Older arcade games are completely different games than their console counterparts, and I feel that there should be separate articles for situations such as Pac-Man(Arcade) and Pac-Man(2600). They are alike in theme, but totally different in execution. Rather than sus out all of the differences in an article, wouldn't it make more sense to have separate articles for dissimilar versions of the "same" game? It would take pages to document the differences between the arcade and Atari or even NES versions of certain games.
It was my understanding that to be a "port" some portion of assets had to be re-used, whereas a game developed from the ground-up (Pac-Man on the 2600 doesn't share any arcade assets, or even a similar maze, it's only mechanically similar - and only then on a very basic way). This contrasts with the NES version of Pac-Man, which has the same assets and identical gameplay. Wikipedia (I know, unreliable) points out "Earlier video game "ports" were often not true ports, but rather reworked versions of the games." as contrasted with a modern port.
From a practical standpoint, an arcade game and a console version may be so entirely different that describing the differences could lead to long articles, especially for games during the Atari era, where the similarities are superficial
On the other hand, if it's interesting to have ports and even contemporaneously designed Atari games on the same page, it would be valuable to have a consistent framework to compare them. Some sort of grid with notes, maybe in the releases subpage.
@bhtav: very valid points. I have basically the same opinion regarding handheld versions of console games that are pretty much all the time completely different games (even in terms of genre!) that lumping them in with the main console version that bears the same name does them a great disservice but basically the general ruling is that that's okay for some reason I don't understand.
The mods have had a fairly policy strict policy of lumping together games that had the same name, were based on the same IP, and were released around the same time together on one page. This was however due to the way the search worked on the old site, where only the title and a small image was displayed, making it hard to find the right game if you had a bunch all called the same thing. With this being far less of an issue on the new site, I was hoping they might reconsider.
In any case, do think splitting up pages should only be done if the person doing so is prepared to do fully fleshed out entries for each version, and can fill them up with largely unique information. Just creating stubs or redundant pages is pointless IMO.
@blacklagoon Completely agree, except for the last part. I think that separating them out, even with bare stubs is useful for consistency and categorization. It also serves as a reminder that there is a version that needs a full-fleshed out version. In practice, I would usually have at least a short article ready to go, but if it's a requirement, it would reduce the cohesiveness of the wiki.
@dagbiker The problem with different paragraphs is that it wrongly assumes that the differences are captured with mere paragraphs. Consider the NES version of Strider, and the Arcade title of the same name, which is wholly different. If a user (as opposed to an editor) is searching for information, finding it somewhere within a long article isn't as good as having its own article.
A wikipedia-style disambiguation page which serves as a landing pad for same-title-different-game situations could also work. In any case, for a game with completely different developers, assets, gameplay, etc... it's an uphill argument that the site is better served throwing it all in one article. If it must be, then I propose a logical, consistent framework for doing so - though I do not know what this would look like.