The interest of play has been there for hundreds, if not thousands of years, but it wasn’t until J. Huizinga approached the definition and how it applies to cultural in his 1933 essay, The Cultural Limits of Play and the Serious. Though he does not specifically state games, he does encompass the entirety of “play” which games fall under. He states that these games of play are things outside of “ordinary life” that aren’t serious, but us humans take with passion and intensity. Huizinga states that play “promotes the formation of social grouping which tend to surround themselves with secrecy and to stress their difference from the common world”. Well, what does that mean for gaming? Caillois wanted to further define what play is in their book, The Definition of Play.
The definition has some issues, inherently. This leads to Caillois ending with six distinct characteristics that define play: it’s free, separate from society, the ending is uncertain, is unproductive to the advancement of society, is governed by rules, and is make-believe. This, to me, makes sense since I can apply it to almost anything. If a child is playing with a toy soldier or doll, they will setup their own rules. I remember playing with Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker toys much differently than the movies. In my set of rules, Luke and Vader had much more force powers than were shown in the film. These are rules that I set just like someone can if they’re playing a casual game of soccer with friends.
The definition of play is important to define through culture because our culture is what brings life to play. One culture might scoff at the thought of race cars, while another embraces it. We must understand a global definition of play before we get down into the gritty areas. When it comes to games, these set rules can create endless escapism just like we’ve seen through these first few decades of video games.
Game Studies 
Very nice analysis! One of the things that’s interesting about this set of readings is that Caillois and Huizinga are most in alignment with one another, with Caillois looking to shore up some of what he perceives as gaps in Huizinga’s work. The real intervention comes with Geertz, whose thoughts on “Deep Play” challenge the assumed characteristics of play that Caillois lays out.
LikeLike
Geert’z on “Deep Play” is a very interesting one. I actually read it for my Pop Culture class with Friedman last year during our week on games. The societal structures that be during those “cock fights” are simply terrifying to me. These people risk going to prison for these fights.
LikeLike
I completely agree with you that Huizinga’s definition of play has problems. Just like Caillois said, that definition is too restrictive, and I definitely don’t think it applies very well to modern play at all, especially when considering things like professional sports or video games. I found Caillois’s list at the end very succinct and relevant to all modern play. I particularly liked how he talked about how important uncertainty is, and that play needs to be separate from life.
LikeLike
Great analysis and i completely agree with your example of how you played with your Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker differently than the movie and set your on rules to it. I did the same with any of my toys like i made batman a villain and in Spider-mans city because he was seen like the Punisher, great example though defiantly brought me back.
LikeLike