[game_edu] Why define a game? (was Re: Definition of a Game)

[Nic Colley]

I can understand your frustration with defining a game and how it can seem pointless at times. I guess the more enlightening aspect of learning other peoples definitions of games is that we can gleem some of their process of creating a game off of this. Think about hearing Shigeru Miyamoto's definition versus Cliff Bleszinski's.

-Nic

-----Original Message-----
From: steve graham [mailto:skg at dsu.edu] 
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 3:59 PM
To: IGDA Game Education Listserv
Subject: [game_edu] Why define a game? (was Re: Definition of a Game)

I have certainly spent my share of time thinking about what a game is 
and the myriad choices of definitions and defining characteristics. I 
even have my own theories and favorites. However, while I spend time on 
defining characteristics and feel it is time worth spending, I often end 
up coming back to the question:

What difference does it make?

Or to frame this question in a way that may be a bit more constructive:

How does any particular theory or definition of games inform my design 
and development of a game?

I don't have an answer I'm happy with.

My intuition is that the theorizing does have a significant effect, but 
not one that is obvious or clear to me. I'd really like to hear others' 
thoughts.

How *does* defining "game" (or "play" or ...) positively impact design 
and development?

(Of course, I could be fooling myself. It could all be negative -- a 
futile waste of time and energy with no consequences, as we argue nits 
with each other. But it doesn't seem like that. Why not?)

cheers,
skg


-- 
steve graham
associate professor
computer game design
dakota state university
skg at dsu.edu
605-480-6603

_______________________________________________
game_edu mailing list
game_edu at igda.org
http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_edu