This thread is running off into semantics, but it's also getting kinda fun. We're bogged down in the difference between a "game" and a "game show."
Next week: how many angels can dance on Alex Trebek's chin?
Talent contests are obviously games. In fact, the online Merriam-Webster definition of "game" uses the word "contest" three times in the definition. Once you concede that Star Search is a contest, you've pretty much conceded that it's at least something of a game. As, in fact, are beauty pageants, sports events, and elections.
But "game show" means something else to most people. It's what happens on Wheel of Fortune. It's pretty much defined by actual examples. As Potter Stewart would certainly say, people know them when they see them.
When I tried to nail down the differences between talent contests and what most people call a "game show," I was a little surprised by how hard it was. The more I thought about it, the more game shows looked like talent contests themselves.
Jeopardy tests the talents of quick memory and wide knowledge. Lingo tests the talents of language ability and pattern-recognition. Wheel of Fortune tests the talent of hugging Pat when you win.
In fact, many of the talents tested on game shows are much more useful to most people than the ability to warble a tune or dance a fancy step. After all, the ability to hug Pat always comes in handy.
The biggest difference I hit on was the judging, which is necessarily so much more subjective in talent contests. The best-designed game shows try to limit subjectivity in judging to a minimum. It can't be eliminated entirely, of course, but talent contests don't even try, nor should they. Controversy over the winners helps talent contests generate interest. Ask the guys at American Idol.
Oh well, it's a fun bull-session topic.
EDIT: Just saw Chris' interesting idea that a game must involve something you enjoy participating in for its own sake. Sorry, but this idea doesn't convince me at all that Star Search isn't a game.
Personal example: my wife's a classical soprano and she LOVES singing, even in an empty warehouse, even if there's no prize money, publicity, street buzz or national exposure involved. In fact, of course, these things are never involved for my wife, unless you count a page on my web site as national exposure. I'm sure she loves using her considerable talent every bit as much as the trivia mavens on Jeopardy love displaying their knowledge.
So I don't see this distinction between the warblers (and others) on Star Search and the question-phrasers on Jeopardy as being real - at least in many, many individual cases. Truth to tell, it looks more like a similarity between talent contests and game shows than a difference.
Some folks might go on Jeopardy for the sheer joy of showing off their knowledge, just as some folks might go on Star Search for the sheer joy of cracking jokes or dancing silly dances.
Other contestants on either show might be more interested in the, uh, more tangible rewards. So basing a supposed difference between talent contests and game shows on an alleged difference in the motivations of the contestants doesn't hold water with me. I'd guess the motivations - probably a mix for most contestants on both types of shows - are pretty similar.
But hey, we're talking about things where exact proof is impossible.
