What is a Game? Part Eight: Putting it all Together

When I started this blog, I thought that I would just toss out what my definition of what a game is in one of my first posts, deny the need to even have a definition and move on to talking about how I make games and showing off my innate design talent. Here I am, about a month later working on Part 8 of my definition.

So, to answer the question, in a single sentence, I present my definition (or description) of a game:

A game is an activity in which participants make choices that effect themselves and others, within a given structure and with effort towards a particular goal of the activity with the purpose of entertainment.

That's a pretty wordy and messy definition, so I want to quickly go over the parts that I believe are necessary for a game to be a game.

 So a game is an activity that has agents (players and game parts) making decisions. The decisions effect the other agents (interaction), as stipulated by the structure (the rules). The structure also has a defined conclusion (goal). While the game goal may be something else, the overall intent of a game is for entertainment (fun).

Putting it very simply, a game is players interacting according to rules to reach a goal for fun.

And that is a definition that I'm very happy with it. Not only is it parsable and short, but it works with my much earlier declaration of what a game is.

This definition allows my statements about what is a game shifting depending on perspective. Without knowing the solution to Tic-Tac-Toe, if people are playing it, they are playing a game. However, if they do know the solution they aren't interacting with each other, they're making predetermined moves and they are not playing a game.

Similarly, with Baseball, as I originally stated in part one, baseball can be a game for some, while for others it is not a game. That is not to say that professional ball players are not having fun, but that it is possible that they are not participating just because of the entertainment value.

A single activity can be at the same time both a game and not game. If an older sibling needs to keep the younger children from getting into trouble, they might suggest a game of hide and seek or tag. If they do so, it is possible (in my opinion, and within the bounds of my definition) that they are not playing a game while the other participants in the same activity are playing a game.

When I was originally collecting data from various people on what they thought a game was, I got some interesting answers from some people whose opinions I respect:

"A game can be anything, so long as you don't feel like it's a chore."

"Whatever someone wants to call a game, as long as they're not trolling."

"If the creator calls it a game, it is a game."

These definitions are very loose, and I agree with them entirely. A game can be anything, and can't be nailed down by a single sentence, or even a paragraph or essay. Like classically considered art or any other traditional creative medium, as long as one person believes something is a game, it is.

People will continue to agree and disagree on what is and is not a game, as they have argued about music, art, and writing for hundreds of years. What is important is the intent behind the creator, behind the participant and the fact that we as individuals can identify to ourselves whether or not something is a game.