[game_preservation] Game Database question

[Henry Lowood]

All,

Lots of interesting points here.   I'm going to just make some quick 
comments and notes:

1. The issue of standards did come up at the Roundtable as a desired 
area to work on as a group.   It's not really possible to go into depth 
at the Roundtable, but now that the issue is on the table, we can think 
about how to organize our efforts.

2. In formulating standards, libraries should be involved, and indeed 
the Preserving Virtual Worlds devoted some time to discussion of this 
topic at our recent close-out meeting.  If a second phase is funded, we 
will devote some attention to this issue.  We also talked about 
available databases and how to involve them, e.g. Mobygames.  Jim, would 
you or someone else in the Mobygames group be interested in becoming 
part of the conversation in our project group?  Jan, how about you?  
Anybody else working in this area that we should include?

3. Much of the discussion here about versions might benefit from a peak 
at what book cataloging.  Not so much the standard AACR2 rules, but 
analytical bibliography.  I'm thinking of Philip Gaskell's /New 
Introduction to Bibliography /as a good example of how deep descriptive 
bibliography works.  Note that many of the issues around variants, 
pirated editions, etc., also come up in the rare book world. 

4. I haven't read all the posts, so forgive me if I am making a dopey 
comment here: In the discussion about "versions" so far, I missed a 
treatment of what are most commonly called versions, that is, patches.   
This is a growing issue, esp. with respect to on-line games that are 
frequently patched.   It used to be mostly a PC games issue, but not 
anymore.

Those are just my quick thoughts for now.   My main point is that if 
there is sufficient interest in a focused effort here, let's get a 
working group together and team up with Preserving Virtual Worlds 
folks.   I'm happy to be a go-between, esp. since I have a foot in both 
worlds.

Henry

Devin Monnens wrote:

> 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

>

> 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 

> <mailto: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-info

>     for 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:game_preservation at igda.org>

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

>

>

>

>

> -- 

> Devin Monnens

> www.deserthat.com <http://www.deserthat.com>

>

> The sleep of Reason produces monsters.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> _______________________________________________

> game_preservation mailing list

> game_preservation at igda.org

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

>   


-- 
Henry Lowood
Curator for History of Science & Technology Collections;
     Film & Media Collections
HRG, Green Library
557 Escondido Mall, Stanford University Libraries
Stanford CA 94305-6004 USA
http://www.stanford.edu/~lowood
lowood at stanford.edu; 650-723-4602

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/game_preservation/attachments/20100314/82b3e33c/attachment.html>