So I still have a lingering problem from some of our initial, unresolved discussions. Here's the deal:
We all agree that nearly any activity can be "turned into" a game. I can take boring house chores and then try to complete them within a given time (competing against myself) or before someone else complete's their task (competing against someone else). We can even award points and I can try to get the highest number of points. Regardless, I can still recognize it as a "game". It is easily identifiable, and does not conflict with other concepts, meaning that it does not have to be mutually exclusive (i.e., it can be a chore AND a game, but the game aspect is recognizable in its own right).
So, this leads me to the question of "When does an activity become recognizable as a game?" For example, in iSTART, there is coached practice where students write in self-explanations and receive feedback from animated agents, and the back and forth interaction can change what occurs next (i.e., it can change if they move to the next sentence, if they have to revise, or it could change the feedback from the system). Feedback, animated characters, and interactions that can change the system state are all also features common to games. However, coached practice, on it's own, is definitely NOT a game, and no one would be deluded into thinking that it was. Then we take that same environment and add points to it, so that students earn point values corresponding to the quality of their actions. Points are another feature common to games. Does the simple addition of points technically classify it as a game? It sure doesn't feel like a game, but could it still be a game by definition? If not, what else is needed to make it constitute a game? Does it require an overarching goal, end-point, or metric of comparison? If the students were told to try and earn 300 points, then it could more easily be described as a game. Or if the point values were used to earn a type of trophy (which the system does), then can it be called game?
So when does the task transition from "just a task" into a "game and task"? Is it a particular feature (i.e., having a goal - either internal or external)? No, it can't just be that, because when I drive to work each day I have the goal of getting to the building, but that doesn't, in itself, make it a game. Is it a combination of features (i.e., goal + enjoyment)? No, it can't be that, because some parts of games are excruciatingly painful and frustrating, yet they are still clearly "games". Could it be goal+affect/emotion? No, because I can get excited, angry, frustrated, sad, or bored about accomplishing a task at work, and that does NOT make it a "game". Are there specific features that inherently make something into a "game", like competition? No, or at least competition, because I can be very competitive about performing better than you, and getting better grades, or getting an article published, but that doesn't necessarily make it into a "game".
So how is it that we can so easily recognize something as a "game"? I think that it has to do with intent. Or possibly attributing intent onto a goal/end-point/metric (either internally or externally). Some games can be created by the intent of developers. Then the players can either follow the developers original intent, or they can create their own. So a player can go outside of the rules to accomplish their own intent. Thereby, any activity can be classified as a game if someone attributes intent onto it (regardless of any features present). This also allows differing opinions on when a task can be described as a "game" or not, though it doesn't provide any a priori, objective measures to do so, but truthfully I'm not sure that any such measures exist.
