Game classification

Games may be classifiedsub-classified accordingmany different criteria. Each scheme has its own advantagesdisadvantages. The categories onmain game pageratherhodge-podge,might benefit from some rationalization. However, before undertakingrefactorgame pages, please give thoughtall offollowing distinctions.

• What sortchallenge / skillinvolved (e.g. abstract calculation, anagramming, luck, bluffing, verbalizing, coordination, speed, etc.)?
  • Leads to("Folk Model") theory4 categories: gamesskill, gameschance, gamesstrategy, gamesstatus propagated by Anderson/MooreBrian Sutton-Smith.

This schemeprobably most natural,quite neatly separates billiards from chess from Tomb Raider. The main disadvantagethat too many games fall under more than one head. For example Scrabble reliesgreat deal on word knowledgeanagramming, but also has significant strategic aspects.

• What equipmentusedplaygame (e.g.computer,board, cards, tiles, dice, etc.)?

This categorizationalso very naturalcommon, but sometimes problematic. For example, Balderdash iscommercial board game, whereas Fictionaryalmost identical but uses no board.

Somethingoddany scheme which forces such similar gamesbe listed under completely different headings.

Other distinctionsless important,apply more or less welldifferent major headings. For example, example,difference between teamindividual sportsfundamental, whereas team board gamesso rare ashardly meritcategory. The remaining distinctions apply mostlynon-physical games.

• How many players doesgame accommodate? The most important divisionbetween two-playermultiplayer games, because nearly all multiplayer games involve negotiation or coalition-buildingsome degree. Among multiplayer games italso important (particularlywhomeverorganizingparty) what range innumberplayers can be accommodated. One disadvantagethis distinctionthatfew games such as Titanequally good two-player or multiplayer.
• To what extentwhich chance isfactor? Games rungamut from having no chance whatsoever (checkers, Pente)being entirely determined by chance (roulette, ChutesLadders).
• How deep isstrategy? Some games (bridge, Go) can be studiedyears without exhausting what there islearn, whereas others (Three Men's Morris) can be mastered relatively easily.
• How easyitlearnrules ofgame? ChessGooften comparedtheir depthabstraction, but chess has considerably more difficult rules. This considerationparticularly importantfamily games, where ideally children should be ableplay along easily, without makinggame so simpleholds no interestadults.
• Isgame relatively abstract or doesattemptsimulate some aspectreality (e.g. stock market, war scenarios)? For some simulation games,realismmore important than all other factors, whereas some games (Set)so abstract thatnamesshapesallpieces could change without affecting playability. However, most games lie somewherebetween, withbalance between abstractionsimulation.
• Are players eliminated asgame progresses, or can everyone play along untilend? Thismost important socially, ashost may wonder howentertain guests who have been knocked out ofmain event.
• What isobjective ofgame? Thismost useful assub-subheading, because different typesgames tendhave different typesobjectives. For example card games have natural categoriestrick-takingshedding games, which don't applyboard games, whereas board games have categoriescapture, racing,immobilization which don't applycard games.