The game we created was designed to be played with two players and two players only.  The game is a head-to-head battle where the two players roll die to move across the board.  The die has a star which allows the player to use special weapons they acquire throughout the game.  These players would not be encouraged to come and go as they pleased - due to the “head to head” style.  Designing a game this way causes players to dedicate specific time to the game, instead of allowing them to come and go as they wish.  If we were to allow additional players, our game board as well as rules would have to be adjusted slightly to accommodate the additional pieces on the board.

Other games that were created had multi-player, team based and head-to-head.  Muli-player games adds additional obstacle and challenges to the game.  For instance, you have to watch out for more than one opponent, find new strategies, etc.  The team based game was focused on having even teams.  Without even teams, one team would be able to complete the required challenges before the other, as well as gang up on the team with fewer players.  This is an interesting thought though…how could you adjust a game so teams could be uneven?

Pros of our structure would have to include a more focused quick game, which allows only two people to sit down for a quick game.  Cons would include the fact that players would usually have to start and end the game in one sitting, as well as only allowing two people to play at one time.  Adjusting to allow additional players would be a great challenge, and probably very beneficial.

Defining what game is, is quite difficult as we have come to find out. Without really thinking about “what game is,” we don’t realize how this blends together so many different areas of our daily lives. “Step on a crack and you’ll break your mothers back.” I was told as a child. This was a fund little rhyme game that my friends would say. Is that a game? Is it just a rhyme? Is it a rhyming game?

I feel David Parlett does the best job defining what game is – “A game has “ends and means”: an objective, an outcome, and a set of rules to get there.” Clark C. Abt has a great definition to what game is as well, however I think the fact that he says it “is an activity involving player decisions” makes the definition a little flawed. Some games do not require you to make decisions – you draw a card, move the piece forward and do as the board instructs. You really have no decisions to make.

The definitions in the reading are similar in the fact they all require you to have rules in order to have a game. Without rules, you really have nothing. You also have an objective to the game – what you are trying to accomplish within the rules given to you. The simplest of games have rules and objectives – “I Spy” is a simple game with a couple rules and one outcome.

I am unable to put into words what a “fuzzy category” would be. To me all categories are fuzzy depending on what definition you choose to use to define “what is game.” If you go with my favorite definition above by David Parlett, every game type fits into the definition (along with other activities in life - war, or is that a game?). RPG’s for example fit in because they have an objective to accomplish, rules to follow within the application they are playing, and an outcome which may be to complete the next objective.