Here's my opinion:

A game is a set of rules controlling a competitive situation in which two or more individuals attempt to maximize their winnings or minimize those of their opponents.

-Mousepad

Queasy - You are over looking that someone who just picks randomly would totally negate any kind of planning and therefore could just as easily win. So skill isnt necessary for Roshambo to still be a game.

Also, per Kings Quest, linear games are still games, linearity doesnt change that. Puzzles are games, and they meet all the definitions of a game that I specified, which would make Adventures basically a story connect by puzzles, which makes it a game. Adventures can be non-linear BTW, they just usually cost too much to really do that, as they arent usually fun to play through more than once (for most people and games).

Mousepad - The fact that there are 1 player games pretty much negates your proposal I think. Such as pinball games, no other opponents, even computer controlled. Just you, the flippers/obstacles and the ball.

-Geoff

Hmm... I still disagree with you. For Roshambo, I don't believe that it is random. Maybe even on a subconcious level, the player would still think "gee, what is the other guy thinking."

For puzzles (i'm referring to the tooothpick puzzle), I don't see that as creating a focused reality, unless either a) the reality of the "toothpick world" counts, or b) I'm misinterpreting the whole thing, heh, in which case, straighten me out man!

Going back to King's Quest, I think linearity changes the fact that it's a game. Even if there's 6 ways, or 29, or 100 different endings, it's still linear because there's a finite, hardcoded action->outcome That takes out the interactive part.

For example: chess. Chess has two outcomes, but the thing is, it is completely interactive. At anytime in the game I can move any piece (that is, so long as the rules are met). This gives it a sort of infiniteness since anything goes.

That is why I consider King'sQuest style games more of Interactive Fiction. And also, I categorize the toothpick puzzle as that -a puzzle, however there are puzzle games such as tetris, etc.

~Queasy.

[This message has been edited by Queasy (edited August 01, 1999).]

geoff and i discussed this matter at length yesterday. we agree on what a game IS, we just differ on how we would put the definition.

he puts it the "interactive, self contained... etc"

i put it "a structured activity not generally survival related"

they mean the same thing. which one you like better is a matter of personal preference.

Queasy - Roshambo can be played conciously random, its not impossible. Also a toothpick puzzle would be a focused reality the same way as Halflife, it is just a much less defined reality by the interface and rules.

We just seem to differ on the linearity aspect, as you dont see linear things as games, but interactive fiction can also be seen as a game. I think mostly this depends if there is a victory condition and obstacles. With a standard adventure game, there definitely are both. With some interactive fiction there may be neither, which would make them not games, like a choose your own adventure isnt a game by itself. (Unless it or you assign a goal to it)

-Geoff

How about this one:

A game is a set of rules controlling a competitive situation in which one or more individuals attempt to out-perform one or more opponents.

Also, the way I see it, there are two ways too look at pinball:

1. You play it just to play. In this case, you probobly consider it a "toy," correct?

2. You play it to acheive a high score, making your opponent the previous high score.

-Mousepad

Your defintion nows sound like a defintion for a competition, not a game. While a competition can be a game, they are not equivalent in my book.

-Geoff

May I say that's a lot to read to enter the discussion

As I was reading through the posts, I could see that people were creating some definition of a game in their own mind, and then using that definition to classify activities as games or not: If I may quote Geoff's post of August 1, 02:13
"...and they meet all the definitions of a game that I specified..."

The problem with arguments like these are that they are self-defining. They prove something right by assuming that it is right. (Not that it isn't the most common debating tool used

People seem to be disagreeing what exactly a game *is*. Under Geoff's distinction between a toy and a game, it seems to me that every piece of software is essentially a toy, until and unless the user participates with the goal of achieving something within (or possibly not) the parameters of the software.

The definition of a game which speaks most to me is that a game is "An accepted set of self-contained rules that define a reality which may be adopted to provide enjoyment". I disagree as to the necessity of skill, or challenge, or victory in a game... if one person, somewhere - anywhere - can find enjoyment in an activity which doesn't contain skill, challenge or victory then it is still a game to them.

It can be seen (shown) that this definition encompasses every form of game, from children playing in a sandpit to Quakers at a lan party... the question remains if everything which it describes is a game. If so, then there is no need to narrow down the definition.

But since I've gone on for long enough, I'll leave that to someone else

White Fire

You definition sounds exactly like mine but reworded in a looser and differently ordered fashion.

Sometimes when a word is not easy to understand, to define it you must come up with all the cases that could possibly fit inside it, and use those to create the definition. Which is what Ive done.

To me, a sandbox by itself is not a game, its a toy. The sandbox has no rules of use, no victiory condition, it just is. You can do whatever you want with it and it will be used in the fashion it was created.

Monopoly on the other hand has definite rules and a definite victory condition. If you try to move your icon backwards around the board, you are not following the rules. Whereas if you want to take all the sand out of a sandbox and dump it on the ground outside, there is no defined "sandbox rule" that says you cant do that, or its not part of the use of the sandbox game.

So this leads me to see a necessary line drawn in the sand (pun not intended) between what is a toy, and what is a game.

-Geoff

*accesses the WWWebsters site*

*snip*
Main Entry: 1game
Pronunciation: 'gAm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gamen; akin to Old High German gaman amusement
Date: before 12th century
1 a (1) : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement : PLAY (2) : the equipment for a game b : often derisive or mocking jesting : FUN, SPORT
2 a : a procedure or strategy for gaining an end : TACTIC b : an illegal or shady scheme or maneuver : RACKET
3 a (1) : a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other (2) : a division of a larger contest (3) : the number of points necessary to win (4) : points scored in certain card games (as in all fours) by a player whose cards count up the highest (5) : the manner of playing in a contest (6) : the set of rules governing a game (7) : a particular aspect or phase of play in a game or sport b plural : organized athletics c (1) : a field of gainful activity : LINE (2) : any activity undertaken or regarded as a contest involving rivalry, strategy, or struggle ; also : the course or period of such an activity (3) : area of expertise : SPECIALTY 3
4 a (1) : animals under pursuit or taken in hunting; especially : wild animals hunted for sport or food (2) : the flesh of game animals b archaic : PLUCK c : a target or object especially of ridicule or attack -- often used in the phrase fair game
synonym see FUN
*snip*

mmm. better? *grin*
-fel