Calvin Ball and Nomic Games

Calvin and Hobbes share the same mind there is no conflict to the rules and thus ‘everyone’ knows the rules perfectly. Since Calvin and Hobbes are having fun, it demonstrates that there is nothing wrong with the rules, or the state of non-rules, in CalvinBall. The game also demonstrates a great deal of interactivity as demonstrated by the pictures and the way the rules are phrased. It has no a quantifiable outcome resulting in it being an aimless activity because it has no tangible goal. Strangely, the players are depicted as having LOADS OF FUN (>.<) which is the main point of having games in the 1^st place.

Personally, as long as someone (not necessarily everyone) is having fun, it would be sufficient for an activity to be considered a game. That is why pulling someone’s hair is fun if someone derived amusement from it, though at the expense of others and thus would be seen as a game from certain perspectives.

Speaking of games that are volatile with regards to rules, game states and goals, there is a card game called Flux (http://www.wunderland.com/LooneyLabs/Fluxx/ ). It won the Mensa Select Award for being the top 5 best new games in 1999. There are cards that change the rules, game states and goals of the game. It is very brainy and due to the turn based system and cards available, the flaw is that there is little interactivity as games are normally won in 1 turn if mediated. It is mentioned in the lecture that games of this sort are called Nomic games. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic ) It should be noted that though the rules can be changed, there are probably immutable strict rules that govern how the rules can be changed so that players can interact in a tighter manner.

Meaningful play is subjective, but the volatility of rules makes it hard for players to interact properly with one other in a competitive manner, which is similar to Flux and worse.