This is one of those weird middle ground things where on one hand, it'd be nice to have a lot of info on these popular web-based games, but, on the other, you can't open the floodgates to allow any browser-based game.
The argument for Quake Live is that it requires a browser plugin, which was compiled for a specific platform. As far as I can tell, that's not true of loltima.
This is one of those weird middle ground things where on one hand, it'd be nice to have a lot of info on these popular web-based games, but, on the other, you can't open the floodgates to allow any browser-based game. "
Well those game do not really play in the browser and have a seperate files on your PC. Quake live also installs on your PC thinking of it.
Huh perhaps the "if the game installs on the user's hard drive" is a pretty good rule of thumb.
" Huh perhaps the "if the game installs on the user's hard drive" is a pretty good rule of thumb. Anyway this should indeed go. "
So then, Runescape stays? Because when you play that, it throws plenty of shit on your hard drive as cache. I would find stupid little mp3's from the game in some random folder like 2 months after I played it.
@LordAndrew: That's an incredibly weak argument. A lot of games require a flash plugin. Does that make it for a specific platform ? Coincidently, my classmate developed a game that requires a browser plug-in (non-flash). Does that make it as valid as Quake Live ? No. The only reason we have a page for it is because it's QUAKE! There is nothing wrong in making exceptions for interesting games.
Is Lord of Ultima interesting enough ? That's upto to the staff and mods. I just think it's worth considering.
@tdk08: Well that isn't a rule of the site just something that i just though up but that i would like to see implemented as a rule. The site could use some solid rules because this very discussion happens every couple of months since a long while now.
Even though it's not a great rule, whether a game has a Wikipedia article or not could be a way of helping to determine if a game deserves an article. The browser based rule is pretty inconsistent. Farmville has no article, yet Passage does. Personally, I don't give a shit about Farmville, but there's no denying that the game is extremely notable, whereas Passage is a fairly obscure 5 minute game.
Anyway, having said that, Lord of Ultima doesn't have a Wikipedia article, so I guess by that measure I'd have to agree with this topic.
" Even though it's not a great rule, whether a game has a Wikipedia article or not could be a way of helping to determine if a game deserves an article. The browser based rule is pretty inconsistent. Farmville has no article, yet Passage does. Personally, I don't give a shit about Farmville, but there's no denying that the game is extremely notable, whereas Passage is a fairly obscure 5 minute game. Anyway, having said that, Lord of Ultima doesn't have a Wikipedia article, so I guess by that measure I'd have to agree with this topic. "
Passage isn't browser based. I remember downloading that.
We need to start allowing browser games. Clearly games like Farmville and Runescape are relevant since they have tens of millions of players each. We shouldn't just have a blanket rule of "no browser games".
As long as we set STRICT requirements a game needs to meet to be in the database, we should be fine. Like Wikipedia's notability guideline. Obvious we can't have every single flash game ever made, which is main argument not to allow browser games. But if set requirements that shouldn't be a problem.
" Even though it's not a great rule, whether a game has a Wikipedia article or not could be a way of helping to determine if a game deserves an article. The browser based rule is pretty inconsistent. Farmville has no article, yet Passage does. Personally, I don't give a shit about Farmville, but there's no denying that the game is extremely notable, whereas Passage is a fairly obscure 5 minute game. Anyway, having said that, Lord of Ultima doesn't have a Wikipedia article, so I guess by that measure I'd have to agree with this topic. "
Passage isn't browser based. I remember downloading that. "
Oh shit, you're right...hm. Well the point about Farmville stays, that's definitely browser based and is definitely more worthy of an article than a lot of other things.
Cleary games like Farmville and Runescape are revelant
I agree. The omission of games with this number of players and level of success don't become less relevant because they're not in the GiantBomb wiki. The GiantBomb wiki becomes less relevant because of their omission.
Maybe there should be a vote when game like this comes up were people can chime in with their reasons why it should/should not have a page. If no one's asking for a page for a certain game then obviously it doesn't deserve a page but if enough people want it in the wiki it should get a page. Simple enough.
I say it should get a page. It looks cool and more substantial then the other garbage out there.
" Maybe there should be a vote when game like this comes up were people can chime in with their reasons why it should/should not have a page. If no one's asking for a page for a certain game then obviously it doesn't deserve a page but if enough people want it in the wiki it should get a page. Simple enough. I say it should get a page. It looks cool and more substantial then the other garbage out there. "
Do you really think a vote would allow Farmville, the most successful, most played and most hated game of the year, into the GiantBomb wiki? Plus, if you go for a vote why not vote on all games and watch users flood in to get Metal Gear and Halo removed from the wiki while we're at it? :P
Regardless of relevancy and other inane requirements, the current role stands that browser based games aren't allowed (as designated by the staff). If this changes in the future, then that can be reflected on the site, but for now, the rules are all that matter.
" Maybe there should be a vote when game like this comes up were people can chime in with their reasons why it should/should not have a page. If no one's asking for a page for a certain game then obviously it doesn't deserve a page but if enough people want it in the wiki it should get a page. Simple enough. I say it should get a page. It looks cool and more substantial then the other garbage out there. "
Do you really think a vote would allow Farmville, the most successful, most played and most hated game of the year, into the GiantBomb wiki? Plus, if you go for a vote why not vote on all games and watch users flood in to get Metal Gear and Halo removed from the wiki while we're at it? :P A poll is bad, a rule would be good. "
I was talking about voting on browser games specifically. I hate Farmville and Runescape but I also think they absolutely deserve a page on the site. I don't like Halo but can't deny it needs a page, as it's a game on a console, it doesn't get voted on. It was just an idea for how to get important browser games a page on the site. I wasn't saying this is what must happen. Just an idea.
Not that I have talked about it with any one else on the staff side, but I'm actually kind of shocked we don't include browser games. It's a video game, regardless of interest, or the fact that the platform isn't 'traditional'.
" Not that I have talked about it with any one else on the staff side, but I'm actually kind of shocked we don't include browser games. It's a video game, regardless of interest, or the fact that the platform isn't 'traditional'. "
Open the gate to one browser game and you can't really stop the flood of shitty games from being added. Some specific rules that would filter out the more interesting browser games should be made though.
" Not that I have talked about it with any one else on the staff side, but I'm actually kind of shocked we don't include browser games. It's a video game, regardless of interest, or the fact that the platform isn't 'traditional'. "
The real big "?" in my head is how any and all iPhone garbage is 100% cool, but browsers are 100% out? But I digress...and have nothing to say beyond said digression. :)
Open the gate to one browser game and you can't really stop the flood of shitty games from being added. Some specific rules that would filter out the more interesting browser games should be made though.
You can defiantly stop the flood. Like your saying, as long as you make a set of requirements a browser game has to meet, this won't be a problem. It works on Wikipedia.
" You can defiantly stop the flood. Like your saying, as long as you make a set of requirements a browser game has to meet, this won't be a problem. It works on Wikipedia. "
We do have a requirement, though: it needs to download an executable to your computer that it runs in conjunction with the browser stuff. Which is why Quake Live and Battlefield Heroes are in.
Devils advocate - web based games can (theoretically at least) be downloaded and played locally in a browser. I could take a browser, web based game (or a flash game) and make an exe out of it - would that then make it a real game suddenly because I downloaded an executable?
" You can defiantly stop the flood. Like your saying, as long as you make a set of requirements a browser game has to meet, this won't be a problem. It works on Wikipedia. "
We do have a requirement, though: it needs to download an executable to your computer that it runs in conjunction with the browser stuff. Which is why Quake Live and Battlefield Heroes are in. "
" You can defiantly stop the flood. Like your saying, as long as you make a set of requirements a browser game has to meet, this won't be a problem. It works on Wikipedia. "
We do have a requirement, though: it needs to download an executable to your computer that it runs in conjunction with the browser stuff. Which is why Quake Live and Battlefield Heroes are in. "
The argument for "there's a billion shitty Flash games out there that don't deserve wiki articles" is a little on the weak side because there's an equal amount of shitty PC games. Like, I've made some terrible games, but I'm not trying to get them on Giant Bomb.
I think noteworthy games like those listed here should be fine, really.
Cleary games like Farmville and Runescape are revelant
I agree. The omission of games with this number of players and level of success don't become less relevant because they're not in the GiantBomb wiki. The GiantBomb wiki becomes less relevant because of their omission. "
Well said.
There's plenty of middle ground between having zero web games and having all of them.
@Not_Rage; @Rallier: I thought that's what the decision ultimately ended up coming down to in all the threads we've had calling for their deletions back when. I could be wrong...
" Devils advocate - web based games can (theoretically at least) be downloaded and played locally in a browser. I could take a browser, web based game (or a flash game) and make an exe out of it - would that then make it a real game suddenly because I downloaded an executable? "
Once you have an executable compiled for a platform that Giant Bomb covers, then you have indeed passed the first step for having your game listed on Giant Bomb.
This thread excited me for a brief moment, but for different reasons :(
I think it's time for browser based things to be allowed, but with much different points ratios and such needed. Things like Farmville/ LOU and so on are fine, but there needs to be a way so John everyman won't add every form of online ...bowling.
Open the gate to one browser game and you can't really stop the flood of shitty games from being added. Some specific rules that would filter out the more interesting browser games should be made though.
Since when does a game have to be 'not shitty' to be added? I mean, we have a whole MESS of Hentai games here. You really want to defend the premise that a game has to be good to have a page here?
@LordAndrew: Even entirely server-side games have executables compiled for whatever server they're running on, the vast majority of which count as PCs as they're x86 compatible...
Personally, I'm a fan of the 'if it's big enough for a user to put the time into adding it, and it IS a game, it should be in." That's certainly not going to be every browser game out there...
@NeoSHODAN: The majority of people playing a web-based game are not going to know what operating system the server is running. It could be even be OSX, in which case an assumption of PC as the platform would be incorrect.
I'm not opposed to covering web-based games, but our current platform selection just doesn't allow for it. They can be run on more than just "PCs".
I could get into a long tirade about how browser-based games have a new-and-harder-to-define platform: the internet browser. However, that's not the place for this debate. We're talking about whether to delete Lord of Ultima or not.
Given that this is a game from EA and Phenomic...who also made BattleForge (one of my favorite games of 2009, btw), I am more than willing to guarantee that there will be an executable file that will need to be downloaded. This was the case for Battlefield Heroes, as well as BattleForge whenever it went Free 2 Play. While Lord of Ultima may be a browser-based game, that doesn't mean it won't have something to download in order to make it work.
For the time being, we don't know if that is the case...but we also cannot confirm that it WON'T have an executable. Therefore, if what I am saying means anything, I think the page should stick around until we have a full confirmation on whether the game will have the requirements that the staff deems necessary in order for the game to have a Wiki on Giant Bomb.
Maybe the staff can get ahold of someone at EA or Phenomic about this?
Maybe we need a "Web" platform? I'm still trying to figure out what the requirements would be for whether a web game could be listed or not. We need measurable criteria, not subjective ones. Otherwise this same discussion will happen for every single web based game, should they be allowed.
" Maybe we need a "Web" platform? I'm still trying to figure out what the requirements would be for whether a web game could be listed or not. We need measurable criteria, not subjective ones. Otherwise this same discussion will happen for every single web based game, should they be allowed. "
Here are examples of what requirements could look like. If a game meets one of theses, its allowed.
The game was nominated for an IGF award
The game has multiple news coverage from reliable sources.
The game was is part of an existing game franchise (For example PlayTribes and Quake Live would be allowed)
The game was created by a major game developer (Like in this case, EA is putting it out)
Something like this could be implemented. (theses requirements are just examples)
Outer Empires is a browser based game and it has a page here. A blank page, but none the less. I half agree with the OP. There needs to be rules about how browser based games are added. There should be a web platform option.
" Personally, I'm a fan of the 'if it's big enough for a user to put the time into adding it, and it IS a game, it should be in." That's certainly not going to be every browser game out there... "
Well, you're in a better position than anyone else in this thread to convince someone to add new platforms. Browser games are simply not allowed currently. Neither are mobile games (aside from iPhone) for that matter.
Log in to comment