>we require a solid taxonimy inorder to >differentiate the subtlties within them

but that’s like saying we need a taxonomy to have a taxonomy. Well, I suppose, but the question was “what the hell is the point of the taxonomy.” And while I am no fan of Wittgenstein, his point is surely not undermined by the fact that we have may more kinds of games than we used to. Having more games and kinds of games surely only strenghtens his point: that there are no necessary and sufficient conditions for gamehood.

But, even if there *were* necessary and sufficient conditions for gamehooe or game-ness I don’t see that it would make a bit of difference or that we would be well served to pay attention to such boundaries. Maybe the best tools for studying games wouldn’t recognize the boundaries at all.

2ndly, While again, I would agree with Wittgenstein, re: family resemblences between knids of games, what I’m aiming for is to segregate all kinds og games, being structures and sytems that posses the attribute of “game-ness” from all types on non-games. This is not to suggest that non-games cannot share some attribute of games, nor is it to suppose that some games will share other defining attributes with non-gmes. Rather it is to demarcate a territory in our world of systems establishing “games and game-ness” as sufficiently different from other systems in-order to impart, in the minimal, a heightened meaning to all systems involved in light of their differential/alternative/oppositional definitions. It is only with this meaning and the differential value imparted by such meaning embedding guidlines by which we can have clear concise communication of the system whole.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

It would be more accurate to say that a “game” has, in it’s structure, a goal orientation. These goal can either be know (score more points and win) or obfuscated as in the objectives of a D&D session). These goals need not always be end-games and may be the achievement of objectives like level advancement, plot advancement, accumulation etc. etc., Additionally one should not that particularly robust Simulations (more on these later) present a complex enough structure within which a player creates their own goals (Sim City is a good example, for instance” I wanna make a city that has a low pollution ratings” or “I wanna make a city so that I can summon Godzilla to destroy it” “ROAR” “YAY! I WIN!”).

Again we come back to the neccessity of robust structure that enable “game-ness” Tic-Tac-Toe is not robost enough to stand with out an opponent. You cannot, meaningfully, make up a single player version of Tic-Tac-Toe where in you are fulfilling the competitive, influential and goal orientation aspects of gameness. Tic-Tac-Toe requires an opponent to provide these aspects for you.

That’s hysterical to me that your sis used to do the same thing to you w/ the old rubic’s cube. I literally asked him one time (we were a bit older than kids, at this point, at least chronologically), “why the hell do you do this to me?” He smiled wryly, which revealed that he did enjoy playing this particular “mind game” (there’s a term for the particularly mental games, no?) with me. He also said something that was rather illuminating. He said that he liked to see me struggle (with a changing environment) to keep me thinking non-linear (like *I* need assistance there?). I think by systematically changing my environment to see if I could deal with it without having a nervous breakdown, he was trying to bring out something better in me. (In his evil little way). I think a good VR game is created in much the same way….”we’ll throw this twist in here, and see if you can still handle it.”
Anyhow, thinking about how VR games are best defined; what they do for us—- I find this all interesting. Nice job, squirrel.

Re: Psychology. Certainly one canot deny the pervasie Psychological element of any contest but I don’t think that it has a place in the definition of a game because it seems to be more of an affect of our selves rather than the game structure. I can’t really think of a game that even rests it’s structure upon psychological influence althogh one can obviously see that psychological influence plays a big role in almost any game (from the trash talking of Counterstrike, to the looming presence of Gary Kasparov, to the boasting of Muhammed Ali). Still, psychological determinates are only slightly less subjective than terms like fun and challange, and as such I gotta let them go.

Re: that pyramid thing. I had the same puzzle and my sister used to do the same thing to me. I’m tempted to say that my sister and your roomate were participating in a grand meta-game of their amusement v. our patience. But all they have really done is layer another puzzle upon a puzzle. They have not made a game out of it, nor is it a formalized competition of skill.