DC_Ch. 4_Zimmerman

What a fantastic job Zimmerman has done setting up the basics of game theory. It's so important to have a base. He's developed a definition of game that increased the scope to include; narrative, interactivity, and play. This is the first step towards creating solid game theories. I think Crawford erred in his assesment of the essay. Some of these writers (in First Person) seem to think there will be one all encompassing theory of games, but it's not going to happen. Having a base only establishes what a game is. I think to help out Crawford and the others, the next step after defining what a game is, is to categorize games. A first-person shooter and a simulation are both video games but different types. Doom and the Sims are two much different types of games, to compare them is not really helpful. Just as non-fiction and fiction are two different types of literature, comparing In Cold Blood to American Psycho is futile, unless you want to use the broad base of both being narratives. After types, the games can be further split into genres. On these smaller playing fields true comparison can be made and I believe it is there that we'll start unlocking what makes games successful. Once broken down we'll be able to see what works, what can be changed and hopefully new directions for fuller gaming experience. With Zimmerman's help we now have the definition of what makes a game, it is now up to all of us (or at least those that want to) to define the categories, genres and sub-genres.