This entertaining and innovative book is ostensibly for game designers. Personally, I think it is more than that: it's a primer for anyone interested in games, both for how they work and what we think of them. Written by Raph Koster, the chief creative officer for Sony Online Entertainment, it isn't an artificial or inflated study in how to build a particular kind of game. Instead, it is a wide-ranging intellectual foray into what games mean, both to individuals and society, and how they operate on a host of different levels.

Koster doesn't take himself particularly seriously - virtually every page is decorated with entertaining (and often thought-provoking) hand-drawn illustrations. His writing style is conversational and engaging; he doesn't try to preach or condescend, and his observations about the impact of games as a teaching tool and the obligation game designers may have to act in a socially responsible manner come across as eminently reasonable.

Now, the book is arguably intended to help inspire game designers (and other artists and designers). Koster explores such topics as why some games are fun and others are boring; how it is possible to create a game that is simply too difficult to be fun; the difference between designing content and creating an "experience;" how playing a game and learning are connected; and the "ethics" of entertainment. For Koster, "work and play aren't all that different," and this book explains - and explores - the reasons why he thinks that way.

Let's begin with what a "game" really is. As Koster notes, there are a lot of definitions of "game" out there, including, as he observes, a field called "game theory."

[W]hich has something to do with games, a lot to do with psychology, even more to do with math, and not a lot to do with game design. Game theory is about how competitors make optimal choices, and it's mostly used in politics and economics, where it is frequently proven wrong.

Gotta love a guy willing to take shots at game theory, eh? Anyway, Koster notes that the few academics who have tried to define what a game "is" (such as "activity which is . . . voluntary . . . uncertain, unproductive, governed by rules, make believe" to "a rule based formal system with a variable and quantifiable outcome") rather leave out the essential component of "fun."

Here's Koster's take:

I found my answer in reading about how the brain works. Based on my reading, the human brain is mostly a voracious consumer of patterns, a soft pudgy gray Pac-Man of concepts. Games are just exceptionally tasty patterns to eat up.