Raph Koster's Definition of a Game is Useful When Thinking About SL

Game design guru Raph Koster has an interesting post on how to define a game, to which he provides this definition and explanation:

Playing a game is the act of solving statistically varied challenge situations presented by an opponent who may or may not be algorithmic within a framework that is a defined systemic model.

Some see this as a “fundamentalist” approach to the definition. But I use it precisely because it is inclusive. It admits of me turning a toy into a game by imposing my own challenge on it (such as a ball being a toy, but trying to catch it after bouncing it against the wall becoming a game with simple rules that I myself define). It admits of sports. It admits of those who turn interpersonal relationships, or the stock market, or anything else, into “a game."

Emphasis mine. I think the definition is useful when thinking about Second Life, because it's broad enough to encompass what everyone who uses SL is apt to do -- some, most, or all of the time while in SL:

Of course, the many people who play mini-MMOs in SL like Bloodlines or casual games like Tringo are playing games. But then, clubbing socializers who make their goal to seduce that gorgeous avatar across the room are also playing a game. As is the sandbox builder whose goal is to create an X object. As is the in-world designer who wants to sell Y fashion items. Or for that matter, customize one's avatar to look like Z persona. (Which every SLer does, at least a little bit.) All of these represent self-defined, self-imposed mini-games within the larger, open framework. 

This isn't to say everything in Second Life is a game -- for instance, Raph goes on to write about interactive, immersive art experiences which fit in the "digital interactive art" bubble (SL works by someone like Bryn Oh likely fit well there), which aren't games in themselves. Then there's socialization in itself, or the enjoyment of live music in itself. But approaching the question with Raph's definition in mind, I'd answer the question, "Is Second Life a game?" by saying, "Not exactly -- though everyone who uses Second Life plays games in it."

Tweet

Comments

[Allwa Frognik]

To every hammer a nail...has'nt Koster served his 15 minutes yet?

[Raph]

It's been 15 years, actually. :) I might be here to stay!

I've always said that virtual worlds are places, which MAY have games in them...

[Hamlet Au]

In the future, Raph, every game designer will be famous for 15 years. But you first. :)

[Ezra]

Its really as simple as that; games can be created within Second Life but Second Life itself isn't a game. Not everyone in SL plays any kind of game. I haven't since visiting MadPea some months ago.

Second Life is a platform as a service, more can and has been built ontop of it other than games.

[Arcadia Codesmith]

It's not a game.

But I'm hoping it evolves into a better platform to design, deploy and play games.

I regard that as a win not just for gamers, but for a range of non-game uses that would benefit from optimized technology.

[Riisu]

Hmmm... Considering that we are facing various challenging situations (quirks and bugs) imposed onto us by a ferocious opponent (LL)... SL is a game. ;-)

[jo yardley]

Isn't everything in life a game then?

[Arcadia Codesmith]

To every job that must be done
There is an element of fun
You find the fun and SNAP! the job's a game

-- Mary Poppins

[Tateru Nino]

The problem with the definition, I think, *is* it's inclusiveness. It doesn't define games objectively, only subjectively.

That is (to paraphrase a great Dane), "There is no game or non-game but that thinking makes it so."

ie: Nothing is objectively a game, only the behaviour of an individual determines it.

Observe, he is not defining games so much as he is defining play. He even starts with those words.

[Iggy]

Raph, at least the educators are fonder of the term "game" now. I don't know why that idea cannot co-exist with a virtual world where folks create a lot of the content.

We had a robust text-chat today at the opening of the VWBPE conference with nearly 160 folks chiming in. Environments like Minecraft and WoW are making a lot of us rethink the earlier aversion to "game" as a descriptor.

A good part of today's discussion involved coming up with a better word than "gamification" for what we are doing in K-12 and higher ed.

This member of the peanut gallery at NWN thinks you have another 15 years of fame coming, especially if you have time to consult for us clueless academics.

[foneco zuzu]

i would prefer to state that Second Life could be what any wishes!

[Arcadia Codesmith]

Is a boxed Monopoly set sitting on a store shelf unopened a "game"?

No, it's not. It's the equipment for playing a game, but it's not a game.

Is it a "game" when you walk on a tiled floor and only step on tiles of a particular color?

Yes.

[Pussycat Catnap]

"Environments like Minecraft and WoW are making a lot of us rethink the earlier aversion to "game" as a descriptor."

Yes.

Its a meme-generational gap.

Games have gone mainstream, so the mainstream is less likely to see the label of game as derogatory. In past, call it a game and it meant it was for the kids. So even people in gambling and professional sports tried to pretend they were not gamers.

Now, everyone wants to be seen as a game, as its come to light that folks spend more times at 'game like pastimes' now than they do watching the TV or radio and such.