Talk:Game design

Topic and Content Mismatch

The current content of this page simply doesn't match its title. Essentially, this page's current content is a *taxonomy* of non-video games and says virtually nothing about the *design* of such games. It needs to be re-written entirely, imo.

Whatever non-duplicate content in this taxonomy should be merged into the general article on games. It should then be replaced with: A) History of game design B) Common issues in game design C) The process of game design (prototypes, testing, revision, blind-testing, etc.). D) How game design occurs in the games industry E) University programs in game design Contributor tom (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Some good progress! This page is now starting to become more than a taxonomy.Contributor tom (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Problems still persist in several of the subsections. For example in the subsection on "Dice games" we have a brief description of them, describing them as old and associated with gambling. Then we give examples of dice games and then explain how they are confusingly similar to board games. At no point does this remotely touch on the design of dice games. I flagged this for cleanup yesterday, but these flags were reverted under the theory that "dice games were designed sometime in history". That's not good enough. All games were designed some time in history but this article isn't intended to document the mere existence of all games. This article is about the design of games. We can talk about different kinds of games of course but only as it relates to their design. The same is true to a lesser extent at the "Role-playing games" subsection where the word "design" isn't even used once. There is certainly discussion of GNS Theory but because no explicit connection between game design and RPG Theory has been given it is not clear that it is about RPG design. I'll try to clean this up a bit myself, but I'd ask that the cleanup tags remain until the problems are actually addressed. -Thibbs (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Another thing we might consider is making better use of our images. Currently they serve nothing more than decorative purposes. I realize it's difficult to illustrate game design with free images available at the WikiMedia Commons. It's a pretty complex topic. But it seems pointless to throw up a picture of a Pong cabinet with the caption "Pong is one of the earliest arcade video games" in a subsection about video game design. True Pong is a video game, and perhaps it's an archetypal one, but we might do better to draw our caption for the image from somewhere game-design-related (e.g. Pong#Development and history). -Thibbs (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • OK I just replaced the Pong image with an image of a video game prototype so that particular issue is moot, but the same point stands for the other purely decorative images. At least their captions should be tweaked to mention design or some element of design. -Thibbs (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Some images that could be used:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edge_(video_game)_level_layout.png
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pog_4_spaces.png
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiled_example_gui.png
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DarrowPage1.png
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pog_4_spaces.png
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IridesMoves.jpg

I'm just grabbing a few here. None of the images currently in seem relevant, honestly. ~Mable (chat) 12:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah those look good. I'm glad I checked here first because I was seconds away from changing the board game image to File:Diamond Trust of London - Paper Prototype zoom.jpg (along with big disclaimers that it was actually a paper prototype for a video game and not really a board game). The DarrowPage1.png image is much more appropriate. I'll use that to replace the board game image now. -Thibbs (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Glad I could be of assistance. Must say that that was one of my favorites of the bunch too. The new image looks very good on the article, nice job :) ~Mable (chat) 13:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to give the article some more attention later today. -Thibbs (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Tabletop Game Design vs Game Design

While some of this page's content is general and applicable to both sports and tabletop games (for example, Tools), much of the other content seems specific to tabletop games. Should this page eventually be split into Game Design and Tabletop Game Design, so that the specifics of Tabletop Game Design can be factored out, much as Video Game Design already has been?Contributor tom (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I could see some of this content being split out some day, but at this point in the articles development it might make a really good subsection, instead of a low quality stub. For the time being I think we should focus on keeping content in this article and organizing it better. It looks like it has really been coming along in the last few days.--NickPenguin_(contribs) 06:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Why?

I am failing to see the reason for a game design article. We don't have articles on Shoe design or Golf course design, because the articles for those designed items handle design considerations. We do have Automotive design, which does not have sections for the various kinds of motor vehicles, but rather handles considerations that are relevant to many classes of those machines. So, if games in general have common design aspects that ought to go beyond what the game article can reasonably handle, the yes this article has a reason to exist. Otherwise, why? Jim.henderson (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I actually agree with you here. There isn't very much to say about the design of games in general, because of the huge variation of games. You can't compare a casino game and a role-playing game and easily point out what they should or may have in common.Perhaps this page would do better as a disambiguation page linking to various specific design articles?

On the other hand, I did just notice that video game design is the only article that exists of the bunch. Why isn't there a board game design article? I'm sure that would be really easy to fill. However, if we can't fill an article with details on the design of a casino game or a card game, then perhaps an overarching article discussing each of those topics is in fact neccessary. ~Mable (chat) 07:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. A better comparison would be the articles on Fashion and Fashion design. The fashion article discusses the definition of fashion, the history of fashion, the fashion industry, etc. A games article should have analogous content. Fashion design, in contrast, details the history of fashion design, the different types of fashion design, how it occurs in the fashion industry, terminology used in fashion design, educational institutions that offer programs in fashion design, etc. Similar analogous content should exist in an article on game design. Contributor tom (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Details about board games

@NickPenguin: I don't understand why did you remove this content about the history board games? It seems well sourced and relevant. Please, could you explain the removal? Diego (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That was my error, I was moving the content to the History section but I changed my mind. I flagged it as minor because I thought the only change was splitting the lede into two paragraphs. My apologies. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The confusing expansion of Sports design

I added a start to the expansion of the Sports design section. I want you to add more

Really fascinating video on winstates

Not sure is this guy is notabLe or not, but in any case it's a great analysis of winstates in gane design - why we do what we do in the game and what propels us to utilize its core mechanics to achieve a goal.

Errant Signal Blips: Win States (on YouTube)--1.126.48.90 (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely love Errant Signal - it might just be my favorite Youtube channel - but self-published Youtube videos aren't reliable sources to Wikipedia. I'm afraid you can't use it. Same goes for the guy's blog, it has great, high-quality stuff, but it is not considered reliable because he published it himself. Much like how wikis or social media posts generally aren't reliable sources. ~Mable (chat) 09:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Games Studies section has too much off-topic material

Currently, the Game Studies section is mostly a summary of the Game Studies main article, instead of being about aspects of Game Studies relevant to game design. I propose eliminating the middle two paragraphs and linking the last paragraph to the first. Contributor tom (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Sports section is confusing

The sports section seems confusing and potentially unnecessary to me. Is it meant to be about real-world sports, sports simulations, sport-themed video games, or something else entirely? Could it potentially be removed entirely due to it being unnecessary? Mister Apple (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)