CZ Talk:Games Workgroup

CZ Talk:Games Workgroup

Current talk page

none (to start Archive 1)

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)

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)