Reading Notes #1

1. One of the definitions that appealed to me the most was definitely the one by Elliot Avedon and Brian Sutton-Smith because they stress that games involve some form of either physical or intellectual activity, which I believe are definitely the core elements to a game. It also seems like a clear enough definition that tangentializes the majority of games and at the same time is not vague enough to cover everything.

2. To me, a game is an activity in which involves one or more participants to engage in challenges that are either intellectual or physical and are competitive or thought/creativity provoking in order to achieve entertainment purposes.

3. I think there are a couple of things to point out in the definition outlined by Costikyan. First of all, I very much agree with Costikyan that a game is a form of art. However, I think Costikyan fails to define that a game does not have to involve numerous participants (or team players) and that it can definitely be a solo activity as well, and that all games have an objective. Although this depends on one’s specific definition of objective, I believe there are games that allow the mind to aimlessly dwell just to pass time without a specific objective. Puzzles are games because they fall into his and almost everyone else’s definition of a game, and according to Costikyan Second Life would not be a game. I have to disagree with this because I think that most people would consider Second Life to be a game since it is virtual, involves decision making, is purposefully entertaining, requires participants and is interactive.