Thomas Hurka thinks he was. Like several other eminent philosophers he believes that Bernard Suits in his unjustly neglected book The Grasshopper (reviewed on Virtual Philosopher) shows why Wittgenstein was wrong when he said that 'game' can't be defined, and says some intereresting things about games in the process.
In a recent paper for the Aristotelian Society 'Games and the Good' (2006) Hurka wrote
...Wittgenstein was not right, as is shown in a little-known book that is nonetheless a
classic of twentieth-century philosophy, Bernard Suits’s The Grasshopper: Games, Life and
Utopia. Suits gives a perfectly persuasive analysis of playing a game as, to quote his summary
statement, “the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles.”
You can read the rest of Hurka's article here.