Data vs. process, eh? Then a definition that refers to both could be “Rules, and the play that is governed by them”. In my head I still see game, play and ‘the activity of playing a game’ as being part of the same, but still semantically distinct.

I did define play, or rather, I took Corvus’s definition of it. It’s in the post.

Maybe play is not necessarily voluntary, but it is not against the will. In Corvus’s definition, it’s described as ‘self-guided’.

A possible way to reach the best definition for game is to identify what changes can be made to one before it stops being the same game. This might be a good question to discuss in a forum.

“The difference between our definitions, regarding game vs. play, is that yours supposes that the activity itself is the game, whereas mine is concerned with the systems that rule it.“
And they’re both right. This is the old data (system) vs process (activity) duality (fallacy). You encounter it everywhere. I think the difference between:
“an activity governed by a ruleset“
or:
“a ruleset governing an activity“
is negligibly, as long as both acknowledge that games can be seen as activities AND rulesets (ruleset = system).

“the intent of the activity is important too, and why I underlined the relevance of ‘play’ in the definition. I consider play to be voluntary, at least.“
Then you probably should define play as well at some point (like Corvus did). As said, it’s redundant to say that a game is played, it doesn’t add anything to your definition, if you define something with itself (game with play).

Also this kinda opens another can of worms. Is there even a voluntary action? (Newer researches in neuroscience deprive us of our free will.) What if you’re playing absent-mindedly? Are infants engaging in play voluntarily, or out of pure instinct?

But anyway, the encarta definition actually went on for a bit, stating that games are undertaken for the sake of recreation or skill-development. So despite my concerns, the inclusion of the intent probably doesn’t hurt much.

“I take pleasure in witnessing and creating unexpected things“
Yeah I do too, I mean that alone wouldn’t be enough in my eyes, but I’d also state it as a vital part of what constitutes a good game for me.

The difference between our definitions, regarding game vs. play, is that yours supposes that the activity itself is the game, whereas mine is concerned with the systems that rule it.

You say that a trial could be a game, and that is true. Nevertheless, it is not necessarily one. This is because the intent of the activity is important too, and why I underlined the relevance of ‘play’ in the definition. I consider play to be voluntary, at least.

‘What is a good game’ is definitely a good question, though I’m particularly interested in ‘what is a game’ because I take pleasure in witnessing and creating unexpected things, and I think that there’s a lot of potential for that in games.

“The playground is not a game because it’s not a ‘(figurative) space delimited by rules’.“
I see, your bounded space refers to the possibility space that is defined by the game’s ruleset. I took it to literally (probably thought of Huizinga’s magic circle). Well, in that case I think your definition is pretty fine as it is (I’d probably still use “govern” or “define” instead of “serve” but that’s a minor complaint).

“’there are possibly two separate things here: the game, and the playing of the game (the activity).“
Well yes, that’s why our defintions include both of these things. You also have the “activity part” in your definition (it’s just expressed differently) but yours essentially says this: “a game is a ruleset, serving the activity of playing it”, which is pretty much identical to mine.

“The Encarta definition lacks one important aspect, which is that games are for playing.“
Doesn’t that go without saying? “Playing” is the activity that takes place during a game. Also explaining game through play sounds kinda self-defining to me.

“Otherwise, any ruled system would be a game.“
No, not any ruled system, but any ruled activity (or yes, if any systems govern activities).

“I don’t consider a court trial to be a game, at least not in itself.“
And yet it could easily be a game. Let’s say that you’re the one who’s judged, then you lose if you’re spoken guilty. Walking down a hallway can be a game, you win if you succeed in walking it down. Your flash project “Heart” can easily be considered a game, you win if you traverse all the way to the right. Even aging can be a game, you win if you reach your desired age. Also a game can cease to be a one, e.g. if it is becomming more like work, maybe cause you’re playing to earn money.

Play can show up anywhere (in any activity governed by a ruleset). One man’s leisure is another man’s work, or like Huizinga said, even “culture itself bears the character of play”.

More importantly, I think the interesting question is not “What is a game?”, but “What is a good game?”.

“So, are you making games?“
Yes, well.. kind of. I have dozens of ideas, but not the time to work them out. Atm I’m just writing them down whenever they come at me, to get them out of my head. I am working on my framework again though, maybe I’ll have something release-worthy in a few months.

A condition is different from a rule in that it may be an actual limitation, like having to use a game console, a controller, a TV, and a cartridge in order to play Mario, or that we need a tennis court to play a match.

The Encarta definition lacks one important aspect, which is that games are for playing. Otherwise, any ruled system would be a game. I don’t consider a court trial to be a game, at least not in itself.

Your definition also brings the concept of ‘activity’ in, which seems worth thinking about. Is the game the activity of playing? I’d say there are possibly two separate things here: the game, and the playing of the game (the activity).

The playground is not a game because it’s not a ‘(figurative) space delimited by rules’. Perhaps the use of the word ‘space’ is not the clearest. It stands for a collection of these rules, which forms a system. The playground is not a system.

Thanks for making me think deeper about the definition. At some point I’ll attempt a new one, to address all ambiguities.

So, are you making games?

“Game is a set of rules and/or conditions which serve as a bounded space for play.”

and contrast it with the one I’m using (from encarta.msn.com):

“Games, activities […] governed by sets of rules.”

So yes, I think that it was a good idea to omit the community part, as I’m also against the requirement that rules have to be established by a group of people.

Apart from that, both definitions imply that games are sets of rules (mentioning conditions seems redundant, because they’re defined by the rules as well) the only real difference being that in yours, the rules serve a bounded place for play, whereas in mine, the rules govern an activity (which is the “play” in your definition). I see two problems here:

1. “serve” is to weak compared to “govern“
2. “bounded place for play (aka the activity)” is to weak compared to “the whole activity”

pansapiens wrote:
“Is the school playground a game in itself ?”

And I have to agree with him, because your definition doesn’t rule this out. The problem is that the rules do not just concern the “bounded place for play”, but the whole activity of playing the game (including the number of players, their possible actions, and among these the environment aka the bounded place, etc).

Furthermore I’d say that the rules do not just serve the activity (which could mean that they’re only responsible for a part of the whole activity), but govern it comprehensively.

At least that’s how I see it. Btw nice to see you continue making games, I have to check them out some time.

@anonymous: Clearly, but everybody’s definition is also different. And as I have discovered, most are more restrictive than mine. Also: thinking about and discussing things doesn’t equal pretension, buddy.

@Fuzz: Well, I’m glad either way!

http://www.ludomancy.com/blog/2007/09/10/ludosophy/