h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I didn't see this in Peer Review, but from the list of contributors clearly lots of people did...

Lots of people who forgot that the Magnavox Odyssey was available in 1978, and the Atari 2600 or VCS was available in 1980, YEARS before the Commodore 64 or ZX Spectrum.

Lots of people who failed to mention the initial "console wars" in the late seventies and early eighties, in which the main players were the Atari VCS and the Mattel Intellivision. (HOW did anyone compile a history of console wars and leave out the Intellivision? Are memories so short, research so inadequate?).

Lots of people who failed to remember the Colecovision console and its promise of "arcade perfect graphics" and its bundled game of Donkey Kong - Mario's first home appearance.

Lots of people who failed to remember that the Atari VCS and Intellivison were based on 4 bit processors and were therefore significantly LESS powerful than the Spectrum and Commodore 64.

Lots of people who failed to remember any of the other original videogame consoles, such as the Phillips system with its weird keyboard, or the Vectrex system with its vector graphic oscilloscope screen.

Lots of people who failed to remember that consoles were where it was at originally, and that home computers such as the Spectrum KILLED console gaming for about ten years, and spawned many of the programmers who produce the games of today.

All this information is readily available on any retro-gaming site, of which there are hundreds. I'm amazed this got to the front page without anyone pointing out these glaring factual errors and omissions. Where's your quality control?

I'm particularly suprised at xyroth putting his name to this...

H.

Hussassan was very generous in peer review with sharing writing credits. For instance, All I did was point out that his original version omitted the Atari 2600 and even Pong. Perhaps it should have stayed in PR a bit longer. Looking back at the PR convo there was some very good input, especially from Jimster, who had some unique experience in the subject. I agree that mattel and coleco were forgotten. (I remember playing with an intellivision. It's too bad you missed it in peer review. I'm sure your input would have very helpful.

This is exactly what the threads are for - they are an extension of the entry and therefore an extension of the reading experience as a whole. You've now added your input and the entry has been enriched.

Also, it might be more constructive to use a title that is a little less negative and dismissive. 'Astonishingly poor and inaccurate' are hardly the most encouraging of words. Nowhere does it say that h2g2 entries shall be definitive. The Edited Guide and therefore h2g2 is about encouragement not admonishment.

And normally I wouldn't use such an inflammatory title.

But historically, whenever I've commented negatively on an entry on the Front Page, it's been to point out relatively minor errors, and then only ones which have been added during editing. I've made the point time and again that entries are NOT just the work of their authors - they pass through the hands of a subeditor and a PAID Editor before they get to the front page. As a result of that, I find even minor errors irritating, but usually only mildly so.

But we're not talking minor errors here - the top, headline entry on the Front Page - titled "Console Wars" - didn't even *mention* the very first console war AT ALL, got the order of release of the most influential machines wrong, got important and very, very easily checked technical details wrong, and didn't mention important early "also rans".

Imagine if I'd written an entry about nuclear weapons, but stated as fact that the very first nuclear weapon ever detonated did so over Nagasaki, followed by a bigger one on Hiroshima. If *that* got to the Front Page uncorrected, I'd *expect* admonishment - for not mentioning the Trinity test, and for getting the order of the first "proper" bombs wrong, and for getting the relative sizes wrong. For being, basically, lazy for not bothering to check my facts.

In some ways it's worse than that - we're not even talking ancient history here. We're talking about things which happened less than 25 years ago - during the childhood of many of the users of this site, myself included. We're also talking about something which is covered in HUGE depth in other parts of the web, magazines, etc.

I agree, they're not the most encouraging of words, but they're not meant to be. I'm *very* encouraging toward those who appear to be trying to produce the best work they can. But this is, in my experience, the worst example of sloppy research I've ever come across on the Front Page - and it's the Editors' Choice! I just hope it serves a positive purpose by showing what NOT to do in future.

H.

Also, you say "the entry has been enriched", but it hasn't - it's still wrong.

Specific examples:

"Home video gaming really began with dedicated gaming machines such as Space Invaders"

No, it didn't. It began with Pong-like machines. "Space Invaders", a Taito trademark, did not appear in the home until the VCS. Dedicated machines such as Grandstand's "Astro Wars" were similar, but definitely not the start of home video gaming.

"but it blossomed thanks to the existence of two computers, the Commodore64 and the Sinclair ZX Spectrum."

True enough. Shame the SubEd didn't add a link to here: A821648.

"These each supported quite a large number of games that could be loaded into the computer"

Quite large? 5000+ in the case of the Spectrum. Not sure of the numbers on the C64, but likely similar. HUGE would be more appropriate...

"but it was also possible to access the code for each game thanks to the BASIC computer language they used"

Completely untrue for the vast majority (99%+) of games, which were written in 6502 or Z80a machine code and would require a disassembler and a knowledge of assembly language to access the code. To say nothing of the effort of accessing that code in the first place because of the elaborate security systems programmers devised to prevent it...

"Fiddling around with this allowed players to customise games to get extra lives or whatever, or occasionally create entirely new games of their own devising"

I'd be fascinated to hear of even one example of someone coming up with an entirely new game by fiddling around with a game written by someone else...

"It should be noted, however, that the C64 and Spectrum were computers and not dedicated gaming consoles. But the seeds had been sown and soon other companies began to move in with brand new, purpose-built game consoles.
The first home video game system was the Magnavox Odyssey."

This *still* clearly suggests the Odyssey came AFTER the Spectrum and C64. Wrong.

"This was followed by the Atari 2600."

This *still* suggests the 2600 came *after* the Spectrum and C64. It didn't.

"These 'newbies' were all more powerful than the C64 or Spectrum"

And that's just nonsense.

The entry can only be "enriched" if it's rewritten to remove these egregious errors.

Sorry to go on, but I'm going to quote the Writing Guidelines:

Guideline 1: Write about reality.

Guideline 6: Research your entry thoroughly.

"...Entries should not be short on facts"

Guideline 7: Be instructive, informative and FACTUAL (my emphasis)

This entry fails on three guidelines.

How did it get to the Front Page? How did it get Editors Choice? Where is the quality control?

I'm not getting at anyone personally here, I'm just disappointed at the failure of the process, again.

H.

The quality control is of course Peer Review, Hoovooloo. As entries are generally written by people who have an enthusiasm to share their experiences and contribute to the Guide, we can't spend time checking every single fact - such are the joys of user-generated content. After all, 'the process' is only as strong as the people willing to contribute to it.

I was able to provide additional information for my own sphere of experience, having worked within the Games industry during the Sony 'era', but I don't know much at all about the early growth of the industry. It's a shame you chose not to be a part of the Edited Guide process over the last couple of months, really. We clearly could have done with your own breadth of knowledge earlier - really helpful though.

Although this is not an entry about the birth of console gaming, but a general overview of the late '80s and the 1990s, as such it's probably fair to say it's glossed over some of the facts in the early years. The material you've provided here offers a more accurate snapshot of the time, and I look forward to adding the corrections tomorrow morning.

Many thanks,

Jimster

Hi Jimster,

"The quality control is of course Peer Review, Hoovooloo."

Perhaps a longer incubation period is necessary then? Or perhaps the SubEds need to be tasked with checking facts, at least cursorily? I'm not expecting in depth research here - like I say, the stuff I've pointed out is stuff that happened within the childhood of any thirtysomething reading the site, and is more than adequately covered on more websites than you can shake a stick at.

"After all, 'the process' is only as strong as the people willing to contribute to it. "

Hmm. True...

"I was able to provide additional information for my own sphere of experience, having worked within the Games industry during the Sony 'era', but I don't know much at all about the early growth of the industry."

You surprise me - didn't you have an Atari? Or a Spectrum? Or *something*? (Go on, depress me, tell me you were too young... )

"It's a shame you chose not to be a part of the Edited Guide process over the last couple of months, really."

Isn't it...

"We clearly could have done with your own breadth of knowledge earlier - really helpful though."

No worries.

"Although this is not an entry about the birth of console gaming, but a general overview of the late '80s and the 1990s"

That's not what the title is, though, is it? It's "Console Wars". And the first was Atari VCS vs. Mattel Intellivision. And that set the tone for all that followed, in a very real sense - Atari and Mattel were the Nintendo and Sega of the early 80s.

"as such it's probably fair to say it's glossed over some of the facts in the early years."

It didn't gloss over them. It got them wrong. If it had glossed over them, I wouldn't have said anything.

"The material you've provided here offers a more accurate snapshot of the time, and I look forward to adding the corrections tomorrow morning."

Have fun!

(I'm honestly not meaning to be getting at anyone here, I just want the Guide to be the best it can be and stuff like this REALLY irritates me. Sorry if I'm being annoying...)

H.

You're absolutely right about the Intellivision/Atari battle in the late 70's / early 80's. That was a good battle. Atari won even though its performance paled to that of the Intellivision. I usually played Atari (didn't own a console of my own, but spent every available afternoon at my cousin's to play his.) I got one weekend to try an Intellivision when my family evacuated from a hurricane and we went to my aunt's home. Her kids had an intellivision and a handfull of games. They actually had graphics!! But when we returned (the storm missed us) I went back to the Atari. Somewhere in an attic I'm sure I could dig up some of my patches from the game makers like activision. Oh the thrill when you maxed out a score, went running for the polaroid camera, took that shot of the tv screen that would be your ONLY proof of scoring that high, digging for the instruction booklet to find the address to send your photo into, and waiting anxiously for the grand prize of an iron on patch that said "Official Megamaniac" or some similiar title. Ahhh.. the days.

Did you ever play "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" on the Intellivision? Sheer genius.

I played it about six months ago in emulation and still loved it. It's not exactly "Grand Theft Auto Vice City", but it's history, maaaaaaan.

And the "Intellivoice" thing - speech!!!

And that controller - a joypad! In 1981!!!

Enough rambling.

H.

I actually fell into the games industry completely by accident. I never had a games console when I was a kid, and never really wanted one. My best mate had one, but my hand-eye co-ordination wasn't good enough in those days to cope with the space invaders for more than a couple of waves

It's amazing what skills one can acquire when a job is on offer though

Do you think a slight title change might be in order? My approach to the original title was that while the early days seemed to be about a lot of companies jostling for their share of the industry, it was only with the arrival of the giants Nintendo and Sega (and later, SCE) that it really became a war. In that respect the title seems accurate to me, but if anyone can suggest anything that makes it more specific to the era under examination, feel free to chirp up.

Jims

Oh blimey...

I'd say there are two ways you could go:

1. The easy way: remove almost all reference to the earlier consoles, home computers and all that - just say something like "first, there were consoles such as the Atari VCS, then there were computers like the C64, then there was NINTENDO!", and start with Nintendo/Sega battles with the NES and Master System. Then title it "Japanese Console Wars" - which, pace Bill Gates, is pretty much what it's been. Or possibly "second generation console wars", or something.

Or, more work, but...

2. The hard way: leave the title as is, and make it a true reflection of the content: write something accurate about the /original/ console wars - the origins in "Pong"-type games, the coming of the all-conquering Atari VCS with its interchangable cartridges, the young and more powerful pretender which was Mattel's Intellivison, and the fatal but relatively shortlived innovation which was programmable personal computers, which comprehensively killed the first generation of consoles (including the Colecovision), but ironically became the training ground for the programming wizards for the next generation of consoles (peer back into the CVs of many of today's top Sony or Nintendo programmers, and you'll find games for the Spectrum or C64...). The info on this old stuff is out there on the web, shouldn't take too long to research - an hour, max, I'd have thought.

If you do the latter, it's worth mentioning also that Sony have tried twice to recapture that "bedroom programmer" talent base, first with the "Yaroze" programmable PSOne, and later with the inclusion of YABASIC with the PS2. Not sure whether it actually worked, although there were several very playable Yaroze games produced...

I think the first route is preferable - the second option would practically require another run round PR...

H.

Okay, I've updated the entry, taking into account Hoovooloo's comments. I'm mindful of the original intent of this entry. I agree that while there might have been many other companies involved in battles for a foothold in the new industry, this didn't really evolve into a 'war' until the emergence of the Japanese giants, as Hoo mentioned. To preserve that viewpoint, I've added to the title to spell out that this focuses on the developments of the second generation.

I haven't included Yaroze, as that was never really part of the 'War'. The cost of the units was very high to make it something that would only appeal to the bedroom developer and only sold a few hundred units in Europe. One title that was exibited at an ECTS event some years ago was a clone of Final Fantasy VII - which didn't exactly make Square very happy - they were on the next stand and demanded the game was switched off - eep!.

Thanks again for your comments.

Jimster

I personally have absolutley no knowledge whatsoever about the subject matter of this entry, so thank very much for your input Jim!

Better - but it still reads as though the order of events was:

Home computers--> Magnavox-->Atari-->Nintendo,

whereas the actual sequence was

Magnavox ('78)-->Atari/Intellivision('80-/'82)-->Home computers kill consoles ('82-86ish)-->Nintendo kills home computers and consoles take over (88 to date)



Sorry to bang on.

H.

Mattel Intellivision's been added now.

I know the other computers are mentioned earlier, but I would expect the stress on the word 'first' would be enough to spell out that we've jumped back along the chronology at this point.

Thanks again,

Jims

I subedited this, and I'd just like to mention that I, seeing the number of people who had been involved in writing it, thought it would probably be pretty accurate, so I didn't check facts. The other reason that I don't check facts is that to do so would be an absolutely mammoth undertaking, especially when it's an entry I know nothing about (depressingly, I am *far* too young to remember any of this stuff ). To add this to a subeditor's duties would double the workload, thus doubling turnover time. So that's not the answer, although I'm ready to admit I don't know what is.

"depressingly, I am *far* too young to remember any of this stuff"

What's depressing about that?!

I don't know what the answer is either, I'm afraid. It's very frustrating - I don't like pointing out a problem until *after* I've got a solution to it in mind, but this went through Peer Review and was seen by people who I would have thought would have known their stuff. Then again, was the inaccurate stuff added after the PR process was over? I've known that happen.

Ultimately the Guide is of course self-correcting, and threads like this one should sort out any inaccuracies. But there's a serious point about front page entries in general and Editors Choices in particular - if a new user comes to the site they won't necessarily know or care that they can get inaccuracies corrected. They'll see an inaccurate entry, mark down the site as "not to be trusted", and move on. "Edited" is supposed to be some sort of mark of quality, isn't it? And if it's a mark of quality, there has to be some quality control. And if you're trying to write something like the Guide, quality control doesn't just mean correct spelling.

I'm going to have to think about this...

H.

As far as the multitude of credited writers go, (and I'm on that list) it's a bit misleading. Hussassan added several people to the writers list that commented in peer review. I for instance, as I've mentioned before, only pointed out that the article was ignoring Pong and Atari. Do I deserve writing credit for this? Probably not. Should I have done some fact checking? Probably so since I allowed my name to be attached. Granted, I left it there thinking like it would be similiar to getting a credit for a collaborative topic article. Oh well. I'll take more care next time.

I'm not sue that's a fair appraisal of the situation though, Hoovooloo. Certainly, if you're concerned about newbies being discouraged, calling someone's first Edited Guide entry 'Astonishingly poor and inaccurate' is, I'd suggest, far more likely to put people off. If that had been my entry, I'd have been more than a little upset that someone could be so harsh when, even after the work I did on this to take into account your comments, the actual changes to the entry amounted to very little. At the end of the day, though, we should make allowances for 'artistic interpretation' now just as we have done in the past - your 'Ultimate Martial Art' entry, for example, which used a fictitious activity to illustrate a factual point.

I know you know the process better than possibly any other Researcher, Hoovooloo, but for the benefit of anyone who might be reading this thread some time in the future, we still feel that the vast majority of Edited Entries do benefit from going through the process, either from direct final tweaking by the Editors, or thanks to any additional work the volunteers might do. But we are still only a comparatively small team and there simply isn't the time to check every single fact in every single entry - that's the job of the author, we just provide the means to their publication. To expect us to do the research too is, frankly, an idealistic approach that would be good in theory but simply doesn't work in practice.

As I said earlier, that is one of the things one just has to accept with 'user-generated content'. It's why we can update, correct or otherwise amend entries that might be incorrect or be lacking in information that might appear trivial to one reader but absolutely vital to another. All part of the wonder that is an organic, public-generated repository such as h2g2 that allows enthusiastic 'amateur' writers to be treated with the same respect and afforded the same facilities as professionals. It's an approach that works fine for a good majority of our Researchers.

Funnily enough, though, Hoovooloo has, by expressing concern for the process, ably proven that the process hasn't actually collapsed; by posting his corrections here, he's helped to correct the entry in exactly the way the process is intended to work. Which in turn means that so long as people like Hoovooloo care enough to contribute in whatever positive way they see fit, the Guide should be able to continue for a long time to come.

Thanks again, Hoovooloo.

Jims

Thanks Jimster. Possibly belatedly, I've actually gone back and looked at the Peer Review thread for this entry. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F96981?thread=231563&skip=16&show=50 Some selected quotes: Posting 17, by Silverfish: "...there are other problems with the entry. In the first section you talk about a number of computers ... at the same time, suggetsing they were competitors, whereas I think the Neo Geo was quite a bit later than the Commodore and Spectrum. It's certainly worth checking your dates here. Another point is the lack of dates, to give an idea of the timescales involved in this." Posting 27, Silverfish again: " some dates would be worth including ". Silverfish then helpfully gives FOUR links to sites where the facts can be checked. He also says "You seem to be saying the main distriction of them [the Speccy and C64] was that you could re-code games. " Posting 34, Auberius: "we're still talking about consoles as evolutionary steps from early computers, which they are not. As I see it, the first home video games were the late 70's TV plug-in boxes (which had hard-wired games). The more complex games available on early 80's computers (C64, Speccy and others) killed those..." Posting 41, Silverfish *again*, bless him: "I still have some problems with the bit about BASIC and re-programming games, I'm afraid." In other words, many of the errors I pointed out when this hit the Front Page had already been pointed out by Silverfish and Auberius in the Peer Review thread before the entry was picked. Despite that, it got to the Front Page, as Editors Choice. There seemed, for some reason, to be some unseemly haste to get this entry picked before it was ready, and no attempt made to address the problems brought up in PR. Without wishing to sound overly bad tempered - what is the point of Peer Review, again? H.