What is a Game?

[Shannon Drake]

This was going around on the ARG mailing list I'm on and I thought it was something that'd be perfect for this crowd. Don your beret and ponder this over the weekend.

From the Game of the Gods:

What is a game after all?

To understand the question, we must first come to terms with the fact that all things have the potential of achieving game-like status, and that therefore those games we play within this grand and encompassing game can be as varied and diverse and yet as undeniably linked by common elements as are the people of this planet. Some games are based entirely on luck. An automaton could play these games. They may be a waste of time. Some games are made up of a dense and solid strategy construct. These games, though interesting from a purely mathematical viewpoint, are also easily mastered by the appropriate program. Other games are too short and simple. These are often brief and without stimulation. There is no experience here. Still other games are much too complicated with rules governing even the simplest occurrence with laws more complex that those that govern our true reality. These never-ending sagas are not games. They are separate lives.



It is not that game playing is bad. Quite the contrary, game playing is good. But a game should have certain qualities. It should reflect reality, though exude an originality that is both curious and interesting. It should posses a simple and smooth running system of mechanics that functions as the clockwork governing the evolution of a multitude of complex and unpredictable situations. As in life skill and luck should both play certain factors in the events that take place. In short, the game should be as simple and complicated and complete in itself as our reality appears to be. For what is a game after all if not an opportunity to escape temporarily to an alternate world? It is a place to exercise the useful skills of decision making and problem solving in an environment that challenges the individual in untraditional ways. The game is a place where the individual can safely practice teamwork and camaraderie and also harmlessly act out anger and aggressions and occasionally even deceit and deception if one may so have the desire. In this way the game is an intellectual, creative, and social outlet whether we are aware of it or not.

These are appropriately high standards for a game, and some may fairly argue that it is taking game playing a little too seriously. After all, we have nearly missed the most important quality a game must posses: It's gotta be fun.

 

[Bongo Bill]

I say, if it's entertainment based around rules, even if the rules are nebulous (ie Calvinball), then it is, among other things, a game.

 

[Pat M.]

A MISERABLE LITTLE PILE OF SECRETS!

 

[wyrmwood [deprecated]]

I'd say anything that is enjoyable, and done for its own sake.

 

[LemmingX]

While that definition has definite merits, such as its focus on the interactive, I have to say I feel that it is somewhat incomplete.

The definition offered in the e-mail seems to suggest that the primary defining characteristic of games is the offer of escape into an alternate reality. While it seems somewhat sacreligious to suggest so on a site called The Escapist, I would argue that escapism is not the primary characteristic of a game. After all, escapism is a term that has existed far longer than video games have, and almost all other forms of artistic expression, from painting to literature, can claim to offer the same out-of-body experience. Is the unique factor of gaming interactivity, then? Perhaps, but many performance artists have created works in which the audience plays an extremely active, even the central role in the piece. Performance art is certainly not gaming. Personally, I feel that the unique structure of games can be summed up in a single word: emergence.

Emergence is a word that was thrown around a lot in the early days of physics engines, when developers were realizing for the first time that puzzles and gameplay elements could be built directly into the game's "world". I use the term, however, to mean simply that the end outcome of a game is determined wholly by its internal system, whatever that may be.

The problem with the definition of the game as shown in the original post is that it rules out a great deal of non-videogame-games. The goal of something like Parcheesi, for example, is most certainly not anything to do with the "reflection of reality". Also, the definition excludes games with limited or no interactivity. Frankly, when I open Garry's Mod, and set up a massive fight between Combine soldiers and ant-lions, I consider myself playing a game. Similarly, in the real world, people betting on cockfights most likely consider themselves as participating in a game, despite the fact that they have no effect on the outcome. I can remember when my friends and I would spend our time with the original Super Smash Brothers not jamming buttons on a controller, but betting on the outcome of four computer-controlled Yoshis battling each other with hammers. This style of games holds interest not because it is a way of playing assisted make-believe. It captures the imagination because both the outcome, and the method of that outcome, are unknown.

The ability to transport a person to a different reality, the ability to evoke emotions and feelings and the ability to test the mettle and reflexes of the human body are all characteristics of video games, and games in general. However, all of these characteristics can be found in other, non-game media. The uniqueness of games is the continual uncertainty caused by their embedded nature in a system. This system can be almost anything, as Bongo Bill pointed out. It can be a chessboard, a football field, a fighting ring, or even a piece of computer software.

 

[dosboot]

I use the term, however, to mean simply that the end outcome of a game is determined wholly by its internal system, whatever that may be.

That's not quite a definition though. I mean, are you saying that a game is anything with an outcome which is wholly determined by its internal system?

 

[LemmingX]

I use the term, however, to mean simply that the end outcome of a game is determined wholly by its internal system, whatever that may be.

That's not quite a definition though. I mean, are you saying that a game is anything with an outcome which is wholly determined by its internal system?

That plus observation could easily be a game. Might not be very fun, depending on the system.

 

[dosboot]

I think though that you need interactivity somewhere. Are movies and starcraft replays 'games'? The outcome of those things are determined by their internal systems (the later having a much more transparent system). Your definition does consider 4 computer yoshis as a game, but I don't think it should be considered a game if there is no betting.

 

[Wickedshot]

In the scenario of betting on something, the betting is a game of chance, the thing they are betting on could be whether it'll rain tomorrow or not, or whether they'll discover that 5*6+5/3+7*12-9*1234 will be greater or less than 30000. The thing they're betting on doesn't have to be a game, the game is the betting.

I won't try to define games, since i believe in relative definitions for everything, and so from the perspective of games, everything is a game (which then makes it rather hard to define games).

But, i'd say your best bet of defining games such that most people would agree, would be to try to find some element that exists in every thing that most people can agree is a game (though i am of the opinion that that will do more to define the collectives relative basis, via the terms in which you define games). Like every game has players, and an environment of some sort.

 

[infernomatic]

Game = Life.

 

[Chris Franklin]

These are appropriately high standards for a game, and some may fairly argue that it is taking game playing a little too seriously. After all, we have nearly missed the most important quality a game must posses: It's gotta be fun.

First of all, I'm going to throw this argument out because it makes the classic "games need to be fun by definition" fallacy. A subjective measure like "fun" has no place in a legitimate discussion of what defines a game.

Additionally, I'm going to have to agree with LemmingX and say that this sounds like they're more interested in creating a self-contained alternate reality than working with games in the abstract.

My working definition of "game" would be no more specific than a subset of interactive systems. Anything more specific and you start excluding things that are traditionally defined as games.

 

[Jeroen Stout]

These are appropriately high standards for a game, and some may fairly argue that it is taking game playing a little too seriously. After all, we have nearly missed the most important quality a game must posses: It's gotta be fun.

I hear this a lot, but I wouldn't agree that a game 'has to be fun'. I've played games which I found gastly, but was terribly addicted to (a certain snake clone). It was a game, but it sure wasn't fun to play, just addicting.

Also, if you look at films, there certainly are films which aren't 'fun'. Why would games always have to be fun? The whole 'must be fun' angle is, for a part, what makes a lot of games rather bland in my eyes. "Why would people play them if they're not fun?" Because there are other factors that make someone play a game than it being fun. I can watch the film "Memento" without it being 'fun', and the same could happen with games.

 

[Russ Pitts]

"Why would people play them if they're not fun?" Because there are other factors that make someone play a game than it being fun. I can watch the film "Memento" without it being 'fun', and the same could happen with games.

That's a good point, but don't you think the "active participation" factor of gaming makes fun a higher priority? I, too, can watch a challenging or saddening movie and enjoy the experience, but I often find that games lacking high fun factors don't motivate me to turn on the machine and pick up the controller.

 

[Jeroen Stout]

"Why would people play them if they're not fun?" Because there are other factors that make someone play a game than it being fun. I can watch the film "Memento" without it being 'fun', and the same could happen with games.

That's a good point, but don't you think the "active participation" factor of gaming makes fun a higher priority? I, too, can watch a challenging or saddening movie and enjoy the experience, but I often find that games lacking high fun factors don't motivate me to turn on the machine and pick up the controller.

Perhaps, but it could also be that that is just not how you expect games to be. Most movies have the 'active enjoyment' factor in them, gag every now and then, most people don't like being sad because of a movie.
I can't immediately think of a way to make something like Lost in Translation into a game, but there aren't any games of such a type yet. But I do think that it is possible, albeit unknown, therefore still unpopular and hard to imagine being good.

 

[gjkdioepppp]

i come from a future world were were gears of war has a sequel and jeremy beadle and george carlin have both died!

 

[spuddyt]

"I lose"

 

[geldonyetich]

Defining what's a game is a tough one, especially for game designers.

When I read Raph Koster's Theory of Fun [http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Game-Design-Raph-Koster/dp/1932111972], a game emerged as being essentially a learning exercise. You master it, then you're done. It becomes the developers' challenge to develop a game that challenges the players just right for as long as possible.

When I read Jesse Schell's The Art Of Game Design [http://artofgamedesign.com/], he has a long drawn out discussion about exactly what a game is throughout the perpetuity of Chapter 3. He eventually concludes (somewhat inconclusively) that a game is, "a problem-solving activity, approached with a playful attitude."

So, looking at these two definitions, it's not really fair to say a MMORPG is not a game because of the time investment involved -- MMORPGs generally contain several games, whether they be challenges or problem-solving activities. If a MMORPG is guilty of anything, it's that they often endeavor to keep the player longer than the challenge is worth to keep milking that monthly subscription money. It seems to me the original quote from Shannon Drake has nothing to do with games but MMORPGs in general as being evil in this regard and, to be quite honest, I agree: no game should try to keep you after its value has worn off. Per usual, when money talks and developers listen, people suffer.

What is my personal experience as to what a game is? Well, my experience is primarily with computer games, which are a very small subsection of games, but I often think of them in terms of being fascinating virtual experiences where the rules of reality are temporarily repurposed in such a way as to create an enthralling exercise of the imagination. Putting that into practice, of course, is a tad tougher.

 

[CoverYourHead]

I agree with a lot of standards you have placed on a game, although I think a lot of what gamers qualify as a game is if it is entertaining for a period of time that a person feels they got their money's worth.

And throwing my personal two cents in, I think KOTOR is a true game if anything is.