Definitions shouldnt take things for granted IMO.

>- A game must state all the rules (even flexible rules) so that the player knows what must be done.
>
>Myst stated no rules. Is it not a game?

All of the things you mentioned here HAVE rules or all rules. Rules dont need to be specified on the box or a manual or something to be rules. If they constrict the player, they are rules whether they are stated explicitly or not. Obviously in board games you need to specify the rule as you dont have the computer to take care of it for you.

>- A game must be able to have some kind of victory condition. Something has to HAPPEN: win, lose, gain some sort of closure (even if this is just the highest score/level).
>
>I have played deathmatch quake for hours on end and stopped without lookin at my frag score.

Most likely you are playing with short victory conditions of one kill, or avoiding being killed without having it explicitly stated. Explicit rules or goals are not necessary to have rules and goals.

>- A game by virtue of its rules and goals will define a small world/reality that all players understand commonly as the rules are there for all to see.
>
>If all of the players understood the world because all of the rules were plain to see then adventure games would not work. Many games are based upon people figuring out what has to be done and how to do it.

This is incorrect. They do not need to understand all the obstacles completely, they need to understand the rules which make up the world. For instance, in reading, everyone understands reading english you read from the left to right, top to bottom. This could be considered a common understanding that everyone has. This is the type of thing I was talking about, only games define more than one activity, they usually define your entire range of activities.

>- A game is created for the purpose of entertainment.
>
>Some games are created for the purpose of gambling and to make money. Some play these games for entertainment, some play to try to make money.

This is a context confusion. You are confusing the purpose of the developer with the purpose of the product and the purpose of some people playing the product.

Gambling game: Developer makes it for money. The game is DESIGNED for entertainment of the player, taking money (and giving) being the way of entertaining. Some players play specifically to make money.

Whats left here is that there is a design purpose for the game that it will entertain in some aspect. Is all gambling a game? No, I dont think so IMO. But most of the things people associate with gambling probably are.

-Geoff

I see the importance in defining things because all learning seems to invariably start with understanding the terms. When I learned networking, at least half of the learning curve was understanding the terms, once I knew them, it became a lot easier to understand what was going on and how things worked together.

Again, when getting into game development there are a lot of terms one needs to learn to be able to discuss things with anyone else, and often to create anything by yourself. So even when you dont have to communicate outwardly, understanding terms of what has already been created or figured out becomes important.

While this is pretty easy to understand when trying to learn DirectX, or another API, because of their inherent use of special terminology, it becomes seemingly less important to define things in the overall sense. After all, everyone knows what a game is right?

Yet, as soon as someone tries to define what a game is, 20 other people have their own opinions and interpretations. Immediately this should throw up a flag that there is not a clear definition that is agreed upon about what a game is.

So, does there need to be a definition? Obviously if people are going to communicate a subject matter, there needs to be a common language they can use. Definitions for this purpose become critical. But what about personal use and learning?

IMO, this is just as important. Definitions are supposed to give an encompassing scope on the situation at hand. If a subject is defined, then any situation dealing with that subject should be covered by the definition. The more complete the definition, the more complete the understanding of the subject and the subject's components.

In dealing with game design, I think this can be seen rather clearly. With the definition that I have come to after a lot of thinking and discussing with different people, all elements of games seem to be covered quite clearly and there are several distinct pieces which can be extrapolated from this. Thereby giving me a roadmap to designing a game.

"An interactive, self-contained system of rules containing a challenge and a victory condition that defines a focused reality for the purpose of entertainment."

- A game must interact with the player.
- A game must state all the rules (even flexible rules) so that the player knows what must be done.
- A game must have some sort of challenge, an obstacle for the player.
- A game must be able to have some kind of victory condition. Something has to HAPPEN: win, lose, gain some sort of closure (even if this is just the highest score/level).
- A game by virtue of its rules and goals will define a small world/reality that all players understand commonly as the rules are there for all to see.
- A game is created for the purpose of entertainment.

Just by following the guidelines of these rules I can write a simple game by knowing the different stages involved. The concept of it mattering whether I know the definition or not is the same as any kind of concept of education, and I would personally rather be educated in a field I choose as my profession.

-Geoff