Talk:Game

This sow's ear is undergoing a makeover. Please join in! - Peter Blake 22:20, 14 November 2006 (CST)

step one--not all games are intended for enjoyment. Some are intended as practice, such as war games in the military. I've added. but am not sure how to distinguish from those he _are_ played for enjoyment, especially as some of them are now actually the same game.DavidGoodman 13:45, 30 November 2006 (CST)

links

some of the links are a little odd: "Work" redirects to "Manual labor", which is wholly inadequate, "Bridge" redirects to "Contract bridge" while "bridge" redirects to "bridge game" etc. But as we change redirects the structure will change gradually from WP, and there will no longer be a one to one correspondence of the articles. This will at some point be unavoidable, but here it is already--and this has implication for how we are going to do the updates. This has also been posted to the Basic conversion issues (technical) Forum. DavidGoodman 14:12, 30 November 2006 (CST)

Type of games

I don't think that there is a difference between games of mental skill and strategy games. Go and chess are both games with a big amount of literature that analyzes the strategy of the game while both games also require the high concentration that characterizes mental skill.Christian Kleineidam 10:17, 31 December 2007 (CST)

Ah, but there are "logic games" that are all mental skill, card games that utilize strategy and not necessarily mental skill, games that involve "pure strategy" such as 'Risk'... --Robert W King 10:19, 31 December 2007 (CST)

At the moment there is no card game given as an example for "strategy games", they fall instead into the category of "chance games".In addition the calculation of probabilities is a mental skill. Overall go chess and arimaa should be in the same category. Christian Kleineidam 07:49, 2 January 2008 (CST)

What about CCG/TCGs (collectable/trading card games) such as Magic:The Gathering, Pokemon, Digimon and all those other ones? Those are technically "card games" and involve serious amounts of strategy including devising your deck and how you manage to play it against your opponent. --Robert W King 08:27, 2 January 2008 (CST)

I played two of those CCG's that you list there myself. I think that they are like poker card games. The main difference between those CCG's and chess or go is that you make real strategic decisions in chess and go while you play that require a lot of thought.

In MtG you get disqualifed when you take 5 minutes to make an important strategic decision.

Usually you make the real strategic decisions before you actually play during playtesting. In general is there some published theory which we can cite for those categories? Christian Kleineidam 09:09, 8 February 2008 (CST)

We'll have to find some kind of real analysis of the game rules and game play, from a theory and practice position--preferably from some academia or other "authoritative source", and by authoritative source I don't just mean a "game guide" or magazine. --Robert W King 09:28, 8 February 2008 (CST)

I also don't know whether the catergories used in this article are actually based on any academic source. Some parts of the article seemed to be copyed from wikipedia and were probably just written based on how what criterias the author uses to judge games.

The article Game Classification and Game Design: Construction Through Critical Analysis (DOI: 10.1177/1555412006286892 Games and Culture 2007; 2; 3 Christian Elverdam and Espen Aarseth) might become a starting point for writing a good article. Rewriting the article completely with academic sources might also be worth a thought, instead on relying on the wikipedia left over. Christian Kleineidam 10:59, 8 February 2008 (CST)

I'd consider linkage to game theory and even military doctrine, and mining those articles for materials.. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Opening Section Too Long?

It seems to me that the opening section of this article is entirely too long. A lot of the information seems unnecessary—at least for an introduction to the article. I propose the deletion of some of the middle section, or its movement into the article body where it fits. It's unnecessary to include a bunch of information about what technically is or is not classified as a "game", or a paragraph dedicated to a Stanley Fish citation in which nothing really contributes to the definition of a game at all. -Skyler Hawthorne 09:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)