What is a game?

[scotch]

Actually they would It's a very good place to start. Surely an adult who is thinking about art and reading the question knows they aren't asking what a picture physically is, but the idea of starting from that point is to get under some assumptions and try breaking things apart for study.

The question "What is a game?" is a very common one (In fact it's the title of a few of the lectures I had early on in Games Studies, and they were some of the most useful, imo). It does seem kind of stupid if you read it in a casual sense, but I don't think it's a bad question.

Discussing what a video game is alone isn't going to get anyone making a better one... sure... but it does tend to give you some ideas for how to approach and critique your own designs, at least it does help me.

I'm not sure what parts you consider wankery, but I'd rather a bit of wankery sometimes than people avoiding thinking.

Edit: On topic: when it comes to game definitions, I found this one interesting, by Jesper Juul - Looking for a Heart of Gameness because it doesn't explicitly require an adversary. It has 6 rules, but as far as I can tell, by his definition, a running race is a game, which is where it differs from my opinion. He's quite a respected guy though, so who cares what I think!

[Meowster]

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

It pains me greatly to think there are people in the world who need to be told what a picture is.

[Nikolas]

You do understand that by trying to define something, you always attempt to take it a step further, right? It's not really that somebody doesn't know what a game, or picture, or maybe music is. But discussing brings new ideas, and analysing helps in better creative force...

[space boy]

It pains me greatly to think there are people in the world who need to be told what a picture is.

You know you're talking about people from MIT, right? And you know what pains me? That there are people who don't know how to use google and start a topic asking people to look for them. You really shouldn't be lecturing me about what a useful topic is, ok? Let's try and keep further posts ontopic.

[LimpingFish]

I refuse to give more than a cursory glance to such a long document which doesn't even seem to take a break to tell a good "My dog has no nose..." joke.

I'm convinced there must be a way to discuss such matters without resulting in a comatose audience. Although we have yet to find it.

Having said that, anybody who feels my previous definition of what a game is (via Random House) is insufficent, really has too much time on their hands, or is simply content to waste valuble brain energy on talking about games rather than making them.

In my own humble opinion of academia of this sort, Jesper's theory really only exists to make Jesper's peers stroke their Van Dyck's, while formulating their own boring counter-theory. Or to expand upon earlier mastubatory references; An academic circle jerk.

An overabundance of such cosmic malarkey takes up valuble brain space, and really isn't going to help you improve that key-in-lock puzzle or design your HL2 deathmatch map.

Or is it?

...

No.

[Meowster]

It pains me greatly to think there are people in the world who need to be told what a picture is.

You know you're talking about people from MIT, right? And you know what pains me? That there are people who don't know how to use google and start a topic asking people to look for them. You really shouldn't be lecturing me about what a useful topic is, ok? Let's try and keep further posts ontopic.

Shush shush, calm down. I'm disagreeing with how useful your post is, it's not the end of the world. You won't die. Nothing will explode.

It doesn't matter where those people are from. They could be from Trinity College Dublin or from Cambridge Uni or Bristol or UCSC, it wouldn't make me automatically agree with them just because they have a swanky looking uni. In fact, that'd make me automatically more apprehensive that they're the type of person who'll spend more time waffling and less time doing.

Saying "You realise they're from the MIT RIGHT?!??" sounds kind of silly.

I see plenty of people in the industry like you, and they're very good at getting into good positions and talking at conferences and being quoted... but when it comes to actually making a game, it's pretty obvious they're all talk and don't really have an idea of what makes a game good, because they spend all their time talking theoretical bollocks and not enough time playing games and learning from the victories and mistakes of other designers. Usually those people are the ones that every else in the studio hates.

Anyway I can see I'm winding people up so I'll just go over here now and you can continue your highly useful debate... and when it's over I'll read back through it and see what you've all learned from it.

[scotch]

Ugh, LimpingFish If it's so boring to you, don't bother with it, but I find it both interesting and useful. And yes, ideas from games academia have helped me improve game ideas.

You're not the kind of person I'd expect to barge in just to take a swipe at someone else's conversation. It's useless ego stroking bollocks you don't find useful, right, I think we've had that point covered enough now.

Juul's done some interesting stuff, and although that document isn't terribly important but there were a few interesting ideas to me. Sorry to disappoint the audience so much... I wasn't aware we were performing here.

[LUniqueDan]

Hudders :

How do you differentiate games from sport in your schema?

I don't : Those are games. 'Hockey games' , 'Baseball games' etc... That I don't find Fun or challenging. So I just don't compete nor watch others doing so.

Spaceboy last graph are a good attemps to define the differences between games 'sub-directory'.

Spaceboy :

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.

I agree 100% with that principle creating or playing a game. I maintain that's not a pre-requisite to 'something' to get classified under the name 'game'. 'challenge' and 'fun' are 1st person feelings, that can get applied to game you or I like. But chess is a game anyway, even when I played against my 7 yr-old cousin. And baseball too. The question was 'What is a game'.

Now inside 'game' that's a different thing. I like your graph, but, because 'puzzle' are pre-requisite, I do think that categorization will maybe need a 'table' diag.

Cheers.

EDIT:
Meowster
I just won't comment.

[LimpingFish]

I do see your point, Scotch, and of course I enjoy playing devil's advoc-arse once in a while.

I'm not saying you can't be taught, or teach, game theory (from Tic-Tac-Toe to Crysis) on such a grand scale. What I'm saying is that such theory is superfluous to the needs of being taught, or teaching, video game theory.

There is a lot more useful, imho, facets to video game design that people could benefit from, without bloating things up with somebody's thesis on the psychological mental nuances experienced between two chess players.

Again, I'm not saying that one can't benefit from such thesis and theory, I just think a potential game designer might be better directing their energy elsewhere.

Video Game Design 101 should begin with "What is a Video Game?" not "What is a Game?". Analyze the mental responses of two Pong players, if one really must, or the psychology involved in a game of Minesweeper. Starting further back along the evolutionary scale of the "game" doesn't necessarily mean there is anymore to learn that couldn't be found by starting back in 1972.

Of course, there's no harm in it either. It's just not what I would consider...necessary.

EDIT: I actually took the time to read the earlier linked article by Greg Costigan. Although I may not fully agree with Costigan on several issues, he raises a number of interesting and, imo anyway, more immediately relevant points.

EDIT: Of course, we could broach the subject of "What is a Video Game?" by discussing the various ways they replicate "real life" activities (Pong vs actual table tennis) and the function they therefore serve.

[space boy]

LUniqueDan: When I try to determine what I find most important in a game I usually do it from my point of view. So if I don't find something fun nor challenging I don't call it a game, even if others do. Gaming is quite obviously a subjective experience even if more than one person participate in one game. An objective definition would just describe the mechanical parts of a game leaving out subjective sensations which I think is more important.

LimpingFish: As far as the difference between "normal" games and video games, there is none for me. Video games just make use of the possibilities of computers but the fundamental concept is the same as for non-computer games. Also scotch apparently recognized I was reffering to games in general as he was talking about Chess aswell as Monkey Island and didn't say "you didn't specify whether you mean video games only or games in general!". That's just as relevant as asking whether I talk about Mac or PC games. Also I started with a very broad and modest definition to leave people space for their own interpretations and extensions and so they could share what they think is most important in games(which some people did). With time we would/will get to the most important points. A discussion is supposed to be dynamic, but unfortunately there are people who, instead of contributing in an intelligent manner, prefer to bombard the subject with their angry rants.

Meowster: Generalizations are no argument. Just hold your judgement of my game creations skills until I have actually released a game. Then you are free to tear it apart. And yes, I do play lots of games(I have actually recently taken a break from working on my game and started playing more as I felt kind of uninspired and burnt out). If you want to count all the theoretical game discussions I have ever had just find the topics I started on this forum. Experience in gaming is very important indeed but I like to put stuff in numbers and graphs as I think displaying something graphically can sometimes reveal things that weren't aparent when only playing games. Practice is just as important as theory. If you want to talk about things that you find important in games, do so, but don't act like an angry brat.

[Hudders]

I cant see either of Space Boy's images; I'm just seeing black boxes of eternal night.

I figured the first one was some kind of ironic statement and ignored it. Turns out that's not the case.

[Andail]

Scotch, funny, I came across a lot of Jesper Juul's texts about game studies when I wrote my thesis on how computer games affect people's learning.

Other people to keep an eye on are:
Arnseth (not to be confused with Aarseth, who's incidently also a prominent game studies writer.)
Squire
Roger Callois (with his book Les Jeux and le Hommes, can't remember the English title right now)
Egenfeldt-Nielsen
And if you're Swedish (or can find anything translated, which I doubt) Jonas Linderoth.

Very interesting reading, all of them.

[Nikolas]

One thing I'm not sure it's been mentioned earlier in the thread is that games apparantely are limited to entertainement, and with the exception of educational games, they seem to serve no beneficial purpose (at least to the adults mind). And games are intended for children mostly, and not adults, no matter if we keep playing (but then again we keep making them as well).

I don't believe in the above paragraph, and sure enough almost every game has positive outcomes, as it's been discussed before in these forums, but still in the minds of the general population:

sports: excersize, sharpen the minds, reflexes, communication, social advancement, etc...
(Video) games: no excersize (which stands true for VG but not games), no sharpening of the mind, reflexes yes, no communication and no social advancement, since all games are perceived to be played solo in front of your screen, no matter the broadband running behind...

furthermore the chances of making money out of playing sports appear to be quite a lot, when the same cannot be said about games / Video Games.

Again, for me, all the above are bollox. simple enough playing games and VG can get you a career (as it happens to quite a few people here), reflexes and communication and social behaviour come from here the very forums, and multiplayer games, and excersize... well... Wii is here as well, so it does add a bit of excersize, but it is one thing that VG are missing...

Very interesting thread Spaceboy!

[cobra79]

I'm not saying you can't be taught, or teach, game theory (from Tic-Tac-Toe to Crysis) on such a grand scale. What I'm saying is that such theory is superfluous to the needs of being taught, or teaching, video game theory.

Off-topic:
I just wanted to point out that the term "game theory" as it is used today has nothing to do with games how we understand them, and how you try to categorize them.
It is used to analyze situations in which rational decision makers try to maximize their utility functions while "playing" against each other.

Edit: Yeah sorry I guess the smart ass in me broke through. 

[MrColossal]

http://www.kongregate.com/games/pixelate/understanding-games-episode-1
http://www.kongregate.com/games/pixelate/understanding-games-episode-2
http://www.kongregate.com/games/pixelate/understanding-games-episode-3
http://www.kongregate.com/games/pixelate/understanding-games-episode-4

I thought these were neat if somewhat basic but sometimes putting simple things into simpler terms helps think about things differently.

[Andail]

Cobra, yes, that's why we use the term game studies here

[blueskirt]

LUniqueDan: When I try to determine what I find most important in a game I usually do it from my point of view. So if I don't find something fun nor challenging I don't call it a game, even if others do. Gaming is quite obviously a subjective experience even if more than one person participate in one game. An objective definition would just describe the mechanical parts of a game leaving out subjective sensations which I think is more important.

The problem with such thinking is that it means absolutly nothing really. Even if your definition of a car is something that goes real fast and your definition of a movie is something that is fun to watch, cars that are slow are still cars and movies that aren't fun to watch are still movies, no matter what you say. Not only this, but "fun + challenge" worth absolutly nothing on an educationnal level. If we ask what a pie is and what are the fundamental ingredients for a pie and someone reply "Pies are good and sweet, they are made of something good and sweet" well, we're not really more advanced, and it will help absolutly nobody to improve their pie cooking skill.

I liked the article from the link Anym posted, but I think the guy is way off about story, toy and puzzle. A game isn't half or 10% of a game because it contains or lacks puzzles, plot or sandbox aspects, like he says about Zork. As long a game presents 5 or 6 of the elements he mentions below (decision, goal, opposition, ressource management...) then it's a game IMO.

[LimpingFish]

I feel I should point out that, indeed, I have been referring to Game Studies (thank you, Andail) rather than the larger subject of Game Theory (as defined here), or Combinational Game Theory, (as defined here), and apologize for any confusion caused.

Regardless, I won't deny the benefits involved in studying such theories, in a general sense.

Both above theories deal with games involving two or more players, and as such (unless we stretch the term to allow substituting of AI players), have a limited bearing on single player games, or a person's releationship to the single player experience, which is largely what I would be interested in.

People with a similar interest might find useful articles here.

A theory I did find interesting is GNS Theory, developed by Ron Edwards, regarding how role-playing games work, and contained within his larger The Big Model system.

[space boy]

I cant see either of Space Boy's images; I'm just seeing black boxes of eternal night.

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z69/space_boy_album/bothgraphs.jpg

Nikolas: People who say that games are just for kids and provide no practical benefits beyond entertainment are simply ignorant. Games are probably the most natural way of learning and improving skills.

Blueskirt: You're right, a definition should be objective, but as a game designer you want to make games people enjoy and a technical description of what a game is does not ensure it will be good. What if a game has tokens, resources to manage and a goal if I find it annoying or boring?

Now looking at my definition, something that's fun and challenging for you might not be for others. But that's my point. In the first place you should make the game for yourself, not for others. If you make a game you like you're going to be more enthusiastic about it and put more effort in it. Going by impersonal descriptions, cloning succesful titles or studying surveys is not the way to design good games. My definition might not be encyclopedia material but from a design point of view it's certainly useful for me as it focuses on what I think is the essence of a good game. So even if the meaning of "fun" and "challenge" varies for everyone doesn't mean that the definition has no worth for a designer.

Both above theories deal with games involving two or more players, and as such (unless we stretch the term to allow substituting of AI players), have a limited bearing on single player games, or a person's releationship to the single player experience, which is largely what I would be interested in.

The discussion is about games in general, no matter if it's a single or multiplayer game. Just because game studies limits itself to multiplayer games doesn't mean we have to(in this discussion nobody did and nobody said we should do that). We can concentrate entirely on the single player experience if you want. Since I'm working on a singleplayer game myself I would also find that more interesting.

[LUniqueDan]

SpaceBoy :

LUniqueDan: When I try to determine what I find most important in a game I usually do it from my point of view.

Cool!
So, if I'm following you, your real question is :
"What is most important features in a game?"
(And it's a great question too)

But If so, can you just explain to me wtf your first graph have anything to do with that question? (precisely the 'Toy' and 'test' parts). And how do you applied it to?

So, finally you tell us, that YOU enjoy games who are Fun and challenging.

Cool!
Me too by the way.


Meowster:1 / Thread: 0.