LOI 1 - What is a Game?

Before my studies in this class I didn't pay much attention to what defines a game. I figured a game was something 2 or more people participated in for fun or competition. After reading some of the articles posted on Blackboard and finding some of my own, the idea of a game has become more abstract in my vision.

For one, I never thought of a game as something that may not invoke fun in the participants. I have played games before and have not had fun but I never really put the two together and thought of the competition aspect of games. I also didn't realize how much of a role 'fun' and 'friendly competition' has in our lives to sculpt our personalities, our egos, and our social well being. As it turns out many other species have playtime just for fun; without a purpose. It was surprising to hear in the TED talk how some species would possibly die if fun was taken away from them in their youth.

From my readins I like Chris Crawford's definition of a game the best wherein he gives the following ideas:

Creative expression is art if made for its own beauty, and entertainment if made for money.

A piece of entertainment is a plaything if it is interactive. Movies and books are cited as examples of non-interactive entertainment.

If no goals are associated with a plaything, it is a toy. (Crawford notes that by his definition, (a) a toy can become a game element if the player makes up rules, and (b) The Sims and SimCity are toys, not games.) If it has goals, a plaything is achallenge.

If a challenge has no "active agent against whom you compete," it is a puzzle; if there is one, it is a conflict. (Crawford admits that this is a subjective test. Video games with noticeably algorithmic artificial intelligence can be played as puzzles; these include the patterns used to evade ghosts in Pac-Man.)

Finally, if the player can only outperform the opponent, but not attack them to interfere with their performance, the conflict is a competition. (Competitions include racing and figure skating.) However, if attacks are allowed, then the conflict qualifies as a game.

These definitions made me restructure my ideas of what games are, and made me wonder if there is any fine line type games that may or may not be a game under these rules. 'Games' like Farmville on Facebook may not be at all defined as a game under this set of rules because 1) It has no end goal and 2) It has no way for other opponents, or the game, to hinder your performance. That being said it may be argued that a player strives for the achievements and once a person attains all these then the game is complete. However the game is consistently updated to include more achievements, such that it can be argued there is no end. The game also includes a chance for the players crop to die over time, however there is an option to pay for an item to bring crops back to life. So with this, is there really a mechanism in tact to try and stop, or slow down, a player from succeeding? I'd like to say no. I'd also like to say that I don't think Farmville, or any game of the sort, is a game. I'd classify it as a mere toy or hobby.

Also while on that topic, MMORPG games may be classified instead as a hobby or a toy, depending on how one plays them. There is a story line of quests within these games, but there's also no ultimate means to an end when trying to attain all achievements, items, skills, etc. Such may also be made about the quests in a way that updates continuously add new quests to the game making it impossible to ever find oneself beaten a games of the MMORPG genre.

In one article I found (Towards a Definition of a Computer. Game. Jouni Smed. University of Turku, Department of Information Technology) it suggests that a game is made up of a series of rules player(s) must follow and agree on. This makes sense as a game needs organization to keep it fair and for players to know what is going on. A game must include conflict, some way for opponents to eliminate or hinder other players' performance. This initiates an 'unknowing' aspect of the game such that it makes playing a game challenging, unique, and random. A game must also include a sense of play such that its participants have fun and the game is without any purpose other than to play.

The article goes on to talk about how video games fit the definition of a game. Most video games do have some mechanism to stop a player from advancing, slowing the player down, or eliminating a player. However the playing field is sometimes uneven for the computer generated players due to the limitation of the artificial intelligence. Sometimes computer players are programmed to avoid dangers to themselves all together such that they can never be harmed, whereas a human player must face these dangers. Does this make video games veer away from the true definition of a game? If the playing field is not fair is the game simply be a puzzle? It would make sense that if the playing field largely favours the computer controlled players then it would make it a puzzle.

Video games also give us the allusion of free will, when really we do not have much choice on what path to take. With the advancement of technology games are now able to include more choice, and multiple paths towards the end, but ultimately the story lines are similar. It has been suggested in a couple articles I've found that some Video Games are no more than interactive stories, fiction, art.

It seems that there is a pretty agreeable definition from many sources about what a game is, however the category of Video Games is much of a grey area in the game or not a game definition.

Thus far the definition of Video games has come from single player, story driven, games. When examining multiplayer Video Games the 'game' definition seems to fit Video Games much better. The playing field is level, the amount of choices become limitless, and there is usually a goal (although it some online games such as the arcade shooter series Call of Duty it could be concluded there is no goal besides getting the most kills). With these attributes a multiplayer video game fits the definition.

As it can be seen people may agree about one definition for what is a game, however it is often harder to than to just give a set list of definitions and expect everything to abide by that list. There seems to be a large grey area in which some 'games' fall in which they may lean strongly towards being art, or a story, or a hobby. Does this fact not make them a game? If a game contains all elements of what defines a game, but some aspects of the game definition are found a little thin, does that title still get the definition of a game. It may be that a game is what the player makes of it. After all, in most games the rules are meant to be bent, so why not bend the rules a little for the game definition as well. Seems fitting enough to me.