Existentialism: What's in a game?

Howdy! It's summer time, my grueling semester is over so I thought now would be an appropriate time to resume writing. Hopefully you'll forgive me for such a long hiatus, but grad school sucks and is really, really hard.

Today, though, I want to talk about games (one of my favorite subjects). Really, what I want to investigate is the question of what, exactly, is a game? There are some very obvious candidates for things that are games out there. You plug an expensive box into your TV, put in a DVD, and beat up hookers, that's a game, obviously. But, I'm concerned with the less obvious games and to that extent what do games mean to us. I have a suspicion that games are a lot more important to us ("us" as in the universal species "us") than we think, I think games are taken for granted.

Firstly, this is a philosophy blog, so I ought to introduce some technical, philosophical stuff in here and get it out of the way. Well, it just so happens that one of the more famous modern philosophers had a few interesting things to say about games. If you've never read Wittgenstein, you should, he's a bit complicated, but unlike most other philosophers he was a quirky and very engaging writer. He was also very interested names, wanting to know why certain things were named what they were. He used the term "game" as an example of a model of how we come to name things.

Here's the basic gist:
Take blankets and duvets, what's the difference? We tend to name things based on their intrinsic (yeah, this is a dangerous word to be using in this context but we'll just move on) and functional properties. So two objects, if they share enough properties, get put into the same category or family. Blankets and duvets both belong in the family of bedding. If we really want to get picky, we could enumerate all the properties that each have. Let's do that (since all philosophers are inanely picky) using single letters to represent generic properties.

A duvet has the properties: ABDEF
A blanket has the properties: ABCDE

Notice that the way I've constructed these, both have the properties ABDE having only one property difference. So they have enough common properties to lumped into the same family. This is all very arbitrary and oversimplified, but you get the basic gist. This is the general view on how objects get categorized into families. Now, Wittgenstein said this is all well and good, but there are serious problems, what about families in which the resemblance between members is ambiguous? He used the family of games as his example.


There are all types of games, competitive and non-competitive, team and individual, group or solitaire, analogue and digital, etc etc etc. There are too many different types of games with too many different and contrary properties to enumerate. We'll look at just a few examples to get an idea of the problem. Firstly, there are standard games like baseball and football with definite rules and teams, definite winners and losers. Then there's games like chess and go played between two and only two people with definite rules. Now there are video games mostly played by one person, alone, like some fancy game of solitaire. But further, there are other games like tag, played by a large group with no definite boundaries or rules, with no clear beginning or ending, winners or losers. Can you begin to see now how the concept of game is very loose and ambiguous? Unlike simple things like blankets and duvets, what counts as a game is nowhere near as clear cut.

Yet...it doesn't at all seem hard to identify what is or is not a game. Certainly, me sitting and typing is not a game, right? My kids would argue that cleaning up their room isn't a game, right? But... I could turn it into a game, couldn't I? I could set a timer, offer a reward of simple honor and praise or even a tangible reward. I could frame cleaning their room in terms of winners and losers, etc. etc. So, cleaning a bedroom can be a game.

This leads us to the main point of this post. Every activity, big or small, CAN be a game. Nothing about the activity itself need change, just the attitude towards that activity need change in order to magically transform it into a game.

I recently watched a lecture by Carnegie Mellon University Professor Jesse Schelle which had a big impact on me. He does an amazing job of pointing out that the recent trends in electronic gaming are breaking out of the box. Digital games are leaving the TV screen and creeping their way into the real world.

I'll pause at this point for a moment. I think I've made the point as clear as need be. Games are everywhere and can be everything. If you examine your life you will likely find that there are far more games that you think. Going to work and getting a paycheck (you put in X time and work and get a paycheck that represents your score) is like a game and so is office politics. Going to school is definitely a game, you get a score at the end of the semester for your work. Driving your car, with all of its structured rules and competitive attitudes is a game. Relationships and social interactions are like games. All of these simple activities are highly structured with implicit rules and, often times, winners and losers.

What I really want to talk and wonder about is: why do we, as a species, love games sooo much. We thrive on games, somehow games speak to our very nature. Honestly, I'm baffled and have nothing of an answer as to why this is. Take the example of getting my kids to clean their room. They hate doing it, of course, but if I turn it into a game they clean with vigor. Why? Nothing about the actual reality of cleaning has changed, but because the attitude is different, their actions are different. Why? Again, I'm totally baffled.

I do know this. We love games. As a species, games are a fundamental and integral part of our existential identity. We cannot do without games. Sure, I suppose I could be writing all of this in order to justify the fact that I consider an afternoon playing Super Mario Bros. well spent, or an evening playing Magic the Gathering a good one. But I think it goes deeper. Games are not just for children, we play them throughout our entire lives. As adults we disguise our games and take them very seriously, in fact the games of adults have the power to change the world, what is capitalism if not one of the most elaborate and most played games on the planet.

So the real message here is this: you play games, you play them all day long, and you will play games for the rest of your life one way or another. Keep this in mind as you navigate whatever path in life you choose, but try to keep in mind: it's just a game and there are many to choose from, you are free to choose the games that suit you best.

Best regards,
Andrew Hickman