Consistent Message: SL is/isn't a game

I fail to see whether Calling Second Life a game or not will somehow Diminish what Second Life is or Isnt.

There are a lot of people who call First Life a "game" too - *shrug* life goes on.

There was even a famous rock star who said "There are many here amoung us , who feel that life is but a joke" then his ended rather abruptly.

Second Life can be a game - or not - a rose by any other name ..


As a response to the first two posts about Time my friends and I typically use "Game Time", "Linden Time" and "SL time" interchangeably

Is that they help me to see who's pretty much an idiot and who's pretty much not an idiot.

I mean, not according to the validity or invalidity of the points people make, but by the ways in which they react to others' points. Or others' reactions.

Very instructive, ty.

( Of course, then I usually forget, inworld, what names were attached to which posts... and so I perforce must start afresh when meeting avatars for the first time. Which, damn it, is such a bother. Where's my cheap & easy prejudice!? )

And no: I'm not gonna name names.

1. Well, first off let me make it clear - if I haven't already - that the Lindens THEMSELVES having some sort of policy where they all know not to even call it a game, or refer to game time, or say ingame, and all that, is one thing. As I said earlier, they might even get somewhere with this strategy. (Whether or not I think it's silly.)

Also, I agreed with someone else earlier who was talking about roses and dog merde, that you might as well call it a rose if what you ultimate want is a rose.

Then I agreed with Jauani that it might even help LURE people, when they read that this is somehow not really a game, and pique their interest, and I mentioned that I hadn't thought of that.

What I am so against is people who arrogantly and condescendingly correct other players who use the word "game". Especially when they do that to new players. I remember well having that done to me, but I'm kind of impervious to that kind of thing. It wasn't lost on me, though - that only a certain "kind" was welcome on these forums, and I wasn't one of them. Correcting new players in the game - as apparently has happened (at a welcome spot, even), judging by one of the posts above - is similarly totally uncalled for.

Maybe people think we don't NEED anyone but someone who has majored in Snowcrash or is a fervent disciple of Philip's dreams. Listen, guys, not even all the LINDENS are fervent disciples of Philip's dreams. And even if they all were, there are practicalities to consider, such as paying the bills. They need the subscriptions. We need people to buy, use, or appreciate all our lovely creations.

What I'm opposed to most of all is any Linden correcting a player - new or old - on what they should call the game.

OK, I hope I have made that real clear. They can call it whatever they like, and doing so may help them make SL more of what they want it to be. But they can't present people with what is essentially a game and then tell them not to call it a game without looking arrogant and condescending.

Most people don't like anything that seems snooty or pretentious.

2. Other games like this one - There, TSO, Rose, Sociolotron, Active Lives, Habbo Hotel, oh something else I tried but forget what it was, etc. And: There will be more to come. There will be new ones coming that will try to beat out SL.

Understand: I am NOT saying "all these games are completely equal" or "all these games have entirely equal amounts of game-like components." Of course TSO is not like SL in many respects. Which is why you and I are here playing this and not that. But in other respects it is, and enough alike to be compared with others in the same class many, many times, in print, by the industry, and by game players. This is just a fact.

What I am saying is that all of these games fall into a certain industry niche, involving reality-based online environments and/or enhanced chat environments, each with varying degrees of creativity, and with few of the game-like components people expect in, say, Everquest. When I call something a game, I'm calling something an online game as defined by the media and the industry. In addition, for me it IS as much an online game for me as Anarchy Online, only better.

They are, however, all considered to have a place in the overall category of online games, and thus get included in discussions and websites and word-of-mouth talk regarding online games.

So for anyone to insist it isn't a game, and that we can't call it a game, suggests that person has imbibed a tad too much of the Linden vision. At least at the current date.

3. The Lindens not calling Second Life a game is not going to turn off the player base. The Lindens having a condescending and/or dictatorial attitude about it is what will turn them off. And with every new player - or old - that the Lindens actually dare to correct, they have helped make an enemy out of what could have been a friend. Ditto any of us who does that to other players.

coco

Day after day after day, you hit us over the head with this. Impervious? I don't think so.

You can be a victim and a martyr all you please, but frankly, your daily affirmation of this is getting really stale.

You're saying it doesn't happen? Or just that I shouldn't call attention to the fact that it happens?

coco

Explain how something with no objectives, no point scoring, no monsters to slay, no coins to collect is "essentially a game." The only basis for SL being a game that you have ever provided for us is that it looks like TSO to you, and more recently that (yet another) "they" in the "gaming press" say it's a game.

So now majority opinion is acceptable for you to create fact? Unless that opinion is about one of your buddies, and the opinion is held by people you don't like, I guess.

You cannot police what other private citizens say. Nor is it very likely that you will change people who are likely set in their ways coupled with the benefit of the relative anonimity afforded by the very nature of the net.

You may be aware of the comments Pat Robertson made the other day about his wishes that President Chavez of Venezeula should be assasinated by US Special Forces. Donald Rumsfeld said, when facing the press shortly thereafter, that "private citizens say lots of things, all the time..". He then went on to say how assassinations are not legal under US law, and that therefore, what Robertson says or thinks is of no consequence and has no bearing on the situation. Now, don't get the wrong idea, I think Rumsfeld is a pinhead for the most part, but what he said about private citizens mouthing off really rang true for me.

They are just words by people who hold absolutely no power of you or anyone else. Your insistence on making a federal case out of what some snob says only serves to promote and empower their words.

You're not going to change them Coco, so it's in all our best interests if you simply turn a deaf ear toward it.

This goes both ways, by the way. There have been many comments made to this effect, "it's just a game, you are taking this too seriously", from equally snooty people who happen to be on the other side of the fence. They should receive the same deaf ear treatment.

You know, no one wants to bear the brunt of derision, but it's part of the price tag if we want "free speech", something you have yourself hollered about in defense of a person who rained down endless "correctives" upon a fair sized portion of the SL populace. You can't have it both ways. Before you tell me that that person was banned because of his corrective behavior, realize that the people you are so wound up about have only made off-handed comments here and there, and have not embarked upon a incessant barrage of corrective criticism and flamewar incitement. There are and must be thresholds.

Now, on the Linden thing - if and when the day comes, where I am witness to a Linden deriding or mocking a player because they want to refer to SL as a game, I will be right there beside you raising Cain about it. Until that day arrives, it's just buying trouble.

It happens, lots of things happen. Likewise, you should get over things you are not satisfied with. You are not going to change people, much as you don't expect to be changed.

I have no issue with anyone calling this a game, if thats what you make it to be.

Personally, I needed a break from games and found Second Life.

Games have rules and objectives. What are the rules for SL and what are we expected to achieve? None and nothing are the answers. That's not a game.

TV is entertaining, as are concerts......but those are not games either.

So, when people say it's not a game (LL included), that does not make them wrong, it only makes you intransigent.

Catherine,

I don't see the whole issue as quite such a dichotomy as you do. To me, it's not a question that if sl is not a game then it is a commercial venture. Indeed, I think that calling it a game in a sense diminishes the creative side of things. Some of the wonderful creations that have been made in second life are the result of a combination of artistic and technical skills that don't have anything in common with gameplaying, IMO. Indeed many people have in these forums proceeded to insult others or do them down inworld in some way and then try to diminish what they have done by using the phrase 'it's only a game'.

I think sl is far more than a game, far more than a commercial enterprise and far more than a chat room. So long as it is marketed on that basis I dont think we need be concerned.[/QUOTE]

-----------------------------------------------

Correct now how are they going to market SL? The majority of the player base was brought in from direct advertizing on gamer webs and such. I understand their want to switch gears (even tho I disagree with a need to do so) So now that is all said and done. How are they going to get new players into the game? Certainly after such a bold statement they wouldn't go and advertize on gamers sites would they? That would be hypocritical. So where and how do you think SL will be marketed in the future to draw new people into the game?

Cat

The same can be said for others beating us over the head with the word "Hyperbole".

If your going to start policing this issue then do so for everyone please.

This is just an observation of the unbalanced forums.

"Intransigent." Oh my.




*hugs the THC outta Weedy*

Perhaps there is a time when mentioning it over and over should come to an end and you let it go. Some variation on the theme works its way into a lot of your posts.

Let's examine the inverse for a minute Cat. If somebody goes to a developer site and sees that SL is just another "game", would that be a fair desciption of the product?

By insisting that SL is a "game" is a moot point.

You can look at a Ferrari 3 different ways:

1 - Exploit of opulence.
2 - Metal, rubber and plastic.
3 - Precision engineered automobile.

Although remarkably various, none of the above is wrong.

With online games, comes the need for game masters. Something LL has made clear from the outset, are not in the mood to go that route.

Gamers expect a certain level of service from the provider with the interface, resolution of conflicts, provision of content and goof-proof dialog boxes etc. Games don't allow you to access sim data and debug menus, no less build and scripting tools.

I would do a great disservice to any new subscriber by explaining that SL is not a game insomuch as it is a developers tool set. The response to that is 100% favorable, not a single person was disappointed in that. In fact, they are delighted to not be cast into a competitive gaming environment.

Games are largely, male oriented projects. I don't mean this in a sexist way at all, but SL appeals to probably the widest target audience, especially those disinterested in games.

So Cat....thank you for your comments, you have every right to call it a game.

However, I do take offence to being called a "player". I run a business in SL, I make every effort to provide my customers with a high quality product and offer support and service in a prompt manner.

I am a subscriber and a resident. Nothing more, nothing less.

We agree on that, then, Nolan.

But in my opinion, that day DID come, in the Hotline. Now one could say that the Linden was just being helpful, and indeed he wasn't being nasty or particularly hostile. But he did correct the relatively new player, unasked and off the topic of the player's post, who had made the error of saying "ingame," I think, and that should not happen again. (And probably won't.)

Moreover, if it is happening under the auspices of the new welcome spots, then that, too, should stop.

In my opinion, it is not in all our best interests if I turn a blind eye or deaf ear to this.

Another thing you say I agree with is that you can't police what other private citizens say (certain laws aside, of course). But I don't notice any people here correcting other people or any Lindens correcting other people who call the game a platform. I do hear people correcting people for calling the platform a game, however.

-----

Cristiano, did *I* bring up this issue? No. Enabran brought up this issue. Robin put it here for our comments.

Are you trying to suggest that I shouldn't comment here? Am somehow I different from the rest of you in that regard?

-----

Enabran, the rest of the world treats this as a game. The Lindens market it as a game (albeit with the caveat whenever they can toss it in that it's not a game in the EQ sense) on game sites and in articles about games.

You are welcome to your opinion, but the facts are self-evident.

---

Weedy, it is not true that I should just get over things I am not satisfied with, and decide I'm powerless to have an influence. If the Lindens ask for comments, then I'm not going to feel powerless. In fact, the Lindens are absolutely terrific about asking for feedback. Having suffered under EA for two years, I'm thrilled to be able to have the opportunity to offer my opinion.

-----

I notice there are an AWFUL lot of reasons given in the past couple of pages not only for why I am wrong, along with everyone else who thinks it's a game, but also why I really should "get over it" and hush up about it. Interesting.

------

I doubt there's any real chance they are going to stop marketing it as a game any time soon. What they are talking about now, probably, is whether or not to erase the word "game" from any Linden utterance or interface ever. Which I think is not only silly, but also cuts off a large chunk of the nose that's providing their income, by alienating people who do consider it a game, and suggesting that their speech, and/or their reasons for being in SL, aren't lofty enough.

coco

P.S. I'd call a Ferrari "a car."

This seems an awfully extreme interpretation to me.

If Linden Lab does not consider thier own creation to be a game, how does this at all translate into alienation of those who see it as a game? Especially since I don't see any evidence of anyone being brated, belittled, or even harshly corrected. All I have ever seen come from the lindens is statements like "Well, it's not really a game per se..." followed by a breif outline of the reasoning. Hardly suggesting any rating of loftiness.

Maybe a tad extreme, yes.

And most harshness isn't coming from the Lindens themselves. (But I was surprised by that Hotline thing.) I think, though, they can understand how I think this whole deal can be a turn-off for a large portion of their population.

coco

*bangs head against wall*

Cat, this did not happen overnight. This has always been the stated goal of SL. And you have been here long enough to know that. I don't know what *game* you are playing on the forums right now, but I'm done taking the bait. Pretend ignorance all you want. I can't keep up.

And Coco, gah!!! I can't even put into words how frustrating your posts make me. I just have a hard time dealing with such a condescending attitude and arrogance. So I'll just do the same thing for you I'm doing with Cat. I'll give up.

Easier for me that way. You say what you will. At least I rest easy in the knowledge that most don't share your skewed attitude.

No. Please explain for me how it's possible for the fact that LL never intended SL to be a game to be a turn off for those who see it as a game anyway.

This boggles me, as I know of and meet people who see SL as a game and they sure don't seem all that concerned that LL doesn't - save for exactly two.

I was referring to what Weedy said, which is that once again you bring up how you have been wronged in the course of discussing something. It is a common theme in your posts - recapping what has been done to you in either SL or the forums.

As to your second paragraph, I'm not either and never was concerned that LL doesn't consider it a game. In fact, I always considered it kind of interesting every time they talked about that.

I am saying they should not correct their players for using the term "ingame." Ever. And I'm further saying that shouldn't happen to people at the welcome spots.

And someone should explain to me the fact that if they never intended it to be a game, why has it been presented as a game, ever since I first heard of it and read about it, back when it was a baby in beta?

And if they are going to CORRECT us for saying "ingame," then the least I expect from them is quick removal of all references to SL on all gaming sites. And to reject all requests for interviews from people writing articles about online games.

And someone can also explain to me, that if this is some kind of developer's program, for developers and not gamers, who the heck are we developing the stuff for? Each other?

And if we buy it from each other, to use in some trivial or fantasy fashion, does that make us gamers?

coco

(sigh)

I wasn't even going to say anything, but I feel exactly the same way. I've grown exhausted with this whole thread -- I keep trying to post things, but I'm just wiped out trying to explain something that's so clear and obvious that I understood it within my first five minutes of being in SL.

btw, this thread wasn't even supposed to be about SL being a game or not a game -- obvious it isn't a game, as far as LL is concerned. My only point in posting this to the Hotline was to mention to LL that they were being a little inconsistent in the terminology. Between all of my classes and all of the business and leadership books I've read, I know how important consistency in message is to a company's mission and the direction of their product. Robin's response clarified the company position and explained that most of the inconsistency was a result of simple shorthand convenience. I believe this thread was copied to General so we could discuss a unified timekeeping reference.

So much for that.

I'm not the only one who has had that experience. That I have been one of the many who has had it doesn't make the experience any less valid.

We're not talking about me. We're talking about this business about correcting people's language.

Do you want to talk about what has been done FOR me in the game? I can start another thread.

Or - maybe - we could talk about YOU, Cristiano.

Pendari, I think I'll let the Lindens decide how "twisted" my point of view on this is.

coco

That again was my point, and Weedy's - you found a way to make it about you at the same time.

Ugh, no kidding. Every single thread becomes about Cocoanut. It's so exhausting. I've never ever seen a Cocoanut post that didn't eventually lead to "I HAVE BEEN VICTIMIZED." I'm pretty sick about talking about the persecution of Cocoanut, dunno about anyone else.