CZ Talk:Games Workgroup/Archive 1

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Dividing the subject

The main Games article contains a list of type of games. Do you think this list is a good way to divide the subject? - Peter Blake 17:01, 20 November 2006 (CST)

It sounds like there needs to be a hard distinction between games and sports. Please elaborate if you disagree, but I believe that the primary difference is that a game is any type of contest whereas sports involve some contest of physical skill. This can become blurred, as described above with chess, because some people feel that a sport is anything that generates a fan base. By this, definition, however, both politics and religion become sports, and you wind up including the vast majority of human interaction under that shell. We probably shouldn't go there. There are also game "purists" who feel that a game is isolated to those things whose mental component isn't expressed through physical performance.

I'd like to propose we go with a definition of "game" as any formalized contest with rules that specify victory conditions and allowed methods of competition. I'd further like to propose that we refer to "sport" as an game for which the primary competition is a physical one. Robert Rapplean 12:00, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

- As an update to this, I've noticed that this is exactly how the game article describes these things. As such, the entry article that describes games in general should follow suit. Robert Rapplean 09:40, 1 May 2007 (CDT)


I've been tagging some articles in areas I know a little about. The following topics seem to have enough pages to justify their own sub-workgroups:

  • Chess
  • Collectible card games
  • Combat simulation games (tabletop combat like Axis & Allies or Car Wars)
  • Computer and video games (will have significant overlap with other workgroups r.e. computer versions of other game types)
  • Role-playing games

I'll add to this list as I get a better feel for what's out there. - Peter Blake 18:10, 20 November 2006 (CST)

I've been working extensively at the Wikipedia version of Personal computer game, so I'll probably spend some time on that. It's a fairly specific article, but given it's current shape I'd appreciate some help with it -- there's a lot of work still to be done on it. David Still 16:22, 21 November 2006 (CST)
I've noticed that the game article divides games in general in two ways. The first is by the characteristic that it tests (physical, strategy, memory...), and the second is by the medium that it uses to do the test (track & field, tabletop, computer...). This is a very sound strategy for division. Should the workgroup reflect this? Robert Rapplean 09:43, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Tags in article from Wikipedia

Could you guys help me please? How can I put "The article below may contain errors of fact, bias, grammar, etc." and "This article was originally based on, and may contain material from, the Wikipedia entry with this title." tags in Aron Nimzowitsch article? --Roberto Cruz 08:03, 2 February 2007 (CST)

Metal Gear Solid Plot Summary

Hi, I created the article Metal Gear Solid. I've recently re-done the plot summary, and compared it to Gear Solid the one at Wikipedia. Over there, they've referenced everything that happened in the game, quoting from the game itself. Do you think that this would be necessary here? I don't think that I have the time to find what they say throughout the game, thus I could only get them by copying them from the article on Wikipedia. Even this would be difficult, as my summary is longer than the one there. Could I ask for someone's opinion as to how I should reference it? Thanks, Oliver Smith 16:22, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

Video Game Console

I've begun gathering an extensive history of console video games . Editing and comments are appreciated. Also, I'd like some input on other areas that can be included in this article. David Martin 22:59, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Game article vs Games article

I think our main focus as a group should be to consolidate these into the same article. Currently there are two working versions and various article use game or games which link to different places. Perhaps we should apply the edits that have been made in the games article to the game article as it is more developed. Thoughts? David Martin 09:43, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I think that Games should redirect to Game, as the singular "game" seems to be a more appropriate title for the article. I would delete the Games article, as although the "Goals" section is not included in the Game article, I think that it is too vague for inclusion, although it could be copied across if others feel it has more importance. Oliver Smith 14:29, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
I concur. Redirect Games to Game. Robert Rapplean 15:40, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
I put the redirect template in the Games article but it doesn't seem to be working. I didn't really see anything that was useful in the Games article. Can anyone take a look at it and see what I'm missing? In the mean time, I'm going to clean up the game article. Hopefully we can get this one approved soon since it's fairly well fleshed out.

Budding Taxonomy

I've created a starting taxonomy for categorizing Games. I briefly considered creating separate categories for animals and robots (e.g., horse racing, robocup), but decided that we don't try to make our animals do anything that we don't compete in ourselves. Is this making sense? I'm sure we need to add further categories, but did I miss anything high level? - Robert Rapplean 16:12, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

I saw that online roleplaying games was listed under roleplaying games. It also may exist under video games (subcategories of PC gaming, arcade gaming, online gaming, console gaming, handheld gaming), which has not been included in the list. David Martin`

Further explaination required, I see. There are many way in which you could divide games. The top level method that I've presented divides it by the primary attribute that the game tests. Mental/physical/luck are the ones I came up with. In the second level division of mental games I'm attempting to further divide the kind of mental capacity that the game uses. This is much more abstract, I have to admit, so I'm relying upon gut feeling from my many years playing every mental game I could get my hands on.
Role Playing Games, for instance, are those which create a structure of activity in which people can interact. It is really a contest of story telling, where each person tells the story of what their character is doing within the context of the provided framework. MMPORG's are actually mostly combat simuation games, with a little bit of role playing tossed in to keep the imagination from getting bored.
The reason I didn't categorize by the equipment used to play a game is because that tends to be a very artificial division. Many games that are played on the tabletop have been translated to the computer (e.g. Monopoly, card games, or BattleTech). It's the same game with different equipment. They still test the same skill set. There are cases where translation to computer changes - for instance first person shooter games are really just computerized paintball - and in this case they need to fall under the category of the different skill that they test.
So with PC games it will be a challenge to identify what skill they test and compare. Abstract twitch-reflex games like Asteroids could probably be categorized as "arcade-style games", and the console games that emulate them could join them. These are physical games, testing reflexes and motor coordination. Strategic and tactical simulation games like Warcraft are mental games because they test the person's ability to develop strategies on the fly. First person shooters are problematic because they have strong components of both physical coordination and mental planning. Maybe we need a category for undifferentiable hybrids.
I'd like to continue dividing the games by the type of skill they test until there is no meaningful difference. Asteroids and Space Invaders are essentially identical in this regard, for instance, as are Car Wars and Star Fleet Battles. If further division is required after that, we'll probably have to figure out how to do so based on the individual subgrouping.
One more thing, I'm probably overstepping myself a little by putting that out there. I'm well versed in this, but I'm not authoritative. Consider the current model to be a straw man. Robert Rapplean 13:18, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

Metal Gear Solid

I wrote this article entirely myself (not from WP), and it has been marked as developed on the checklist. As it is almost complete, would it be possible for the workgroup to help work on this article so it would be ready for approval? Thanks, Oliver Smith 04:43, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

Core Articles list

We have 198 slots available on the Core Articles list for Games. I've filled 132 of them, based on my own knowledge and taking account of what's on the Workgroup's main page and Wikipedia, but I'm struggling to fill the last 66 slots. In fact, I'm worried that adding much more myself will bias the list towards the areas I know best, or else will dilute the notion of "core article". Please help by nominating additional topics that you feel are "most in demand and most important for us to include in an encyclopedia that has any hope of being comprehensive." See CZ:Core Articles for further information. Thanks. -- Peter Blake 23:03, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

I'd like to propose adding "Warhammer" to the core list. It's a game or game world spanning several genres (from roleplaying to tabletop to computer games), one of the best-known and largest tabletop/wargaming examples, and according to many (myself included) a major source of inspiration for many other games, including Warcraft (and thus, World of Warcraft). --Tom Vogt 16:16, 5 December 2007 (CST)
Warhammer (game) is there, at #57. Agree its an important entry - it started as a pen & paper RPG, then spawned the tabletop miniature wargame (in both fantasy and sci-fi versions), novels, computer games and the forthcoming MMORPG. Anton Sweeney 18:24, 5 December 2007 (CST)
Actually, I'm sure it was the other way around. "Warhammer Fantasy Battles" being the first, and "Warhammer FRP" coming afterwards. --Tom Vogt 13:50, 30 January 2008 (CST)
Do you have card games; poker, spades, hearts, rummy, solitaire, blackjack, (perhaps gambling in general); also is Pinball on the list? Also Risk (game) has a pretty indepth history... scrabble, yahtzee, Uno (game), --Robert W King 18:27, 5 December 2007 (CST)

New Articles started

After discussion about Warhammer (game) (see above), I decided to simply start the article. Likewise, after seing that Live Action RPG is on the list, I did the same there (though I missed that Live-action role-playing game existed already).

Since these are my first two CZ articles, and help and support would be much appreciated. I've basically just written down the rough points of what I know. --Tom Vogt 06:56, 31 January 2008 (CST)

Subdivisions could use some (a lot of) work

I can't say that I'm particularly happy with the way that things are grouped currently; it doesn't make sense to me that video games be listed under similar categories as board games and actual, athletic types of games (Arcade games as "physical" games? Huh?). While the first dividing line (physical versus mental) is probably fine, I'd say that it would be significantly easier, especially under "Mental", to divide the categories using their medium first (video, card, board, live-action, etc.) first, and then subdivide into genres. Example might look as follows:

  • Card games
    • Standard deck
      • Poker
      • Blackjack
    • Collectible cards
  • Video games
    • Action/Adventure
    • Shooter
    • Stealth
    • RPG
      • Dragon Warrior III
  • Board games
    • Standard board games
      • Life
      • Chutes and Ladders
    • Tabletop role-playing games
      • Dungeons and Dragons

Anyway, yeah, I think you get the idea. Ideas/suggestions/critiques, let me know. I don't want to change around the entire workgroup's organization without consulting people that that have a perspective other than video gaming. Thanks! :) Michael P. Herbert 12:12, 7 August 2008 (CDT)