Caillois – The Classification of Games

Caillois takes on the task of taking his definition of game further by classifying them by varying characteristics or appeals. He names four classifications: agon, alea, mimicry, and ilinix. The first two, agon and alea, are more so conventional in the wider belief of “game” referring to activities that involve competition and proving ones superiority in such activity.

One issue I found with differing these two that he lightly explained was the idea that alea is like agon in the idea that there is a victor(s) and there is a loser(s) however different in that alea is entirely made by chance. He explains that this needs to be distinguished simply because the bigger controlling mechanic in alea is chance and not skill. What struck me was earlier in his defining of agon he gave examples of variation such as which direction the sun is pointed or the wind is blowing and how that can greatly act in one players/teams favor. To me that would be much more a factor of the idea of fate and chance and something that can create great amounts of variability in the outcome of the game. Without addressing this idea further I feel it would be fair to put them in the same category with the overall encompassing idea rather than skill versus chance, simply be winners and losers which I would see as a more accepted convention.

Further I was also fairly lost in the idea of mimicry. While the convention of roleplay can be a characteristic of a game and may support in the fantastical theme of it, it alone should not be a defining idea that separates it from agon and alea. One may use mimicry as a “game” in multiple fashions such as larping where today we see people in support of adding lightsaber dueling to the Olympics. Another way you would see it as a game would be cosplay which is an entirely different way of “play” in the idea of mimicry in which one is not necessarily attempting to compete or best anyone. Lets go back to lightsaber dueling. Compared to fencing, the only major difference would be that points are awarded for stylistic movements while also obtaining hits on an opponent. Other than that, its nearly the same idea, two competitors which sword-like objects attempting to get hits on their opponent.

Lastly on ilinx, similarly to mimicry I was confused but in the idea of ilinx being a way of playing but is it necessarily a game? There are more cases, at least that I can think of, that show “play” is more so an activity that intrigues and gives enjoyment of some kind while playing a “game” is of a much different nature because games can not only cause enjoyment but also cause things such as anxiety. If spinning around is a game then what about it gives it the aspect of a game. Caillois goes into much detail about amusement rides and how that can create fear which feeds into enjoyment, however, does that necessarily explain how it is a game. Is watching a horror film a game given it can create the same nature of anxieties (the idea of fear where one meets death but is still alive, like laughing after a jumpscare)? Or even better a horror video game where the player is the person being tormented, and the actions of the player directly influence the events of the game. Taking that further is a “game” also something that includes person vs person. Does person vs machine such as computer generated AI count as a competition and therefore a game?