Talk:Game classification/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old version of the article

Apparently, this article was partly written for the purpose of helping Wikipedia authors. I removed the following "meta"-sentences, but the rest of the article is of some interest.

The categories on the main game page is rather a hodge-podge, and might benefit from some rationalization. However, before undertaking to refactor the game pages, please give thought to all of the following distinctions.

--Mrwojo 13:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I confess that I created this oddball article due to a discussion about how to organize the board game article. I was newer to Wikipedia then; now I would put this kind of material on some talk page, especially as I was indirectly arguing for my preferred method of classifying board games, and also gearing up to bring some kind of order to the main game article. As it turns out, I never got around to organizing the game article, and the list of types of games there seems to have become more and more haphazard, with a proliferation of overlapping categories and no sub- or super- categories. It's as if the biologists decided not to have phylum/class/order/family/genus/species, and instead decided to call every organizational unit a phylum, with phyla allowed to intersect and even contain other phyla! But maybe the scheme (or lack thereof) at game is good enough, because there aren't as many games as there are biological species, and there is no way to classify games as rationally as organisms.

Anyway, does anyone else favor moving what is here to Talk:Game? I think that is the place it should be to best serve its function.

Peace, --Fritzlein 16:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

re-organization

Over at game, there are three major headings Game#Classes of games. Perhaps that could be listed in this article as one criteria, while the other headings that are not repeated can be there own seperate criteria. As well, what about taking the list under the Game#Types of games heading and putting it here; it is already linked here. Since we're not analysing the individual categories, and only games in general, perhaps what should go here are things that are common in all games. I think there are more criteria that are currently not mentioned, but we'll be able to put them in later. --KaiSeun July 7, 2005 05:36 (UTC)

I really don't understand what categories you are saying billiards cgess and tomb raider fits into or how it they are neatly separated from ech other and into the defined categories. Billiards (consisting of a huge host of games) when played at high levels is intensely strategic and requires thinking many moves ahead. The game of One pocket is ubiquitously compared to chess (and actually, so many pool players also play chess that the correlation is staggering). Fuhghettaboutit 06:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

Note that none of the above applies to the article as it now stands. Uncle G 13:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)