Data Model: game and release

[MZ per X]

Let's start the English discussions about the data model with an introduction to its basics: games and releases per platform. Building on this thread (and to keep it simple), I will post further pieces about compilations and add-ons soon, so please don't discuss those here in this thread.

The Oregami data model has three main objects: games (G), release groups (RG), and releases (R).

1) General remarks

The relationship between G and RG is 1-n. That means that one G can have multiple RG assigned to it.

The relationship between RG and R is m-n. That means that, naturally, one RG can have multiple R in it. But also, it means that one R can be assigned to multiple RGs, too.

Because for every platform a G was released on, it gets at least one new RG, that m-n relationship solves the case of multi-platform releases. Then, the data for a release are entered once, and get next linked to for instance two RGs, one for Windows and one for Mac.

For easier thinking, it sometimes helps to replace the RG with "platform".

2) Games

Every game gets its own database entry. Okay, this sounds easy, but note that for a G entry the following things just don't matter
1) Whether the game has been released or not.
2) Whether the game was only released within a compilation or for beta testing or whatever.
3) Whether the game was released as a book listing, platform independent (say Z-Code), or on whichever platform.

These cases we will document elsewhere in the model.

We will try hard to keep all Rs of a game under one G entry, only when a R of a game comes out that severely changes gameplay (so much so that a change of genre is required), it will get a new G entry.

By now, we have only very limited mandatory data for a G entry. The user will have to provide evidence that the game existed (i.e. was released, in development, or planned), provide one or more titles for the game so it can be found within the database, and genre classification maybe (which we will discuss in another thread).

3) Release Groups

The next layer of data under the game entry is the RG. In terms of Mobygames' data model (and that of many other projects out there) this would be the platform. But at Oregami we figured that grouping releases only by their platform won't be enough, you'll see why when looking at the cases where a new RG is due:

Case 1 --> Original release

First-time release of the game's full version for a platform. That's the standard case, every platform gets its own RG.

Case 2 --> Demo / Promo release

Demo, promo or shareware versions get their own RG, so we can document them separately from the full version.

Case 3 --> Enhanced re-release

Enhanced R of a game that has already seen a Case 1. This is specifically designed for cases like The Witcher - Enhanced Edition, or the infamous "bug-free" re-releases like The Fall - Last Days of Gaia - Reloaded. Generally spoken it's for re-releases that are so different than the original that they see their own press reviews for instance, but are not complete remakes.

Case 4 --> Remake

Release of a game's remake where the gameplay stays basically unchanged, but graphics / sound / UI have been adopted to modern hardware. Note: the remake shall be marketed as such.

Case 5 --> Heavily censored release

This is for game releases that have been so severely censored that they should not be grouped together with the uncensored releases any more, as more than one German release's cruel faith was.

As for mandatory data for a RG, we will need first and foremost RG title and platform, of course. But also a release switch (released or not released), and a censorship switch, both of which will help us to better control the further data attached to the RG. An optional description of the RG should contain the (sometimes significant) differences between the platforms and such.

4) Release

The last layer of data is the R. That is the thing a collector holds in his hands or has on his hard drive after purchase. This data layer will have the most data attached to it, not all of them already modeled by us.

That's why there's no mandatory data identified, yet, except a title for the R like "German initial CD-release (PC)" or such.

But pure is the theory, let's take a look at the release tree for a fictional game:

-RG
--R

-Original release (DOS)
--German initial release
--German budget release
--US original release
--US budget release

-Demo release (DOS)
--PC Player 08/1991 covermount
--PC Gamer 09/1991 covermount

-Unreleased Amiga port (Amiga) (release switch = no)

-Enhanced CD release (DOS)
--US initial release
--US initial release (alternate cover)
--US budget release (Kixx)

-Remake release (Windows)
--US initial release
--Polish initial release

-Censored German remake release (Windows) (censorship switch = yes)
--German initial release
--German budget release

-Flash teaser release (Browser)
--Kongregate.com release
--Newgrounds.com release

And so forth.

I hope that I made the basics quite clear, please throw your questions and corner cases at us now.

[Ultyzarus]

Will the attached RG and R be viewable from the G rap-sheet?

I was also thinking about some kind of releases like the Virtual Console or PSOne Classics, which I think would be part of the same RG as let's say the NES release or the PS1 release, since the game is normally the exact same version. But that could be a problem when the PS1 version comes from a compilation... IMO, the compilations should show as a R in the RG page, maybe with a checkbox {show Compilation releases} and a different display color.

In this case, an example I am familiar with would be Final Fantasy IV, in its PS1 RG (Enhanced re-release) the following R would appear (in approximated chronological order):

-Final Fantasy IV
Japan - PS1 (Retail)

-Final Fantasy Collection (Compilation)
Japan - PS1 (Retail)

-Final Fantasy Chronicles (Compilation)
USA - PS1 (Retail)

-Final Fantasy Anthology - European Edition (Compilation)
UK - PS1 (Retail)

-Final Fantasy IV (PSOne Classics)
Japan - PS3 - PSP (Digital)

-Final Fantasy IV (PSOne Classics)
Japan - PSVita (Digital)

-Final Fantasy 25th Anniversary Ultimate Box (Compilation)
Japan - PS1 (Retail) (The compilation itself also has PS2 - PS3 and PSP media (each game is on either one of these platforms))

(Now I haven't put up all the releases for the PSOne CLassics, just those as an example)

[Patrick]

We will try hard to keep all Rs of a game under one G entry, only when a R of a game comes out that severely changes gameplay (so much so that a change of genre is required), it will get a new G entry.

I don't like this part. This sounds like the bad, old "if it has the same name and was released in the same year we lump it together" approach. For example The Adventures of Batman & Robin for SNES and Genesis have the same basic genre, but are still completely different. In a similar example from the German discussion forums, you lumped together the iOs and console/PC versions of Alice: Madness Returns which almost caused me to scream "NO" at my monitor.

[Ultyzarus]

We will try hard to keep all Rs of a game under one G entry, only when a R of a game comes out that severely changes gameplay (so much so that a change of genre is required), it will get a new G entry.

I don't like this part. This sounds like the bad, old "if it has the same name and was released in the same year we lump it together" approach. For example The Adventures of Batman & Robin for SNES and Genesis have the same basic genre, but are still completely different. In a similar example from the German discussion forums, you lumped together the iOs and console/PC versions of Alice: Madness Returns which almost caused me to scream "NO" at my monitor.

I agree with Patrick on that, if the level themselves are different, it should be a different game. The more recent TRON: Evolution is another good example of this. There are four games released in the same time frames, with similar gameplay and the same basic title and often advertised as the same game, but that all have their differences, especially the storyline that happens in 1985 (DS) 1988 (Wii) 1989 (PSP) and 1990 - 2000 (PS3-X360-Windows)

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com ... meline.jpg

Concerning my previous example about FFIV, there are a lot of different releases, each with their own tweaks. Which ones would count as different RG?

I'd say SNES an Wonderswan would be one, PS1 would be one, GBA and Mobile could be one (because of new dungeon), PSP could either be one, or paired with PS1, and DS and iOS be one... Each could also be separate RG:

http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Fina ... ifferences

[MZ per X]

Discussion arise! Let's discuss the basic point first.

We will try hard to keep all Rs of a game under one G entry, only when a R of a game comes out that severely changes gameplay (so much so that a change of genre is required), it will get a new G entry.

I don't like this part. This sounds like the bad, old "if it has the same name and was released in the same year we lump it together" approach.

I agree with Patrick on that, if the level themselves are different, it should be a different game.

I disagree.

One of my biggest newbie mistakes at Mobygames back then was adding the Nintendo-DS release of Jewel Match as a new platform for the Windows release. Despite their noticeable differences, I thought it was so illogical to separate these releases and clutter up the game list, but blamed it on the technical limitations of Mobygames in documenting the differences between the platforms over time, and got over it. Now I don't have to accept it any more.

Here is the relevant part of the MobyStandards:

Different game: When either game play, perspective, and/or storyline are different than the existing entry. Graphics/Sound that are merely improved are usually not a different game. This is of course evaluated on a case-by-case basis in comparison with other versions. Particular cases to be aware of are handheld versions of console or PC games which usually are different. In general, licensed titles (like those based on movies) often are different for different platforms, especially those released in the late 80s/early 90s. If you are not sure that a certain version of a game is the same as another, don't assume it is - always try to confirm it by playing it yourself or reading reviews.

No reason is given for this, so I reckon this is the "bad, old approach", and ask the necessary question: What is the advantage in having a new game entry over having a new release group (except outsiders looking at our database stats and seeing 10,000 games instead of 9,500)?

When I have to decide between these scenarios:
1) The user has to click through multiple game entries to research the differences between different platform releases.
2) The user gets a side-by-side comparison of different release groups (with some screenshots, company credits, major press reviews, and description of the differences for each group) under a single game entry.
I'll go for the latter, for usability and good game documentation.

For example The Adventures of Batman & Robin for SNES and Genesis have the same basic genre, but are still completely different. In a similar example from the German discussion forums, you lumped together the iOs and console/PC versions of Alice: Madness Returns which almost caused me to scream "NO" at my monitor.

I'm sorry for your monitor. But this was clearly a mistake of mine, as the Alice games clearly have different genres. And there ends the similarity with Batman & Robin.

[Patrick]

It is completely illogical to group games together which have nothing in common besides the name. Yes, it makes sense if it is the same game with differences (different amounts of levels, slightly different gameplay mechanics like motion control on Wii or something), but not if they are obviously completely different. When I click on the game entry I want to see how many variations of the game exist; different games with the same name under the same entry are just confusing.

It would be like pretending Tomb Raider (1996) and Tomb Raider (2013) are the same game just because they share the name.

[Ultyzarus]

It is completely illogical to group games together which have nothing in common besides the name. Yes, it makes sense if it is the same game with differences (different amounts of levels, slightly different gameplay mechanics like motion control on Wii or something), but not if they are obviously completely different.

It would be like pretending Tomb Raider (1996) and Tomb Raider (2013) are the same game just because they share the name.

That is also an example, but there are more subtle ones. I do agree on the RG basics for minor differences, when it is still the same core game.

No reason is given for this, so I reckon this is the "bad, old approach", and ask the necessary question: What is the advantage in having a new game entry over having a new release group (except outsiders looking at our database stats and seeing 10,000 games instead of 9,500)?

Exactly, yet again my Final Fantasy IV example shows this pretty well. It has different releases with different mechanics added, revamped graphics (even some in 3D) and sound, yet it is still the same game. In this case the RG system fits perfectly.

But what about a puzzle game that has the same core gameplay, but with one difference that makes it impossible to have even a single level that is the same?
The example I have in mind is a scale game in which the player places objects on the two sides of the scale. The difference being that in the PC version, the player places 5 objects on each scale while he places only 4 on each scale in the handheld version.

An even better example would be Super Mario bros. and Super Mario bros. the Lost levels.

Exact same genre, exact same gameplay, totally different levels, but it would be foolish to call them the same game, no?

[MZ per X]

It would be like pretending Tomb Raider (1996) and Tomb Raider (2013) are the same game just because they share the name.

Re-reading my previous post, it actually sounds too harsh. Of course, I don't wanna put every single Tetris game ever released into the same game entry, thus replacing the genre classification with game entries as a result. So, please, don't get me wrong on this. OTOH I think the Moby system (or the way it was implemented by the approvers) was not really helpful either.

But when I read all the replies so far, I think that our opinions are not too far away from each other, we're just lacking common, precise criteria for a new game entry. Let's try to develop some, and see if it's possible at all.

For an easy start, would you agree on some points that do not matter for the new game question?

• Naming
  It cannot matter whether a port or a re-release of a game own the same name like the original.
• Time of release
  It just doesn't matter if a port of a game was released 10 months after the original, or 10 years after it.
• Graphics and sound
  Cosmetical changes should not matter, otherwise every remake would be a new game when it is not. As always there are corner cases here, for instance when a game is re-released with a completely changed graphical set, like Super Mario Brothers 2, or this funny one which saw three different graphic sets in three different regions. But IMHO, if nothing else changes, a new graphics set doesn't qualify for a new game entry.

Would you agree on these? Do you have other points that don't matter?

[Patrick]

If it is licensed or unofficial.

[Ultyzarus]

[*]Graphics and sound
Cosmetical changes should not matter, otherwise every remake would be a new game when it is not. As always there are corner cases here, for instance when a game is re-released with a completely changed graphical set, like Super Mario Brothers 2, or this funny one which saw three different graphic sets in three different regions. But IMHO, if nothing else changes, a new graphics set doesn't qualify for a new game entry.[/list]
Would you agree on these? Do you have other points that don't matter?

I also think we'll eventually get along quite well about this. Anyway, in the end I guess we'll sometimes have to review some items on a case by case basis to actually decide if it's a single G, or even for the RG splitting. Mario 2 vs. Doki Doki Panic is kind of a special case. I could logically go with both making them the same game, or two separate entries. Probably from a historical point of view, they should be a single G though...

I'd also like a bit of feedback for those specific cases I mentioned

[Patrick]

I would be interested in the definition of "heavily" censored.

The UK release of Soldier of Fortune II is either censored (no robots, but otherwise the same as the German version) or uncensored depending on the used language in Windows. So it would be assigned to both the original release and censored release group? Would there be two different "censored" RG?

[MZ per X]

If it is licensed or unofficial.

Agreed, thanks.

I would be interested in the definition of "heavily" censored.

I use to link this to the coverage of the gaming press. For instance, when the German press specifically refers to the German version of a game, because the original version is forbidden. Or when reviewers officially state that the cruel censorship influenced their rating for the worse, then the version needs its own RG.

But a real objective definition we don't have, yet. A suggestion would be to make up a list of censorship types, then say if more than two of these apply it is heavily censored. Just an idea, but that somehow would have to be combined with the above gaming press thing, I think.

Generally spoken, the Case 5 of the RGs is only a pre-filtering of the censorship issue. The real censorship information will be attached to the single R, like OGDB does quite well.

The UK release of Soldier of Fortune II is either censored (no robots, but otherwise the same as the German version) or uncensored depending on the used language in Windows. So it would be assigned to both the original release and censored release group? Would there be two different "censored" RG?

Yes, assigning this release to two groups makes sense. Furthermore, OGDB (see link above) has this nice icon "censorship depends on system preferences". I don't know SoF II, so don't know how big the differences between the UK and the German censoring are. But generally spoken, if releases for two different countries screw up badly, but differently, we would need two different RGs as well.

[MZ per X]

I'd also like a bit of feedback for those specific cases I mentioned

Yes, sorry. Much to read and much to write at the moment.

Will the attached RG and R be viewable from the G rap-sheet?

My personal opinion on this is that we should keep the rap sheet quite clean, not too much information. I'd go for showing the available platforms like on Mobygames, the user can then click through to see more detailed data.

I was also thinking about some kind of releases like the Virtual Console or PSOne Classics, which I think would be part of the same RG as let's say the NES release or the PS1 release, since the game is normally the exact same version. But that could be a problem when the PS1 version comes from a compilation... IMO, the compilations should show as a R in the RG page, maybe with a checkbox {show Compilation releases} and a different display color.

If it's an emulator release it will be linked to two RGs, one for the new system, and the one for the old version re-released. Compilation-only releases are no problem, as the compilation R gets mirrored to every G in it. (I will cover this in detail in a separate compilation thread.)

In this case, an example I am familiar with would be Final Fantasy IV, in its PS1 RG (Enhanced re-release) the following R would appear (in approximated chronological order):

-Final Fantasy IV
Japan - PS1 (Retail)

-Final Fantasy Collection (Compilation)
Japan - PS1 (Retail)

-Final Fantasy Chronicles (Compilation)
USA - PS1 (Retail)

-Final Fantasy Anthology - European Edition (Compilation)
UK - PS1 (Retail)

-Final Fantasy IV (PSOne Classics)
Japan - PS3 - PSP (Digital)

-Final Fantasy IV (PSOne Classics)
Japan - PSVita (Digital)

-Final Fantasy 25th Anniversary Ultimate Box (Compilation)
Japan - PS1 (Retail) (The compilation itself also has PS2 - PS3 and PSP media (each game is on either one of these platforms))

These would all get a R entry in the PS1 RG of FF IV Remake, yes. For the last three, FF IV Remake would get new RGs for PS2, PS3, PSP and PS Vita.

Concerning my previous example about FFIV, there are a lot of different releases, each with their own tweaks. Which ones would count as different RG? I'd say SNES an Wonderswan would be one, PS1 would be one, GBA and Mobile could be one (because of new dungeon), PSP could either be one, or paired with PS1, and DS and iOS be one... Each could also be separate RG:

We'd have one RG per platform anyway. Do you see platforms which would need two RGs?

Exactly, yet again my Final Fantasy IV example shows this pretty well. It has different releases with different mechanics added, revamped graphics (even some in 3D) and sound, yet it is still the same game. In this case the RG system fits perfectly.

I fully agree.

But what about a puzzle game that has the same core gameplay, but with one difference that makes it impossible to have even a single level that is the same? The example I have in mind is a scale game in which the player places objects on the two sides of the scale. The difference being that in the PC version, the player places 5 objects on each scale while he places only 4 on each scale in the handheld version.

Such examples send smokes from my brain, too. Take the Jewel Match example I mentioned earlier. The DS release was completely redesigned, no level the same, yet its gameplay "feels" like exactly the same game as the PC version. But OTOH, so probably do all its sequels, too, so the new game entry at Mobygames was right, after all.

An even better example would be Super Mario bros. and Super Mario bros. the Lost levels. Exact same genre, exact same gameplay, totally different levels, but it would be foolish to call them the same game, no?

The Lost Levels were the re-release of the Japanese version, right? And the easy US version was re-released as Super Mario USA in Japan, wasn't it? That would be a perfect fit for RGs, too.

[Ultyzarus]

Concerning my previous example about FFIV, there are a lot of different releases, each with their own tweaks. Which ones would count as different RG? I'd say SNES an Wonderswan would be one, PS1 would be one, GBA and Mobile could be one (because of new dungeon), PSP could either be one, or paired with PS1, and DS and iOS be one... Each could also be separate RG:

We'd have one RG per platform anyway. Do you see platforms which would need two RGs?

Maybe the SNES would have different RG, as some of the modifications for the US localization (Final Fantasy II) was kept in a new release labeled "Final Fantasy IV Easy Type"

An even better example would be Super Mario bros. and Super Mario bros. the Lost levels. Exact same genre, exact same gameplay, totally different levels, but it would be foolish to call them the same game, no?

The Lost Levels were the re-release of the Japanese version, right? And the easy US version was re-released as Super Mario USA in Japan, wasn't it? That would be a perfect fit for RGs, too.

The Lost Levels was localized version of the Japanese Super Mario bros. 2, which was a new game with the same engine as Super Mario bros. with a harder difficulty. I believe super Mario USA is the Japanese re-release of the US Super Mario bros. 2, which was Doki Doki Panic with mostly graphic changes to make it a Mario game (because Mario 2 aka The Lost Levels was considered too hard for the Western audience).

[MZ per X]

Concerning my previous example about FFIV, there are a lot of different releases, each with their own tweaks. Which ones would count as different RG? I'd say SNES an Wonderswan would be one, PS1 would be one, GBA and Mobile could be one (because of new dungeon), PSP could either be one, or paired with PS1, and DS and iOS be one... Each could also be separate RG:

We'd have one RG per platform anyway. Do you see platforms which would need two RGs?

Maybe the SNES would have different RG, as some of the modifications for the US localization (Final Fantasy II) was kept in a new release labeled "Final Fantasy IV Easy Type"

Yes, that sounds like another RG.

An even better example would be Super Mario bros. and Super Mario bros. the Lost levels. Exact same genre, exact same gameplay, totally different levels, but it would be foolish to call them the same game, no?

The Lost Levels were the re-release of the Japanese version, right? And the easy US version was re-released as Super Mario USA in Japan, wasn't it? That would be a perfect fit for RGs, too.

The Lost Levels was localized version of the Japanese Super Mario bros. 2, which was a new game with the same engine as Super Mario bros. with a harder difficulty. I believe super Mario USA is the Japanese re-release of the US Super Mario bros. 2, which was Doki Doki Panic with mostly graphic changes to make it a Mario game (because Mario 2 aka The Lost Levels was considered too hard for the Western audience).

Really, this is a perfect example of RG goodness.