Actually - I do have one issue about your (and you admitted it yourself) controversial decision to make calculations not count as decisions: Doesn't this mean you've defined games with perfect information as ones that don't have any decisions because, given sufficient computational power, you could calculate the best possible move in any given situation? Even games containing good amounts of non-comparables, take the calculations far enough and you can work out which one, given perfect play by the opponent and yourself, will cause you to win and which will cause you to lose.
Actually what it means is that games where one has perfect information and can assume perfect play don't impart a real sense of agency in play, because any decision is effectively predetermined and the only real choice is whether or not to play. When discussing agency, as the term is used in the social sciences which is the use here, there is a conventional understanding of the level of choice one has in any decision being limited by the structural factors beyond one's control.
A choice is not a calculation... if there's a definitive right answer that can be ascertained through mathematics or [a] strict logical reasoning that's performable by the player in the time allotted to make the choice, the choice is no longer meaningful...
Finally made my account just to disagree with this. Not the final conclusion, just the sentiment. I think this definition is biased against the role of analysis in games. I consider myself first and foremost a game designer, but my training is as a game programmer and I've published dozens of games over the past few years. Analysis is just as crucial as intuition and imagination in the design and play of games. To deny that choice is a calculation (among other things) is to be ignorant of this fact.
I think any game that has a Good vs Bad morality system runs the risk of it's choices becoming arbitrary Black & White. Look at Knights of the Old Republic, most people when they played that decided early on if they were going to be a good guy or a bad guy for a particular play through, so naturally if you wanted to be a good guy you pick all the Lightside choices, didn't help that in almost all cases it was painfully obvious which choice was good and which was bad, meaning ost people pick the choice that suited their chosen alignment.
I consider myself first and foremost a game designer, but my training is as a game programmer and I've published dozens of games over the past few years. Analysis is just as crucial as intuition and imagination in the design and play of games. To deny that choice is a calculation (among other things) is to be ignorant of this fact.
Or, in other words:
There's not much utility in insisting complete, wholely-vocabularisticnessifntionism definitions. I think we're really all on the same page.
Guest artist, yay! I actually like guest artists because of what kind of new styles they bring to Extra Credits. This guy's style is pretty cool!
You know, when I'm in a video game, I always make the kind of choices I'd make in real life... if I were a more heroic, brave, and athletically fit kind of person. Specifically, I typically made the good choice, the choice that would make the most people happy