Talk:Bertie the Brain

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 01:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Might as well keep going on the early video game history articles. Comments should follow tomorrow once this whole Christmas thing has wrapped up. Indrian (talk) 01:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Lead

•  Done"was an early arcade game" - I am not really comfortable with the designation of Bertie as an "arcade game." I assume this classification is used to identify that it was a large, expensive machine meant to be played in a public space, but while these are all characteristics of an arcade game, the crucial element of these games is that they are commercial products meant to be played in an arcade setting, usually incorporating coin (or token, or dollar bill, or card, etc.) control. Also, I don't really think the sources identify it as such. Only Spacing uses the term, and while it is identified as such in the title, in the text, it just states that "from a modern perspective, Bertie the Brain looks like a cumbersome and not particularly entertaining arcade game." That implies comparison to arcade games rather than identification as one. The platform needs to be changed in the infobox as well.
•  Done"Patent issues prevented Bertie from fulfilling its purpose of promoting the additron tube before it was no longer useful." - Awkwardly worded and not quite right. Bertie did fulfill its purpose of promoting the additron tube while it was still useful. The patent issues prevented Rogers from mass producing the additron tube before it was no longer useful.
•  Done"as it was potentially the first computer game to to display electronic graphics of any sort" - The computer certainly incoporated electronics, but I do not think a lighted display panel meets any definition of "electronic graphics." This should be tweaked.

History

•  Done"Bertie the Brain was an arcade game of tic-tac-toe" - As above regarding the term "arcade game."

Gameplay

•  Done"in which the player would select their move from a grid of nine lit buttons on a raised panel which position they wished to move next" - Awkwardly worded. Perhaps something like "in which the player would select the position for their next move from a grid of nine lit buttons on a raised panel."

A short article, so not many fixes needed. I will go ahead and put this On hold while these minor issues are sorted out. Indrian (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Indrian: Sorted out everything you mentioned; I agree that "arcade game" is probably stretching the definition of such a bit too far. --PresN 18:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@PresN: Looks good. I made a few final tweaks of my own, and I think we can put this one to bed. Pleasure doing business with you as always. Indrian (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hello again. I think Nimatron would be the current claimant of these two statements:

"the first computer game to have any sort of visual display of the game"

"Bertie was the first computer-based game to feature a visual display of any sort."

Since they are both lightbulb display computer/interactive electronic game/electro-mechanical games. What are your thoughts? Derf Jagged (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Derf Jagged: That's a good point; I think the Nimatron article is currently inconsistent as to whether it counts as a "computer" or not; it could hold the state of the game but couldn't do anything other than mechanically update that state by flipping relays. It didn't count as a general-purpose computer but was instead a giant mechanical toy. I'll poke around and see what the sources cited there are saying; if they say it is a computer, then this article should be fixed. --PresN 17:20, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I've adjusted Nimatron to not call it a computer, but an electro-mechanical game that had some elements of a digital computer, and mentioned it in this article. It's a mechanical toy that holds state in binary, which isn't enough for definitions of computers. --PresN 18:39, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Was Bertie a general purpose computer? My interpretation from the Bertie article was that it wasn't, and it was purely purpose-built hardware just like Nimatron. A general-purpose computer would be able to execute a supplied program (software), right? I think if you look at just the term "computer" (not general-purpose computer), both would fit the description since computers can be mechanical.

Perhaps that's where my confusion is coming from, since for all intents and purposes, it seems to me that both were electro-mechanical games, just that one used relays and one used tubes. Derf Jagged (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I believe I see where the misunderstanding is. Relays are electro-mechanical technology, while tubes are electronic technology. The "electro" in "electro-mechanical" refers to electric, not electronic. So they are fundamentally different in a way that causes one to conform to common definitions of video games and the other to not. Indrian (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I suppose that you are correct that it is indeed the tubes that would imply it being an "electronic" rather than electro-mechanical. It feels wrong for Bertie and Nimatron to be in separate categories given that they both seem to be purpose-built machines, just with logic gates made of vacuum tube vs relay. I would personally consider them both computers, since they have use logic, but neither as general-purpose computers since they aren't reading an instruction set.

I guess for our purposes, it's all subjective anyway given how vaguely defined "video game" and "computer game" is. Derf Jagged (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2026 (UTC)