The general similarities between the various definitions Schrieber presents seem to be that a game is a form of play that is voluntary, doesn’t effect real life, is make believe, has rules which create conflict, has an end goal, and has players who make decisions.

Some of the definitions seemed to be lacking specifics, while not being totally “wrong.” Clark C Abt’s definition that a game involves “player decisions, seeking objectives within a limiting context”  is too broad and doesn’t mention that a game is not real or has a goal or is voluntary.

I like the definition that Bernard Suits gave.  According to him, a game is a “voluntary effort to overcome uneccessary obstacles.” It is simple but includes many of the elements of games: it is voluntary, has activity and decision making (effort), you overcome obstacles (find the end goal while following rules and dealing with conflicts).  It does leave out some of the elements though.

One of the fuzzy areas that I might consider an actual game would be puzzles.  They have an end goal, a closed system, are inefficient, voluntary, artificial, they have rules. I am not entirely sure why they might not be considered games, other than they may not have an “uncertain outcome.”  But I think it fits enough of the criteria to be considered a game.