Humans love to find patterns – we are pattern finding machines.
In Half-Real Jesper Juul defines a game as thus:
“A game is a rule-based system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome, the player feels emotionally attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable.”
I would modify this definition slightly:
“A game is a rule delineated system with a variable and knowable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different significance, the players’ efforts influence the outcome, the player is identified with the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable.”
rule-based system -> rule delineated system : In a rule-based system, the system is based upon the rules. In a rule delineated system, the system may be partially based upon rules and the system may be partially based upon non-rules (whatever that may be). The rules become a fence which can serve to delineate and define the game. While the game may be made of more than the rules, the rules will serve the purpose of providing a guideline to indicate when one is within the confines of the game and when one has slipped from the confines of the game.
quantifiable outcome -> knowable outcome: The outcome of most games will tend to be quantifiable. However, there is no reason to limit the nature of outcomes to be only those which are quantifiable. It is possible to include non-numeric measures into the definition of an outcome. However, it is necessary that the outcome is knowable – whether it be through quantitative measure or not – it still needs to be knowable. In addition, the outcome needs to be variable. If the result is constant independent of the play of the game, then the player participation is undermined.
the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome -> the players’ efforts influence the outcome: In addition to players exerting effort with the intention of influencing the outcome, it is important that the outcome can, in fact, be influenced by the players’ efforts. If the outcome were determined randomly after a predefined duration of making lively efforts, the nature of the activity as a game would be undermined. To engage the player, the possibility of a player’s efforts influencing the outcome is necessary.
the player feels emotionally attached to the outcome -> the player is identified with the outcome: There are more ways to be attached and invested in the outcome other than merely emotionally. Identified, as used in this context, implies a vested interest (often, but not always emotional) in the outcome.
outcomes are assigned different values -> outcomes are assigned different significance: Values implies a numeric, or quantifiable measure. Once again, we need not limit ourselves to quantifiable measures of the outcome. Qualitative measures are possible.
the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable (stat): This phrase remains unmodified in so much as it is bang on. To be a game, the outcome of the game should also contain a portion of non-obligation. Gambling is a form of gaming, but it is not a game – for just this reason. There is no measure of voluntariness in the acceptance of the outcome, nor is the outcome negotiable. If you lose $20 on the hand of Black Jack, it is lost whether you agree to the consequences or not. And if you think you can negotiate with the pit boss about the payment, you have not met any of the same pit bosses I have.
One of the results of this definition of game is that some activities which one may have previously thought of as a game, may now fall outside the province. And, perhaps, new activities may present themselves as possibilities.