Here's your definition:\n\n<<<\nA game is <<print $playerDef>>\n<<<\n\nGood?\n\n[[Yes, I'm ready to go.|Gameplay and Learning]]\n\nNo, lemme try again:\nA game is <<textinput $playerDef [[Go!|Confirm]]>>\n\nHaving a hard time thinking of what to write? Try [[Molleindustria's auto game definition generator|http://www.gamedefinitions.com/]]!\n\n

This type of “game” was compared unfavorably to a PowerPoint deck, leading Richard Mayer to conclude that game narratives were inferior to other forms of media for learning gains at AERA a few years ago ([[Mayer et al., 2011|References]]). I’ve heard he’s since recanted.\n\n[[Back|Gameplay2]]

That Bogost is the leading figure for procedural rhetoric is maybe ironic given Bogost’s Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) leanings.\n\n[[Back|DefO2]]

Good examples of games that focus on the educational content in their game design include the work from the [[Center for Game Science|http://centerforgamescience.org/]] and [[Ululab|http://ululab.com/]].\n\n[[Back|Gameplay2]]

A great example of a game that asks players to take on responsibilities to define their play experience is Wilson's [[Johann Sebastian Joust|http://www.jsjoust.com/]]. A game that ties closely its main interaction mechanic and the experience it’s attempting to simulate is Quinn's Depression Quest (cf. [[Chen, 2014b|References]]).\n\n[[Back|Learning Games Designed for Meaningful Interactions]]

Maybe because we don’t do a good enough job of communicating across all of game studies’ disciplines?\n\n[[Back|NewD3]]

The Interactive Poster Version!

!!Intro\n\nThis is a personal exploration of game definitions and meaning in games, going from more formal definitions that include inherent elements of games to subjective meaning-making in specific game enactments. A draft of this appears in paper form on [[my blog|http://markdangerchen.net/2014/02/23/a-new-definition-for-games/]], but this includes revisions, a side-note on procedural rhetoric, and is, of course, in a completely different, ([[experimental for a poster]]) format. This interactive "poster" also details how these definitions affect game design for learning and why many current learning games miss out on the true potential for gaming.\n\nBefore we start, first write down your own definition for games.\n\nA game is <<textinput $playerDef [[Okay!|Confirm]]>>\n

/* Your story will use the CSS in this passage to style the page.\nGive this passage more tags, and it will only affect passages with those tags.\nExample selectors: */\n\nbody {\n\t/* This affects the entire page */\n\tfont-size: 1.1em;\n\t\n}\n.passage {\n\t/* This only affects passages */\n\t\n\t\n}\n.passage a {\n\t/* This affects passage links */\n\t\n\t\n}\n.passage a:hover {\n\t/* This affects links while the cursor is over them */\n\t\n\t\n}

!!!Your initial definition:\n<<<\nA game is <<print $playerDef>>\n<<<\n----\n\nSometimes engaging gameplay does exist, but the learning content is inserted as interstitial segments between layers or levels of the actual game. An example could be [[a game that features pop-up screens with trivia that intermittently interrupt a first-person exploration game|Note1]]. Again this is because the designers are placing too much value onto these subject matter chunks of facts. They may understand what makes a game engaging but not how to [[incorporate these fact chunks into the activity|Note2]].\n\nI should probably mention that I don’t think we should be dividing our education into disciplinary silos; our tendency to do so is part of why we concentrate so much on discrete content. Additionally, if you know me, you know that I’m much more interested in the processes of learning that players engage in during gaming than the actual content of their learning. I think these processes are the true power of gaming and that they can transfer to many other non-game situations.\n\nTo understand where I’m coming from, it helps to understand my definition of games. Recently, however, I’ve rethought and changed my definition, so I’ll explain that transformation here, too.\n\n[[Definitions (Old)]]

!!!Your initial definition:\n<<<\nA game is <<print $playerDef>>\n<<<\n!!!Mark's Definitions:\n<<<\nGames are systems of rules/constraints that present players with goals that can best be accomplished by exploring and pushing at the limits of these rules/constraints.\n\nA game is an unpredictable (as in the outcome is unpredictable), engaging activity played within a defined set of rules/constraints with some sort of goal.\n\n[Games are] personally meaningful interactions/decisions with(in) designed systems/ecologies of constraints.\n\nGames are personally meaningful interactions players enact to navigate with(in) designed systems/ecologies of constraints.\n<<<\n----\n\nOne criticism I got for this definition is that it lacks “fun,” and further discussion reminded me (quite rightly so) that there’s a lot of theorizing on what “fun” actually means and that there’s typologies of fun (cf. [[Heeter et al., 2003|http://spacepioneers.msu.edu/forms_of_fun_july_2004.pdf]]) that might allow for non-fun games like [[//Depression Quest// (Quinn, 2013)|http://depressionquest.com]]. Also, the definition doesn’t sufficiently provide something that works to categorize a designed artifact as a game. In other words, it doesn’t differentiate an enactment of [[//Settlers of Catan// (Teuber, 1995)|http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/13/settlers-catan]] from an enactment of an engaging math class. Well, yes, if we’re going to name products as games, this definition doesn’t work. But if we’re naming activities as games, this definition is great. It places the power in the hands of people in local settings, allowing them to instantiate a “game” whenever they personally treat the situated activity as such. And that’s precisely what I wanted this definition to do. If a student treats a math class as a game, then, yes, it is a game for that student, and, no, it doesn’t mean that it’s a game for the rest of the students. Likewise, if a player is hating their experience with Settlers, maybe it ought not to be called a game.\n\n“Games” become relative and subjective, and I really, really like that. It’s an acknowledgement that human activity is subjective. Different people place different meanings on their activity. We have the ability to imbue and ascribe all sorts of meanings into our lived experiences. It’s what makes us human. And as [[Steve Wilcox (2014)|http://www.firstpersonscholar.com/videogames-and-empathy/]] says regarding games and empathy, games are an “…art form that is ideally suited to fostering understanding”.\n\n(FYI, this idea isn’t really new… [[Malaby (2007)|http://gac.sagepub.com/content/2/2/95]] argues that many of the formalist definitions that treat elements of games as inherent to the object are actually emergent through social constructions—“cultural accomplishments specific to a given context” (pp. 96). Games to him are in a continual process of becoming. Likewise, playing a game is not drone-like; it’s constantly trying something outside the bounds and meeting resistance. It’s a mangle.)\n\nIn other words, with this new definition ([[for me|Note4]]), the learning that happens in games comes from interaction with the designed systems and building clearer and clearer understandings of the choices available and deeper and deeper meanings with this lived cultural experience.\n\n[[Learning Games Designed for Meaningful Interactions]]

!!!Your initial definition:\n<<<\nA game is <<print $playerDef>>\n<<<\n!!!Mark's Definitions:\n<<<\nGames are systems of rules/constraints that present players with goals that can best be accomplished by exploring and pushing at the limits of these rules/constraints.\n\nA game is an unpredictable (as in the outcome is unpredictable), engaging activity played within a defined set of rules/constraints with some sort of goal.\n\n[Games are] personally meaningful interactions/decisions with(in) designed systems/ecologies of constraints.\n<<<\n----\n\nTalking this definition over with [[Molly Gonzales (2014)|References]] and further refining it results in:\n\n<<<\nGames are personally meaningful interactions players enact to navigate with(in) designed systems/ecologies of constraints.\n<<<\n\nThrowing in the word “navigate” implies exploration and building of knowledge and places agency in player actions. We had considered removing the word “designed,” but I left it in since it implies effort involved in coming up with artificial constraints.\n\nWith this new definition, the learning that happens in games comes from interaction with the designed systems and building clearer and clearer understandings of the choices available.\n\n[[Continue|NewD3]]

!!!Your initial definition:\n<<<\nA game is <<print $playerDef>>\n<<<\n----\n\n!!Gameplay and Learning\n\nThere’s a perennial problem in games for learning: the mechanics of a game are often disassociated from the desired learning. Part of this stems from educational game designers placing too much emphasis on specific subject matter content exacerbated by a misunderstanding of the object of their creation.\n\nToo many educational games aren’t really that engaging as games. They focus on content and sometimes use only the superficial reward layer of games to motivate players to engage in the activity. (This is often called “gamification.”) These types of “games” keep getting made and will continue to be made so long as our educational policy/system continues to emphasize discrete disciplinary content assessed with brute force testing methods. In our effort to meet decontextualized standards, we’ve lost student engagement and somehow think that everything will be fine by making our stupidly meaningless activities give out badges and points.\n\n[[Continue|Gameplay2]]

!!!Your initial definition:\n<<<\nA game is <<print $playerDef>>\n<<<\n!!!Mark's Definitions:\n<<<\nGames are systems of rules/constraints that present players with goals that can best be accomplished by exploring and pushing at the limits of these rules/constraints.\n\nA game is an unpredictable (as in the outcome is unpredictable), engaging activity played within a defined set of rules/constraints with some sort of goal.\n\n[Games are] personally meaningful interactions/decisions with(in) designed systems/ecologies of constraints.\n\nGames are personally meaningful interactions players make to navigate with(in) designed systems/ecologies of constraints.\n<<<\n----\n\nSo, now compare your defintion with the ones above. Which speaks to you most? Are there things you'd add or revise?\n\nHere's your chance to type in a new definition:\n\nA game is <<textinput $newDef [[Okay!|Tweet]]>>

!!!Your initial definition:\n<<<\nA game is <<print $playerDef>>\n<<<\n----\n\n!!Definitions (Old)\n\nMy old definition of games was basically some form of this:\n\n<<<\nGames are systems of rules/constraints that present players with goals that can best be accomplished by exploring and pushing at the limits of these rules/constraints ([[Chen, 2013|http://markdangerchen.net/2013/12/15/a-statement-on-games-and-expert-gaming-annotated/]]).\n<<<\n\nMy old definition focuses on games as systems and the action that players take to understand those systems. This works towards a definition of gaming expertise as a practice rather than as knowledge, and my affinity for this emphasis is probably due to my previous studies on expertise in a WoW player group ([[Chen, 2012|http://www.amazon.com/Leet-Noobs-Warcraft-Literacies-Epistemologies/dp/1433116103]]). Potentially, the main benefit of games is the fact that players learn these systems through exploring and pushing; they learn these systems through the practice of playing, which looks strikingly similar to STEM practice, as recognized by the National Research Council in their report for K12 classroom practice ([[National Research Council, 2012|http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165]]). Through this exploration, players gain a lot of personal agency as they take actions to affect change within games based on their continually constructed understanding of game systems. I think it’s this potential of gaming that can change the world, as players start seeing how to transfer gaming practice–strategic actions that navigate systems–to the systems of their everyday lives. The job I see for educators, then, is to help players see these connections and make that transfer. This is something I think many players just won’t do on their own; there’s too much baggage and existing negative framing around games as valueless or frivolous activities.\n\nI’d like to emphasize that the above definition was emergent from my time observing and playing with a group of players as I studied team expertise. In other words, I tend towards more anthropological approaches and try to describe what I see and experience with participants. It means that how I think about games sometimes differs from more philosophical and/or media studies approaches, yet, by interrogating my angle, it becomes clear that I’m defining gaming more so than games. And I don’t think I’m alone here.\n\n[[Continue|DefO2]]

Who knows if this will [[even work|Start]]??

A New Definition for Games: Meaningful Play

!!!Your initial definition:\n<<<\nA game is <<print $playerDef>>\n<<<\n!!!Your new definition:\n<<<\nA game is <<print $newDef>>\n<<<\n\nNow <<print "[[tweet it to #mplay|https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?button_hashtag=mplay&text=A%20game%20is%20" + $newDef + "%20@mcdanger%20http://markdangerchen.net/pubs/anewdefinition.html]]">>!

[[References]]

!!!Your initial definition:\n<<<\nA game is <<print $playerDef>>\n<<<\n!!!Mark's Definitions:\n<<<\nGames are systems of rules/constraints that present players with goals that can best be accomplished by exploring and pushing at the limits of these rules/constraints.\n\nA game is an unpredictable (as in the outcome is unpredictable), engaging activity played within a defined set of rules/constraints with some sort of goal.\n<<<\n----\n\n!!New Definition: Meaningful Interaction\n\nOn various social media, I played around with reforming my definition of games and tentatively ended up with this:\n\n<<<\n[Games are] personally meaningful interactions/decisions with(in) designed systems/ecologies of constraints ([[Chen, 2014a|https://twitter.com/mcdanger/status/435108561501159424]])\n<<<\n\nI like it. The word “meaningful” covers so much. Engagement is implied because players must have some sort of investment in order to make personally meaningful choices. Likewise, goals are also implied because players must have some sort of intended imagined outcome for their actions to have meaning. The “interaction” part of the definition emphasizes that games must be enacted, they must be realized and co-constructed by players and the game-as-object or game-as-designed-system. Furthermore, using “interaction” instead of “decisions” helps us emphasize that meaning can be derived from extra-ludic associations, where our thoughts and actions interact with more than just the game. And since I’m currently researching the crazy esoteric practices of game modders, I’m tending to prefer “with” instead of “within” designed ecologies. In fact, perhaps the only thing that isn’t encapsulated enough is the contingent nature of the intended actions…\n\n[[Continue|NewD2]]

[[Mark Chen|http://markdangerchen.net/]]\n[[@mcdanger|http://twitter.com/mcdanger/]]

!!!Your initial definition:\n<<<\nA game is <<print $playerDef>>\n<<<\n!!!Mark's Definitions:\n<<<\nGames are systems of rules/constraints that present players with goals that can best be accomplished by exploring and pushing at the limits of these rules/constraints.\n\nA game is an unpredictable (as in the outcome is unpredictable), engaging activity played within a defined set of rules/constraints with some sort of goal.\n\n[Games are] personally meaningful interactions/decisions with(in) designed systems/ecologies of constraints.\n\nGames are personally meaningful interactions players make to navigate with(in) designed systems/ecologies of constraints.\n<<<\n----\n\n!!Learning Games Designed for Meaningful Interactions\n\nSo, what does this.. er… mean? Let’s go back to my opening statement:\n\n<<<\nThere’s a perennial problem in games for learning: the mechanics of a game (i.e., gameplay) are often disassociated from the desired learning. I think part of this stems from educational game designers placing too much emphasis on specific subject matter content exacerbated by a misunderstanding of the object of their creation.\n<<<\n\nThe perennial problem with games for learning is that they often are activities that have nothing to do with the deep cultural meanings players have with games, that the attitude of the player and the nature of interaction with some sort of engaging system (i.e., the player practice) is what makes a game “a game.” To go even a step further, we could mention [[DeKoven’s (2013)|http://www.amazon.com/Well-Played-Game-Players-Philosophy/dp/0262019175]] search for a well-played game—a game that only exists when all players have reached a sociocultural agreement about their activity and are equally invested in each other’s enjoyment of the activity.\n\nSo then… What does this mean for educational game designers?\n\nNo idea, really.\n\nActually, seriously, I’d start by making sure designers are players, too, and that they sink a good 100+ hours into a deeply engaging game that has a thriving online community at least once before designing serious games. Then I’d suggest designers think carefully about allowing for multiple levels of meaning-making and constructed understandings of the systems in place and that these things match closely with the intended learning. Furthermore, much of these understandings come from the emergent nature of negotiation with other players or a larger community of players around a particular game. Keeping this in mind forces a designer [[to push for potentials and relationships|Note5]] rather than tightly constructed game-centric events (or crappy, fast gamification through tacked-on rewards).\n\nRemember, players can always rebel against the system, and that's what we actually want to occur as it's a sign of expertise.\n\n[[Debrief]]

Bogost, I. (2006). //[[Unit operations: An approach to videogame criticism.|http://www.amazon.com/Unit-Operations-Approach-Videogame-Criticism/dp/0262524872]]// Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.\n\nBogost, I. (2007). //[[Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames.|http://www.amazon.com/Persuasive-Games-Expressive-Power-Videogames/dp/0262514885]]// Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.\n\nChen, M. (2012). [[//Leet noobs: The life and death of an expert player group in// World of Warcraft.|http://www.amazon.com/Leet-Noobs-Warcraft-Literacies-Epistemologies/dp/1433116103]] New York: Peter Lang.\n\nChen, M. (2013). [[A statement on games and expert gaming (annotated!).|http://markdangerchen.net/2013/12/15/a-statement-on-games-and-expert-gaming-annotated/]] //Mark Danger Chen: Sporadic ramblings of a gamer in academia// (December 15, 2013). \n\nChen, M. [@mcdanger]. (2014a, February 16). [[expanded games def: personally meaningful interactions/decisions within designed systems/ecologies of constraints|https://twitter.com/mcdanger/status/435108561501159424]] [tweet].\n\nChen, M. (2014b). [[//Depression Quest// is the most important game I’ve ever played.|http://depts.washington.edu/critgame/project/depression-quest-is-the-most-important-game-ive-ever-played/]] Critical Gaming Project’s Critical Exemplars series (Feb 26, 2014). \n\nDeKoven, B. (2013). //[[The well-played game: A player’s philosophy (revised edition).|http://www.amazon.com/Well-Played-Game-Players-Philosophy/dp/0262019175]]// Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.\n\nGonzales, M.M. (2014). Personal communication [Facebook Messenger].\n\nHeeter, C., Chu, C., Maniar, A., Winn, B., Mishra, P., Egidio, R., and Portwood-Stacer, L. (2003). Comparing 14 plus 2 forms of fun (and learning and gender issues) in commercial versus educational space exploration digital games. [[(web version from 2004)|http://spacepioneers.msu.edu/forms_of_fun_july_2004.pdf]] Paper presented at the Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA) conference in Utrecht, November 4-6, 2003. \n\nJuul, J. (2003). [[The game, the player, the world: Looking for a heart of gameness.|http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/gameplayerworld/]] Keynote presented at the Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA) conference in Utrecht, November 4-6, 2003.\n\nKessler, B. (2014, February 15). Core concept of games and university structure. Message posted to GAMESNETWORK electronic mailing list.\n\nMalaby, T. (2007). [[Beyond play: A new approach to games.|http://gac.sagepub.com/content/2/2/95]] //Games and Culture, 2//(2), 95-113.\n\nMalaby, T. (2009). [[//Making virtual worlds: Linden Lab and// Second Life.|http://www.amazon.com/Making-Virtual-Worlds-Linden-Second/dp/0801447461]] Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.\n\nMayer, R.E., MacNamara, A., and Adams, D.M. (2011). Is there an advantage to learning from narrative computer games? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) conference, 2011.\n\nNational Research Council. (2012). [[A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas.|http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165]] Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.\n\nPickering, A. (1993). [[The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science.|http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2781283]] //American Journal of Sociology, 99//(3), 559–589.\n\nQuinn, Z. (2013). [[Depression quest|http://depressionquest.com]] [videogame]. \n\nSalen, K., and Zimmerman, E. (2004). //[[Rules of play: Game design fundamentals.|http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Play-Game-Design-Fundamentals/dp/0262240459]]// Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.\n\nSellers, M. (2014, February 16). Core concept of games and university structure. Message posted to GAMESNETWORK electronic mailing list.\n\nSicart, M. (2011). [[Against procedurality.|http://gamestudies.org/1103/articles/sicart_ap]] //Game Studies, 11//(3). \n\nSteinkuehler, C.A. (2006). [[The mangle of play.|http://gac.sagepub.com/content/1/3/199]] //Games and Culture, 1//(3), 199–213.\n\nTeuber, K. (1995). //[[The Settlers of Catan|http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/13/settlers-catan]]// [tabletop game].\n\nWilcox, S. (2014). [[Videogames and empathy: Towards a post-normative ludic century.|http://www.firstpersonscholar.com/videogames-and-empathy/]] //First Person Scholar// (July 30, 2014). \n\nWilson, D. (2011). [[Brutally unfair tactics totally ok now: On self-effacing games and unachievements.|http://gamestudies.org/1101/articles/wilson]] //Game Studies, 11//(1).\n

!!!Your initial definition:\n<<<\nA game is <<print $playerDef>>\n<<<\n!!!Mark's Definitions:\n<<<\nGames are systems of rules/constraints that present players with goals that can best be accomplished by exploring and pushing at the limits of these rules/constraints.\n\nA game is an unpredictable (as in the outcome is unpredictable), engaging activity played within a defined set of rules/constraints with some sort of goal.\n<<<\n----\n\nIn the beginning of 2014, however, a thread on the [[Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA)|http://www.digra.org/]] listserv made me do some rethinking about game definitions. A listserv member (Bob Kessler) asked for thoughts on the “core” of games to better prepare a pitch to his university for a games department ([[Kessler, 2014|References]]). Another member (Mike Sellers), who has been in the industry for a good while, mentioned that games provide players with meaningful interaction. He wrote:\n\n<<<\nGames are fundamentally about meaningful interaction. That is… deeper interaction that involves building up a dynamic mental model in the player’s mind. This mental model includes the state of the “game world”… The purpose of building this mental model is to enable the player to make decisions in the pursuit of achieving some goal ([[Sellers, 2014|References]]).\n<<<\n\nThis struck me as notable since it departs a bit from normal or formal definitions of games I usually hear/read. For example, [[Jesper Juul nicely (2003)|http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/gameplayerworld/]] aggregated many previous definitions and proposed a list of six required elements for an object to be called a game, and [[Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman (2004)|http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Play-Game-Design-Fundamentals/dp/0262240459]] did similar work for a common, unifying definition of games (while also acknowledging the emergent, sometimes transgressive nature of play). These normal definitions were what my class and I drew from for our definition. How do we reconcile these definitions of games with how we understand people as they actually play? Maybe this is a difference between what’s “core” about the act of gaming and what’s core about the object known as “game.” As in, maybe the difference is in an activity versus an artifact, but it really got me thinking. Maybe it’s impossible to define a game without acknowledging that it must be enacted, since it’s inherently about interaction.\n\nThis falls into place quite well with [[Bernie DeKoven’s (2013) statement in //The Well-Played Game//|http://www.amazon.com/Well-Played-Game-Players-Philosophy/dp/0262019175]] that “the only thing that makes a game real is that there are people playing it” (pp. 57). If games are a subjective activity and depend on instantiation through action—and that these actions must be meaningful to the player—where does that leave us in terms of definitions?\n\n[[New Definition: Meaningful Interaction]]

!!!Your initial definition:\n<<<\nA game is <<print $playerDef>>\n<<<\n!!!Mark's Definitions:\n<<<\nGames are systems of rules/constraints that present players with goals that can best be accomplished by exploring and pushing at the limits of these rules/constraints.\n<<<\n----\n\nBut there’s a bunch of unspoken things in the previous definition… things like engagement and the performative nature of play. An alternative definition is one that the students in one of my games studies courses and I came up with in Fall 2013:\n\n<<<\nA game is an unpredictable (as in the outcome is unpredictable), engaging activity played within a defined set of rules/constraints with some sort of goal.\n<<<\n\nThe nice thing about this definition is that it emphasizes the contingent nature of gaming. It’s this contingency (uncertain outcomes where various actions are riskier than others) that makes participating in gaming a cultural act… something that can legitimately accrue cultural capital (for more on this, see [[Malaby, 2009|http://www.amazon.com/Making-Virtual-Worlds-Linden-Second/dp/0801447461]]). Another thing this definition does is state that games are engaging. This was the allowance made when the class realized that games aren’t necessarily “fun”–a label often used uncritically by students new to game studies. (More on fun later.)\n\nWhat this definition doesn’t do as well as the first is describe how players behave and become better players. Nonetheless, given these definitions together, a question educational game designers could ask themselves is: “If games are about exploration and pushing at a system, what kinds of things should educational games be focused on?”\n\nMy answers in late 2013 would’ve included deep systems, consistent behavior, good feedback, and layers of exploration.\n\n[[Continue|DefO4]]

!!!Your initial definition:\n<<<\nA game is <<print $playerDef>>\n<<<\n!!!Mark's Definitions:\n<<<\nGames are systems of rules/constraints that present players with goals that can best be accomplished by exploring and pushing at the limits of these rules/constraints.\n<<<\n----\n\nThere’s a pretty big emphasis (and concurrent backlash) in game studies right now on the idea of procedural rhetoric, which posits that players derive meaning from games by enacting or instantiating an intended process or experience in a designed system of rules. A good summary of this can be found in [[Miguel Sicart’s “Against Procedurality” article (2011)|http://gamestudies.org/1103/articles/sicart_ap]], where he introduces readers to the idea (mostly from Bogost, [[2006|http://www.amazon.com/Unit-Operations-Approach-Videogame-Criticism/dp/0262524872]] and [[2007|http://www.amazon.com/Persuasive-Games-Expressive-Power-Videogames/dp/0262514885]]). The message is in the enactment of the medium. This is somewhat related to my initial definitions in that games are systems to be understood through (inter)action, except that my intent was to convey the idea that players can break out of these systems and that evidence of mastery or expertise is precisely that—seeing patterns in the systems and then breaking them.\n\nSicart also believes that this procedural rhetoric idea can be too deterministic and suggests that play can be much more agentive for players, allowing for unpredictable emergent behavior that serves them rather than the designers. I see Sicart’s vision as a “mangle of practice / play” ([[[[Pickering, 1993|http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2781283]]; [[Steinkuehler, 2006|http://gac.sagepub.com/content/1/3/199]]) [[view of gaming.|Note3]] More recently, designer-scholars such as [[Douglas Wilson (2011)|http://gamestudies.org/1101/articles/wilson]] have pushed at the idea of a deterministic game experience by deliberately designing for emergent, rebellious play. These moves to give players agency and define play can help us rethink games.\n\n[[Continue|DefO3]]