Sunday, January 29, 2006

How do I define a game?(Mike Demarest)

Well I never really looked into a personal definition of a game before, I like many other people in this world always felt like I recognized a game when I played it. However, after playing several of the games presented in this class I think I do need to find a personal definition of a game so that I can truly understand when I am playing a game, and when I am just fooling around with another activity to fill the time of my day. Now when looking into defining a game I have come upon a few things that all game must have to be considered a game.
First, a game must have an objective. While links that Kim has given us such as Endora's dream, Mr. Picassohead, and Opniyama are fun and a great way to kill time, but they have no goal or objective for the player. Therefore no matter how long, hard, or involved a person is with these activities they will never gain an achievement(s). I personally like Greg Costikyan definition in I Have No Words & I Must Design by "A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal." and David Parlett "It is a contest to achieve an objective “I agree with these definition that the player(s) and or participant(s) must have a goal to achieve. The goal doesn't have to be stated, but it must be understandable for the player(s) and or participant(s). Without a goal a game is long and pointless, similar to other unpopular activities including homework and studying.
Second, a game has a set of rules that is apparent to the player. These rules do not need to be stated but they must be understandable to the player. The player(s) and or Participate(s) must follow or abide by the rules to achieve the goal presented to them. If their were no rules the player would not be able to achieve the goal at hand. David Parlett states rules as "an agreed set of equipment and of procedural (rules) by which the equipment is manipulated to produce a winning situation." An activity can have rules such as Endora's dream, Mr. Picassohead, and Opniyama but they have no goal so therefore they are not games. This may confuse some people because they assume that an activity is a game if it has a set of rules, but without all the components of a game, an activity remains an activity.
Finally, an activity must have a third component of interaction to be a complete game. If their is no interaction it is just more of a viewing than a game. A player(s) and or participate(s) can’t really be involved unless their is interaction between they and the game. The interaction should be based off of the goal that is at hand and the rules that are setup to achieve that goal. Without interaction a player or participate is limited in their actions and their fore is limited in the result or their actions. The player is limited by the actions he can partake in and therefore winning and losing are not options to the player. Greg Costikyan definition can be seen again here with "A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal." The decisions are interactions that the player is making with the game. Elliot Avedon and Brian Sutton-Smith define it as "exercise of control systems: game involves some form of physical or intellectual activity." I see this activity as interactions and decisions that alter the outcome of the game.
Now I am not the best at defining things and I might be completely wrong so please don't get angry or upset at my definition of a game. This definition is mine and mine alone. Feel free to critique it or compare it to your own, but this is my definition so it can't be wrong, because it is made of personal opinions.

Games and Activities

Be for this week I would have never given a second thought when asked the question, is this a game? For instance if I had been shown Endora’s Dream I would have surely answered yes, this is a game. However, after this week my answer has changed, now I would answer, no. After this week I have concluded that a game is a voluntary activity governed by rules in which the player must make important decisions to complete a certain objective or objectives. This objective does not have to be finite, for instance the objective could be to keep to ball in the air for as long as possible. This is not a goal that can truly be achieved, but it is an objective none the less

Games are, however, not disjointed from reality like Huizinga and Caillois’s definitions suggest. In Football, for example, if a player is injured it will have repercussions out side the game. However to claim that it is not a game is preposterous. To do this would be limiting games only to the virtual realm, and excluding many activities, like cards and sports, entirely.

However, there is a question more important than “what is a game?” Although all the readings throughout the week thoroughly define games and their boundaries they all fail to answer the simple follow up question. If this is not a game, then what is it?

I will use Endora’s dream as an example, as it seems least like a game out of the 6 we were assigned to play. Parlett would say it’s not a game because it has no end, and barely any means because of it. Crawford would denounce it for the total lack of conflict. Even Costikyan (who’s definition I found to be kind of vague) wouldn’t call it a game as it has no resources or important decisions.

So, then what is Endora’s Dream. It’s clearly not an educational tool or training program. Maybe it’s probably not an art program. It could be a simulation, but if that’s the case then what is it simulating? Weird plastic surgery? No, Endora’s Dream is activity. An activity is basically anything that is not a game, but could become one. I’ll use one of Kim’s examples, doing the dishes.

By its self doing the dishes is nothing it’s just a random activity that one may or may not enjoy. However, if one were to set an objective like, get all the dishes clean and put away in less than 7 minutes. Now this activity has rules; all dishes must be clean, it has decisions; what should I wash first, and it has an objective; done in 7 minutes. Thus doing the dishes has suddenly become a game. This can be done in reverse as well; if the player simply decides to ignore the objective then it is no longer a game.

So in the end a game is whatever the player wants it to be. It could be a preconstructed world where the rules and objectives are all preset, or it could be a simple activity like doing the dishes to which some one has applied rules and objectives. It could even be a preconstructed game in which the player simply creates their own objective. Thus when asked if Endora’s Dream is a game my answer would really be, it can be if you want it to.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Responses to posts so far

First - the airport in Las Vegas has free wi-fi. If I'd have known that I wouldn't have spent so much time walking the strip

Ok - business time

Ryan asks a good question - if you're assigned to do something (like interact with the website called The Goat in the Gray Fedora for instance) are you playing a game or working a game? Rand wonders the same thing. This could be an important question. What if people react differently when they're freely playing than when they're doing an assigned task that just happens to be "play a game"? This could mess up experiments and other kinds of research.

Beth starts out by commenting on how somethings we just know - like what's a game. "Swag" adds to that by saying that sind he/she is a gamer - they know what a game is (or do they). But when we start to think about them and consider htem from different angles - the definition isn't so cut and died. This is important for reserach because some things we might take for granted aren't necessarily true on closer examination.

Bridget points out that it may not matter what OUR definition of a game is, but rather the definition of the person "playing the game". If people define game differently in our research, we could get very different (and unexpected) results. Seventy-three uses the example of the movie Saw (some Parkies worked on that for their internship) - the people being tortured definintely didn't see what was going on as a game altho the scary guy did.

Jessiero5 adds to the definitno that games are usually a distraction from reality. Cassandra says that's true especially for graphic games. Is that true for all games - how about educational games or political games (to teach you about a candidate)? They're sort of tied to reality - but also sort of removed from it. Sara turns this on its side and says a game pulls your attention into it. And away from reality?

Rand and Amy Z both say that a game has to be outside of our normal habits and routines - but what if i make a game out of washing dishes or doing the laundry - see if i can get the dishwasher loaded before the commercial is over - if so I get a cookie. Is that a game?

Here's another pic from the conference - AOL had a cybercafe for us to use during hte week and they were pimping their new in2tv and viiv services.

What is a game?

After playing games all week and reading the articles, I feel as though I have a pretty good definition of what a game is. I also feel that you have to distinguish the difference between play and a game as well.

In The Definition of Play, they describe play as
"an occasion of pure waste: waste of time, energy, ingenuity, skill and often money..."
I agree with this... in certain ways. Time is wasting away, you are exerting exerting energy, and often it does take some level of skill. But I do not believe it is always not worth the time you put in it. A game could be girls playing double dutch at recess, a group of friends playing taboo together, and even someone competing in an event at the olympics. These are not a waste of time.


To me, play is the act of using your imagination, becoming someone you aren't, or just yourself with an excentuated trait. A game is an activity that draws your attention into it, whether it be for education or entertainment. There is a goal in mind at the end and set rules along the way. You play a game by getting into the midset of the character who has these goals in mind to reach the end.

For example, the game Samarost that we played on Monday. I personally would concider it a form of play, but i'm not sure if it would pass as a game according to my definition. There were no instructions or set guidelines and i felt it was hard to figure out what the outcome goal was. However, with PASH, the game was layed out. You picked your character. You were given a mission to fulfull. There was a map and object to find.

"We talkin' 'bout practice?" - Allen Iverson. "No we talkin' 'bout games." - Rand

I'm a little confused as to what all the confusion is about. Most "games" and "play" are not generally serious in nature, and yet a number of scholars seem to have exhausted much brain power attempting to pinpoint the exact definition of both terms. At the risk of sounding hypocritical - but for the sake of semantics - I'll do the same.

Despite the extensive work of each author, Salen and Zimmerman do not express complete satisfaction with even one of the eight definitions presented in "Defining Games." Some definitions are too narrow, while others are too broad (Clark C. Abt's is both and he acknowledges it.) Here are some problems that I had with a couple of assertions.

First of all, I believe that "play" and "games" are different. One can be forced to engage in a "game," but that activity should not be described as "play" if the individual did not decide to participate of his or her own volition. Conversely, one can play "mimicry" (imitations) or "ilinx" (vertigo). However, it's quite possible that neither one of these activities would be described as a "game"; despite the fact that the individual is playing.

I take issue with how Salen and Zimmerman interpretted the definitions of both Caillois and Suits. They take a passage from Caillois, in which he is describing "play," and then ask "Do all of the elements Caillois lists really describe games?" They blatantly misrepresent him, since in "The Definitions of Play," Caillois makes a point of distinguishing between "play" and "games." Even in the passage they quote, Caillois says "playing is not obligatory; if it were, it would at once lose its attractive and joyous quality as diversion." He is talking about "play," but Salen and Zimmerman take a giant leap and suggest he is referencing "games." It's surprising too, because Salen and Zimmerman go to such lengths to show how "play is both a larger and smaller term than 'game'... In one sense, 'play' is a larger term that includes 'game' as a subset. In another, the reverse is true: 'game' is the bigger term, and includes 'play' within it."

Furthermore, Suits writes, "playing a game is the voluntary effort to overcome unnecessary obstacles." Salen and Zimmerman go on to explain his words as such: "Voluntary: games are freely entered into;" It is debatable whether or not this is what Suits had intended to say, but again, Salen and Zimmerman are taking liberties with interpretting the words of the authors. Suits made clear that he was talking about "playing a game." As I've previously written, it is possible for one to engage in a game, and not be playing it.

Huizinga's definiton stands out to me. I suppose this is because it is one of the longer definitions, and as such, subjects itself to more initial scrutiny. Huizinga claims that a game is "an activity connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it." This statement seems problematic and Caillois points that out, "Games of chance played for money have practically no place in Huizinga's work. Such an omission is not without consequence." Caillois goes on to clarify, "Property is exchanged, but no goods are produced." I agree with that statement.

Finally, Greg Costikyan's definition strikes me as a bit self-empowering, or perhaps I should say biased. While some carefully constructed games could certainly be described as "art," other games are not at all linked with the high-class term.

Now, I am sure that my own defintion will be both too broad and too narrow, but I have selected a few elements from different authors to help me come as close as I can to defining what is a "game."

I like the idea that a game has a quantifiable outcome. This would prevent "Opniyama," "Endora's Dream," and "Mr. Picassohead" from being termed "games," since none of the three result in any sort of victory, defeat, score, or achievement.

I also believe that games exist "outside ordinary life" and that certain agreed upon rules govern the actions of the player(s). In addtion, I agree with the notion that just because one player cheats, the game does not cease to be a game.

There have to be multiple options or courses for the game to take. Like Costikyan said, "(Games) depend on decision making. Decisions have to pose real, plausible alternatives, or they aren't real decisions. To that degree that you make a game more like a story -- more linear, fewer real options -- you make it less like a game." In that sense, "Samarost" probably could not be considered a game, since there appears to be only one course of action possible, and there is no chance that you could lose; you either arrive at your destination, or you give up. For that reason, "Samarost" is more closely linked to puzzles. On the other hand, "The Goat in the Gray Fedora" and "PASH" present the player with many options (and in the case of "PASH," appear to offer the opportunity to lose.) Of course by stating this, I would be disregarding games involving electronic cars or horses that race around a track, following only one path. This is a spot at which my definition could fall short.

All things considered, here is my definition of a "game":

A game exists outside the normal sphere of daily work, chores, and interaction. It is an activity entered into by an individual or multiple persons, in which a set of rules, previously agreed upon, are intended to govern each person's behavior. Multiple courses of action may be taken and a quantifiable outcome is achieved (whether victory, defeat, or score).

Thursday, January 26, 2006

couple of pics from the conference - so ya know i was really working

This is Jack Hanna - THE Jack Hanna. Ok - I'm old and a geek. He has the coolest wild animal show on tv. I have apicture of his big yellow snake but wont post it in case folks are squeamish. His whole family is involved in the production.


this is not Jack Hanna of course! This is a knight in shining armor in the hotel. we stayed in the Excalibur which looks like a white plastic lego fversion of hte castle in King Arthur.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Homework

Thanks for all the posts on Monday (some of you pushed the definition of Monday)

Remember - the responses that will get the full points will include your opinions, your reactions to the games, AND stuff from the readings (enough stuff that I get the sense you read the whole thing - go ahead and put in the definitions you're reacting to for instance)

Here's one more URL to check out if you're interested: http://chir.ag/stuff/sand/

I'll post some pictures later to show that i am really working. One of the speakers yesterday, from Price Waterhouse Cooper (a big accounting/consulting firm) mentioned that video games were one of hte biggest growth areas in entertainment media internationally. so you guys are studying an important area in entertainment.

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Initial Post

This is a group blog for Kim Gregson's Qualitative Mass Media Research Methods from the Television-Radio department at Ithaca College for Spring 2006. Students will be posting to this blog throughout hte semester and making comments on each others posts.