|
  Previously, I asked, “What is the difference between a puzzle and game?”
To better frame this question, and to get closer to the issues I want to resolve, I would like to propose the following puzzle, or maybe it is a game:
Either define puzzle or game in such a way as the definition includes the other. Or, define both in such a way that they obviously exclude each other.
This might seem horribly academic. But I think there are some good reasons to try to define these terms.
It always seems fair to try and build technical definitions that can help frame discourse and discussion. There has been a healthy, ongoing, effort to define the term “game”. So, why not “puzzle”?
If games and puzzles are arguably the same thing, then we have a reason to merge the discourse of both into the ludological field of study. If they are different, then we should respect that difference and not lump them together (as in the term “puzzle game” or like the old puzzle mag “Games”).
To help focus this particular definitional effort, here are some games/puzzles that your definition(s) should accommodate:
- Chess
- Tony Hawk (any version – open-ended play, no clear victory condition)
- Crossword Puzzles
- Rubic’s Cube
- Myst
- Halo
- Everquest
- Solitaire
- Mazes
- Pinball
This list is fairly arbitrary, but includes some of the games/puzzles that seem to cause trouble when it comes to classification and definition.
| 
A puzzle is a game which the player knows to be fully deterministic*. The player's challenge is to use a full understanding of the rules to formulate a procedure which will solve/win any instance of the game.
The interface should also be discreet enough to forgive human error in execution of a strategy.
*For practical purposes. Chess, for example, is theoretically deterministic: if both players play with an optimal strategy, one side will always win. Could chess be considered a puzzle?