The problem with games

I'm going to make this one a quick entry, what with the holidays and all, and hope that it expands into something worthwhile due to everyone's participation in the comments section.

I've nearly finished reading Rule of Play, by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman, and must add that this may be the best book on pure game design that I've yet read. In effect, this is the first book that I've seen that could be used as a college textbook on game design. It's well written, researched, and covers a great many topics from a fundamental angle that I've not seen done as well in other books.

One section of this book covers the definition of "game." The authors present their definition along with definitions from several other industry notables or academics. For those who haven't the book in front of them, here's some of the definitions of game from the book:

o "A game is a context with rules among adversaries trying to win objectives." -- Clark Abt

o "Playing a game is the voluntary effort to overcome unnecessary obstacles." -- Bernard Suits

o From Chris Crawford's The Art of Computer Game Design, he gives a lengthy definition that includes qualities of representation, interaction, conflict and safety. In part, he writes, "A game is a closed formal system that subjectively represents a subset of reality."

o "A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in pursuit of a goal." - Greg Costkyan

o "Games are an exercise of voluntary control systems, in which there is a contest between powers, confined by rules in order to produce a disequilibrial outcome." -- Elliot Avedon and Brian Sutton-Smith (from their book, The Study of Games)

o "A game is a system in which players engage in artificial conflict, defined by rules, that result in a quantifiable outcome." -- Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman, from their book.

(Note: I do not include Sid Meier's informal definition, "a series of interesting decisions," because I do not think he meant this to be anything more than an off-the-cuff shorthand comment, even though I've seen him quoted dozens of times as if this was his gospel definition.)

All of these definitions generally work, but I'm a fan of simplicity. So, while reading these definition several months ago, I spent about five minutes to see if I could come up with a very short definition that still covers the key points. Here's what I ended up with: A game is a structured set of fun problems.

Here's why I like my definition: Conflict is not required, which means it includes games like The Sims, Bejeweled, Tetris, and flight simulators. Also, there's no requirement of a final outcome -- I do not require a game to be winnable. Costkyan talks about managing resources, but I disagree with this requirement because games like Frogger and Tetris don't have resources to manage -- they have a game piece to manipulate, but no resource to manage, and calling a game piece a resource is a real stretch. I include "structure" because a game must have rules and context. Lastly, I include the requirement of fun, which, strangely, most definitions I've seen leave out.

The heart of my definition is "fun problems". This is truly the essence of any game, and separates a game from any activity we don't prefer to do in our spare time. Problems can take the form of enemies, puzzles, hazards, conflict and anything that's a challenge. (If a game is not a challenge, then it's not fun, so challenge is built into the definition of fun.) Game designers do nothing else but throw problems at players, in one form or another, and successful games make problems fun to solve.

So, does my definition blow chunks? Got a better one? If so, let's hear it in the comments section...

Comments

[Richard Süselbeck]

All of these definitions are perfectly valid. Unfortunately saying that a game "is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in pursuit of a goal" is like saying that film is "a sequence of images of moving objects photographed by a camera and providing the optical illusion of continuous movement when projected onto a screen".

Both definitions are certainly true, but they are entirely focused on the mechanics of makings films/games and tell us absolutely nothing about the nature of film or games as forms of art. So in essence they're completely worthless unless you really have no clue at all what a film or a video game is to begin with.

Your definition is a little more interesting, because it includes the word "fun". I disagree with requiring games to be fun, however. After all, was Schindler's List a "fun" movie? Certainly not. But most people were still glad that they saw it. In the same way I believe that games can make you feel almost the whole spectrum of human emotion and not just the limited subset that I would associate with the word "fun".

Most game developers still seem to see video games mostly as electronic toys and your definition seems to support that. Toys are only supposed be fun. A toy that makes you feel sad is a bad toy. A game that makes you feel sad is actually a major success, at least if making you feel sad was the creator's intention. Fallout had a very sad and poignant ending and that's exactly why everyone loves it so much.

I think the key to a meaningful definition of video games as an art form lies in the fact that a game forces the player to make decisions. If it doesn't, it's just a toy. I think Sid Meier, wether serious or not, really hit the nail on the head. His definition is actually pretty close to yours (after all a decision is just a response to a problem) except that he doesn't require the decision to be fun. Just interesting. Let's explore what "interesting" can mean.

"Saving Private Ryan" raised the question of wether one life was worth risking that of several others. A game could raise the same question, by forcing the player to make that decision. (It's quite unfortunate that the Medal of Honor series, which was often indirectly marketed as "SVP - The Game" only requires the player to decide which Nazi to shoot first, but that's another discussion.) This is where the strength of games comes into play. Forcing the player to actually make that decision himself also forces him to really think about the issue, weigh the pros and the cons, etc. In the film he can just let Tom Hanks make the decision for him.

What makes an "interesting" decision? Simple. Anything that gets an emotional response from the player and/or gets him/her thinking. That emotional reponse can certainly be "happyness", in which case it's a "fun" game. But it can also be "sadness" if, for example, he has to sacrifice a friend in order to win the war. (A moment in Corey & Lori Ann Cole's "Shannara" where you are forced to kill your girlfriend to prevent her from turning into something horrible still ranks as my most emotional and favorite gaming moment ever. Ironically most people complained, because there was no way to "win" that sequence. They saw the game as nothing more than a toy.)

So I guess what I'm trying to say is: I agree with Sid Meier. :)

[Michael Hobbs]

I think that I would rank "artificial" above "fun". Bernard Suits' use of "unnecessariy obstacles" in his definition really resonated with me, which was then repeated by Salen and Zimmerman's use of "artificial conflict". I think artificiality is the key-piece to games. However, the artificial conflict has to have some element of fun in order for anyone to willingly engage in it. I propose that someone could in fact devise a game where the conflict was artificial, but not fun. Such a game would still be a "game", but it would be a game that nobody would play.

[Gestalt]

"I disagree with requiring games to be fun, however"

It all depends on your definition of "fun". There are plenty of depressing, downbeat movies that aren't fun (Requiem For A Dream springs to mind), but which you can still enjoy watching. Making the viewer / player sad doesn't mean that you're not entertaining them. In fact, taking them on an emotional journey is (for most genres) a good thing. But if they're not having fun on some level, they're not going to keep watching / playing.

Having said that, it's perfectly possible to make a game that isn't fun either way, but I wouldn't advise doing it! ;) What Scott said is more a definition of "a good game" rather than just "a game".

[Brian S.]

I think you and the rest are thinking too much about the electronic form of games to form a proper definition. A very simplified, common, and understandable definition of "GAME" that encompasses most forms of activities that could be described as games, from toys to gambling to sports to role-playing, would be: "structured interactive play."

By "structured" I mean a prescripted set of rules for the game. A deck of cards is not a game, but solitaire, poker, rummy et al are considered games because they have specific rules that govern and structure the activity.

By "interactive" I mean active participation by the user(s) to cause/affect change in the game. Participation is a requisite factor. A kid with a toy gun in itself is not a game, but "cowboys and indians" is one.

By "play" I mean an activity or set of activities whose participation is primarily done during/for the non-essential (leisure) time of the user(s) life activities. In other words, "play" is in contrast to "work." For a professional as opposed to an amateur, the activity is no longer a game, but a job.

[Richard Süselbeck]

"But if they're not having fun on some level, they're not going to keep watching / playing."

I'm not so sure about this. Watching "Requiem for a Dream" is not fun or entertaining on any level. At all. At least not for me. Requiem can only be fun for a freak who loves to see other people suffer.

So why is Requiem a good movie? Wwhy do we keep watching, despite the fact that we feel bad while doing so? Simple: Catharsis. By living through all these negative emotions we experience a great relief of tension and anxiety when it's all over. But only then. Not while we're watching it.

So finishing the movie is "fun" if you define the word loosely, but not the process of watching it. That's a very important distinction.

[Scott Miller]

At first, I was vacillating between using "entertaining" or "compelling" rather than the word "fun." I liked "entertaining" up until the last minute, and changed it to "fun" just to shorten the letter count, but maybe that was a mistake.

Schindler's List may not have been fun, but it was entertaining, no?

Also, I'm not sure that movies need to be fun, while games should strive to be.

Perhaps a bigger question is this: Is it necessary for a game to be fun (or entertaining)? Or, is an un-fun game one that should be considered work?

I've stopped playing many games that were not fun, and conversely I only finish games that are fun. It seems to me that some quality of pleasure must be present to separate a game from activities you wouldn't voluntarily do in your free time.

[Richard Süselbeck]

"I think you and the rest are thinking too much about the electronic form of games to form a proper definition."

I can't speak for the others, but you are right. I do. And that's quite intentional. I think that video games are really moving away from the more traditional forms of games that you're talking about. I don't even think that "video game" is an appropriate term anymore. But we're stuck with it for better or for worse.

If video games are the same thing as "cowboys and indians" then they aren't art. And if they aren't art, we're probably wasting our time here, because then they wouldn't be all that interesting. (At least they wouldn't be to me.)

Of course if you through a wide enough net around the term "game" then video games will always be included. But the idea here really is to specifically figure out what video games are and not games in general.

[Richard Süselbeck]

"It seems to be that some quality of pleasure must be present to separate a game from activities you wouldn't voluntarily do in your free time."

Yes, but the pleasure doesn't necessarily have to be inherent in the problems of the game, as your definition implies. The pleasure after seeing Requiem of a Dream can be quite intense for the audience. But that pleasure comes from the fact that the pain has stopped (in a meaningful way of course, otherwise the end of the House of the Dead movie would be orgasmic), not from the fact that the movie was pleasurable itself.

Maybe making the decisions in the game is quite painful and you really don't want to be faced with all these moral dilemmas, but dealing with them teaches you something about yourself and that can give you pleasure.

As such I don't think that requiring the problems themselves to be fun is quite correct.

[Jeffool]

I guess I'm kinda with Meier on this one. I like to say 'choice(s)made within a set of bounding rules'. It doesn't have to be a series, as that would rule out rock-paper-scissors. But I guess mine would exclude Calvin-Ball from Calvin and Hobbes.... Yeah, Okay. I'm with Meier. Games are choice(s).

And I think they can be art. I think anything not done for the sole purpose of survival can be art.

But I think your question of 'MUST video games be fun" a much more interesting one. My first reaction is "Of course not!", but then I think about it, and I'm not so sure. Has anyone here played a game they wouldn't consider 'fun' while playing? And I mean in Richard's superb explanation of "Not while you were playing, but after you played it, you were glad you did," type way.

As a complete aside; Requiem For A Dream had me slack-jawed and muttering "Oh man... It can't get worse" every time they cut to a new scene. I loved the movie. Good point in bringing it up.

[Robert]

The problem with comparing movies with games is that games are interactive. How many people wish to control someone who is hooked on some type of drug? How about WATCHING someone who is hooked on the drug? Well, Requiem For A Dream shows that people enjoy watching it. I, personally, would never even consider a game that gives the player control of an addict. Why? How is that fun? Why would any player wish to jump into a fantasy world where their virtual life involves doing drugs, spending time at an imprisonment camp, or throwing their comrades out to die? No player wants these dark ideas to be interactive. Why? It isn't fun.

[Richard Süselbeck]

"Has anyone here played a game they wouldn't consider 'fun' while playing?"

Sure, any game that has ever scared me. In real life we don't want to be scared, because it's a very negative emotion. But being scared in a game or movie can be very cathartic and the experience actually helps us deal with our real life fears.

By the way, there have been games made featuring drug use, imprisonment and killing comrades. And many of them were good. In part because of those things. They are all a part of the human experience, and we deal with these issues in our art and entertainment. If video games do not deal with issues like these they will end up being a short lived fad and any hope of them becoming a respected art form is already lost.

[Jim Vessella]

I think the definition using fun is better suited to deciding what is a good or bad game. I dont think anyone can argue that good games aren't fun. As many of us have said, we won't play a game unless its fun, thus Scott's definition of "fun" or "entertaining" for a GOOD game is right on.

But what about games that suck? We all know they exist, they recieve horrid reviews, and sell minimal copies. But they still do exist. Are these "interactive systems" not games simply because they're bad? What if they include the other characteristics such as conflict, rules, and choices. Just because they're not fun doesn't mean they're not games, it just means they're not GOOD games. Thus the definition of "fun" should be reserved for judging the quality of a game, not whether it is a game in the first place.

[Gestalt]

"How many people wish to control someone who is hooked on some type of drug?"

Actually there's a module for Neverwinter Nights called A Recipe For Horror where your character can get hooked on gumbo made from .. shall we say some rather odd ingredients. If you go too long without a fix you start to suffer ability score penalties.

And wasn't there a drug-induced nightmare sequence in Max Payne? It really dragged on for too long - all that running around on narrow ledges in the dark above a bottomless pit got tired quick, and the constant wailing and screaming was enough to drive the player as mad as Max - but it was an interesting idea, and the skewed FOV and strange lighting and sound effects worked quite well up to a point.

And I always thought it would have been a nice touch if the player had got less and less effect from the painkillers Max was constantly popping as he built up a tolerance to them. Taking all that medication in the space of a proverbial New York minute can't be good for you... ;)

"Why would any player wish to jump into a fantasy world where their virtual life involves doing drugs, spending time at an imprisonment camp, or throwing their comrades out to die?"

Having the player's character hooked on drugs could be an interesting .. er .. hook for a game if handled well. You could do anything from a tacky GTA style smash-and-grab fest where you play a junkie trying to fund their habit (a sure fire way to get tabloid headlines, be banned from Walmart, and so sell millions of copies) to a game where some unscrupulous person has got you hooked on a drug as a way of controlling you and you have to find a way out whilst doing jobs for them in the meantime to keep yourself alive. Imagine if Max Payne had tackled the issue of drug addiction head on instead of just having Max have some weird dreams and then go through cold turkey in a cutscene. It might have made for a much more interesting ending to the game.

There have been several games recently set in PoW camps, and I remember having a lot of fun playing an Escape From Colditz boardgame as a kid.

Throwing your comrades out to die is pretty much a staple of real-time strategy and tactical action games, especially as neither genre is exactly well known for its great AI.

[Scott Miller]

Jim, it's hard to argue that un-fun games are not still games. But just because we can make a bad game, does that automatically mean that a proper definition shouldn't include the requirement for pleasure? Perhaps un-fun games are game wannabes, or game failures?

I'm not sure either way with this, just tossing stuff out. But I do have a hard time abandoning the notion of entertainment as part of the definition, because that seems to be 99% of the reason we play games -- to be entertained. If we're not entertained, then the game merely becomes a test of some sort. (And how many games are about as fun as taking a test!)

Lots of great comments, so far, btw. Many angles to consider.

One last thing for those who like Meier's definition: Isn't the word "interesting" pretty close to "entertaining"?

[Michael Hobbs]

Here's a possible counter-example: I know people who have fun and are entertained by IQ tests and brain teasers. Are they games?

[Dundee]

An interesting read is over on Raph Koster's Page: "the theory of fun" - at http://www.legendmud.org/raph/gaming/theoryoffun.html

Basically saying, a game is fun only for as long as it takes for you to master it - to see the pattern to the point that you know exactly what to do / how to win / what's going to happen next - and then you're done with it (but it's a nice PDF file with lots of pics, so you're really better off hopping over there and reading it for yourself).

This would include "IQ tests and brain teasers", which those people would NOT find enjoyable if they were too easy. i.e. If they know all the answers without having to think about it, they'd find that particular IQ test boring.

Definition of fun stretches to include anything and everything that is "NOT BORING".

But then, I've played games that were just too freaking hard. I wasn't exactly bored, being all red-faced and cursing and whatnot at the time, but I was frustrated, and definitely wasn't having fun.

[Brian S.]

Let me clarify and expound upon the meaning of games as structured interactive play. I think the confusion over what a “game” is and whom a “gamer” is is because “structured interactive play” branches into two main categories that often overlap and we, the “players,” move between each group. Most games are either performance or non-performance skilled competitions.

By performance I mean participatory role-play wherein the participants assume alter-egos (but not necessarily alter-personalities) in order to play the game. The classic example is role-playing the dungeon and dragons game. Players create new identities in accordance to the game rules and go quest adventuring. PC games that typify this category include Diablo, Wizardry, and most MMORPGs. A close cousin of this group is the interactive fiction-type game. Rather than making up your own character, you become the story’s character and prod him (or her or it) along toward one ending or another in a structured narrative (which is usually saving the princess/kingdom/world/universe from the evil dude and associated minions). In addition to traditional quest-adventure games, most non-ported console RPGs, to the consternation of some, like SquareEnix’s Final Fantasy series fall into this group.

Non-performance skilled competitions include most of what else are considered games. These include card and gambling games (go fish and poker), board games (chess and monopoly), tabletop games (pool and pinball), toy games (marbles and jacks), TV games (Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune), competitive target shooting, and sports. The principal factor that differentiates them from performance games is the object of scoring toward a goal of accumulating wins. While you can be victorious in a role-playing game (either through battle or by accomplishing minor and major goals), it is not a requisite for participation. Victory (through the concept of scoring/point totaling) is the sin qua non of non-performance skilled competition games. Of course, you can play a game without keeping track of the score, but it does not obscure the fact that points have accumulated (either for or against you). Also, these games do not require players assume alternative identities (though for most sports video games players take the attributes of the athlete characters). Video games in this category include all electronic card, gambling, board, tabletop and sports game versions, many shooters, and most arcade and arcade-style games that keep high scores.

A synthesis of the two above main groups is the simulation/strategy (simstrat) game, especially as an electronic platform. The simstrat can have a narrative or not (Command & Conquer v. SimCity). You can assume an alter-ego or not (Wing Commander v. Microsoft Flight Simulator). Scoring can be kept or not (Railroad Tycoon v. SimLife). Simstrats are typified by either assembling/construction or God-perspective or both.

Of course, many games have some attributes of all of these categories. So, it is not inconsistent for groups like the ESA to proclaim that video games are not longer and should not be stereotyped as just for teenage boys. However, industry figures like Chris Crawford have complained that this is decidedly misleading because although it is true that the definition of “games” should encompass each form of structured interactive play, it is not where the bulk of the sales that ESA members get their revenue from. Those multi-million dollar budgets that publishers front are not going for card and board games, but for testosterone-inducing, whiz-bang action games. If one is able to parse out what the various parties mean by “games” then we can come to some understanding of how well the state of the industry is proceeding.

[DaveT]

My shortest: Games are educational tools for the imagination.
The goal and/or conflict is imagined, bound by imaginary constraints.
Every experience educates and the finest inspires.

[Some Guy]

It seems like saying "fun problems" becomes a judgement call and is thus unsuitable as a definition. Somehow the definition has to communicate the intent, not the judgement:

A game is a structured set of problems intended to entertain.

Doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well unfortunately.

In any case, while it's a fun exercise, I think that while working on a game design you need to view it through many different lenses to truly do it right.

[Jim Vessella]

Scott, I like your counter-point that un-fun games are possibly game failures, and I also like Dundee's point that some games are just too hard to qualify as having fun. (I'm reminded of the first time I played Myst or Riven)

I'm thinking now that the definition could be refined that games AIM to be entertaining or fun. After all, fun is often subjective. While I may have been frustrated playing Riven, the next guy might have had a blast. What if a game was designed correctly for fun, but turned out with too many bugs to provide an enjoyable experience?

Thus I would say games strive to be fun, whether they succeed or not should not deter from the fact that they are still games.

[Scott Miller]

-- "A game is a structured set of problems intended to entertain."

Some Guy, I really like this one; definitely an improvement over my original stab at a short definition, and cures the problem that many games fail to be fun.

Jim, I think you're right, too.

All: Does the word "interactive" need to be part of the definition? I've gone back and forth on this point, and currently I'm leaning toward No as the answer. Am I wrong?

[Brian S.]

I don't think the statement "a structured set of problems intended to entertain" really defines what a game means. It is both too vague and haphazardly worded. Since what entetains you is in the eye of the beholder, solving math problems or fixing a leaky pipe would fall under the definition of a game. This doesn't work.

Also, interactivity is crucial to a game since what is a game devoid of participation by players? (see my posts).

[Owen Christensen]

Turning to our friends at dictionary.com:

Game - An activity providing entertainment or amusement.

No set of problems. No definite end. No specification of medium. Our job is to provide diversion from reality and (fleeting) joy. It is our ultimate goal as game creators. If we do not provide entertainment we provide paperweights. And we're not in the paperweight business :)

[CM Lubinski]

"Thus I would say games strive to be fun, whether they succeed or not should not deter from the fact that they are still games."

This is very accurate. All games are supposed to be entertaining in one way or another, whether this is for the user or the creator.

Also, the "artificial" challenges may not be entirely true. After all, look at Street Fighter or any sport. This is a challenge of persons. A created world could be included but is not necessary. The actual game lies in pitting two HUMAN players against each other.

Continuing, interactivity is a must for a game. If it were not interactive, it would be a picture, movie, or book.
Although looking towards movies and the like is not going to give us all the answers, it does give us the essence of a story. Every story has a conflict; otherwise it is just a collection of ramblings, not a STORY. Similarly, a game needs conflict/obstacles/problems/tasks. If there is a conflict, there must be a goal. Therefore we can assume that all games need a goal, whether it be short term (Pac man: I ATE HIM!!!) or long term (Link: Triforce whoo!).

[Brian S.]

Excerpted from Merriam-Webster Online:

Main Entry: game
Pronunciation: 'gAm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gamen; akin to Old High German gaman amusement
Date: before 12th century
1 a (1) : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement : PLAY (2) : the equipment for a game b : often derisive or mocking jesting : FUN, SPORT
2 a : a procedure or strategy for gaining an end : TACTIC b : an illegal or shady scheme or maneuver : RACKET
3 a (1) : a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other (2) : a division of a larger contest (3) : the number of points necessary to win (4) : points scored in certain card games (as in all fours) by a player whose cards count up the highest (5) : the manner of playing in a contest (6) : the set of rules governing a game (7) : a particular aspect or phase of play in a game or sport b plural : organized athletics c (1) : a field of gainful activity : LINE (2) : any activity undertaken or regarded as a contest involving rivalry, strategy, or struggle ; also : the course or period of such an activity (3) : area of expertise : SPECIALTY 3
4 a (1) : animals under pursuit or taken in hunting; especially : wild animals hunted for sport or food (2) : the flesh of game animals b archaic : PLUCK c : a target or object especially of ridicule or attack -- often used in the phrase fair game
synonym see FUN
- game·like /-lIk/ adjective