Is Second Life a game?

Surina, I think I see where you're coming from with the above statements. I don't completely agree, but I think this is a very useful discussion. I should be careful stepping further into the thickets of this topic, partly because I am an SL novice, but, what the hey, the subject has got me thinking. By participating in this thread, I hope to understand more about SL.

I suspect that when the Lindens say, "SL isn't a game," they're referring to an opposition between "game" and "platform." That's also what you seem to be saying in your above comments, if I understand you correctly.

I don't completely agree that SL isn't a game as well as a platform, and I could give some reasons why, but it is not my primary interest in the question of whether SL is or isn't a game.

What really interests me about the "game or not a game" topic, is the opposition between "game" and "serious," as in the common phrase, "Stop playing around. This isn't a game. This is serious business." I got that implication out of the post you made prior to the one I quote here. Please correct me if I misunderstood.

Do we participate in SL as primarily our own selves, in a basically serious way, much as we do in real life, and only step into game mode for particular events. Or is the entire experience a game for us, in which we're playing at everything we do in SL?

Since the basic rules of SL are so lightweight, it seems to me that a person could participate in SL in either of the above modes. As long as he or she doesn't step over the lines of behavior given in the TOS and community rules, no other resident would have the authority to complain about or reproach that person.

What do people think about this opposition between "game" and "serious?"

I think you would have a very hard time making that case, and despite a few people trying, I'm not remotely convinced. They'd have bigger problems, because they'd need to change their business model to sustain something something that isn't anywhere within the scope of their stated goals.

It's a bit like saying the Farmer would be much better off if he milked his stud horses. You could probably squeeze something out of there, but it wouldn't be as well received as if you stuck to milking the cows -- though it would be a blast for the horses, but only for the first few days, after which they'd surely tire.

Really, if you need something that was designed with little more than entertainment in mind, I can come up with a decent option by a respected games publisher.

Without looking at your link there, Enabran, I can say I haven't even tried to make that case, cause I'm too happy looking at kitties!

As for Darren's comments, they make me think how about this:

For those who make a significant amount of real-life money off this game (not necessarily enough to pay the rent, but enough so that the individual comes to think of it as real money, like a part-time job or other extra income), and rarely avail themselves of any of the entertainment or socializing offered in the game (maybe going to WOW for that), then SL is a platform for monetizing and all that.

For those who make a significant amount of real-life money, but also regularly avail themselves of the entertainment or socializing offered, then it's both a game and a monetizing platform.

For those who may make some money but not what they would consider a significant or meaningful amount of money in any way, and who regularly avail themselves of the entertainment or socializing offered, then it's a game.

For those who don't make any money, but regularly avail themselves of the entertainment or socializing offered, then it's a game.

coco

P.S. If there are significantly more people falling into the last two categories than the first two, then it's more a game than anything else.

A part of the argument that is being missed. Labels aside, SL is different things to different people. The discourse will not change how they view it personally. For each user, perception is reality.

That said, I believe it is a plame, dammit.

The raim in Spaim falls maimly in the plaim.

Did I say "plaim" - I meant "plame". Oops.

After y'all figure that one out, I have some more important questions to be answered (leaving you to define the "or is it a ...." part for each):

Is the Eiffel Tower a building?
Is Australia an island?
Is New York a town?
Is Dennis Rader a celeberty?
Is bacteria an animal?
Is a bicycle a vehicle?
Is George Bush a patriot?
Is the Gulf of Mexico part of the Atlantic Ocean?
Is a table lamp a device?
Is a 3 O'clock meal dinner?
Is a computer an appliance?
Is a semantic question meaningful?

umm, dennis who?

See?

put these on ask jake anything. i can't promise correct answers though.

Thanks for the comments on my post, Coco. You made some good points.

However, I've just realized I shouldn't participate in these forums if I'm looking for nice people with whom to discuss interesting topics in a mature manner.

There are some nice people here, but they're way outnumbered by the irritating clowns.

I've also just realized that the forums are a game. It's futile to try to use a game to discuss a game.

Please, please don't go! The forums won't get better until more people like you come, and stay.

coco

*cries*

The thread starter started this thread as a joke. The subject of whether SL is a game is old as the hills.

I started out saying "This may have been discussed before, I didn't feel like checking , but after being here for a year and a half it caught my attention that there are some gamelike elements to this 3D collaborative virtual environment known as Second Life."

This should have alerted people that something fishy was going on. A primary rule of proper behavior in a forum is to check to see if the subject has been brought up before. No one should be starting a serious thread with a "I didn't feel like looking." statement. I did, because I wasn't serious.

I said it took me a year and half to notice "some gamelike elements". Is it really plausible that it could take someone that long to notice anything at all gamelike about SL to some degree?

Some people got it and responded in appropriately silly manner . Some didn't get the joke and made normal serious responses, some produced weighty messages they thought showed how intelligent they were, some now are starting to get rude calling people irritating clowns.

I'd still like to see the artwork I thought some of the photoshoppers might produce. A Second Life Wrestling Federation illustration, with maybe Gwen standing triumphant over The Rock. A deck of Second Life cards, with Phil as King and guess who - Aimee Weber as queen. Some real photographs of football, baseball, and similar professional sports with Second Life elements like perhaps Furry heads instead of human heads.

Stuff like that is what this thread really should be making.

Don't miss Mr. Templar's link to Cats in Sinks, it is well worth the clicking.

Despite your inent, the thread wends a course of its own choosing.

Are there topics that are closed for everyone, including people new to SL?

If we're simply referred to old threads, to read the discussion there, but not respected when we want to talk about a topic, doesn't that amount to a second class resident status for the new folks? Does that mean that people who have been in SL a longer time therefore control the place, and any discussion of it in the forums?

The original poster may have meant the thread as a joke, but some interesting and thoughtful responses appeared on the thread, which motivated me to participate.

The thread preceding it was locked by a Linden, but specifically for reasons of personal attacks occurring on the thread, not because of any effort to quash the topic of the thread.

You left off two very important questions:

1) Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?
2) Why does Lindsay Lohan have a career?

As always, you know what they say about intentions, good or otherwise...

Lindsay rules. No personal attacks of Lindsay! She is the greatest. Go buy her album, NOW! Herbie is da bomb! Long live Lindsay!

While I'm at it gimme a woop-woop for Paris and Tara. Who knew a televised travel diary by Tara could be so informative?

Those are both "why" questions. Those don't belong here, those belong in the smartass analogy response to "why does Aimee always appear in SL advertising".

They can stuff it. Did they have any knews about who Lindsay is dating?

You left off those who make a significant amount of real life money, regularly avail themselves to the entertainment or socializing offered, and yet do not consider it a game or a monetizing platform (is that the new buzz word now that monetizing was used in the VP job description?). I have always considered SL to be a virtual world, without many of the limits of our current world. It is not a game to me, even though there are fun things to do in this virtual world - just as there are fun things to do in RL, though RL is not a game (well some argue it is, but again, circular arguments).

You also left off those who find SL to be an incredible creative outlet, not to make money, simply to create. For a long time, all I did was build - until animations came out with version 1.4, I had not made stuff for sale except some tshirts. My entire focus in SL was on creating, and SL is an incredible platform to create in.

So I guess you could add:

Those who make a significant amount of real life money, regularly avail themselves to the entertainment or socializing offered, and use SL as an outlet for their creativity view it as neither a game, nor a platform, but instead view it as a virtual life instead - something that transcends all of the above.

Oops, my bad.

PS - why does Aimee always appear in SL advertising? Does it have anything to do with Lindsay Lohan?

That's partly up to you, Darren. Your post before this indicated you weren't likely to return for reasons that seem quite understandable. But as folks like you are run off rather easily, what is likely to change?

What is more troublesome to me is that ONE contrary post could scare off a poster. People need a bit more courage in their own convictions, I'm sorry. This nonsense of people being persecuted the second someone says "boo" is just plain silly. Darren had excellent points, and people responded. One (1) person stated her reason for starting the thread. If someone can't handle something as minor as Suezanne's retort, it points to a larger problem of not being able to handle any dissent at all.

Yes, I'm afraid I'm out of here. I was just testing the waters, by participating in this thread and the one before it, that got closed, but the results were not good. I'm not here to fight battles. I'm just looking for a pleasant on line community to be a part of. This isn't it.