Network now...MAGAZINE
Can Games Survive History?
The following article is an abridged version taken from the latest issue of Edge. The full feature can be found in issue 199, which is on sale now in the UK and is already in the hands of UK and North American subscribers.
“History’s boring” is the kind of thing you hear from people who think their mistakes are original. When combined with other assumptions, like the idea that something on the internet can never entirely disappear, we risk being dangerously ignorant about the value of contemporary culture.
The amount of content produced on the internet about videogames is staggering; quite apart from the jamboree of developer interviews, previews, reviews and features on commercial websites, there are blog posts, fansites, fan-created works of several kinds, forum threads, ad campaigns, virals, videos, dedicated websites, mods and user-generated material – whether inspired by a mainstream or obscure game.
And when people move on to the next exciting thing, where does it all go? It might stagnate with a few visitors a month, be buried ever deeper in site archives or quite simply disappear. The real answer is that we don’t know.
Yet these artefacts don’t simply reflect the games themselves, they shine a light on both the audience and the culture they were made for. Indeed, this material is probably the best available indication of what the mass of gamers really feels and thinks.
“It’s as essential as the game code itself in explaining the impact and meaning of the work,” says Iain Simons, director of GameCity and co-founder of the National Videogame Archive. “This all comes with an important curatorial caveat: these comments and assets need to not just be preserved, they need to be sorted, evaluated and a taxonomy or perhaps folksonomy for their use defined.”
And there’s the rub. The current situation couldn’t be further from Simons’ ideal. There are repositories for a great deal of basic videogame information, Wikipedia being by far the best of a bad bunch, but no place for such videogame ephemera, let alone its classification and ordering.
Projects such as the Internet Archive are either extraordinarily selective – type ‘Wipeout’ into the search function and you’ll get just one video match for the first game – or require a detailed knowledge of what existed in the past to search stored http addresses directly.
So Wikipedia is, by default and certainly not intention, the best searchable repository that currently exists for the games themselves. Naturally it’s beset with faults, and a recent incident illustrates not just Wikipedia’s unsuitability for storing information about videogames themselves, but also the difficulties that lie in wait for any attempt to do so with secondary sources.
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Culture is older than the internet too though. Even a lot of what's written on the internet only covers more recent games, or is done in such a way that the history behind video games is ignored in the first place.
"Projects such as the Internet Archive are either extraordinarily selective – type ‘Wipeout’ into the search function and you’ll get just one video match for the first game – or require a detailed knowledge of what existed in the past to search stored http addresses directly."
The Internet Archive generally lacks searchability. I'd really love to be able to do keyword searches on the web archive, but it doesn't do that. However, without a whole lot more computing power being added to their server farm, it's not going to happen - the site already feels very slow. This means the Archive isn't really a good judge of how accessible something is... so what it needs is some _current_ site (like Wikipedia or a Wikia) to have a direct link to the Archive, which would then make that content accessible.
I have had an idea for a couple of years now to do a website that would offer what this article wants, however, I've fallen down on the technical know how of how to actually produce such a site.
Time is also an issue, since i would want something that like Wikipedia, anyone could contribute to, but unlike Wikipedia, would have to go past an editor first.
As another Wikipedian who works on video games, I feel a bit honored and shamed by this article. Honored that the video game work done on Wikipedia is considered one of the better sources for video game history, and shamed at the inherent flaws in the system.
Yes an article about an old video game was deleted, and I can certainly see how that would frustrate those involved in its creation. However, Wikipedia was not meant to be the ultimate repository of video game knowledge. It does a decent job at it, but that's not it's only job and certainly not it's primary one. I believe it's hard to really fault Wikipedia for Threshold getting deleted when that is take that into account.
While many may find it easier to fault Wikipedia for such articles getting deleted, those active on the site will tell you it is very difficult to find suitable sources for older video games. The truth of the matter is that all Wikipedians are at the mercy of reliable sources; if they don't exist or you can't find them, then you can't write about the topic. Thankfully, I stumbled across your magazine—among a few other UK ones—some time ago, and was very pleased to find some excellent articles detailing some of the information I was looking for.
In short, if the gaming press is unhappy about the lack of video game history on Wikipedia, the best thing that can be done is to run more articles about it. Of course, contemporary topics are where the money is for gaming magazines and websites, but I believe retro topics would still be well received. And I guarantee there editors on Wikipedia that could use the extra sources.
Emulators?
As a Wikipedia administrator who worked in gaming articles for quite a long time, I am saddened by this article. Not because it is inaccurate, but because there is some true. I personally play MUDs still (and even polished its article, as much as I could do), and indeed, there is a lack of documentation about that era.
Nowadays I try to keep (along with several others) the list of best-selling video games and the list of best-selling video game franchises up to date. And while information about new games is easily found, information about old games is pretty different. Finding reliable sources is extremely hard for such old games that we need to "bend" rules to accept certain references that may not be very reliable.
What 4thVariety says is true as well: there are so many lost films, masterpieces that have been lost because of, for example, studios destroyed them to make storage room for new movies. The gaming industry is very young, and forgetting to record information is still happening (how many times we have heard that certain developers cannot port certain games because they have lost the source code?). Or in the case of Okami, the source code was incomplete until someone in Japan discovered a hard drive with the missing resources?
As a wikipedian, though, I feel Wikipedia is being misjudged here too. The policies and guidelines exist to give it a certain scope, otherwise people could create articles about their family members, games they have written, or restaurants they have visited. These rules (some of which are unfair, I agree, but that is another discussion) tend to favor "visibility" instead of importance. For example, someone participating in an American Idol reality has its own article, because it is covered by the media, making it notable by our own definition. However, something important like the discovery of a new drug that heals cancer won't be accepted until it is covered by reliable media. We are slaves of what the reliable sources do or don't. If they prefer covering Britney Spears instead of the first MUD ever created, it is not our fault.
Personal experience: the list of best-selling video game franchises currently have a threshold of 5 million units. Any series selling more than that and referenced with a reliable source can be added. Some companies like Ubisoft and Capcom boast list of series sales, which we can use. However others like don't do. For example, how about the Tiger Woods franchise? It surely sold more than 5 million, but the media never covered nor Electronic Arts published that information. Or Smash Bros, the last game of the franchise sold more than 5 million alone, but we have never heard Nintendo or any other media claiming how much they have sold. So, it is missing from the list (and from time to time we are asked why we don't add it). The example that hurts the most is Pac-Man. Only the Atari version sold more than 5 million units, but it is virtually impossible to obtain even an approximate number, much less in a reliable media. Namco pumps the fact that it was played a couple of billion times, but other than that, no sales number. In ten years, people will search for the history of video games, which games have sold the most, and will be missing one of the most important games ever created.
Regardless of missing entries, we are pretty proud that both lists are usually mentioned or used as source in articles from gaming sites to newspapers. And ends up giving the reason to the Edge Staff in that we are usually the first place to look for that information.
This is exactly why the responsibility falls on the fans. It's up to us to ensure that we keep a record of the games we love, or love to hate.
Wikipedia might be the wrong database, though wikis are a great tool. Wikia Gaming (www.gaming.wikia.com) was founded by J. Wales, with the same vision of Wikipedia, but more concerned with enabling rather than limiting the knowledge base. If Wikipedia is the encyclopedia, Wikia is the rest of the library.
With a wealth of information available online, it's easy to get lost and buried; communities however can sort through the information, document it, and share their passion with others. And there are thousands of such communities building content that won't be lost on both new and old titles. Games like Fallout (http://fallout.wikia.com) have a great community and a wealth of information on the franchise, even Mario (http://mario.wikia.com) and Zelda (http://zelda.wikia.com) will cheat death with an active community. Not to mention the MUD wiki is now at Wikia (http://mud.wikia.com/wiki/MUD).
The tools are there, the passion is there, the movement just needs a leader...or a historian :)
www.wikia.com
The thing with games is that they still aren't considered as art by a large number of people. Those people think there is nothing about them worth saving.
I remember back in the days of next-generation.com when the site splintered. As a Saturn fan (www.brianwoods.com/?p=382), my fav area was Saturn World. For years now, that has all been gone.
At least we have people like Jason Scott (http://www.getlamp.com/) working on things and trying to get them documented.
Brian
www.brianwoods.com
Early movies, many lost.
Early recordings, many lost.
Early writing, lost lost lost.
Early paintings, many lost.
Early sculptures, lost lost lost.
And that's only while looking at other "arts". If you compare games to other commercial products, then the outlook is even worse. If it sticks it sticks, if it doesn't it will get replaced and we will never remember that there was something predating it. Pretty much the same way most religions went.