Applying Videogame Theory to Escape Rooms : the Definition of a "Game"

Escape Rooms (ER), real-life games in which a team of players must co-operate to solve a series of mental and physical puzzles to achieve some objective, have exploded in popularity in recent years, with some sources describing them as “one of the fastest-growing entertainment trends since the rise of cinema”.

In one respect, Escape Rooms can be considered the very antithesis of videogames: in a videogame, players typically assume the role of a virtual avatar, their control over which is limited to the range of actions allowed within the game code, abstracted through a keyboard or joystick input, and mediated by a screen interface. Escape room players, in contrast, are physically immersed in and must interact with a real, tangible playspace - escape room puzzles not only rely on visual and audio sensation, but often require touch, smell, or manipulation of physical objects and contraptions - the sensory feedback loop is real and immediate, and players are given a greater sense of presence than any VR headset will ever offer. ER players may choose to assume the role of a treasure hunter, a secret agent, or a detective, but they project their own self into those roles, and the actions they choose to carry out are limited only by the laws of nature and their own physical ability - they are not limited by a designer’s prescribed ruleset or the implementation of an in-game physics engine.

("Train conductor's cabin" mobile escape room by Crux Scenica. Image used with permission.)

While psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists have studied the cultural significance of games throughout history, much of the recent academic research in the field of game studies, including attempts to define the properties of a game, have been mainly concerned only with computer games. In this article, I’ll consider some well-cited academic definitions of what it means to “play a game”, with particular respect to whether they can also be applied to this new medium of ER games.

1953 - Wittgenstein

In Philosophical Investigations (1953), Ludwig Wittgenstein asserted that it is not possible to formulate a single definition of what constitutes a "game"; while there are features commonly found in many games (e.g. turn-taking, chance, skill, competition), there is no one defining feature found in all games.

Instead, he used games to illustrate "family resemblances" - whereby a concept cannot be rigidly defined, but can only be observed as a network of similarities and common traits shared between members of a group. So, while it is easy to recognise and give examples of things that are games, we cannot define, in the abstract, exactly what it is that makes them so.

Wittgenstein's comments were concerned more with the construct and confines of language than those of games specifically, but it’s an interesting example for game developers to consider: what are those resemblances and elements that connect the broad family of gaming experiences that exist: from VR to ER, card games to text adventures, LARPing to parlour games, and FPSs to casual mobile games, say? And where do we draw the line at which these experiences stop being games, and turn into something else?

By understanding their similarities, and considering what differentiates games from theatre, or art, say, we can explore those experiences currently on the edge of escape rooms, and where future trends might take us.

1938 - Huizinga

Dutch cultural historian Johan Huizinga summarised the characteristics of play in Homo Ludens as follows (first published in Dutch in 1938 and then translated into English in 1955):

“..a free activity standing quite consciously outside ‘ordinary’ life as being ‘not serious,’ but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly. It is an activity connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it. It proceeds within its own proper boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules and in an orderly manner. It promotes the formation of social groupings which tend to surround themselves with secrecy and to stress their difference from the common world by disguise or other means.”

Huizinga’s definition was penned some 70 years prior to the first escape room being launched (by SCRAP corporation in Japan, 2007), yet it retains a surprising amount of veracity and detail relevant to an ER experience. It is particularly interesting to note the significance it places on players of a game becoming immersed and absorbed within a particular time and space, and how games promote the formation of social groupings; self-dubbed escape room “enthusiasts” (of which there are currently 17,000 in one Facebook group alone) often participate with a regular team, under a constant teamname, and follow certain rituals such as celebrating particular gaming milestones (e.g. playing their 100th room) with “escake”. Many escape room players have made friends, and some their life partners, through shared love of the game.

1958 - Caillois

In Les Jeux et Les Hommes (1958), French sociologist Roger Caillois defined a game as an activity that had the following six characteristics:

Caillois kept much of Huzinga’s definition, including retaining the need for a game to have voluntary participation within an established set of rules, separate from the ordinary routine of life, and to achieve no obvious productive gain. 

One notable addition in Caillois’ definition is that the outcome of a game must be uncertain. This is relevant to escape rooms, in which teams have a specific objective to achieve (e.g. escape the room, retrieve the diamond, stop the virus outbreak), but are not always successful in doing so - the outcome is dependent on the players' performance within the room. Many Escape Room establishments publish their “escape rate” - the percentage of teams that successfully complete the objective - as a measure of the room’s difficulty, and figures are commonly given as anywhere between 20% - 80%.

There are several escape rooms in which players are guided in order to progress - sometimes this takes the form of a gamesmaster (normally in character) in the room, or hints or puzzle solutions being issued by a clue delivery system such as on a TV screen. Occasionally, entire puzzles may be solved remotely from a control room without the players' input. While this may help players who are stuck on a puzzle, many players dislike unsolicited hints and would prefer to be left alone to attempt to solve the puzzles at hand. Solving puzzles unaided gives a greater sense of satisfaction for those motivated by intellectual challenge, but may mean that the team fails to experience or complete the room overall. How players feel about this uncertainty in outcome may vary depending on their underlying player type. 

1965 - Mandelbaum

In his article Family Resemblances and Generalization Concerning the Arts (published in American Philosophical Quarterly, 1965), Maurice Mandelbaum suggested we think of a game as:

"an activity designed or modified to be of potentially absorbing non-practical interest to either participants of spectators"

While this description is certainly true of escape rooms, and videogames, it is far from a specific definition since the same could also be said to describe many crafts and hobby activities, music or art, singing in a choir, watching TV etc., and I therefore don't regard it as particularly useful.

1978 - Bernard Suits

In 1978, Bernard Suits, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Waterloo, wrote The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia - a witty, narrative story as a direct response and rebuttal of Wittgenstein's assertion that games were undefinable. "Nonsense," says Bernard Suits:

"(Playing a game is) the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles"

This short single sentence effectively summarises and correlates with many previous definitions: