Beyond the game...

Think back to the very start of the semester, when we talked about the concept of meaningful play, which occurs when "the relationships between actions and outcomes in a game are both discernable and integrated into the larger context of the game" (from Salen and Zimmerman, Rules of Play). When the game is an alternate reality game such as The Beast, where the game does not have any explicitly declared actions and outcomes, and in some cases does not even acknowledge its own existence, is it possible for there to be meaningful play? Does this type of "game" require us to rethink our definition of games?

For a game to become a game, the attitude you bring to it really matters. For this question, it goes down to the point of identifying what is this attitude one brings to the environment to make it a game. For now.. let's call this attitude the 'lusory attitude'.

Looking at the beast, yes it is still a game, it was meant to be one... one can tag it a reality game, a game that goes beyond the game and whatnots... but at its very core lies a game mechanic which can still be discerned... it is but a cleverly devised puzzle/mystery game!

I personally feel that it is actually easy to 'brainwash' somebody into believing that something is not game, it is something else. When we play games, we somehow experience an immersion into it, some sort of like a flow experience. At that point of time one doesn't feel or care that he or she is just playing a game, he or she would concentrate on doing things right.

Back at my very first entry here, I talked about how to make everyday life like a game... there was a comment that says that it would be tiresome if every single matter was treated like a contest... right now I'm confused between the word 'contest' and a 'game'. Contest suggest a form of competition, where two or more people competing against something, for some form of reward. Game... well... aren't they competing too? But games can have some intangible reward while a contest would almost always have something tangible to be rewarded out? And ... aren't games supposed to be fun... why the stress factor?

Going into the definition of game:

A game is a voluntary interactive activity, in which one or more players follow rules that constrain their behavior, enacting an artificial conflict that ends in a quantifiable outcome.

Right, so the suspicious part of the beast (or my example) would be the term 'artificial conflict' and perhaps 'voluntary'. Seriously, a game would not be 'voluntary' only when players are pointed with guns, forcing them to play. Otherwise most people would pick up the game on their own accord. The players of the beast are obviously into the hype that's going on within the premise of the game. And thus would be engaged in the game which claims not to be a game.

So now is the idea of artificial conflict. Well... once again it is based on the attitude that one brings to the game. Let's take for example a soccer game played by two rival nations. They can play as though it is an all out war with each other. The conflict is as real as it gets... but still it is bounded by the artificiality of the rules. The soccer game would be played be a ball and eleven players on each side and nothing else... there wouldn 't be guns and rifles ablazing! Now this is where the attitude comes in, soccer... we all agree that it is a game... but it can become a battleground. It's all about the attitude...

So do we consider the world cup as a game.. the olympics as a game... EA Sports... it's in the game? ( ok last one's irrelevant! :P )

Nah... it's simply about players possess that lusory attitude.

Hence I conclude... one can really play the game of life, if one treats life as a game. It can be said as living as some sort of fantasy, but does it matter to the person living it? Life can be a game, and a game can be your life... all it takes is which magic circle you had defined. :)