What is a Game?

This is a question that has given rise to thousands of hours of thought, discourse and more. Today I'll add my views to the many out there, and maybe it will add something of value to the ongoing discussions.

So, what is a game?

What defines a game?

What are the defining traits of a game?

...

Gameplay.

So, what is "gameplay"?

"Gameplay includes all player experiences during the interaction with game systems, especially formal games. Proper use is coupled with reference to "what the player does". Arising alongside game development in the 1980s, gameplay was used solely within the context of video or computer games, though now its popularity has begun to see use in the description of other, more traditional, game forms. Generally, the term gameplay in video game terminology is used to describe the overall experience of playing the game excluding factors like challenges and movement. The term game mechanics refers to sets of rules in a game that are intended to produce an enjoyable gaming experience." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameplay

Alright, playing with a game = gameplay. That just brings up more questions. What are game mechanics, play and what's the deference between a toy and a game?

A game mechanic is easy. "A game mechanics is a construct of rules intended to produce an enjoyable game or gameplay." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_mechanic

Let's try play. I've done a bit of looking into the subject and found that it's covered pretty well in some TED talks and blog posts. In the end it seems to be a different way of approaching a situation, with the possible opposite being "work". That doesn't seem to be very helpful either, as anything can then be play or work.

"if its purpose is more important than the act doing it, it probably isn't play" - http://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_brown_says_play_is_more_than_fun_it_s_vital.html

"creative companies do often have think symbols in the work place that remind us, remind people, to be playful and that it is a permissive environment" & "we think playfulness helps us get to better creative solutions, helps us do our jobs better and helps us feel better when we do them" & "Kids are more engaged with open possibilities. Now, they'll certainly, when they come across something new, they'll certainly ask, 'what is it?'. Of course they will, but they'll also ask, 'what can I do with it?'" - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/tim_brown_on_creativity_and_play.html

"What we do know is, if you're not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original." - http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

"it is obvious to me that there are a plethora of skills that are just waiting to be turned into games" - http://lostgarden.com/2008/06/what-actitivies-that-can-be-turned-into.html

So, that leaves us with the difference between a toy and a game. You play a game and play with a toy. A game is an activity, while a toy is a thing used in an activity. Activities have rules. Some, such as most game mechanics, are built into the functions of a toy used to play the game. Others are agreed on and enforced by those playing the game. So, to play the game is to be playing in accordance to the rules that govern the gameplay.

I am left with a semi-vague, but far more useful definition than I've come across so far. A game is an activity with an agreed upon set of rules, that participating individuals act in accordance to, while in a state of play. More over, I find there is significant opportunity to improve the world through learning science and game design lessons being implemented in games and learning environments.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
Read more!

What is a Game?

View Blog Reactions

Valuenomics

Yes, it is another something-"nomics" word, but I think the ideas I'm about to post should have a lot of value to just about everybody who wants to have sustainable growth in value.

In traditional economics it is said that the price to sell at is where the supply and demand lines cross. This means that the price and number of things match for both the buyer and seller. I'm not so sure about this, and haven't been since going over it in a college microeconomics class. Something just seems off to me.

That where I come to the growth aspect of my thoughts. Sure, meeting the demand of the consumers and making money is good, but it all is too abstract to be applied too strictly. Also, it's way too narrow for my tastes. Instead, look at the value of the thing to be sold from both the buyer and seller's points of view.

If the buyer values the thing more than the seller, we have the setting for a win-win situation. Sell someplace in the middle and everybody gains. The seller is getting more than they need to continue, and the buyer is getting a bargain. Both have their limits for the deal. This is the best situation.

If they value the thing equally, there is still value to be gained. In a situation like this the value comes from being able to continue doing what you need/want to do. Workers need to eat, and farmers need workers, so they find a suitable arrangement of equal value and continue to live comfortably. This is what traditional economics says to aim for.

Obviously, if there is no value on the thing that both are willing to agree on, then there is no deal. So, let's get back to the two situations described above.

Let's compare the situations of equal and unequal, but overlapping. Farmer 1 and farmer 2 both sell apples for $5 per unit, however much that is. Farmer 1 values the unit at $5 and so do his customers. Everybody gets the items at what they value them. Farmer 2 values his apples at $4, and his customers value them at $6, meaning they all get more value return than what they gave. Get what you give and get more than what you give, not much of a comparison.

Being this is posted on a blog about game design and learning science, you might be wondering why I'm posting about economics. After all, this isn't a blog on money. However, this is a blog that covers motivation, which is where topic is heading.

See, the buyer and seller are motivated to make a deal. However, greed and "business" have pushed this to the point that the markets are in bad shape. Business to a craftsman is to sell enough at a high enough price that he can continue living, working and providing any dependents. Business to a businessman is a craft. That's fine, because the craftsman works to work some more. The money isn't important compared to the craft. However those who do a craft, rather than being a craftsman may be doing it merely as a way to make money.

Those non-craftsmen walk a dangerous path, because they seek money. That's their focus. When you seek money, it can become more important than the craft. The things money can bring can become more important than the one's duties as a craftsman. Gaining can become more important than giving.

One person is not very effective at gaining value, but can be extremely effective at giving it. Remember the situation mentioned above with both sides gaining rather than making an exchange? It's the same thing. In a video game, one might have put out 100 points of effort value and gained 15 to 20 points of currency value. Or, one could have gained 7 - 10 in currency value and 20 - 50 in reputation and other forms of value by putting half into helping others. Being helped can then increase the value gained with and without effort on your part. This is in part how social marketing works, by the assistance of others.

In an educational setting we can apply the same situation rules with levels of buy in. The student who highly values the offered education will put in more effort than those who do not. How they assign value to the offered education is not within the scope of this post, but the implications are. There is more to this than just valuing the education, because of the value of the grade.

Here we get into multiple values for the same thing. This becomes very complex ,very quickly. Reality does that. For both the education and the grade there is value, effort and return. So a student who doesn't value the education, but does value the grade, will just do what they think will help them get the grade. Another student may not value the grade, but value the education, and thus focus on learning, not passing the class. Then there are those who value them about the same and go for both equally. On top of that, there are different levels of return on the effort applied. Merely applying oneself isn't enough. It has to be applied in the right ways.

Though I wonder about some parts of this. See, if we teach people the value of work by extrinsic motivators like our work being valued by others we then try to do things that others value giving them control over what we do.

...

If we teach it though enjoying what you do people then try to find things they like to do, without necessarily giving activities that aren't immediately, and always, fun a chance.

...

If we try to go the middle road we then have to leave it up to the people to choose which out of the three options they will take.

In the end this third option seems like the best route to me. With roll models taking the working for stability and to be able to work some more route, we have social proof of the craftsman life. Interdisciplinary teams working on projects in learning environments could then work as testing grounds. Through such experiences and educating them on the value of working together, and not just for yourself, there might be some hope.

Now I guess the questions are "what do we need to share with people" and "how do we create interdisciplinary projects for them?"

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
Read more!

Valuenomics

View Blog Reactions

Pride Inhibits Learning

One must yield to learn. In another post I have partially done I'm likely to touch on this, but this is a good point on it's own. One must yield to the reality of the situation, to whatever and/or whoever is teaching, to accept one's own limitations to surpass them. In essence, to learn, one must be willing to say I can't do it, yet.

Another way to put is, if you're right, you're not wrong. Simple, but profound when applied to ones approach to life. I assume that as a finite being with finite understanding that part of everything I do is wrong. This means that there is always room to improve.

In first grade I new a kid who said he knew everything. He sat in a corner working at the only computer in the room. His math book was huge and I don't doubt that he knew more complex math than I did at the time. That's not to say I wouldn't have been able to understand it. You see, after boasting that he knew everything I asked him why he was there. That confused him. So, I explained that obviously a person who knows everything has no reason to be in school learning anything, as they already know everything. He wasn't pleased with me.

In that situation he yields to the teacher, but was not willing to yield to other students. He assumed the teachers knew more than him and that the other students couldn't measure up. Thus, anything on school subjects had to come from a teacher, not another student. When this belief was confronted in some way, he got mad, rather than concede the point, yield. Later he may have yielded to the reality of the situation, but not to the student who pointed it out.

That may not be the best example, but if you think back on how you were thinking when you made progress learning you should see the pattern. There is overcoming an obstacle in which you yield to the problem and the reality of the situation that how you were doing things was in some way lacking, motivating you to try harder, or try something new. There is also yielding to an instructor or adviser who you think might have something useful to say. If you won't listen, their words aren't as effective.

Sometimes there will be improvement in spite of unyielding pride. That's why the title says pride "inhibits" learning, because that's what it does. Belief in yourself can bolster you hope, and thus your motivation and effort. Refusal to stop trying and putting out effort to improve is dedication. Both are confused as part of pride, since they come in groups sometimes. However, pride says, "I'm better than you/them." This means not accepting help, guidance, advice or reminders. This means you are more likely to make mistakes. Learning from your own mistakes is good, but learning the mistakes of others is better. However if you are prideful you might refuse to implement something because somebody told you to do it.

All in all it is better to be humble and value the work above your pride. That's what I've found.

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
Read more!

Pride Inhibits Learning

View Blog Reactions