Videogame Museum opens in NY

[NoahsMyBro]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/new-york-museum-saves-videogames

A friend of mine just alerted me to this article.

Sounds like it's worth a visit next time I have the opportunity.

[TonyTheTiger]

I'm not sure the industry is old enough yet to justify a museum. But it's still cool to preserve the stuff for the future.

[Aerond]

I'm not sure the industry is old enough yet to justify a museum. But it's still cool to preserve the stuff for the future.

I personally think it is... specially having in count the amount of systems and collectible articles there are out there

[Flippy8490]

Definitely something i need to scout out next time im in NY.

[Sniderman]

I'm not sure the industry is old enough yet to justify a museum. But it's still cool to preserve the stuff for the future.

If we can have a Museum of Broadcast History (TV and Radio) (http://www.museum.tv/); a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum (http://www.rockhall.com/); and a Cartoon Art Museum (http://www.cartoonart.org/), I don't see why videogames can't be enshrined in a similar manner.

[TonyTheTiger]

I'm not saying that something needs to be 400 years old before it warrants a museum. But each of those things are all older than video games by at least a few decades. It's an interesting prospect, sure. But, depending on what it looks like, it could be seen as a bit "thin" on the history that is expected from a museum.

It would just feel a bit weird to see a particular retro console enshrined when I have one I regularly play in my basement. LOL

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs between "museum" and "exhibit."

[Bojay1997]

I'm not saying that something needs to be 400 years old before it warrants a museum. But each of those things are all older than video games by at least a few decades. It's an interesting prospect, sure. But, depending on what it looks like, it could be seen as a bit "thin" on the history that is expected from a museum.

It would just feel a bit weird to see a particular retro console enshrined when I have one I regularly play in my basement. LOL

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs between "museum" and "exhibit."

Of course video games deserve their own museums. It is a huge industry which has had a significant impact on the world in both a commercial and in an artistic way. In addition, they have literally consumed billions of dollars and millions of hours of time. Just because something is only 40 years old doesn't mean it's not worthy. Heck, look at how many museums are devoted to the computer and really it's only been a consumer product for what, 30 or so years?

[djlr181]

I was assuming the museum opened up in NYC but it is actually in Rochester, NY which is pretty far upstate.

http://www.ncheg.org/

[TonyTheTiger]

Of course video games deserve their own museums. It is a huge industry which has had a significant impact on the world in both a commercial and in an artistic way. In addition, they have literally consumed billions of dollars and millions of hours of time. Just because something is only 40 years old doesn't mean it's not worthy. Heck, look at how many museums are devoted to the computer and really it's only been a consumer product for what, 30 or so years?

Well, Google and other internet search sites are huge, too. But a History Channel special about the "History of Google" would come off as silly to me. A G4 or Discovery Channel special about the "Growth of Google," however, would not come across as silly to me. It's all about how it's presented. Again, maybe I'm splitting hairs but a "museum" usually implies historical significance. Other than making a shit load of money, video games haven't really had a whole lot of impact on society outside of providing a new venue for entertainment (and doing it extremely well). Computers, however, changed the world in just about every way imaginable. And they're still older than 40 years.

I know I'm splitting hairs. A video game exhibit showing off all the little details of the industry sounds neat. I'd go.

[Gunface]

Whether it's justified or not, I'm glad it exists. I'll be in Rochester on Monday and I'm checking it out!

[Ed Oscuro]

Mr. TonyTheTrademark,

Google is a company, not an industry. If we're going to talk about significance, clearly we should note there is a transformative effect of net searches on society.

I would agree that, thus far, video games are somewhat limited in their effect on society, but that's because interactive mediums including video games aren't really fully developed yet. They're a treasure trove to cultural studies people and historians already.

And anyhow, if the Museum of Bad Art (http://www.museumofbadart.org/collection/index.php) gets a mention in the first five pages of Google, surely vidya gaemz deserve a spot there too. Maybe on Yahoo too.

[TonyTheTiger]

Mr. TonyTheTrademark,

Lies.


Google is a company, not an industry. If we're going to talk about significance, clearly we should note there is a transformative effect of net searches on society.

I'm aware that Google is not an industry. But my point was that it would seem awkward, at least to me, to see The History Channel's lineup consist of "World War II: Another Documentary," "The History of Google," and "The Samurai Tradition." Seeing something like a retrospective on Google's rise on The Discovery Channel, however, would make perfect sense to me. Maybe it is just my perception, but The Discovery Channel or G4 or something sounds to be a much more appropriate venue for something like that. The actual content of the TV special could be exactly the same. I was making an analogy of venues rather than directly comparing Google and video games.


I would agree that, thus far, video games are somewhat limited in their effect on society, but that's because interactive mediums including video games aren't really fully developed yet. They're a treasure trove to cultural studies people and historians already.

That would then support the argument that video games are yet not old enough, wouldn't it?

I personally think it remains to be seen exactly how much potential video games have to shape society. They might have as much potential as movies. They might have as much potential as board games. Video games are sort of the bastard child of both.

For the record, I'm also using "shaping society" in a broad sense. Casablanca is an amazing film but, outside of influencing other filmmakers and storytellers, I'm not exactly sure I can say it had a part in "shaping society." I think we can say that film itself helped shape society a lot easier than we can point to a particular instance of film that did. The same is probably going to be true for gaming.


And anyhow, if the Museum of Bad Art (http://www.museumofbadart.org/collection/index.php) gets a mention in the first five pages of Google, surely vidya gaemz deserve a spot there too. Maybe on Yahoo too.

Uh...I'm not following. This was never about what's deserving of a spot on Google.

But as for the Museum of Bad Art, I think that if the word "museum" is what people insist on using then fine. In this case I think it's satirical. I'm just saying that, to me, "Museum of Video Games" clashes with my most basic interpretation of what a museum is. It'd be a weird feeling walking through a museum and saying "I have that."

[murdoc rose]

well its a fine idea that will turn a profit not sure it qualifies as a museum but I wouldn't know what else to call it. I'm sure it would be fun to walk around if it was done right.

[TonyTheTiger]

well its a fine idea that will turn a profit not sure it qualifies as a museum but I wouldn't know what else to call it. I'm sure it would be fun to walk around if it was done right.

I think that's really it. If not a museum, what do you call it? It'll be a nice exhibit regardless.

[murdoc rose]

I think it could be a lot of fun or it could be like walking around your bedroom, i keep picturing the cave men from monh in new york frozen in time hitting a 2600 with clubs for some reason. If it wasn't a 4 day drive from here Id think about going just to see it.

[NoahsMyBro]

For me I think it's about 5 hours, and I'll be looking for an opportunity to go check it out some weekend. Hopefully while Videotopia is there - I've wanted to see that for YEARS.

[boatofcar]

It all depends on how its done. If they manage to gather all the earliest examples of video games, which is pretty much anything from 1947-1970, then it will be super cool. If the oldest video game they have in there is Computer Space, I'll be less than impressed.

[Ed Oscuro]

it would seem awkward, at least to me, to see The History Channel's lineup consist of "World War II: Another Documentary," "The History of Google," and "The Samurai Tradition."
Awkward?

Hang on a second there Swiss Tony. I'll hop in my car and go visit the western front where samurai are cutting Soviet tanks and each other in half with the power of bushido and bamboo!

Fun fact - video games have existed about half of the time between now and WWII. Google is just over a decade old.

Man, what's this crap I hear about museums for movies? They're not even a fraction as old as cave paintings. NO SIGNIFICANCE

[TonyTheTiger]

Either you're missing my point or being facetious. Either way I'll leave it at that.

[Ed Oscuro]

Either you're missing my point or being facetious.
And then there's the third possibility: It's retarded to argue that video games don't deserve their own museum when movies and all sorts of other light entertainments have their own.

If games museums don't get started now, future collections will just be tons of busted up crap anyhow.

[The 1 2 P]

It sounds cool. New York isn't too far away but I don't travel up there often. Still, it's nice to see our industry continue to take strides forward to gain greater recognition as a superior medium. Superior to what? I don't know, pogs? But it's still nice that we are getting this.

[VG_Maniac]

Gives me yet another reason to go back to NY. I will definitely check it out the next time I'm there.

[Sniderman]

:hmm: Really? An industry that, since it's "golden era", has typically earned more than the music and movie industry *combined*? An industry that has spun off songs, TV shows, movies, dozens of magazines, hundreds of websites, articles out the wazoo...

Limited... how?

http://10.media.tumblr.com/v8Y1VvbEma2efk3vWvg3NmQm_400.gif

[TonyTheTiger]

And then there's the third possibility: It's retarded to argue that video games don't deserve their own museum when movies and all sorts of other light entertainments have their own.

If games museums don't get started now, future collections will just be tons of busted up crap anyhow.

Did I say that preservation was a bad thing? Did I say that exhibits were a bad thing? I said the word "museum" is strange. Straw man arguments are far more retarded, you know. So I'm going to assert what I said earlier. You're missing my point.


:hmm: Really? An industry that, since it's "golden era", has typically earned more than the music and movie industry *combined*? An industry that has spun off songs, TV shows, movies, dozens of magazines, hundreds of websites, articles out the wazoo...

Limited... how?

Financial success and contemporary proliferation don't necessarily equate to a social impact. It might be some evidence but it's not outcome determinative. Ed Oscuro does have a point there. In my own defense, however, I originally said "historical significance" not the broader "social impact" that we're currently talking about. I think it's much easier to argue that video games haven't had much "historical significance" than it is to argue that they haven't had much of a "social impact." I could try to argue that "social impact" today develops into "historical significance" tomorrow but I'm not prepared to do that now because I honestly don't know if I can defend that assertion.

But if we are going to follow the "social impact" route then, once more, I'm using "social impact" in the broad sense. If Mario and Sonic showing up in an episode of The Simpsons and having their own Happy Meal toys is what you mean by "social impact" then, yes, games have had substantial influence and that shouldn't be belittled. In the microcosm of the world of modern entertainment video games are damn near at the top of the mountain. But that's not what I mean here. I'm talking social impact in the sense that life today would be fundamentally different had they not existed at all. Ed will correct me if I'm wrong but I think that's what he was saying.

In that sense, they are limited. They're as limited as, like I said, film and board games are. We can say film as a medium (not necessarily just movies) and the concept of games themselves (including board games, sports, video games, etc.) have a profound effect on society. That much is certain. What we can't say with nearly as much certainty are that the particular film Casablanca or the particular game of Chess had some kind of effect. If neither of those things existed, the world would probably not look very differently. If film and games didn't exist as a collective, however, the world would be different.

It's different than something like World War II. We can say without question that the single instance of war in this case had a profound impact on society.

Let's look at Nintendo. If Nintendo never existed, the gaming landscape would certainly be markedly different. But I can't say with much confidence that this change to the world of video games would have led to a domino effect altering other facets of life. Even if video games never revived after 1983, I'm not sure the alternate planet Earth would be much different. Our individual lives might be different but the landscape of our culture probably wouldn't.

But, again, remember that this "social impact" thing is sort of a sidetrack. It's completely removed from the idea of the "game museum" entirely and a completely different argument than what I originally planned. In fact, I didn't plan an argument at all. I just said that the word "museum" puts a different image in my head than a venue for something as contemporary as video games. But I suppose I should have expected to be the enemy for saying that here.

[mnbren05]

I say more power to the museum, sounds like a excellent idea. Why not start preserving items, games, etc for future generations? Regardless of personal take on the subject it is nice to know someone is undertaking the job.

[TonyTheTiger]

Why not start preserving items, games, etc for future generations?

I agree. But apparently my very limited criticism was interpreted as an attack on the very idea of preservation.

[lkermel]

I heard that Stanford University, in California, had started to archive video games... would someone know anything about this ? I live in the bay area and was thinking to contact them if they do... may turn my collection into something more than attic material ;)

[Bojay1997]

Did I say that preservation was a bad thing? Did I say that exhibits were a bad thing? I said the word "museum" is strange. Straw man arguments are far more retarded, you know. So I'm going to assert what I said earlier. You're missing my point.



Financial success and contemporary proliferation don't necessarily equate to a social impact. It might be some evidence but it's not outcome determinative. Ed Oscuro does have a point there. In my own defense, however, I originally said "historical significance" not the broader "social impact" that we're currently talking about. I think it's much easier to argue that video games haven't had much "historical significance" than it is to argue that they haven't had much of a "social impact." I could try to argue that "social impact" today develops into "historical significance" tomorrow but I'm not prepared to do that now because I honestly don't know if I can defend that assertion.

But if we are going to follow the "social impact" route then, once more, I'm using "social impact" in the broad sense. If Mario and Sonic showing up in an episode of The Simpsons and having their own Happy Meal toys is what you mean by "social impact" then, yes, games have had substantial influence and that shouldn't be belittled. In the microcosm of the world of modern entertainment video games are damn near at the top of the mountain. But that's not what I mean here. I'm talking social impact in the sense that life today would be fundamentally different had they not existed at all. Ed will correct me if I'm wrong but I think that's what he was saying.

In that sense, they are limited. They're as limited as, like I said, film and board games are. We can say film as a medium (not necessarily just movies) and the concept of games themselves (including board games, sports, video games, etc.) have a profound effect on society. That much is certain. What we can't say with nearly as much certainty are that the particular film Casablanca or the particular game of Chess had some kind of effect. If neither of those things existed, the world would probably not look very differently. If film and games didn't exist as a collective, however, the world would be different.

It's different than something like World War II. We can say without question that the single instance of war in this case had a profound impact on society.

Let's look at Nintendo. If Nintendo never existed, the gaming landscape would certainly be markedly different. But I can't say with much confidence that this change to the world of video games would have led to a domino effect altering other facets of life. Even if video games never revived after 1983, I'm not sure the alternate planet Earth would be much different. Our individual lives might be different but the landscape of our culture probably wouldn't.

But, again, remember that this "social impact" thing is sort of a sidetrack. It's completely removed from the idea of the "game museum" entirely and a completely different argument than what I originally planned. In fact, I didn't plan an argument at all. I just said that the word "museum" puts a different image in my head than a venue for something as contemporary as video games. But I suppose I should have expected to be the enemy for saying that here.

I'm sorry, but speaking on behalf of myself and millions of other people who spend significant time and money buying, collecting, playing or just occasionally enjoying video games, they have had not only a significant social impact, but also a historical one as well. A whole generation of children has changed the way they relate to the world and each other by virtue of having the option of spending hours playing video games rather than board games or outdoor activities or sports. Is that a good thing? I don't know, but it's certainly socially and culturally significant. If this was 1980, I think you might have more of a point, but video games have been around for almost 40 years now and they have shaped public policy and led to Congressional hearings, the development of a rating system, journalistic criticism on the pages of some of the most prominent newspapers and magazines in the world and attracted the attention and time of some of the biggest celebrities and cultural icons and even the current President of the United States. If video games were no big deal, why would hundreds of newspapers and cable channels bother to discuss the fact that Obama bought his daughters a Wii for Christmas? For that matter, why would local and national news spend lots of time showing footage of people lining up for video game systems at launch or covering the latest A-list game midnight launch? Obviously it's because these are significant events in our culture.

Have you ever spent time at Intel or Apple in the Silicon Valley? They both have pretty extensive museums on their campuses and I don't think you would find many people who think that's inappropriate. Heck, Apple is only a little over 30 years old, much younger than the video game industry in this country.

I agree that if all this museum is going to be is a collection of old systems, maybe an exhibit would be a better name for it, but there is certainly a place for a real video game museum with the kind of artifacts that really very few if any of us own. Things like original development equipment, hand written code and artwork, visual and narrative histories of the early industry, etc...

The fact that you're still relatively young and think that something you grew up with can't possibly be historic is silly. 40 years is well over half the lifespan of a typical human being in modern times, so think about that in the context of your argument and think about the fact that a lot of the people who created these games and systems are probably a lot older than you are, especially if they were the early Atari crew. I'm not interested in waiting until they are long gone to acknowledge and celebrate the historic impact of what they did.

[Trebuken]

They really should have consulted this site first. I can't make out much of the museums collection but there are some people here whose collections are superior in some was to the 'museum'. I like the Arcade they have, but on the console-side they can get some help from DP's members...

[Ed Oscuro]

Did I say that preservation was a bad thing?
No, but you seemed to have overlooked the possibility that museums provide conservation and research efforts that individuals don't often match.

I would like to break away from that silly argument and back up something Bojay1997 just said: The pace at which history is being made seems to be constantly accelerating, and this is evident in many fields. Something as obviously earth-shaking as electronic games (and the incidental things which come along with it - "serious games" i.e. training applications like military simulation and the more recent Full Spectrum Warrior and paramedic training games, interactive movies, and the proliferation of massively parallel computing solutions for PCs and other technology we take for granted which showed up originally in entertainment) shouldn't be measured in terms of how much time has gone by, because of this accelerated rate of progress.

[TonyTheTiger]

snip.

I disagree with such a bold statement. I don't think it's nearly that cut and dry. I'd rather not jump the gun and declare something I can't back up very well.


No, but you seemed to have overlooked the possibility that museums provide conservation and research efforts that individuals don't often match.

If I did that it wasn't intentional. I said before that I used "museum" in the conventional, admittedly basic, way.


I would like to break away from that silly argument and back up something Bojay1997 just said: The pace at which history is being made seems to be constantly accelerating, and this is evident in many fields. Something as obviously earth-shaking as electronic games (and the incidental things which come along with it - "serious games" i.e. training applications like military simulation and the more recent Full Spectrum Warrior and paramedic training games, interactive movies, and the proliferation of massively parallel computing solutions for PCs and other technology we take for granted which showed up originally in entertainment) shouldn't be measured in terms of how much time has gone by, because of this accelerated rate of progress.

If that is true then I'll concede the point. But if the acceleration is happening I still think it's paired with significance. If they cure cancer tomorrow then I'll be damned if we don't call that "making history" because it's so significant. Provided the cure actually works, we don't have to "wait and see" if it's really a historical accomplishment. It's too "big" of a step. Electronic games are fundamentally still games. A unique form of game but a game nonetheless. I'm not convinced this hobby of ours is that much more significant than board games. I think what is significant is the technology that makes video games possible. But that's a bit different than video games themselves.

[Sonicwolf]

Another museum, several thousand kilometers away. *Cries*

[TonyTheTiger]

@TonytheTiger

You seriously think arguing against its historical impact is EASIER? Ok, if you want to change the 'terms' of the discussion to "historical" impact, then let's look at how influencial video games have been on the PC industry, and how the development of faster+more powerful processors, video cards, sound cards, etc have been not only been affected by video games but rather accelerated because of them (how many times has a game been released which requires the latest hardware configuration to fully realize that game's potential?). Hell, look how much non-gaming technology spun out of Atari alone, not to mention how many companies have sprung up as a direct result of Atari's existence. Hell, AOL is the result of a modem-based game delivery system that was developed for the Atari VCS.

As for social impact, I'm not sure anyone can quantify how many lives have been changed/altered/affected by video games, of people both in and outside of the industry. Hell, you're posting on a video game site and going to monthly NAVA meetings at Digital Press - they've certainly had a social impact in your life, haven't they? ;)

This is "social impact" you're arguing, not "historical significance." There might be some blending between "social impact" and "historical significance" but they aren't the same thing. I don't believe for a second that computer technology grew solely because of video games. Video games have always been a piggyback industry. Video games exist because of computers, not the other way around. That's why I think it's easier to argue that video games haven't had much historical significance.

I love video games. But I also like to think critically about them in a way that's not necessarily 100% favorable all the time. I am willing to question whether or not video games are genuinely significant in one way or another. I'm willing to question whether or not video games are art. I'm willing to question whether or not video games are a healthy activity. I know that I'll take heat each and every time I say stuff like this here but I'm willing to do that because I want everybody to step back and think about video games from a completely objective standard uninhibited by our devotion to the hobby.

This is going off topic but what really annoys me about this industry is that there's a profound lack of that objectivity. Roger Ebert says that games aren't art and rather than actually reading his articles and trying to counter his points, all of GameFAQs wanted the man's head on a pike. Sure, that's GameFAQs, what should I expect? But it bothers me that the GameFAQs sentiment seems to be the more common one among the gaming populace. No matter what somebody says or how well they articulate their position, the reaction is always the painfully simplistic, "Games good! If u don't say games good then u bad!"

I know I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder because of this and it's why I very often take the devil's advocate position. I like the "fight" if you want to call it that because I feel this industry is woefully lacking in the intelligent debate department, present company excluded. That's why I like this place. I found more people here I can do that back and forth with than anywhere else.


Musuems are often based on historical events, but you'd have a hard time trying to separate 'social impact' from a historical event because they go hand-in-hand. Musuems such as the Air & Space in D.C., the JFK museum in Dallas, TX, even the Computer History Musuem in Mountain View, CA are full of historical artifacts, but you can't say there's no social impact with any of them. Atomic power, fiber optics and lasers are 'contemporary' technological developments for which musuems exist, so I'm not sure where you'd draw the line as far as time-based requirements go.

I'm willing to accept the broader interpretation of the word "museum." But it's not like I was planning to start an argument or even be in one at all so I didn't go looking for every possible definition of the word prior to making my initial statement.


I suppose so :) I just don't understand where you're coming from with your criticism against having a video game museum.. and I suppose I never will.

Therein lies the problem. My criticism was far narrower than most people here understood it to be. All I said amounted to, "Museums are usually for old and/or important things, not stuff I have in my basement." Then the torches and pitchforks came out. It caught me totally off guard. This was, ironically enough, not one of those times I was expecting to play devil's advocate for the broad question of whether or not games are historically/socially relevant. If anything, I was arguing about what qualifies as a museum.

[Sonicwolf]

Personally I believe there is enough of a history of videogames to warrant a museum. Hundreds of thousands of games, systems, accessories, variations, rarities, merchandise, oddities etc.

[Bojay1997]

This is "social impact" you're arguing, not "historical significance." There might be some blending between "social impact" and "historical significance" but they aren't the same thing. I don't believe for a second that computer technology grew solely because of video games. Video games have always been a piggyback industry. Video games exist because of computers, not the other way around. That's why I think it's easier to argue that video games haven't had much historical significance.

I love video games. But I also like to think critically about them in a way that's not necessarily 100% favorable all the time. I am willing to question whether or not video games are genuinely significant in one way or another. I'm willing to question whether or not video games are art. I'm willing to question whether or not video games are a healthy activity. I know that I'll take heat each and every time I say stuff like this here but I'm willing to do that because I want everybody to step back and think about video games from a completely objective standard uninhibited by our devotion to the hobby.

This is going off topic but what really annoys me about this industry is that there's a profound lack of that objectivity. Roger Ebert says that games aren't art and rather than actually reading his articles and trying to counter his points, all of GameFAQs wanted the man's head on a pike. Sure, that's GameFAQs, what should I expect? But it bothers me that the GameFAQs sentiment seems to be the more common one among the gaming populace. No matter what somebody says or how well they articulate their position, the reaction is always the painfully simplistic, "Games good! If u don't say games good then u bad!"

I know I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder because of this and it's why I very often take the devil's advocate position. I like the "fight" if you want to call it that because I feel this industry is woefully lacking in the intelligent debate department, present company excluded. That's why I like this place. I found more people here I can do that back and forth with than anywhere else.



I'm willing to accept the broader interpretation of the word "museum." But it's not like I was planning to start an argument or even be in one at all so I didn't go looking for every possible definition of the word prior to making my initial statement.



Therein lies the problem. My criticism was far narrower than most people here understood it to be. All I said amounted to, "Museums are usually for old and/or important things, not stuff I have in my basement." Then the torches and pitchforks came out. It caught me totally off guard. This was, ironically enough, not one of those times I was expecting to play devil's advocate for the broad question of whether or not games are historically/socially relevant. If anything, I was arguing about what qualifies as a museum.

I guess I'm curious to hear how long you think something has to be around to be considered historical in significance since that really seems to be the basis of most of your argument. You mentioned a cancer cure earlier as something that would need some time to be historically significant. Well, Jonas Salk released his Polio vaccine in 1955 and within two years, the majority of children in the United States had been vaccinated and polio was effectively wiped out in the United States and much of the western world. Was it a historic event in 1955, 1957, five years later when few if any additional cases were found or now which is 54 years later and nobody really thinks of Polio as a problem in this country?

I think another part of your argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of what museums are. In the ancient world, museums were places to study and to display the arts. This tradition has continued to this day as there are many museums dedicated to technology, contemporary art, film, television, arts and crafts and even children. There is no requirement that something has to be old to be put in a museum. I will leave you with the definition of museum used by the International Council of Museums, a "permanent institution in the service of society and of its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment, for the purposes of education, study, and enjoyment." Video games easily fit within that definition.

[TonyTheTiger]

You mentioned a cancer cure earlier as something that would need some time to be historically significant.

Reread it. I can't argue a point if I keep being misinterpreted.

[Bojay1997]

I heard that Stanford University, in California, had started to archive video games... would someone know anything about this ? I live in the bay area and was thinking to contact them if they do... may turn my collection into something more than attic material ;)

I would say that archive is too strong of a word. What happened is that a man who had probably the largest collection of mostly computer and some video games that I am aware of passed away and his family donated the collection to Stanford. It's roughly 20,000 boxed complete or sealed games. Stanford basically has them in packing boxes at one of the libraries and an intern or two has been going through them and unwrapping them and updating the catalog. The current intern has been doing a blog every month or so showing a selection of the items. I think Stanford really doesn't know what to do with them other than storing them as I haven't heard any indication that they are scanning box and manual images or otherwise backing up the software.

[TonyTheTiger]

No, I was talking about historical significance. I used the continuing advancement of PC hardware as an example. I could have used some software examples (i.e. first game to have multiple screens, first game to have digitized voice, etc). I never said hardware development depended entirely on video games, but that video games have been very influencial on that development, and that fact is undeniable.

With all due respect, how can you possibly argue that the first game with multiple screens or digitized voices constitutes historical significance? Seriously? That's history? It might be "history" within the confines of the video game industry but we were never talking about just the video game world alone. We were talking about how video games impacted the world as a whole. So if you called "first game with multiple screens" history in relation to actual history you'll be laughed at. If you don't see the distinction then I don't know what to say.

Besides, as I said, video games are the result of advancing PC hardware, not the cause. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. As PC hardware improves and becomes more cost effective, video games take advantage of it. The scenario you're presenting is, if not completely untrue, certainly the exception rather than the rule. I think you're letting your subjectivity take hold of your arguments.


As for Ebert's opinion on video games not being art, that's his opinion. I say they are art. But how do you define what is/isn't art? Same with what you think constitutes a museum. If you feel video games don't deserve to have a museum dedicated to them, fine; I say they do.

That's a completely different argument and I won't go into it here. I've gone through pages worth of posts in other threads on this topic if you want to look them up. I'm always up for more.

[code52]

Nice find, I'm from Rochester and I didn't even know about this. I'm gonna have to check this out when I have some time. I was at the strong museum a few years ago, but haven't really followed what they have done since then.

And to add to the ongoing argument about it being too soon for a museum of videogames, you have to realize that the strong museum isn't really your typical museum. Most of the exhibits are interactive and meant to be fun to play around with. I don't know exactly what they plan to do with the video game stuff, but eventually these things will have a historical significance. There's no rule about something needing to be "old" to be on display in a museum.

[TonyTheTiger]

you have to realize that the strong museum isn't really your typical museum. Most of the exhibits are interactive and meant to be fun to play around with.

The touchable museum, eh? I've heard of those before. That's interesting because I'm visualizing an arcade. Would an arcade that seeks to also "preserve" the machines qualify as a museum? I bring this up because if a museum is simply a location where something is put "on display" regardless of what it is or how substantial the collection then, yeah, just about any venue can be a museum. A single display case can be a museum. Though I think if you stop random people on the street and ask them to describe a museum they'll probably have more traditional images pop in their heads.

[Bojay1997]

Besides, as I said, video games are the result of advancing PC hardware, not the cause. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. As PC hardware improves and becomes more cost effective, video games take advantage of it. The scenario you're presenting is, if not completely untrue, certainly the exception rather than the rule. I think you're letting your subjectivity take hold of your arguments.


You do realize that video game systems were around for almost 10 years before most households owned their first home computers, right? In fact, until about 1977, you couldn't even buy a practical computer for your home and even then, it was outrageously priced. When I got my first Apple II in 1980, I was literally the only person in my elementary school class who had one for about two years. Video Games are the result of people looking for practical consumer applications for electronics technology and they go back to the earliest college mainframes and to the experiments Ralph Baer was doing with common television components. They are not and were not the result of advances in PC hardware.

You might want to have a conversation with Steve Wozniak or some of the other folks who drove the home computer from a hobbyist tool to a mainstream consumer item and ask them what they think has driven computer specs forward. Here's a clue, it wasn't word processing or business applications. Even Andy Grove from Intel was interviewed a number of times and credited or rather lamented the fact that games had shortened the estimated life cycle of his various processor families by literally years. Video games have always been the driver of computer advances and without them, there would be almost no need for most computer owners to upgrade more than every decade or so.

[TonyTheTiger]

You do realize that video game systems were around for almost 10 years before most households owned their first home computers, right? In fact, until about 1977, you couldn't even buy a practical computer for your home and even then, it was outrageously priced. When I got my first Apple II in 1980, I was literally the only person in my elementary school class who had one for about two years. Video Games are the result of people looking for practical consumer applications for electronics technology and they go back to the earliest college mainframes and to the experiments Ralph Baer was doing with common television components. They are not and were not the result of advances in PC hardware.

You might want to have a conversation with Steve Wozniak or some of the other folks who drove the home computer from a hobbyist tool to a mainstream consumer item and ask them what they think has driven computer specs forward. Here's a clue, it wasn't word processing or business applications. Even Andy Grove from Intel was interviewed a number of times and credited or rather lamented the fact that games had shortened the estimated life cycle of his various processor families by literally years. Video games have always been the driver of computer advances and without them, there would be almost no need for most computer owners to upgrade more than every decade or so.

You're conflating two independent arguments. Games requiring more advanced hardware as time progresses vs. why computers exist in the first place. And so what if computer tech wasn't affordable for the home market for a while? It still existed and the technology can trace its roots back as early as World War II. Just because video games were built with more affordable technology and thus were more widely accessible doesn't mean a whole lot when looking at computer advancements.

You said it yourself. "Video Games are the result of people looking for practical consumer applications for electronics technology." The tech existed already.

Obviously PC games today are what require the strongest rigs unless you're talking NASA shit which we obviously aren't. But a game isn't going to be developed on hardware that isn't accessible. Even Crysis is built for hardware that is relatively consumer focused. The hardware clearly has to exist first before a game can take advantage of it. Are you going to argue otherwise?

I am aware that games play a major role in why people upgrade. But I still think you're making an absurdly bold claim that computer technology follows games rather than the opposite. That's like trying to argue that cars are what they are today because of NASCAR or F-1. NASCAR and F-1 push cars pretty far. But clearly those sports were born because of automotive technology. The car had to exist first and the car would have continued to improve even if these sports didn't exist.

I'm also talking in the macrocosm as I've always been. If we look at the small of it, sure, we can see technology develop specifically for the purposes of video games. The Cell processor was. And I'm sure you can find examples of NASCAR engineers working to advance automotive tech specifically for use in the sport, some of which might have found its way into common use. But if you zoom out you see that the Cell processor and whatever NASCAR tech was built within a world that won't stop advancing. Cable modems weren't invented just so people could download MP3s faster. That's a result. If video games or automotive sports fell off the face of the planet the respective technologies wouldn't cease to move forward.

Video games are a driving force in the sense that it's a successful industry and one more way to sell technology to people. But video games can succeed independently from computer advancements. Look at the Wii. The reverse is also true. Computer technology can advance without video games pushing them. Look at...well...everything else. But if computer tech didn't exist at all then we'd be playing Chess and Monopoly while Nintendo was still focused on selling cards.

[NoahsMyBro]

I undersatnd you're (Tony's) point that you are simply saying you don't think museum is an accurate term for an exhibit showcasing videogames and their related paraphernalia. I disagree, but don't want to address that, as it's just arguing semantics and we won't change each other's minds.

I strongly disagree with you about whether or not videogames drive computer technology.

I very much believe that the dominant motivators for advancement of computer technology, both hardware and software, are videogames and porn. (Hell, I sincerely believe porn or simple physical lust drives almost all technology, directly or indirectly. I believe most men are deep down, fundamentally motivated by a desire to get the girl, so to speak. This can manifest itself in creating something that would be perceived as cool, or creating something that will profit the man, and thereby get girls that he believes are attracted to cash. But I suppose I'm deviating from the topic considerably at this point.)

I think storage, graphics, sound, memory management, peripherals and input devices, display technology, all have been advanced due to demand from videogame and/or porn consumers. The only computer tech that I can possibly see not being somehow driven by videogames is networking.

[TonyTheTiger]

I undersatnd you're (Tony's) point that you are simply saying you don't think museum is an accurate term for an exhibit showcasing videogames and their related paraphernalia. I disagree, but don't want to address that, as it's just arguing semantics and we won't change each other's minds.

Fair enough. I even said I was using "museum" in a highly vernacular way and if I'm wrong then I'm wrong. I'm certainly no expert on what constitutes a museum. I was just shooting from the gut on that one.


I strongly disagree with you about whether or not videogames drive computer technology.

I very much believe that the dominant motivators for advancement of computer technology, both hardware and software, are videogames and porn. (Hell, I sincerely believe porn or simple physical lust drives almost all technology, directly or indirectly. I believe most men are deep down, fundamentally motivated by a desire to get the girl, so to speak. This can manifest itself in creating something that would be perceived as cool, or creating something that will profit the man, and thereby get girls that he believes are attracted to cash. But I suppose I'm deviating from the topic considerably at this point.)

I think storage, graphics, sound, memory management, peripherals and input devices, display technology, all have been advanced due to demand from videogame and/or porn consumers. The only computer tech that I can possibly see not being somehow driven by videogames is networking.

The porn thing is funny because while I won't comment on whether or not it helped advance technology (because I don't know) the fact that it was a major reason why VHS beat out Betamax shows how much power it has.

I'd actually try to one up you, though. I think we also have a drive not only based on lust but also a drive to create. I think we do things to find out if we can. I think that more than anything else is why we have the computer.

Look, if we see computer advancement as a pie chart and dissect it according to what influenced it, I certainly am not going to attempt to argue that video games played 0% because not only is that a claim well beyond what I'm capable of defending, it's also something I don't believe. I think that there's a collective drive, however, rather than any one specific thing. It's not easy to look at the difference between the top of the line HDD of 1994 and the top of the line HDD today and say without a shadow of a doubt that X industry/product drove that advancement. Suffice to say that a lot drove that advancement, the insanely profitable video game industry probably being a part of that collective.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think that we can look at the computer and say "This tech exists because of video games." Rather I think what we should say is "This tech exists because there is use for it." Video games are a use.

[Ed Oscuro]

It demonstrates ignorance and myopia to claim that the scientific, military, and consumer applications markets haven't mutually benefited from developments in each field. Scientific and military applications laid the groundwork for game technology, and now games technology is providing scientists with lower-cost budgets, thus allowing more people in science to create and analyze better models, and conduct simulations that were once reserved only for the most important research. The end result is improved science, and that improved science will in turn have benefits for military applications and gaming.

I already discussed gaming technology being used in military applications; Evans & Sutherland led the way in flight simulation in the 70s, but consumer gaming tech let soldiers on the ground have yet another training tool at low cost. There's the DOOM modification made by the Marines, there's Full Spectrum Warrior, there's field medic "serious games" made by gaming companies, and tons of other examples if you poke your head out and look around. If environment simulation still depended on $60,000 Evans & Sutherland machines to do the job, the only people who could use those systems would be fighter pilots and tankers.

The developments in graphics seem to solely impact entertainment, if you're a home enthusiast, but that's just if you don't know that scientific users are using this hardware too. Take the nVidia Tesla, for example. If the only airplanes I ever saw and knew of were fighter planes, passenger service might not be the first thing on my mind, but that doesn't mean that the fighter jet's development doesn't deserve credit for advances in fare-paying aviation.

The dynamics of the market situation between, say, nVidia and Intel in the processors and video markets was driven (until the downturn) by companies wanting to grab the mainstream crown. And even now, with everybody excited about low-cost PCs (netbooks and the like) the situation will remain, just with more focus on being "green" and inexpensive. So that's pretty dang significant. nVidia is at least partly responsible for Intel stepping up its game, and for Microsoft telling everybody they needed advanced graphics hardware for Vista, and so on.

nVidia and ATI's work in the industry may have been in relatively low volume, compared to integrated solutions like Intel and other people put out, but it sure was good press for the industry. It's an open question as to whether nVidia will even survive (ATI got bought by AMD so it's now not dependent solely on enthusiast sales) if the economy doesn't turn around and also in the face of what Intel's been doing.

Even if good times don't return for a while, nVidia and ATI will keep telling people that they need massively parallel computing capability like their GPUs provide, and they do provide amazing benefits in certain applications.

[mnbren05]

Another museum, several thousand kilometers away. *Cries*

You know if you replace kilometers with miles everything seems to get much closer to you :cheers:.

[Ed Oscuro]

You know if you replace kilometers with miles everything seems to get much closer to you :cheers:.
:confused:

[TonyTheTiger]

It made me LOL

[Bojay1997]

You're conflating two independent arguments. Games requiring more advanced hardware as time progresses vs. why computers exist in the first place. And so what if computer tech wasn't affordable for the home market for a while? It still existed and the technology can trace its roots back as early as World War II. Just because video games were built with more affordable technology and thus were more widely accessible doesn't mean a whole lot when looking at computer advancements.

You said it yourself. "Video Games are the result of people looking for practical consumer applications for electronics technology." The tech existed already.

Obviously PC games today are what require the strongest rigs unless you're talking NASA shit which we obviously aren't. But a game isn't going to be developed on hardware that isn't accessible. Even Crysis is built for hardware that is relatively consumer focused. The hardware clearly has to exist first before a game can take advantage of it. Are you going to argue otherwise?

I am aware that games play a major role in why people upgrade. But I still think you're making an absurdly bold claim that computer technology follows games rather than the opposite. That's like trying to argue that cars are what they are today because of NASCAR or F-1. NASCAR and F-1 push cars pretty far. But clearly those sports were born because of automotive technology. The car had to exist first and the car would have continued to improve even if these sports didn't exist.

I'm also talking in the macrocosm as I've always been. If we look at the small of it, sure, we can see technology develop specifically for the purposes of video games. The Cell processor was. And I'm sure you can find examples of NASCAR engineers working to advance automotive tech specifically for use in the sport, some of which might have found its way into common use. But if you zoom out you see that the Cell processor and whatever NASCAR tech was built within a world that won't stop advancing. Cable modems weren't invented just so people could download MP3s faster. That's a result. If video games or automotive sports fell off the face of the planet the respective technologies wouldn't cease to move forward.

Video games are a driving force in the sense that it's a successful industry and one more way to sell technology to people. But video games can succeed independently from computer advancements. Look at the Wii. The reverse is also true. Computer technology can advance without video games pushing them. Look at...well...everything else. But if computer tech didn't exist at all then we'd be playing Chess and Monopoly while Nintendo was still focused on selling cards.

The more I look at your arguments, the more clear it is to me that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing which is a waste of everyone's time. You have already conceded that you had a mistaken definition of "museum" which if you take some time and look back was the central dispute you had with this whole idea of a video game museum in the first place. It's also pretty clear to me that you don't really have a good understanding of how technology gets created and how it advances. There are many, many things which have been invented for one purpose and never really took off, but as soon as someone found another use for them, they became huge culture changing phenomena. The Internet is a great example. It was developed many years ago as a way for scientists and researchers to share their findings. It wasn't until the early 90s when it became a consumer tool that its promise was realized. So, in that sense, without MP3s and videos and e-commerce and everything else which it is now used for, it may never have been anything more than a scientific tool. Video Games are similar in that sense with regard to the impact they had on the computer, just as film and television are to motion picture cameras.

The Wii is a terrible example by the way in the sense that it is both a step back in technology, but a step forward in user interfaces. Without the technology to do inexpensive motion tracking, the Wii couldn't exist. Without the Wii, and consumer devices like it, there would be no need for people to be spending money on developing the technology which frankly is pretty old but just was never used in the way that the Wii uses it. Video games push the computer industry forward and the computer industry grows and evolves as a result of demands and pressures and the potential for revenue from feeding the video game industry.

[TonyTheTiger]

This thread is about a VIDEO GAME museum, correct? Then video gaming "firsts" such as those I mentioned would certainly apply as a significant historical event, would they not?

Tony, you need to define specifically where the 'lines' are in your argument, because if you think for one moment that "firsts" like multiple screens (or a "world" that is larger than just the boundary of your screen ala Adventure), digitized sounds and graphics, vector graphics, or even various controllers only had in impact in the field of video games, and never trickled down into other fields, then you're the one who's going to be laughed at (hell, I'm laughing now).

Again, horrible horrible misreading of everything I said. I realize now why I was wrong to make an apparently offensive statement. There was no chance I could ever get a fair shake because it's impossible to present an argument when some can't see the forest for the trees. Advancement for video games is not indicative of advancement of something as broad as human civilization. In what way has multiple screens impacted human civilization? Where did I ever say that it wasn't important in the context of the microcosm of the video game industry? But we weren't talking about that microcosm. We were talking about actual history.

Again, if you can't see that, well, I guess you win because I can't make an argument if you won't respect its parameters. Is it really down right impossible to make a statement that isn't 100% "YAY VIDEO GAMES!" and not be seen as the enemy?


The more I look at your arguments, the more clear it is to me that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing which is a waste of everyone's time. You have already conceded that you had a mistaken definition of "museum" which if you take some time and look back was the central dispute you had with this whole idea of a video game museum in the first place. It's also pretty clear to me that you don't really have a good understanding of how technology gets created and how it advances. There are many, many things which have been invented for one purpose and never really took off, but as soon as someone found another use for them, they became huge culture changing phenomena. The Internet is a great example. It was developed many years ago as a way for scientists and researchers to share their findings. It wasn't until the early 90s when it became a consumer tool that its promise was realized. So, in that sense, without MP3s and videos and e-commerce and everything else which it is now used for, it may never have been anything more than a scientific tool. Video Games are similar in that sense with regard to the impact they had on the computer, just as film and television are to motion picture cameras.

Speculation. All speculation. And painfully broad speculation at that.

And, for the record, I was not the one who spread the argument. I made an exceedingly narrow statement and through the course of discussion it grew to incorporate larger and larger principles. Principles that are independent from my original statement. It must feel good to say "you're just arguing for the sake of arguing" but the truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter what I say, you're apparently unwilling to actually read it for what it says.


The Wii is a terrible example by the way in the sense that it is both a step back in technology, but a step forward in user interfaces. Without the technology to do inexpensive motion tracking, the Wii couldn't exist. Without the Wii, and consumer devices like it, there would be no need for people to be spending money on developing the technology which frankly is pretty old but just was never used in the way that the Wii uses it. Video games push the computer industry forward and the computer industry grows and evolves as a result of demands and pressures and the potential for revenue from feeding the video game industry.

The Wii's user interface isn't new. It's just new for video games. If anything, that's been my point all along.

But, that's really it. I can't be going through this where if I say something it takes 2 or 3 people to bend my arguments before I reel everyone back in to the actual scale of the argument. Are you both really unwilling to stick within the parameters of my presented claims? I already said multiple times that this "social impact" stuff and the "museum" stuff were completely unrelated. But apparently you'd rather conflate my premises with a conclusion broader than I ever intended to come to, and never did come to, and then attack it as if that somehow closes the issue because "I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing." I never made a claim I wasn't capable of defending. You, however, have twisted my claims into something I'm not capable of defending as an attempt to shut me down. Not once did I say video games never had any relevance in society ever. But apparently I did because that's the argument you both are fighting against. You're arguing with something that isn't there.

I've been as cordial as I can but you seem to be getting more aggressive the more I talk. And I'm still trying to figure out why since I don't think I said anything particularly offensive or insulting to begin with.

"Video games don't cure cancer."

Oh, god! Let's get this guy! He said video games are bad for you!

That's what you're doing.

"I'm laughing now" and "You're just arguing for the sake of arguing." These are not arguments. These do not advance your points or successfully challenge your opponents'. They don't win over hearts and minds. What they do is reveal that you're taking this far more personally than any objective person would. Should I repeat what I said before about letting subjectivity take hold? If anything, this is some evidence that you aren't really arguing because of the facts but rather because you feel the need to defend video games. This is my hobby, too. But it's sometimes a good thing to step back and really examine it and ask questions about it and consider that it might be or not be something. I'm not "arguing for the sake of arguing" but If I am then it's because I'm trying to reveal your biases to you.

And don't think that I yell "bias" just because someone doesn't agree with me. Somebody can disagree with me, and even beat me, and not be biased. Or, rather, not let their biases get in the way of their arguments and counter arguments. Just look at NoahsMyBro's post. But I see a bias in you two because you seem more interested in "beating me" for the sake of defending our hobby rather than beating me because there's something fundamentally wrong with what I've been saying.