What is an acceptable definition of "Game"?

[KickAssClown]

Alright, first off I am going to start with this. The word Game at current time is not formally defined. The world of games, whether creation, or play do not have as standard two essential things.

1) A formal Language
2) A set of Inferance rules

As such I have gone through and identified common, essential elements that are unique to games and have come up with this tentative definition:

The word "game" is defined as a multi-agent interactive representation of subjective reality that defines a problem space with which the player can act as a solution explorer within the bounds of the space. Often in a narrative capacity, and in the case of computer games accompanied by music and graphics.

This in the capacity of attempting to define a possible standardized formal language and set of inference rules for the field of games, also known to some as Ludology.

Ready, set, GO!

[InfiniteNow]

The ability of an individual to maximize their positive qualities to a potential mate and secure copulation by doing so.

[KickAssClown]

So that fits games like Tetris for instance?

If your definition were true then why is it that the world is not crawling with game geeks?

What does your definition speak of in terms of the non-optimal, or non-maximized outcomes of the Prisoner's Dilemma and the economic game of Impunity?

Also what scope does your definition apply too? I would guess macroscopic at first glance.

Your answer is fairly simple but the cascade is too great. It forces the acceptance, by inferance, of non-games as games and dissolves any applicability of to a specific field and domain of knowledge and understanding.

Do you think you could narrow it down perhaps to make it less than the sum total of human survival? Games are important, but I don't think they are immanently, immediately, survival critical.

One does not play a game when comfronted, unexpectantly, and accidentially by a bear. Sure choices are made, and some form of dice are cast, but this is easily distinct from sitting down and playing a game of tetris or monopoly.

The difference between the two would appear to be a matter of 1) Choosing to play the game, 2) Artificial problem space, abstracted from reality and therefore representive of subjective reality, not as part of objective reality.

Do you contest this contention? If so why?

[infamous]

Game: The recreational activity seeking victory over another for the fulfillment of ones ego..............Infy

[KickAssClown]

This definition would exclude games such as:
The Sims (and other sim "games")
Peaceful "games" such as Harvest Moon and Creatures.
Single player "games" like Solitaire and Tetris.
Co-operative victory "games" like Civilization and Halo.

I am sure there are more things that are left out. Though I do appreciate the effort. Do you think that games must be defined by the "victory over another" condition? This would preclude a wide variety of possible games that have yet to be made.

Will Wright himself has stated that the Sim universe "games" are actually "toys". Some disagree, would you?

Food for thought.

[infamous]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

Food for thought.

All good points KAC, and I agree for the most part if not totally. When I say "Others", I'm not restricting this word usage to other people. In every game I've played, and in all honesty I've never been much of a game player, there is some object or issue to overcome. This is why I suggested the aim of one playing is "victory". One could also use the term "success" but the difference between the two words is miniscule in my opinion. The ultimate goal of every game I've played is the achievement involved with the anticipated "success, or victory". I again confess that I'm not much of a game player so my opinion may not bear a great deal of merit.
............................Infy

[KickAssClown]

I could accept that, however games like tetris and Harvestmoon both are practically single player without an opposing active agent, player or Computer controlled player or otherwise.

In harvest moon the entire goal is to run the most successful farm you can, get married and have children. There is no competition against active opposing agents in the game. In pure tetris one plays against nothing more than time, and placement of pieces. Once again, without an obvious opponent.

Hence why I include multi-agent. All games include more than just the player. Not always in the form of another player. It can be in the form of the enviroment itself acting as the passive opposing agent. This is why I chose the "Problem space" because all games have problems to be solved and not all games give you a single solution or even a small solution set to that problem space. Which leads to why I chose to call the player a "solution explorer".

In my case I chose the neutral term of solution in favor of victory. Victory implies, formally, a competition or battle, a head to head confrontation. Not all games fall under this categorization. So I chose, implicitly, through my purposed definition to place competitions and conflicts as sub-elements to games.

Once again this is where Solitaire is a good example.

Though I appreciate the effort, Infy, and your contribution helps to carve out the mold through deduction.

One does not have to be a scientist to understand, or study science. Likewise one does not have to be a gamer to understand, or study games.

[Turtle]

Sheesh! What ever happened to using a dictionary? game

[KickAssClown]

Turtle, You are still on my ignore list and I still am not reading your posts. Just thought I would let you know.

[alexander]

how about an activity that is frivolous or ammusing?