@Simon Interesting – I think the common interpretation of Wittgenstein is that we should never try to define anything, but perhaps that is a misinterpretation.

@Steve Informally, I think that rituals are meant to have non-variable outcome. So if the users are sufficiently skilled, the certainty and repeatability of a ritual are demonstrations that our beliefs and social structure remain standing. I do think that adding a score counter can make something into a game.

I’m incorporating both your view and Richard’s (Hi Richard – it’s been a while since Magdeburg!) and liking Lee’s comment.

Follow the white rabbit and answer my question =)

From this point I see the use of the tool i.e. “game” (very broad approach to tool -> artefact, service and process model) for play which gives (in multi-player games) some kind of social ritual and interpretations of the tool (rules of the ritual).

If we add a formal evaluation of the execution of Ring-a-ring-a-roses (like Lee did – but I feel it’s more like a gamble then) the outcome is quantifiable one (perhaps from qualitative aspects on a non discrete scale). But is it a game then? There is nothing stopping you from compare ring-a-ring-a-roses to competition dancing (or what it is called in English?), playing, rituals (change of the guards at the Tower/Buckingham Palace, formal dinners, any University ceremony, etc), public performances…

Game (and play) is equally troubled as the word animal is. It is not easy to come to the (wanted/valued as an academic) generalised definition when removing the context where the word is used. If you describe ring-a-ring-a-roses in a fixed form with evaluation criteria – we can interpretate it as game.

Implement a simulator (or why not “4:32”) and add a score counter and you have a game?
[“I was thinking about adding a high score table. Would that be an added incentive?”, http://www.jesperjuul.net/ludologist/432-my-conceptual-game-from-the-global-game-jam ]

Best to All in the New Year! I hope to see you soon!

But as Jesper said, I think he has more to say about language than about games, although it can enlight our thoughts about them. I don’t think he argued that games were indefinable, I think he basically argued that most of the concepts we use in everyday life are not defined when we use them. When we read a (non-academic) text where the word “game” (or “play” or “videogame”, etc.) is used and not (implicitly or explicitly) defined, it can mean different things which do not necessarily have something in common, because that’s how language works. For a lot of concepts, there will always be borderline cases, but the concept is still mostly effective in common usage.

That said, it’s worth to define even broadly our concept of games when we ought to study them. I’m pretty sure we could fine a definition of language somewhere in Wittgenstein’s works!

As an analogy, it\’s as if he\’s been talking about motorbike and then told us to look at cars and buses and ships and planes, to reveal that they\’re all motorbikes in some sense. They\’re not motorbikes, though, they\’re vehicles. A motorbike is a kind of vehicle, but that doesn\’t mean vehicles are all motorbikes.

Games are a kind of play, but not all play involves games. Ring-a-ring-a-roses is is play, but whether it\’s a game or not depends on whether you think you can lose at it. I guess 3-year-olds could, but even so I don\’t think they would routinely ask \”can we play a game of ring-a-ring-a-roses?\” instead of \”can we play ring-a-ring-a-roses?\”.

Richard