A Short and Simple Definition

I wanted to write a post to share the link to the .pdf of the paper we looked at in class so that you all had a digital copy of it as well as the printed copy I distributed. I think that some of the debates that were raised within the session where very useful, but when we review the text again next week I think we need to keep more closely to arguments drawn from the text, this will help us to learn more from the work and how to read a text.

Esposito, N. A Short and Simple Definition of What a Videogame Is, DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views – Worlds in Play, 2005

I would like to pose a few questions for you to think about when you look at the paper for Thursday, you don't have to answer them but it might help you think about the text.

• How do you feel about the definition? Is it too rigid, too loose, does it work?
  
  
• How useful is it to have a definition of what a videogame is?
  
  
• On page 4, there is a quote from First Person that states “Game designers are much less interested in telling a story than in creating a compelling framework for play.” As game designers how do you feel about this statement?
  
  
• Within the conclusion Esposito states that “…knowing what a videogame is, [it] is obviously very useful to know what a good videogame is.” What do you think of this? Do you think this is true, I would pose that having a strict definition is very useful to know when a videogame is good at being a videogame but can not tell you if it is a good videogame. This might seem like semantics but I think that this is a very key point.