https://www.uvlist.net/groups/info/nim
We have already over 70 Nim games in UVL database. However it seems that the genre is not standardized for this type of game. And I would like to have every Nim game to have the same genre.
Options are:
- puzzle
- strategy
- board game (because it was originally played on a table with real objects)
- any combination of the three
I looked at Mobygames and they also switch between puzzle and strategy. But most of the time they use strategy. Based on this I personally suggest to also use strategy for Nim games. But if other people here prefer other genre type it would be fine with me. I only want to have it standardized.
Genre standardization for "Nim" games
Agree with Strategy
I think it's an excellent idea, that we standardize this issue; I have been working hard to complete some aspects of information for all the games I have tried; I, at least, not only use mobygames, but also, I left you some links to Universities that, for some reason, have investigated some videogames.
Sounds good to me as you propose.
I'm completing the lists in order of release year, (I'll be at least a decade in the 70's hahahaha).
The NIM, I estimate must be at least a hundred or more.
Greetings
Sounds good to me as you propose.
I'm completing the lists in order of release year, (I'll be at least a decade in the 70's hahahaha).
The NIM, I estimate must be at least a hundred or more.
Greetings
Ok. I am going to change every Nim game to just strategy genre. Future Nim games should also only get strategy as genre.
Edit: And don't forget the nim tag. Thats the most important of all.
Edit: And don't forget the nim tag. Thats the most important of all.
I'm completing the lists in order of release year, (I'll be at least a decade in the 70's hahahaha).
The NIM, I estimate must be at least a hundred or more.
The NIM, I estimate must be at least a hundred or more.
I know you take your info mostly from Mobygames as a starting and you are working your way chronologically through the years. I have to make some more observations and clarifications. Lets take this entry here for example:
https://www.uvlist.net/game-200004-Nim
There are a few things that should be different.
1. You must differentiate between official description and normal "main" description. When you take Mobygames descpriptions it is not an official description. So the article type should be description and not official description. Official description are always descriptions that come from the publisher/developer of the game. This could be from the manual, from the back of the box or from the readme file or from advertising from the homepage. Mobygames always gives their own descriptions in their own words (at least with the old games). So this is not an official description.
2. The description in the VIC-20 entry is from the Mobygames entry for the NIM mainframe version. If you copy the description from the original mainframe game to all other NIM versions the description will become more and more wrong the more the game differs from the original. So this is not recommended and you must be sure that all the text that is in the description applies to the exact game entry in UVL.
3. Copying descriptions from Mobygames might become problematic if you do this often. It is text from Mobygames editors and they put lots of work into it. I don't know if they want to have it copied. There is no problem with copying official descriptions, but it is problematic to copy individual descriptions.
And last have a look at these two VIC-20 Nims:
https://www.uvlist.net/game-200004
https://www.uvlist.net/game-104233-NIM
4. Are you sure these are from the 101 basic game books? They look different. They are completely new Nim games in my eyes. I also don't think they are opensource. Maybe the tags were copied from other (older) Nim games?
Understand; In any case, I consider it important to share my way of doing the job.
First: I am guided by Mobygames, in chronological order, only, (because, in many entries, to complete the development teams or "staff", I am guided by information obtained in forums or other sources, sometimes written by the developers themselves )
Second: The BASIC codes, according to statements by David Ahl himself, are open codes, due to the scant investment in patenting the codes in those years (it was expensive and difficult), in general, the new video game publications are transfers of the same basic codes.
Third: The games that have been transferred to a file that can be read by any windows platform, from windows 95 onwards, the source codes can be traced. (For example, if you transfer from a cassette to wav, you can still see the binary code of the cassette copy, by opening the file, and trace the date of the code, as long as the machine it originated on has a date stamp)
That way, I manage to get some dates that seem impossible. (It's done with the help of a C++ reader, among other programs, it's a problem, but I love to find the exact release dates)
Fourth: Regarding the companies or creators, I rely on the files that rest on the web, or that are in some forums in Spanish (and there are many) (I speak Spanish mainly)
Fifth: Regarding the BASIC codes, I will comment on these two entries:
https://www.uvlist.net/game-200004-Nim
https://www.uvlist.net/game-104233-NIM
In both the author is the same, but the programmer changes; because the one who created the code was Robert G. Cox, but the one who programmed it, in a port, or adapting it to a new console or computer, was Jim Butterfield, who did not create anything new, he only programmed, keeping the structure intact; That is why this type of game proliferated, it was copy and paste, they added a couple of color palettes, and made it a bit more attractive, without substantially changing the code.
Sixth: Regarding the official descriptions; I have my doubts; although, it is true, as you say, it should be mainly what the creator does; there are video games, which are based on the idea of classic board games, created by God knows who (in my country, that's a funny way of saying it); So, at least, I believe that the universal description is the one that is valid, since it is universally accepted, in a cultural way, that "NIM" is the game of "sticks".
But, be careful, in Mobygames, many descriptions come from what the creators themselves have said, be it on Wikipedia, on wikkiwand, and other platforms; Perhaps my mistake is not uploading the sources, but it is something in which we all sin severely.
Perhaps, in the end, we should focus on debating the changes, rather than making them en masse, as we all do.
Cheers and thanks for your time.
First: I am guided by Mobygames, in chronological order, only, (because, in many entries, to complete the development teams or "staff", I am guided by information obtained in forums or other sources, sometimes written by the developers themselves )
Second: The BASIC codes, according to statements by David Ahl himself, are open codes, due to the scant investment in patenting the codes in those years (it was expensive and difficult), in general, the new video game publications are transfers of the same basic codes.
Third: The games that have been transferred to a file that can be read by any windows platform, from windows 95 onwards, the source codes can be traced. (For example, if you transfer from a cassette to wav, you can still see the binary code of the cassette copy, by opening the file, and trace the date of the code, as long as the machine it originated on has a date stamp)
That way, I manage to get some dates that seem impossible. (It's done with the help of a C++ reader, among other programs, it's a problem, but I love to find the exact release dates)
Fourth: Regarding the companies or creators, I rely on the files that rest on the web, or that are in some forums in Spanish (and there are many) (I speak Spanish mainly)
Fifth: Regarding the BASIC codes, I will comment on these two entries:
https://www.uvlist.net/game-200004-Nim
https://www.uvlist.net/game-104233-NIM
In both the author is the same, but the programmer changes; because the one who created the code was Robert G. Cox, but the one who programmed it, in a port, or adapting it to a new console or computer, was Jim Butterfield, who did not create anything new, he only programmed, keeping the structure intact; That is why this type of game proliferated, it was copy and paste, they added a couple of color palettes, and made it a bit more attractive, without substantially changing the code.
Sixth: Regarding the official descriptions; I have my doubts; although, it is true, as you say, it should be mainly what the creator does; there are video games, which are based on the idea of classic board games, created by God knows who (in my country, that's a funny way of saying it); So, at least, I believe that the universal description is the one that is valid, since it is universally accepted, in a cultural way, that "NIM" is the game of "sticks".
But, be careful, in Mobygames, many descriptions come from what the creators themselves have said, be it on Wikipedia, on wikkiwand, and other platforms; Perhaps my mistake is not uploading the sources, but it is something in which we all sin severely.
Perhaps, in the end, we should focus on debating the changes, rather than making them en masse, as we all do.
Cheers and thanks for your time.
I forgot to include the following:
In the case of descriptions, official or not, that are passed from one game to another (in which the code is the same or there is a porting), it is logical that the description is the same, since it is a copy made by another programmer.
In the case of descriptions, official or not, that are passed from one game to another (in which the code is the same or there is a porting), it is logical that the description is the same, since it is a copy made by another programmer.
In both the author is the same, but the programmer changes; because the one who created the code was Robert G. Cox, but the one who programmed it, in a port, or adapting it to a new console or computer, was Jim Butterfield, who did not create anything new, he only programmed, keeping the structure intact; That is why this type of game proliferated, it was copy and paste, they added a couple of color palettes, and made it a bit more attractive, without substantially changing the code.
This is an interesting point of view. So far I handled it in the way that the programmer is the author. I never made a distinction between the two. So for me a game that Jim Butterfield modified/improved then for me the author and programmer of the new product is Jim Butterfield. I never thought of splitting it. I think its too complicated research for me I guess. Just note that so far I personally used author as for the creatively responsible person for the specific game. And that would be Jim Butterfield for the Jim Butterfield games. Maybe in your case you could write "Robert G. Cox (original code)" or something instead of author. Or leave it as author. Both ways are fine with me.
In the case of descriptions, official or not, that are passed from one game to another (in which the code is the same or there is a porting), it is logical that the description is the same, since it is a copy made by another programmer.
That is true. A direct port normally means the same gameplay and the same features. So the same basis description should be OK. But nevertheless one must be careful. If the standard description for Nim game says "...after that, the player and computer take turns taking one or more sticks from a pile... then it is no longer correct when the Nim version is a 2-player only game. I have seen such (Mobygames) descriptions where it did not fit to all versions of the same game.
Or Maybe, "Original Author"