Is competition against an AI acceptable?

@dunc123 no. [extra text to go over the length minimum]

If the game has a measurable achievable outcome it can have competition. Even if it's a "did complete" or "didn't complete" we can create a ratio. Are you perhaps aiming for a physical 'activity' instead of a 'game?'

@NexTerren I've created a list of games that I think meet the requirements of this question. They all have two things in common: the ending is always the same, and everyone works together. I'm aware that there's always a way to measure if someone contributed more to the game than someone else. But the difference is that in some games, this measurement is made a part of the game (e.g. the premier league table), while in the games I'm trying to design it's not.

@NexTerren no. The point is that if everyone works together, they wouldn't be competing. Obviously you may get a player who wants to turn the game into a competition by comparing themselves to someone else, but none of that is built in the game.

Are you OK with fictional enemies? For example, could they play a cooperative board game where the players' goal is to stop a mad scientist?

I've played a bit with what ultra-peaceful societies have to act like in order to survive in this world governed by thermodynamics. When I play with them, I find that any strictness has a side effect of creating ripples throughout society, and any game the people play would be heavily impacted by those ripples. "How" the society maintains that level of strictness would have a large effect on what people consider "fun."

The first thing that sprang to mind was some game where you compete against yourself... but then my well of creativity dried up. Personally, I like competition (especially friendly competition), so I'm not sure I'd like this society.

There is a difference between competitive and adversarial; competition, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with peace. The word game actively implies competition.

Sorry to nitpick on the world here, but a purely-peaceful species is unlikely. From an evolutionary perspective any creature that reaches sapience is likely to have a very strong competitive, and yes often sometimes violent, nature ingrained in their instinct in a way that can't be adapted away by culture alone. You can have a less-violent species, but I don't think 100% non violent is likely and I gaurentee 100% non-competitive is almost impossible. if you weren't driven to compete you didn't win mating rights over the ones that did and your non-competitive DNA died out.

Which game in that list did you feel met your requirements?

@NexTerren by 'the ending is always the same' do you mean the game always takes the same number of turns, same amount of time, can't be lost? If so it stops being a game so much as a routine. If not, then any game can be competitive simply by comparing #of turns, amount of time, even if everyone on your team works together. And any individual sport could qualify if you cut the scoring from it. (downhill skiing, gymnastics, figure skating, rhythmic dancing) You 'play' (rather perform) for the enjoyment of the activity, not to compare yourself to others.

@Mr.Mindor I think you meant to tag Hamlet, not me.

@dsollen I never said that I'm designing an alien species. Besides, I really don't care whether this society is "unlikely": I'm just using my imagination to write a story about an unusual society.

@Mr.Mindor I gave an example of a game that I feels meets the criteria for this question in chat.

@Hamlet I can't access chat. Is there a reason you cannot provide the relevant information as part of the question?

@Hamlet Also my question/comment above to NexTerren was in fact intended for you.

Does your society make movies about dystopian societies like we do? Would their movies include the savage people who engage in competition?

What do their movies about utopian societies look like?

Your story reminds me Return from the stars by Stanislav Lem.