Id say browser games that push the envelope as to what is considered a casual browser game should definitely be considered.

Usually these types aren't hard to find since they get press of some kind.

Also quite a few of them end up becoming bigger games. Aliien Hominid,CastleCrashers,Meatboy, to just name a few.

Just thought I'd mention another test case while I think about it in case we go down the games needing to fulfill certain criteria route.
 
The Curfew.  A point and click browser game featuring live action video for all the characters.  It has a reasonable budget given that it's funded with UK public money by one of the broadcaster's Channel 4 which is owing to it being an educational game designed to make young people more aware of political issues (it's set in a near future Britain operating under a totalitarian government).  I don't know of it's developer Littleloud Studios having done any commercial games that need to be bought, though they seem to have produced free-to-play promotional games for movies and TV programmes most notably.  They won a BAFTA with a previous game Bowstreet Runners as well which features similar technology to The Curfew.
Just thought it was interesting case to bring to people's attentions since it did have a fair amount of money behind it despite it being free-to-play and it's developer hasn't made retail games.  This kind of thing will happen more in the future most likely.

" @wrathofconn said:

" Also, if web browsers get listed as a platform, there won't be any reason to keep ignoring Steam as the same, especially with the existing inclusion of XBLM and PSN. "

While I agree with you that you can't come up with special rules for browser games that only include the good ones without looking like an asshole (Flash games are my argument against "all indie games are fucking awesome in every way"), I have to call you out on this point. Steam already exists in the database; it's called PC. Steam is just a digital distribution thing that developers use to sell their PC games. It's as much a unique platform as OnLive. "

" Also, if web browsers get listed as a platform, there won't be any reason to keep ignoring Steam as the same, especially with the existing inclusion of XBLM and PSN. "

It would also be a good idea to make it so every page created for browser games has to go through wiki moderation regardless of points....this will make less work of having to delete pages that don't fit.

I think if there's going to be a platform page for browser-based games then there's no precedent for excluding any. There are many other platforms on this site that list games that are half-finished garbage; this shouldn't be an exception to that rule.
 
Also, if web browsers get listed as a platform, there won't be any reason to keep ignoring Steam as the same, especially with the existing inclusion of XBLM and PSN.

" If the rules preclude "Don't Shit Your Pants" from appearing, the rules are bad. "

I'm not reading the four pages of replies, so if someone already suggested this, I'm seconding it, rather than providing it.
 
Just get together a dedicated panel and have them vet possible submissions. This may not be the quickest way to add games to the system, but it has a number of advantages.
 
With a panel of judges, you've got a system that actively weeds out bad/irrelevant games, without using a set of criteria that are largely arbitrary, considering just how broad a range of genres and complexities is covered by browser-based games (is Robot Unicorn Attack less worthy than FarmVille simply because it has a much lower playerbase?). You also have people who can play the games to judge them. Most of the criteria I've seen (developer credentials, microtransactions, etc.) actually judge whether a game shoould be submiitted off of metadata, rather than the actual game itself.
 
The only real problem is getting people to take the time. But browser games generally don't take long to play and get an idea of quality for, and even if it does take a while to get them through, at least you'll know that what's there is actually worth something.
 
And with all the GB members out there, I don't doubt that you'd be able to find a good group of people who'd be willing to take up this endeavor.
 
So yeah, I vote for a panel.

Man is this tough. I mean, there are quite a few great games out there for in browser. I suppose you could pick a site like Kongregate and say a game has to have a certain rating, but that seems arbitrary and like it may leave out important games on other sites. I'm not sure that there's a "good" way to do it honestly. I suppose you could do hits, but those can be faked and some site don't publish those. Plus how do you choose which sites count towards hits, again you may miss important games.

I'd say stuff that was released with some intent of post-"I put this on the internet, guys. Neat, huh?" support. Agreed, a lot of stuff put up on Newgrounds or Kongregate is usually just on a whim, or part of a school project, with little impetus beyond that Youtube mentality of "putting things on the internet is fun."
 
For me, stuff like Dragon Age: Journeys, Machinarium, Blight of the Immortals, Dream Machine, Neptune's Pride, etc. are all great examples of games that just happen to be in a browser.
 
- Were (generally) developed by people with game-making experience that extends beyond the browser-game arena.
- Are either built off existing franchises on other platforms (Dragon Age, for example.) Or have seen a non-browser version doled out (Machinarium)
- Are far from the trappings of "limited moves per day, but you can spend $$ for more" business model. (Not to say there isn't money involved in my examples. You can pay for some "premium" games in Blight of the Immortals or Neptune's Pride, but that just lets you change a few of the opening conditions of the match. After that, it largely plays out the same way the free games do, but with fewer people dropping out since they actually paid money for the game.  And Dream Machine can be purchased on a chapter-by-chapter basis, but it more or less behaves like an honest-to-goodness point and click adventure game.)
 
But then again, it depends on whether we want to acknowledge Zynga's stuff, since they contravene most of the above-mentioned characteristics. Personally, I'd be fine with not talking about FarmVille, but it does feel like an oversight considering the ubiquitous market it courts.
 
Also, and vaguely unrelated: I am kinda curious to see what kind of business model the Civilization Facebook game is going to be built on.

"If the rules preclude "Don't Shit Your Pants" from appearing, the rules are bad. "

FWIW, kingdom of loathing has a microtransaction.  donate $10 and you get a Mr. Accessory. 
 
i don't know.  i feel like allowing browser-based games is inviting a mess and/or unfair exclusions.  i'm not voting 'yes' on Prop Browser-Based-Games

Frankly, I think the current restrictions on being allowed to create pages would prevent all but the most worthy candidates in browser gaming from being entered into the database. BeachThunder has a point about being somewhat dedicated if you've managed to hit 5000 wiki points ..unless someone really wants that Mowing Them Down quest.
 
An alternative (but not exactly mod-friendly) approach would be to prohibit users from creating browser game pages and instead hold some kind of weekly/monthly "suggest/vote on browser games that are worth entering into the wiki" thread with a limited number of spots. The winners' empty pages are then created by mods and placed on the Wiki Tasks queue for others to fill in. It'd turn the whole thing into a community decision and also restrict how many are added per week/month in case that was a concern. There's probably downsides I'm not seeing, though (I mean, besides giving the staff/mods more headaches.)

In terms of this website, this actually comes across as being a non-issue. A greater concern is concept pages. Concept pages are not easy to verify in any meaningful way, but there are no strict guidelines. What I'm saying is that all of this deliberation about browser games seems to be based upon the idea that someone is going to submit 50,000 non-notable browser games and then clog up the database. This is just as likely as someone submitting all sorts of other stupid spam into the database. If someone has < 5000 wikipoints, then the mods will need to approve anyway and if they have > 5000 wikipoints, then it can be assumed that that person is mature enough not to be spamming random shit into the database.
 
A simple set of guidelines is all that's needed (a series of hard and fast rules would just crumble). Maybe just the prompt "Any browser game should be notable in some way". I think most people get the idea of what could constitute notable; some people will be more lenient than others, but overall, who really has the motivation to add Tower Defense Game #193 or Generic-Game-That-Took-Four-Minutes-To-Develop into the database? Perhaps it should be mandatory for the person submitting the game to the database to fill out a 100-word (or whatever) explanation as to WHY it should be in the database. That should prevent some issues without having to resort to strict rules.
 
Also, another point that people seem to be missing - we are discussing notability here and not necessarily quality. Big Rigs was rubbish and ET ended up as rubbish, but both of those games were notable. Crappy games should always be welcome in the database.

This is definitely a complex issue and it's only going to become more important with time as more and more really interesting and noteworthy games are being created from those that will just release them directly to the web.  Games like One Chance have provided some of the most interesting gaming experiences and talking points recently and I'm not sure if we should be glossing over those as so much quality/important stuff [edit: otherwise] just gets left out.
 
Finding some clear criteria is definitely challenging.  Does it just come down to what is doable for the mods to be able to reasonably police?  In which case does that necessitate the criteria being completely clear or could a weighting system one other guy suggested ever be workable?  Good ideas are being discussed so far - I'm not quite sure where I come down on it at the moment.  I think we just need to be very clear on first deciding what type of games we're trying to include by expanding the scope of the wiki and then design the criteria to allow those games in as far as is reasonable.  Maybe we should decide on some more test case games that we think need to included and see where that leads us.
 
Also, I'm a little confused as to what the current rules are on what games are accepted into the GB wiki.  I thought I remembered Jeff or someone saying at the very beginning that only games purchasable for money would be allowed in but then I was surprised to discover recently that games such as Passage, The Marriage, Opera Omnia were now in the wiki which are all free games you can download.  What are the rules as they stand at the moment?  There's a ton of games that are available for download off people's sites for free.  Should all games from noted indie developers like Cactus and Increpare be allowed straight in (if they're not already - haven't checked too hard) since they host them for download from their sites.  Are we just discussing if games you can only play in a browser should be added to this?

Good to see this brought up again, but while I want to see the tons of excellent games that just happen to be on a browser make it on here, I see why it's difficult to set up parameters.
 
The problem with browser games isn't really the platform, it's just that it's got a largely deserved reputation for random junk of the bad variety.  The games that I think have been worth my time have been stuff that tends not to violate the other barriers here. You argued a while ago that you don't want Buttroids: Asteroids with Butts Instead of Asteroids, but that gets blocked by forbidding clones of existing games. 
 
Some of the best original stuff out there, even on places like Kongregate, have been adventure games. Those tend to have pretty straightforward controls but still manage a sense of atmosphere that most commercial games lack. And puzzle games like the stuff by Eyezmaze manage to have an adventure element to them, even if they're more or less straight puzzlers.
 
I wonder if there should be a sort of Browser Game Spotlight feature, where you start with a genre and open that up to browser games, then slowly work outward from there, rather than letting them all in at once. We'd have to get rigorous about what, say, an adventure game is to prevent THAT from being a problem, but it would help the team focus on what makes Browser Game X worthwhile. If this works, expand it out to other genres until you have a decent collection, with windows for people to petition a game through that HAVE to be framed by genre, rather than JUST platform.

Is miniclip games worth to be here? Apparently thousands or million of people play some of those there. Does that turn them into notable games? 

It's gotta be some combination of popularity and acclaim. That covers almost all browser-based games anyone will ever care about, from VVVVVV to Meat Boy to Farmville. 
 
Of course the question is, how do you quantify popularity? I guess there must be user statistics out there... somewhere. 
 
Like some people have said, maybe there should be a community vetting process for these kinds of games. 
Maybe have an area on the homepage that has a rotating set of browser-based games that have been flagged as questionable, and the community can vote yes or no.
 
If the voting (over say, a month or something) doesn't reach a certain threshold of votes, or over 50% No's, then it gets deleted, and banned from the database. 
 
I guess you'd need to do something to encourage voting, like maybe a quest, or just straight up points (with a cap of say... 10 votes per day, and only one per game - so people aren't just boosting their scores and thus ruining the whole system) 
 
Maybe user reviews could have some weighting on whether they stay or not too!? Like a star threshold? That would be a pretty badass use of user reviews.

I think "Browser" or "Web-based" is too broad of a category for the types out there. There are the games built with just basic html, java, flash and whatever else is used. Many games lately that run within a browser are also releasing higher quality client versions along with it as well (like Pirate Galaxy). I suppose those terms might be a better choice though for overall ease of use.
 
Really what I am saying though is maybe there should be subcategories.  I know Facebook and Myspace games fall under web based / browser games... but theyre so well integrated into them that it could really be considered its own platform. Maybe sub it as Social Networking...or something.
 
I really don't know if that helps at all.. Just tired and rambling right now.

This seems like it could get out of control, even with the inclusion rules being discussed. Essentially, I'm all for some browser games being included, but their notability being entirely decided upon by the staff.

possibility: maybe only allow games that you have to pay money for/pay for content in the game?

" @MattyFTM said:

" I was thinking about this recently, and there have been discussions about it in the past. Here are a few possible criteria that could apply: 
 

• It was made by a developer who has made games for another platform we list on Giant Bomb (this would cover games like Dragon Age Journeys)
• It was nominated for an IGF award (possibly other awards too)

• It has a payment model (such as microtransactions)

 If a game meets any one of those, we allow it. I'm sure the list of criteria can be expanded upon & refined too. "

That still leaves out games like Kingdom of Loathing.
 
Sure, it's a text-based RPG game of goofiness...but Zork was a text-based game.  I think that what you have is a good start. "

" I like Matty's approach with creating a set of "If this, then YES" rules, and I'd probably add...
 
- If the game is primarily played/hosted on its own domain. and expand the first one to something like this set... "

 @tofford: yea i was thinkin the same thing 
 
I don't know if this would be a nightmare or not but what about having a kind of voting process where browser based games would be presented and the GB community would vote on them and in order to pass the game a certain amount of positive votes would be required ( or set by the staff) and could be overruled or vetoed by powers on high

" @hedfone said:

" yo lets play tower defense 3 return of the towerz "

No man, let's play Tower Defenseville instead.
 
Thoughts: does Wikipedia have any kind of metric for what browser games they include? "

" @Jeff:  java browser based games i.e runescape, dunno how what platform that would be put under i dont class it as a full pc game but its not a small flash game either  "

We definitely have to talk about the games on social networking sites. Mafia Wars is on the site not because it is a Facebook game but because it was released on iPhone. Further clarifying why this is allowed would be necessary. In the Browser versus via the browser is an important issue. However I like Matty's rules as a good stepping stone. It's an effective Kyoto Protocol for now.

" I was thinking about this recently, and there have been discussions about it in the past. Here are a few possible criteria that could apply: 
 

• It was made by a developer who has made games for another platform we list on Giant Bomb (this would cover games like Dragon Age Journeys)
• It was nominated for an IGF award (possibly other awards too)

• It has a payment model (such as microtransactions)

 If a game meets any one of those, we allow it. I'm sure the list of criteria can be expanded upon & refined too. "

I can't really think of anything that wouldn't be a slippery slope.

I really can't see a way this can work that wouldn't end up either being massively abused or leading to incredible amounts of arguments. As much as I love Don't Shit Your Pants and things like Robot Wants Kitty, I say we leave it the way it is and keep all browser games out of Giant Bomb.

Sounds like you're crafting a bunch of rules as long as your arm that rely on the judgement of other organisations rather than the judgement of your own community.
 
Perhaps you should put each game to the community? E.g. before a web game article gets created it must pass a poll on the front page that just asks "is this game worthy?" I've seen this work in other communities where each user can say yes or no to the candidates on the queue, and the crowd tend to make the right decision. You could even award points for it as an incentive if you must.

 @Jeff said:

" I like Matty's approach with creating a set of "If this, then YES" rules, and I'd probably add...
 
- If the game is primarily played/hosted on its own domain. "

 - If the game is set in an existing franchise that has appeared on platforms already present in the Giant Bomb database. 
- If the game was developed/produced by someone/some entity who already qualifies for a Person or Company page. 
 
It's also key that the game needs to be legal, I suppose. Specifically meaning that just because some dude is hosting a Java-based NES emulator on a website doesn't mean we're going to go add Browser to every NES game ever made.

" 

• It was made by a developer who has made games for another platform we list on Giant Bomb (this would cover games like Dragon Age Journeys)
• It was nominated for an IGF award (possibly other awards too)

• It has a payment model (such as microtransactions)

  "

We put in everything made by  Terry Cavanagh and ignore the rest.

I like the sort of "checklist" approach, but please keep in mind that our legal system uses things such as balancing tests all the time.   Simply fleshing out ones already mentioned: 
 
Is it monetized? (Yes weighs towards inclusion) 
Does the developer have other games on GB? (Yes weighs towards inclusion) 
Is it a browser based remake of an old game? (Yes weighs against inclusion) 
Does it have more than one person listed in the credits? (Yes weighs towards inclusion) 
Does it include a story? Does it last longer than 20 minutes? Was there a development cycle? Will it receive future support from the developer?  Is it being advertised? 
 
While I am not trying to pretend that I have an exhaustive list of considerations, I like the balancing test better than the boolean logic chart because some of these don't always apply.  For example, I think any game that is monetized goes heavily towards being worthy of inclusion, but there are also free ones that are substantial as well.   
 
I think the GB editors, with some input from mods or well versed community members (such as those who have spent time reviewing such games or developing them) can establish say, 5 to 8 BEST factors to weigh. 

Would it be possible for it to be voted on by the community as to whether it makes it or not. I don't think a subscription model is necessary for a good in browser game. Maybe these pages could be submitted and then moderated like images are by everyone. It isn't full proof but would get rid of a lot of rubbish.

I think "Web" or "Web Games" would be the better name for the category.

I'd say if it were possible to pick up data on amount of times played,or hits,or what have you,and set a benchmark at a reasonably high number,you could in theory weed out a vast majority of the junk games and passing fads.Not 100% accurate,and I'm sure that tracking all that would be a pain in the ass if not just more trouble than it would be worth,but that'd be the simplest method other than staff/mods just making a blacklist.

Looks like Jeff and Matty got a great plan going so far. It's a start at least. I love seeing Giant Bomb evolve like this. Think of how the Web and GB will look in 2020... For the platform abbreviation I suggest: WWW. Simple and unmistakable without excluding other platforms or technologies.  

#1 criteria: have they monetized it? Either up front or microtransactions. If this, then YES. Maybe it's a lousy game, but it's now a product.  The fact that Flash-in- Browser shovelware exists due to a low barrier of entry doesn't stop Flash-on-Wii and DSi shovelware from being valid database entries. They are products. The difference is someone got paid a license fee, which is a poor choice of criteria.
 
"Browser Game" is a broad category including plug-ins like Flash, Java, Unity, and future evolutions of HTML/JS code. I think not saying "Flash games" is one of the first bad habits we should all break. As already established, Flash is a development engine that can be packaged, sold, and run without need for a browser. Same goes for Java. Doesn't matter if you're a code snob, it's a viable method to publish award winning games. Truth.

@extremeradical: Somehow I think that criteria would exclude games like Dudebro.  Why do browser games need to be mentioned in mainstream media, but indie games are allowed by sheer force of notoriety among us enthusiasts?
 
Here's my question: what about browser-based advergames that are more than just interactive trailers?
For your consideration and befuddlement I submit the Lego Star Wars III browser game:

• achievements; secret codes; unlockable characters; unlockable art; facebook integration; player data persists over time (save games); controls like a 2D point and click adventure; massively multiplayer.
  

I like Matty's approach with creating a set of "If this, then YES" rules, and I'd probably add... 
 
- If the game is primarily played/hosted on its own domain.
 
and expand the first one to something like this set... 
 
- If the game is set in an existing franchise that has appeared on platforms already present in the Giant Bomb database. 
- If the game was developed/produced by someone/some entity who already qualifies for a Person or Company page. 
 
It's also key that the game needs to be legal, I suppose. Specifically meaning that just because some dude is hosting a Java-based NES emulator on a website doesn't mean we're going to go add Browser to every NES game ever made.
 
I'm not seeing a clear reason for breaking Facebook out on its own. The unified payment model doesn't seem like that big of a deal, and some of those games appear on numerous sites. It'd be weird to break out Facebook but not, like, Kongregate or MySpace, wouldn't it?
 
Anyone have any preference for what the platform would be called? I'm thinking "Browser" or perhaps "Web."