"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).