[game_preservation] Game Database question

[Devin Monnens]

Let me begin by emphasizing something that I think should have been
emphasized at the roundtable more: we need to work on standards that all
libraries and archives can agree on.

For cataloging, I would go back to 'what is the minimum amount of data
required to indicate how the game is identified'? Beyond this, we would want
to know 'what does it take to run this game as intended?'

Jim makes a couple good points here as well.

First, how different do two copies of a game have to be for them to be
considered different games? Golden Axe on HG101 is a good example of a
comparison. I don't know where I'd even begin here.

http://hg101.kontek.net/goldenaxe/goldenaxe.htm

<http://hg101.kontek.net/goldenaxe/goldenaxe.htm>An easier example. In the
NES and Famicom versions of Castlevania 3, you have graphical changes like
the vampire frogs (!) replaced with hunchbacks. The game functions
identically despite this graphical change, but it could be argued there is a
different interpretation if there are hunchbacks. However, the handshake
switch does change some meaning in the game (Trevor is righty or lefty/he is
shaking Sypha's hand or holding it delicately). On a more dramatic level,
the music is superior in the Famicom version, so this is a something notable
that could affect a player's perception (better music makes players think
the game is better). However, there is also a rule change where the damage
taken is different - in the US version, damage is based on game level while
in the Famicom, it is based on what kind of enemy hits you (which makes
later stages easier). I'm not sure I would consider these big enough
differences though to warrant calling it a different game, more like
different version numbers. With the Golden Axe examples, I think there's
greater leeway in calling a port a different game. There simply isn't an
analogue to this in film or novels because the content doesn't really change
if it's on vhs or dvd or in times new roman versus arial.

http://www.castlevaniadungeon.net/Games/cv3foreign.html

The second I think is this dismissal of piracy categories, and here I think
there needs some clarification. Game lists such as 'Goodtools' can be very
useful in documenting changes between two games. However, these are not
currently tied to metadata so we don't know exactly what changes were made
or where each version came from (usually). I wouldn't completely dismiss
this resource as a byte-to-byte comparison of the games can indicate if
there is a difference in two games for the same platform.


On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> wrote:


> On 3/14/2010 3:55 PM, Jan Baart wrote:

>

>> Mobygames basically ignores the concept of

>> game versions and just throws it all into one kettle.

>>

>

> Considering I designed MobyGames to do exactly the opposite, I'm curious

> what you mean.  The main screens certainly try to summarize all platforms so

> that comparisons can be made at a glance, but the specific information is

> under the hood and is accessible.  Are you talking about different platforms

> for the same game?  (For example, Jones in the Fast Lane has a DOS version

> as well as a Windows 3.x version, and each are listed as a platform)  Or do

> you mean different releases of the same game?  If the latter, then different

> revisions of a game can be noted along with their version, date, and

> comments (see

> http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/kings-quest-v-absence-makes-the-heart-go-yonder/release-infofor an example)

>

> As for your differentiation between EGA vs. VGA as a "release", both were

> included in the packaging (see

> http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/kings-quest-v-absence-makes-the-heart-go-yonder/cover-art/gameCoverId,43069/) so I'm not sure why those should be categorized as different releases.

>

> One of the problems I saw in the late 1990s was that game listings were

> dominated more by pirate group releases and not actual proper publisher

> releases.  As less and less people have access to the original as years go

> by, this only gets worse.  Both of your examples point to a pirate-centric

> view.  I'm not calling you a pirate, btw -- *I* was certainly a raging

> pirate in the 1980s, I ran the first abandonware site sent a cease and

> desist letter by the (then) IDSA, and I still crack and release stuff I can

> get my hands on today that doesn't seem to have made it into the wild.  But

> despite my love of reverse-engineering and my desire to preserve history,

> categorizing games based on what pirate groups distributed doesn't seem very

> sound.

>

>

>  What I'm basically wondering is this. Do you guys think of these as

>> different games or just versions of games? After all, as food for

>> thought, these often differ more than ports from one system to another

>> and such ports always get separate entries in game databases.

>>

>

> I'll illustrate my beliefs with the most difficult example I can think of:

>  Jones in the Fast Lane.  That game had two package releases:

>

>        - DOS, floppy, 3.5" and 5.25", EGA and VGA

>        - CDROM talkie edition with Windows 3.1 and DOS binaries

>

> I would call these two different platforms, with two "versions" per

> platform.  That's not 100% accurate since the DOS and Windows CDROM edition

> are in the same package, but it's close enough for the purposes of our

> discussion.

>

> A different example is comparing Heart of China to King's Quest V. Heart of

> China was published in two separate packages, one EGA/CGA and another VGA.

>  KQV was a single package with both sets of disks.  So I would say that

> Heart of China is two different (publisher) releases, while KQV is one

> release despite having two sets of disks in it.

>

> The bigger problem you pose is:  How different does a game have to get on

> different platforms before it's not the same game?  When we built MobyGames'

> platform support, we made sure to make things easily comparable, because I

> find it historically fascinating to see how a game was re-implemented on

> various platforms.  Take Elite as an example, and poke through

> http://www.mobygames.com/game/elite/screenshots for some interesting

> comparisons.  It's interesting to see how it was altered for the limitations

> of the platform it was destined for (apple II has wireframe only, etc.) but

> it's obvious it's the same game.

>

> Now, take "Tomb Raider" for the Gameboy:

> http://www.mobygames.com/game/gameboy-color/tomb-raider_/screenshots/gameShotId,256516/ Despite the common name and character art, it is clearly not a port of the

> original; it is more inspired by it.  So it shouldn't be included with the

> main, consolidated entry, and it isn't.

>

> The Elite example illustrates why MobyGames needs more volunteers -- the

> original Elite was for the BBC Micro which, despite the many platforms that

> *are* listed, isn't yet a supported platform in MobyGames.

> --

> Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org)            http://www.oldskool.org/

> Help our electronic games project:           http://www.mobygames.com/

> Or check out some trippy MindCandy at     http://www.mindcandydvd.com/

> A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/

>

> _______________________________________________

> game_preservation mailing list

> game_preservation at igda.org

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_preservation

>




-- 
Devin Monnens
www.deserthat.com

The sleep of Reason produces monsters.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/game_preservation/attachments/20100314/960bde49/attachment.html>