Define what a "Game" is.

[Xenich]

I think this is an important discussion. Let it go "deep", pull out the etymology, the evolution, etc... but define what a "Game" is.

It can change over time, be understood differently based on era, but ultimately... it is derived from a basic concept of understanding and purpose.

What was that, what was it's original purpose, what did it adapt to over time, and what has it become today?

[Jordy]

I just lost The Game. Thanks.

[Oyster Sauce]

It's when you play the role of someone

[J1M]

An activity that tests skills and has variable outcomes.

Many things sold as 'games' today are just activities.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Some sort of interactive activity for leisure. Golf, uno, mafia, pac man, etc.

[asf]

urmom

[rusty_shackleford]

It must have win and lose conditions, otherwise it is just a type of activity and/or simulation

[maidenhaver mk3]

Rules. Winners and losers.

[Xenich]

Ok, so based on the concept that it must have win/loss conditions... what is the "point" of a game.

[Bertram_Tung]

I think this is an important discussion

it's not

[maidenhaver mk3]

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

[Xenich]

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

So in short... to win.

[Xenich]

I think this is an important discussion

it's not

What are you afraid of? Or... is it that you already know the end result and tire of the eventual result of the discussion, which is often... useless (ie nobody comes to consensus, everything turns ********).

[Xenich]

An activity that tests skills and has variable outcomes.

Many things sold as 'games' today are just activities.

I think this is a good point. If you look at the basic definition of a game (not modern ones) it is simply a contest (very simplified, but I think fitting).

Games today often fit more of the focus of "entertainment", which falls in line with "activities" as you mentioned, though they aren't entirely "equal" in definition.

I think this is important as it clearly shows a directional change in terms of what a game is designed for, though I would add "entertainment" is more of the focus which has led to games being designed around keeping people playing.

The problem with this concept is it is at odds with a game. Granted, if you are making a game, you want people to be interested in it to stay with it and certainly a game can be designed in a way where even the most fervent "gamers" would find little value in continuation.

That said, I think most games today focus "entirely" on entertainment, in retaining the player and because the market has expanded to people who don't like games, it has created strife in how a game should be designed.

That is to say, games have become "entertainment" mostly, not games if you look at the developers comments, the companies motives, the games designs, etc.. (outside of political activism). Games aren't games, but more gimmicks to keep people interested as long as possible and this has nothing to do with gaming at its core.

[aimlesshealer]

Ok, so based on the concept that it must have win/loss conditions... what is the "point" of a game.

I think the main purpose of games is to learn and practice skills, whether physical or mental, in a safe, low-risk environment. That's why kids' primary occupation is play: they're practicing how to be adults. Skills could be anything from hand-eye coordination to navigation to dealing with assholes to frustration tolerance. The win/loss condition provides a standard against which the skill can be judged: you must be this competent to win. Our brains reward us with the sensation of "fun" when the right mix of novelty and challenge is met. If the game is too easy/hard or too predictable, then you're not improving anything, so you're not having fun.*

Adults play less than children because by that point you're suppposed to move from practice to the real thing, but even as an adult there are plenty of things to learn, plus games are a good outlet for skills that don't see much use in modern, industrialized life.

*Note that people can find (bad) games enjoyable for other reasons besides this. For example, they might feel rewarded by being tricked into thinking they're amassing resources, by assuaging their FOMO, or simply by the pleasure of seeing pretty colors flash on a screen.

[Tangerine]

Ok, so based on the concept that it must have win/loss conditions... what is the "point" of a game.

To demonstrate better skill than the opponent.

[Tangerine]

VNs are not games. They're interactive fiction.

[rusty_shackleford]

It must also involve skill in some form e.g., calling a coin flip is not a game, but poker is

[Atlantico]

Is tic tac toe a game

[Tweed]

Rules. Winners and losers.

It doesn't matter whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.

[NotAI]

Context: Entertainment computing. Definitions of games in other contexts are irrelevant. The denotation of a word is the first semantic interpretation that works in the given context. It's why language is flexible.

Game: Created by abstraction, Take any activity and abstract out the boring ****. If the remainder is fun, it's a game. (Orson Scott Card gave this definition first?)

That's why so many different games are all games.