Raph Koster teaches the Theory of Fun. Eric Zimmerman teaches the Rules of Play. Chris Crawford teaches the Art of Interactive Design. But they all need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture, the underlying psychology — not the “what” of games, and more generally play, but the “why.”
A Theory of Games for Just About Everyone by Aaron Ruby
Excellent article. In fact, so good that I am already eagerly anticipating the next article (he’ll have a series at Next Generation). Yes, so good that I am actively lamenting the fact that I think I gave away my copy of Smartbomb without reading it… To be honest, from the book’s cover (yes, I know I shouldn’t have judged…) and based on who gifted it to me, I had assumed (yes, I’m an ass) the book was more business, more shallow and less practically informed than what I’d be interested in. If it’s anything like this article, than I made a serious mistake.
Aaron suggests that play is part of what philosophers call “intentional attitudes.” While Koster, Zimmerman, Crawford, et al, prefer to define play (and by extension, games) through the physical actions that compose play/games, and by the context in which they occur, Aaron rises above those definitions and points out that play, like art, really is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, play is defined by the player, not by the specifics of his actions.
I absolutely agree with this definition, and I also agree with Aaron’s suggestion that by applying this definition, by looking at our medium through this lens, we can better understand both when/why we are successful with certain elements and in certain contexts, and where we can go to broaden our medium.
How can you argue with a definition that encompasses football, SimCity, Doom, Barbies, D&D and sex?