Is SL really a game?

Its IRC on Crack.

A game does not need have a winner. You have an overly restricted definition of game. Dungeons & Dragons and Vampire: The Masquerade are role-playing games that do not have winners.

All games are activities, and while it's true that not all activities are games, playing house is most definitely a game. Any child will tell you that it's a game if you ask.

To me SL is a way to use the power of technology from inside the computer.

I'm not trying to stop them from using it the way they want to. I'm also not going to pretend that I don't think it's just a game, just so they can feel better about themselves.


None of these things preclude it from being a game. Games are and always have been ways to socialize, ways to make or lose money, and ways to be creative.


I'm a pretty open minded person but I think these people are deluding themselves and I'm not going to enable their retreat into a fantasy world by pretending SL is not a game when specifically asked about it on a discussion forum.


It is a platform in the same way that the d20 gaming system is a platform. It's a set of artificial rules for a pretend environment. It's a game. I'm starting to think that most of you just don't know very much about games.

Second Life is a large man in a his underwear - sitting in a Lay Z Boy.. His name is Fred.

By that token Simcity or The Sims aren't games either, even though they clearly are (they have no "end" and little to no "goals"

SL is a game.

If it isn't, well, it's a "thingie".

Shirts with that profound statement are available for $L25 upon request.

LF

Hmm I want one.

Totaly agree with ya Cromulence

I think I see where you're coming from now, Crom. I don't think anyone would argue that the SL world itself is real. Nobody's going to say that the house they built in SL is a real house or that the gigantic bird they were chatting with is a really a gigantic bird. They're obviously not real -- no objects in SL are real. To believe otherwise would be delusional.

But it's a mistake to say that those "not real" elements mean SL as a whole is a game. The chats you have are conversations with real people, and often involve subjects about their lives outside of SL. Most SLers that I've chatted with aren't roleplaying. They aren't "in character". That means that most conversations, apart from the roleplaying games *within* Second Life are as real as chat on IRC, on the phone, or over e-mail.

If the participants of SL were role-playing and only interacted within the confines of their adopted character, *then* SL would undoubtedly be a game. As it is, when I chat with someone who looks like a wood nymph, they're more likely to talk about their day at the office then their day frolicking in the woods (or whatever wood nymphs do).

What we have is a medium of interaction that uses ficitious elements to facilitate real communication. An analogy would be these forums... in the forums we have icons and titles that represent us. Some of us have creatures or objects as our icon, but they're not real. Does that mean the forum is a game? Nope. (Well some people play games with people's minds in the forum, but that's different. )

SL is a non-game medium that can *contain* both real communication, like chat, art, and literature, OR games, like "playing house", casino games, combat, and more.

So you're partly right. Games are a large part of SL. But not the whole.

Just for the record, I never, ever said that or anything like it. Saying that someone is wrong is not the same as saying that they are bad, and I am definitely not saying that people who are different from me are wrong or bad.

If you're going to put words in my mouth and aren't capable of making them logical then please put some poetry or something there instead.

Not putting words in your mouth, these are some negative things to say about people in my opinion. I wouldn't say you are mentally unbalanced or dilusional. And I think you would be offended as well if I said you were for your point of view. And now I am being illogical?

Maybe many of you have experimented this kind of effect when trying to explain what SL is to rl friends or familiars:
If you have give up to the long explanations on what it is, as I do lately, and say it's a game, then a "stop spending too much time on that freaking game" is in order. Otherwise, trying to explain to them how complex and fantastic thing it is, will produce a "stop spending too much time on that freaking medium". In any case they'll not stop being confused and you'll continue to be an ass to their eyes.
So, I find this Siggy's definition the most appropriate one and I'm starting to give it to anyone that asks me for what SL is.

Yes, you are. Oh well.

first off there should be a poll, I am intrested what the general tally would be.

but in the dictionary game means:

game n.

1) An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.

*by this definition alone just about anything is a game*

2) A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules: the game of basketball; the game of gin rummy.

*SL is not designed around competitive activities, even if some exist in game*

3) An active interest or pursuit, especially one involving competitive engagement or adherence to rules: “the way the system operates, the access game, the turf game, the image game” (Hedrick Smith).

4) A business or occupation; a line: the insurance game.

5) Mathematics. A model of a competitive situation that identifies interested parties and stipulates rules governing all aspects of the competition, used in game theory to determine the optimal course of action for an interested party.



So I ask what makes a game? It seems the definition is centered around competition. Games have a begining a goal an ending and a winner. In any game you can find these traits. But SL lacks a couple very obvious ones. Everyone begins the "game" with no "game" established goals to complete, nor any requirements or advancements from birth till you sadly leave. Anything you aspire to create or own is self derived. Also, there is no real end or way to complete the game and win or lose.

SL really offers you the ability to, with few restrictions, do whatever you want in a 3D virtual world. SL charges like a service provider for its services and for the use of their land.
Because there are marketplaces for land, items, and much more SL branches into more of a virtual market provider, bringing people together into their market.

Cubey, this is a really interesting argument and you almost pursuaded me, but I still have to disagree. I am more inclined to think that it is a medium that uses real communication to facilitate the playing of a realistic but nonetheless fictitious game. However, I suspect we're getting into the very fuzzy side of semantics here.

EDIT: Regarding the above post by Trifen, we have already established that there are a number of things that everyone would agree are games that do not involve competition. Dictionaries, while useful, are not the source of all truth.

Well, for me, SL TAKES THE PLACE of games. Or to be more precise, it takes up the time I would normally spend playing more traditional "games". Of course, it also takes the time I would normally spend sleeping, eating, working, socializing in RL, bonding with family, bathing, etc...

Ok it might no be quite THAT bad, but I think most of you know where im coming from. ^_^



These traditional game elements that seem to be lacking in SL are also lacking in most dice and paper RPG's. Not having game-defined goals or a way to win or lose does not change the fact that RPGs are most definatly games.

I think the real defining element is that games are played for entertainment value. This of course brings up the argument (again) that there are some people who make a living (or try to) with SL, which makes it (for them at least) more than a game. But there are plenty of people who (try to) make a living producing content for dice and paper RPGs, and while this may make it a "business" for them, they are still in the "game business", and it does not make the RPG they are creating content for any less a game than it was before they starting writting down thier ideas.

I call myself a "gamer". Lots of people do that nowadays... they play FPS's or RTS's or (computer) RPG's as a semi-regular hobby and they refer to themselves as gamers. Which is fine, who am I to define the word "gamer". Back when I started to use the term, it meant "a person with a passion for games"... all sorts of games, which is the kind of person I am. I love games of any kind, and play them as my number one non-work related activity (I. know, pretty pathetic, but hey, I'm happy with it). Now to me, SL is truly the game I have been waiting for my entire life, but it is still a game.

Ok sorry to ramble on, but i had a lot of (extra) parentheses that I needed to get rid of, and a forum post seem like the (most efficient) way to do it.

^_^

Sl is not a game. Whoever started calling it that had it all wrong.

Best described: ONLINE VIRTUAL REALITY WORLD

Very simple.
If you need more info feel free to IM me in game.

Crow

LOL ^_^

crow

Resently I too thought about this! is it a game? But after one really rude and stuckup av ai say some needs to geta reality check! Its like rating are taht important? This fool took (in the welcome area)my rating and nice comment and just was rude as hell! what the balls of some of these kiddies! They just dont get it! Its a game for cry out loud not life or death! Its bad enough that under 18 kids are running xxx rated sl clubs. but having to deal with kids of need of a real life people reallity check takes the fun out of the game. screw them! but then again they dont pay for their play time on sl anyways.

I think SL is exactly what you make it. Some people play it as a game. Some people see it as a way to find someone in RL. It all depends on your way of thinking. I look at it as a way to escape the real world for a few hours. A place to meet new friends. I am not looking for someone in RL so the relatioship aspects is just a game to me. Some people feel differently. So it all depends on how you preceive this Second Life world!

Enjoy it and have fun! Thats what it is all about!
Caitlin!

<Madly in love with Nolan.........he rawks!>

Only one thing I regret in posting this thread... not setting up a VOTE along with it! (Didn't know how, didn't think of it, alas). There's been a BUNCH of interesting comments and a mutli-choice vote would've been kewl.

Secondlife is strange because it doesn't fit the criteria we have today.

On the one hand, it is a game. You log in as cute little av characters, and you wander round a make believe world. All good fun.

On the other hand some people invest serious amounts of US dollars in SecondLife and turn a profit. That's no laughing matter. And my server uses xml-rpc on the hour, every hour, to talk with a number of 'entities' within the metaverse of Second Life. The server side code which handles this stores the data that flows back in a database, with military precision. People pay me US dollars to safeguard this information (xml-rpc based visitor tracking). That's no laughing matter either.

My conclusion? I think secondlife has elements of it which are fun and to an extent trivial, but it has elements of it too serious and with consequences too real in actual life, for it to be branded wholly a game. Because of this, and because you can't really separate the two parts, Second Life doesn't fit any of the categories we have thus far; it's something new.