Games

I held a presentation on games in the National Seminar for Philosophy Students (Filosofian opiskelijoiden kansallinen seminaari, FOKS in Finnish) last saturday. It was mostly just basic stuff on (the study of) games, with some quotes from Wittgenstein, Suits, Juul and Salen & Zimmerman. As an ending I presented a loose argument that a minimum definition of games has to include only three points: separation, conflict and rules. Separation means that a game is in some sense separate from the surrounding reality usually both spatially and temporally. (The line of separation is commonly called ’the magic circle’.) This can also be extended to cover the concept of artificiality commonly associated with games, and Juul’s demand that games must have “negotiable consequences”. ...

When reading about games I’ve come across some very peculiar things that may not entirely be called games, but which resemble them very closely. They also differ from games in interesting ways. What makes them non-games (or a-games) differs, but each example is interesting: Passage seems to be a game of passing through a (randomly generated) maze, but really it is more a story of passing through life. You begin the journey as a young man and encounter a woman; if you touch her, you will begin walking together. If you walk with her, you will not be able to go everywhere - walking with her limits your choices. But at least you’re not walking alone. Passage is more of a work of art than a game (not that they are exclusive categories), worth the few minutes it takes to try it. ...

I recently read Iain M. Banks’ The Player of Games, and besides being a good book it’s got special kicks for anyone into game research. ...