{"id":2102,"date":"2015-06-10T23:21:23","date_gmt":"2015-06-10T21:21:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.jesperjuul.net\/ludologist\/?p=2102"},"modified":"2023-11-17T10:28:13","modified_gmt":"2023-11-17T09:28:13","slug":"what-is-a-game-redux","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.jesperjuul.net\/ludologist\/2015\/06\/10\/what-is-a-game-redux\/","title":{"rendered":"What is a Game redux"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is my fourteenth monthly\u00a0Patch Wednesday<\/a>\u00a0post where I discuss a question about video games that I think is unanswered, unexplored, or not\u00a0posed yet. I will propose my own tentative ideas and invite comments.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

The series is\u00a0called\u00a0Patch Wednesday to mark the sometimes ragtag and improvised character of video game studies.<\/em><\/p>\n

What is a game?<\/b><\/h2>\n

One of the joys of having been around for a while in game studies is to see certain arguments repeatedly go in and out of fashion. It’s not as much cyclical (since we never quite return to a place we have been before), but rather that old arguments come back, donning new garb and meaning something somewhat<\/em> different than they used to.<\/p>\n

At the very good recent DiGRA conference in L\u00fcneburg, many speakers stated how they were “not interested in definitions”. After initially trying to question that sentiment, I decided to rather note some of the recent history of game definitions. Please pardon the self-indulgence as I return to my own earlier work.<\/p>\n

*<\/p>\n

As you recall, Wittgenstein argued against trying to define games<\/em> (or rather the German Spiel<\/em>), saying that we should not look for an essential core, but see the myriad ways in which the word is used, only connected by family resemblances. Or rather: in common interpretations[1]<\/a>, games<\/em> was just an example for Wittgenstein – what he criticizes is the attempt at looking for definitions in the first place, for any word. So Wittgenstein’s argument is not specific to games at all.<\/p>\n

The thing, of course, is that Wittgenstein is not trying very hard to find any commonalities in the activities he is describing (board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games). At the very least, they do seem to be semi-repeatable activities performed by humans…<\/p>\n

*<\/p>\n

And then – certainly there is a general post-structuralist attitude common in\u00a0the humanities and social sciences today, and which I was trained in myself. So when thinking about video games, it was interesting to try to make game definitions, in part because<\/em> you are not supposed to!<\/em><\/p>\n

In my 2003 paper The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness<\/a>\u00a0<\/i>I came up with what I called The Classic Game Model<\/em>:<\/p>\n

A [classic] game is a rule-based formal system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome, the player feels attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable.<\/em><\/p>\n

It also came with an illustration, pointing to the “games” where we tend to disagree about whether or not they are games:<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a><\/p>\n

What kind of definition?<\/h3>\n

I called this a definition, but what does that mean? It does not cover all possible uses for the word “game”, or even a (harder to define) preexisting notion of “game”. Philosopher Anil Gupta distinguishes between different types of definitions, let me mention three candidates[2]<\/a>:<\/p>\n