Consistent - Well, if we were to adopt "video game designer" and "video game artist" then you would certainly have to say that "video game programmer" would win this one...but the problem is that game designers are NOT called "video game designers" and game artists are not called "video game artists". (Actually, most of the time they are just called "artists" - maybe "CGI artists" - but never "video").
  • Again, common use has nothing to do with this guideline. This refers to use in other article titles. "Video game" is the consistent use so far.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  00:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
So at best "video game programmer" wins only one of the five criteria that the Wikipedia guidelines require us to consider...and I'd contend that because game designers and artists are also never called 'video game <blah>' - that the more consistent thing to do is to drop the word "video" from all of the article titles (except "video game" which we agree is the right choice and therefore has to be inconsistent). But even if you disagree with me on "consistent" - you don't have a leg to stand on for the other four criteria: recognizable, easy, precise or concise. The guidelines have more to say about that:
Most articles will have a simple and obvious title that satisfies most or all of these ideal criteria. If so, use it, as a straightforward choice. However, it may be necessary to trade off two or more of the criteria against one another; in such situations, article titles are determined by consensus, usually guided by the usage in reliable sources.
My choice does indeed fit "most or all" - yours fits just one. It also allows me to not fill all five of the criteria - four is plenty good enough. It even says that consensus decisionmaking should be "guided by the usage in reliable sources" - which in this case is the IGDA and "game programmer". So how on earth can you continue to dispute this?
Honestly - you're beating a dead horse here. You've lost - give it up. You don't have consensus to change - you ain't getting consensus to change - you don't have a scrap of evidence for your position - I have plenty of evidence for the status quo - and the Wikipedia guidelines say you're dead wrong. What possible grounds do you still have for debating this?
SteveBaker (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be treating this as some sort of fight by use of words "attack", "win", "lose", etc. I was unaware of consensus being built like this. I have stayed neutral (if not forthcoming) in my comments and I expect you would do the same.

The guidelines do not say I am wrong, you interpret them that way. Your "evidence" has been about common use of term and not about title use. This last post is the first time you have directly addressed the naming convention points. You have worked through the "game programmer" title again, although I have already mentioned I agree it is the exception. I have replied to each individual point, just as consistently as I have throughout all my replies and comments. I hope you will extend the same courtesy. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  00:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I talk about 'game programmer' mostly through familiarity - but it's not an exception - the argument applies identically to 'game designer', 'game design' and arguably, also to 'game artist' (although, as I explained, 'CGI artist' might be more appropriate in the latter case) - nobody calls themselves a 'video game designer' or a 'video game artist', they are every bit as invalid as 'game programmer'. When you realise that this is true - the "consistency" thing flips because then we have more articles that shouldn't start with 'video' than articles that should. What does make 'game designer' and 'game artist' different from 'game programmer' is that all game programmers are working on 'video games' but some 'game designers' are working on board games, card games, etc. However, adding superfluous prefixes isn't how Wikipedia handles that kind of disambiguation (as I explained - and as WP:TITLE confirms). So even if we think there is scope for 'game design' becoming two articles - they should be called 'game design (video games)' and 'game design (card games)' or something. What you are proposing here is contrary to the Wikipedia standard for article naming - and that's simply not OK. SteveBaker (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
In any case, I have made my argument. I do not see much value in continued rephrasing of my points. As I said, my goal was consistency, and I do not personally really care about either naming convention. I rather direct my effort in actually working on an article or two. Thank you for your responses and input. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  00:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support has nothing to do with pen-and-paper RPG development, board game design, military wargaming, etc. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Nobody said it did. Please re-read the arguments from WP:TITLE (above) which explains that adding a superfluous word to the title in order to disambiguate different meanings of the same title is categorically NOT the way Wikipedia handles that. We add disambiguation terms in parenthesis after the title. So, because the people who design computer games don't call themselves 'video game designers' - we are required by WP:TITLE to call the article "game designer" and if there should ever be articles about military wargame designers, we would call it "game designer (military wargames)" - which is the correct title per WP:TITLE. SteveBaker (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
"We add disambiguation terms in parenthesis after the title." That's not entirely correct. Read WP:PRECISION, the part about Cato the Elder / Cato the Younger. Also read WP:NCDAB, the part about mathematical analysis and analysis (mathematics). Based on that, both Video game development or Game development (video games) are okay. Pcap ping 00:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
All of the main body of WP:PRECISION points to choosing either Game development or, possibly. Game development (video games). It specifically warns us to avoid over-precision...'Video game development' is indeed over-precision. It tells us to prefer a concise title. It says that when there is ambiguity, that when the topic is primary (or only) that we can use the title directly...since there is not (nor is ever likely to be) an article about non-computer-game development - then this article should be Game development. If you really want to argue (and it's a hell of a stretch) that some other "game development" article is 'the primary topic' for this title - then you're left with the second bullet point that says that we disambiguate with a tag in parenthesis (as in Game development (video games)) - and only if there is there is a "natural mode of disambiguation" should you resort to the 'Cato the Elder' kind of solution. But the entire problem here is that computer game developers don't EVER call themselves "video game developers" - so this cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called "natural" - so the parenthetical form is clearly the best.
So WP:PRECISION gives us a simple decision tree:
  1. Is computer game development the "primary topic" when considering the term "Game development? If yes then the title should be "Game development" plain and simple...otherwise...
  2. If computer game development is not the "primary topic", then: Is there a "natural mode of disambiguation"? If so, we should use that title...which, I suppose could be Video game development...otherwise...
  3. If computer game development is not the primary topic and there is no "natural" mode of disambiguation, then the title should be "Game development (video games)".
It seems pretty clear to me (because there is almost nothing published about board game development or card game development - and we have no article about it) that the answer to (1) is "Yes". Even if it's not - then since the answer to (2) is demonstrably "No" (eg do a search in reputable sources like the IGDA) - so we must go with (3). Your choices are (1) and (3)...choice (2) is utterly out of the question. Even if you get really pig-headed/stubborn about this and insist that computer game development is not the primary topic AND that "video game development" is a "natural mode of disambiguation", it does not REQUIRE that we use that over the parenthetical form...it merely offers it as an option. Since we're on shakey and disputed terratory with "video game development", WP:PRECISION offers no obstacle to picking a consensus-winning choice of Game development (video games). Ergo, "video game development" should not be under consideration at all! SteveBaker (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Clearly well-intentioned, but per WP:TITLE dab, if necessary, should be done using parentheticals, not by moving the article name away from the WP:COMMONNAME. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support in prinicple either Video game development or Game development (video games), but not the current title which enroaches on other fields based on the assertion that "game development" is unamibgous in its own field. (Isn't that obvious?) But, oppose moving this for now because there are no articles on the development of other types on games in Wikipedia, so there's nothing to dab this article from, per WP:PRECISION. The current hat note seems sufficient for now. Disambiguation pages aren't usually created preemptively, see Wikipedia:DAB#Disambiguation_page_or_disambiguation_links.3F. Pcap ping 23:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move to Video game development. Although "gaming" is a colloquialism, it's proper use (and thus encyclopedic use) should probably be "video gaming" for more precision. Note, for example, the many uses at the gaming disambiguation, as well as the location of the article on video games. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

XGS PIC

The XGameStation PIC was not a 1990s Game Devlopment tool. It was a homebrew DIY console released by Entrepreneur and Author Andre' LaMothe in 2009.

It may look like an early DevKit due to the quality of graphics and the DIY PCB nature of the board, but it's not a DevKit or anything related to 1990s Game Development.

If you were implying it's in the 1990s style then it just needs a re-write for clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.119.253.6 (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 208.75.16.43, 11 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} "in 2008... in 2008" duplicate at end of history section. Delete one of them.

208.75.16.43 (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83 pride 18:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixing a mess

User:Harrypotter decided (without consultation and contrary to the findings of our protracted discussions (above)) to rename this page to "Video game development". He then proceeded to make a new "Game development" disambiguation page - which makes it impossible for anyone without admin privilages to restore the situation.

In an effort to fix this unholy mess - I have moved the disambiguation page to "Game development (disambiguation)" and made a redirect from "Game development" to "Video game development". If there are any admins listening to this - the final step is to swap the titles of the "Game development" redirect and the current location of this article at "Video game development".

Please, please, people - before you take drastic and hard-to-revert action like renaming such a popular article:

  1. Search back through the archives and be read ALL previous discussion on the subject.
  2. If you don't find such a consensus discussion, start one.
  3. If and when that discussion turns out to agree with you - go ahead and move the article.

This is a bad way to "be bold".

SteveBaker (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: Although half the visitors arrive here through Game_development, the other half arrives directly at Video_game_development. I am not really arguing (again) that this title is better, but that it works and Game development can remain the redirect and not a dab page (as the original mover intended). At least it can be noted that it has been a week without more objections. Not that I don't agree the move was non-consented and created a fait accompli. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:VG assessment

This article needs a serious copyedit and prose cleanup. There are also numerous unreferenced portions, portions with citation and OR tags. As such, I don't think this is quite ready to bring up to C-Class yet and will keep it at Start-Class for the time being until some more improvements are made. –MuZemike 20:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

C++ weaknesses

According to Game programming, C++ has two weaknesses: no built-in garbage collection, and no protection from memory leaks. I thought that was C, not C++, which I'm pretty sure has garbage collection built in, and whose new operator prevents memory leaks. Should those weaknesses be moved to C? --24.49.42.224 (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

C++ has neither garbage collection nor protection from memory leaks (the two being rather similar things). However, I would argue as to whether this is a strength or a weakness. Having attempted game programming in JavaScript (which has garbage collection), one is continually getting performance glitches (dropped frames) due to garbage collection kicking in and consuming a bunch of CPU time. As a professional game developer myself - I'd VERY much prefer a system without garbage collection to one with it - and will continue to use C++, in part BECAUSE it has no garbage collection! SteveBaker (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Steve Baker is correct. C++ has destructors which can help with garbage collection (freeing memory), but it doesn't mean the programmer necessarily does it correctly, or destroys objects when needed. C has even poorer tools for memory management. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Specifically: Both C and C++ support dynamic memory allocation (via 'malloc' and 'free' in C or via 'new' and 'delete' in C++). C++ does a better job than C, no doubt - but it's not garbage collection. In both C and C++, you are at perfect liberty to say:
 char *c ;
 int i ;
 for ( i = 0 ; i < 1000000 ; i++ )
   c = new char [ 100 ] ;   // or "c = malloc ( 100 )" in C
...and you've just leaked around a hundred megabytes of memory that cannot be reclaimed for future use until the program finally exits. In C/C++ this would be considered a bug in almost every case - but more subtle variations of this programming error are extremely easy to produce.
A garbage collector is a subsystem that some languages employ (JavaScript, for example) that kicks in at infrequent intervals (like maybe when you're running low on memory - or once every few seconds or something) and searches through all of the memory blocks that you've allocated, making sure that you're still retaining pointers to that memory. So in the example above, the garbage collector would notice that you no longer have a pointer to 999,999 of those hundred byte memory blocks - and free them all up for you. It's very effective in preventing sloppy programmers and buggy programs from slowly eating up all of memory and perhaps crashing as a result. Garbage collection is a luxury...it allows sloppy programmers to make a program that doesn't ever leak memory no matter what. But you don't need it - good programmers regularly write massively complex software that doesn't leak memory and doesn't resort to garbage collection.
The problem is that this is an extremely time-consuming process - and the programmer has little or no control over when it happens or how long it takes. For interactive game development, this is the kiss of death. You're trying to maintain a smooth update rate of such-and-such frames per second, when suddenly - without warning or permission - the garbage collector kicks in and eats maybe a hundred milliseconds! The more complex your programs' data structures are - and the more memory chunks you allocate, the longer it takes. So sophisticated 3D graphics, AI and physics algorithms tend to make the garbage collector ever more intrusive. One of the most significant objections to the trend towards online gaming with JavaScript and WebGL/HTML5/canvas is that JavaScript garbage collects.
It is actually possible to write your own garbage collector on top of C++ by declaring your own pointer classes and overloading operator new and operator delete - but it's not a built-in/mandatory feature of the language.
This is a slightly controversial subject though. Probably the best thing would be to remove garbage collection from the table as either an advantage or a disadvantage of each of these languages. For some people in some applications, it's an advantage (eg if your were writing a turn-based game, performance is less of an issue and garbage collection makes programming the game easier) and in others it's a disadvantage (eg in an interactive 1st person shooter running at 60 frames per second where garbage collection will cause horrible frame rate glitches).
SteveBaker (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
This discussion probably should have been at Talk:game programming, but this above analysis is helpful and sound; Automatic garbage collection is a feature of languages, but its usefulness is not universal. —Ost (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Crowd funding

There is no mention of the crowd funded model. This article assumes the traditional developer-publisher relationship. --181.50.171.104 (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

True. It's hard to cover all bases. I think crowd funding should be worked in somehow, but I, personally, have little experience with this approach. Will need to rely on verifiable refs, but I guess we should always do that anyways. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Mobile game development?

This article is quite console centric and does not really reflect the situation in the mobile game industry anymore. Should mobile game development be discussed as a separate part of this article or as an independent article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Institutiongeek (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably as part of the article. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge from First playable demo

As noted at Talk:First playable demo#Merge, I don't think that article can stand on its own. Suggest we merge it into this one at Video game development#First playable and redirect the title "First playable demo" to that target. - dcljr (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a very arbitrary milestone and the definition varies according to the source. It can be sourced, but there is unlikely to be much content besides all sources saying the same thing. So it sounds like a reasonable merge. The article briefly mention non-video games, but I've never heard the term used for them and it's currently unsourced. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Video game development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This URL worked, but edit was reverted away by another user. See next section (immediately below) for another attempt to fix the ref. - dcljr (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Video game development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine (checked by myself and Marlin Setia1). - dcljr (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Video game development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Outdated references?

"An average development budget for a multiplatform game is US$18-28M, with high-profile games often exceeding $40M."

This is backed by a reference from 2010. Isn't 6 years too long for something fast-moving like the average game budget to stay accurate? 08:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.20.62 (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Video_game_development/Archive_1&oldid=1174793858"