This seems to be a fairly simple question with an obvious answer, but if you dig deeper it is hard to come up with a concise definition that formally answers this question. The reason for this is that there are so many variables and it is hard to make a clear definition, for example, one that encompasses not only physical childhood games but also very progressive digital games.
According to game historian David Parlett, he believes a game has two characteristics which are ends and means. Ends refers to the idea that a game is basically a contest that only one player or team can win. Means refers to the game equipment and rules. According to theorist Jesper Juul "A game is a rule-based formal system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, and the player exerts efforts in order to influence the outcome, the player feels attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable"
Both of these definitions establish the idea that games must have rules, and they also imply that there must be some type of conflict. Parlett's definition seems to be somewhat narrow when applied to modern video games which have become highly innovative. For example, World of Warcraft is basically an open ended game that can continue for as long as you'd like (unless of course you cannot pay for your monthly subscription.) Juul's definition however seems to be more open ended and concise, which would classify World of Warcraft as a game because his definition does not call for there to be an ending.
No comments:
Post a Comment