>- A game must interact with the player.
>
>Playing is a form of interaction so this is a somewhat circluar definition. perhaps

Definitions shouldnt take things for granted IMO.

>- A game must state all the rules (even flexible rules) so that the player knows what must be done.
>
>Myst stated no rules. Is it not a game?

All of the things you mentioned here HAVE rules or all rules. Rules dont need to be specified on the box or a manual or something to be rules. If they constrict the player, they are rules whether they are stated explicitly or not. Obviously in board games you need to specify the rule as you dont have the computer to take care of it for you.

>- A game must be able to have some kind of victory condition. Something has to HAPPEN: win, lose, gain some sort of closure (even if this is just the highest score/level).
>
>I have played deathmatch quake for hours on end and stopped without lookin at my frag score.

Most likely you are playing with short victory conditions of one kill, or avoiding being killed without having it explicitly stated. Explicit rules or goals are not necessary to have rules and goals.

>- A game by virtue of its rules and goals will define a small world/reality that all players understand commonly as the rules are there for all to see.
>
>If all of the players understood the world because all of the rules were plain to see then adventure games would not work. Many games are based upon people figuring out what has to be done and how to do it.

This is incorrect. They do not need to understand all the obstacles completely, they need to understand the rules which make up the world. For instance, in reading, everyone understands reading english you read from the left to right, top to bottom. This could be considered a common understanding that everyone has. This is the type of thing I was talking about, only games define more than one activity, they usually define your entire range of activities.

>- A game is created for the purpose of entertainment.
>
>Some games are created for the purpose of gambling and to make money. Some play these games for entertainment, some play to try to make money.

This is a context confusion. You are confusing the purpose of the developer with the purpose of the product and the purpose of some people playing the product.

Gambling game: Developer makes it for money. The game is DESIGNED for entertainment of the player, taking money (and giving) being the way of entertaining. Some players play specifically to make money.

Whats left here is that there is a design purpose for the game that it will entertain in some aspect. Is all gambling a game? No, I dont think so IMO. But most of the things people associate with gambling probably are.

-Geoff

A lot of the comments Ive gotten while bringing up the topic of defining what a game is, have been straightforwardly or often implying "Why bother with this?". So I figured we should take a new thread and go over this to leave the definition thread just to trying to define.

I see the importance in defining things because all learning seems to invariably start with understanding the terms. When I learned networking, at least half of the learning curve was understanding the terms, once I knew them, it became a lot easier to understand what was going on and how things worked together.

Again, when getting into game development there are a lot of terms one needs to learn to be able to discuss things with anyone else, and often to create anything by yourself. So even when you dont have to communicate outwardly, understanding terms of what has already been created or figured out becomes important.

While this is pretty easy to understand when trying to learn DirectX, or another API, because of their inherent use of special terminology, it becomes seemingly less important to define things in the overall sense. After all, everyone knows what a game is right?

Yet, as soon as someone tries to define what a game is, 20 other people have their own opinions and interpretations. Immediately this should throw up a flag that there is not a clear definition that is agreed upon about what a game is.

So, does there need to be a definition? Obviously if people are going to communicate a subject matter, there needs to be a common language they can use. Definitions for this purpose become critical. But what about personal use and learning?

IMO, this is just as important. Definitions are supposed to give an encompassing scope on the situation at hand. If a subject is defined, then any situation dealing with that subject should be covered by the definition. The more complete the definition, the more complete the understanding of the subject and the subject's components.

In dealing with game design, I think this can be seen rather clearly. With the definition that I have come to after a lot of thinking and discussing with different people, all elements of games seem to be covered quite clearly and there are several distinct pieces which can be extrapolated from this. Thereby giving me a roadmap to designing a game.

"An interactive, self-contained system of rules containing a challenge and a victory condition that defines a focused reality for the purpose of entertainment."

- A game must interact with the player.
- A game must state all the rules (even flexible rules) so that the player knows what must be done.
- A game must have some sort of challenge, an obstacle for the player.
- A game must be able to have some kind of victory condition. Something has to HAPPEN: win, lose, gain some sort of closure (even if this is just the highest score/level).
- A game by virtue of its rules and goals will define a small world/reality that all players understand commonly as the rules are there for all to see.
- A game is created for the purpose of entertainment.

Just by following the guidelines of these rules I can write a simple game by knowing the different stages involved. The concept of it mattering whether I know the definition or not is the same as any kind of concept of education, and I would personally rather be educated in a field I choose as my profession.

-Geoff

>Definitions shouldn't take things for granted IMO.

In that case you forgot to define interact :-)

>All of the things you mentioned here HAVE rules or all rules.
>Rules dont need to be specified on the box or a manual or something to be rules.

But the original statement wasn't that they should have rules but that they should state them. Some games do not state the rules.

>This is incorrect. They do not need to understand all the obstacles completely,
>they need to understand the rules which make up the world. For instance,
>in reading, everyone understands reading english you read from the
>left to right, top to bottom. This could be considered a common understanding
>that everyone has.

You need to be explicit about what kind of knowledge should be this common understanding knowledge. Otherwise you have merely, 'There must be some premises which are true in the game which the player knows are true in the game'. Given that x=x is probably true in the game and that the player knows that. The definition is too weak without including what type of knowledge is needed.

>This is a context confusion. You are confusing the purpose of the
>developer with the purpose of the product and the purpose of some people
>playing the product.

Well The purpose of individuals is very debatable and many a philosopher has considered the probelm with little success.
That doesn't seem to really be a problem because the purpose of the people is not actually being considered it is their intent.

The intent of the developer was to make money. The intent of the player could be either to entertain themself ot to make money. Traditionally the purpose of an object is considered to be to perfom the function that it's creator intended. You can sit on a computer case but that does not make it's purpose to be a chair. Hence the term, not for it's intended purpose (which also points out the intent/pupose link).

To allow The intent of people into the specification could lead to a subjective definition of what a game is. You need some group definitions of what players should be.

You need a bit of modal logic. I'd write a reasonable appoximation to what's needed for players but I don't have the symbols in this font. (also the symbol set seems to vary from university to university, which is annoying)

You could have as a requirement..

A game is played by some players with the intent of entertaining themselves.