Other authors, following Huizinga and Caillois, focus on the centrality of the subject and the dimension of the choices it makes as the fulcrum of defining the concept of “game." While the Dutch and French authors delve deeply into the general contemplation and evaluation of humanity and the world, there is a shift in focus towards the individual and their personal perspective from the latter part of the century onward. To this side belong the contemporary philosopher C. Thi Nguyen, writer of the book “Games, Agency of Art”. His work approaches the topic from a perspective distinct from that of previous experts, focusing the dissertation on the significance of the activity within the game rather than its outcome or result. He refers to games “an alternate form of agency”, the elements of which are essential to “sculpt a form of activity”1. The use of the word “agency” is not random, since differently from the more general word “activity” pose its focus on human’s capacity to make independent choices, and on the potential of such choices as elements not yet acts, but still present, valid enough to be taken in consideration.
The core of the game, therefore, lies in this "agency" for Nguyen, who goes on to argue that games "are a method for inscribing forms of agency into artifactual vessels [...] we can be fluid with our agency: we can submerge ourselves in alternate agencies designed by another. In other words, we can use games to communicate agency.”2 This definition resonates deeply with that of Huizinga, who, in his intercultural analysis, precisely dealt with the role of games within a social group and their content or relationship with other aspects of human life. A game, according to a cross-sectional view between these two authors, can be the artifact of a judicial process, transmitting a social structure based on the existence and respect for norms and laws, and practicing its feasibility and effectiveness through different forms of agency; a game can be a match in which real and unexpressed enmities and rivalries come to life and are vented in a protected, public, regulated, and (optimistically) consequence-free context; a game can be a set of practices and rules aimed at developing certain skills useful in real life and optimized through active repetition provided by the ludic situation. Games with dolls develop empathic qualities encouraging kids to connect emotionally, as well as enhance the sense of care and responsibility for others and strengthen the capacity for nurturing. Sports with animals involve a specific skill in establishing a relationship with the competing creature, not in a dimension of dominance but in collaboration and harmony of needs and abilities. Participating in collaborative construction games fosters teamwork and cooperative skills, since activities like these require individuals to work together to solve challenges, promoting effective communication and mutual understanding.
The list could go further and further, involving many different aspects of games, such as the collective part, which Nguyen again also underlines by saying that “Games […] are unique social technology”3. The choice of the term "technology" is highly appropriate and thought-provoking, since it is common to regard technology as the last update in scientific world, but the etymology actually refers to something that could be thought as “technique” today, or to better say, the “knowledge of how to make things make something”, implying also the usage of object outside our body. From the bone or stick of the prehistoric era to the wheel, from fire to metal, all sorts of objects or materials used by humans to expand their physical capabilities are technologies - even though, nowadays, they may seem out of sync with the common notion. In terms of expanding mental and/or cognitive capacities, perhaps technique has received less focus, or it has been less apparent. Only in the latter part of the 19th century did the concept of "Social Technology" emerge, amidst a history of confusion and misunderstanding, particularly in the preceding century with Social Politics Science and similar fields. As Luther Bernard Lee - American sociologist of the 19th century - argues, the crucial aspect behind the recognition of the value of such sciences lies in their less tangible forms4. This holds true not just for games, and it also entails critical consequences, such as their apparent "failure" in meeting the expectation "to remedy existing maladjustments and realize valid social ends”5. Social technologies, in fact, may seem less conventional and attainable compared to other technologies commonly employed today. However, it is not just the lack of materiality of such technologies that plays a role in this scenario. Indeed, Lee rightly highlights an aspect rooted in economic and systemic reasons: "the best-developed social technologies, such as advertising, finance, and 'practical' politics, are employed primarily for antisocial rather than genuinely humanitarian ends." Perhaps, as a theoretical concept applied to reality, games could indeed prove to be one of the most effective social technologies.
This diversion within the realm of economics is not really faced in Nguyen dissertation, which however deals with more detailed game topics. Indeed, he proceeds to give a new definition of Caillois’ “Paidia” and “Ludus” concepts, focused more on the players’ behaviour, starting by the distinction between “goals” and “purposes”. The goal of a game can be identified with the objective of its rule, the target aimed for achieve while playing. What makes the players “win” or “lose”. The purpose, instead, represents the underlying reason for engaging in the game, such as entertainment, physical activity, skill enhancement, and more. From this more psychological point of view, the subjective perspective is enhanced and two different types of players are defined, not games: an achiever or a striver, each playing an “achievement play” or a “striving play”6.
There are more specific interpretations that lead to implications related to certain social groups and aspects of life. An important testimony comes from Beniamino Sidoti, founder of Lucca Games and author of numerous books, including the Dictionary of Games. Sidoti refers to the "Pink Manifesto," written during a workshop of the Gilda del Cassero in Bologna, stating his intention to "promote and claim the value of play as a tool for social and political impact." Similar to fantasy literature and all the artistic aspects of disciplines that nourish a fantastical imagination, for Sidoti, "Play is one of the natural tools we have always had to rewrite the world." It is, therefore, functional to his interpretation and a meaningful and subjectively beneficial integration within it. "For an adult, playing also means reclaiming the right to pleasure in a society that pushes us towards duty."7 Certainly, within a marginalized community systematically marginalized like the queer community in Italy, the theme of self-representation seems to exist only in the realm of fantasy. For this, play serves as a bridge between these two distant realities. It is not my intention to address such complex and relevant socio-political issues in a dissertation of this scope, but I find it crucial to at least partially mention these social interpretations, where play takes on the role of an activist tool to bring about change that extends beyond the "playing" community.
Moreover, as musician, there's a specific definition that can be inferred by an interesting comparison. Marko Ciciliani, once again in his work "Ludified," while explaining his Polar Diagram for the Analysis of Gamified Audiovisual Works, mentions a specific example to elucidate the "Agency Axis." In an effort to help his readers grasp the meaning of the "agency" within a system, he draws a parallel between the complex outcomes in games with a specific set of rules, and a no-input mixer with similar properties. For musicians, implications of an instrument like this may be familiar: a constant need to rearrange actions and decisions in response to the mixer's output, and a complete dependence on its features, forcing the player to reorganize their entire set of skills. Whether one is an expert in using a no-input mixer or entirely unaware of its features, the outcome is similar, as the process largely hinges on the machine and its loops of internal feedback, which are almost entirely beyond control.
This comparison to games is appropriate because, during gameplay, our agency must adapt in relation to its unfolding development. I also find it very analogous to the medium of the no-input mixer: a solid box of closed elements that showcases almost infinite combinations, much like a chessboard or a set of cards. The player must relate to these elements, shaping their knowledge and abilities to achieve a desired result.
Maybe in the end, one could also claim what Berio said about music: “Cercare di definire la musica è un po' come cercare di definire la poesia: si tratta cioè di un'operazione felicemente impossibile. La musica è tutto quello che si ascolta con l'intenzione di ascoltare musica”8 [“Trying to define music is a bit like trying to define poetry: that is, it is a happily impossible task. Music is anything that one listens to with the intention of listening to music”]9. Therefore, the focus is more on the approach each subject has to the activity itself - to which, in a certain sense, even Ludwig Wittgenstein agreed. In his philosophical journey into language critique, Wittgenstein actually used games as a tool to explain his concept of “Family resemblance”, or “family likeness”10, which describe the intricate taxonomic scenario arising when items, initially perceived as linked by a single essential common feature, are instead connected by a series of overlapping similarities. In this context, no single feature is universally shared among all the items, letting emerge a whole serie of theories and postulates based on a partial perspective. Morris Weitz’s stance also underscores that the qualities inherent in art closely resemble the features of games, precisely within the framework of this particular theory.
“Games seem to have common features but no one feature is found in all of them.”11