[game_preservation] Game Database question

[Sean Gugler]

What do you all think of using the term "edition" rather than
"version"?  Like Henry, I associate "version" with numeric updates and
patches, though perhaps "revision" is an even better term for those.  I
would propose that the key distinction is that a "revision" is intended
as a replacement, whereas an "edition" is an alteration intended to
reach an additional audience.

Cheers,

          - Sean



On 3/14/2010 6:30 PM, 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

>   

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

>

> _______________________________________________

> game_preservation mailing list

> game_preservation at igda.org

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

>