Production One

The Definition of Game

To study games, one must grapple with the definition of game(s), as such. This grappling arouses an unease with defining games; how can one ever truly arrive at a solid definition? Indeed, defining games is, understandably, problematic due to the dearth of types of games and their abilities to force a player’s perspective.

In defining a ‘game,’ one realizes the fruitless labour of being able to arrive at any one solid definition: this is exactly what I will attempt to do, here. Using the site, http://www.gamedefinitions.com/, I endeavor to disambiguate my definition(s) of ‘game,’ and how one’s approach to defining gaming, itself, is wholly intricate.

Definition One:

game /gām/ n. (pl. –games) a formalized challenge
characterized by an opposition between forces.

What struck me, with this definition, was the use of ‘opposition’. Indeed, the intended meaning of ‘oppose’ is likely hearkening to a game’s inherent ability to produce conflict between the player and the game itself. Of course, there are many iterations, here: player vs. player, player vs. game, game vs. game, etc. One opposition that strikes me, however, is the player vs. self. Games, in their vast abilities, impress deeply upon the self some difficult questions. In playing games, I find opposition within myself:  through skill challenges, fine motor skills, intellect, and my ability to interact. Playing games allows the ‘self’ to barter with and produce value in opposition. To come against a skill challenge, the player must demonstrate their ability to overcome their own limits. As such, defining a game as an “opposition between forces” attends to a thick assemblage of meaning between the player, the game, and the self.

Definition Two:

game /gām/ n. (pl. –games) an object defined by the author’s sensibility.

A callback to definition one, this definition is couched in a multitude of meaning and interpretation. Two words engrossed me, here: “author,” and “sensibility”. Author, I interpret here, as not the makers and producers of the game itself, rather the player(s). In assessing a game’s authorship, one must necessarily engage with the player’s body, itself. The emergence of one’s emotions whilst playing games (joy, panic, anxiety) tend to the player’s choices in the game and, as such, their authoring of said game. A player might experience a game differently depending on their various moods. Sensibility, then, is an interesting influence in the game’s “making”. Is sensibility an appreciation of the game? A response to stimuli? If authorship is dependent on the emotional faculties of the player, so, too, is sensibility mirrored in the player, themselves.

As such, is an author’s ‘sensibility’ linked to their tacit understanding and authorship of games? Can one even have a tacit understanding of games?  Or is all “authorship” confined to one’s emotional faculties?