Template:Did you know nominations/Automonopoli
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Automonopoli
[edit]- ... that the 1983 Automonopoli was a computer version of Monopoly marketed as the first to have an artificial intelligence strong enough to compete against human players?
- Reviewed: Emanuel Snowman
- Comment: I know it's not all that hooky, but I think it's quite interesting to those with an interest in early software. To me, it's extraordinary that a BASIC program of dubious legality written for a dodgy computer with 48k of memory would beat the big developers for a game this widely played.
Created by Mogism (talk). Self nominated at 21:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC).
- Comment: Maybe if "1983" was added to the hook, perhaps the historical context would be more obvious? Edwardx (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm easy either way. I think including the date makes it a bit clunky - someone interested in the history of game software will click through regardless, while those uninterested in the topic won't be persuaded by the inclusion of a date - but I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. Mogism (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
New, long enough, "within policy", no copyvio found via spotcheck (no tool), QPQ done. But I couldn't verify the hook within the source. Putting aside that Monopoly isn't referenced on the page (took me a while to find where the game was even referenced), it doesn't say that the game resembles Monopoly in every way but that it's a version of Monopoly—that doesn't mean it had everything in common. Do you have another source for this statement? Please ping me if I don't respond. czar ♔ 05:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Czar: I've added a second reference to that sentence - it now has "The game is authentic in virtually all details to the original, even down to the captions on the chance cards" and "contains every usual feature of the board game", which is hopefully enough to demonstrate that reviewers considered them the same game. If need be I can source a Waddingtons spokesman saying "They know damn well it's not their game, it's ours" and Automata Software saying "Automonopoli upholds every tradition of the ultimate board game", implying that the publishers of both Monopoly and Automonopoli believed the games were identical. Mogism (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, that new source is perfectly sufficient—thanks. And I'm sorry to nitpick, but the source for being the "first" (which is by definition an exceptional claim) appears to come not from the source's editorial staff but from the game's marketing (as phrased in the source). Thoughts on that? czar ♔ 15:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- At the moment, the source used says "unlike other versions currently available, the computer plays as well and doesn't just display the board and do the banking", which I think is legitimate. Yes, it says that this is what Automata were stressing in their advertising, but since this was the game's USP that's hardly surprising. (Notwithstanding that review that praises the "excellent graphics", the screenshot I've used is representative. Nobody bought this game for the quality of the experience.) Although I don't think anyone disputes it, the fact that Automonopoli was the first is very hard to source - thanks to the legal action, after the name change all those concerned (including the reviewers) were making painstaking efforts to avoid any mention of the word "Monopoly". Mogism (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think that quote's out of context, which was my question. "[producer Automata] is stressing that, unlike other versions currently available, the computer plays as well and doesn't just display the board and do the banking" See my issue? It's not that I doubt whether it's true, but at the very least the claim should be sourced as coming from the dev and not from the editorial source. Automata marketed it as', etc. Same for within the prose, for accuracy. czar ♔ 16:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- At the moment, the source used says "unlike other versions currently available, the computer plays as well and doesn't just display the board and do the banking", which I think is legitimate. Yes, it says that this is what Automata were stressing in their advertising, but since this was the game's USP that's hardly surprising. (Notwithstanding that review that praises the "excellent graphics", the screenshot I've used is representative. Nobody bought this game for the quality of the experience.) Although I don't think anyone disputes it, the fact that Automonopoli was the first is very hard to source - thanks to the legal action, after the name change all those concerned (including the reviewers) were making painstaking efforts to avoid any mention of the word "Monopoly". Mogism (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, that new source is perfectly sufficient—thanks. And I'm sorry to nitpick, but the source for being the "first" (which is by definition an exceptional claim) appears to come not from the source's editorial staff but from the game's marketing (as phrased in the source). Thoughts on that? czar ♔ 15:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I've reworded it with a "claimed" and "marketed as". It probably makes sense, as it's undisputable that they claimed this, and it covers Wikipedia from looking foolish if there was a previous version written by a hobbyist somewhere that was capable of independent gameplay. Presumably this would mean rewording the hook to:
... that Automonopoli was claimed to be the first computer version of Monopoly with an AI strong enough to compete against human players?
Mogism (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Reworded the original hook. Good work. czar ♔ 16:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
