Open Call re: Browser Games

With it being a new year and all, I figure it's a good time to review some wiki policies. Specifically, I'm talking about in-browser games. 
 
I'd be willing to find a better way to get these into our system (with a proper platform page, rather than just lazily tagging them to PC and Mac), but I feel like we need better guidelines about what we accept. Ideally, we'd just be able to say that we allow "games of note" to be included, but I'd rather not create a ton of arguments about which games are notable. 
 
I also don't want every thing that's ever been made that runs in a browser, either, because we don't need a database that just attempts to mirror every crappy little game from Kongregate or Newgrounds. 
 
So it'd be great if we could get a rule in place that says YES to things like Realm of the Mad God or Kingdom of Loathing but still says NO to This Flash Game I Crapped Out In 20 Minutes But Hey It's About A Current Event So Awesome. If anyone has any input about what the rules that govern this platform should be, I'd love to hear them.

With it being a new year and all, I figure it's a good time to review some wiki policies. Specifically, I'm talking about in-browser games. 
 
I'd be willing to find a better way to get these into our system (with a proper platform page, rather than just lazily tagging them to PC and Mac), but I feel like we need better guidelines about what we accept. Ideally, we'd just be able to say that we allow "games of note" to be included, but I'd rather not create a ton of arguments about which games are notable. 
 
I also don't want every thing that's ever been made that runs in a browser, either, because we don't need a database that just attempts to mirror every crappy little game from Kongregate or Newgrounds. 
 
So it'd be great if we could get a rule in place that says YES to things like Realm of the Mad God or Kingdom of Loathing but still says NO to This Flash Game I Crapped Out In 20 Minutes But Hey It's About A Current Event So Awesome. If anyone has any input about what the rules that govern this platform should be, I'd love to hear them.

yo lets play tower defense 3 return of the towerz

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

How about, in order for them to get in the system, they would need to require sign-up to play instead of the usual "hit Start and go!"?

length/depth might help (thats what she said), however you run the risk of excluding stuff like Canabalt. 
1UP run a list of best free games on PC every year many of which are browser based. Not a rule for notability, more evidence for a paticular game's noteability. http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=1&cId=3177782 
Yes/No to unashamed advertainment?  

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)

@MattyFTM that might be a better way of thinking about it, instead of trying to catch all that might be notable, produce criteria where a game that meets them MUST be added, i.e IGF winner/finalist. 
Deal with edge cases on a more item by item method.

Would something like Facebook end up being considered a platform at that point? For things like Assassin's Creed: Project Legacy, Farmville, etc. Then again, even Facebook as a platform is filled with a lot of crap and they don't really have any approval process for their applications. It's going to be tough to distinguish between which games have a place in the wiki and which don't.

" How about, in order for them to get in the system, they would need to require sign-up to play instead of the usual "hit Start and go!"? "

  it's hard to say that one browser game is any better than any other when a lot of them are built using the same tools and the only differentiating factor is how much time and effort was put into them. 
 
I don't think anyone here would dispute that VVVVVV deserves it's own page, but at the end of the day it's just a flash game. An impressive and well made flash game mind you, but a flash game none the less. So does that make things like Time Fcuk and Closure worthy of their own page? Maybe? Here are some games that are also very impressive, good production teams behind them, but there is nothing that really separates them from the quick games made in less than aday other than "they're good." 
 
I mean, and this is really drawing a hard line, but it seems like the easiest way to do this is "does the game have it's own site?" Honestly it cuts out a lot of rather amazing games, and i mean a lot, but lines do need to be drawn, I think, to prevent those arguments from happening. 
 
That would make me super sad because I would love to to do a full page write up on a lot of really significant browser based games that people should really probably be playing, but at the end of the day I think that it's a neccesary evil if the wiki is going to maintain any kind of authority or integrity or whatever it is trying to maintain.

Hmm... I was thinking about somehow using Google to measure a game's importance, but why not video game sites and other news outlets? I mean, if something gets mentioned a couple times in Time magazine, Fox News or IGN, it's less likely to be some fly by night, piece of shit flash game. It would still be subjective, but at least we'd have something to go on.
 
Or would that still be too difficult/subjective as a rule of thumb?

"   it's hard to say that one browser game is any better than any other when a lot of them are built using the same tools and the only differentiating factor is how much time and effort was put into them. 
 
I don't think anyone here would dispute that VVVVVV deserves it's own page, but at the end of the day it's just a flash game. An impressive and well made flash game mind you, but a flash game none the less. So does that make things like Time Fcuk and Closure worthy of their own page? Maybe? Here are some games that are also very impressive, good production teams behind them, but there is nothing that really separates them from the quick games made in less than aday other than "they're good."  I mean, and this is really drawing a hard line, but it seems like the easiest way to do this is "does the game have it's own site?" Honestly it cuts out a lot of rather amazing games, and i mean a lot, but lines do need to be drawn, I think, to prevent those arguments from happening.  That would make me super sad because I would love to to do a full page write up on a lot of really significant browser based games that people should really probably be playing, but at the end of the day I think that it's a neccesary evil if the wiki is going to maintain any kind of authority or integrity or whatever it is trying to maintain. "

"   it's hard to say that one browser game is any better than any other when a lot of them are built using the same tools and the only differentiating factor is how much time and effort was put into them. 
 
I don't think anyone here would dispute that VVVVVV deserves it's own page, but at the end of the day it's just a flash game. An impressive and well made flash game mind you, but a flash game none the less. So does that make things like Time Fcuk and Closure worthy of their own page? Maybe? Here are some games that are also very impressive, good production teams behind them, but there is nothing that really separates them from the quick games made in less than aday other than "they're good."  I mean, and this is really drawing a hard line, but it seems like the easiest way to do this is "does the game have it's own site?" Honestly it cuts out a lot of rather amazing games, and i mean a lot, but lines do need to be drawn, I think, to prevent those arguments from happening.  That would make me super sad because I would love to to do a full page write up on a lot of really significant browser based games that people should really probably be playing, but at the end of the day I think that it's a neccesary evil if the wiki is going to maintain any kind of authority or integrity or whatever it is trying to maintain. "

@LordXavierBritish VVVVV V is not an exclusively browser based game, full version runs in a client.

It would probably be too difficult/disorganized, but perhaps browser-based games would have to receive a certain number of "nominations" before being added. Perhaps every time someones adds a browser game to the database, it just sorts it by name and keeps a tally until it hits a certain number of adds. It still wouldn't be a hard and fast rule, but it would keep out crapware, and keep it exclusive to games that people actually care about.

The fear I have is that notability will be established by how immediate a game is. If its in any way a slow burn a voting system would find it "not notable". You end up with a list of best arcade browser games, not a list of best quality browser based games.

It seems like a good addition, because browser games are immensely popular. I suppose the easiest way to record a game would be to find ones that are well known and such. For example, I'd say the original Super Meat Boy is of importance; and it originated on Newgrounds. I suppose that logic could be extended to Alien Hominid seeing as it sparked off the HD game on the LIVE Arcade, or have I gotten that wrong? TBH I'll wait for someone else to make the pages and then I'll edit them. Because that's how I roll.

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

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

" 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 think if it's garnered enough attention to merit a wiki page and it does something fairly original than it belongs. Don't need every iteration of Tower Defense.

What are the chances of just letting this community being discriminating about it? Any hard rules, like a game needing to be a IGF finalist, will knock out some frankly fantastic games. Sure, this would mean more work for the mods, but adding browser game support would lead to more games to play and talk about with this awesome community.

@GilberMordinAndSullivan its not so much that a game has to be an IGF finalist, it just has to have a page on the site if it was one. 
If even a small percentage of Newgrounds stuff was submitted it would be a nightmare for the mods. Don't Shit Your Pants makes things very difficult as it fails any test based on length/depth but its great. 

AV Club's Sawbuck Gamer covers a lot of the better browser games out there (and occasionally features some low-graded dross too, for whatever reason). Again, not so much a criteria as a list of possible inclusions based on notability.
 
This is a pretty difficult thing to set in stone, yet it's entirely justified since so many browser games match the quality of those Indie types that end up on XBLA or PSN or Steam. On the other hand, even the good browser games are often endless reiterations of Angry Birds' "throw shit at castles using physics", Tower Defense's "you got towers and they defend things", Geometry Wars' "you gotta use both sticks to shoot shit, dude" and Braid/Limbo's "it's like a 2D platformer, but something weird happens like your dude multiplies or slows down time or everyone is very sad." After a while they stop being notable, despite the high quality.
 
This isn't to say the retail games that are automatically Wiki-approved don't rip each other off constantly. Hmm. Definite grey area. I'm not helping at all, sorry.

" 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. "

• 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 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 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 do think that Facebook should be considered a platform (instead of being lumped in to "Browser-Based"). "

" @MattyFTM said:

• 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 really like that list of criteria.   I do think that Facebook should be considered a platform (instead of being lumped in to "Browser-Based"). I consider it a coherent platform, standardizing the microtransaction model with Facebook Credits and having the Facebook-specific social features.  (It's analogous to MS Points and Xbox Live integration in XBLA games.) It's out of whack that we can have Zuma's Revenge (<200 GB users) as a "real" game at GB but don't have Zuma Blitz (>7 million FB users), or that Bejeweled Blitz can enter the GB database due to the XBLA release when its popularity is based on the Facebook release. "

" What are the chances of just letting this community being discriminating about it? Any hard rules, like a game needing to be a IGF finalist, will knock out some frankly fantastic games. Sure, this would mean more work for the mods, but adding browser game support would lead to more games to play and talk about with this awesome community. "

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."

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'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.

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

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 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. 

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

 @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)

  "

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.

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.

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

" 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. "