CalvinBall.....

Based on the definitions of a game and meaningful play as presented in class, discuss whether the game of Calvinball could be considered a game. Could meaningful play emerge from this game? Why/why not?

Calvinball may not be what I would normally consider as a game. I guess even to attempt to define Calvinball as a ‘game’ based on the definitions we learnt, we might realize that we are just heading to a dead-end, because after we thoroughly read all the rules, at the bottom of the page, it explicitly says ”This rulebook is not required, nor necessary to play Calvinball.”

But nevertheless, I would say, it can be considered a game, and meaningful play is possible. First, let’s just lay out some of the properties that make something a ‘game’:

1. Purpose/ Goals: Non-Existent. There seems to be no real purpose of the game, apart from trying to make up some kind of a meaningful interaction (can be fun, or can be dreadful) involving some masked players, with a ball and other equipments in a field.

2. Procedure for action: Non-Existent. There are no defined procedures on how to use the equipments used in the game.

3. Number of required participants: Not stated implicitly, but at least one…I guess?

4. Roles of participants: Somewhat exists…The role of each participants may simply be to declare new rules during game play and to monitor others bound by rules or the rules governing the zones…If we look at rule number 1.5, it seems to suggest that Zones may be appear and disappear as often and wherever the player decides… So I guess there’s no point in defining the rules/ zones in the first place is there?

5. Results or pay-off: There are scores, but they may be kept or disregarded (1.8), so I guess it depends on the players..

6. Abilities and skills required : Well, I guess everyone at least must know how to move or run around? And also perhaps, Ball throwing/ ducking skills?

7. Interaction patterns: Seems to be random.

8. Physical settings and environmental requirements: Now at least they specifically mention that a well-sized field is required, preferably with trees, rocks, grass, creeks, and other natural hindrances to health.

9. Required equipment: A Mask (compulsory), a (Calvin)ball, flags, wickets, and other equipments the players wish to include.

10. Rules governing action: The only rule is that “Any rule above that is carried out during the course of the game may never be used again in the event that it causes the same result as a previous game. Calvinball games may never be played the same way twice”.

So what’s the deal here? Out of the 10 possible properties that make up a game, Calvin ball seems to only satisfy the part on equipment and settings, but as for rules and purpose etc, they don’t seem to fit well the formal definition of a game. I would say, the best we can say is that, Calvinball is a game where the purpose is to “attempt to make a game”. But indeed, it is a game. It's a game about nothing!

Which reminds me of the show Seinfield, where Jerry claims that it’s a show about nothing. (Well, this show about ‘nothing’ turned out to be on air for about a decade or so)

I would say that, yeah, why can't a game about nothing result in some meaningful play? I guess it depends on the players, the players themselves set the goals and rules of the game, and change them as they see fit. Put it this way, there are thousands of so-called 'games' out there that are not fun to play AT ALL, no matter who you play it with or how you play it. Calvinball, as ridicolous as it sounds, can be quite a fun game when you're drunk I guess? or when you're feeling suicidal...make your choice.

What is a Game?

Personally, I would define a Game as a form of leisure activity that gives a certain degree of freedom to its players to be actively, physically, even emotionally involved in constructing a form of representation of a reality which may or may not be modeled upon the real world, creating a form of meaning by negotiating between the rules and constraints that are put upon them by the Game, and the player’s self-satisfying goals and objectives.

What makes a game Good?

Firstly, a game must be an activity of leisure. Nobody wants to play games and get stressed out of it, although there are games that makes people want to throw the controller out of the window (anyone currently playing Ninja Gaiden : Black ?), but most of the time, it must be fun.

A certain degree of freedom is also essential, Freedom in the sense that with the rules and constraints given, the player are able to create a form of competition either between human players or between the players and the system. In other words, the game should provoke a challenge for the players to overcome, and the leisure from playing games may come from the satisfaction in being able to accomplish such challenges. I am not saying that a game must have a grand purpose or goal (or a grand narrative for that matter...). I am saying that games that are fun are usually made out of small challenges, probably progresses into bigger challenges (a progression from easy to difficult stages). Who doesn’t miss the good old days of mindless whack –em-up such as Bubble Bobble or Snow Brothers??

Another point to add is that a game is set in a so called ‘virtual reality’ (not to go into further debate on this term), and the players are given the freedom to reinterpret, construct their own meaning of the universe to suit their own needs. I believe as a leisure form of activity, a game does not necessarily be as realistic as the real world, but representations of the real world are just cues for the player to recreate their own universe, playing with their own imagination.

To me personally, a game is an extension of our greatest gift as human being, which is we are given the power to imagine (ok, I know it sounds very Samsung-ish, or cliché). A game can be viewed as a form of means to amplify our ability to imagine, by ironically, providing a self-constrained interactive form of reality.