What is a Game?
What is a Game?
What is a Game?
Most people are introduced to games when they begin playing them. We are often nostalgic for some of the first games we’ve played. Especially the ones that we’ve shared with family, friends, and colleagues, as well as the game that we are playing now.
But one of the hardest and most difficult questions that can be asked about games is what they are and how they are defined. The answers, responses, and philosophies regarding these big questions are as diverse and varied as those who have sought to define them.
Therefore, this article will attempt another take on defining games and discussing their meaning and interaction for the people that play, define, apply, and share them.
A definition of games will be offered as well as different philosophies and interpretations of what games are. Specific game characteristics will be argued in this article which will be explored in greater depth in the following sections.
Games as models for interaction will be discussed as well as how choices, choice architecture, and decisions are offered to players through play. Games and rules are explored as a form and structure for players to follow, as well as how game players interact with each other and the game.
All of this is taken in context of the “magic circle” or the ludological agreement that players make when they decide to play a game. This includes the consent to accept different rules and behaviors that are condoned and accepted in the game; but may not necessarily be emulated in the real world. The result of these interactions within the magic circle are what shape the overall player experience.
This experience in the game is what is in-part shaped by the goals and challenges set by designers and players alike. Especially how the result of those frameworks creates separate and unequal outcomes for players.
Finally, this article will close out with some of the interpretations of games: such as games as pieces of art as well as applied games in simulations, serious games, and games-based learning. The results of which are examined in how players and designers can interpret games as an ever evolving medium.
Games Defined
There are many ways to approach defining games. But most of the accepted definitions include a form of structured play or activity that is taken freely by players for their own enjoyment and often entertainment. Games also usually have various goals, roles, and challenges; and can sometimes involve several different players.
It’s important to understand that the definition and context of games can be incredibly broad and applied in various contexts. As such, games include sports, board games, card games, video games, mobile games, and more.
The significance in defining a game is situated in finding and segmenting various items with the shared traits. This includes games as structured activities where players freely engage in the pursuit of various goals, roles, and challenges for different outcomes.
Often, many definitions games focus on the activity and importance of mechanics, objectives, and rules as some of the most defining characteristics. While mechanics and rules do make up part of the formal elements and the ludological agreement of games, there are still other aspects to consider.
One of those aspects includes games as goal-directed activities which are intentionally chosen and pursued; but done so through inefficient means. This indicates that games possess different challenges and goals; but that the formal elements and the ludological agreement of play means that players cannot take the most efficient and effective path towards achieving a goal. Rather, they must play in accordance with the rules of the game, which is often an inefficient method of achieving such a goal.
Bernard Suits appropriately defined game plays as the “voluntary attempt to overcome these unnecessary obstacles.” This addresses the freedom for players to choose to play the game; but through that choice they also consent that they will play within the “magic circle” of the game and adhere to the games’ rules and expectations.
Despite these common characteristics, the definition of games is still a fractured concept. This is because what constitutes a game for one person might not be the same consideration for another, due to differences in individual experiences and perceptions.
Therefore, we must also accept that the very concept of “games” is constantly evolving. The development, play, and iteration of applied games in concert with new artists and designers constantly pushes the boundary of traditional game definitions.
Philosophy of Games
Because there are so many ways to define games, it’s helpful to start with an overview on the philosophy of games and how they have been interpreted by others over time. Perhaps one of the best interpretations of games is the aforementioned one by Bernard Suits as the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles. This interpretation is in line with the magic circle of games; the agency of players to choose to play; and the rules of most games which constricts the means in which players surmount game challenges.
Roger Caillois on the other hand defined games as fun, separate, uncertain and overall non-productive activities governed by rules. Similar to Suits, Caillois defines games as something of an activity that is governed by the rules of the magic circle. Sid Meir focuses his definition on games as a series of interesting decisions. This take focuses more on the agency of players and the choices that they face when playing a game and having the freedom and the determination to make a choice; but an interesting one at that.
Keith Burgun builds on Meir’s definition by indicating games as a series of rules in which agents (players) compete by making ambiguous; but meaningful decisions. In this case, an emphasis is placed on the roles of players in games and the decisions that they make. This is done so that they may compete against the interests of other players or progress as a single player along the path of play.
This path of play is indicated in Jesse Schelle’s definition of games in which his situates it as a problem-solving activity that is approached with a playful attitude. So, like Caillois, an emphasis is placed on fun with the attitude posed towards play; but Schelle diverges from Caillois as game-play can be interpreted as a productive activity for the purposes of problem solving.
This concept is built upon by Tracey Fullerton who defines games as “a closed formal system that engages players in a conflict with an unequal outcome.” Fullerton in this definition identifies the formal system and elements of games, but emphasizes the structured conflict with and against other players that ends in a series of unequal outcomes for parties. Thereby building on Burgun’s definition but also indicating the inequality of outcomes for those involved.
Daniel Dennett builds upon Schelle’s definition of games as a problem-solving activity but indicates that games continually produce new versions of old problems for players to continually solve. This can be observed in the many different mechanics of tabletop games. These mechanics are reintroduced and re-developed and experienced by players in the core loop of game play to resolve challenges which are similar to ones experienced before; but are slightly different in a nuanced way for new players to solve.
Therefore, this returns us to Suits definitions of games in which he identifies two features related to addressing challenges in games. First involving the value of difficulty of the game and second the willingness to appreciate that difficulty. This is identified in good games possessing a balanced level of difficulty to attract players; but avoid making the game too easy or too hard to retain them.
This balance of difficulty relates to the overall “paradox of skill and chance” in which Suits explains that “a perfectly played game of skill may be indistinguishable from a game of chance.” While this may be observed in many different formats, it is ultimately up to the individual player to make this kind of distinction through their own interpretation of the game.
Game Characteristics
The definition of games and their interpretation of the above individual philosophies inform how this article will examine and define games. They build on the conclusions and define games as possessing four specific and distinct characteristics:
1) Games are Structures for Interaction
Games exist as a medium and activity for interaction. All games require some kind of interaction from the player.
2) Games are Activities of Inefficient Means
The activities for players to interact within games represent activities of inefficient means. This means that players are meant to take actions that do not achieve goals quickly and expediently; but are rather challenged to do so within the constraints of the game’s rules.
3) Games require a Ludological Agreement from Players
The ludological agreement serves as the “magic circle” of games and the threshold from which all players consent to play the game. All games require at least one consenting player to enter the magic circle and obey the rules of the game, as well as the expectations of other players within it.
4) Games contain Unequal, Uncertain, and Separate Outcomes
The results of games and game play are that there will be unequal; uncertain; and separate outcomes for the parties involved. This includes win/loss states for both competitive and cooperative games alike.
The following sections explore these four characteristics in depth.
Games and Interaction
Games are mediums and formats for interaction. Interaction is an intentional and critical part of all games. That interaction can take place between players; players and the game; or both. The formats of interaction also vary widely and can include strategic decisions, tactical choices, physical activities, discussions, debates, and other forms of problem solving.
All of these actions are informed and defined by the actions of players. They are given the agency and choice to make these actions and are offered feedback on these actions from other players or from the game itself. Often, feedback from the game can take the form of visual and auditory elements in digital games.
However, this form of feedback is one that works within the system of the game. Players on the other hand, experience a kind of liminal interface which represents a transition between the real and imagined game world. This representative “semiotic switch” between both the real and game worlds is one of the first types of player interactions. The way that players interpret this liminality between both spaces varies widely between players.
Once players have taken the first choice to enter and interact with the game world, they begin engaging with different components of the game. Those components can be physically akin to tabletop games, or they can be digital likened to player characters and items in a digital world. The game interface, process, sounds, and other non-player characters (NPCs) represent components in these games.
The presence and accessibility of these components provides the continuous information exchange between players and the game system within video games. This is necessary because it provides players with the ability to manipulate the content within the game and using players’ own agency. As such, they are able to enact their own will within the game.
The level of interaction between card games and tabletop games can be limiting compared to the opportunities available in digital games. Such unique opportunities for digital games also include different kinds of physical interactions with accelerometers that further inform the player of their avenues for interaction. These kinds of physical interactions in digital games are often combined with more cognitive ones that require more abstract problem-solving that provides a varied palette for player interactivity. Such diverse options add complexity and richness to gameplay.
Overall, all games include some kind and type of interaction between players and the game. Modern applications and development of games for applied and educational purposes often benefit from diverse modes of interaction that best support players agency. This agency is often represented in the choice framework and architecture for players.
Games and Choices
While all games provide some level of interaction; all games do not possess the same level and degree of choices offered to players. What is honored though, is the level of autonomy that players have in making said choices in gameful and immersive experiences.
The best choices offered up to players in games is done so to aid in the immersion and the connected empathy between players, the game, and characters of the game. Many modern applications of games include choice architecture and framework that do not follow a strictly linear path. Instead, they provide emergent gameplay opportunities for players to design, contribute, and follow their own individual plan.
The most important part of player choice in games is that individual choices are honored and supported even though their outcomes may not be perfect or diverse. The result of which is another factor aiding the experiential learning of players. Through making choices in games that honor their agency, they can take iterative play and continue to learn in a cyclical manner.
Therefore, conscious designers should be encouraged to accept suboptimal decisions from players and consider the outcomes of those choices to best maintain player autonomy. This is often done within the constraints and the structure of the game’s rules.
Games and Rules
Inherently, games are arbitrary activities. However, within the magic circle, games become activities and agreements between players and constraints dictated by the game’s rules. These rules consist of defined constraints that dictate how a game is played. They serve as a framework for interaction between players, each other, and the game, and for determining the rubric for competition.
Players must commit to the rules of a game if they wish to play it successfully as intended. However, this commitment is never an ultimatum as within the magic circle of gameplay, non-game rules are often subordinate to in-game rules. Therefore, games are activities in which the integrity of play is determined by the inseparability of the game’s rules from the ends of the game.
This means that the definition of games accounts for the interplay, connection, and dependence of the rules of the game and the means available for players to succeed despite the constraint of the rules. The adherence to the game’s rules to determine the integrity of the game is critical as breaking the rules makes the original end goal of play unattainable.
Therefore, the inseparability of rules from the ends of gameplay, make them a critical characteristic of all games. This means that game rules provide players with a constant choice to agree and abide by the rules or to disagree, exit the magic circle and stop playing the game.
This decision for players is facilitated by aspects of “interaction alibis” which provide structures and frameworks for players to abide by and integrate the rules of the game into their play. This can take the form of story, costumes, instructions, presentations, and representations which provide a sense of structure and security into guiding players into what is expected from their interaction.
It is important to note that the rules of games are seldom arbitrary. Their existence emphasizes the role of structure despite uncertainty in game play. Often, the most uncertain actors in games come from those of other players.
Games and Players
All games require at least one player. But all games do not require multiple players to play. Multiplayers games are those that include independent other players or teams and are often the basis of game theory for analyzing how decisions are made by these individuals and teams.
Often, the quintessential example of games includes some kind of competition between one or more players who are working against each other to achieve an exclusive goal. However, cooperative games require collaboration where players work with each other to overcome common challenges.
Therefore, interaction with other players in games often requires a degree of social aptitude which necessitates extracting implicit information from other players. This is often observed in social deduction games; but can also extend to strategic and tactical games as well.
A need for understanding other players is a characteristic of games necessitated by structuring the player experience. Players’ interactions are often designed around structured conflict and activities defined by the game designer. These kinds of interactions often form the hallmark of unique game experiences.
No more is the case than with online multiplayer games where interactions with other players happen both within as well as auxiliary to the game environment. Such interactions within the game replicate other competitive environments. But interactions outside of the game represent a means for players to form social communities and connections based around their play.
Therefore, modern iterations of digital games create a creative combination of communication channels which embrace this additional form of interaction between players. As such, multiple avenues now exist for player interaction which flavor and often enrich the entirety of the player experience.
The results of these interactions between players about, around, and adjacent to games, often give rise to player communities. The results of which often extend the reach and relationship of the magic circle for players.
Games and the Magic Circle
The original concept of the “Magic Circle” arose from the Johan Huizinga's "Homo Ludens," and directly relates to the relationships that players form within games.
This connection directly relates to their acceptance of the game’s challenges – and by association – the game’s constraints. Those constraints are often what we envision with games and their rules, framing, scaffolding, and connection through this “magic circle.”
This magic circle allows players to immerse themselves into these alternate realities that are dictated by these formal elements of games. Players are able to do so because the games require that they enter with a specific and separate mindset that requires them to abide by the rules and structure set by the game. This mind set and agreement is what is encompassed in the magic circle of play. The magic circle here represents a temporary world and understanding between the requirements of the game, and the relationships we form with activities in the real world.
Often, the magic circle of game play is interpreted as a metaphor: an imaginary boundary between gameplay and non-game play. However, it can also include physical boundaries often encompassed in sports. This could include players stepping onto the pitch or field of play to engage in a competition beset by the rules of the game. These physical spaces are often better understood and interpreted by players and non-players alike, as it delineates a physical boundary between interactions in the game and interactions in non-game circumstances.
This is important to note, because within the magic circle, players actions, abilities, intentions, and motives are governed by another set of expectations and rubrics. Because games create this sense of play that is not judged by the same conditions of real-world activities, there often exist other frames of ethics and responsibilities within the magic circle. Both Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman indicated as much, when they described players crossing the boundary into the magic circle that precipitates a change in rules, norms, and behavior that is understood only between players.
However, the magic circle is permeable. There is a relationship that players have with the real world and the game world when they cross this limiting space. Such blurring of the lines can be troublesome as traditional forms of real-world communication can be used within game contexts such as texts and emails. This can even expand to other real-world activities indicated by Jesper Juul who cited negotiations as examples of scenarios that occur in a real and public spaces, but can take on game-like qualities with specific expectations for such exchanges.
Another example of the blurring of the lines between the real and game-like spaces encompassed in the magic circle can be seen in museums and exhibitions. Here, the line is further blurred between the real and imaginary world where visitors are expected to open the possibilities for what they may see, observe, and experience.
Interestingly, the liminal spaces of games often provide players the artifact of the “interaction alibi” which gives them license to try on new behaviors and experiences within the game world. This can often be observed in role-playing games where players take on personas and characters that are starkly different from their own real-world personalities.
Therefore, game designers increase the speed and valence from which players enter the magic circle through the use and application of different thematic elements that draw the player into the game world. The result of which can sometimes include removing some traditional game elements which enhance players’ overall immersion and results in a more positive player experience.
Games and the Player Experience
The player’s experience in games is usually dominated by the formal rules of the game as well as the magic circle of game play. However, players are often also influenced by other intrinsic motivations that incentivize them to engage and continue in play. These motivations can range from a desire to explore, socialize, and achieve according to Bartle’s Player Taxonomy. Many other players are often driven to dominate their competition in orthogames of skill and chance.
Interestingly, the player experiences in these scenarios are subjective as winners of these orthogames are more likely to perceive the game as fair – even if formal game structures conspire to tilt the results of such games in their favor. The result of which are vastly different emotional responses based on the actions, interpretation, and results of players’ actions within these games.
Often, this results in winners of these orthogames attributing their outcomes to their own agency, skill, and talent and the results of these games fueling a more positive player experience as fair and satisfactory results of their actions.
Overall, this interpretation of the player experience is largely dominated by players requiring mental shifts to engage in the rules and constraints of games. The results of which are different interpretations of challenges or conventions of the game world. Those conventions are often deployed via the game’s goals, challenges, and outcomes.
Games, Goals, Challenges and Outcomes
One of the most salient aspects of games for most consumers is that they often include different challenges and obstacles that players must overcome within the magic circle of gameplay. Often, games make this accomplishment difficult as rules add a level of complexity and inefficiency to most players’ approaches.
While the presence of goals and challenges are common to games; they often include a variety of different implementations such as accumulating points, solving puzzles, or reaching specific milestones. However, these are just granular approaches for what are actually important for players: having a goal.
Game goals serve as the structure and direction for attainment. They do not inherently include the technical activities that players must accomplish to reach that goal. They only set the direction and purpose for players to move towards them. Therefore, players pursue these activities that are common for so many games: collecting points, gathering tokens; or forming synergies or relationships between different game elements.
The purpose of which, is to achieve the specific (and often exclusive) outcome between players: the win or loss of the game. For many, this is the ultimate goal of the players. Not so much winning or losing – but rather the resolution of play in the outcome of the game. However, this may not always be the only pursuit of players or designers. Sometimes, games are conceived not for their specific outcomes, but for the process of consumption.
Games as Art
Sometimes the outcome of games themselves are put aside for the specific process of playing and consuming games. This is often framed as games as art. In this format, games are considered another medium and means of reflection that involves discovery, magic, innovation, and materialization of new ways to see and reflect on a process. This is not done to necessarily elevate games; but more to reflect on the very definition of games; why they exist; and why we continue to play them.
In this realm, games take on a more transformative nature. Here, they contain dual components that serve as a connection between players, content, space and time, and instead seek to define a connection between disparate concepts. Games as art can do this through concepts of “expression games” where the format of the game itself involves controlling the information flow of social interactions that determine outcomes.
The result of which can be highly imbalanced - or even impractical games- but they are games formulated to demonstrate practicalities and absurdities of play that contain intended meanings other than winning or losing. They can also contain some other kind of artistic valve and overall philosophical significance.
Taken in context, we can even see life itself as a game as it provides us agency and autonomy to explore, achieve, and interact with the world in the search of specific outcomes within constraints. However, unlike life, applied games also provide us with the ability to explore the potential for meaning making through structured and intentional play.
Applied Games
Structured and intentional play is the overall basis of applied games and games-based learning. That’s because games can serve multiple different purposes: education being one of them. This can be achieved through different activities and interactions such as social interaction and other forms of skill development. Through play, engagement, and time, players evolve and adapt to the demands of the game. Often in line with the purposes of applied and serious games.
Perhaps one of the most frequent archetypes of applied games is to interpret them as a form of math. Mathematics has in the past been interpreted as a game as it relates to the imposition of rules and the necessary constraints embodied within it. Likewise, science and its related production and sharing of knowledge has also been compared to a game in way that layered behaviors are enforced and incentivized for certain activities.
Businesses have also turned to applied games as simulations, re-creations, and case studies to form an environment where different strategies, actions, and activities can be undertaken without significant consequences to changing actual business operations. Both the military and business have come to rely highly on simulations for many different means including training, analysis, and prediction.
All these different applications touch upon and apply some of the discussed characteristics of games. That is that elements of games are not exclusive. They can be adapted individually to other situations out of context. Such is the case in real world situations where rules need to be created on an ad hoc basis. This can be observed in scholarly group projects as well as problem-solving efforts. The creation of, and adherence to, these “rules” within the “magic circle” of these arrangements, represents some applied characteristics of games.
As such, the use and applied benefits of games are immeasurable. For it is the transition of players between, inside, and outside of games that can be utilized to develop new skills and overall enhance the player experience. Therefore, games don’t exist as a monolith. Rather, they are an artifact of our time and continue to change, evolve, and adapt based on our needs as well as our interpretations of them.
Interpreting Games
Games are constantly evolving. That means that their applications and interpretations evolve with them. Previous interpretations of games differentiated them between play and working. However, the intrinsic motivation that often fuels players to engage and continue playing also has similarities to flow state and intensive work environments.
Games have also been interpreted as activities which exist in auxiliary or parallel to the other aspects of players’ lives. As such, there can be activities with competing priorities for playing games. This is something that has been difficult to reconcile when we see and observe games mostly as digital entertainment pieces, rather than as vehicles for application and problem solving.
Perhaps a better interpretation of games goes back to Bernard Suits where every human activity, no matter how granular or grandiose, might secretly be a game. Such a definition is impractical; but perhaps also inclusive of the ever growing and developing nature of games and gameplay.
Conversely, Tracey Fullerton indicates that game designers ae constantly involved in the learning and iteration process of games. Such that even designing bad games is helpful and fulfilling for progressing with the craft. Perhaps this is the best way to think about play and learning as Jesse Schelle indicates that the overall playful attitude and enjoyment of gameplay within the limitations of the rules are what makes games most compelling.
Therefore, the overall scope, impact, and definition of games is something that is ever changing and evolving. The games themselves are not based solely on their content but are broad and flexible. Those defining games, playing; games; and understanding games relies more on our own applications and reasons than anything else.
Takeaways
This article covered and defined the concept of games as they are known, consumed, and played throughout the world. The different philosophies behind defining games were explored as well as some of the most common characteristics surrounding games.
Games were discussed as activities that require interaction from players. Games are not a passive form of content and therefore cannot be consumed without active involvement from players. Likewise, games require players to make decisions. Games vary on the choice architecture and decision framework from trivial to complex. However, choice remains a staple of games and requires input from players.
Often, those choices and decisions in games are made within the confines of the rules and formal structures of games. Rules exist to give players constraints and restraints on what they can do in games. This often influences how the game is played with and among other players who form a social collective when playing a game with each other; against each other; or through other in-game and out-of-game interactions.
The overall framework that dictates how players perceive and interpret their game play is a concept called the “magic circle” where expectations from players, between players; and from the game are set based on the nature and the structure of play. Such conventions could be conventional or vastly different. However, all games require an agreement to play and participate in the magic circle to have significance for the player.
This significance informs and influences the player experience for all players. This experience could be highly curated based on the decisions of game designers and educators. However, other players’ experiences could vary greatly based on players game literacy; commitment; and response for playing the game.
These reasons are most often informed by the overall goal, challenges, and outcomes of play. These often vary from player to player and from game to game. However, their presence remains the same in terms of their necessity for designing games. All games have separate often unequal outcomes for players. Therefore, goals, objectives, and challenges serve to delineate and differentiate these outcomes as part of the player’s experience.
This experience can change based on the intentions of designers. Therefore, games were also discussed as art pieces where the purpose and framework for creating such games may not be based on any kind of purposeful or practical endeavor. Rather, games may exist as a means of artistic expression and nothing more.
Conversely, applied games are games created, designed, and implemented for a specific purpose. Some of those purposes are most popularly known for entertainment and commercialization. Whereas the other purposes are for teaching, learning, education, and development. Serious games, educational games, learning games, and games-based learning are methods that use and apply games for such purposes.
This article defined games. To learn more about gamification, check out the free course on Gamification Explained.
Dave Eng, EdD
Principal
References
Albor, J. (2010, September 8). Player Autonomy and Games, part 1. Experience Points. https://www.experiencepoints.net/2010/08/player-autonomy-and-games-part-1.html
Batchelor, J. (2021, May 14). What is a game? GamesIndustry.biz. https://www.gamesindustry.biz/what-is-a-game
Bennett , C. (2020, April 9). What is the Magic Circle? |. Gdt.stanford.edu. https://gdt.stanford.edu/what-is-the-magic-circle/
Bond, J. G. (2014). Introduction to Game Design, Prototyping, and Development: From Concept to Playable Game with Unity and C. addison-wesley professional. https://www.informit.com/store/introduction-to-game-design-prototyping-and-development-9780134659862?w_ptgrevartcl=Basic+Theories+of+Game+Design_2819037
Caillois, R. (2001). Man, play, and games. University of Illinois press. https://voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Man-Play-and-Games-by-Roger-Caillois.pdf
Caroux, L., Isbister, K., Le Bigot, L., & Vibert, N. (2015). Player–video game interaction: A systematic review of current concepts. Computers in human behavior, 48, 366-381. https://inria.hal.science/hal-01108083/file/Caroux_et_al-CHB-inPress-PrePrint.pdf
Compton, C. (2018, September 11). Welcome to the Magic Circle. Game Developer. https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/welcome-to-the-magic-circle
Copier, M. (2005, June). Connecting Worlds. Fantasy Role-Playing Games, Ritual Acts and the Magic Circle. In DiGRA Conference. http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/06278.50594.pdf
Dennett, D. C. (2006). Higher-order truths about chmess. Topoi, 25, 39-41 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225950069_Higher-Order_Truths_About_Chmess
Eng, D. (2016, March 04). Game Systems. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2016/3/4/whats-your-system
Eng, D. (2019, August 20). Play is Work. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/8/20/play-is-work
Eng, D. (2019, December 03). Core Loops. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/12/3/core-loops
Eng, D. (2019, December 10). Decision Space. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/12/10/decision-space
Eng, D. (2019, June 04). Formal Game Structures. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/6/04/formal-game-structures
Eng, D. (2019, June 18). Feedback Loops. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/6/18/feedback-loops-in-games-based-learning
Eng, D. (2019, November 12). Score Points. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/11/12/score-points
Eng, D. (2019, November 26). Abstraction in Games. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/11/26/abstraction-in-games
Eng, D. (2019, October 01). Flow State. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/10/1/flow-state
Eng, D. (2019, October 29). Gaming with Motivation. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/10/29/gaming-with-motivation
Eng, D. (2019, September 10). The Player Experience. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/9/10/the-player-experience
Eng, D. (2019, September 17). Player Interaction. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/9/17/player-interaction
Eng, D. (2020, April 09). What is a learning game? Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/4/9/what-is-a-learning-game
Eng, D. (2020, August 20). What is Player Agency? Retrieved April 2, 2024, from http://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/8/20/what-is-player-agency
Eng, D. (2020, December 3). Game Mechanics for Learning. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from http://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/12/3/game-mechanics-for-learning
Eng, D. (2020, February 20). Game Components. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/2/20/game-components
Eng, D. (2020, January 09). Socializing Games. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/1/9/socializing-games
Eng, D. (2020, January 16). How do I win? Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/1/16/how-do-i-win
Eng, D. (2020, January 24). Decisions for Us. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/1/24/decisions-for-us
Eng, D. (2020, July 30). What is the Lusory Attitude? Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/7/30/what-is-the-lusory-attitude
Eng, D. (2020, July 9). What is the Magic Circle? Retrieved April 2, 2024, from http://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/7/9/what-is-the-magic-circle
Eng, D. (2020, June 18). What is player behavior? Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/6/18/what-is-player-behavior
Eng, D. (2020, March 26). What is Games-Based Learning? Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/3/26/what-is-games-based-learning
Eng, D. (2020, May 14). What is a simulation? Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/5/14/what-is-a-simulation
Eng, D. (2020, October 1). What makes a good rule book? Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/10/1/what-makes-a-good-rule-book
Eng, D. (2020, September 10). What is Intrinsic Motivation? Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/9/10/what-is-intrinsic-motivation
Eng, D. (2021, April 6). What is Grokking? Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/4/6/what-is-grokking
Eng, D. (2021, February 9). What is Self-Determination Theory? Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/2/9/what-is-self-determination-theory
Eng, D. (2021, November 23). How do players create meaning in games?. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/11/23/how-do-players-create-meaning-in-games
Eng, D. (2021, October 26). Applied Games-Based Learning. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/10/26/applied-games-based-learning
Eng, D. (2021, September 28). Playing serious games. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/9/28/playing-serious-games
Eng, D. (2022, December 6). What are Game Goals and Objectives?. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/12/6/what-are-game-goals-and-objectives
Eng, D. (2022, March 1). What is Player Reflection?. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/3/1/what-is-player-reflection
Eng, D. (2022, September 27). What is Strategy in Gameplay?. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/9/27/what-is-strategy-in-gameplay
Eng, D. (2023, April 11). Who are Tactics?. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2023/4/11/what-are-tactics
Eng, D. (2023, August 8). What is Game Literacy? Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2023/8/8/what-is-game-literacy
Eng, D. (2023, June 27). What is Choice Architecture? Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2023/6/27/what-is-choice-architecture
Eng, D. (2023, May 23). Liminality, Transition, and Games. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2023/5/23/liminality-transition-and-games/
Eng, D. (2023, October 17). What is Player Engagement? Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2023/10/17/what-is-player-engagement
Eng, D. (2024, January 16). What are Progression Systems in Games? Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2024/1/16/what-are-progression-systems-in-games
Huang, Y., & Ryall, E. (2017). On the relationship between philosophy and game-playing. In The philosophy of play as life (pp. 80-93). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315454139-7/relationship-philosophy-game-playing-yuanfan-huang-emily-ryall
Manninen, T. (2003). Interaction forms and communicative actions in multiplayer games. Game studies, 3(1), 2003. https://gamestudies.org/0301/manninen/
Molina, M. D., Bucca, M., & Macy, M. W. (2019). It’s not just how the game is played, it’s whether you win or lose. Science Advances, 5(7), eaau1156. https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.aau1156
Nieuwdorp, E. (2005, June). The Pervasive Interface; Tracing the Magic Circle. In DiGRA Conference. http://digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/06278.53356.pdf
Progresa. (2021, May 8). The Games We Play: Inequality and Asymmetric Information. Medium. https://progresaid.medium.com/the-games-we-play-inequality-and-asymmetric-information-798304ff664f
RCT AI. (2020, August 11). Research on Video Game Interactivity. Medium. https://rctai.medium.com/research-on-video-game-interactivity-460df8f42791
Shorkend, D. (2016). Games as Transformative. https://www.ijcrm.com/publish_article/edition-76/e760105.pdf
Stenros, J. (2017). The game definition game: A review. Games and culture, 12(6), 499-520. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1555412016655679
Suits, B. (1967). What is a Game?. Philosophy of science, 34(2), 148-156. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy-of-science/article/abs/what-is-a-game/40F5E5452EDEEDC5EF5BADB99E2225FD
The Magic Circle. (2020, December 15). The Magic Circle. Gamification and Games-Based Approach to Cultural Heritage. https://cinegamification.com/introduction/the-magic-circle/
Tillman, M. D. (2023). Easy games are still games for Suits. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 50(3), 329-344. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00948705.2023.2257778
Tiltfactor. (2023). Tiltfactor | Multiple Forms of Interaction in Games. Tiltfactor. https://tiltfactor.org/multiple-forms-of-interaction-in-games/
Wixon, D. (2006). What is a game?. interactions, 13(2), 37-ff. https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/1116715.1116741
Woods, S. (2007). Playing with an other: Ethics in the magic circle. https://jyx.jyu.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/77522/1/Playing_with_an_Other%3A_Ethics_in_the_Magic_Circle.pdf
Cite this Article
Eng, D. (2024, April 16). What is a Game? Retrieved MONTH DATE, YEAR, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2024/4/16/what-is-a-game
Internal Ref: UXPRYD473IG0