In her first chapter of “Reality is broken”, Jane McGonigal provides us a wide ranging definition of games by defining four traits of this concept: a goal, rules, a feedback system and voluntary participation (McGonigal, 2011, pp. 20-21). This definition is a very useful starting point, but one might be able to add various other characteristics.
To start with, McGonigal rejects ‘winning’ as a specific trait. She argues that there are games you simply cannot win, such as Tetris, as therefore it is not a universal characteristic (McGonigal, 2011, p. 24). However, this could be contradicted. In her terms, ‘winning’ would be defined as ‘ending the game and reaching the goal as intended by the game itself’. But winning could also be regarded otherwise, namely by reaching a goal you set up for yourself, for example breaking your own record, or breaking your friend’s record. There is always some sort of ‘winning’ in each game: you would, for instance, mainly replay Tetris to get further than you got last time. In that way, winning becomes a universal aspect of every game.
Furthermore, ‘level of skills’ could be added to the list. A game always sets up a specific level of particular skills a player is required to have to be able to play it. This too is a universal characteristics of games. You might think of a cognitive skill (when the game demands some sort of thinking) or a mobile skill (when the game demands you to be maneuverable) and so on. You cannot play a game of Monopoly without the ability to move your hands, or without thinking about the strategies you’re applying.
Grasping all the aspects of an abstract concept such as games is a difficult task. Although McGonigal’s definition of games is very extensive, narrowing down the concept to four traits might be too ambitious. This list is to be further complemented.
Bibliography
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World, Penguin Press HC, (pp. 19-34).
No comments:
Post a Comment