Monday 26 February 2007

Entry 1: Defining the concept of 'game'

'Game' is a fuzzy concept. What constitutes a game? Further, do videogames fit into the same category as real life games, such as tennis? One could argue that if something doesn't follow a set of rules then it cannot be defined as a game, such as aimlessly kicking a ball in the air. However, if a friend challenged to see who could kick it the highest, then it could be classed as a game? Wittgenstien argues that game traits often overlap and are interconnected, like the way families' physical traits often resemble each other.

Just as siblings may look alike but have blue/brown eyes, with Tertris, like many games, there is an element of both luck and skill because the shapes that come down are random and skill is involved to make the given blocks fit into a line, keeping the wall low as possible However, some games are puley skill based and some just luck. Newman (2004, p.10) argues that no group of theorists can claim to accurately describe exactly what a videogame is. Howland (1998) attempts to best describe what a videogames are by breaking them down into five distinct interconnected elements: graphics, sound, interface, gameplay and story. Tetris, however, does not adhere to story because it's void of a storyline, and there doesn't need to be sound to play Tetris as effectively.

Therefore, defining the concept of 'game' is problematic. Perhaps the best answer lies with the thought provoking words of Ludwig Wittgenstien: "How should we explain to someone what a game is? I imagine that we should describe games to him, and we might add: “This and similar things are called ‘games.’” And do we know any more about it ourselves? Is it only other people whom we cannot tell exactly what a game is? But this is not ignorance. We do not know the boundaries because none have been drawn." (Philosophical Investigations, aph. 69)

No comments: