bhtav

Cool! Working on

50 mission crush (new one to me!) and Super Boulder Dash (played the hell out of this and the original...)

That's not a problem - the way the Wiki is organized, multiple things can have the same name, with distinct articles based on platform

As an example, see:

Mega Man and Mega Man

So the Turbo alias MultiTap wouldn't conflict with the PS1 item of the same name, just as video games with the same name don't conflict with one another.

All GB wikispace should have aliases. A long time ago I wrote the Turbotap article. If you have a PC engine, it's called a 'multitap' but there's no way to add that as an alias. This is lame, and also shitty, but mostly lame. :)

@stordoff In a perfect world, I'd like to be as granular as possible; but it's not trivial to find the information on OS versions for old games. It's not part of any standard code or anything, so you have to see a box or something to identify the system requirements. That's probably beyond the scope of the article. On a Mac, there aren't competing operating systems (an Apple II and Apple IIgs is a hardware distinction). On a PC, which is open, the operating systems are the platform. This is why Linux has a page.

I feel that the various PC operating systems, but not versions of operating systems, should be distinct platforms. Linux is (and should be) a platform, but so should Windows, BeOS, and OS/2. DOS should be a platform. I don't think the same confusion exists in the Mac arena, simply because there was always only one current OS (like Amiga or Atari or Commodore). You might make a case for the system 7 split, but not for the versions thereof. Interesting thought.

I'm not trying to archive the OS versions at all, just the OS a game is for. In the PC universe, the OS is the real platform (which is why Linux is a platform on GB). For archival purposes, it's important to have separate releases of games that are on separate operating systems, regardless of hardware.

@fisk0 Cybernoid 2 done.

Who's next?

The opposite is true. AAA entrants are now designed as franchises at the outset, rather than taking a wait-and-see approach. These are seen as the 'sure bets', and get a lot of attention and cash. If anything, there is a glut of franchises, and few (if any) AAA entries which aren't formed as a new franchise. Very few AAA experiences are designed to be one-off.

We are still innundated with AC, Batman, Gears, CoD, FF, Fallout, Tomb Raider, Far Cry, Just Cause, every fighting game, etc... Games that aren't franchises yet will be (or are coming out now) like Titanfall, etc etc etc etc.

We aren't seeing the END of franchises, we are seeing a lack of creativity from an industry that absolutely RELIES on them. It's like Hollywood and sequels right now. We need FEWER franchises; their are WAY too many, and the ones that aren't, will be. For every great franchise that (thankfully) ends, 5 more take its place.

I gave it another go... I tried. I want to play this game, and enjoy it.... but no.

My assessment stands. Hot mess.

@ninjalegend Hmmmmm Sounds decent for the sale price, except for the wonky flying. The 2D plane that Rebel Galaxy locks you on actually works really well. Thanks duder.

I should mention regarding the above, that I realize Linux is a distinct platform on Giantbomb.com. The issue is with PC... is it Windows? Is it DOS? Is it something more obscure, like BeOS?

I agree that it's a right mess for several reasons. I'm not going to tackle this one, as it's not my main wheelhouse, but here are some observations for someone who might be more daring:

At the time of the computer revolution, the term 'PC' was not being used the way it is used today. A variety of platforms referred to in the article, including the Commodore 64, Apple II, etc... were known as "Home Computers" collectively, and what we think of as a PC today, was called referred to as an IBM Compatible, or even generically as an IBM.

Just as Commodore 64, Apple II, and Atari computers have a platform page, I believe that the IBM 808x and derivatives thereof (Tandy, etc...) should be a distinct platform page. If you look at an old computer game box, it does not say "PC" it says "IBM Compatible". This would be the proper platform of what eventually became known as the 'PC'.

The article as it stands is an article for the entirety of home computers; it is a superset, and does a disservice to the IBM Compatibles of yore / PCs of today. It is a chaotic disorganized mess, serving basically as a history of computing, rather than a proper article covering PC as a platform.

This is, in part, due to the PC's distinction between platform and operating system. While all (well, most) other consoles and computers have a specific operating system (e.g. Amiga runs Amiga OS), IBM Compatible PCs have had a variety of competing operating systems, almost from the beginning. Is it fair to call an OS2/Warp game a PC game? What about a Linux game?

This is why I prefer calling a game a "Windows 3.1 game" 'rather than a PC game. It implies a pc, but contains much more useful information...

Following that logic, should operating systems get platform pages, seeing as though a DOS game and a Linux game are as much ports as, say, a SNES and Genesis title, even though they run on the same hardware? I'm not sure. It should at least be in an infobox...

TL;DR: IBM Compatible should be a distinct platform. The history of computing should be a distinct article. Computer titles should be OS specific, where computers have multiple operating systems. This is what Wikipedia does, and Wikipedia isn't even video game specific. Look at Kerbal Space Program on Wikipedia:

Platform(s)

• Microsoft Windows
• OS X
• Linux
• PlayStation 4
• Xbox One
• Wii U

THAT is how we should be doing it here.