Well, to quote the article: > Now that I was making games, I shared Richard [Garfield]'s belief that I needed to have a working idea of what exactly constitute

Well, to quote the article: > Now that I was making games, I shared Richard [Garfield]'s belief that I needed to have a working idea of what exactly constituted a game. > Even if you're just a game player and have no interest in designing games, I think having a working idea of what you think a game is will shape how you think of games and help you further engage in the hobby. I want to stress that I don't believe it's important that everyone have the same definition of games… but I do believe it's important for each gamer to have a definition that works for them. Today's column is about my definition. This is an article about how a game designer thinks about games. Of course the properties are not orthogonal, but that's not to say the words aren't gesturing towards slightly different parts of concept-space. The words certainly don't cleanly demarcate disjoint chunks of concept-space, but Rosewater's article nevertheless does have some content.