WARNING! SMART WORDZ AHEAD, CLICK HERE TO RUN AWAY
Alright this is a weird one here, not my typical subject matter.
It seems that there is no actual definition of what a game is? We all know one when we see one, we can make one out of nothing, they can be intelligent or vile, sexy or stupid, still no definition that encompasses all of what we could consider a game exists.
This question is so powerful that the 20th century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein used the ‘undefinable’ term to discredit the notion that we have an understanding of a term when we can define it with necessary and sufficient conditions. Rather, “it is a matter of a series of interchangeable language games in which the meanings of words are derived not from any inherent logical structure” (quote from Wikipedia). Oddly the word ‘game’ is used in this description but regardless, the theory of philosophy of language was born out of this question. I do have a definition which in turn defends the theory of necessary and sufficient conditions.
I’m not trying to discredit the philosophy of language because I honestly don’t know much about it but my point is this; I believe I’ve found the definition of ‘game.’ Also, the alternative definitions of ‘game’ collected and cited in Wikipedia fail. Keep in mind, I’m not saying these views do not apply to games, I am saying that they don’t meet necessary and sufficient conditions.
First, Roger Caillois
Point one. fun: the activity is chosen for its light-hearted character – Immediate FAIL. This guy must have never played Resident Evil 2, B game. That shit is scary. I could find other holes in his theory but 1 is enough for it to be insufficent.
Second, Chris Crawford
“Crawford’s definition may thus be rendered as: an interactive, goal-oriented activity, with active agents to play against, in which players (including active agents) can interfere with each other.” I would say this is close but it misses the mark by assuming active agents (he is implying multiple participants and a sort of conflicting nature to games) and overlooking the further process of the interactive nature.
Ok, there are others on the Wikipedia page but let’s get to my point.
The Definition of a ‘game’
Necessary and sufficient conditions for a game
1 interactive (as defined as any interaction between oneself and any other thing)
2 the properties that make it interactive are themselves, in part or completely, intended to or become entertaining.
Can I say WIN? It’s simple yet it covers any type of game and is not so vague that it easily applies to other instances.
-C
