Forums > MobyGames > company revisionism
Rola (8483) on 11/18/2012 2:48 PM · Permalink · Report
Sometimes I think that certain company overviews here were written by their PR staff. I cringe every time I read the history of a company which changed names/owners over time written from the perspective of their latest masters (who often didn't exist those 20-30 years ago).
Example:
http://www.mobygames.com/company/idigicon-limited
http://www.mobygames.com/company/atari-inc
Rola (8483) on 11/18/2012 9:47 PM · Permalink · Report
Just like we shouldn't write "Italian legions stationed in UK" (but: "Roman legions in Britain"), company overviews should be written in historical (chronological) order. It was French Infogrames that created "Alone in the Dark", not Atari. Otherwise we'd have to state now that it was Disney who made "Star Wars" (because that's the latest owner).
Sciere (930490) on 11/18/2012 9:53 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
It was French Infogrames that created "Alone in the Dark", not Atari is a release info issue, not tied to the overview. The way I do it to start with the most recent company name and its current status. Then returning to the early parts and work in a chronological order as you say. Wikipedia uses the same structure. But it makes no sense to start the Atari overview by saying "Infogames is a ..."
From one I did recently (GFI Russia):
GFI Russia is a Russian game development studio. It was first established in 1997 as MiST land and its first project was the fantasy real-time strategy game BESTiARY.
It's just the start, I agree with the chronological order after that.