CZ Talk:Games Workgroup

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is the Discussion Page for the CZ:Games Workgroup

Forum Discussions

I've written a post on the Games Workshop forum regarding Developing the Games Workgroup. If you are interested in this workgroup, please take a look and bring comments! --Chris Key 22:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Updated games hierarchy

I've completely revamped the Games Workgroup page and hope that no one has any objections. I'd love help on establishing a proper hierarchy, so please chip in if you're here! (On a side note, I think it would be a fine idea to do a roll-call much as Wikipedia groups do.) Nick Bagnall 16:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope you are aware that the classification of games is intrinsically difficult: The same game may belong to different groups, or it may be that no group fits really. Rummy is a card game, Mah-Jongg a board game? Craps is dice (and not casino?). Essentially, the new classification is neither better nor worse than the previous one. Probably in the end there have to be several classifications: by playing material, by principle, ... --Peter Schmitt 22:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Good work Nick! Here are my thoughts...
  • I would say that trading card games (or collectible card games) are completely different to, or at least a sub-catagory of, card games. The former use a custom set of cards, players own their own cards, players even create their own decks from their own selection of cards and there of course is the trading element. The latter uses one or more standard decks of playing cards.
  • I strongly disagree with video games being a subcategory of electronic games. Video games are such a huge area these days that they could almost be a workgroup of their own, and perhaps should be a sub-workgroup.
  • MMORPG are, despite their name, much more related to video games than role-playing games. Partial evidence towards this is the fact that many MMORPGs have a few dedicated servers for role-players, whilst the majority of their servers are 'normal' or non-roleplay. Roleplayers pretend they are their characters, act them out, speak as they would. Video game players control their characters, and talk about them and their abilities. I would say the majority of MMORPG players are in the latter catagory.
  • Gambling is perhaps an inaccurate title for that catagory. Poker, horse racing and even the Olympics are all associated with gambling to some extent or another. Games of chance would be perhaps a better choice? Still not quite right though...
  • Vampire: The Masquerade (and associated titles... I remember a werewolf and a ghost version) are pen and paper role-playing games. All RPGs can be turned into Live Action RPGs
  • The layout still seems a little messy. Perhaps thats just me. I quite like this layout. I'm willing to do the relayout work required if other people agree.
  • We should probably be looking at out core articles list at the same time as doing this.
Overall though, it's a great improvement! --Chris Key 23:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
If you want to discuss classification you should first state what your criteria (characteristics) are. The story, the main game mechanics, the matrial used, ... e.g., How do you define "Video game" to distinguish it from "Electronic game"? How do you define "Card game" to distinguish it from "Trading Card Game"? Uno can be played with standard decks, too. Trading exists in other card games, as well. etc.
Or you can spare your energy, and write about the games you like ...
By the way: Civilisation was a successful board game first. (Or do only games like chess count as "board" games?)
--Peter Schmitt 00:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Peter, I acknowledged the intrinsic difficulty in classifying games on the Workgroup page: "Some of the subdivisions produce inevitable overlap. For example, Trivial Pursuit is at once a party game, a board game, and a trivia game. Other articles may belong to more than one Workgroup. Darts, for example, may be considered both a sport and a game." I realize the list isn't adequate, so I'd be happy if you were willing to help given that you probably have more expertise than I do.
Chris: Thanks for the comments. I'll try to respond to all of them later today when I'm less busy. Nick Bagnall 00:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
To respond to Chris: I agree with most of what you've said. To be honest, I rather quickly cobbled that hierarchy together based on the previous list and tried to correct some of the most glaring errors; I just wanted to inject a bit of life into the Workgroup and I think I was at least a little successful in that regard. Now that the Workgroup is receiving some attention, we can all cooperate to establish as clean and intelligent a hierarchy as possible. I do not have the time today to begin sorting through the taxonomical issues but perhaps sometime within the next few days we can work together to do this. Like you, I'm in this for the long haul. I really enjoy it here compared to Wikipedia; we just need more user activity. I encourage anyone to try recruiting their friends who they believe to be competent writers and thinkers. Nick Bagnall 13:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Peter I agree that it is a very difficult issue, but I think it is worthwhile. I think that in the long run it will be a judgement call. As for definitions or criteria of the catagories, I agree there should be some. I will do some work on the front page later today, reorganize things a bit as per my comments above and put in some sort of definition. --Chris Key 20:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Userinfo Status

Oddly no-one else has added themselves to the userinfo status list. If you've simply forgotten, or didn't know about it, perhaps consider adding yourself here. Chris Key 14:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chris! Thanks for the link. I am having trouble adding my name there--whenever I add my name (I put mine above yours, since it goes by alphabetical order), your name is shoved off the table and there's a redlinked template by my own name. I just added my name like this: |Nick Bagnall}} Do you know what the problem is? Nick Bagnall 15:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I have added it for you. It should be more obvious how now there is more than one of us. Chris Key 16:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Definition of "Board game"

Perhaps this should be discussed on the talk page of the definition. But since is a more general issue:

  • "A game that involves moving playing pieces around a board."

This is too superficial (and circular: board?). (But I do not have a replacement ready.)

  • Is chess played on a PC no longer a board game?
  • Is every game that has a board a board game even if the board plays a minor role or is not really needed at all?
  • A "board" can be used to move counters marking points acquired. Does this make the game (e.g., a card game) a board game?
  • There are board games that do not involve "moving" pieces nround.
  • Is billard a board game?

(And there are probably even more problems with this definition.) --Peter Schmitt 00:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is not the perfect definition yet. My intent was to get a very basic definition up of each category and then discuss the specifics of each to refine them. In my opinion...
  • I'm not sure I agree that it is too circular. The OED [1] actually defines a board game as "a game that involves the movement of counters or other objects around a board." The approved article Amine_gas_treating/Definition uses the word amine in its definition without explaining what it is. Perhaps it is sufficient to have the word 'board' link to an article explaining what a 'board' is?
  • Chess that is played on a PC is no longer a board game. It is a video game conversion of a board game.
  • I would say no, the presence of a board does not in itself make it a board game. The board should play a significant part in the game.
  • I would say no again. The board should be the primary part of the game.
  • Placing, removing or moving then?
  • As in snooker, pool, etc? I would say they are sports. They are certainly not board games. I guess this comes down to the definition of 'board'.

Okay, how about this... "A game that primarily involves placing, removing or moving playing pieces on or around a premarked playing surface known as a gameboard." --Chris Key 01:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I mainly wanted to make a point. The examples may not be the best. There are, e.g., games of (physical) skill that are more like a board game than billiards. What I want to stress is that not the appearance on the surface should determine its classification but the idea and mechanics of the game. Of course, one could simply classify according to the material in the box, but more important is the "kernel" hidden behind the material.
For instance, I disagree (vehemently) that computer chess is a different game than the "board" game chess. Chess is chess, whether it is played on a board, on a computer, or by heart. --Peter Schmitt 23:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that there are several ways that we could classify games. I do not think that classifying them by 'what is in the box' is incorrect, simply one of a few ways of doing things. The question I think then is whether or not it is the best way for our purposes. I would suggest that if you did a survey on what type of game Monopoly is, the vast majority of people would say that it is a board game, rather than an economic simulation, roll and move board game. The latter may be more accurate, but is it how we wish to primarily categorise games on our front page? Which system would you prefer Peter?
As for chess I agree that:
  • Chess is a game.
  • Chess played on a board is a game.
  • Chess played on a computer is a game.
  • Chess played on a board is the same game as chess played on a computer.
However, I would also suggest that:
  • Chess played on a board is a board game.
  • Chess played on a board is not a computer game.
  • Chess played on a computer is a computer game.
  • Chess played on a computer is not a board game.
  • Chess was played on a board for a very long time before it was played on a computer, and the board game version is still more popular
Therefore I would suggest that:
  • An article on Chess in general would be in the board game category, as that is the primary method of playing chess.
  • If computer chess is discussed in mainly on the Chess page, then that article would also fall under the video game category if it is a software version.
  • If computer chess is only briefly mentioned on the Chess page (or not at all), and the main article for computer chess is something like Computer chess then the Chess article would fall under board game and the computer chess article would fall under video game.
  • The issue is again complicated by electronic chess but the same principles would apply.
--Chris Key 12:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Military gaming

War and games have had relationships going back to chess. It is interesting, however, to note both the use of gaming and simulation (a continuum) in real-world military art, as well as the blurring of lines between things such as video games and common operational picture tools such as Blue Force Tracker. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My knowledge in this area is extremely limited at very best. Do you feel that any of these articles have a strong enough connection that they should be listed under the games tag, or that there are just some comparisons that should be drawn in various articles? If the former, perhaps they should be added to a 'Military games' section on the front page listing? --Chris Key 17:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)