Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure Kirsikka Vaajakallio

and which I found missing in the English vocabulary is pelillisyys. The
word is related to those earlier three words and means something like
“gameness”. Accordingly, I will not only look at games, but rather at the
intersections of games, play and performance.
Salen and Zimmerman (2004, pp 72–73) suggest two ways of understanding
the relation between games and play: games as a subset of play
and play as a component/element of game. Instead of going deeper into
the terminological discussion, I will follow Huizinga’s (1950, p 9) description
of play as a quality of action, which is different from “ordinary”
because of certain sub-qualities assigned to it. Thus, I will look at what
differentiates them from ordinary in order to better understand the main
qualities governing design games, not to find a universal definition of
games or play. I will start from the concepts of play and games and then
expand the perspective into performing and the performance process.
Play as a cultural factor in life
Huizinga (1950, p 2) addresses the question “what actually is the fun of
playing?” a relevant matter to design games as well. This question directs
us to look at the nature of play, the attitude it promotes and the qualities
that are embedded in play. I propose that mapping out the play qualities
that give rise to an intensive play experience is helpful in designing engaging
design games as well. If we take Huizinga’s claim that people have
an implicit desire for play and identify the central influencing factors behind
that desire, we may extend the notions with certain hesitation to
cover design games too.
According to Huizinga (ibid. p 4), play is a cultural factor which has
existed before culture itself, accompanying it and pervading it. Play is a
fundamental quality of life (human and animal), without other purpose
than the play itself. His perspective highlights the play as experience of
fun and enjoyment without serious goals, in contrast to explaining the
play as related to, for example, biological purposes. Schechner does not
agree with that, but instead proposes that play has several biological
functions which are related to primate play behaviour, such as hunting
(1988/2003, pp 100–110). For Huizinga (1950, p 3) it is the fun element in
itself that characterizes the essence of play and resists all logical interpretations.
As he describes (ibid. p 1) “In play there is something “at play”
which transcends the immediate needs of life and imparts meaning to the
action”. In addition, he places two other qualities, or moods, in the heart
of play: intensity and absorption.
Both Huizinga and Caillois agree on one fundamental quality of play
and games: non-seriousness. But even though they claim that the play is
not serious, they remind us that it can be performed in the most perfect
seriousness, as typical to children’s plays and rituals. The ritual, for instance,
may be taken very seriously by the participants and community,
117