What Is a Game? A Memetic Perspective 🧠✨

Many philosophical discussions of games (see the citations at the end of this post) miss the mark, in my view. Here’s my attempt at a clearer definition

A Working Definition of a Game

To ground this discussion, I propose the following definition:

A game is a meme — a culturally transmissible idea — that, when enacted, causes behaviour distinct from ordinary life through explicit constraints that guide and direct player action. Unlike other memes such as jokes or music, which elicit specific and relatively narrow ranges of behavior (e.g., laughter, singing), games can prescribe virtually any behavior expressible in language — including actions that are complex, creative, or even ethically challenging. This is because the knowledge of how to enact the meme is provided explicitly within the game itself, rather than inferred implicitly through cultural norms or expectations.

This definition is intended to be both necessary and sufficient:

The meme must exist cognitively — it must be understood and instantiated.
It must involve constraints, whether formal rules or implicit structures.
These constraints must guide behavior in a way that diverges from what would otherwise occur in the absence of the game.

Games differ from other enacted memes (like jokes or music) in that they can prescribe unbounded ranges of behavior — anything expressible in language. This flexibility gives games their depth and variety, but also demands ethical filtering. Where other memes subtly shape behavior, games often do so explicitly, through agreed-upon structures.

The rest of this blog post expands on this definition — how I arrived at it, why it differs from other philosophical framings, and what it reveals about the cognitive and cultural role of games

See Philosophical Influences and Departures for how this view compares with those of Wittgenstein, Suits, Dawkins, and others

Games as Memes

Before diving into games specifically, it's worth clarifying what a "meme" is. Popularized by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, a meme is a unit of cultural transmission — an idea, behaviour, or style that spreads from person to person. Just as genes propagate biologically, memes propagate through minds — and like genes, they are subject to evolutionary pressures. Memes compete for attention and retention, adapting to different cognitive environments. Some mutate and spread because they are humorous or novel; others because they serve functional or social purposes. They may take the form of jokes, rituals, habits, fashions, or — in this case — games.

For a simple introduction to memes, see: What is a Meme? - Wikipedia

Necessity and Sufficiency: What Makes a Game?

Is the definition I’ve proposed — that a game is a meme we enact, involving constraints that differentiate its behaviour from ordinary life — both necessary and sufficient?

This framing appears to hold. Few, if any, non-games satisfy all of these criteria in combination. The meme must live in a mind. The individual must enact it, shaping behavior according to the game’s structure. And the presence of constraints — explicit or implicit — is what focuses and differentiates this behavior from everyday life.

Importantly, the range of behavior a game can require is unbounded. Unlike other memes — jokes, music, rituals — which tend to elicit constrained, specific types of enactment (e.g., laughter, singing, reciting), games can demand virtually any behavior that can be expressed in language. A joke, for instance, may have rules (setup, punchline) and is told to trigger laughter or spread through humor, but it doesn't direct us into radically new behaviors. A song may make us sing or dance, but only within a narrow experiential domain. Games, on the other hand, come with explicit knowledge — rules, systems, goals — and can enlist players in actions far beyond ordinary experience.

Could a game ask us to perform any behavior, even unethical ones? In principle, yes. However, memes exist within cultural ecosystems, and ethical and legal pressures act as evolutionary filters. A game that encouraged real-world violence or immoral behavior would rarely propagate successfully. It would often be rejected outright — not because it fails to meet the structural definition of a game, but because it violates social norms.

Interestingly, we already accept forms of harm within accepted game boundaries — like tackling in rugby or body-checking in hockey. These are made acceptable through shared social understanding: the game’s context redefines what counts as permissible action. This reinforces the idea that it’s not the behavior alone that makes a game — it’s the enacted meme and its constraint context.

Constraints as Canvases

All games have constraints. Whether they are rules, goals, or environmental boundaries, these constraints create a domain within which players can explore, learn, and express themselves. Constraints enable depth and structure — they make creativity meaningful. A game without constraints is not a game at all; it’s just life continuing unbounded.

Drawing on Popper’s and Deutsch’s epistemology, we can think of constraints in games as analogous to the boundaries in experimental setups or problem domains: they allow conjecture and criticism to be focused. Creativity, in this light, is not mere free expression, but purposeful problem-solving within a structure. Games thus serve as controlled environments where ideas can be tested, refined, and even refuted — a playful instantiation of the same processes that drive scientific and philosophical progress.

Voluntariness vs. Coercion

Some philosophers — notably Bernard Suits — have argued that voluntariness is a defining feature of games. In The Grasshopper, Suits defines a game as “the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles.” From a legal or ethical standpoint, voluntariness is indeed important. However, my view separates ethical framing from structural function. While Suits likely intended 'voluntary' to mean that a participant could, in theory, choose otherwise — even under duress — he does not fully explore cases where the choice is available in name only, such as under threat of violence. In these contexts, the possibility of choice becomes ethically questionable, even if structurally the game is still being enacted. This gap reveals a limitation in Suits' framing, which assumes voluntariness without interrogating the coercive forces that might still allow for 'technical' choice. A well-known cultural example of this tension is the Netflix series Squid Game, where participants are technically given a choice to play, but the extreme stakes and desperation driving that choice raise questions about whether consent is truly voluntary. In such cases, the structure of the game remains intact — with rules, constraints, and goals — yet the moral framing shifts entirely. But structurally, even a coerced individual can be seen as playing a game if the constraints and behaviors are being enacted. Creativity and knowledge-building can still occur under coercion — the experience changes, but the structure may remain intact. This distinction matters when discussing games as systems or structures versus their ethical implications.

The Invisible Game — A Case Study in Minimal Memes

Consider a game whose only rule is: "If you think about the game, you lose." This meme is widely known online simply as The Game. It’s a perfect example of a "minimal game meme" — one that barely modifies behavior, yet still spreads.

At first glance, it seems clever. Remembering it triggers a loss, which then triggers sharing, which causes others to lose — and so on. But what exactly is being enacted?

Unlike typical games that provide an arena for creativity, problem-solving, or interaction, The Game discourages engagement. Its only interaction is mental: the moment of remembering it, and the compulsory conclusion: "I lost."

Let’s analyze this:

If you forget The Game entirely, you are no longer playing it. The meme is dormant, not instantiated.
If you remember it, the meme is activated. But instead of inviting creativity, it immediately ends the experience with a loss.
If you remember it often, it becomes a mild annoyance. There's no progression, no growth, no way to win — only the possibility of spreading it to others.

This puts it in a strange category:

It’s not a joke, which spreads through humor.
It’s not a full game, because it terminates immediately upon enactment with a loss. It’s the memetic equivalent of a software program that exits as soon as it launches — producing no sustained behavior or interaction — an empty program in functional terms.
It’s a cuckoo meme — it imitates the outer form of a game but hijacks that form to replicate itself, not to offer meaning or experience.

Despite this, it still teaches something. It can provoke reflection on memory, self-control, and absurdity. It might even be used as a philosophical tool to question the boundaries of what counts as a game. But its domain of creativity is shallow.

In contrast, other memes — including actual games — provide wider potential for exploration. While some games may be shallow or narrowly focused, others engage the mind and body, provoke strategy, cooperation, deception, skill-building, or aesthetic experience. Importantly, games offer an unbounded range of possible behaviors and levels of complexity, allowing for preferences across a wide spectrum. Some individuals may find deep meaning in even simple games, while others may not connect with games at all — and that's entirely valid. Games are not the sole mechanism for projecting creativity, but they are a versatile and often powerful one.

Why Games Matter

Games are cultural artifacts that evolve through interaction. Some are simple and sticky. Others require effort to learn but offer deeper rewards. The best games — as memes — serve as tools that, when enacted, help direct our creativity in new and meaningful ways. Through this engagement, players grow, adapt, and gain knowledge — not as the only path to learning, but as a distinct and valuable means that differs from the dynamics of ordinary life.

Even simple games, especially when played in the company of others, can provide valuable arenas for practicing social interaction, etiquette, or empathy. The act of playing a game adds dimensions of knowledge exploration that go beyond the rulebook. By enacting a game, players don’t just follow instructions — they navigate real-time decisions, observe outcomes, and adjust strategies. This process offers a rich substrate for learning, shaped both by the game's design and the social and cultural context in which it is played.

Philosophical Influences and Departures

Bernard Suits — In The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia, Suits famously defined a game as "the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles." This aligns with my emphasis on constraint-based engagement, but I diverge significantly in two ways. First, I allow for non-voluntary participation to still structurally qualify as a game — separating ethical framing from functional structure. Second, I reframe games explicitly as memes: culturally transmissible units that encode explicit instructions, making them capable of prescribing virtually any behaviour expressible in language. Unlike other memes such as jokes or music — which rely on implicit or culturally learned enactments — games contain structured, explicit knowledge. This allows for a far broader behavioural scope and a richer potential for knowledge creation.

Richard Dawkins — Dawkins introduced the concept of memes as units of cultural replication in The Selfish Gene. My framing of games as memes follows directly from this, extending it by analyzing how games function as behavioral catalysts and knowledge tools, not just carriers of cultural expression.

David Deutsch & Karl Popper — Drawing from Popperian epistemology and Deutsch’s notion of the brain as a universal explainer, I see games as constrained domains for conjecture and criticism — sites for refining knowledge through creativity and feedback. My view builds on theirs by exploring how such dynamics are instantiated through memetic frameworks like games.

Ludwig Wittgenstein — In Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein argued that "game" is a concept with no strict definition — only overlapping family resemblances. I challenge this view in several ways. First, I assert that the presence of constraints provides a unifying structural core. Games, in my view, are not defined by ambiguity but by their ability to shape action through structured deviation from ordinary life. Second, I explicitly frame games as a specific type of meme — one that carries explicit instructions for enactment. This distinguishes games from other memes like music or jokes, which typically rely on implicit or culturally inferred understanding. While observers may sometimes deduce the rules of a game through observation, complete understanding often requires access to explicitly shared knowledge — further supporting the view of games as instruction-bearing memes.