Talk:OXO (video game)

References

While it often is claimed that A.S. Douglas wrote the game for his PhD thesis, there are no references to that thesis. If that thesis really was written about HCI this would be an extremely early and historically important work on that topic (actually, the expression "human-computer interaction" did not even exist at that time). However, all versions of the OXO-story appear to be highly similar to that found in the "PONG-Story" quotet by the article -- and thus all versions are likewise uninformative and possibly nothing but a myth. In fact, the cambridge university catalogue [1] only lists one PhD thesis by some A. S. Douglas and that is "Some computations in theoretical physics" dating from 1953 (the other work by that person is: "Use of a High-Speed Digital Computer for the Direct Determination of Crystal Structures"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.160.132 (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Perhaps we should move this article to OXO as that article is empty, or if not, maybe OXO (game) would be more specific.
Edit: If no-one has any arguments I'll move the page to OXO. -- Quoth 07:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

125.203.111.120 05:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the question is the difference between video, computer and arcade game. So the missile game of 1947 was the first arcade game (as the patent effectively states this), OXO was the first computer game as it was the first game to run on a computer in 1952 and Ralph Baer with the Brown Box was the first video game as it was the first to run on a standard Television monitor. Hope that might clear things up.

1947 Computer Game?

User:KerryO77 Are there any records of this supposed 1947 game???.. i have searched and found nothing, while those in the know state there are no records of it having been buit..[2] —Preceding undated comment added 05:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC). User:David Latapie added the following sentence:

Five years ago (1947), a missile simulation was the very first video game.

We need some verifiable information about this video game. Who made it? Where? On what computer? Also the article needs to be updated if it's true. Right now it says one thing and then contradicts itself in the next sentence. --Mrwojo 02:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Source is Wikipedia itself:

• History_of_computer_and_video_games&oldid=50887750#The_beginning History of computer and video games — The beginning
• Computer and video games — Beginnings

There is a big problem in Wikipedia regarding self-consistency. I think this very discussion illustrates very well the problem (nothing personal, Mrwojo; this is a problem I noticed quite some time ago and this discussion just perfectly illustrates it) Reply to David Latapie 17:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I didn't take it personally. :-) I'm not surprised that an earlier game existed (I think previous revisions of history of computer and video games once said that Ralph Baer invented video games in the 60s or that William Higinbotham did it in 1958). I just couldn't tell if the 1947 statement was correct because it was lacking verifiable information (details and/or source).

I too am worried about self-consistency, which is why I commented on the need to update this article to remove the self-contradiction: "OXO is the first known (graphical) game to run on a computer. Five years ago (1947), a missile simulation was the very first video game." Someone is bound to be confused by the inconsistency in those two sentences, just like if we said OXO was the first here and in other articles said that the missile game was the first. (Also, we should cite the patent PDF here rather than Wikipedia.) --Mrwojo 06:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

To be technically accurate, Ralph did do the first video game, none of the other games are "video" based (i.e. use a video signal). Are they earlier examples of computer games with graphical interfaces? Certainly. William Higginbotham's game used a vector display oscilliscope, this is a manually controlled beam worked like an etch-a-sketch - there is no video signal. The "video" in the term "video game" is there for a reason. The issue again, is in etymology of the term - its grown in pop culture to become a general term for all games with a visual interface, and then applied retroactively (in hindsite) in a very inaccurate manner. As far as the the 1947 game, its well documented and the in fact the patent link is given in the history page given above. It is not however, a "video game". Its an electromechanical game that uses a crt as a novelty. The crt's beam gun is mechanically controlled by the player to move the beam (focused on a single point to generate a dot) about the screen. The targets are actual pieces of paper put on the screen, and "collision" is detected by electromechanically detecting the motion of the gun - i.e. measuring the physical motion and angle. It could have just as easily been done with a flashlight and a silk screen. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Info about the picture that should be included

That it's a picture of a simulator of the original OXO game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 00:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a bit deceptive, and I am considering removing it from the article. It gives the false impression that GUIs were available before the eighties. ←Spidern→ 14:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I considered this myself when I first encountered this article. I believe the image should remain at least somewhere in the article until an image of the actual game can be found (and this may be a bit difficult). The image caption should say very plainly, and very explicitly, that it is merely an illustration of the game, and not the game itself. It gives an idea of what the system would look like, so it adds to the article. -Verdatum (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

All that was needed was just adding a few words to the description, saying it is emulated. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

AI

The article describes OXO as playing "a perfect game of noughts and crosses"; I'm not sure if this is trying to say the the game is an accurate version of noughts and crosses or whether the AI always played the best move. Was it possible to beat the computer? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

While I have no sources specific to OXO, I can say that for Tic-Tac-Toe, coding a perfect game, in the sense of a strategy that always results in a win or tie, is pretty trivial. It's easier than coding a system that makes "believable" mistakes (a problem which continues to be a struggle in game AIs). It almost certainly means that it only wins or ties. -Verdatum (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

File:OXO emulated screenshot.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:OXO emulated screenshot.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Emulator vs Simulator

I'd like to contest the description of the image on this article.

It claims it's from an emulator but it really isn't. An emulator is a piece of software that "tricks" the hardware into running other software that wasn't originally meant to run on alternate hardware. Once "tricked" properly, the software runs exactly as it looked on the original hardware.

A simulator, on the other, is a complete recreation of the item being simulated.

Well, that's exactly what the OXO "emulator" does, it recreates the whole thing so it mimics the functionality of the original item.

I understand the creator of the "emulator" calls it an emulator himself, but it seems clear the author is simply unaware of the difference. The program he made is really a simulator.

That said, should the description of the image be altered to reflect this, or should we keep the word "emulator" but add something like (sic) in front of it?

Opinions, please. Raven-14 (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:OXO/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 23:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep this party going. Review to follow. Indrian (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, with the holidays finally over I can now turn my attention to this review. Its a very short article -- though certainly as complete as the sources allow -- so it did not require many fixes. I went ahead and tweaked some of the grammar myself, leaving exactly one factual issue that I want to leave to the nominator. The article currently states in two places that the EDSAC was "the first computer to have memory that could be read from or written to." Leaving aside the question of whether the Manchester Mark 1 predated EDSAC (it was apparently operational by April 1949, but may not have run its first program until June), it was definitely preceded by that computer's prototype, the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine, which could not do anything particularly useful, but ran its first program in June 1948. Therefore this language needs to be tweaked.

And that's it. I'll go ahead and put this  On hold while this one tiny detail is resolved. Indrian (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Indrian: tweaked to be "one of the" first stored-program computers, with memory that could be read and written - it's clearly not the first, no matter what the source said. Though, if this one's short, cathode ray tube amusement device is tiny. --PresN 20:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@PresN:Looks good. And with that, I will go ahead and promote. Indrian (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)