Relationships

This has been mentioned so often in other threads that I decided to make it its own thread here.

So, the idea is to have an expandable list of relations to other games
For example:
* Sequel of, Prequel of, Spin-off of, Parallels, ...
* Influenced by, ...
* Version of, Modification of, Remake of, ...
* Add-on for, ...

Zerothis contributed a number of these in another [[link:/forum/thread/12430 thread]].

There's also some merit for having the links going both ways. The easiest ones are the sequel/prequel of relationships, but the others have as much usefulnes in them, but I'm not sure how to express most of them.

Some examples (format: game name, relation to game):
Fluffball, add-on for Fuzball
Fuzball, [has?] Fluffball add-on
Steel Pigeon, influenced by Sinister Pigeon
Sinister Pigeon, influenced Steel Pigeon
Marshmallow StuG, sequel of Marmelade Rocket
Marmelade Rocket, prequel of Marshmallow StuG

And a real example:
FEAR: Perseus Mandate, parallels FEAR: Extraction Point
FEAR: Extraction Point, parallels FEAR: Perseus Mandate

And the countless Final Fantasy (and Mario?) games. Most of them aren't sequels or prequels (only recently there have been any of such). But they still have a relationship with each other. I'd stay with just using game series tag for them rather than spamming them each with 10+ relational links to every other FF game out there.

And the potential sequel/prequel problem.
If we have a game series with Game1, Game2, and Game3 for example.
Let's assume Game1 and Game2 are in chronological order with Game3 being a prequel.
So...
* Game1 is sequel of Game3 and prequel of Game2.
* Game2 is sequel of Game1
* Game3 is prequel of Game1
There should NOT be links of the following kind in addition to the previously stated:
* Game3 is prequel of Game2
* Game2 is sequel of Game3

Anyway, the most important part is that all these relationships should be <b>crosslinked</b>, so when I add a relation to some game, that game gets automatically linked back to the original game I added the relation with appropriate relation type to match the one used. So, if I create a sequel relation to Game1 for Game2, Game1 automatically gets prequel relation to Game2. Also for removal of these.

This is not similar to something else done before here: How should the user interface work?
Adding a relation between two games means that when you have selected one game (as usual, going to it's info page), the editor has to select another game.
I ask because I'd like to do this action <b>as simple as possible for the editor</b>, but I've not found a solution yet.

A good idea.

The problem for "sequel / prequel"... Can you tell that [[gameid:158200 Prince of Persia Sands of Time]] is the sequel to [[gameid:42061 Prince of Persia]], or the sequel to [[gameid:42803 Prince of Persia 2]], or the sequel to [[gameid:16896 Prince of Persia 3D: Arabian Nights]] ??
Series might be :
- PoP => PoP 2
- PoP 3D
- PoP sands of Time => PoP Warrior Within => PoP Two Thrones => PoP Rival Swords
But is PoP 3D the sequel to PoP 2 or the prequel to PoP Sands of Time ?

Maybe that [[quote:And the countless Final Fantasy (and Mario?) games. Most of them aren't sequels or prequels (only recently there have been any of such). But they still have a relationship with each other. I'd stay with just using game series tag for them rather than spamming them each with 10+ relational links to every other FF game out there.]] applies there...


I think this could be a good thing also to tell that "(this game) is the same as (that game)" (or maybe "quite the same" ?). For example :
[[gameid:9528 Aladdin MegaDrive]] is (quite) the same as [[gameid:6862 Aladdin Super NES]] but not (quite) the same as [[gameid:9189 Aladdin Master System]] (which is (quite) the same as [[gameid:43496 Aladdin Game Gear]]).

[[quote:I think this could be a good thing also to tell that "(this game) is the same as (that game)" (or maybe "quite the same" ?).]]
Version/[[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porting Port]] of

Edit: Not very good when all the different versions are released simultaneously, so you can't really say one of them is a port of another, but this is the right direction at least.

[[quote:How should the user interface work?]]
Combobox for the different relation types and an input field for the game ID number. (Edit: So it's pretty much the same as tags. Which this could actually abuse like the !own_##### tags do.)
Now the only question is: Where to put it?

[[quote:But is PoP 3D the sequel to PoP 2 or the prequel to PoP Sands of Time ? ]]
A more neutral option could be used:
PoP 3D is related to PoP 2
Despite most simple relations are alredy done using tags.
[[quote:Combobox for the different relation types and an input field for the game ID number. ]]
Yes, this is the easiest (for me) and simplest (for editors) but requires to input (non error-proof) numbers.
[[quote:Which this could actually abuse like the !own_##### tags do]]
Any idea?
[[quote:that game gets automatically linked back to the original game]]
Sure.
[[quote:Now the only question is: Where to put it?]]
The bottom gray area is a good candidate. Well, if I need to input just an ID, the right column (just above the "game status") can be used too.

The proposed relations so far:
'version of'
'add-on for'
'mod of'
'emulation of'
'collection of'
'Virtual Machine implementation of'
'Sequel of,
'Prequel of'
'Spin-off of'
'Parallels'
'Influenced by'
'Version of'
'Modification of'
Remake of'

Those are not filtered yet, perhaps there are some dupes here.

Double relations, just to test it:
A Sequel of B --> B Prequel of A (easy)
A Influenced by B --> B has influenced A (don't like so much)
A Parallels B --> B Parallels A (not sure wha parallels means here)
A mod of B --> B has mod A ( ???)

[[quote:Yes, this is the easiest (for me) and simplest (for editors) but requires to input (non error-proof) numbers.]]
Just check if the ID is valid when it is submitted, not that difficult to accomplish in the script that receives it. Just spout some crap at the editor for giving an invalid ID.

[[quote:'Virtual Machine implementation of']]
This should be considered part of 'Emulation of' as their meaning has little difference most of the time in gaming.

I can't think of any cases where either could actually be used, except to remove the use of the Mame/Wii VC attributes that were recently introduced, which I'd consider to be a bad move.

[[quote:A Parallels B --> B Parallels A (not sure wha parallels means here)]]
The game stories run in the same timeframe. I.e. one game's events happen at the same time as the other's.
This is true for the upcoming Fear: Perseus Mandate and Fear: Extraction Point as I gave as example.
Also true for Half-Life, Half-Life: Opposing Forces and Half-Life: Blue Shift. All take place at the same time (and in the same place: Black Mesa), so the two add-ons aren't really sequels or prequels as such usually are. Also note that the location is not implied by this any more than that they're in the same game universe.
... I couldn't find any fancy examples anywhere to elaborate this farther.
This isn't necessary really, but falls into almost same category as sequel/prequel relations.

[[quote:'collection of']]
I left this out from my initial post as I failed to understand it. Unless it is for game compilations (getting resurrected now?) where you use that to indicate the games that are part of it. Having multiple "Collection of" relations sounds a bit strange for me. So either rename it or group the "Collection of" relations.

[[quote:'mod of']]
Is short for "Modification of". The name is a bit vague to describe [[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_(computer_gaming) game mods]].

Wikipedia has a system for tracking successions of monarchs that is simple for simple sucessions [[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86thelwulf_of_Wessex King of Wessex & Kent]] but can also be used for complicated relations ships [[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom#External_links Queen of lots of places]]
Might be worth looking into

[[quote:Wikipedia has a system for tracking]]
No

[[quote:{{succession box two to two|
before=[Egbert of Wessex|Egbert]|
title1=[List of monarchs of Wessex|King of Wessex]|
title2=[King of Kent]|
title3=[Bretwalda]|
years1= [839] - [856]|
years2= [839] - [856]|
after=[Ethelbald of Wessex|Ethelbald]
}}]]
Is far from something that tracks anything.
Same goes for Elizabeth II, the layout templating is just more complex.
Wikipedia does have some more complex things out there, but this is just layout templating.

Unless you really just meant the outward appearance?

[[quote:Unless you really just meant the outward appearance?]]

I assumed the underlying system would be useful, not the wikicoding which is mostly formatting. As in, when someone adds a person to the chain, how does wikipedia insert all the links on all the different pages and keep track of all the relationships to keep the chain consistent. Do they use a script, or a multi-purpose bot, or something else?

I haven't noticed any automation in their regard. Perhaps still too complex to automate, but it would be a bot doing the work in any case.

I noticed that there is a bot running on the pages, for example to fix cross links between different languages.
Perhaps there is a page that describes this process, but I don't care much.
I might be wrong, but UVL has "raw" data that builds pages content, while Wikipedia has pages content that extracts "raw" data (I can imagine they have something more behind this, BTW).

[[quote:I noticed that there is a bot running on the pages, for example to fix cross links between different languages.]]
Several bots actually, and you're free to build your own, as long as you announce it there and do thorough bugcrushing first :)

[[quote:while Wikipedia has pages content that extracts "raw" data (I can imagine they have something more behind this, BTW).]]
The raw data in Wikipedia is the wikicode. But to accomplish its speeds, most of its content served by a [[link:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers huge number]] of "proxy content servers" or some such. It uses plenty of other caching methods in addition to this. Templates are used to accomplish most of the advanced stuff in Wikipedia, and the software (Mediawiki) can be [[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version extended]] with "plugins" to add more functionality.

[[quote: [[quote: 'Virtual Machine implementation of'
This should be considered part of 'Emulation of' as their meaning has little difference most of the time in gaming.]]]]
The end result may be of little difference (the game is replicated on a new platform exactly as it appeared on the original) but the underlying process is very different. Virtual machines are generally not concerned with CPU level code or what the state of the game controller buttons are, for examples.

version of
I thought would cover when a game is simultaneously released for several different platforms or the porting order was unknown. If it is later discovered that a 'version of' game turns out to have been ported, then it can be further clarified by changing it.

parallels
This is when a game is not a total conversion or mod but is purposefully designed to be similar to another. But not just slightly similar, its similar in a way that some people would same 'its the same game but with different stuff'. Say a game with a fairytale type story has Fooza kidnaping a princess Sutra of the Rainbow land. Sura the hero plays through 40 maze levels. He gets hints from the wise old hermit along the way. Halfway through the game, he finds out that Foozle is his long lost older half-brother. He gathers four magical items that 'unlock' the level where the final battle takes place. Sura defeats Foozle, rescues princess Sutra and [[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_ending TLHEA]]. Then the same game designers come out with a new sci-fi game. In this game Zunkle kidnaps princess Lenka of the galactic kingdom. Zhapp the hero plays through 40 puzzle levels. He gets hints from the old retired space jockey along the way. Halfway through the game, he finds out that Zunkle is his uncle. He gathers 5 computer chips that are used to lower the shields of Zunkle's moon base where the final battle takes place. Zhapp defeats Zunkle, rescues princess Lenka, and [[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_ending TLHEA]]. One is a fairytale maze game, the other is a sci-fi puzzler. And the characters are different. But there is enough similarities that the the sci-fi game parallels the fairytale game. Note that this is very common in sequels so it would be quite noticeable if this relationship were missing from a sequel. A well known example, [[gameid:5130 Super Mario Brothers 2]] does not parallel [[gameid:5128 Super Mario Brothers]]. Also, [[gameid:9176 The Legend of Zelda]] does not quite parallel [[gameid:7949 Zelda II]] (more than just the side-scrolling platform vs. overhead. They have a different number of levels. The '2nd quest' doesn't change the dungeons. no maps. no Foozle type bad guy. Collecting experience points). In some cases, companies will design their game to parallel a competitor's game.

POP3
If its not obviously a sequel, or a spin-off of a specific game, then I called it a spin-off of the original.

On a technical level, we really only need 2 <i>types of relationships</i>. One type means the game gets counted in the database, and the other type means the game is not counted. Influenced, version (different platforms), parallels, sequel, remake, prequel, port gets counted. Mod, conversion, emulation, version (same platform), virtual machine, collection, add-on, reboot. As long as the type is accurate, the actual name of it need only be a strong suggestion. However, it would be nice if the name of the relationship could be used to check which details of the two games should be the same. the Emulation relationship would imply that nothing from the original is left out of the emulated version.

[[quote:parallels
This is when a game is not a total conversion or mod but is purposefully designed to be similar to another. *snip*]]
What you describe is a <b>clone</b>, not what I meant by the relation (I thought I gave good enough examples, but I guess I didn't after all).

[[quote:What you describe is a <b>clone</b>, not what I meant by the relation (I thought I gave good enough examples, but I guess I didn't after all).]]
Oh, clone, that's another one!

I don't know if Parallels is exactly a Clone because a game of different type can parallel another. For instance, [[game-19479 Zelda 5]](3D platformer) parallels [[gameid:6219 Zelda 3]]. Light world/dark world (past/future), Collect 3 pendants, 8 dark world levels, phantom Gannon defeated by Master Sword bouncing his attack back at him, again for Gannon.

Also, 'republishing of'
mostly for the game being republished in a different country. but would also apply to 'player's choice edition' or when an old game is officially republished by a different company. Majestco republishes a lot of old console games. Or Baldur's Gate and Railroad Tycoon are now published by 'New Atari'.

[[quote:I don't know if Parallels is exactly a Clone because a game of different type can parallel another. For instance, [[gameid:19479 Zelda 5]](3D platformer) parallels [[gameid:6219 Zelda 3]].]]
The best description I can think of for what I meant by paralleling is the "Meanwhile..." things sometimes seen in comics and on TV shows where multiple things are happening at the same time in different places. Ergo, the events parallel each other.

[[quote:Also, 'republishing of'
mostly for the game being republished in a different country. but would also apply to 'player's choice edition' or when an old game is officially republished by a different company. Majestco republishes a lot of old console games. Or Baldur's Gate and Railroad Tycoon are now published by 'New Atari'.]]
I'm against this, but only because I don't see a real use for it. Maybe for those budget re-releases, but a hard/exact release date is difficult to find for them at times since they're often made silently. Good actually if we lose the ability to list multiple publishers with the splitting of the releases to different countries/regions... which actually would make sense.

[[quote:Oh, clone, that's another one!]]
Like [[game:Supreme Commander]] and [[gameid:162999 Spring]] are of [[game:Total Annihilation]].

Usually clones are little different from re-makes, so I'm not sure if they have much use. The only difference really is that remakes try to.. well.. remake the old game. Clones just remake certain aspect of it, but usually it's the gameplay. Also reason why FPS games were called Doom-clones for a long time.

'Similar to' ... needed in case there's no better/accurate relation achieved by cloning, remaking, or being influenced by the other game.

For example, [[game:Sins of a Solar Empire]] is (apparently) similar to [[game:Frontier Wars]] according to one beta tester (Frontier Wars wasn't very popular, AFAIK, so it stands to reason that not many would draw this conclusion).

This is really arbitrary relation that propably will grow to be rather common, but that's a good thing. Most games should have at least one similar to link. And since the link naming and actual relation on both ends is the same, it's extremely simple to implement :)

[[quote:if we lose the ability to list multiple publishers with the splitting of the releases to different countries/regions]]
Good one.
The right moment to give priority to the developer and then display the publisher below...

Let's take the [[link:/search?ftag=tombraider 43 Tomb Raider games]] ... Or the first 10 to make it easy...
I can imagine A LOT of cross relations, and like Sanguine said, how to handle games released on multiple platforms.
TR2 Playstation is the sequel of TR1 PC?

TR3 is Influenced to TR1? So even TR4 is Influenced to TR1?
IMHO this is already handled by tags, "influenced" should be added only between unrelated games.

[[quote:IMHO this is already handled by tags, "influenced" should be added only between unrelated games.]]
Yes, that was the intent. Game series tags handles the other kind well enough :) And how can you say it's influenced by another game when the same people made it? You should say both were influenced by the developer/publisher rather than the earlier game in such cases, but since we already have the game series tags we don't have to... and it's already said by the developer/publisher field anyway.

I was just wandering what "sequel of" mean... If "Name_of_the_game 2" released in 2000 has a storyline that comes up 10 year before "Name_of_the_game" released in 1999... Which game is the sequel of which one ? (I hope I'm clear enough :p)

In this case we have a "prequel". But the prequel is inspired by the first game anyway (that was made before!)
If "sequel" should be used to build a game timeline, the first game should be a sequel of the second.
Ok, I'm enough confused now ;-)

Sequel and prequel are according to the game world's timeline, not necessarily the release order. We should really just consider the main characters' PoV of the <i>order of events</i>. I mean, the order they occur to them. If it's a different character, use the associated world's timeline to decide it instead.

For games like Legacy of Kain, which has time traveling involved, you can't accuretely do that according to just the timeline of the world. You have to follow the course of events as they occur to the main character.

For example: Soul Reaver 2's events...
[[spoiler:... are placed far before the events of Soul Reaver in actual time, but this is because Raziel travelled back in time at the end of Soul Reaver, so the events ...]]... really are after the first Soul Reaver's (from the main characters' PoV), effectively making it a sequel.
[[spoiler:Although it could be considered a paradoxal prequel Blood Omen 2, the events of which actually occur <b>because</b> of the stuff done in Soul Reaver 2 (and after them, in a sense, but to a different character).]]
There's also a lot of interconnected events and paradoxes (other than the one mentioned in the spoiler) done across the series that have caused something to happen in other games (which becomes only apparent to those who've played the whole series and are observant), which have made the thing even more confusing, but they're amusingly enough ordered that we can actually assign them a chronological order that's almost the same as the release order. These relations should probably be left out since they're not that important and would be confusing to everyone.. as well as functioning as a form of spoiler(!).

And cases where this is unclear, obviously you can't create such relations, leave it to the game series tag :)

Edit:[[quote:If "Name_of_the_game 2" released in 2000 has a storyline that comes up 10 year before "Name_of_the_game" released in 1999]]
Name_of_the_game 2 is prequel because the events occur before the events of the first game, of course. Unless similar case as with LoK occurs here, which causes the thing to become a mess. I'm not really sure if they can be called a prequel or sequel if they have _absolutely_ nothing in common with each other (= nothing to tie them together). Probably the prequel/sequel thing should be omitted in such case as well (like the dozens of Forgotten Realms games, they occur in the same world, but there's little or nothing to tie them together other than that they occur in the same world).

prequel:
The fictional initial time frame of the prequel game proceeds the initial time frame of the sequel game.

sequel:
The fictional initial time frame of the sequel game follows the initial time frame of the prequel game.

Release dates influence the games' design but don't not influence the fictional time line of the games (in theory). In theory, the prequel only introduces facts that can be reconciled with the sequel that was previously released without resulting to abnormal rationality. If it fails this definition, the it is a reboot. Some leeway must be granted in the search for rational explanation. For instance, Link to the Past has a picture of 'seven wise men/sages', shows the identical except one is shorter, and refers to them as males of the same species as Link and Zelda. But Ocarina of time shows the sages being male and female, of 3 additional species, and of all different sizes. This has two rational explanations, lost history,[[spoiler:and the time travel paradox of Ocarina's ending]]allows for rational connecting story to be devised 'off-screen' as it were.

However, some stories stretch this very thin. Star Wars for instance can only be explained by saying the everyone is always misplacing their advanced technology somehow, major characters forget or don't bother to relay important information about the past, and Obi-wan is either senile or a lying bastard.

Time travel can complicate matters. Games can become their own prequils and sequils. Perhaps they can even have one way relationships. If the initial time frame that the main character is in at the very start of the game is the criteria to go by, the following complex example applies:
Back to the Future (initial timeframe is 1980s). Prequel of BttF II. Sequel of BttFuture III (because the initial time frame of BttF III proceeds it)
Back to the Future II (initial timeframe is 1980s and after BttF). Sequel of BttF. Has no Sequel, yet.
Back to the Future III (initial timeframe is 1950s). Prequel of BttF (because it alters the initial time frame of BttF) Not a sequel to anything, yet (because there is no BttF movie with an initial time frame of after 1880s to before 1950s).
Theoretical BttF IV initially starts in 1980s right after Doc [[spoiler:departs in his time train]]. Sequel of BttF II. Not a prequel to anything, yet.

If the relationship between initial and ending time frames that the main character is in at the very start of the game and finish of each game involved is the criteria to go by, the following complex example applies:
Back to the Future (initial timeframe is 1980s, ending time frame is 1980s after the beginning). Not a sequel of anything. A prequil to BttF II (because the ending 1980s time frame is the initial 1980s time frame of BttF II)
Back to the Future II (initial timeframe is 1980s and after the BttF ending time frame). Sequel of BttF. Prequel of BttF III (since the 1950s ending time frame is before the initial 1950s time frame of BttF III)
Back to the Future III (initial timeframe is 1950s, ending time frame is 1980s after the all other initial 1980s frames). Not a prequel to anything yet (no move has a initial time frame after the ending 1980s frame of this movie). Sequel of BttF II
Theoretical BttF IV (initially starts in 1980s right after Doc [[spoiler:departs in his time train]]. Making it a sequel of BttF III. Not a prequel to anything, yet.

I'm coding the relationship stuff.
For every relation added, when viewed from "the other game", the reciprocal meaning will be used:

POP1 is sequel of POP2 >> POP2 is prequel of POP1

This means that for every type of relation, there is ALWAYS its reciprocal:
sequel of > prequel of
add-on for > has this addon(s)
clone of > spawned this clone
mod of > has this mod(s)
Spin-off of > spawned this spin-off
Influenced by > has influenced
Remake of > was remade
'Parallels' > is paralleled by (???)

Troubles:
- 'Version/Port': as Sanguine wrote, is a problem
- 'collection of': is it really needed?
- 'emulation of': why? When?
- 'Virtual Machine implementation of': looks strictly related to port. perhaps we could solve with some extra flag?

Done, please test!

On the bottom right of the game page you can see the new "game relations" box.
Select the type of relation and type the ID of the related game.
After a while, you will see the details of the selected game! Ajax magic!
If it is the game you wanted to relate, press the OK button.
The page will refresh with the new relation displayed just below (for now it is visible only to editors)
Click the [x] button to remove any relation.
For now I have enabled "sequel" and "influenced by" (and reciprocals)
Actions are logged
Play with it and don't be afraid to make damages.
I could skip the refresh part to make it even faster via ajax, but I preferred to work on the core.

[[quote:clone of > spawned this clone]]
"Has this clone" sounds better, since it isn't as directly related. More akin to having influenced its creation in greater degree.
[[quote:'Parallels' > is paralleled by (???)]]
Both should have the same description.
Game1 parallels Game2 < - > Game2 parallels Game1
[[quote:- 'Version/Port': as Sanguine wrote, is a problem]]
As [[link:#13462 Zerothis]] said, we should use 'Version of' for cases where we can't tell which is the original (because of simultaneous releases), 'Port of' in other cases.

(I still don't agree with what he sees the paralleling relation to be in that post, though :) )

[[quote:Done, please test!]]
I'm getting the sequel/prequel relations mixed because of the wording. I'm not exactly sure what's the problem, other than the missing 'of'... Right. I think I'm adding the ID of the sequel rather than the ID of the game the currently displayed one is a sequel _of_.

To simplify, currently I'm reading it as:
[This game's] sequel [is] SomeOtherGame
rather than:
[This game is] sequel of SomeOtherGame

Edit: No, I messed it again, swap those and _that's_ what I'm reading. The correct one really is the former. I'll blame my headache for this, but just in case the thing should be made clearer.

Just after switching off the PC I realized that the relation is inverted.
Instead of
This game is ... RELATION of game (ID)
should be
the game (ID) is RELATION with this game.

Will fix in few hours.

'Add-on/Expansion of' and 'Similar to' relations are the most important missing ones currently (for me).. Expansion is the more common name for them, BTW. Add-on is usually used for the smaller things like speech add-on, music add-on.. while the larger things are expansions (the ones we actually have listed).

The relations should have links to the other games (and the platform should be stated if different from the current game's), so we have something else to verify the relation's correctness than just the name. Useful for cases where some part of the series is on one platform but the prequel or sequel is on another (like the NES -> SNES -> GameCube -> Wii transitions).

Also, the current game should appear first in the relation lists if the current format is to stay, just so it's easier to see the relations to current game than just seeing the relations in general.

Currently we may see something like this:
* Game1 is related to Game2
* Game3 is related to Game1
When it should be more like
* Game1 is related to Game2
* Game1 is "backwards" related to Game3

The latter format also removes the need to state the current game's name if properly worded.

'Parallels' < - > 'Parallels'
'Version of' < - > 'Version of'
[[quote:'Virtual Machine implementation of' looks strictly related to port. perhaps we could solve with some extra flag?]]
A tag (name of the virtual machine) would work also and be more accurate. A flag to optionally not count the game is needed (since some vmachine ports are official, some are implemented by fans)

[[quote:'emulation of': why? When?]]
[[gameid:11286 Namco Museum 1]] is an emulation of [[gameid:243 Pac+Man]]
[[gameid:11286 Namco Museum 1]] is an emulation of [[gameid:75 Galaga]]
[[gameid:11286 Namco Museum 1]] is an emulation of [[gameid:155 Pole Position]]
[[gameid:11286 Namco Museum 1]] is an emulation of [[gameid:3883 Rally-X]]
[[gameid:11286 Namco Museum 1]] is an emulation of [[gameid:3883 New Rally-X]]
[[gameid:11286 Namco Museum 1]] is an emulation of [[gameid:26 Bosconian]]
[[gameid:11286 Namco Museum 1]] is an emulation of [[gameid:4790 Toy Pop]]

[[gameid:243 Pac+Man]] is emulated by [[gameid:11286 Namco Museum 1]]

[[gameid:75 Galaga]] is emulated by [[gameid:11286 Namco Museum 1]]

[[gameid:155 Pole Position]] is emulated by [[gameid:11286 Namco Museum 1]]

[[gameid:3883 Rally-X]] is emulated by [[gameid:11286 Namco Museum 1]]

[[gameid:3883 New Rally-X]] is emulated by [[gameid:11286 Namco Museum 1]]

[[gameid:26 Bosconian]] is emulated by [[gameid:11286 Namco Museum 1]]

[[gameid:4790 Toy Pop]] is emulated by [[gameid:11286 Namco Museum 1]]

Just to note about "Search UVL for this game on any platform" link, it will be outdated and not very useful (=less accurate) once the relations are complete and proper relations have been created for all games (not likely to happen anytime soon) :)

[[quote:Also, the current game should appear first in the relation lists if the current format is to stay ...]]
That list just shows the "raw" data. When I'll have more data to work with I (we) will find the best output.
[[quote:A flag to optionally not count the game is needed (since some vmachine ports are official, some are implemented by fans)]]
That flag will be used only in summaries, not in games listings, right?
I don't like much the idea to have an additional flag to hide games, I'd like something based on available data, if possible.

I'm right now adding the new relations, and yesterday I've sorted the input interface to look more "natural".

[[quote:>> A flag to optionally not count the game is needed (since some vmachine ports are official, some are implemented by fans)
That flag will be used only in summaries, not in games listings, right?
I don't like much the idea to have an additional flag to hide games, I'd like something based on available data, if possible.]]
I suppose the '[[gametag:homebrew homebrew]]' tag could differentiate the uncounted games. Also prototype. Official vmachines and ports would be counted unless the 'prototype' flag or 'homebrew' tag was present.
The other option would be to split the relationships in two 'Official vmachine of' and 'Unofficial vmachine of'.
Both these options seem valid for all relationships. There are also unofficial sequils, hacks, and remakes of official games. not just unofficial ports and vmachines.

'Collection of' would actually fit instances like [[game:F.E.A.R. Files]] or the other game compilations better than having 'Version of' multiple times for the different games. Makes a certain distinction in meaning between the two.

Edit: and collections like the [[gameid:154491 Sega Ages]] and other anniversary, collection, whatever thingies.

To summarize what's left to do:
* Port of
* Collection of
* links to the related games

Done!
Last to do is find a final place for the list... Perhaps just below the gallery thumbnails.
Or should it need more evidence?

Just a little question :

Is [[gameid:013290 this game]] remake of Final Fantasy I & remake of Final Fantasy II AND / OR collection of FFI & collection of FFII... ?

EDIT : not sure that I've understood "spin-off"... If A is spin-off of B, then it means that A is a little part of B ?
Is [[gameid:164676 Final Fantasy VII Snowboarding]] a spin-off of [[gameid:11134 Final Fantasy VII]] ? (In FF7, there's an event where you have to slid a mountain with a snowboard, and you can make it several times to make the best record... and it seems that this FF7 Snowboarding is this)

[[quote:Last to do is find a final place for the list... Perhaps just below the gallery thumbnails.]]
Below tags, I think would be good.

[[quote:Or should it need more evidence?]]
Evidence? You mean large label reading "RELATIONS"?

[[quote:not sure that I've understood "spin-off"... If A is spin-off of B, then it means that A is a little part of B ?]]
Yes and no.

Mario Kart/Paint could be considered a spin-off of the regular Mario game series. Same characters but nothing else is related. Usually spin-offs are un-canonical.

Edit3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-off_(media)#In_video_games
Edit: It's a bit difficult to use in some cases since we can't refer to whole series with it.
Edit2:
[[quote:Is Final Fantasy VII Snowboarding a spin-off of Final Fantasy VII]]
As far as I can tell, yes, it is.

[[quote:Edit3: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-off_(media)#In_video_games ]]

Yeah, I got it, thanks :)

Bah, realized 'Similar to' relation is missing while trying to add it between [[gameid:154149 San Andreas]] and [[gameid:165099 Saints Row]].

Added!
Use at your own risk ;-)

I added a game that didn't exist on a relation for [[gameid:15849 Sonic Jam]], and now an error appears while looking game's information.

Congratulations :D The only "bug" I've encountered with the thing so far is that when I hit OK before it has loaded the game info UVL spews some crap at me (returning and waiting for the ajaxing to finish fixes this always - don't know if this is fixed now, as I haven't done it in a while now).

Edit: Both cases can be prevented by disabling the submit button until it has loaded a valid game.

Adding the same relation again is logged as "normal" rather than as a conflict, nor is the editor informed of the conflict in any manner.

I haven't tried this, but what happens if I add relation that points to itself? Does UVL accept that as well (even though it shouldn't)?

[[quote:I added a game that didn't exist on a relation]]
Fixed. And removed the wrong relation.
[[quote:Both cases can be prevented by disabling the submit button until it has loaded a valid game]]
Done! Neat idea.
[[quote:what happens if I add relation that points to itself?]]
Well, fixed.
[[quote:Adding the same relation again is logged as "normal" rather than as a conflict, nor is the editor informed of the conflict in any manner. ]]
Will check this later.

I was wandering...

If A version of B and A version of C, then... B version of C ?

EDIT: and maybe that added / deleted relationships could be shown in "Edit log".

[[quote:If A version of B and A version of C, then... B version of C ?]]
Yes, it's a mess, but this is the way it is. If it wasn't, then you'd be listing ports rather than versions.

Just noticed that "has influenced" appears twice in the relations list.

EDIT: Maybe that "parallels" should be renamed "[[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_story Side Story]]" ? Or is it another thing ? (I used "parallels" twice, and both was for a "Side Story").

[[quote:Maybe that "parallels" should be renamed "[[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_story Side Story]]" ? Or is it another thing ?]]
Yes, they're the same. This might actually be a good thing. It's less likely to be confused with something else and can have proper relation to the original game. May require some fixing with the already existing entries in terms of direction, though.

Edit: Actually there's a minor difference. Side-story is (completely) separate from the original work and if we take Wikipedia's description literally, the original story may not cross the side-story, at least not directly. Paralleling "story" does not imply this. Meaning, side-story's character isn't allowed to have much any influence in the original story. As it wouldn't then be <i>side</i>-story anymore. This limitation can be ingored if we want, but I don't think that's such a good idea.

Edit2: The difference is really that side-story just says the two tales happen at the same time and seems to imply that they're (almost) completely unrelated, while paralleling story only says they happen at the same time but may be related or even the same story as the original, but from the perspective of different character. You can't really say it's a side-story when you're playing the original story from the perspective of another character. This kind of parallelism is usually done within the same game, so they're a bit rare in game relations, but elaborates the difference between paralleling story and side-story quite well.

外伝 "gaiden", is a difficult word to translate. But I think it would be a suitable replacement for spin-off. 外伝 can be a unofficial sequel or prequel composed by the official authors that does not fit the 'authorized time-line' or the sequel or prequel status is deliberately vague and the content is not considered canonical by the authors.
"supplemental" may possible be more accurate, but may sound odd in reference to videogames.

I don't think spin-off implies any officiality. Also, gaiden would require explaining rather than being more understandable right-away (a bit like [[link:/groups/info/danmaku danmaku]], which should be converted to the english name).

[[quote:can be a unofficial sequel or prequel composed by the official authors that does not fit the 'authorized time-line' or the sequel or prequel status is deliberately vague and the content is not considered canonical by the authors.]]
In what manner spin-off does not fit these? Canon/Non-canon argument isn't even part of it.

A small enhancement to make things even more easier:
In the game field, instead of typing the game ID, you can now type the game name too!
A list (limited to 25 items, with year and platform) is showed. Clicking on one of them, the game field is filled with the correct ID.

[[gameid:8283 Battle Formula]] was released first in Japan and is not a sequel to [[gameid:8238 Spy Hunter]]. But Sunsoft renamed it Super Spy Hunter and marketed it as a sequel outside of Japan.

Something similar happened with [[gameid:5130 Doki Doki Panic]] when it was remade as Super Mario Bros. 2 and marketed as a sequel to [[gameid:5128 Super Mario Bros]]. However, much more effort when into the remaking of Doki Doki Panic than Battle Formula.

So what do we do? I think, if it was marketed as a sequel, in any market, then it should be called a sequel. But what does the community think?

[[gameid:20382 Saboteur]] and [[gameid:20333 A Team]] are of the same ilk, but since they have no *equels it doesn't present a relationship problem. [[gameid:5197 Asterix/Taz]] also.

I agree that there should be a parallels<>parallels relationship. As in, the game's time frame overlaps another. But I think it should have the name 'Paraquel' so that games of different types that share parallel elements can also be listed. But, a similar to<>similar to relationship is an effective alternative.

Sometimes a game 'references' another but is not similar, a spin-off, a sequel, or the like. It may be a minor reference that doesn't come near to the level of 'influence'. For instance, Zelda 3 & 4 have a couple of enemies from SMB 3. Zelda 4 also has Kirby as an enemy. What does the community think of a 'references->referenced by' relationship for these very minor influences?

[[quote:Sometimes a game 'references' another but is not similar, a spin-off, a sequel, or the like. It may be a minor reference that doesn't come near to the level of 'influence'. For instance, Zelda 3 & 4 have a couple of enemies from SMB 3. Zelda 4 also has Kirby as an enemy. What does the community think of a 'references->referenced by' relationship for these very minor influences?]]
A lot of games reference some older [adventure] games, so it might be fun to add, but some references are bound to be left as in-comments-only because they're not games. Like Alice in Wonderland references :) Same actually goes to influences from outside the gaming industry. But yea, I have nothing against adding another relation type.

[[quote:So what do we do? I think, if it was marketed as a sequel, in any market, then it should be called a sequel. But what does the community think?]]
I'd only consider if they have a direct connection storywise to be considered a sequel or prequel. Like a lot of older games just increment some number in their name and otherwise appear as remakes of the older game with maybe some new stuff added in. Other cases are handled well with game series tags as already was stated somewhere. But I'm not sure where to draw the line really.

For example... Wind Waker is sequel of Ocarina of Time, but I'm not sure what's the connection between the two except you can find events of Ocarina of Time mentioned in Wind Waker and Wind Waker's events occur 100 years in the future from the events of Ocarina of Time. So if it's only references, I somehow doubt there's any reason to consider it a sequel unless it's a continuation of some events from Ocarina of Time.

The difference is really simple, actually. Whether we consider sequel/prequel to be applicable to game sequels/prequels or story sequels/prequels. If we consider the game side (game 1, game 2, etc.), then no game set in earlier events than some previously released game may ever be a prequel of the older game. Storywise (events in 1900CE, events in 1890CE, etc.) this works well and how I personally would want it to be treated as. Mixing these two methods would be quite bad.

[[quote:I agree that there should be a parallelsparallels relationship. As in, the game's time frame overlaps another. But I think it should have the name 'Paraquel' so that games of different types that share parallel elements can also be listed. But, a similar tosimilar to relationship is an effective alternative.]]
Games of different types? I fail to grasp what you're after here. Also, paraquel appears to be a word you made up just for this :)

Just to ask you which relations should be set between [[gameid:166047 this game]] and [[gameid:156424 that game]] (this is an example, there are some other games like that). "Similar to" or what else?

[[quote:Just to ask you which relations should be set between [[gameid:166047 this game]] and [[gameid:156424 that game]] (this is an example, there are some other games like that). "Similar to" or what else?]]
Based on the description, it's a port with large number of enhancements. Similar to should be used of games that are... similar, yet not clones, remakes, versions or ports - usually it's not good idea to apply to between games in same game series as they're so often similar to each other that it's redundant in the presence of the game series tag.

I would go with port relation in this case. Remake is also a good choice, perhaps better depending on how you think of it. It actually goes somewhere in the gray zone between the two, I think.

"Port relation" seems bad to me as it's the same platform... So remake would be fine... or "enhanced" may be added to the relations (enhanced version of has this enhanced version), that would be even better ?

Pretty much the same thing as remake, except usually remakes get everything done "better", not just some small part. Usually these enhanced versions are on different platforms, so it would have so limited use. The description should be enough to clarify what kind of "remake" it is.

[[quote:Just to ask you which relations should be set between [[gameid:166047 this game]] and [[gameid:156424 that game]] (this is an example, there are some other games like that). "Similar to" or what else?]]

I just noticed a relation I'm not sure to understand, "MOD", is this one better than "remake" for the example above ?

MOD is short for Modification. For instance, Super Noah's Ark 3D is a MOD of Wolfenstein 3D. Wisdom tree didn't remake Wolfenstein, no recreate it from scratch. They hacked the Wolfenstein code into a game with a completely different style, look, and story. THis one happens to have been done with permission from id (apparently, although this is almost certain, its never been confirmed.) Using the Exult design engine, someone made the "Quests and Interactions" mod for Ultima VII. I believe it is backward compatible to the Original U7 also, no exult required. This is an unofficial MOD of Ultima 7. Another popular term is "Total Conversion". Basically someone uses the game engine of one game to design a completely different game that may not even be recognizable as having anything in common with the original. This doesn't mean they had access to the actual game engine, nor must they have reverse engineered it, no must they have recreated their own compatible engine, they were simply able hack the game data into a new game (although, any or all of the preceding facts may be true of a MOD).

[[quote:This doesn't mean they had access to the actual game engine, nor must they have reverse engineered it, no must they have recreated their own compatible engine, they were simply able hack the game data into a new game (although, any or all of the preceding facts may be true of a MOD).]]
Actually it _does_ require they have access to the original engine and specifically make it on that. The name itself says the game was completely converted to some other game (note, this does not mean they converted the engine itself, only the game content), not remade the game engine (or cloned it) and made their own game that way which by our limited relationships would be only "influenced by" since that end product is neither clone or remake nor is it a modification for the original.

[[game:Total Annihilation: Kingdoms]] could be considered TC, though it still resembles [[game:Total Annihilation]] quite a lot (only the setting was changed and some extra added).

The original [[game:Counter-Strike]] is perhaps the <i>most</i> famous total conversion.

What do you think about adding a relation "Parody of" => "Parodies (?)".

For example [[game:The Simpsons Game]] parodies Medal of Honor, Super Mario Bros., GTA and more; [[gameid:105112 Hi-Leg Fantasy]] parodies Final Fantasy; [[gameid:155174 Asterix & Obelix XXL 2]] parodies Tetris, Super Mario Bros., etc...

-edit- BTW, is it normal that non logged users can't see the relations ?

What is the difference of "is version" and "is port"? They seem to be used for the same reason thus far, namely direct conversions of one game to other platforms.

'B' port of 'A' 'A' ported to 'B', means that 'B' is a conversion from 'A'. 'A' was first released on a specific platform, then "ported" to 'B''s platform (using some code from 'A').

'A' version of 'B' 'B' version of 'A', means either that the games were released at the same time on both platforms, or we don't know which one was released first / which one is ported to the other.

[[quote:What is the difference of "is version" and "is port"? They seem to be used for the same reason thus far, namely direct conversions of one game to other platforms.]]
Ports are the same thing as conversion. Versions are mostly for simultaneously released things on multiple platforms where you can't tell which was the original from which a port/conversion would've been made. There isn't much difference in them anymore, since the same game assets are used in all versions unlike in the old days when you had to modify them as well (ergo, conversion).

It's subject to interpretion on what kind of relation it has to the original game.

There's also chance to mistake remake for a port/conversion but not for version.

Which relation should we use to link same games with slight variations released at the same time, such as:
* Pokémon Red / Blue / Green
* DemiKids Light Version / Dark Version
* Mega Man Battle Network 5 Team Colonel / Team Protoman
* Inazuma Eleven Go Dark Version / Light Version
* Dragon Quest Monsters 2 Cobi's Journey / Tara's Adventure

etc...

Should we use "is version of" ?

"Version of" is for identical (or nearly so) games. We have nothing for just plain "Related to" (e.g. the Decepticon/Autobot variants of Transformers games). I don't really know what differences the Pokemon color games have to know which fits.

Speaking of which, version of is best treated as a "also available in practically identical form on this other platform" (there are some games on multiple platforms that are not identical in this manner despite having the same name, publisher and such).

I often use "is version of" when the games are still different but have the same title, same gameplay, same publisher, but are still quite different, often due to technical limitations (8bit / 16bit for example). And I think I am not the only one to do it. I think we should handle both relations. For example, Overlander (Spc, CPC, C46, ST and Amiga).

I don't know which one was released first, I just know that the Amiga version was the last one.

All these games are globally the same one, so we could use the relation "is version of".

The C64 and ST are very similar, but obviously, the 16bit ST version is more advanced than the 8bit C64 version.
The ZX Spectrum and CPC versions are even more similar, with the same graphics and even the same HUD with only minor differences. (We can assume that this version was developed to the Spectrum and directly converted to the CPC, looking to the graphics of both versions which are very ZX Spectrum-like but this is not the point).
Finally, the Amiga version seems to be enhanced and graphically improved compared to the ST version.

So: we have five games that are different and similar, with two versions which look identical (CPC / Spectrum), and we don't know which one was released first (maybe ST but I'm not sure). So the point is: I'd like to be able to emphasize the relation between CPC / Spectrum versions, as they are nearly identical, which is not true for the other ones. Maybe "is version of" should be used only in these cases (CPC / Spectrum versions of Overlander and not the other ones), but I think we should also note relations between the other versions.

Maybe "is similar version of" / "is version of" or "is version of" / "is identical version of" (I know "is similar" already exists but I'd like to use this for really different games, such as two similar games from the same developer which seems not related).

I think that the best solution would be to find the original game, add "is port of" to any ports, then add "is version of" to identical versions, but it seems not possible most of the time as it can be pretty hard to find which one is the very first version.

Technically those are specifically ports when they differ so much, but some ports are identical like versions are, so... there's some overlap.


This would make it very clear at least.

Like dandyboh, I was also thinking about the relation between Pokémon Red and Blue. "Version of" actually sounds reasonable, considering they are pretty much the same game. Especially when you consider that the differences between the Western and the Japanese versions of Pokémon Red are much larger than those between Western Red and Blue, and yet both Red versions have the same entry on UVL. However, "version of" does not really explain the relation between those two games in a satisfying manner. So maybe we could add a relation for games that belong together in the sense that you need the second game in order to access certain things in the first and vice versa. dandyboh has already given examples for this relation.
Of course, it would also be an option to use "version of" and explain the details in editor notes. But I'm not sure whether this would work in all cases, and there must certainly be some relation for all such games.

Also, consider the relation between The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons. "Version of" certainly does not apply here. I have only played Oracle of Ages but from what I understand it is like that:
you can play both games on their own, they have different stories and take place in different worlds. But when you beat one of the games you get a password that you can enter in the other game and then the two games' story lines will merge into one continuous one. So, depending on the order in which you play the two games, OoA is a sequel or prequel to OoS. But adding both of those relations would be strange, wouldn't it? Currently, there is the relation "parallels" but I don't think that applies.


I also have two other suggestions.
1) When searching for games small icons indicate whether a game in the list has images or descriptions. Maybe these icons could also appear for related games. That might be handy for instance when a game does not a description. Then one could easily see if another version does have one.
By the way, the alt texts of those two icons could be improved, too: "Has images(s)" has one "s" too much, and "Has description" should either be "Has a description" or "Has description(s)" in my opinion.
2) Maybe show a few relations by default (instead of having to click on that expand thingy to see any of them). Of course not all should be displayed by default, since some games have too many.

Companion games or something, the kind that are meant to be played with another game in some manner cross-platform or not. This is especially common with PSP/PSVita/PS3/PS4 AFAIK. Usually these unlock bonus content for the other game, sometimes only in one direction.

There should be a relation "unlocks content in". Additionally maybe another relation for games like Pokémon that come in pairs and where the content unlocking through another game is a major part of the game.

About dandyboh's suggestion, I would prefer to have the two relations "is version of" and "is similar/non-identical version of" (or something, not sure whether that's a good name). It seems sensible to set apart the ones that are different. When I read "a is version of b" I assume that are (almost) identical anyway, so it makes sense to add the "non-identical" thing for examples such as the one mentioned by dandyboh.

I may hesitate between (port) and (remake) when the game is just an enhanced port, so maybe adding "enhanced version" (not port in case the game is on the same platform) would be a good thing, for example to define relation between Street Fighter II and Street Fighter II Turbo.

That would be optimal, yes. I've been marking them as remakes if they're on the same platform personally.

That's what I did too, but what if they are on different platforms, like Street Fighter Ex Plus (Arcade) and Street Fighter Ex Plus Alpha (PS1)? This is an enhanced port, so it is more than a port but less than a remake, as it only adds two characters, a bonus stage and additional game modes, otherwise the game is the same.

Use one of the tags linked to port&conversion variants has been my solution with those. Which reminds me, they all technically deserve to be in the relations somehow, but since there's so many of them and they mostly just describe the relation better, I don't really know how to deal with them best.

A game created for another platform can be a both a port from original data and a remake using enhancements. And in some rare cases, even on the same platform. Consider Valve's porting of older games to their Source Engine.