What is a game?

[space boy]

My personal definition:

Game - an activity that is both fun and challenging.

Fun means that it makes me want to continue doing it.
Challenging means that it tests my skills or abilities.
No more attributes are required for the activity to be a game.
If you take away either of those attributes the activity stops being a game.



         



So, what do you call a game?

[ildu]

Painting is an activity I find fun and challenging. Is that a game? What about web designing, writing, cooking, sowing, etc.? Is sex a game ?

[scotch]

(Edit: I basically agree with ildu, that your definition is too broad.)

A never ending question in game studies... it's a difficult one because it's so clouded by semantics. In every day usage the word refers to so many different things that any definition can be argued with. I think you're right to ask what people think of as a game, rather than what IS a game. I wouldn't personally disagree with either of your conditions, but I would add more, because it's a very broad definition that includes a lot of things I don't consider games.

A lot of people would add another set to that venn diagram, the requirement that there should be a responsive adversary (be it algorithmic, or human). A crossword is both fun and challenging, but you don't "play" a crossword, you solve it, so most people differentiate between puzzles and games in their definitions. So the question is if you consider a crossword a game. I wouldn't.

Another popular and related one is the requirement for an uncertain outcomes. That's pretty much a given if you include the adversary one, because the things you do will be reacted to, presenting you with different paths. If the progression is always forward towards a defined goal state then many people wouldn't call it a game. Is sudoku a game? Not to me, but I think this condition is redundant.

Most people would require an agreed ruleset. Your day may have been fun and challenging, but there wasn't a well defined ruleset, or a win condition, or a scoring system. I find that requirement important.

Another set people like to differentiate is competition (like a 100m sprint). Sure, it has other players, and rules, it is often fun, and generally challenging, but because the players can't influence each other, most people don't consider them games. I think this one is covered in the reacting adversary condition.

So for me it comes down to: challenging, agreed ruleset, reactively adversarial, participated in for entertainment.

The last bit can go if we want to take an extremely broad view of games and say large components of our every day lives are in fact games, but that isn't what I personally think of when I think "game".


The interesting thing is when I look at certain things like linear, story based adventure games, even though I call them games (probably because they run on a computer, they come on cds like other computer games, I play them for fun, they look like games), they just don't fit. Something like Monkey Island is a lot more like Sudoku than Chess. It proceeds through a sequence of set puzzles, solved with logic, or luck, and very little in there is a response to my actions. Should I stop calling them games?

That said, there are some parts in "adventure games" which I would consider games, and most "computer games", in any genre, are a conglomeration of puzzles, games, narrative, social aspects, artworks... it's not necessarily a good approach to look at them and say that on the whole "this is a game" or "this isn't a game". They're variety shows, and one of the things they often employ is games.

[Anym]

I very much like Greg Costikyan's definition in I Have No Words & I Must Design in which he first distinguishes games from puzzles (static), toys (no goals) and stories (linear) before stating:

A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal.

And then going on to explain what that entails. If the definition sounds a bit wobbly on its own, it's because of some assumptions made in the rest of the document not explicitly stated here. Nevertheless, I find it an interesting read and recommend it to everyone.

Note that according to this definition most adventure games are just a combination of a (linear) story with lots of puzzles and not games, like scotch already suggested. Not that there's anything wrong with that. An adventure game probably has more in common with a movie and a sudoku than with chess, but that's OK since those things can also be enjoyable.

Of course, one might argue that if something is constantly being referred to as a game that doesn't fit the above definition of a game then the definition should be changed rather than the use of the term. On the other hand, most adventure games can easily be described as "story with puzzles" without having to use the term "game", something that's much more difficult to do for other games like chess.

I also like scotch's definition, which sounds more natural, but I think is overall very similar to the above one with "challenging" being implicit in (non-trivial) decision making, "agreed rules" implying a goal (and a goal in turn implying a set of rules) and "reactively adversarial" being largely equivalent to what Mr. Costikyan broadly refers to as opposition (what it is that forces the player to make decisions to achieve their goal).

Regarding space boy's definition I'd also say that it's too broad as it's lacking those attributes. Furthermore, I'm not happy with the set of fun activities summarily labeled as "toys", because many fun (reading,...) can hardly be labeled as such and because games aren't be a subset of toys (see above).

[LUniqueDan]

Interesting thread Spaceboy! I think the difference between the posts are just a question of optical. Spaceboy graphx is more about feelings research by someone who already plays something.

If I followed the posts, and adding my point, the schemata starts looking like that :


(Don't move this to the Critique Lounge, please) 

I removed the fun factor : I believe you can be in presence of a 'game' without it. Expressions such like 'political game', and 'mind game' will fit better.

I don't know really how to fill all the colors. Maybe it's a failure of that schemata. What/ where can you fill into it? Does it matters if it's unfillable (exemple : pink)?

EDIT : Anym, tnx for the link.

[Meowster]

[Hudders]

Interesting thread Spaceboy! I think the difference between the posts are just a question of optical. Spaceboy graphx is more about feelings research by someone who already plays something.

If I followed the posts, and adding my point, the schemata starts looking like that :

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w128/danthedanuniquely/game.png
(Don't move this to the Critique Lounge, please) 

I removed the fun factor : I believe you can be in presence of a 'game' without it. Expressions such like 'political game', and 'mind game' will fit better.

I don't know really how to fill all the colors. Maybe it's a failure of that schemata. What/ where can you fill into it? Does it matters if it's unfillable (exemple : pink)?

EDIT : Anym, tnx for the link.

How do you differentiate games from sport in your schema?

[blueskirt]

The interesting thing is when I look at certain things like linear, story based adventure games, even though I call them games (probably because they run on a computer, they come on cds like other computer games, I play them for fun, they look like games), they just don't fit. Something like Monkey Island is a lot more like Sudoku than Chess. It proceeds through a sequence of set puzzles, solved with logic, or luck, and very little in there is a response to my actions. Should I stop calling them games?

Personally I think it's the opposite sometimes, linear and story heavy adventure games with little puzzle or decision to make give me the impression I'm simply watching a movie or an animation. When most of what I have to do is walking around and discussing with characters, I wonder if it wouldn't fit better in another media form.

The first half of Ben Jordan 4 is a good example of this, where the 50 first points involved talking with people and talking with them again to see if a new conversation subjects appeared. Somehow, the puzzle heavy Ben Jordan 3 had more to do with games than Ben Jordan 4.

[Meowster]

It's really obvious what a game is, I can't believe this even needs to be discussed. Can't you put your energy into discussing more important things?

I mean really, even if you came up with some definitive formula for what EXACT combination of circles on a graph define WHAT A GAME IS, is that going to be useful to anybody? Has anybody ever been stressed out because they don't know if what they're making falls into the video game genre, board game genre or plastic toy genre???

Also this thread started off badly when you forgot to even define whether or not you meant VIDEO games, or just games in general. Like Hopskotch.


This is academic wankery at it's worst.

[Erenan]

Sometimes people discuss things not because they need to be discussed but rather because they enjoy it. For some people, such discussions are kind of like a game or a puzzle.

[Meowster]

Some puzzles are shit and pointless.

[space boy]

Thanks for the link Anym!

Furthermore, I'm not happy with the set of fun activities summarily labeled as "toys", because many fun (reading,...) can hardly be labeled as such and because games aren't be a subset of toys (see above).

You're right, there probably should be a different collective term for the "only fun" activities. But toys aren't represented in that diagram as a subset of games.

Painting is an activity I find fun and challenging. Is that a game? What about web designing, writing, cooking, sowing, etc.? Is sex a game ?

First of all sowing is not really what I would call challenging and fun. And what's challenging about sex? As for the rest, I guess under the right conditions(setting goals, scoring) they could be considered games.

A lot of people would add another set to that venn diagram, the requirement that there should be a responsive adversary (be it algorithmic, or human). A crossword is both fun and challenging, but you don't "play" a crossword, you solve it, so most people differentiate between puzzles and games in their definitions. So the question is if you consider a crossword a game. I wouldn't.

Whether puzzles are games probably depends on personal interpretation. A puzzle could be considered a type of game. Solving a puzzle would mean playing a game that tests problem solving skills.

(if you don't know micropul - http://neutralbox.com/micropul/index.html)

Another popular and related one is the requirement for an uncertain outcomes. That's pretty much a given if you include the adversary one, because the things you do will be reacted to, presenting you with different paths. If the progression is always forward towards a defined goal state then many people wouldn't call it a game. Is sudoku a game? Not to me, but I think this condition is redundant.

The interesting thing is when I look at certain things like linear, story based adventure games, even though I call them games (probably because they run on a computer, they come on cds like other computer games, I play them for fun, they look like games), they just don't fit. Something like Monkey Island is a lot more like Sudoku than Chess. It proceeds through a sequence of set puzzles, solved with logic, or luck, and very little in there is a response to my actions. Should I stop calling them games?

If non-linearity was a neccesary condition then most computer games wouldn't be considered games.

Most people would require an agreed ruleset. Your day may have been fun and challenging, but there wasn't a well defined ruleset, or a win condition, or a scoring system. I find that requirement important.

Good point. As I said above that's probably what's missing in my definition. A ruleset that describes the goal and restrictions.

Another set people like to differentiate is competition (like a 100m sprint). Sure, it has other players, and rules, it is often fun, and generally challenging, but because the players can't influence each other, most people don't consider them games. I think this one is covered in the reacting adversary condition.

If you have a challenge and more than one player then competition is going to emerge naturally. Even if the players can't influence each other they may compete for the highest score(tetris, shooting range) or the fastest time in completing a challenge (jigsaw puzzles, 100m sprint). Challenge + many people = competition.

LUniqueDan: I don't agree about removing the fun from games. If something is to stay in games then it's the entertainment part. What you call opposition is probably the same as challenge in my definition. Goal and rules should be one element, like Anym said one implies the other.

Meowster: knowing what makes a game(and what makes a good game) can help game designers focus on the essential stuff. Even if we don't come up with a final definition and even if some people think it's really obvious what a game is, at least we exchange some ideas which may be helpful or even eye opening when designing our own games. And I meant games in general.

Also if it's obvious to you it should be no problem to put bingo and dungeons and dragons(both commonly refered to as games) under one clear definition(that is if your interest in this topic goes beyond stating how useless you find it).

[Erenan]

I agree with scotch's post, mostly, although I do think there needn't be so much distinction between games and other similar things, such as puzzles. If anything, I think puzzles, such as Sudoku, are more fundamental logical constructs that can be used as elements of a game. Chess, for example, is an elaborate conglomeration of logical constructs. It's difficult to understand, but at its most fundamental levels it's a rather mechanistic and, dare I say, deterministic organism. Some of the competitive gamelike elements of Chess come either from external arbitrations, such as psychological manipulations and time constraints, or from the players' inabilities to grasp fully the logical and mechanical implications of the rules and moves.

[MrColossal]

It's really obvious what a game is, I can't believe this even needs to be discussed. Can't you put your energy into discussing more important things?

No one is forcing you to read or respond to this thread. If you don't like it, ignore it.

[LimpingFish]

This is academic wankery at it's worst.

I like academic wankery. Well, I like wankery in general...

Although, it has to be said, "What is a game?" is far too broad a question to answer in any definite way beyond referring to Random House...

game /geɪm/ noun, adjective.

1. an amusement or pastime.
2. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

...etc.

A far more interesting(?) debate, would include, say, discussing a video game as a contained single-person experience...

Player identification and/or response.
Suspension of Disbelief.
The benefit/handicap of the Fourth Wall.
Etc.

Certainly wankerific in nature, but at least a little more focused. And/or useful.

But dissecting the mechanics of Chess or the psychological minute involved in solving a crossword? Meh.

[Meowster]

It's really obvious what a game is, I can't believe this even needs to be discussed. Can't you put your energy into discussing more important things?

No one is forcing you to read or respond to this thread. If you don't like it, ignore it.

similarly, nobody is being forced to respond to my post, and many people clearly don't like it and have chosen to ignore it. I just find that this thread is not only pretentious and pointless, but also doesn't even phrase the question very well.

when you post things on the internet for discussion and debate, some people aren't going to like what you say. then they'll probably respond. I read this, and it annoyed me, and I responded to it as such. since it was posted on the internet, I'm sure the thread starter won't be terribly surprised that someone, somewhere, didn't like it.

[scotch]

Yufster, I think if you studied what people have written about games you'd realise quite how important it can be to you, as a designer, to get even basic ideas clear in your head.  (I must admit, I found the diagrams comical though.)

While this particular question is very simple, and not too helpful on the face of it, it's usually intended to get you thinking about identifying aspects of games are fundementally important, and it's far, far from "academic wankery", for those that are interested in designing games with some idea of what they are doing.

It's quite naive, in my opinion, to assume that we all know what makes a game, that any detailed consideration is a waste of time, because it's so intuitive and simple. It's not. It's sad to me that games aren't yet respected as an area of study, even among people that respect games.  I'm pretty sure you wouldn't criticise an illustrator for trying to identify rules of image construction. But everyone knows what a drawing is, right? What a bunch of wankers! Artwork, music, writing, programming all have deep academic roots, to their benefit, and I think game design is complicated enough to deserve the same treatment.

I don't know if academia will ultimately be a large driving force towards better games, but you already see people applying ideas from it in real productions. For me, it would be nice if we can rely less on the intuition, iteration, and imitation formulas for game design, because it's clear to me there's a hell of a lot of ineffectual game design about.

[space boy]

I'm sure the thread starter won't be terribly surprised that someone, somewhere, didn't like it.

I'm not surprised at all. I bet you're not the only one who doesn't like it. Everyone has their own way to deal with it. Some people ignore it, others draw genitalia. I just explained you the benefits I see in such a discussion. I like to approach "obvious" stuff from a philosophical point of view and i'm perfectly aware this is not everybodys thing. I'm happy there were at least some people who showed interest.

Also anyone who thinks the question is too vague or dull or whatever is free to steer the discussion in a more interesting direction or just let the topic die.

[Meowster]

Right scotch, but an illustrator demonstrating image construction would not ask the question "what is a picture?".

And then illustrate what a picture is using a series of interconnected circles.

I read a lot about what people write about games, I still disagree with the object of this thread. There are some clever things being said, but also some wanky things. And discussing the definition of what a video game is, isn't going to help people make good ones. It's just going to stop them from accidentally making a board game, or a non-game, or maybe accidentally baking a fun cake.

[space boy]

Right scotch, but an illustrator demonstrating image construction would not ask the question "what is a picture?".

http://people.csail.mit.edu/fredo/ArtAndScienceOfDepiction/3_WhatIsAPicture/Image.pdf