GAMES vs. TOYS
Posted by Robin Helweg-Larsen on Thu, Jan 29, 2009 @ 10:39 AM
In casual thought, ‘toys’ and ‘games’ sound the same – interchangeable terms for fun kids’ stuff. But in an insightful analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Spore, the 2008 video game from Will Wright (creator of Sim City and The Sims), Seth Schiesel managed a very clear differentiation in the New York Times:
“Spore gives users unprecedented freedom to bring their imaginations to some semblance of digital life. In that sense Spore is probably the coolest, most interesting toy I have ever experienced. But it’s not a great game, and that is something quite different.”
He explains: “The quintessential toys, like a ball or toy soldier, captivate with their versatility. Children can see in a toy what they wish, and are content. Adults, however, tend to lose interest in toys after a little while. Instead they can find deep intellectual and sometimes emotional engagement in the games that emerge around those simple toys, like soccer and chess. Those games are eternal (…) because their basic dynamics and rules are perfectly tuned to foster an almost infinitely interesting variety of tactics, strategies and results.”[1]
Games, in other words, inherently involve restrictive rules and limit-testing strategies, while toys are for fantasy and free play.
By this definition, Income/Outcome was built as a game, and that is its primary use: to provide a team competition over business finance issues, within a clear and simple framework that clarifies the fundamental dynamics of business and their basic expression in standard financial statements.
Read the full story at: Playing God, the Home Game by Seth Schiesel, New York Times, September 4, 2008