Talk:Music video game

Rhythm computer game

Should this article be merged to rhythm computer game category?

Random guy 18:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See below. -Thibbs (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Extra Developers

Where's RoXoR Games? They developed In The Groove and its sequel.

Also, where's Andamiro? They created the whole Pump It Up series (Something like 11 games in all).

I'm sure you could consider these major players considering the lawsuits brought up against both of these companies by Konami.

This issue has now been addressed. -Thibbs (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal

I believe that the phrase "music game" is in more common parlance than the phrase "rhythm game," and that it is generally clear that the subject of interest is a video/computer game. Therefore I think that all the information here should instead be moved to an article named music game, and that all other references to rhythm games (such as at List of computer and video games by genre) should be changed to music games. My reasons are as follows:

1. "Music game" is a broader term, while "rhythm game" is potentially a more specific one, referring to games that emphasize percussion. Certainly, all music games have an element of rhythm to them, but to describe Karaoke Revolution as a rhythm game (as it currently is on the genre list) seems somewhat inaccurate.
2. Although it's not necessarily an accurate measure of a term's popular use, the phrase "rhythm game" gets 10,200 hits on Google, while "music game" gets 130,000.
3. Anecdotally, I go to a college where students enjoy a variety of music games, particularly Dance Dance Revolution and Frequency, and I had never heard the phrase "rhythm game" before I saw it on Wikipedia.
4. It's worth mentioning that the Japanese Wikipedia equivalent of this article translates directly as "Music game," and Japan is of course where most of these games originate.

Any thoughts are welcome. Currently all I've done is set up a redirect from music game to rhythm video game. (A redirect from rhythm game already existed.) I think this article would flourish if it were clearer that its subject matter included all music games. --LostLeviathan 08:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I second this proposal. "rhythm video game" seems like jargon and I'd never heard the term until I saw this article. Kappa 08:25, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I also second this proposal. When the first karaoke game with background and pitch detection was being coded (1998->2000) it was just called "singing game" in house.

WP:RM discussion

Rhythm video game → Music game

I've outlined my reasons for this proposal at Talk:Rhythm video game, and so far I've gotten one agreement and no objection. The reasons for the change fall into two categories:

1. "Music game" is both a broader and more accurate term. An obvious example of a game that seems, intuitively, to be a music game but not a rhythm game is Karaoke Revolution, a singing game in which pitch is more important than rhytm.
2. "Music game" is the more commonly used term; although rhythm game is also frequently used, "music game" gets far more Google hits. I feel fairly certain that the term "music game" is more commonly used both in reviews and in online directories such as DMOZ. [1]

Also, I think the "video" part is redundant; while there may technically be some other music-related games, I'm sure that they could be handled through a disambiguation heading. This would also make the article more consistent with other articles on video game genres, including fighting game and shooter game. (In the case of strategy game, both video and board games are thrown into the same article; a music game article could certainly do the same.)

Note that making this change would entail a couple of other changes: "Rhythm" would be changed to "Music" at Computer and video game genres, and the "Rhythm computer games" category would be renamed the "Music games" category. --LostLeviathan 01:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Hrm. I think "music game" is too broad. "Musical chairs" is a music game. - UtherSRG 03:23, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• While musical chairs is a game played with music, I don't think one would describe it to someone unfamiliar with it as a "music game"; that particular combination of words, in my experience, only refers to video games. Similarly, one could describe boxing as a fighting game, but when you say "fighting game" you're generally talking about a video game genre. I think that if someone types "music game" into the Go box, they expect to read about Dance Dance Revolution, Frequency, and others like them. If you really want, you could put a sentence at the top of the article clarifying: "This article is about a video game genre. You might also want to read about musical chairs." --LostLeviathan 07:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• As LostLeviathan's original proposal in favor of "Music game" sketched out, the inclusion of games like musical chairs under this title would not be out of phase with articles like strategy game, which also include strategy board games. This is, of course, a moot point as the current consensus is "Musical rhythm game." -Thibbs (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, I think I mildly object. Rhythm video game seems to cover it pretty well. Musical video game instead, perhaps? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree. - UtherSRG 17:23, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • I also agree with ALoan. "Music game" is just too broad, but "Musical video game" or perhaps just Music video game seems the right fit. Jonathunder 21:40, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
      • While I still think "music game" would be best, a move to "music video game" (with corresponding changes to the category name, etc.) would be the next-best thing. --LostLeviathan 08:38, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Belated objection, though since the move is now approaching 3 years old it may be worth a review. I think "rhythm game" was, or at least now is, more widely used and accepted. Using google, you cannot just take the number of results, you must also examine the quality of the returns. The top hits returned by "music game" are sheet notes for game music and quizzes on music, while "rhythm game" returns hits that are relevant, such as reviews for games in this genre. The justifications above are also weakly founded -- Karaoke Revolution is primarily a singing game, which actually requires neither rhythm nor music on the part of the player, so it is a lateral move. On the other hand, most of the titles that define this genre do require rhythm, not music, on the part of the player. It is possible to create a rhythm game that lacks music -- trivially by turning off the volume -- but music just happens to be a way to keep the game interesting. Since video game genres are measured by their gameplay and not by the theme of their content, I think "rhythm game" is the more appropriate title. For example, by title alone, it is ambiguous as to whether some non-genre games are "music video games" -- a layperson could construe GTA Vice City as a music game, seeing as to how the Vice City soundtrack and in-game radio is a big part of the game's draw. Ham Pastrami 08:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Calling it a music game is overly broad, and might even constitute original research. Beyond that -- most notable resources describe this as "Rhythm games" or "Rhythm Action games". Even Sony themselves use that term:

http://uk.playstation.com/games-media/news/articles/detail/item75867/Rhythm-action-games-on-PlayStation/

I would strongly support a move back to Rhythm Game or Rhythm Action game. The original move seemed to be just one persons suggestion, and not based on anything other than opinion. Ludologist12 16:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: In reviewing the prior discussion it appears to me that this move from "Rhythm game" was properly discussed and a majority opinion was reached in keeping with wikipolicy. Unfortunately it seems that an error was made during the move. The agreed upon change was from "Rhythm game" to "Musical video game." "Music video game" was never suggested, debated, or discussed and as such it is inappropriate as the name for this article unless new support for it emerges.
As far as the move move from "Rhythm game" is concerned, although it does indeed represent only one person's suggestion, it is inaccurate to suggest (as Ludologist12 does) that the suggestion had no support. After ALoan's original suggestion to rename the article "Musical video game," both UtherSRG and Jonathunder endorsed the suggestion and then LostLeviathan who had originally suggested a move to "music game" acquiescenced as a compromise.
Like these four editors just discussed, I also believe that this proposed move would be appropriate. As LostLeviathan originally pointed out, the article is in need of "a broader and more accurate term" than "Rhythm game" since several games such as the previously mentioned Karaoke Revolution do not primarily involve rhythm. There are, in fact, many more such games today than in Dec 2004 when the initial proposal was made, and many of the musical games today are even farther divorced from rhythm than the pitch-oriented Karaoke Revolution. [N.B.: I am not sure quite what to make of Ham Pastrami's assertion that "a singing game [] actually requires neither rhythm nor music on the part of the player."]
As per Ham Pastrami's concern that people might construe GTA Vice City as a music game, I do not think this is likely. One obvious way to avoid this problem, however, is to ensure that the lead-in to the article clearly spells out that the focus of the article is video games in which the gameplay is meaningfully and often almost entirely oriented around the player's interactions with a musical score or individual songs. I have actually just finished tweaking the lead-in per this talk thread and based on this I think it would now be impossible for anyone to confuse GTA Vice City as a music game.
Finally, Ludologist12's concern that "calling it a music game is overly broad, and might even constitute original research" seems to be a common one as Randomran expressed similar concerns below, however for the same reasons I gave expressed there, a structural decision does not fall under the category of edits which might violate WP:OR, and I believe that this is all the name-change is intended as - a structural decision concerning the scope of the article. Insofar as the term "rhythm game" turns up more google hits, the reason (again discussed below) is that rhythm games are the most common form of musical video games. This does not mean that we should rename the article to match the most common element of its scope nor yet that the scope of the article should be narrowed to reflect the most common form of this family of games. My arguments in this vein are explored in depth below.
In conclusion I would vote to rename this article "Musical video game" or alternatively to rename it "Music game" or "Music video game," but I strongly oppose renaming it "Rhythm game."
-Thibbs (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just noticed that in point of fact, Jonathunder had actually proposed "Music video game" and LostLeviathan had agreed to it so I spoke in error just above.

Here are the correct tallies:

• Supporting "Rhythm game" - (3) - ALoan, Ham Pastrami, Ludologist12
• Supporting "Music game" - (4) - LostLeviathan, User:Kappa, 130.34.226.195, Thibbs
• Supporting "Musical video game" - (4) - ALoan, UtherSRG, Jonathunder, Thibbs
• Supporting "Music video game" - (3) - Jonathunder, LostLeviathan, Thibbs

I have here allowed multiple votes for those who have expressed their acceptance of multiple alternative names. It turns out that "Musical video game" currently has consensus.

-Thibbs (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet another quick note. Although we must, of course, bear WP:GOOGLE in mind at all times, I did a quick analysis of the terms we have been discussing as well as a few we haven't been (just to be thorough). The 8 terms I tested were: "rhythm game," "music game," "musical video game," "music video game," "rhythm video game," "musical game," "rhythmic game," and "rhythmic video game." I ran three tests on the terms. The popularity test simply determined the number of Google hits per term. The quality test determined the number of on-point Google entries out of the first ten suggested (or out of all entries if there were less than ten). The usage test subjected the terms (first enclosed in quotation marks and second as-is) to Google's new Google Trends application which determines when and how often Google users are using words or terms. Here are the results from 4/15/08 in sortable table format:

Possible Title	Popularity Test (hits)	Quality Test (per 10)	Usage Test
rhythm game	326000	10	0, 0
music game	1410000	7	1+, 1+
musical video game	851	10	0, 0
music video game	169000	4	0, 1+
rhythm video game	4920	10	0, 0
musical game	91100	7	1+, 1+
rhythmic game	1990	6	0, 0
rhythmic video game	4	7.5*	0, 0

^*figure converted to a "per 10" result

Note: Usage is susceptible to change in time, so the link provided should be followed to verify the notation given.

None of these tests are conclusive, however in examining the top winners in each category it looks to be a slim victory for "music game" (winning or tying for first in both popularity and usage). Considering these data in light of everything else we have discussed, my top 5 choices in order of best to worst would be "music video game," "music game," "musical game," "musical video game," and "rhythm game." Other thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 06:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Even a bare majority is not a consensus, and even then I'm not even sure there was a bare majority for this move. That said, when a page exists in a certain state for 3 years, that's a consensus, whether anybody likes it or not. At any rate, there's no need to re-open the rename discussion (yet). Much more important is to improve the article, with references. Especially improve the organization to distinguish between rhythm games and music games in general. Once that's happened, then we'll see if a rename is necessary. Maybe even a split. I don't know. But at this point, we know that this article is unclear, and focusing on the name distracts from the real problem. (PS: let's not put too much stock in searches. See WP:GOOGLE. But hopefully what you've done found on google has shown us that there's some research out there that can be used to make this page better.) Randomran (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe the tallies for support of different names could be counted in any other way than to favor "musical video game." At the very least let us agree that irrespective of the best name, a consensus had been reached in 2004 that the name of the article should be expanded beyond "rhythm game." To explain why I have "re-opened" the debate (which in fairness had actually been re-opened by Randomran on 12 April 2008), essentially I am addressing Ham Pastrami's 14 September 2007 re-opening of the debate in order to summarize the positions editors had taken in 2004. I do this to avoid the problems of editors merely skimming the debate and thereby drawing mistaken conclusions. I recall that when Randomran first posted in talk he fell under the impression (probably derived from Ludologist12's inaccurate post of 14 November 2007) that in the original debate "5 people [were] against moving it, one person for, and it [got] moved." My hope is to set the record straight in order to alleviate similar confusion in the future.

In reviewing the debate, I see at the very least a bare majority in support of naming it "musical video game" and, as was pointed out, the fact that it has remained with the name "music video game" for over 3 years implies consensus for this name. Let us also not lose sight of the fact that a WP:CFD debate occurred in 2004 (evidence for which can be found here) which unfortunately no longer shows up in the debate archives. WP:CFD debates do show consensus even if the consensus was based on a bare majority (which without the WP:CFD records we have no way of knowing). At any rate, I agree with the consensus for "music video game," and I think Randomran is on the right track when suggesting that "focusing on the name distracts from the real problem." Let us let sleeping dogs lie.

Incidentally, I accept the criticism of my Google-based research as violating WP:GOOGLE. I intended it merely as anecdotal evidence and it should not have been considered conclusive by any means.

As far as Randomran's concern that the article requires more work to "distinguish between rhythm games and music games in general," I would point out that I have recently re-worked the lead-in and as such I believe this distinction is now made clear. If confusion still remains between what distinguishes the two categories from one another, these concerns should be addressed in talk as soon as possible. Randomran's concerns about citations remain as valid as ever. I wish I had more free-time to devote to this issue and I would welcome the addition of sources discovered by other editors. The re-organization of the article from developer-based subcategories to gameplay-based subcategories, as I had suggested below, remains on my to-do list although the task is a fairly large one. If any other editors would be wiling to take a stab at it I would be happy to offer my help. Otherwise all I can say is that I will get to it as soon as I am able.

-Thibbs (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead looks a lot better than where it was before. It's a little long, but in the future it can be incorporated into the article itself. The main article will need to shift from developer subcategories to gameplay subcategories, with rhythm games being a major heading. I understand that these things take time. You've already been a big help. I hope you keep it on your radar, though. I've been going through a lot of video game genres articles to try to improve their quality and they're all seriously hurting, not just this one. This probably won't be the last time I try to push this article forward in what little way I can. If you ever need any help, feel free to hit me up on my talk page. Randomran (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I finally found the CFD here. The problem was that WP:CFD used to be called "Categories for deletion" instead of "Categories for discussion," so it wasn't showing up in the "Categories for deletion" archives. I guess there's a problem with the archiving wikicode. -Thibbs (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Rez a music game?

I'm debating the issue at Talk:Rez. Unless someone provides a good argument for why it qualifies, I'm going to remove it from the category and remove the reference from it from this article.--Malcohol 09:59, 14 February 2006

--Should the psp games be mentioned in this article: if not I will delrte them

I feel like Rez has a much stronger musical component to it than many games. It's kind of a hybrid between a shooter and a music game. This article actually lists several games that would fall into this hybrid region where they are not strictly musical games but their popularity or novelty comes from the fact that they have a strong musical component. I do not think you should remove Rez, but perhaps a new section could be created just for these hybrid games. As far as the creation of a "Hybrid" section of the article goes, I'd suggest including such titles as Pteranodon, Otocky, Electroplankton, SimTunes, and most of the Q Entertainment games such as Rez, Lumines, Meteos, Every Extend Extra, and Gunpey. Thibbs (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking more closely Meteos really has nothing whatsoever to do with music video gaming apart from being developed by a big name music game developer so I am removing it. Thibbs (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding one line in the Bemani portion

"The overwhelming success of DDR and its sequels has spawned numerous re-creations of the game or its mechanics, both commercial (Pump It Up, EZ2Dancer) and free (including StepMania, which is also FOSS, and Dance With Intensity, which is not), making it possibly the most duplicated music game in existence."

Actually, Pump It Up, EZ2Dancer, and DDR are completely different games, they were just released in similar timespans (oct 1998 for DDR vs aug 1999 for PIU). Just because a game involves stepping on arrows, doesn't mean that it's a duplication of DDR. Stepmania/DWI are not duplicates, they're simulators. Spaceboy 04:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If anything, in my opinion, the games being released at nearly the same time shows that they were all developed at about the same time, implying that they could not be copies: how could you copy something that doesn't actually exist yet? Unlike a game such as Guitar Hero, which came 6 years or so after Guitar Freaks was first released. Just a thought on the topic while I was here. KurisuYamato (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't followed the issues closely, but I know there was a court battle over IP rights between Konami (which makes DDR) and Andamiro (which makes PUI) in 2001 or 2002 which a Korean court ruled in favor of Konami. (here is a link). Konami also sued Amuseworld (maker of EZ2Dancer) in 2001 for IP right infringement (link here). Apparently Konami again won. In 2005 Konami filed suit against Roxor (maker of In The Groove) for IP rights violations (source) which they also won (in this case I believe they won the rights to In The Groove). In The Groove is admittedly based on the Stepmania program so it would appear by inference that Stepmania might also violate DDR copyrights. Furthermore, since Konami now owns In The Groove, it seems like whatever portions of it were based on Stepmania would now make Stepmania production fall afoul of Konami's rights (although presumably Stepmania machines made prior to the Roxor decision would at least arguably be clear of copyright infringement). As far as Dance With Intensity is concerned, I have not been able to find anything more incriminating than a Stepmania-fan's project to simulate DWI, so it seems possible to me that DWI is merely a simulator. -Thibbs (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Outbound links section

Regarding the links section. There are currently mostly commercial links to companies. I think we all know how fair and balanced most company PR is.

There however is also some freely available academic studies in the field which might provide new perspectives for further reading.

I remember there are more of these, but this is the only one I had bookmarked: http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2007/isbn9789512287055/isbn9789512287055.pdf (no, I did not write it)

I have attempted to improve the quality of the outbound links. It's a pity I did not see this earlier, but I have independently discovered and used the same source anyway. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Lesser groups added?

As well as having RoxoR listed for their development of In the Groove, I would think lesser developers who use Stepmania as a base should also be mentioned, such as Renard and the MGD team for Mungyodance, and any other simalar stepmania based projects. Thoughts? KurisuYamato (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea, however the article on Mungyodance is currently being considered for deletion so I don't think we should add the development team until the fate of Mungyodance has been determined. I will put a note on the talk page of Mungyodance to suggest that the editors involved with that page add it to this after the WP:AFD debates. I could not find any information on wiki about a develoepr called Renard. Unless there is at least an article on the game Renard created I think we should avoid including it as a major developer. -Thibbs (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Name of article / References

I've never heard these games called "music games". If I've heard "music game" used at all, it's been to describe stuff like "name that tune". Isn't the more common term "rhythm game"? At any rate, I was hoping someone could provide references from reliable sources that could establish what the most notable name of this genre is. I suspect it's "rhythm game" but I wanted to see what others could find.

Looking above, it looks like this was already a discussion. 5 people against moving it, one person for, and it gets moved? That's not a good place to start. I think we should deeply consider a move back to rhythm game. Randomran (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I have heard of these sorts of games being called "music games," I have heard the name "rhythm games" applied more commonly. The only problem with this is that is seems to cut out games which fall into the hybrid area (such as Rez, Lumines, Otocky, etc.) I am unsure what is the best strategy here. Perhaps an internal subdivision of the "music video games" article into "rhythm games" and "hybrid games" would be the best solution. If this change were made then the focus on developers would probably have to be changed. Perhaps another section strictly on developers and their relation to the genre could be created as well? Anybody else care to voice their opinion? -Thibbs (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought those games were just shooters with a lot of musical sound effects? I mean, if you change the sound effects in Doom or Contra to become more musical, it doesn't mean the gameplay is similar to Guitar Hero. Just my two cents. I'm much more sure that "rhythm game" is the more commonly used term, though. Randomran (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that in "hybrid music video games" the gameplay acts to create the music or the music controls/reflects the in-game dynamics in a significant way. As such these games may be shooters, but unlike normal shooters their accompanying music results from the actions of the player rather than being pre-recorded. I gather this is intended to result in a synaesthetic experience for the player unlike that which might be gained from traditional shooters. "Rhythm games," then, tend to be Simon-Says-style sight-reading exercises whereas "hybrid music video games" would employ music to determine gameplay or would provide music as determined by gameplay to provide a unique experience for players. Examples of this subgenre could arguably include Pteranodon, Otocky, Electroplankton, SimTunes, and most of the Q Entertainment games such as Rez, Lumines, Every Extend Extra, and Gunpey. -Thibbs (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. That makes some sense -- that the audio feedback is part of the gameplay. But I haven't heard of this. Do you have any reliable research to back up the existence of this genre? And it sounds to me like it's separate from rhythm games anyway. We should probably have an article for the "simon says" style games, and another article for these "hybrid music games". The references are gonna be key. That's why I tagged the name for "needs citation" in the first place. Randomran (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to me from your earlier explanation that your request for citation related to the use of the term "music video game" as the dominant name for the genre containing the games which are the focus of this article. The article was originally titled "Rhythm video game" and it remained focused on "rhythm games" for over two years, when new edits were made to reflect the emerging offshoot subgenre which was described as a "hybrid music video game." It should be noted that this is not an official name for the subgenre but rather it is a descriptive term which needs no citation. As this is an emerging subgenre it has no name as far as I know which is why, I suspect, this article was renamed "music video game" (a less commonly used but more inclusive term).

As it stands now, the article certainly needs work. It has never been rewriten and updated to reflect the change in name and as such the current lead-in is a relic of the very first version of the article which was centered only on rhythm games. I think the intent of the renaming of this article was to provide an umbrella term for all games where the player's direct interaction with music was a major focus of the game. Incidentally, this is why I suggested that this article be restructured to contain subdivisions that reflect this rather than subdivisions based on developers.

In any case, I think you may well be right when you suggest that the term "rhythm game" is used more commonly in sources from the gaming world at large, however I believe this is more reflective of the fact that "rhythm games" are considerably more common than "hybrid music video games." Since the most common form of "music video game" is the "rhythm game" this should come as no surprise. I disagree with the notion that the article should be narrowed in scope to only "rhythm games," however since both "rhythm games" and "hybrid music video games" are closely linked through the player-music interaction and to split the article seems much more drastic a measure than simply creating appropriate subdivisions. In other words, with respect, your argument is comparable to an argument that the canidae article be renamed dog since "dog" is more common in available sources than "canid" and that "dingo," "jackal," and "lycaon" should be relegated to their own seperate articles.

I can clearly see where your concern comes from. The article (especially its lead-in) is in serious need of a re-write. The very first line of the article is currently well out of phase with what I am suggesting. According to my understanding the first line should be changed from

• "A music video game, also commonly known as a music game or rhythm game, is a video game where the gameplay is oriented almost entirely around the player's ability to follow a musical beat and stay with the rhythm of the game's soundtrack."

to

• "A music video game, also commonly known as a music game, is a video game where the gameplay is oriented almost entirely around the player's interactions with a musical score or individual songs. The most common form of music video game is the "rhythm game" in which the player tests his ability to follow a musical beat and stay with the rhythm of the game's soundtrack. A hybrid music video game has also emerged in which the goal of the game may be the concert music resulting from the interaction between performer and in-game dynamics. Other games in this subgenre include those in which the player takes substantial cues from the soundtract to devise his gameplay."

Does this seem like a good idea to you? -Thibbs (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything in wikipedia needs citation. You need a reference to show that that there's an emerging subgenre. You need a reference to show that the emerging subgenre has a name. You've stated an interesting theory, but this is a pretty clear violation of "no original research". If it wasn't original research, then there would be references out there that would say something about the subject. If we can't find references, I think the safest thing to do is rename the article back to rhythm game.

Perhaps here's a good compromise... start using reliable research to reference all the various rhythm games. Then, when Q Entertainment is mentioned, mention in passing that "This company has also produced many other music themed games combined with other genres, such as shooter games and puzzle video games." Mention a few titles, and then we're out. Technically it would be off topic, but you'd avoid the violation of WP:OR.Randomran (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that wikipedia relies upon cited works to bolster challenged statements. This is a good concept for us all to keep in mind when editing as it leads to neutrality and verifiability (both core concepts of good wikiediting). I do, however, disagree that renaming the article to reflect a more narrowly defined subject than currently covered is an appropriate solution. As I suggested earlier, it looks to me like the decision to name the article "music video game" reflects a desire for increased scope of the article's subject. This does not strike me as unreasonable since the additional content on "music video games" which are not "rhythm games" is small. I would also like to note here that there is nothing WP:OR about broadening the topic to encompass all games which specifically concern the interaction between players and music since this is a structural matter and to the best of my understanding article structure does not require citation.

Renaming the article "rhythm game" would change the subject and nature of the article and would require the removal of all music video games currently listed that are not rhythm games. As such, perhaps a better solution would be to simply create a new article on "rhythm games" if you feel that the topic has not been adequately covered in this article or simply requires its own article. Alternatively we could go with my original suggestion and instead subdivide this article into a large "rhythm game" section (to cover Simon-Says-style games), perhaps a smaller "eidetic music game" section for concentration games such as Simon (ironically not a Simon-Says-style game), and then a section we could call "other" which would hold these games which have been given the potentially WP:OR title of "hybrid music video games".

I do agree, by the way, that the concept of this "emerging subgenre" of "hybrid music video games" is quite potentially original research and that it is in need of verifiable sources as citation. To address this more clearly I would suggest that you move the citation tag to a more appropriate location farther down in the article. Currently, to the casual reader might seem that the issue you have with the first line is that it suggests that the scope of the article is greater than you expected based on your experiences with rhythm games and not that you (rightly) demand citation for the notion of an "emergent" subgenre.

-Thibbs (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have reverted your last edit, Randomran, since it was a blind revert and several of the edits made by AeronPrometheus which did not pertain to your fact tag were lost in the edit. It is wikipolicy to discuss edits on the talk page or at least include a reason in the edit summary. This helps us avoid edit warring. I have moved your request for citation to the appropriate area as I had discussed just above. I think this will help focus editors' attentions on the topic you have correctly identified as disputable. On the off chance that you are concerned with the use of the term "music video game" in addition to the notion of an emerging subgenre, here are a few sources which use the term "music video game" (source 1, source 2, source 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). If you think any of them are appropriate for inclusion in the article please indicate which ones you approve of or feel free to include them yourself.

Again, to clarify:

(1) It is clear that the term "musical video game" is less common in general use than "rhythm game" however I remind you of the analogy I drew between the common use of the term "dog" and the less common use of the term "canid." Just as it would be inappropriate to rename the article entitled "canidae" as "dog" (since the term "canid" encompasses more than simply dogs), so, too, is it inappropriate to rename an article whose focus is on games in which the player interacts meaningfully with the music from "music video games" to "rhythm games" (which while a more common term, is also more specific and represents merely most of what the article is about.

and

(2) The terms that are used in this article relating to the allegedly emergent "hybrid" subgenre are merely descriptive terms and are not intended to imply that this is what these games have been generally called. Since this objectively recognizable subgenre has been identified (possibly through WP:OR) as "emerging" I think it is fairly clear that the editor who wrote that portion of the article was not claiming that the use of his descriptive terms were anything more than descriptive.

Hopefully that clears up my main point a bit for you. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for those sources. I see what you're getting at now, if only because you suggested a split (which I don't think is necessary at this time). "Rhythm games" and "music games" really are two different things. Initially I thought "music games" were just a misnomer, or an effort to broaden the scope of the article without reliable research. But now I realize that rhythm games are more like a sub-class of music games. And because of that, I totally support the second proposal you put out there. Let me be more specific about what I liked:

The article should (1) Incorporate references that describe the "music video game" genre, preferably in the lead. (2) In the lead where we summarize the article, we treat "rhythm video game" as a sub-class of music video game, rather than a synonym. And (3) We re-organize the article so that we can describe "rhythm games" in one section and "other music games" or "hybrid music games" in a separate section -- in the sense that we're using those words descriptively, and not as any name that's commonly used out there.

I know this kind of re-organization isn't convenient. But I think this article needs to change if it's going to be more clear, accurate, and reliable. What do you think? Randomran (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree and I will try to devote some time to it during the next week.

On a side-note, I did some checking up on the emergent subgenre thing and it looks like there are some pretty solid references to its existence, although there seems to be no consensus for a name for it yet. I have not done a thorough reference search yet, but in the following references I found this genre being called music-based games, "art form" games, the intersection of puzzle game and music, hybrid media, music-and-game hybrid, and music/puzzle hybrid. Do any of those look like they would satisfy the need for WP:RS concerning the emergent subgenre? -Thibbs (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think there's an emerging subgenre happening here too, and this research confirms it. But how do you talk about it if it doesn't have a name? It's hard to say. But if you phrased it properly you could get away with a lot. In the separate section, talk about the niche carved out by Q-entertainment who says they make "music-based games" or "music/puzzle hybrids". Repeat what the sources say, and leave it up to the reader to interpret what's happening. ... and then who knows what could happen in a few months? The funny thing about wikipedia is that journalists read it. Just by virtue of saying "there's an emerging subgenre here", journalists will pick that up, and run with it, and then you can put that back in as research.

Thanks a lot for taking this on. And for everything you've done so far. Randomran (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Planned Improvement

As we have discussed in detail above, this article is in dire need of sources. In doing quick edits today I have discovered that it is also in dire need of grammar fixes and general English improvements. We had also discussed the creation of subcategories relating to gameplay (with rhythm games being a major heading) and a shift away from the developer subcategories currently used.
To this end I will attempt the following multi-phase series of improvements:

• Phase 1 - General grammar and English use edits designed to make the article look encyclopedic.
• Phase 2 - Identification and tagging of statements in need of citation.
• Phase 3 - Creation of the gameplay subcategories.
• Phase 4 - Removal of developer subcategories.
• Phase 5 - Citing where needed.

As I go through the article I am struck with the thought that the information contained in the developer subcategories may yet have some limited value to the article and as such I am not sure if we should completely remove all of it. I have left this as the penultimate phase for improvement and my hope is that by the time we get to Phase 4 it will become clear to what extent and in what way we should accomplish it. I encourage any editors to join me in carrying out this ambitious overhaul. -Thibbs (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: I also think it could potentially be helpful to include a subcategory on such famous music game designers as Toshio Iwai, Tetsuya Mizuguchi, and Masaya Matsuura. -Thibbs (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. It's definitely much needed. My opinion is that you should leave the grammar edits until *after* you've added lots of new content. But trust your intuition. Talking about individual people can be as valuable as talking about individual developers. I mean that in a good way and a bad way. Sometimes you don't know how useful something is going to be until you add it. If it's really useful you might flesh it out into its own category. If it's not so useful you might turn it into a handful of sentences and put it somewhere else (e.g.: the history section is often a good place to talk about developers and designers). With somebody like you on this article I definitely feel a lot better about it. It's needed attention for a while. Randomran (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Whew! I am now finished with Phases 1 and 2 as far as I like them. Phase 3 looked like it would take a long time and require careful thought so I skipped ahead a bit to the easier Phase 5 (which anyway directly addresses the initial criticism brought up by Randomran which kicked the whole project off). I was able to find something like 2/3-3/4 of the sourced I had tagged a need for, and hopefully as I work through Phases 3 and 4 other editors will start filling in the remaining "citation needed" sources. I am really quite busy outside of the world of wiki these days and so Phase 3 may take me longer than I'd like. I do intend to finish this up, but as I have said before, if I am moving too slowly please don't wait for me. All editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK I'm now finished with Phase 3. I think it could still perhaps due with a few tweaks, but the bulk of the framework is up. I am not sure if Phase 4 is really such a good idea anymore since the "developers" section does provide some interesting points not discussed elsewhere in the article. I will leave it for now and possibly look to cutting out or moving some excess information later in the interest of tightening up that section.

Another idea I had was a history section which could include a timeline of noteable events such as the first music video game (was it Simon?) and noteable games along the way (eg. Parappa and, in terms of sales, DDR, Guitar Hero, and Rock Band). Thoughts on this?

-Thibbs (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Generative and Reactive Hybrid Naming Convention

I'm having trouble finding these terms used anywhere else aside from this page, and none of the sources cited when these terms are being introduced are relevant to the terms themselves. --Tarranon (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed earlier. Here is the relevant point:

"The terms that are used in this article relating to the allegedly emergent "hybrid" subgenre are merely descriptive terms and are not intended to imply that this is what these games have been generally called. Since this objectively recognizable subgenre has been identified (possibly through WP:OR) as "emerging" I think it is fairly clear that the editor who wrote that portion of the article was not claiming that the use of his descriptive terms were anything more than descriptive."

As such, the further description of "hybrid" games as reactive and generative are descriptive in nature and not intended to imply any official connotations. If you think they could be renamed in another way which still maintained the difference between them then this alternative name would be equally appropriate. To say it differently, neither "generative" nor "reactive" are meant as parts of a determiner phrase complex but rather they are intended as non-subject adjectives. Thus the cited term may be "hybrid music game," however for the purposes of a more detailed examination it is discussed here in terms of two recognizeable subcategories whose names are derived from nothing more than their descriptive nature.

It should also be noted that although it is intended as nothing more than a descriptor here, the use of at least the term "generative" in discussing the same topic is easily referenceable. As a brief example, "generative" music games are discussed here, here, or here.

-Thibbs (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It definitely helps if the references are in the article rather than on the talk page. But I understand the difficulty with classifying these games. I'd encourage you to move away from jargon like "Simon Says" and "Sandbox" because it makes these genres sound more official than they already are, and raises concerns about original research. You might avoid the problems raised by Tarranon (and myself, earlier) if you used more neutral descriptive language like "Free form music games" (instead of Sandbox) and "Music memory games" (instead of Simon says) and so on. Or if you could support the gaming jargon with references so it's not just one editor's idea for a name. Randomran (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK that makes a certain amount of sense. I feel like using those more "official" terms explains the concept better by using analogy, but of course I also understand that concern with WP:OR is one of wikipedia's central preoccupations. I'll go ahead and make these changes to the section headers, etc., but I think I'll try to retain at least a brief mention (in passing) within the text for purely explanatory means. I will try to make the fact that this is only meant as a comparative term obvious within the text. Also, I'll add this newest set of references for the word "generative". Cheers guys, I appreciate this constructive criticism. I feel like the page has come a long way in the last few months thanks in great part to all this input. -Thibbs (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It definitely has. And I'm really liking the organization that you've added in the past few days. Thanks for being so diligent. (PS: not actually sure that "music memory game" is the right way to describe simon says type games. but hopefully that's a kink that can be ironed out if people are still confused.) Randomran (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think I made a good restructuring now by renaming the old "Simon says" category to be "Sight-reading" instead. I think that is pretty clearly not an official term either. And I lumped the "sight reading" and "eidetic" forms together since they both do deal with memory. -Thibbs (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for heads up, Thibbs. I had glanced over the discussion, but my eyes must have slipped over that section. I certainly understand where you're coming from, but in my case I thought while reading the article for the first time that these were accepted genre terms instead of descriptive, both because of repetition and the fact that these genres practically beg for a unique term. But, that's neither here nor there. Thanks again.

--Tarranon (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Categorization and subcategorization

I've been working on a scheme to formalize the categorizations we've been using as common practice at Category:Music video games. I have gone through WP:CAT and WP:SUBCAT in detail and I think I have come up with a good solution. My proposed scheme can be found at my sandbox and I would welcome any and all comments here or at my talk page (here might be preferable in terms of transparency). Please contribute to this discussion so that we can gain community input on this decision. Thanks! -Thibbs (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have added this note to Category talk:Music video games also. -Thibbs (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: Having received some good feedback and seeing no further objections I have finalized the guidelines and will move them from userspace into Category:Music video games either today or tomorrow. -Thibbs (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying scope of "Other Developers"

I have changed the name of the subsection "Other Developers" to "Other major developers" in order to make explicit the structural requirement that entries placed under this subsection be considered "major." I would also suggest that in the future a developer should only be considered "major" if there is an article on it or at least one of its products. Irrespective of actual majority, if a developer has no mention on wikipedia then more likely than not it at least lacks notability. -Thibbs (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup?

I think we need to reassess this in light of the major improvements that have been made to this page. What exactly needs to be cleaned up? As far as I can see the article adheres to the Manual of Style, does not contain unverifiable claims, and does not contain gameplay instructions. Is this tag a vestigial artifact or do problems persist? If there are still problems, let's spell them out here so I can address them. -Thibbs (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered taking this article to peer review? It's made huge strides. Maybe it's time to get some outside perspectives from people experienced with video games, but without any strong contributions to this article. You could ask particularly about clean-up. Check it out here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review Randomran (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I'm on it. -Thibbs (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "Music video game" article itself: The game genre itself is valid, but the article does not do it credit. It's too little like an encyclopedia article, and too much like a fansite.

It's written from an enthusiast's point-of-view. Using lots of "rah-rah" terms that enthusiasts (and marketing departments) will love to hear. But to a reader less familiar with the subject, or less enthusiastic, it reads like smoke and mirrors -- it's hard to discern what of it is untrue, and what is just weak, biased writing. This sentence, starting the second paragraph is an example:

"Strong support for the convergence of live music and video games is evident with the success of the Video Games Live concert series".

What is "strong support"? How would I tell it from "mild support" or "little support". What does it mean? Basically, it means nothing at all. "...the convergence of live music and video games..." Uh...? I play live music. I have music software. I play video games. I wouldn't use the word "converging" to describe the relationship...more like "faking". Then "...with the success..."? What success? Selling a lot of units because it's backed by a huge marketing campaign wouldn't be much of a "success" in my book, it might be just a marketing department pedaling more stuff. Making a profit? That may be a success, but not necessarily an artistic success.

Once the article is toned down, it will sound more like an encyclopedia.Piano non troppo (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images

Most of the fair use images on this page will have to go. They're being used to decorate, rather than for critical commentary. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Bemani series logo.png

The image File:Bemani series logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:United Game Artists Logo.png
• File:Space Channel 5.PNG
• File:Rock-band-screen.jpg
• File:Rez ingame.jpg
• File:Namco logo.png
• File:KrisKross MakeMyVideo.jpg
• File:KorgDS10NA.jpg
• File:Harmonix logo.svg
• File:DS project rub box.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

YYYYYY Issue addressed for all six files. -Thibbs (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

action game?

I realize the music game genre has a pretty wide scope. But looking closely at the class of rhythm games, I have a very reliable source that groups them as action games, in the sense that they challenge the player's physical skill (rather than strategy, tactics, economic management, and so on)... I'm going to take a closer look at this, but wanted to see what people thought about moving this genre in Template:Video game genre. Randomran (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thank you so much for what you're doing Randomran. Every time I tried to start this project the sheer scope of it would overwhelm me. I'm keeping an eye on developments from the sidelines, and I'll do my best to help in any way you need me. Now, as far as the regrouping of the games as action games, I've never heard of this before, and I actually find it rather unlikely. As far as I understand it, action games involve a player's use of an active character and not so much the activity of the player himself. In other words, in most action games the player can play regardless of physical skill by moving little else besides his thumbs and maybe eyes. On the other hand, many rhythm games involve no character at all and require the player to physically leap around. I think what you may be thinking of is the genre of exergames which are designed to exercise a player's physical body. A paraplegic could play an action game but would have great difficulty with many exergames. Anyway, it would help to see the source you're reading from, though. Is there a link for it? -Thibbs (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a close look at the action game genre article. Using the source I have, it definitely concedes that avatars are important, but not necessary for an action game. It focuses much more on levels with obstacles, and testing the player's physical reaction time. Although it's not in the article, this source explicitly refers to Parappa the Rappa, and mentions that many of these rhythm and dance games involve special controls like drums or dance pads. But it doesn't change the fundamental challenge of hand-eye coordination, and reaction time. (Something that isn't the focus in, say, simulation, strategy, adventure, or role-playing games.) I wish you could take a look at the source. It's very persuasive, and does an excellent treatment of all the genres. Randomran (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I'd be happy to take a look at the source. Is it only in hardcopy? Is it part of a magazine? If you could give me a name or title I could try to do a little google searching for it or something. I guess the thing that really gets me is that there really are no obstacles per se in rhythm games. I think of rhythm games more like puzzle games with a musical element. I mean by your definition Tetris could be called an action game but I don't think anyone would seriously say that. -Thibbs (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Check your email. The source ("Fundamentals of Game Design") is pretty authoritative. It's already incorporated into this article, but I haven't added the part about action games yet. (Mind you, I did add it to the action game article.) Randomran (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

OK I just read the material you sent me. He does make an interesting point. I suppose it would be fair to say that if we limit ourselves to the genres of "action," "strategy," "adventure," "simulation," and "role-playing" games then it probably does fit best under "action games." There are a few problems I have with his scheme, though. Firstly there is no Puzzle genre unless puzzle is classed under strategy. If that's the case, I'd be equally tempted to put "music" under "puzzle" as I would be to put it under "action." At best I think we could only say that most music games are action games or music games are generally classified as action games. There is a small number of games which are classified as music games which involve no action at all really. Music trivia games, for instance, and music management games (a rough equivalent of sports management games) feature strong strategy or casual gameplay but no action as your source defines it.
Secondly, many music games do not have an avatar or the avatar does not react to the player's moves. DDR behaves this way as well as Guitar Hero and numerous others, and I think those are the two most popular music games by number of sales. In fact, I think it is pretty rare in music games to have an avatar that reacts to the player's moves. As such, I think the games are often fairly comparable to games where fast action takes place against a blank avatar-less board as in Tetris.
Apart from that I think I might agree with the author. There is no question that he comes right out and supports this in clear and sourceable language so I think this categorization should probably appear as at least a differing viewpoint. I did a quick google search for an electronic version of the text and was mostly unsuccessful. Is this the same books out of curiosity? link & companion website. -Thibbs (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, that's the book. Puzzle games are treated as their own unique genre, but these rhythm games (indeed, many sources call them "rhythm action games") are grouped in with action games. I definitely agree with you that the avatar stuff is kind of a weak argument, because in Guitar Hero the avatar doesn't do much more than vary between rocking out and looking depressed based on your ability. But the emphasis on reflexes is pretty persuasive, to me. So I'm glad we see eye-to-eye that most music games are action games, along with a pretty solid source.
  But you raise a really good point about other types of music games, like music trivia or music management. This is the same issue with sports games, which have sports trivia, or sports management games (a type of simulation). So I think it's probably best to keep this as a separate article, and keep it separate from action games... but maybe talk a little bit about how the many music games are classified. We can acknowledge that there is a legitimate argument for calling many of these action games, but so many other types of music games defy classification. In other words, let's include it as verifiable fact, but not go do anything radical in terms of merging or re-organizing other articles. Randomran (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. That sounds good to me. -Thibbs (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Phase Shift v0.80.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Phase Shift v0.80.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Music video game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100314063653/http://seriousgamessource.com:80/features/feature_041806_sg_japan.php to http://seriousgamessource.com/features/feature_041806_sg_japan.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)