And we can go through the many, many other groups of games in the same way; we can see how similarities crop up and disappear. And the result of this examination is: we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing: sometimes overall similarities. […] And I shall say: "games" form a family.1

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief overview of the history of games and game philosophy. It aims to outline the most significant perspectives with a broad focus, extending beyond specific details related to the relationship between music and games or features that may be reflected in sound artworks. The intention is to underscore the vastness of the topic and its connection to human history and practices. It also highlights the undefined dimension that currently invites engagement in the discussion, fostering dialogue and connections with other realms.

Defining what exactly a game is (or is not) seems to be an unexpectedly hard job. Intuitively, recognizing the defining characteristics of this particular activity may not be overly complex: at first glance, children playing are distinctly identifiable from those studying or engaging in more serious tasks. However, pinpointing the inherently divisive feature is strangely challenging. Is it the set of rules of the activity? In this sense, one might argue that governmental structures should be the most enjoyable game possible. Yet it clearly does not appear that way. Could it be the uncertainty of the outcome, sparkling a unique thrill of excitement? Hence, any competition would be a game—similarly, in a different context, half of the financial transactions on the stock exchange market. Is it the element of competition? Nevertheless, there are many games that do not involve it, focusing instead on role-playing and gambling. Is it the challenge, the sense of conquering and surpassing one's abilities? While plausible, this would categorize other similar activities, such as work and gym, as games. One approach might involve categorizing games based on the essential components needed to play them—essentially, the tools of play. Would a ball, for example, be sufficient to distinguish a game from those played with boards or cards? Drawing a parallel, as artists, we are aware that the medium does influence an artwork, but it is not necessarily a practical method for categorizing them. Or is it the "uselessness" in an evolutionary context where humans must dedicate part of their lives to providing for themselves? This would mean that any action carried out in leisure time could be considered a game. Is yoga a game, just like solitaire?

One might refer, on the spot, to the attitude and emotional dimension expressed among players. During a game, the atmosphere is generally filled with enthusiasm, liveliness, or competitive tension. However, these emotions are present in many other human experiences. The classification of a game is not solely determined by the number of participants: numerous games can be played alone, as well as in teams or different groups, among other combinations. While games generally provide a fun experience, it is uncertain whether this represents their ultimate essence, as feelings of sadness and displeasure related to defeats or failure to achieve goals are equally significant, and they don't retroactively define the type of activity performed. Could age be a factor? Opinions differ. Adults may engage in playful experiences less frequently than youth, yet there are no games exclusively designed for adults, just as there are none exclusively for children. May they be categorized based on the components required for playing, the play tools? This would be interesting to explore in relation to the types of agency each tool allows, and the possibility of drawing a parallel between the tools of games and the media used, although perhaps it is a bit forced and overly utopian. As known from art, it is not possible to rely solely on this subdivision, because it wouldn't be adequately representative of the process behind the functional aspect of the tool; the same principle applies to games.

It may be the right moment to notice how the Latin name of games was ludus, meant as the general term for play which include sport, play, school, and practice. One could leave to one side the question whether the disappearance of ludus and ludere is due to phonetic or to semantic causes.2

Without even considering inter-cultural specificities, the fact is that given the vast array of human games rooted in intersocial dynamics which amplifies the combinations, there are numerous configurations and concepts of what constitutes a game. Simultaneously, it is not as if there is a singular category of games; rather, there are numerous games with such varied features that they may seem like opposing types of activities. What can be assured at any given moment is the enduring centrality they have held throughout human history. For example, one of the first known board game is the Senet, an Egyptian game which drawings have been found in several tombs, and is also depicted in papyri or frescoes.

Senet is a path game where players navigate the match across a board. In certain depictions, a solitary player is seen sitting on one side, engaging in a game against fate, an unseen opponent. The pharaoh or queen maneuvers their own pawns, symbolically crossing invisible boundaries. At times, two players appear side by side, each playing out their individual destinies or engaging in a mutual journey, rather than a direct opposition. This kind of game represent a specific symbolism tied to another game – the labyrinth3. At the core of it all is humanity, tasked not with winning but with traversing, embarking on a journey rather than a battle. This journey is undertaken both individually and collectively, as the board remains the same, fostering a shared experience. Games do not only show a meaningful cultural significance, but as Jonah Huizinga better says, “Play is older than culture, for culture, however inadequately defined, always presupposes human society, and animals have not waited for man to teach them their playing”.