Carly Alanna Jonsson
Reading Notes #1
1. I thought it was very interesting how each definition of gaming managed to capture a distinctly different facet of the main idea. I found most of them to be very relatable.
Johann Huizinga’s really hit the question about the seriousness of playing, as well as playing not being serious. There are thousands of people who play games seriously all across the world. Games can be the subject of grand contests, or long obsessions. People can spend their lives totally devoted to a game. However, it is also true that a “game” is something that is “not serious.” It can serve as an escape from real life, or a way to pass time pleasantly. Games themselves are not serious, but players can take them that way if they want to.
Another definition of games that I agreed with was David Parlett’s definition of how a formal game must have a means, and an end. I would argue his point in that some games have no rules, or even an end, but they can still be considered games. However, I’m glad that he clarified that it is in a “formal” game that one must have a means and an end.
2. My definition of a game is hard to put into words because mostly I agree with what I’ve read. However, if I had to put it into my own words, I would say the definition of a game is something in which there are certain circumstances, and where the players can affect either the world around them, the game world, or the other players, in order to bring about something interesting. I feel that this definition incorporates anything that someone would try to call a game, because games can range from very structured layouts with an obvious goal like chess, or something very abstract like The Sims in which the goal is optional, and the point is to experiment.
3. I disagree that puzzles are not games. Even though crossword puzzles are very static, it requires a user to input answers and thus changes the environment of the puzzle. Although nothing moves like it would in an electronic game, letters are still added, and the game board is altered. For me, this counts as a sort of game.
However, looking at his definition of gaming as a whole, I understand that his definition of a game is based more in competition and rules. His games have structure, while I consider the players ability to be involved and having fun as more important than a competition. However, I guess one could argue that my definition is closer to that of “playing” and a more narrow definition is required for the term of gaming. In this case, I will have to agree with Costikyan’s definition.
With this definition, he could not consider second life to be a game, because it doesn’t have a clear objective. It’s more like Sim City, in which you can explore and interact with other users, but there’s no actual “point” to it.
As I said before, I agree with his definition of games in terms of play style and the way he describes how narratives function to support but not be the focus, of said games, also makes sense to me. However, it was most interesting to me what he said about games and art.
I’ve noticed before this article that color is a big component of games. It’s the design of games that can draw people in and in my own search for games I tend to go more toward the ones that have the best design. However, interestingly enough I never really thought about games in terms of art before. But it really does make sense. So much thought goes into the creation of a lot of the games I play now that the design and aesthetics are a big reason why I play them. One of the reasons I started playing the Zelda games was because I liked the look of the characters and landscape around them. I’ve even tried to play a game with a play style I don’t normally like just because I liked the graphics. Games really should be taken into artist consideration as well as play style.