3.

Children’s games: these games often emphasise simpler, physical play, and include examples such as
Hide and Seek and Tag. Mental and physical challenges are present, but the primary concern in these
games is to facilitate the use of social skills in playing with others. 4. Athletic games: these games
emphasise physical rather than mental skills. Crawford makes a salient distinction in athletics between
games and competitions. Races are competitions and not games, in that technically players compete
only against the clock, and not against one another. However, some interaction does take place
between the players, in that one player’s performance may be affected by the observed performance of
other players. Competitions where interaction between players can take place may feasibly be described
as games, but, according to Crawford, athletic competitions where the player strives only to complete a
task optimally are not games. 5. Computer games: obviously a relatively recent type of game that can
actually draw heavily on the other types, but computer games are distinctive enough to be described as
an individual type. Two characteristics that distinguish computer games from other types are i)
computer games will always include some kind of interactive virtual playing environment, and ii) players
of computer games will always face some kind of opposition (either from other players, or from the
game itself in the case of single player games) (Fabricatore, 2000). From reviewing these types of games
it is already clear that it is hard to put games into very specific categories, because often a game
occupies two or more categories and draws on different types of games to produce something novel.
Consider the ‘grey’ distinction between competitions and games in the area of athletics. It is possible to
39 conceive of a player competing only against themselves in some physical endeavour, which should
mean it is not a game, but what if that activity is inherently fun? We need to bear in mind that a number
of factors contribute to the quality of an activity being a ‘game’ and these factors may be more or less
important depending on the context. Crawford goes on to identify four elements that he sees as
common to all games. Crawford’s identification of the four common elements of all games is a useful
tool for describing any game in terms of how it implements those elements, and serves as a primer for
the next section on how we might begin to place games into different categories. Representation:
Crawford describes a game as a “closed formal system that subjectively represents a subset of reality”
(Crawford, 1982 [online only]). Crawford’s key points are that a game contains a defined model upon
which the game is based that needs no reference to outside models or rules. The rules of the game are
complete in that no situation can be arrived at that is not catered for by those rules (for a properly
designed game). The representation within the game is subjective for each player in that each person
has their own perception of the game world that leads to their own fantasy. There may be consensus on
various elements, but subjective fantasy is a key element in the game representation. Games also only
represent a ‘subset’ of reality so as to maintain their closed and defined model, and to provide a
manageable ‘fantasy space’ for the players. Interaction: the capacity for games to provide a means for
players to interact with the representation they offer is crucial to their appeal. Some things that might
be called games, like puzzles, offer limited interactivity and hence limited appeal in the long term,
certainly for repeated play. Interactivity appears to be an ‘index’ of ‘gaminess’ in that games that
provide more interactivity, between players and players and the 40 environment, are more appealing
and game-like than activities that offer less interactivity. Conflict: conflict arises naturally from the
interactions that take place within the game. Players have goals, and they may be obstructed from
attaining those goals by the game itself, or by other players. They must overcome this opposition to
achieve their goals. If opposition is static, the activity is a puzzle. If opposition is dynamic, arising from
either another player or intelligent agent within the game, then it is a true game. Safety: games are safe
in that they offer a way to experience a particular reality and to perform actions within that reality with
the threat of real and physical consequences arising from those actions. Consequences are present
within the game system, but they do not impact on the players’ continuing experiences outside of the
game-world. For a more recent take on what defines games, specifically computer games, we can
consult Prensky (2001 p118-119) who identifies six structural elements that work together to engage the
player: i) rules ii) goals and objectives iii) outcomes and feedback iv) conflict/opposition v) interaction vi)
representation or story 41 Most of these elements are adequately contained within the more general
elements described by Crawford above, and this highlights the relatively unchanging nature of the
structure of games, even as they have moved into the medium of computer technology. In reviewing
Crawford’s work we can apply a small caveat to Prensky’s definitions, and specify the need for dynamic
opposition in order to classify an activity as a game rather than a puzzle. Another core factor in
gameplay, implied but not made explicit by the elements identified above, is failure, as noted by Squire
(2004). An integral part of a good game is that it features an appropriate level of challenge (Lepper and
Malone, 1987), and this means that players often fail. But this failure leads to further attempts using
modified strategies or simply quicker reflexes: players learn to play, and for many years now educators
have been wondering whether players might also be able to play to learn. 2.3.2 Games and learning
Games are a form of play, and as Crawford (1982) has noted, play is observed as a learning activity in
any animal that is capable of learning. Blanchard and Cheska (1985) hold that play is widely perceived as
an accepted form of learning, not simply the opposite of work. Ackerman (1999, cited in Prensky, 2001)