Game Studies 19 (1) (2019)

C. Thi Nguyen
University of Utah
Is there a right or wrong way to play a game? Many think not. Some have argued that, when we insist that players obey the rules of a game, we give too much weight to the author’s intent. Others have argued that such obedience to the rules violates the true purpose of games, which is fostering free and creative play. Both of these responses, I argue, misunderstand the nature of games and their rules. The rules do not tell us how to interpret a game; they merely tell us what the game is. And the point of the rules is not always to foster free and creative play. The point can be, instead, to communicate a sculpted form of activity. And in games, as with any form of communication, we need some shared norms to ground communicative stability. Games have what has been called a “prescriptive ontology.” A game is something more than simply a piece of material. It is some material as approached in a certain specified way. These prescriptions help to fix a common object of attention. Games share this prescriptive ontology with more traditional kinds of works. Novels are more than just a set of words on a page; they are those words read in a certain order. Games are more than just some software or cardboard bits; they are those bits interacted with according to certain rules. Part of a game’s essential nature is the prescriptions for how we are to play it. What’s more, we investigate the prescriptive ontology of games, we will uncover at least distinct prescriptive categories of games. Party games prescribe that we encounter the game once; heavy strategy games prescribe we encounter the game many times; and community evolution games prescribe that we encounter the game while embedded in an ongoing community of play.
Keywords Games  Art  Aesthetics  Ontology of art  Interpretation  Intentional Fallacy  Philosophy of Games  Philosophy of Art  Interactivity  Works
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Games and the Art of Agency.C. Thi Nguyen - 2019 - Philosophical Review 128 (4):423-462.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Ontology and Transmedial Games.Christopher Bartel - 2018 - In Jon Robson & Grant Tavinor (eds.), The Aesthetics of Videogames. New York, NY, USA: pp. 9-23.
Games and the Art of Agency.C. Thi Nguyen - 2019 - Philosophical Review 128 (4):423-462.
Games: Agency as Art.C. Thi Nguyen - 2020 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Two Kinds of Games.Filip Kobiela - 2011 - Acta Universitatis Carolinae Kinanthropologica 47 (1):61-67.
The Definition of 'Game'.M. W. Rowe - 1992 - Philosophy 67 (262):467 - 479.
Video Games and the Philosophy of Art.Aaron Smuts - 2005 - American Society for Aesthetics Newsletter.
4 Playing Well.David Egan - 2013 - In Emily Ryall (ed.), The Philosophy of Play. Routledge. pp. 54.
Game Ethics-Homo Ludens as a Computer Game Designer and Consumer.Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic & Thomas Larsson - 2005 - International Review of Information Ethics 4 (12):19-23.
Pre-Game Cheating and Playing the Game.Alex Wolf-Root - 2018 - Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 13 (3-4):334-347.
Must We Play to Win? A Reply to Morgan.Maksymilian Del Mar - 2015 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 45 (2):266-272.
Philosophy of Games.C. Thi Nguyen - 2017 - Philosophy Compass 12 (8):e12426.


Added to PP index

Total views
347 ( #29,183 of 2,499,419 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
73 ( #10,576 of 2,499,419 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes