I have been thinking about this for a while and would like to ask for the help of this fantastic community to validate, refine, or redefine a comprehensive taxonomy for videogames.

It's a good exercise that help us understand better the different possible game designs and how games could evolve in the future. So, let's build it together!

This taxonomy is still in development and I have many questions about it. Is it comprehensive enough? Is it missing any critical dimension? Is it well organized? Is it accurate?

Just let me know what you think. I’m counting on your videogame’s expertise!

PS: Sorry for the image quality/size. Do you know how I can improve it?

I've taken a look at it and I think you've done a pretty good job! I'm not sure if there's much that needs to be improved.

I think your idea is great, but I have a hard time imagining you being able to classify most games under a order-family-species fashion... the most will be on genre, sub-genre and cross-genre

interesting but its hard to follow this chart. could use some revision

I wish more gamers were aware of these things, aware of the structure of games. It would increase our expectations on game makers to develop more sophisticated games I believe.

This chart in the OP, these dimensions overlap a lot don't they? Meaning that one game can be sorted under several different categories or dimensions.

Or is it even so that every game in existance include all of the dimensions A to E?

Thanks for your positive feedback! :)

Meanwhile if you think about anything, please tell me.

Thanks!

The idea of this taxonomy is not to be of hierarchical fashion. These are just separate dimensions that can be used in combination to classify a game.

For instance, classic Pokemon games can be classified in the following way: recreational puzzle/exploration game recreating a scripted fantasy adventure on 2D orthographic open world, in real and continuous input time, played with digital inputs by a single player who progresses the skills of its pokemons; the battles are played in turn-based, discrete input.

Thanks. Any idea of how to make it simpler?

The dimensions should all be crossed to classify a given game. And since a game is a complex product, it may have aspects of one or multiple categories in each dimension (please check the Pokemon classification I've given to DonFerrari).

Does it make sense to you? Or do you have a different perspective?

Well it should be that practically every game on the planet has all of the dimensions A to E, shouldn't it?

Nearly every, if not every, game should be able to be defined in those 5 attributes (what you call dimensions):

controls
environment
structure
objective
content

And your Pokemon example did this, didn't it?

I'm not objecting to anything, I'm just trying to get a clear picture of your taxonomy method.

Did you come up with any of those 5 categories (dimensions) and 12 sub-dimensions by yourself at all or is it taken from some existing universal method to define game structure?