Wikipedia's 1990s in Video Games
As it stands in March of 2025, Wikipedia's 1990s in Video Games article does not constitute a passable historical account of 1990s computer games, yet it is ranked highly when searching for keyword string "History of 1990s Computer Games".
The article is spam-city: 6,400 words of hyperlink-stuffed commentary (90% on console games) followed by 6,500 words of hyperlinked references to 150 external sources.
My history of 1990s computer games stands as a far superior overview of 90s computer games and related technologies. Number of sources cited by my article? None. Because I was there, I played the games when they came out. Why would I need to cite anyone but myself?
Why are our individual accounts of lived history considered to be less professional and authoritative than Wikipedia's unlived collective fake-history? Just because Wikipedia has citations? Citations do not make your article professional or authoritative. If you need to cite externally you are by definition not the authority because you are relying on external sources to explain your statements, which means people should be led to the ACTUAL sources in the first place instead of finding your second-hand, dumbed down twaddle first-ranked in Search. And why should anyone believe external sources when they are as likely to be as wrong and as biased as the scribblings of the "Wikipedians" that cited them?
Wow, 100 citations! You really did your "research", man. But did you think for yourself even once? Did you live this or is all your info regurgitated?Also, why are you slaving away for Wikipedia when you could be writing articles in your own style on your own site? And why are you writing about non-lived history; much of this is simply none of your business! You weren't there, you didn't play the games when they came out. If you were and did, your commentary would not come off as fake and forced.
Also, why are Wikipedians "publishing" stubs and why are search engines indexing their stubs? I smell a rat. If you have no article to publish, don't publish. If you have nothing to index, don't index. Don't be so shamelessly greedy. But Wikipedians want to hog views even for subjects which they haven't even begun to cover. Why else would they "publish" nothing but header and URL? Please show me how stubs service readers and make the internet better. And then Wikipedia has the temerity to beg hard for donations: I would never give Wikipedia a single cent! The mere thought of supporting info-systems greed, coordinated info-systems greed that suppresses real commentary, makes me sick to the point of vomiting.
The Wikipedia article in question does not separate computer game history from console game history. Instead, it lumps together both computer and console game history under "video game history".
But computer games are not video games: they are correctly referred to as computer games, PC games or microcomputer games (e.g., Amiga games). Video games are console games.
In 30 years of playing computer games I have never heard a soul refer to personal computer games as video games. Instead, commentators and gamers differentiate between computer games and video games because they are not equivalent; not by tech nor by genre focus or input devices. [1]
Leading critics and developers of the 80s and 90s wrote "computer and/or video games"; they did not lump the two together.
Consider also the following high-circulation magazines of the 80s and 90s edited by expert journos and champion gamers:
- Computer Gaming World (USA) commentary was 95% based on computer games
- Computer & Video Games (UK) covered computer games as well as console games
And in the scholarly manuals of 80s and 90s computer games no developers referred to their simulators, strategy games or cRPGs as "video games." If not referring to them by specific genre (e.g, our simulator), they referred to them as computer games or PC games, never video games.
But one need not argue from authority (influential critics and developers that built the industry): if the game is coded for a computer and is played on a computer, it is a computer game.
Now, even if some readers disagree with the above -- "Computer games are one form of video games -- I also say VIDYA, Y'all! -- I'm sophisticated!"), consider the following criticisms of the article:
As of March of 2025 the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article does not even mention computer games, microcomputer games, IBM PC games, Windows games or MS-DOS games, yet it mentions six consoles by name straight out of the blocks.
What a laughing stock. Such a shameful disgrace. How disservicing and misleading can Wikipedia get? Why should anyone believe a single word written in the article?
How can an article omit mention of MS-DOS and Window computer games in the first paragraph of an article on computer and video games of the 1990s? [2]
In addition, as of March of 2025 the opening paragraph of the article is hyperlinked-stuffed to the max:
65 "notable video games" are hyperlinked, 51 of which are console games.(78% console games, 22% computer games.)
Maybe the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article is hyperlinked-stuffed because its "contributors" are trying to spam their fave games to suit their petty agendas, yet the article is not penalized for what comes off as flagrant fanboyism or self-promotion.
Instead, the disservicing article is ranked highly by biased algorithms even though 90% of its content is given over to console game history, not computer game history.
Worse than its ham-fisted attempt at homogenization of unrelated subject matter [3], the article insolently devalues the historical significance of computer games by not granting them due coverage.
One could be forgiven for concluding that the article was cobbled together and scribbled out by ignorant North American console gamers that lack computer-game pedigree not to mention awareness of the computer game industries in Europe and Great Britain.
(Even if the article is subsequently edited, its edit history can be reviewed.)
Imagine writing articles for Wikipedia instead of writing articles for your own site. Imagine being a lost soul. And even worse: a lost soul whose writings misrepresent history and mislead readers.
Footnotes:
[1]
For example, kb/m or analogue joystick (IBM PC) or digital micro-switched joysticks (microcomputer) are not the same as controller-gamepads. kb/m facilitates complex strategy games, for starters. 1990s consoles did not have such controls as standard.
And as for genre-equivalence as it relates to platform, please show me Falcon 3.0 of 1991 running on a Sega Genesis console. And who would call Falcon 3.0 a video game?
[2]
There is not one mention of the Amiga in the entire article, yet in the early 90s the Amiga was a king-tier computer game machine in Britain and on Continental Europe. Other micros are ignored as well.
Ever heard of the Commodore 64? It was a big deal. Not one mention of this wrecking-ball-juggernaut.
[3]
Computer and console games are certainly related in history via cross-platform influence and porting, but computer games and console games were largely opposed in the 1990s: you were not getting Falcon 3.0 on the Genesis in 1991, nor were you getting Sonic the Hedgehog on MS-DOS in 1991.
But the difference is: non-standard VGA coding routines were technically capable of replicating Sonic 1:1, but the Genesis did not have a hope in hell of running Falcon 3.0 at anything above ΒΌ frame per second on its 7 MHz 68k. Nor did the Genesis have analogue joysticks or kb/m as standard.
The only reason Sonic was not ported to IBM PC is because Sega wanted Sonic to be Genesis-exclusive, which is understandable. But the reason Falcon 3.0 was not ported to Genesis is because the Genesis could not handle Falcon 3.0. And it would not have sold well on the Genesis even if it was portable to M68K clocked at 7.6 MHz, which it wasn't.
Computer-gaming was far more sophisticated than console gaming in the 80s and 90s; completely different worlds; completely different expectations. Which is why computer-gamers complained about computer games getting dumbed down for consoles during The Terrible 2000s.
The overall point is that things are different, not the same. And the other point is that computer games of the 90s are historically significant, not just console games of the 90s.
Then, as often happens in human endeavors, the wild-eyed hack comes along to snatch a piece of the pie. In the name of the quick buck and click the hack cares not for the endeavor, the creative process or genre legacy, but only of shortcuts, leeching and leveling down to the lowest common denominator.
A Guide to Hyperlinking in Articles
A hyperlink is simply a string (e.g., a word) or an image that when clicked on links to a different page or another section of that same page. For example, Baldur's Gate (a hyperlinked string) leads to an index of coverage on that computer game.
For argument's sake, you are an independent computer game commentator.
Let's be specific.
You have posted (for example) 100 articles on one computer game.
You have written a multi-part retrospective, a walkthrough, several opinion-pieces and dozens of guides on one specific game.
And since each article relates to the others and refers to the others, your articles contain hyperlinks that join all articles together to form a knowledge-base.
"How dare you, an independent commentator, link one of your articles to other articles of yours? Don't you know that only SEO-driven fan-wikis and Wikipedia are allowed to deepen and expand their commentary via hyperlinks? How dare you seek to be read beyond one article!"
At least, that seems to be what some folk think. Because they never criticize link-stuffed wikis, only the independents. When it comes to computer game commentary, it is like they only want fan-wikis and reddit RPG Games to exist in 2025 and beyond. [1]
But I just want to say this:
If, when writing Article B, you have covered Subject A that Article B refers to, you should link to subject A's article (Article A) in Article B. And Article A should link back to Article B when Article B's subject is referred to.
Expand on that through 100 articles and the result is a tightly-woven tapestry of hyperlinked articles that constitute a useful knowledge-base. And if you are a concise formal writer you are going to refer to subjects often. And the link between one thing and another is going to occur to you often due to your erudition on the subject.
Now of course, indexes aside, one should not hyperlink every second string as link-stuffing is unsightly, distracting and can adversely affect reader experience.
But hyperlinked articles benefit readers by deepening the commentary from the broad to the specific or from the simple to the complex (and vice versa): a gradation of coverage.
It is not just about going from the universal to the particular and vice versa: you can also expand into the seemingly unrelated, showing the connection between two or more things.
Here is an example of a hyperlinked article opener:
The Fighter Build is a ToEE Build for Troika's cRPG of 2003, Temple of Elemental Evil.
In the opening line of the article, the subject is established and the build index, the game index and the genre definition are given along with the name of the game, name of the developer and the game's release year.
And note the degrees of coverage linked to:
- genre
- game
- builds
- specific build
And from there we link to weapons, spells and mechanics: the nitty-gritty.
Simple. There is nothing to criticize here.
[1]
One of the biggest hyperlink-stuffers in internet history is Wikipedia, whose articles are never criticized.
A prime example of odious link-stuffing is furnished by my criticism of Wikipedia's 1990s in Video Games Article.
Afterword
Note also that most fan-wikis are not ads-free like my site has been for 10 years. Next time you are browsing a fan-wiki that purports to be dedicated to a classic game, have fun getting new games shoved into your face. And even non-game content. Because who doesn't want to know about the latest X-Men movie while they are learning about classic 1980s shoot 'em ups?
There is also a correlation between subredditors and fan-wikis: since many of them are control-freaks and terminally-online no-lifers, subreddit moderators often start up the fan-wikis for their subreddit communities to contribute to, the links to which they spam like mad when any question is asked by some blow-in subredditor.
So when independent commentary external to reddit-wikis competes with their rabble-effort by virtue of superior literacy and consistency -- that is, by virtue of genuine criticism and commentary -- they try to devalue that commentary, but only when such commentary can no longer be outright ignored because it has rightly become famous, unlike their generic mish-mash that was scribbled out by a slaving horde of barely-literate lost souls.
Return to: cRPG Blog (Master Index).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.