I was thinking about this after I found an old card game in my attic that my grandparents used to play. Back then, it was part of every family gathering, full of stories and rules everyone respected. Now, when I tried showing it to my cousins, they just treated it like a random pastime, without any sense of the traditions behind it. It made me wonder if games that once had cultural significance should still be treated as part of heritage, or if they’ve just become entertainment. How do we decide when a game crosses that line, and does it matter if people enjoy it anyway?
That’s an interesting point, and I remember reading https://opgram.com/how-a-foreign-game-became-more-indian-than-india/ which explains how some imported games became so embedded in everyday life that people eventually treated them as part of local culture. In my experience, it’s a mix — a game can be both entertainment and a cultural artifact depending on how it’s framed. For example, my family still plays a traditional card game online now, and while the context has shifted, it keeps some of the rituals alive. So distinguishing between fun and heritage can help understand its history, but it doesn’t make the experience any less meaningful for those who enjoy it today.
Just popping into this discussion after seeing the topic. I think it’s natural for old games to evolve over time. Even if a game loses its original context, people still enjoy it, and that enjoyment is valid on its own. Culture isn’t frozen — it grows and adapts with the people practicing it. Sometimes a game’s historical meaning fades, but it can still bring people together or spark interest in traditions in unexpected ways. It’s kind of neat to see how flexible these old activities can be while remaining part of everyday life.