Play vs Game

The terms play and game are quite similar, so much so that some might use them interchangeably. In fact, in the German language a game is any activity executed only for pleasure and without conscious purpose. Doesn't that definition sound a lot like play? So, where do the two forms of entertainment diverge?

According to Peter Grey in Psychology Today, play must meet four basic criteria: 1) Play is self-chosen and self-directed; players are always free to quit. 2) Play is activity in which means are more valued than ends. 3) Play is guided by mental rules. And 4) Play is non-literal, imaginative, marked off in some way from reality. To synthesize the criteria into a succinct definition of play for myself, I see play as a participatory activity in which those involved rely on imaginative self directed interactions within the framework of unwritten but agreed upon rules.

A game, while sharing a confluence of traits with play, has its own distinguishing features. Primarily, a game has fixed rules which guide player interaction. A game also has an final objective which motivates players to fulfill. A third defining characteristic of games is that they must have some sort of counterbalancing challenge to establish some degree of difficulty. As we pursue the final objective of a game, by nature of game play, we require frequent feedback on performance. How are we doing compared to the challenge, the clock, a points system, or other players? Finally, unlike play, games by definition must be competitive.

Though the focus here has been on the difference between play and games, the conclusion must not be reached that the two are mutually exclusive. To the contrary, they are quite complimentary and supplemental. Nevertheless, for the sake of understanding their relationship with one another, it is important to understand how each is identified by their own merits.