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

[Sean Howard]

"John Buehler" <johnbue at msn.com> wrote:
> 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.

Though I stated that "game" or "videogame" are ultimately worthless
classifications, I do not think classifications are in general. I simply
think "game" is a poor alternative and that there may be something better
out there.

Part of classification is to define boundaries from which you can narrow
the discussion and perhaps even the problem area. For instance, chemistry
and biology are closely related and in some cases interdependant. However,
it is useful to make the distinction when learning and studying because we
make one big problem into two smaller problems, and the quality of those
problems is completely dependant on the division. The same applies to
gaming, I believe.

> 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.

Words are anything but imprecise. People are imprecise and use words in
imprecise ways. That's why words have different definitions when dealing
with specific areas of expertise. When a programmer talks about a cache,
he is generally using a very specific definition that is far narrower in
scope than what the average computer user uses (or even people not talking
about computers, like pirate booty or something). The best way to have
precise language is to define precise language - but seeing as how
videogames and just about everything about them is a mystery to most
people and we seem to rely on a handful of beer and pretzel philosophers
(not a bad thing, wish there were more) to point out the unobvious
obvious, creating that language has proven to be difficult. I mean, none
of them can even agree on what a "game" is in the first place, much less
the patterns and systems within that giant umbrella.

I don't think my examples of serious game / learning game / etc were
particularly good distinctions. They were more based on how books are
classified (fiction / non-fiction / novel / text-book) - more based on
purpose mixed with some form. But that distinction is less important in
games, where the lessons learned from making Grand Theft Auto 3 could
equally be applied to a medical simulator to teach doctors how to do
surgery. Again, we need to find the sets of commonality as well as
exclusive aspects to properly see the trees for the forest.

-- 
Sean Howard