Are games really separate from reality, are they purely a fantasy? All four readings seem to suggest this, and even go so far as to make this distinction between reality and games essential to the definitions of “game” and “play”. “Real play comes to an end when its players report back to the real world” (The Art of Contest, p. 25).  Juul’s sixth game characteristic aligns with this quote; play or games do not have a permanent or lasting effect on real life.  Huizinga also argues that play is separate from ordinary life. Sicart plays with the idea as well, while not as overtly, he states that play must have “its own conditions for ending” (p.16). Games are not just purely forms of entertainment but more importantly they are an escape or break from life.  They are enduring part  of our cultural heritage as a species because they serve this important role.  Humans were made to play, and games are just a natural progression of that need. A question arises, though, when it could be argued, using their very arguments, that life itself is the ultimate game. Of Juul’s six requirements for something to be labeled a “game”, five can be directly applied to life. Life has rules, life has an eventual outcome, life has winners and losers (everyone eventually plays both roles), and every human is innately invested in their life’s outcome. The Art of Contest dabbles in this thought with a play on Shakespeare’s words. “All the world’s a game…and all the men and women merely players” (p. 22).  Games and play permeate almost every part of our life, as is made very clear with all four arguments, thus making both words difficult to define in a precise manner.  If we really are Homo Ludens, then the return to the “real world” or “ordinary life” never really occurs. There is no definitive “end” and there is essentially a lasting effect.  Games and play are still serving as welcome escapes, but they are really only distractions from the game of life.