A game by any other name

[CirclesAndDots]

As the title might imply, what's a game? That is, what allows us to unify seemingly disparate things like hopscotch and first-person shooters? Surely, seeking a universal definition to absolve us of our curiosity is a misguided endeavor. Creative society permits words the power to describe and denote experiences. It's not necessary that they seize them. So, in short, what's a satisfying working definition of 'game'? Or rather, what constitutes a game and what makes a game distinct from other artistic/entertainment media?

 

My bloated attempt at setting even the most basic of boundaries for what makes a game quickly descended into what must be gibberish. Regardless, I propose that a game is separate from other media because it actively resists its audience (the player or players). A game is at once suppressed (in terms of actions/development) but is ultimately only realized through player(s) activity. Reaction, as it exists from a consumer of music or film, is inert. Mozart's fifth symphony exists totally independent of consumer input, as does Scorsese's Goodfellas. Even if both were stuck on pause indefinitely and required input on a machine to continue, it would not be the kind of vital user input that a game prioritizes and is actualized through. (Interfacing with an object that delivers content to the consumer does not constitute interactivity with that content). Reaction in a game's space is a constructive process within it rather than a byproduct of its mere consumption.

 

Perhaps the differences between the various artistic media are obvious and I've only muddied the water. At any rate, as games, particularly video games, continue to diversify in form and function and gain commercial and cultural relevance, initiating a dialogue about them was in order.

 

 

 

 

 

[Delta1212]

A game has rules and an objective. Short and sweet.

[Gees]

A game has rules and an objective. Short and sweet.

This could describe vacuuming a carpet or going to war. Are those games too?

 

Gee

[swansont]

Competition and an objective way to rank performance/winning. If it's a physical activity we put it in a subcategory called sport, but if it's largely mental, we just call it a game.

[Delta1212]

This could describe vacuuming a carpet or going to war. Are those games too?

 

Gee

Last time I checked, vacuuming a carpet doesn't really have rules.

 

Whether war is a game or not is something I'd considered as being up for debate rather than clearly wrong,

Competition and an objective way to rank performance/winning. If it's a physical activity we put it in a subcategory called sport, but if it's largely mental, we just call it a game.

Is Solitaire not a game? I'd say that while competition is a frequent component of games, it's not a necessary one.

[swansont]

Is Solitaire not a game? I'd say that while competition is a frequent component of games, it's not a necessary one.

 

Competing against the cards.

[StringJunky]

A game is an activity with a challenging or competitive objective; whether against onself as a personal challenge, against others or against some device.

Vacuuming a carpet can be a game; one may challenge onself against the clock or attach challenging conditions on how it must be done, which may test ones ability in some way.

[John Cuthber]

I think that one of the important aspects of a game is that it doesn't really set out to achieve anything much except enjoyment.

(Rather like art).

[Delta1212]

I think that one of the important aspects of a game is that it doesn't really set out to achieve anything much except enjoyment.

(Rather like art).

That would somewhat undermine the whole concept of gameification, however.

 

Edit: And, in that vein, art has been created for a wide variety of ends that don't boil down to purely being about enjoyment.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Delta1212

[Gees]

Delta1212;

 

Last time I checked, vacuuming a carpet doesn't really have rules.

Whether war is a game or not is something I'd considered as being up for debate rather than clearly wrong,

 

Regarding the vacuuming, I would like to agree with you, but my Grandmother could numb your mind for hours about proper housekeeping -- vacuuming included. She thinks that we don't actually keep house anymore; we just neaten it and buy air fresheners.

 

Regarding war, I always lean toward experience, rather than armchair philosophy. People who actually participate in war do not call it a game.

 

Gee

[overtone]

A "game" has a defined set of players, initial conditions, and outcomes, the outcomes having different orders of preference among the players (a particular preference ordering is often the definition of a "player").

 

A war is commonly regarded as a move in a game, by the people who start it. That is often deemed, in hindsight, a mistake - partly because the outcome of a war is often not in the set of outcomes ostensibly defining the game for any player.

 

The long series of geopolitical maneuverings focused around Afghanistan and its neighbors have been known for centuries now as "The Great Game". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game

[Gees]

Overtone;

 

I can agree that The Great Game has players and that these players are involved in a political game. But I did not say "players", what I stated was "participants" in a war. The players are not in Afghanistan; the players are power brokers. Politics may be a game, but war is not. The participants in The Great Game's war are the Afghans and the soldiers. The participants would not call war a game, if you do not believe me, then go to any Veteran's Hospital and ask.

 

Swansont gave a very clear and concise definition of a game; String Junky also gave a good definition, as did the OP, but all of these definitions could explain work as well as a game. What is the difference? I suspect it is in the word, play. A game is played, but work is necessary.

 

I have seen actors on talk shows, who state that they are amazed that they can earn so much money by playing. On the other hand, I recently learned that the NFL has a trust fund set up for "players" who end up having their brains damaged in the "game". So the line between what is play, a game, and what is work, can be difficult to define.

 

Children play to learn; Peek-a-Boo is fun for a year or so; stacking blocks is fun until they get good at it. So learning, honing skills, competition and proving one's self, and social interaction or bonding are all reasons why we play games. I suspect that these reasons are at the root of the enjoyment that John Cuthber noted.

 

It looks to me as though the common factor is that a game serves an immediate subjective goal. Whereas work serves an objective goal, to produce, repair, design, or manipulate something, or to get paid to do it. Work has subjective value, but it is indirect, after the fact. So if this subjective goal was added to the definitions already stated, I think we would have a valid definition of a game.

 

Maybe? Thoughts?

 

Gee

 

 

[Eise]

Ludwig Wittgenstein was probably the first academic philosopher to address the definition of the word game. In his Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein argued that the elements of games, such as play, rules, and competition, all fail to adequately define what games are. From this, Wittgenstein concluded that people apply the term game to a range of disparate human activities that bear to one another only what one might call family resemblances. As the following game definitions show, this conclusion was not a final one and today many philosophers, like Thomas Hurka, think that Wittgenstein was wrong and that Bernard Suits' definition is a good answer to the problem.

...

to play a game is to engage in activity directed toward bringing about a specific state of affairs, using only means permitted by specific rules, where the means permitted by the rules are more limited in scope than they would be in the absence of the rules, and where the sole reason for accepting such limitation is to make possible such activity.

 

 

From Wikipedia.

But if Suits' definition really is enough... Shouldn't be a game voluntary?

[swansont]

 

I have seen actors on talk shows, who state that they are amazed that they can earn so much money by playing. On the other hand, I recently learned that the NFL has a trust fund set up for "players" who end up having their brains damaged in the "game". So the line between what is play, a game, and what is work, can be difficult to define.

 

Reminiscent of this very NSFW clip (language) from North Dallas Forty

[overtone]

The participants would not call war a game,

Neither would I.

 

I pointed out that the people who start wars often think of them as moves in a game - not games themselves, but moves. And usually they find themselves mistaken even in that, for the reasons noted.

 

As you correctly observe, these are usually different people than the participants in said war.

 

 

 

 

Swansont gave a very clear and concise definition of a game; String Junky also gave a good definition, as did the OP, but all of these definitions could explain work as well as a game.

My definition, in #11 first sentence, excludes most work from the "game" category.

 

Mine was technically derived, from the definition used in mathematical game theory. Notice the key factor of conflicting or inconsistent preference orders among a defined set of outcomes.

Edited February 10, 2015 by overtone

[Gees]

 

Reminiscent of this very NSFW clip (language) from North Dallas Forty

Swansont;

 

Exactly. In the clip when the player argues, "When I call it a game, you call it business, but when I call it business, you call it a game." I would bet good money that no matter who is speaking, when it is called a game, it is being considered from a subjective perspective; when it is called a business, it is being considered from an objective perspective.

 

Just like when the boss says, "Quit playing a game and get to work.", what he is actually saying is stop the activity that engages your interests (subjective) and start the activity that engages my interests (objective).

 

So in order for something to be a game, it needs to satisfy or address a subjective need or want. As Else noted, it also needs to be voluntary. Considering this, I am not sure that most video games actually qualify as games.

 

Gee

[swansont]

 

So in order for something to be a game, it needs to satisfy or address a subjective need or want. As Else noted, it also needs to be voluntary. Considering this, I am not sure that most video games actually qualify as games.

 

 

Why not? Isn't a video game voluntary and fulfilling a subjective need/want?

[Gees]

Neither would I.

 

I pointed out that the people who start wars often think of them as moves in a game - not games themselves, but moves. And usually they find themselves mistaken even in that, for the reasons noted.

 

As you correctly observe, these are usually different people than the participants in said war.

Overtone;

 

Agreed. Your example clearly showed the difference between playing a game, the politicians, and what was clearly not a game for the participants. We end up with the same clear distinctions. The politicians are involved in a voluntary activity that addresses a subjective want or need -- a game. The participants are involved in an involuntary activity that does not address their subjective needs or wants -- not a game.

 

I like the old ways better; give the leaders a couple of big sticks and let them beat each other until someone yells, "Uncle." Some people may call that barbaric, but I find it to be more civilized than what we are doing now.

My definition, in #11 first sentence, excludes most work from the "game" category.

Mine was technically derived, from the definition used in mathematical game theory. Notice the key factor of conflicting or inconsistent preference orders among a defined set of outcomes.

 

OK, and it was not my intent to offend you. I thought that your definition was much like Swansont's in that they both seemed to define an objective perspective of the word, game. Of course, you are both scientists and trained to look for the objective in most things.

 

I noted StringJunky's definition because it was the only one that considered subjective perspective and even noted that anything can be made into a game by changing the perspective and parameters of the activity. Even vacuuming can be made into a game -- of course, it helps if you have Mary Poppins around.

 

The OP asked for a definition that would encompass all games, not just the more sophisticated types. Do you really think that your definition or Swansont's would define the game of Peek-a-boo? I don't see it.

 

Gee

 

Why not? Isn't a video game voluntary and fulfilling a subjective need/want?

Swansont;

 

I never should have said that. It is going to 'hit the fan' now in defense of video games.

 

No. I suspect that most video games are not any more voluntary than drugs are -- too addictive. Like drugs, video games actually create the need/want that needs to be satisfied. The subjective need to win is never satisfied because there is another level or another more advanced game, but the objective need to sell video games is always satisfied. So not a game.

 

I will admit that there is some value in video games. They make wonderful babysitters, and work well as training devices, but these both fulfill objective needs. So not a game.

 

Subjectively, they offer very little and take away more than they give. One could argue that video games help to develop hand eye coordination, and that is true. The only costs are a flabby belly, a stiff back and neck, and a little carpal tunnel. It seems to me that a game of Jacks would do more and take away less.

 

One could also argue that they help to develop thinking and problem solving skills. But all of the problems and resolutions are predefined, so thinking outside of the box, or critical thinking, or what I like to call actual thinking is quite limited. Since the 'game' is predefined, it is more reminiscent of a rat learning how to get through a maze, than actual problem solving.

 

The idea of winning is very seductive and is probably the most addictive aspect of video games, but what do you win? The right to buy more video games? This is the aspect of video games that most disturbs me as it is too similar to drugs.

 

Of course, there is the simple argument that video games entertain and relieve boredom. But entertainment is a social activity; whereas, video games isolate the player. Books, music, and movies can all provide a kind of escapism, but video games turn escapism into something that has an addictive quality. Not healthy. It is amazing that most families spend $200 or more per month on communication, cable, internet, cell and land phones, rentals of movies, and purchases of music CD's and video games, so that no one in the house has to actually communicate. This seems absurd.

 

Socially, video games add nothing and take away a lot. Because most video games are set up in a sort of competition, they define the good guys from the bad guys, and create a kind of black and white type of thinking. In play, we define who is on our side and who is against us, then we dispose of the ones that are against us. What we do not learn is how to cajole or threaten, how to tease or intimidate, how to charm, seduce, and manipulate. These are social skills, and we need them to resolve problems that come up socially and to bond with other people.

 

So I suspect that we are going to raise a generation of people who feel isolated, are physically out of shape, and who have no idea of how to resolve social problems. What subjective need/want do you think the above addresses?

 

In my opinion.

 

Gee

[swansont]

No. I suspect that most video games are not any more voluntary than drugs are -- too addictive. Like drugs, video games actually create the need/want that needs to be satisfied. The subjective need to win is never satisfied because there is another level or another more advanced game, but the objective need to sell video games is always satisfied. So not a game.

 

I don't see how that is any different from non-video games. There's a always chance to play against better competition — e.g. they have chess rankings and tournaments. People get addicted to games of chance, too. And not everyone gets "addicted" to video games.

[Gees]

 

I don't see how that is any different from non-video games. There's a always chance to play against better competition — e.g. they have chess rankings and tournaments. People get addicted to games of chance, too. And not everyone gets "addicted" to video games.

Swansont;

 

In a philosophical discussion, it is generally more productive if the parties can state their positions and confirm any areas where they are in agreement, or disagreement. Doing this gives structure to the discussion; whereas, not doing this tends to let the discussion break down into talking at cross purposes, which I think we are on the brink of.

 

So, at this point, I think that in order to be called a game, an activity needs to be voluntary and address a subjective need/want. Do you agree? If not, then why do you disagree? Once we have this worked out, I will be able to address your post above.

 

Gee

 

Eise;

 

I have been spelling your name wrong throughout this thread, and sincerely apologize. I recently had cataract surgery and can actually see, but my lenses were set for long distance. Until I get my new computer glasses, I make use of drugstore reading glasses and had them on when I realized my mistake. Misspelling someone's name is a serious breach of etiquette, and I assure you that it was not done intentionally. Again, my apologies.

 

Gee

[swansont]

Swansont;

 

In a philosophical discussion, it is generally more productive if the parties can state their positions and confirm any areas where they are in agreement, or disagreement. Doing this gives structure to the discussion; whereas, not doing this tends to let the discussion break down into talking at cross purposes, which I think we are on the brink of.

 

So, at this point, I think that in order to be called a game, an activity needs to be voluntary and address a subjective need/want. Do you agree? If not, then why do you disagree? Once we have this worked out, I will be able to address your post above.

 

 

In general, I agree. I think you can call professional sports a game because even though they are under contract, they signed the contract freely, and they can quit. (as opposed to the war example)

[Gees]

 

I don't see how that is any different from non-video games. There's a always chance to play against better competition — e.g. they have chess rankings and tournaments. People get addicted to games of chance, too. And not everyone gets "addicted" to video games.

Swansont;

 

It is difficult to describe the difference that I am seeing, but I suspect that it is in the word 'play'. Play seems to be missing from many video games.

 

People tend to think that play is childish, that it is something frivolous that we do when we have nothing else to do, but this is not so. Play is how we learn and hone our skills and solve our problems. It is also a natural form of study. Children play more because they have a lot more to learn, but when we stop playing, we stop curiosity, imagination, creativity, and learning. Games are formalized play.

 

Chess is a game of strategy, and yes there are tournaments and rankings, but there is more. It is a mental game that helps to expand thinking and learn strategy and is also a social game. It can help us to learn the mind of our opponent, to bond with an opponent, to evaluate another person's abilities, or to simply enjoy the social atmosphere of play. Winning is part of the game, but not the only part.

 

Games of chance are actually studies of odds and luck. Most people quickly realize that luck is inconsistent and odds are hard to beat, so they don't get very involved in the play. But other people think that they can beat the odds, or they stand next to their lucky friend, wear their lucky shirt or shoes, or try to 'will' their horse to win or 'will' the right numbers to come up on the dice. These people can be quite superstitious and this play could be called a study of the supernatural. For these players winning is paramount, and addiction is often the result.

 

Poker is often confused with games of chance, but it is not really about chance as much as it is a study of the ability to read other people, and is very important to men. Men need to be able to 'size up' other men and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses.

 

My grandson told me about a video game where he had to find the treasure, get the girl, and dispose of the bad guys. So what subjective need did this game fulfill? What did he learn? He did not learn how to find treasure in the real world. He did not learn how to get a girl. One could argue that he did learn how to dispose of bad guys -- all he needs is a gun. And he definitely learned how to win the game. So was his 'play' about winning, following direction/training, and solving problems by disposing of the people who created the problems?

 

If I go to my homepage and look up games, I will be able to easily find one or two that claim to be so enjoyable that they are positively "addictive". Now why would I want something addictive?

 

I know that there are people working on the problems that video games present, but I am not sure how successfully they can improve them. Video games seem to be a cross between entertainment and work, where you have to pay someone else so that you can do the work. The 'play' seems to be mostly missing from the games as the imagination and creativity is all from the designers. There is not much to learn that is valuable in the real world, but there is an element of curiosity for the player. Winning is paramount, and the addictive nature of the games is ADVERTISED.

 

The difference between being trained by a 'game' and playing a game is mostly subjective, but I think that it is important. Consider that if I have a $100 bill in my hand and it transfers to your hand, what is that? If I gave it to you, it is a gift; if you took it from me, it is theft. One is a kindness, the other is a crime, the only difference is subjective intent, so subjective intent is important and is the real difference between training and playing, teaching and learning.

 

In my opinion

 

Gee

[swansont]

Games are addictive can be translated as they are lots of fun — you will want to play it over and over again, meaning the cost can be better justified — the cost per hour is low (compare it to other entertainment, like seeing a movie). Would you spend $49.95 on a game that takes an hour to play if you were sure you'd only play it once?

[Gees]

Games are addictive can be translated as they are lots of fun — you will want to play it over and over again, meaning the cost can be better justified — the cost per hour is low (compare it to other entertainment, like seeing a movie). Would you spend $49.95 on a game that takes an hour to play if you were sure you'd only play it once?

Swansont;

 

If we equate the word 'addictive' with the word 'fun', then what we are saying is that the 'lot of fun' is involuntary, as it is generally acknowledged that addiction takes away our choices. This is why we have Alcoholics Anonymous and Gamblers Anonymous, organizations that deal with addiction and help us to regain our choices. We agreed that games are voluntary.

 

If we equate the word 'fun' and the word 'game', then we reduce any serious game to a non-game status, and at the same time, make anything that is fun a game. So The Great Game would not actually be a game, but Jack The Ripper's activities might be a game, as he seemed to want to repeat the experience and may have been having fun. If I remember correctly, racing down the main highway through town at 90 miles per hour was quite exhilarating and fun, but would anyone call it a game? It has been a while since I tried that, but if I remember correctly, the police did not think of it as a game.

 

So I don't think that these words bring us closer to a definition of 'game'.

 

The idea of cost is very reasonable, but there are costs that do not have monetary value. It is interesting to note that you compared video games to movies -- entertainment. I have never disputed the idea that video games are entertaining, only that they may not qualify as games.

 

In my opinion.

 

I think that we are finally getting close to the original posters thoughts regarding the distinctions between art, entertainment, and games. So in my next post, I will try to state a position, or explain my thoughts, as to the qualities of each and what distinguishes one from the other.

 

Gee

[Gees]

CirclesAndDots;

 

You have started an interesting and challenging thread. Although I have considered different aspects of art, entertainment, and play, I never thought to compare them or discover what was distinctive about them, so I am having fun in this thread because I have to think.

 

As the title might imply, what's a game? That is, what allows us to unify seemingly disparate things like hopscotch and first-person shooters? Surely, seeking a universal definition to absolve us of our curiosity is a misguided endeavor. Creative society permits words the power to describe and denote experiences. It's not necessary that they seize them. So, in short, what's a satisfying working definition of 'game'? Or rather, what constitutes a game and what makes a game distinct from other artistic/entertainment media?

 

The following is just my thinking out loud to organize my ideas. Of course, if you see any corrections that may be needed or additional thoughts that I have missed, your input will be appreciated.

Art is the interpretation and expression of feelings, moods, and emotion. Many people do not realize it, but emotion is not known, it is felt. In order to know emotion it needs to be interpreted and given substance and form that can be touched, seen, or heard, so that it can be known in the rational aspect of mind. Artists accomplish this through many different mediums; such as, music and dance, poetry and stories, drawings and paintings, and sculpture and architecture. Art can express the moods, feelings, and emotions of individuals or of cultures and societies.

Entertainment takes art and adds thought to it. Entertainment reflects our feelings and thoughts back to us and helps us to understand ourselves. Whether it is the kids working a puppet show, the Uncles pulling out guitars and harmonicas at a family reunion, or going to a movie, entertainment is primarily a social activity. But it can also be used to influence and guide thoughts and emotions. Leaders have long used entertainment to bond societies and to guide them; some examples would be parades and holidays, knightly jousts, the Roman Coliseum, or amphitheaters.

Entertainment also reflects the mood of the culture/society. I am not much of a history buff, but I think that Vaudville became popular right after the American Civil War. We had just destroyed our nation and people, so the crude, raunchy, slap-stick comedy fit the needs of a people who had lost their delicate sensibilities and wanted to forget and laugh at themselves. By the time the World Wars came around, we were very involved with cowboy and war movies; movies that clearly delineated the good guys from the bad guys. But the Vietnam war ushered in a time of doubt, so movies reflected a blurred and unsure representation of good versus bad. Right now the supernatural is all over the movies and television, and I suspect this is a reaction to the decline in religion, religion having always been the one that guided us regarding the supernatural. So entertainment guides, bonds, and reflects the psyche of a society/culture.

Games are formalized play and are formatted with rules and parameters that give structure to the play. So I think the important question here is, What is play? Play is innate, can be observed in many species, and it is how we learn. One of the first games we learn is Peek-a-Boo. By nine months old, we have discovered the limits of our bodies and realize that we are not connected to anything, or anyone. If Mom leaves, she could be gone -- forever! So we panic, and she plays Peek-a-Boo with us so that we can study time and space, continuity, trust, and patience. Another popular game for babies is when they sit in their highchair and drop a piece of food over the side. They will watch it fall, clap their hands and grin at their amazing trick, because they made it fly. This is a study of gravity and does not usually last very long, but then we discover things that seem to defy gravity like balloons, bubbles, and kites, and are amazed all over again.

Games hold our interest as long as we are getting something out of them, so we outgrow many games. As we grow we play Hopscotch and Catch to develop gross motor skills, Jacks and Building Blocks to develop fine motor skills, Simon Says and counting games which are precursors to reading and math, and Tag and Hide-and-Seek as social games. As we become more sophisticated, so do our games. So as adults our physical games become sports, our mental games become chess or power brokers trying to take over the world like Pinky and the Brain, our social bonding games become mating rituals or social groupings like shopping with the girls, watching football with the guys, or house parties. No matter what the game, it seems to always satisfy an individual need/want, or we quit playing. One could argue that team sports are not individual, but the team works as an individual unit, and is made up of individuals, so I think this still applies.

Regardless, I propose that a game is separate from other media because it actively resists its audience (the player or players). A game is at once suppressed (in terms of actions/development) but is ultimately only realized through player(s) activity. Reaction, as it exists from a consumer of music or film, is inert. Mozart's fifth symphony exists totally independent of consumer input, as does Scorsese's Goodfellas. Even if both were stuck on pause indefinitely and required input on a machine to continue, it would not be the kind of vital user input that a game prioritizes and is actualized through. (Interfacing with an object that delivers content to the consumer does not constitute interactivity with that content). Reaction in a game's space is a constructive process within it rather than a byproduct of its mere consumption.

Although it could be argued that art, entertainment, and games are all interactive in some ways, I agree that games are different. I see the difference in their purpose. Art and entertainment are all about giving us something, but games exist in order for us to take something. Like the earlier example with the money changing hands, it can be two entirely different things depending on whether it is given or taken. We either extract something from the game, or we don't play it. Is this what you meant by "resists"?

Perhaps the differences between the various artistic media are obvious and I've only muddied the water. At any rate, as games, particularly video games, continue to diversify in form and function and gain commercial and cultural relevance, initiating a dialogue about them was in order.

 

 

I agree. If my thoughts above are even close to correct, then it appears that videogames are actually personalized entertainment masquerading as games. The problems that I see are that entertainment is social, but video games isolate; entertainment can lead and guide, but where are we being led or guided; games address a subjective need/want, but so far no one can tell me what that need or want is in relation to video games.

 

I know that teachers use games to teach because we are many times more susceptible to learning while we are playing. I also have been told by young men, who have recently left the service, that the military uses video games to teach people to react and shoot before they can think. I find this rather disturbing, so again I ask, just what is it that we are teaching our children when we buy them video games?

 

Gee