The function of games in a society is discussed in this paper. An earlier definition of games as a concretistic way of processing information of cultural antitheses is enlarged to include a more bio-adaptive definition: the game is also a socialization of conflict. This view is compared and contrasted with those of Sigmund Freud and G. H. Mead. Further discussion presents some possible classificatory alternatives of games and a cross-cultural array of games which constitute basic developmental and cultural forms of cooperation and conflict. Antitheses to be socialized include Order and Anarchy; after their capacity is established, two broad groupings of games can be defined. The Approach-Avoidance grouping and its subgrouping involves direct relationships with other persons. A parallelistic relation to others and a preoccupation with working against certain external obstacles is present in the Success-Failure grouping. The conclusion focuses on the implications of this analysis of games for sports and aggression. (SDH)