Talk:Game/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyedit

I did a pretty heavy copyedit on the article, reorganized a few sections, fixed a whole lot of grammar issues, and linked up the categories of games to their main articles. Can I get another set of eyes to comb through and catch the errors that I missed and the errors I introduced? Joshua BishopRoby 22:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Seriously, this page needs to sit behind a disambiguation page. To have Game lead to a page that describes recreational activites is misleading, despite the link to a disambiguation. Surely it is logical to "disambiguate" instead of assuming that the readers want to know about monopoly and football.

Recreational games are just one small part of the "Game" concept and the lead article on the topic ought to reflect this.

Anonymous, but interested --217.17.118.55 13:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the concept of game is a central social idea for an encyclopedia to define. This article should attempt to broadly define "What is a game?" in a way that covers its broad application across english speaking society. I agree that there are many offshoots of the concept of game but I dont see disambiguation required here, was there anything you were expecting which you did not find when you came here? Maybe that can help us collectivley take this article in some new directions.. Just my two cents

--Evolve2k 03:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Bold reworking of introductory paragraphs

I know this article is nominated for all this important stuff, and initially I was hesitant to edit it too much, but it felt disjointed to me and late last night the old brain started churning on this one, so Ive gone in and reworked the whole of the intro section. As always, Im happy for this to trigger a whole new wave of wikifying, but I thought if it's not flowing right then I should at least rework it even if initially people want it left fairly static? Let me know what you think, I tried to ensure all the original points remained included but as always, lets wikify this for the better! --Evolve2k 15:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I deleted the link to the page "table-top games" because all the games were listed under other primary categories, e.g. Scrabble under letter games, Clue under board games, Mah Jong under tile-based games, etc. I couldn't think of a class of games to justify the existence of the category. --Karl Juhnke

---

I would have expected to see an entry for 'psychological games', as described by Eric Berne in 'Games People Play' here (although the idea is possibly used more widely). Or would these be found elsewhere? I note there's a wikipedia entry for 'transactional analysis' but not AFAICS for psychological games themselves. (For all I know these ideas are now completely discredited - but that in itself shouldn't prevent an entry IMO, we have an entry about the flat earth hypothesis, for example.) -- S

The article is incomplete. Simply try to figure out a way to integrate the psychological (or transactional) definition of games in a reasonable way (I think I would create a new topic [[games (transactional)]] and provide an appropriate link to it, but you do what you think is best) Fred Bauder 13:23 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

---

Vandalised - essential content deleted.

Charles Matthews 12:05, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I've started a WikiProject for games to set standards for what a game article should look like and what information it should contain. Any participation would be appriciated. Thanks, Gentgeen 00:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Would it be sensible to create a category for something like fictional games? (example: Azad) Or maybe there is already some category that would fit?

---

The Wittgenstein quote should be moved into the same paragraph as Kelley and away from Linhart. Kelley said what he said just to snub Wittgenstein, but Linhart is just talking Romantically not philosophically. There's nothing wrong with that, but same stuff should go together, and different stuff should be split apart... --Carl

---

Small wording glitch: the first paragraph seems to read as though the players must share a single goal, whereas of course each player could have a different goal. --(talk)BozMo 19:12, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

---

There's chance in baseball but not in football?? Does the initial coin-flip count? --AlexChurchill 09:26, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Links to games in XVIII century

Can you give me any link? I don't find anything searching in google.

Etymology

There is something wrong with etymology section. There's no modern Danish word spelled "gam men", I can see that’s what EB11E says. It must a misspelling because there is the word "gammen", witch is not frequently used, but could very well have the same roots as the word "game". I think you should remove this part until you can verify this. -Peter Wille

Baseball a game of chance?

The article says that baseball contains elements from all three classifications of games, skill, strategy, and chance, but I do not see how the game involves any element of luck or randomness.--Tubby 01:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would guess that was written by someone with a low opinion of baseball. Offhand I can't see where there is any more or less "randomness" in baseball than in football, basketball, hockey, etc. You could argue for "luck" in the sense of whether a player is hot or in a slump, but it still ultimately comes down to skill. Wahkeenah 04:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

And that's just one of many editorial opinions in the article, hence the POV tag. Wahkeenah 04:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Over the course of a season, and especially over the course of a player's career, luck will even out and what is left is definitely that player's skill. But a 0.300 hitter doesn't get exactly 3 hits in any string of 10 at bats. He gets a bunch, then he cools off, etc. Of course it's random. The good hitter is going to have a 0.300 average at the end of the season and the bad hitter is going to have 0.225. But that doesn't mean that the 0.300 hitter won't ever go 0-for-5 or that the 0.225 hitter won't ever go 5-for-5. It happens. That's chance. -- Gaedfu 05:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The wikilink definition of "games of chance" currently states that a such game is "strongly influenced by some randomizing device." This could be addressed in baseball in, for instance, weather differences or umpire calls, but I don't see either of these as consistently strongly influencing the game. It is true that baseball results are less consistent than results of other sports, but in the absence of any material "device" to induce randomness, it is not a game of chance.Cdcon 16:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gaedfu. I'd like to add that attempting to hit a very fast-moving ball with a small wooden stick in a particular direction over a particular distance acts as an important randomizing device even on well-skilled individuals, as demonstrated by the low average probability that any given batter will hit a ball into play when given several (from 3 to infinity) chances, and the far lower average probability that any given batter will hit a ball in a preselected direction at a preselected angle. The kind of prediction and psychological gameplay at work has a lot in common with poker, which (incidentally) also has a strong element of chance. Etaxier 10:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe Gaedfu and Etaxier are confusing chance with a combination of the opponents strategy and skill (i.e. the pitcher's pitch) and the player's skill (i.e. how well the batter can respond to the pitch). For a game to be without chance does not mean that one can predict the outcome of any given aspect of the play of the game.
As referenced earlier by Cdcon, "games of chance" are those that are set up in the rules to include a randomizing device. The rules of baseball do not take into account any such device. A game of skill will only be as predictable as the player's skill. The skill of the player is what causes the batting average to change, not randomness. That is why a batting average is a commonly used method of determining a batter's skill. If randomness was included in the batting process then a batting average would be a useless tool for determining skill.
In the same way, statistics are used in an attempt to rank the skill of many teams and players in many sports with no guarantee of actual performance in any given game. Statistics is used in these cases not to rank the "luck" of a player or team, but rather the skill and/or strategy that they employ. Although statistics can be used in games with an element of chance, it is there to measure not the chance of the game but the skill or strategy of a player or a team.
Therefore since the rules of baseball do not specifically include a randomizing device as such I believe baseball as with many other sports should not be considered under games of chance. Themanieldaniel 18:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

animal play/games

Many animals play; only humans have games. The existence of rules and criteria that decide the outcome of games implies that games require intelligence of a sophistication unique to humans.

Opens up a big irrelevant can of worms and semanticisms regarding animal intelligence. I changed it to:

Many animals play; only humans confirmably have games. Whether some animals are intelligent enough to game is debatable, though a game has a ritualistic elements (such as rules and procedures) that are voluntarily acted upon, rather than as a result of instinct. The existence of rules and criteria that decide the outcome of games imply that games require intelligence of a significant degree of sophistication. JustSomeKid 04:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following "It is also uncertain whether any wild animals are intelligent enough to play games." While that statement is literally true (most everything is "uncertain") it seems highly probably that chimps and dolphins have the required intelligence. I also removed the "citatation needed" from "Domestic animals have been observed playing simpler games such as tag, tug-of-war, and fetch." If you need a cite for that, find someone who has a dog and throw a ball to it. Jerdwyer 23:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Linhart

The quote in philosophy attributed to Stephen Linhart is a sham. Namely because Stephen Linhart is nobody of importance and should not deserve to be quoted. Here is his website which I found via Google: http://www.stephen.com/

I think unless someone can convince me otherwise it should be taken down.

Done. Pavel Vozenilek 17:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Anthropology of Games

Where does this information come from? Who associates games of strategy with "hierarchical societies that place a high value on obedience?" I am not an anthropologist, so perhaps these associations are universaly accepted in the field of anthropology, but it would be nice if the section included some sort of explanation. <<< 147.10.124.198 04:05, 23 October 2005

• I took a look at the article, and although this is arguably a trivial topic, in any case it's rife with editorial opinions with no substantiation. Hence I put a POV sticker on it. Let the Edit War Games begin! Wahkeenah 04:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'm trying to assess this article as one of our "core topics" for the Wikipedia 1.0 project. Can you tell me if the POV problems have been addressed yet? Thanks Walkerma 20:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• I don't think POV tag is necessary; I don't find it any different from any other article. Can you point out some specifics that you feel warrant it? - JPM | 22:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The topic is too trivial to worry about. Feel free to remove the tag. d:) Wahkeenah 20:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. - JPM | 22:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

A different meaning...?

I was wondering why of all the various definitions of the term, one describing the art and technique of seduction used mainly by men in pursuit of women.

I'm sure we've all used the term in that manner.

---

Also, the page talks about sex roles; should it talk about gender roles?

mysterd429 Nov 11 '05

recreational?

The first line indicates that games are recreational, yet the Tactical voting links to Game, and voting is not recreational in my experience.

I changed it to read "often," but I don't think that's even true; see Game Theory.

mysterd429

Game

I'm afraid this article is of really poor quality.

If you have time, please do change the article is you think you can improve it. Remember that this encyclopedia is not a game ;)

Definition of Games

<Comment on the following phrase in Games—...only humans confirmably have games.>

Games are play-acting at an activity which in real life is necessary for your Self preservation.

Examples–fishing, hunting, sports, boxing, gambling, war-games, etc. Sexual intercourse without the desire to have a child is also a game.

Proof.– The more actual the NEED; the more pleasurable, the success; the more sorrowful, the failure.

Yesselman 21:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC) {{133 file computer/132134/not found}{\43735

The arcade game "Qix". The sport Curling. The board game "Pachisi". How are these "play-acting at an activity which in real life is necessary for your self preservation?" Applejuicefool 21:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Chance in sports...

Unless the sport is played in a vacuum, there's always chance with respect to environmental factors. EG, in baseball if there is a strong tailwind, a high hit ball may leave the park whereas that same ball would not leave the park with a headwind.

WikiProject Role-playing games

There has just ben started a new Wikiproject regarding Role playing Games. If you would like to join, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games and add your self. Angelbo 13:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of games

In games we train skills in an optimized and relatively dangerless way, before we later apply them in life. The enjoyment of games stems from the corresponding mental focus adhering to certain genetical archetypes, making their maintainance rewarding. Depending on the personality and consititution of a person, different archetypes may be active - such as a homebuilding instinct (Sims), a hunting instinct (Shooters), rise in social status (MMORPGs), strategic planning or creativity. This will determine the kinds of games the player will be interested in and stay so until he mastered the game or considers it no further masterable. It will also determine the kind of role an individual will choose preferably in society.

Obviously people are seldom consciously trying to train when playing games, but that's not required for my point either (evolution/creationism)

sports...

possibly also mention that a game that involves physical activity, generally, can be referred to as a sport, with a link to the sport page. Though, the sport page has been destroyed, it seems.

I don't have any source for this, but it's my own personal definition: If you could participate in the activity via a proxy (you can tell someone else exactly how to make your moves and you are still considered the player) then it's a game. If, in such a setup, your proxy would be considered the player and not you, then it's a sport.

Examples: In Bridge, you could tell a proxy how to bid and what cards to play. It would still be your thought behind the moves, so it would be you playing. Bridge is a game. In Tiddlywinks, however, even if you coach your proxy on where to put the pieces and how to flip them, it's still not your dexterity getting the job done. Your proxy is the player. Therefore, Tiddly-winks is a sport. Applejuicefool 21:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Revamp

I think the structure of the article was slightly off. We should concentrate more effort to the core element of game. In my view, the definition followed by tool, social context and gameplay is better overall structure. Sport and Computer Game do deserve separate section due to its significance but only after the article explained the elements of the game. I'm also not sure "animal section" deserve a section. It doesn't have any reference to begin with. Moreover, I don't know the information has a relevance. IMO, single player game can be reincorporated into social context section. Vapour

My main idea is that previous arrangement was bit too biased in term of antholopology. Don't get me wrong. It's a valid POV and certainly deserve it's own section. However, i think gameplay element (rule, tool, environment, chance) is somewhat much closer to the core of what game is. Vapour

Anthropology of Games 2: Unsourced & Unlikely

The 1st para of "Anthropology" lacks sources and seems implausible to boot. Specifically:

• Games are intimately connected to culture. This is a meaningless sentence
• Tag is associated with hunting. No. It occurs spontaneously among children in non-hunting cultures, e.g. modern American suburbs
• The historical popularity of ballgame in Europe is associated with their familiarity with leather. So baseball comes from timber-using cultures and football from timber-poor cultures?
• Many martial culture practiced wrestling As do many non-martial cultures. Actually, what is meant by 'martial culture'?
• Golf originated by a shepard in Scotish highland and maintains its associations with broad, flat stretches of grassland. Scots highlands are not noted for broad, flat stretches of grass

I would strike the entire paragraph unless it can be sourced. rewinn 03:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

With "tag is associated with hunting," it makes more sense to fix the statement than discard it. Just add the word "instinct": Tag is associated with the hunting instinct. That takes care of children playing tag in non-hunting cultures... Etaxier 10:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)