Games may be classified and sub-classified
according to many different criteria. Each scheme has its own advantages and
disadvantages. 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.
What sort of challenge / skill
is involved (e.g. abstract calculation, anagramming, luck, bluffing,
verbalizing, coordination, speed, etc.)?
Leads to the ("Folk Model") theory of 4
categories:
games of skill,
games of chance,
games of strategy,
games of status propagated by Anderson/Moore and Brian Sutton-Smith.
This scheme is probably most natural, and quite
neatly separates
billiards from
chess from
Tomb Raider. The main disadvantage is that too many games fall under more
than one head. For example
Scrabble relies a great deal on word knowledge and anagramming, but also has
significant strategic aspects.
What equipment is used to play
the game (e.g. a computer, a board, cards, tiles, dice, etc.)?
This categorization is also very natural and
common, but sometimes problematic. For example,
Balderdash is a commercial
board game, whereas
Fictionary is almost identical but uses no board.
Something is odd with any scheme which forces
such similar games to be listed under completely different headings.
Other distinctions are less important, and apply
more or less well to different major headings. For example, example, the
difference between team and individual
sports is fundamental, whereas team board games are so rare as to hardly
merit a category. The remaining distinctions apply mostly to non-physical games.
How many players does the game
accommodate? The most important division is between two-player and multiplayer
games, because nearly all multiplayer games involve negotiation or
coalition-building to some degree. Among multiplayer games it is also
important (particularly to whomever is organizing the party) what range in the
number of players can be accommodated. One disadvantage of this distinction is
that a few games such as
Titan are equally good two-player or multiplayer.
To what extent to which chance
is a factor? Games run the gamut from having no chance whatsoever (checkers,
Pente) to being entirely determined by chance (roulette,
Chutes and Ladders).
How deep is the strategy? Some
games (bridge,
Go) can be studied for years without exhausting what there is to learn,
whereas others (Three
Men's Morris) can be mastered relatively easily.
How easy is it to learn the
rules of the game? Chess and Go are often compared for their
depth and abstraction, but chess has considerably more difficult rules. This
consideration is particularly important for
family games, where ideally children should be able to play along easily,
without making the game so simple it holds no interest for adults.
Is the game relatively abstract
or does it attempt to simulate some aspect of reality (e.g. stock market, war
scenarios)? For some simulation games, the realism is more important than all
other factors, whereas some games (Set)
are so abstract that the names and shapes of all the pieces could change
without affecting playability. However, most games lie somewhere in between,
with a balance between abstraction and simulation.
Are players eliminated as the
game progresses, or can everyone play along until the end? This is most
important socially, as a host may wonder how to entertain guests who have been
knocked out of the main event.
What is the objective of the
game? This is most useful as a sub-subheading, because different types of
games tend to have different types of objectives. For example
card games have natural categories of trick-taking and shedding games,
which don't apply to board games, whereas board games have categories of
capture, racing, and immobilization which don't apply to card games.
