Talk:Game

Skill, strategy, and chance

Does anyone know who originated this classification to "games of skill, games of chance, and games of strategy"? All I know it appears in Thomas Schelling's "Strategy of Conflict" and sounds very original there. 193.167.6.179 (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Advertixment?

Miniclip, shame on you. Deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.100.127 (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Numbers?

I was rooting through the list of types of games and I was wondering if someone could help me in defining a particular game and what category it would fall under. The game is called chinese numbers and in the game you have one person running the game and undefined number of people playing. The person running the game places several objects togather in what looks like a predetermined way (in reality any way they want, anything will work) they than ask the group what number this is. The players will look at the object and try to figure out what number it is. The number is actually irrevelant of the object and is determined by the number of words the leader uses when he asks what number it is. An example.

Question:-What number is this?- Answer: 4 Question:-Which number is this on the table?- Answer: 7

The goal is to figure it out, and then watch your friends be tormented that they dont know the answer. If anyone could help me figure out what category this falls under it would be great, so I can learn more about other games like this and help expand it. Thanks. --Beefybot 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Riddle

I'd say that qualifies as a riddle or a puzzle. Junuxx (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked into Pub or Drinking or Logic games ? Salisbury-99 (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dice Games

aren't those missing from the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.228.235.236 (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Problem with language games and Wittgenstein reference?

I think the reference to Wittgenstein's language games is absolutely appropriate. Why is this considered to stray from the topic of rules? He gives a very interesting and influential philosophical interpretation of game rules as the basis for all linguistic practice.--Agnaramasi 23:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The piece includes: "He subsequently argued that the concept "game" could not be contained by any single definition, but that games must be looked at as a series of definitions that share a "family resemblance" to one another."

In the first place LW did not hold that concepts were "contained in" definitions. This language suggests a metaphysics nowhere present in LW's body of work.

In the second place it was not part of LW's approach to tell us how things "must be looked at." Rather he suggested that we (in this sort of context) look at the ways in which words are actually and usefully applied.

Finally, nowhere did Wittgenstein argue nor in any way suggest that games: "be looked at as a series of definitions" that share a family resemblance. I hope this was just careless composition.

Chess is not a series of definitions, nor is baseball, nor is naughts and crosses, nor is Grand Theft Auto. There is no evidence that Wittgenstein was confused about this.

Therefore... {{editsemiprotected}} Please change:

"He subsequently argued that the concept "game" could not be contained by any single definition, but that games must be looked at as a series of definitions that share a "family resemblance" to one another,"

... to:

"Wittgenstein pointed out that we comfortably and usefully apply the term "game" to a range of quite disparate human activities which nevertheless bear to one another what we might call family resemblances."

 Done Welcome and thanks. I changed your wording slightly to be more encyclopedic and to avoid the implication of correctness 'pointed out' carries. If 'concluded' is inaccurate, please suggest another verb which also makes it clear that this is his view. Celestra (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Some remarks

There were some things in this article I couldn't really agree on.

First of all, I doubt tic-tac-toe is a game of strategy. I even doubt it is a game. Doesn't one of the definitions require an uncertain outcome? To me and to any person with some logical skill whatsoever, tic-tac-toe is more like a performance of a sequence of moves, very short and always the same.

19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Wikiwikinom (talk) Tic-tac-toe is a game from which children derive hours of amusement.

The sentence above is intelligible to any speaker of English. That is to say that, in it, familiar words are being used in familiar ways. I suggest it would be considered to present a true proposition by anyone familiar with the lexical sense and common usage of the word game, as long as they were also familiar with children.

I suggest that you are presenting a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition of "game" which narrows the scope of the term to a range which excludes much which common usage and prevelant lexical definitions include.

19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Wikiwikinom (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, I don't think Paper, Rock and Scissors is just a chance game. Maybe not at all. There is no chance element like a die or scrambled cards. Of course you don't know for sure what your opponent is going to do, but that applies to chess too, and that's definitely not a game of chance. To me, PR&S is about getting to know your opponents preferences, predicting his or her choice by facial expression and outcome of previous rounds and the like.

The article states that "the concept of fandom began with sports fans". How can we be so sure? Don't the followers of ancient prophets, gods, famous entertainers or generals qualify as fans?

And finally, I don't quite understand from the definitions, what exactly is the difference between a game and living normal, conformist, everyday life?

Junuxx (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tic-Tac-Toe is a game taught to children. It is an excellent early step in showing how some games (and life) cannot be won. It is also a useful stage in showing how changing the rules -eg to three pegs only which can move - makes it a new game (called 3 mans morris).

I agree that PRS is not a game of chance.

Fandom is of course equal to any charismatic crowd but the word 'fan' ?began with US sports. Salisbury-99 (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Tabletop games

The RPG section should probably be generalized. It's not clear to me why CRPGs deserve special attention here over (say) FPS games. It would, however, make sense to include a section for tabletop and other natural language (PBEM, etc) games, including PnP RPGs, nomic, and Exquisite Corpse. ruinia (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation on middle-aged women as gamers

As in, I have one. Or a few, really. But I can't edit this article? :( boo. Here's what I'd link to -- sort of a wiki-clearinghouse page from the International Game Developers Association: http://www.igda.org/wiki/Casual_Games_SIG/Whitepaper/Market_Overview . I figure either that page can be cited, or the whitepapers it cites could be cited. Gus andrews (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories - Slippage between articles

The number of sites about games generally, categories of games and specific games is very high. Game is the top article, below which come Tabletop game thence Board games and onwards come many sub-categories and articles.

There is unhelpful slippage between articles. For example Game details some 12 types of game as follows (at Sept 2008) :-

Sports (with Lawn games as a sub-section);

Table games with Board games, Card games, Dice games, Miniature games, Paper and pencil games, and roleplaying games as sub-sections;

Note 1 There is a recent casino-based intervention that Table games are a variant of casino games as opposed to 'slots'.

Note 2 Pencil and paper games do not appear to be table games according to the definition used for tabel games. Dice games do not necessarily need a table. Video games with Arcade, Computer, Console, Hand-held, Mobile and Online sub-sections.

However, Game links to 'List of types of games' which divides into Sports, Table games, Video Games and Others in a significantly different arrangement than in the header article.

The sub-group 'Others' is an amalgam of items. Wargames surely should be with miniatures and role-playing. There are others which, provided they use a board on a table, come within the sub-section of board-games called 'abstract' - - - - - -

Furthermore, List of basic game topics under 'Types of games' has yet another different arrangement. It also notes 'for a more comprehensive list' see Game Classification'.

- - - - - - - - -

Categories used by popular game sites such as BoardGameGeek should be considered if any effort is made to regularise these categories. It may be that a multi-layer categorisation should be considered.

Thus "two player only games, three-player only; two or more players;" and so on might be one such layering.

The equipment requirements could be another with board, computer, ball, dice, domino, string etc being a second.

Posted also to Discussion page on List of types of games & List of basic game topics Salisbury-99 (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Mahjong not a domino game

The typical western domino is double ended and thus unlike a mahjong tile. Mahjong merely has a tile which is hard, solid and sometimes made of bone (I refrain from the obvious joke). In play and style, Mahjong is a card game correctly described as being 'rummy'-like. If there is consensus on this change? Salisbury-99 (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's rummy-like, but I think the consensus here is to call it a tile-based game, rather than card game. Percy Snoodle (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Dominoes are defined as double-ended pieces with a dividing line. I see no resemblance to a Mahjongg tile and therefore, as yet, no debate as to consensus. Salisbury-99 (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. Dominoes is a tile-based game. Not all tile-based games are domino games. Mahjongg is a tile-based game. Mahjongg is not a domino game. What's to debate? Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Both are tile-based games. --Orrelly Man (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Mahjong [

What about ballroom dancing?

The main article, as it now stands, begins:

A game is a structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool. Games are distinct from work, which is usually carried out for remuneration, and from art, which is more concerned with the expression of ideas.

From this, it would seem that ballroom dancing is a "game". 76.208.248.98 (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The next sentence is "However, the distinction is not clear-cut, and many games are also considered to be..." - the whole lead gives a rough definition. There's no need to try to make the opening sentence 100% watertight in isolation. --McGeddon (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please add zh-yue:遊戲. Thanks. --Telepo (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Definition

I don't have access to the main page, and I was wondering if anyone out there could add the definition of a game from Jesse Schell's of The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses. "A game is a problem-solving activity approached with a playful attitude." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.190.87 (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Art: Expression of ideas?

I can't edit the main "Game" page for some reason, but the first line offers a naive definition of "art", which is contradicted on the very page that the word"art" links to. Anyone up for coming up with a better first sentence/paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.129.253 (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to suggest improvements here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rjanag - sorry, didn't realize contributions to the talk page were meant to be appended to the bottom! Anyway, the definition of art on the general "art" page for wikipedia claims "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions". Here's part of the first sentence on the "game" page: "art, which is more concerned with the expression of ideas".

Focusing on emotions or senses as opposed to "ideas" is a more inclusive definition that allows us to include abstract art, dance and music (and maybe even games, although lets not open that can of worms right now). Anyway, it might seem like a subtle difference but it happens to be something that (video) game community is struggling with right now, which is why I bothered to write this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.129.253 (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dawitwiki, 17 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I don't think the first item for a definition of a game should be Ludwig Wittgenstein's "use" of the word "game". Wittgenstein's use of a game should rather be discussed as an EXCEPTION to a definition of a game. Wittgenstein's use of the word "game" is not to show that "game", as we know it, is indefinable. He does NOT offer a definition of the word "game" nor does he intend to define it. It will rather be absurd and oxymoronic to cite him first under "Definition". My suggestion is that you remove his name from this entry unless of course you are using him to explain "family resemblances" and the problem of defining things, including "games", in GENERAL. Dawitwiki (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: Not a valid reason for deletion. If you have specific suggestions on how to modify or add the text so that it better represents Wittgenstein please add them here. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

animals and games?

Many animals engage in activities that might be considered 'games' with each other or toys, especially in their younger age. Should it be mentioned in a article? 95.58.139.97 (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is notable enough to be supported by reliable sources, go ahead. However, just because young animals' activities are similar to what humans would consider "playing", it doesn't mean it is anything close to what is the subject of the article. Your phrase "might be considered" is a strong clue against the inclusion of this information. If we included it in this form, it would quickly be dismissed as original research -- Nczempin (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

Section 3.5 Business Games says "Many business games focus on torganizational behaviors" - should it say "organizational"?

124.198.142.94 (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 December 2011

Mang rene (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC) <a href='http://nakblogonline.com/coolest-pc-games-duel-monsters/'>free download game</a>

 Not done, non notable--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposing an improved definition

I'd like to propose an improved definition, one that I sincerely believe is definitive, as opposed to merely descriptive: Game: An activity in which achievement of a goal is challenged by motion, obfuscation, chance, or the actions of opponents. This definition is the result of a careful analysis and I really think it precisely identifies the sufficient and necessary conditions for something to qualify as a game. My analysis on Google Docs.

-Jack Bellis Jackbellis (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

St.bernard school

Hello it sucks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.226.9 (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)