being able to win is very common, too, but not necessary, as seen in Sim City, JetLag, and most early arcade games like pacman, where there is no "win" condition, but you can lose.

all games have at least one participant.

games are not necessarily just for entertainment... games in the broader sense, that is... like archery and skeet shooting.

the rules are essential, of course. they detail how and when and to where the player(s) can move or act, and in what conditions the game is over, and how to determine a winner(if any).

the focused reality part is unnecessary. reality is defined by the rules that bind it.

so, a game is:

"a set of rules in which the participant(s) can fail(or lose)"

which proves that life is a game, yes?

I was thinking over your definition for awhile. I just didn't sit right with me because I thought something had to be missing from it. After a few moments I finally realized what it was: skill.

No where in the definition did the skill element come into play and in every game, a different skill is either learned or applied in order to win the game.

Speaking of winning, I believe that a game MUST be won or lost. In simcity-ish games (those mentioned by Tan) the winning is the feeling obtained that you've done a great job. The feeling you get when you've got a population of a billion with zero crime, etc. It's when you can sort of get up, and leave the game running and comming back to see everything still functional... I think that's when you know you've won.

Thus I disagree with you geoff . Simcity is a game. And, heh, I guess I'll have to disagree with you again that an Adventure game is a game. It is not simply because there is no skill element involved. Okay, wait, some adventures are games (if you count Baulder's Gate [though i think it technically is an rpg]), the majority (ie King's Quest style) aren't. Those are simply other forms of fiction, much like a novel.

I hear you cry out "but in King's Quest, I can CHOOSE which way I go!" Well, you can in a "choose your own adventure book" but is that a game? I personally dont' think so. No skill.

Also, the "focused reality" part's really got me going. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I feel it's unnccessary because everything can be a focused reality. I just don't like the vagueness, but maybe i'm missing something here.

Heh, well, those are my thoughts... yours?

-Queasy.

"A game is a self-contained system of rules that creates a focused reality."

After a few minutes of contemplation, I cannot come up with an example that it doesn't encompass. Including, incidentally, SimCity, Windows Solitaire (or even just plain ol' Solitaire using actual cards), and dice-and-paper RPGs. It even covers the activities of 5 yr-olds.

Hammering the definition from the aspect of "reality is inexplicable" is meaningless and serves only to add confusion to a losing argument. The system of rules in a game explicity define the reality that is that game. Thus, whether a person does or does not understand or even acurately perceive the "rules" of True Reality, the rules of the game "reality" are printed on the box top.

I also don't think that a game is necessarily an activity undertaken only for entertainment. I don't find Windows Solitaire entertaining. But it kills time and occupies my mind. True entertainment would be a step above that, but it's a game.

As for the argument that a game has to include or develop a skill of some sort, that's not necessarily true either. As you become accustomed to the "reality of the rules" you naturally become more adept. Whether this is a "skill" or not seems irrelevant.

------------------
DavidRM
Samu Games
http://www.samugames.com

Shifting over to the King's Queest arena: the adventure doesn't seem to be a game because it's so linear. You basically have one way of doing everything. For example, I can go to a friend and ask "hey where are you in Space Quest?" He might reply, "gee, I'm at the part where...." and I might offer, "oh, that's easy, just click on the hatch."

Then I might talk to another person and say, "how far are you in warcraft?" "well, I'm surrounding his base with ogres and I'm about to send in some sappers." There's not one way to achieve a goal.

And are puzzles games? Or just simply puzzles? A puzzle can be basically a problem: "here are 6 toothpicks. move only two to form a star." is that a game? or just simply put a puzzle?

Okay, I know you might say, we'll, Tetris is a puzzle, but you consider it a game! Well, tetris is not so linear as that puzzle. There are many ways to achieve a goal.

I hope I've explained that well

Despite that however, so far I haven't found a problem with the new def'n (the challenge part incorporates the skill which makes me happy )

But I guess we still disagree on the other part

~Queasy
//sometimes I wonder if it's a) neccessary to or b) possible to define a game. Sorta like art, where art can't really be defined, unless vaguely. Hmm.... maybe games do/can be defined... huh, okay, I'll start.. no stop, STOP (!) babbling now

/*hope to hear from you.*/