[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system]

[John Buehler]

Sean Howard writes:

> "cruise" <cruise at casual-tempest.net> wrote:

> > No wonder we're stuck in such a rut, if we're not even sure if what it
> > is exactly we're making!
>
> Indeed! But that's because we are actually making a whole bunch of things
> and trying to figure out the similarities that may or may not exist. I've
> spent years trying to figure out what a "game" is, and I've ultimately
> come to the conclusion that it is something like a "book". It says nothing
> of the content, but exists more as a guidelines of expression. Surely,
> there are many more fundamental differences between Second Life and
> Burnout Revenge than similarities, much like a text book isn't
> particularly similar to a dictionary of curse words in a different
> language.
>
> That's my theory and I'm sticking to it. "Game" is, in my opinion, and
> ultimately worthless classification that exists more to differentiate a
> game from a movie or book than to actually say anything significant about
> the medium(s) it covers. Just like we have more limited definitions for
> books, using the grander term "book" as an umbrella rather than a medium,
> I think we should do the same thing with games - though FPS vs RTS doesn't
> seem to be a particularly helpful distinction. However, serious game vs
> learning game vs competitive game vs exploration game, etc... might be.

"worthless classification": hear, hear!

In truth, it's counterproductive to devote any attention to the definition
of "game".  It doesn't matter what a game is, even when compared to a book
or a movie.  If I came up with a thing that was part video, part interactive
and part text, all wrapped up in the form of a paperback, what is it?
Answer: it doesn't bloody matter, except to lawyers and other
hair-splitters.  The people enjoying (or not enjoying) whatever it is don't
really care.  They'll call it by whatever trade name you give it.   Kleenex.
iPod.

Further, if a bunch of people building these things is predicating their
thinking on creating "games", then they have blinders on.  If a "game" is a
specific thing to them, then the myopia of never looking into the spaces
outside of that which is defined by "game" is going to take its toll.

I'd apply this same rationale to "serious game", "learning game", etc. as
well.  Labels can be useful, but they can be seriously distracting and
limiting at the conceptual and design stages.  Partly because of the
imprecision of words.

JB