Summary
Defining “game” is a contested problem in game studies. Jesse Schell works toward a practical working definition by analysing constituent concepts — fun, play, toys — before arriving at a final synthesis. His definition is deliberately simple and jargon-free.
(Schell, The Art of Game Design, see source-art-of-game-design)
Key ideas
Schell’s definitions (arrived at through analysis):
- Fun — Pleasure with surprises. Fun is not just pleasure — it requires novelty or unexpectedness. Predictable pleasure is comfort, not fun.
- Play — Manipulation that satisfies curiosity. Play is exploratory and voluntary; it is distinct from work not by the activity itself but by the attitude toward it.
- A toy — An object you play with. A good toy is fun to play with even without explicit goals.
- A game — A problem-solving activity, approached with a playful attitude.
The ten qualities commonly attributed to games (Schell’s synthesis of prior definitions):
- Games are entered wilfully
- Games have goals
- Games involve conflict
- Games have rules
- Games can be won and lost
- Games are interactive
- Games have challenge
- Games can create their own internal value (endogenous value)
- Games engage and immerse players
- Games are closed, formal systems
The magic circle: The bounded space within which a game’s rules apply and endogenous value operates. Inside the magic circle, a worthless game token can matter enormously; outside it, it is nothing. Schell re-frames this as the mind’s internal problem-solving space — a simplified model of reality that enables effective reasoning and decision-making.
What distinguishes games from other media: Mechanics. Books, films, and music involve technology, story, and aesthetics — but not mechanics. Mechanics are the element that make games uniquely interactive. (see elemental-tetrad)
Evidence
Schell reviews prior definitions:
- Suits: “an exercise of voluntary control systems” (1978)
- Costikyan: “an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle toward a goal” (1994)
- Zimmerman/Salen: “a closed, formal system that engages players in structured conflict and resolves its uncertainty in an unequal outcome” (2003)
“A game is a problem-solving activity, approached with a playful attitude.” — Schell’s synthesis (Schell, The Art of Game Design, see source-art-of-game-design)
He notes this definition has value not as a truth claim but as an insight generator — if you view your game as a problem to be solved, different design questions become visible.
Implications
- The difference between play and work is attitudinal, not inherent to the activity. This has implications for educational games, serious games, and gamification.
- “Problem-solving” is broader than puzzles — social conflict, physical challenge, and creative expression all qualify.
- The definition implies games are voluntary. Forced participation undermines the magic circle.
- For designers: if players stop feeling like they are solving an interesting problem, they stop feeling like they are playing a game.
Adams’ four-element definition
Ernest Adams (2014) offers a more formal and operationally precise definition than Schell’s. He identifies four essential elements that all games share:
- Play — voluntary, intrinsically motivated activity
- Pretended reality (magic circle) — a fictional context that provides a bounded space with its own rules and stakes
- At least one arbitrary, nontrivial goal — something to strive for that has meaning inside the magic circle
- Rules — constraints that govern what actions are permitted
“A game is a type of play activity, conducted in the context of a pretended reality, in which the participant(s) try to achieve at least one arbitrary, nontrivial goal by acting in accordance with rules.” — Adams, Ch. 1 (Adams, Fundamentals of Game Design, see source-fundamentals-game-design)
Gameplay is Adams’ term for the core of game design:
“Gameplay consists of: the challenges that a player must face to arrive at the object of the game, and the actions that the player is permitted to take to address those challenges.” — Adams, Ch. 1
This challenge/action duality is the atomic unit of game design for Adams. All other elements (story, aesthetics, technology) serve it.
Competition modes (Adams)
Adams identifies six competition modes, describing how players relate to each other:
| Mode | Description | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Two-player competitive | You vs. me | Chess, fighting games |
| Multiplayer competitive | Everyone for himself (deathmatch) | Monopoly, poker, Battle Royale |
| Multiplayer cooperative | All together vs. the situation | Left 4 Dead, Overcooked |
| Team-based | Us vs. them | Football, MOBAs |
| Single-player | Me vs. the situation | Most video games |
| Hybrid | Cooperation within a competitive context | Diplomacy |
Immersion types (Adams)
Adams identifies four types of immersion:
| Type | Description | Design conditions |
|---|---|---|
| Tactical | ”In the groove” during fast-paced action (Tetris trance) | Dozens of rapid, similar small challenges; no abrupt changes |
| Strategic | Deep planning focus; chess-master absorption | Clear rules; predictable game state; no unexpected elements |
| Spatial | Feeling present in another place | Good 3D environment; peripheral vision engagement |
| Narrative | Inside a story; events feel real | Good storytelling; gameplay consistent with narrative context |
Top 10 player emotions (Bateman survey)
Chris Bateman surveyed 1000+ players (2008) to identify emotions players most frequently experience and enjoy:
- Amusement (most prevalent; second most desired)
- Contentment (satisfaction from completion/collection)
- Wonderment (most desired emotion)
- Excitement
- Curiosity
- Triumph / fiero (elation at overcoming adversity)
- Surprise
- Naches (Yiddish: pleasure in seeing others succeed — felt by mentors/helpers)
- Relief
- Bliss (joyfulness without stress; comparatively rare)
Design implication: designers should deliberately target specific emotions, not just “fun” in the abstract.
Bond’s interactive experience definition
Jeremy Gibson Bond (Ch. 2) proposes a broader definition intended to encompass games, interactive art, VR experiences, and other forms that share the properties of games but may lack traditional rules or win conditions:
“Any experience created by a designer; inscribed into rules, media, or technology; and decoded by people through play.” — Bond, Ch. 2 (source-introduction-game-design-prototyping)
This definition is deliberately broader than “game.” It captures:
- Designed — there is intentional authorship
- Inscribed — the design exists in some persistent medium (code, rules, physical artefact)
- Decoded through play — the experience is activated and interpreted by people engaging with it interactively
Bond uses “interactive experience” as the category; “game” is the most common and structured type within it.
Lusory attitude (Suits via Bond)
Bernard Suits defines the lusory attitude as the attitude of play: the voluntary willingness to follow game rules as the means of achieving game goals, for the joy of winning by those rules.
“The voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles.” — Suits’ definition of game-playing (quoted by Bond)
The lusory attitude distinguishes three types of participants:
- Players — possess the lusory attitude; accept rules as constraints and embrace them
- Cheaters — violate the rules to win; abandon the lusory attitude while pursuing the game’s goal
- Spoilsports — reject the game entirely; abandon both the attitude and the goal
Cheating and spoilsporting both destroy the magic circle (Huizinga). Cheating is more socially tolerated because the cheater still pretends to accept the game; the spoilsport makes the pretence itself untenable.
Design implication: Games that players feel compelled to cheat may signal unfair rules or poor feedback — the designed obstacle feels non-lusory (arbitrary rather than enjoyable). If players commonly become spoilsports at a specific point, examine the design at that point.
Caillois’ four play types
Roger Caillois (Man, Play and Games, 1958) identifies four fundamental types of play, cited by Bond (Ch. 8) as a taxonomy for understanding what different players find rewarding:
| Type | Name origin | Description | Example games |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agon | Greek: contest | Competitive play; skill and mastery; zero-sum outcomes | Chess, fighting games, sports |
| Alea | Latin: dice | Chance-based play; luck and probability; surrendering to fate | Lotteries, slots, gambling mechanics |
| Ilinx | Greek: whirlpool | Vertiginous play; disruption of equilibrium; sensation for its own sake | VR experiences, motion-based games, racing games at high speed |
| Mimicry | Mimesis | Simulation and make-believe; roleplay; inhabiting another identity | RPGs, dress-up games, theatre sports |
Most games blend multiple types. The tension between agon (skill wins) and alea (luck wins) is a core balance challenge in multiplayer games.
Design implication: Understanding which play types your target players prefer enables more targeted design. A competitive game that introduces heavy alea elements will frustrate agon-oriented players; a narrative RPG that removes mimicry elements loses a core appeal.
Fun (Burgun via Bond)
Keith Burgun (Game Design Theory, 2012, cited by Bond Ch. 8) argues that for an experience to be truly “fun” it must be simultaneously:
- Enjoyable — pleasant to experience in the moment
- Engaging — demands and holds attention
- Fulfilling — provides a sense of accomplishment or growth
“Fun” in common usage often means only “enjoyable” — but a game that is enjoyable and engaging but not fulfilling (e.g. pure alea with no skill element) is entertaining, not fun in Burgun’s sense.
This definition complements Schell’s “pleasure with surprises” (emphasises enjoyment and novelty) and Koster’s “fun as learning” (emphasises engagement and fulfilment through skill development).
Poole’s control-centric definition
Steven Poole (2000) proposes a complementary but distinct definition: a videogame is defined by player control and interactivity. Where Schell foregrounds the experience produced, Poole foregrounds the mechanism that produces it.
The essential quality of videogames is that you are doing, not watching. Remove the ability to play and you destroy the experience. — paraphrase of Poole’s core argument (Ch. 1, source-trigger-happy)
Poole vs. Schell:
| Schell | Poole | |
|---|---|---|
| Core definition | Experience-centric: “a problem-solving activity, approached with a playful attitude” | Control-centric: interactivity is the essential distinguishing property |
| What matters most | The player’s subjective experience | The player’s capacity to act |
| What distinguishes games | Mechanics (interactive rules) | Interactivity (the act of control) |
| Risk/gap | May be too broad — does a walking simulator with no “problem” qualify? | May be too narrow — does it exclude games with highly constrained player freedom? |
These definitions are complementary rather than opposed. Schell describes the target (the experience); Poole describes the mechanism (the control). Both agree that interactivity is essential — they differ in where they locate its importance.
The tension between them is most visible at the edges:
- Walking simulators (Dear Esther, Firewatch) have minimal mechanics and challenge, but have strong interactivity. Poole might struggle to explain why they succeed; Schell’s “playful attitude” is more accommodating.
- Passive game sequences (unskippable cutscenes, forced walks) are games by both definitions — but both would agree they represent a weakening of the core properties.
(see player-agency for Poole’s argument in depth)
Additional definitions (CRE133 lecture survey)
The CRE133 lectures present a useful comparative survey of game definitions from multiple theorists. Definitions not yet covered elsewhere on this page:
Chris Crawford (1984):
“Games are a sub-set of entertainment limited to conflicts.” — The Art of Computer Game Design
Crawford defines games narrowly through conflict — the opposition between player intention and a system or opponent. This foregrounds the adversarial structure of games (challenge, resistance, winning) and distinguishes games from stories, toys, and puzzles that lack conflict. It pairs with Crawford’s definition of gameplay as “the combination of pace and cognitive effort required by the game.”
Sid Meier:
“A game is a series of meaningful choices.”
Meier’s definition (widely attributed; originally informal) locates the value of games specifically in decision quality. Not just any choices — meaningful ones: choices where the options are distinct, the consequences are real, and the player understands enough to deliberate. This is arguably the most design-actionable definition: if the choices in your game are not meaningful (outcomes feel identical, or outcomes are not legible), the game is failing by this criterion.
Huizinga (expanded): Johan Huizinga (Homo Ludens, 1938) characterises play as a voluntary, free activity conducted outside ordinary life, within a temporary sphere defined by its own rules — the “magic circle.” His description of games adds that they are: voluntary, uncertain, unproductive, governed by rules, and partake of make-believe. (Note: Caillois directly responds to and extends Huizinga in Man, Play and Games, 1958.)
Caillois’ game characteristics: Roger Caillois (Man, Play and Games, 1958) defines a game as an activity that is:
- Voluntary — free choice to enter
- Uncertain — outcomes cannot be predetermined
- Unproductive — creates no new goods or wealth in the world
- Rule-governed — subject to conventions that suspend ordinary laws
- Make-believe — accompanied by a special awareness of a second reality
(See Caillois’ four play types — Agon, Alea, Ilinx, Mimicry — in the section above.)
Crawford on play vs games:
| Play | Games | |
|---|---|---|
| Structure | Freeform, lacks rigid objectives | Defined rules, clear objectives and win/loss conditions |
| Motivation | Intrinsic — done for enjoyment and exploration | Can be intrinsic and extrinsic — includes outcomes with assigned value |
| Boundaries | Flexible | Specific, with formal start and end |
This distinction matters for game design: overly constraining the “play” dimension of a game (removing exploration, experimentation, freeform expression) produces something mechanically correct but experientially thin. The best games contain space for play within game structure. (CRE133 Lectures, see source-cre133-lectures)
Koster’s definition (fun = learning patterns)
Raph Koster (A Theory of Fun for Game Design, 2005) locates the essence of games not in rules or interactivity but in what they do to the brain:
“Games are just exceptionally tasty patterns to eat up.” — Koster, Ch. 2
For Koster, a game is a concentrated formal system that gives the brain patterns to recognise, practise, and ultimately chunk (compress into automatic routines). Fun arises at the moment of successful pattern-internalisation. Learning is the mechanism; the endorphin release at the click of comprehension is the reward.
Fun defined: “Fun from games arises out of mastery. It arises out of comprehension. It is the act of solving puzzles that makes games fun. In other words, with games, learning is the drug.” (Ch. 3)
Boredom defined: “Boredom is the brain casting about for new information.” When a game stops teaching, it stops being fun. Boredom is always the signal that design has failed.
Definition of a good game: “One that teaches everything it has to offer before the player stops playing.” (Ch. 3)
This definition sits in productive tension with the other definitions on this page:
- Against Schell (“problem-solving activity”): Koster would agree but ground it — the “problem” is always a pattern to be learned
- Against Poole (control-centric): Koster sees control as the mechanism for pattern practice, not the end in itself
- Against Adams (formal elements): Koster accepts the formal structure but asks what the structure teaches
- Against Bond (decoded through play): Koster’s “decoding” is specifically chunking/grokking the patterns
For the full theoretical treatment, see fun-as-learning.
Burgun’s formalist definition
Keith Burgun (Game Design Theory, 2012) proposes the most restrictive definition on this page:
“A game: a contest of ambiguous decision making.” — Burgun, Ch. 1, see source-game-design-theory
Burgun situates this within a four-tier taxonomy of interactive systems. All games are interactive systems, but not all interactive systems are games. The nesting goes: toys → puzzles (add goal/problem) → contests (add competition) → games (add ambiguous decisions). See burgun-taxonomy for the full treatment.
The key property that distinguishes games from contests — and which Burgun treats as the most fragile and valuable thing in games — is endogenously meaningful, ambiguous decisions: choices whose consequences propagate through the system and whose optimal move cannot be determined with certainty, even in retrospect. This is tighter than Meier’s “meaningful choices” in that it specifically requires: (1) the meaning derives from the game system itself, not from narrative or theme; and (2) genuine ambiguity — not merely complexity.
Under this definition, Minecraft (no win condition), Dance Dance Revolution (execution contest), Guitar Hero (memorisation/execution), and most walking simulators are not games. Tetris, Chess, Go, football, and poker are.
Comparison with other definitions on this page:
| Definition | Core criterion | What it excludes |
|---|---|---|
| Schell | Problem-solving with playful attitude | Passive, non-challenging interactive works |
| Adams/Poole | Interactivity + nontrivial goal in pretended reality | Very little |
| Crawford | Conflict | Non-adversarial experiences |
| Meier | Series of meaningful choices | Choices without consequence |
| Koster | System that teaches patterns | Nothing — all fun things are game-like |
| Burgun | Contest of ambiguous decisions | Toys, puzzles, contests, simulators, MMOs, most JRPGs |
Burgun is explicitly prescriptive — he argues this definition should be adopted by designers and critics, not that it describes how the word is currently used. He acknowledges people are not wrong to use “game” in broader senses, but argues precision matters for design.
Open questions
- Schell’s definition excludes purely expressive or narrative games where there is no “problem” to solve. Is this a gap in the definition, or does it suggest those experiences are something other than games?
- Poole’s control-centric definition is challenged by walking simulators and interactive fiction — genres that deliberately limit traditional agency. Are they games, and if so, does Poole’s definition need revision?
- How does the “playful attitude” translate across cultures?
- Is there a unified definition that encompasses both the experience-centric and control-centric views?
Related
- elemental-tetrad — Mechanics as the distinguishing element of games
- layered-tetrad — Bond’s framework for what a game contains at each layer
- design-lenses — Lens #5 (Endogenous Value), Lens #6 (Problem Solving)
- player-agency — Poole’s control-centric argument in depth
- play — Glossary definition of play vs games; Huizinga/Caillois/Suits
- fun — Glossary entry naming the four conflicting source definitions
- games-vs-film — How the game/film distinction illuminates what games are
- flow — The psychological state associated with deep play
- mda-framework — Alternative theoretical framework
- challenge-types — Adams’ taxonomy of gameplay challenges
- player-centric-design — Adams’ design philosophy built on this definition
- internal-economy — The mechanics layer underlying gameplay
- fun-as-learning — Koster’s full theory
- burgun-taxonomy — Burgun’s full taxonomy (games vs puzzles vs contests vs toys)
- game-shame — Burgun’s concept explaining why games pursue cinematic legitimacy
- inherent-vs-emergent-complexity — Burgun’s analytic tool for evaluating game depth
- game-studies-foundations — Wider historical and theoretical context for competing game definitions
- games-as-systems-vs-games-as-stories — System-centred versus story-centred readings of what games are
- overview-game-studies-foundations — Synthesis route through the theory-history backbone
- source-art-of-game-design
- source-trigger-happy
- source-game-design-theory
- source-fundamentals-game-design
- source-introduction-game-design-prototyping
- source-theory-of-fun