What separates something that is considered a game from something that isnt? Ultimately, even a bad definition wont stop a new form of game being made, as it will be done anyway. I cant imagine someone thinking of a good idea and then thinking of the definitions of the word game and saying "This is a great idea, but it doesnt meet the definition of a game, so I wont do it".

In the case that the definition DOESNT cover an aspect of something that is a game, then its easy enough to revise the definition as we've already done a number of times.

-Geoff

I suppose the point I was trying to make, although I might have strayed a bit from it, is that it is pointless to define something as diverse as what a computer game. There are so many games that are so different from each other and yet still manage to amuse us while we unconciously spend hours on end playing them. Also, I have to disagree about the impact of defining exactly what a game is. No, I don't think somebody is going to come up with a good idea and then say "Wait, this doesn't conform to the fourth point in the definition of game. Well, back to the drawing board." What I do think might happen is that somebody might come up with an idea that might not be fully covered by this definition and think "Hmm, we don't have point four in our game, now how could we add it in..." even though their original idea would have made a great game.

Will people actually go so far in conforming to such a definition? Probably not. But why have a detailed definition for something that does not require it? Good ol' KISS principle for me.

Keeping it simple IMO, means to not unnecessarily complicate the definition. IMO, for designers the current definition is not overly complicated. Keeping with the maxim of, "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

If anyone has any reasons that I can understand and follow to a clear conclusion for why part of the definition should be removed or something should be added Ill gladly do so. The process of this definition was not to create a word and then define reality by it, its to test reality and build a definition off of it.

Lets put it this way, what if people had been content to say "Gravity just makes stuff fall down" and left it at that? Why is it more necessary to define what gravity is than it is to define what an element of games are? There is a clear definition of acting, physics, reading, but games shouldnt have a clear definition?

I personally just dont think this is the correct way to deal with things as without a common language and understanding its very hard to build more complex understandings than the bottom floor layer.

-Geoff

Basically, it boils down to there being some things that should be defined in great detail, and other things that should only have vague definitions so as to leave ample room for creativity and innovation.

The term "3D rendering engine" is a good example of something that should be thoroughly defined. It is good to know exactly what somebody is thinking of when they talk about such a thing.

On the other hand, defining something such as what a game is doesn't really have a point and could actually do harm. A definition as basic as "A program, the purpose of which is to entertain or occupy the user" is entirely sufficient without serving constrain what one might create as a game. Creating a strict set of rules that a game must conform to, however, might serve to limit the imagination.

NOTE: This brings to mind something that I read a while back about game programming. Sometimes the people who make the best game programmers are those who are new to the subject and who's minds have not yet been clouded with notions of what they "can't" do.

I can only hope that this struggle to create a standardized game development vocabulary ends up being successful without going overboard.