Calling SL a game

[Paul Hexem]

So, I was replying to another thread, and in that thread, I compared SL to a video game like an MMO.

I was gonna start rambling on there, but I decided it needed a new thread.

We already know that SL isn't a game by the standard definition. SL isn't a game like WoW or SWTOR or BF4 is a game. Most of us know that. 

Here's what I always find interesting, though. Whenever someone does call SL a game, somebody around here always pops up and acts REALLY offended by that title.

Whenever I see that, I can only ever think that those people have never played any good MMOs, or they'd be able to see the similarities.

Any time I describe SL to a non-technical person, I do call it a "sort of a game, kinda like WoW" (because everybody's freakin' heard of World of Warcraft). It's easier for them to understand. Computer, internet, 3D world, virtual economy, etc. Just like WoW.

So I suppose the topic for discusion here is "Why get offended when SL is called a game?"

[Phil Deakins]

Your premise isn't quite right. For instance, I sometimes correct people who call SL a game, but calling it a game doesn't offend me in the slightest.

[Tari Landar]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Your premise isn't quite right. For instance, I sometimes correct people who call SL a game, but calling it a game doesn't offend me in the slightest.

---

How does the fact that you do not get offended make Gadget's premise incorrect?

I think it's a very valid question, as many people do seem to get quite offended at the mere notion that some think of sl as a game. I don't understand why folks get offended at it either, though.

Personally I don't get offended when others call it a game. I might think they're perhaps mistaken or incorrect(usually depends on context), but I don't get offended.

I tend to just call sl a virtual world, and people seem to accept that, whether or not they understand what I mean, lol. I can see how some might compare it to a game, and might believe it somehow fits in that category based on those comparisons.  Even if I think they're still incorrect, I can, sometimes, understand how they came to that conclusion.

[Paul Hexem]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Your premise isn't quite right. For instance, I sometimes correct people who call SL a game, but calling it a game doesn't offend me in the slightest.

---

Well, I didn't mean you. I have seen people get offended at it, though.

[sirhc DeSantis]

Personally, I rarely keep reading if (game) or (playing) crops up in the first few lines. Some of the wall of text ranting ones can be amusing to skim over but mostly not worth an actual response.

I have played most of the wows and others and find them boring beyond belief (grind, meaningless title gained, rinse and repeat), but if its someone elses bag it doesn't bother me. Getting offended by the terminally clueless is an endless task anyway and life is far too short.

In the same vein if people do want to respond here then again - good for them. If I run across the question in world then my response is much more practical, if I have the time.

[Sassy Romano]

It's very much a game.  One where we find out how to make money, then buy stuff, then we have to battle with the system operators who steal this paid for inventory, then we have to negotiate the pool of crocodiles while trying to recover things, taking care not to wake the grumpy trolls under the bridge.

Meanwhile, the end of level boss tells us all that everything is fixed and the outlook is rosy while simultaneously plotting to destroy the world.

Yep, it's a game!

 

[Kelli May]

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

...

So I suppose the topic for discusion here is "Why get offended when SL is called a game?"

---

Many people, many reasons.

Some could be not so much offended as irritated by the (perceived) incorrect use of termiology. This bugs me a little, but not usually enough to draw me into commenting. It's on a level of hearing someone calling a USB memory stick or wifi adapter a dongle.

Others might just want to trigger the old IS A GAME-IS NOT A GAME argument. 

The ones who are truly offended... I can only guess that they see 'games' as trivial, unimportant pastimes and SL as somehow more serious or valuable. I think that many competitive gamers would see this as the wrong way around.

[SophieAmalieFerdinanda]

Many people have different opinions and definitions on "What is a game?" and "what features does it requires to be a game?"

 

SecondLife is a virtual world, where you have a avatar, BUT there are no levels, no achievements, nothing to unlock, no prizes, no storyline, no nothing. The point of SecondLife is to chat with various people from all over the world (kinda). 

But, you have to define WHAT you are doing in SL. When you're a combat/historical/fantasy roleplayer - SL is a game.

When you're doing a job f.e. working in a magazine where you climb up the career ladder, then you might call SL a game. 

It's the definition that makes the result. 

When I tried to explain what SL is to others, who play WoW, COD, Assasins Creed whatever...they also didn't defined it as a game, but a virtual hangout, because they didn't see any point of SL.

But the fact that people get offended when you call SL a game, or vise versa, you say its not a game is pointless and kind of childish. Everyone is free to just enjoy whatever they do in SecondLife, no matter how they define it.

 

After all, I tried "real games" like f.e. Tera or Fiesta, and through SL I got spoiled too much, that I didnt liked it. In SL you've everything unlocked, you can teleport wherever you want in a minute, in Fiesta you have to literally RUN OVER THE WHOLE MAP TO GET TO THE POINT YOU WANT TO BE.

Imagine doing this in SL I would go insane.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

 

So I suppose the topic for discusion here is "Why get offended when SL is called a game?"

---

Because if you didn't call it a game those people would find something different to be offended by.

Such as that statement.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Tari Landar wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Your premise isn't quite right. For instance, I sometimes correct people who call SL a game, but calling it a game doesn't offend me in the slightest.

---

How does the fact that you do not get offended make Gadget's premise incorrect?

---

Because he asked, "Why get offended when SL is called a game?" It assumes that people get offended. Therefore, it's an incorrect premise.

[Nova Convair]

A game is a specialized virtual world.
SL is a universal virtual world.

So SL contains game worlds (even if I consider it a bad platform for gaming, but it's possible)

If someone is only interested in the game aspect then SL is a game. For the others SL is not a game.

Just a matter of the view point and usage. I think SL is a big roleplay where most people play themselves - but not quite - they only play what they think they are.

 

[LlazarusLlong]

SL becomes a game as soon as you interact with someone inworld who treats it as a game.

Your main problem is that you won't necessarily know that you are interacting with someone who is treating it as a game.

Consequently, if you don't treat it as a game I guarantee you will be hurt.

Note that THIS is the game I shall be playing this Christmas - you can get a feel for it from the rule: "The person who most recently pooped begins."

[DJSputnik]

Of course it's a game. Until avatars have to eat to survive, use the toilet, catch infections and contract diseases, age and die - and cease flying - the whole premise that SL is akin to RL is ridiculous.

The 'SL's only a game' thing wasn't really a genuine clash of semantics. Some people got upset by it because it was the standard line trotted out by persons identified/identifying as 'griefers' after they'd done something funny/naughty.

Example: "You just littered my virtual 9/11 memorial with screaming horse heads...you're vile"

"So? It's only a game"

[Tari Landar]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Tari Landar wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Your premise isn't quite right. For instance, I sometimes correct people who call SL a game, but calling it a game doesn't offend me in the slightest.

---

How does the fact that you do not get offended make Gadget's premise incorrect?

---

Because he asked, "

Why get offended when SL is called a game?

" It assumes that people get offended. Therefore, it's an incorrect premise.

---

It's not incorrect, people do get offended. You might not, but some do. 

[Ted McGregor]

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

Any time I describe SL to a non-technical person, I do call it a "sort of a game, kinda like WoW" (because everybody's freakin' heard of World of Warcraft). It's easier for them to understand. Computer, internet, 3D world, virtual economy, etc. Just like WoW.

So I suppose the topic for discusion here is "Why get offended when SL is called a game?"

---

Aside the subjective impression of offence, you do know that the difference between SL and any other MMO is that SL is basically an OPEN gaming environment instead of a closed one like WoW ( characters, story-line and environment set up by a company).

So those persisting SL is not a game and it is without a set (of) goal(s) to achieve in the traditional sense of computer based gaming, do have a point when stating SL is unlike those closed environments.

The flak you perceive is generally given by those that personally identify with their avatar in some degree. Perhaps they are those who specifically perceive Second Life as a second (digital ) reality next to the real world, which I personally find nonsensical.

[Tamara Artis]

A game is: "An activity providing entertainment or amusement",

"A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules..."

"An active interest or pursuit, especially one involving competitive engagement or adherence to rules"

"...a physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasure."

and so on...

For me, people who get ofended when someone calls SL a game are usually ones with high emotional investment in it, or high financial investment/gain. I am sure we all had the opportunity to meet and chat with some random person who spends most of their day involved in some kind of activity in SL, they might be lonely in real life because of the place they live or because of some kind of physical disability. They are the ones who switched and Second life has became their first life that gives them more. They might use real life only to eat and bath, plus occasional sleep lol. 

There are also people who work in SL, it is their real job and pays their bills, supports their families. Imagine you have to prepare products for some big event and, because of some random screw up, you can't login. You might lose hundreds of dollars if your internet provider cuts your connection for a few days so no its not a game anymore. 

[Ceka Cianci]

isn't playing pretend a game?

Role playing..

 

[sirhc DeSantis]

Hmm an interesting (possibly) counterpoint attempting to equate a part of SL to real life ... - well best not to write the word here i was about to - in this very forum. Took a copy as will probably get removed.

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Tari Landar wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Your premise isn't quite right. For instance, I sometimes correct people who call SL a game, but calling it a game doesn't offend me in the slightest.

---

How does the fact that you do not get offended make Gadget's premise incorrect?

---

Because he asked, "

Why get offended when SL is called a game?

" It assumes that people get offended. Therefore, it's an incorrect premise.

---

Phil, read carefully what was posted!

 

Gadget said earlier in his post:

 

"Whenever someone does call SL a game, somebody around here always pops up and acts REALLY offended by that title."

Gadget assumed correctly that some people get offended, not all. So, it was not incorrect premise at all. :smileytongue: :smileywink:

 

(Or do you take it that his later statement: "Why get offended when SL is called a game?" negates his earlier statement?)

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

isn't playing pretend a game?

Role playing..

 

---

"Play" as a verb doesn't imply the thing that is being "played" is a game. We "play" a record "player", for instance. My RL work involves putting on "plays" and Shakespeare had one of his characters hold that "all the world's indeed a stage and we are merely players." (Or something to that effect; my exact quote is courtesy of Neil Peart of the band Rush.)

My other big computer "gaming" activity is playing the Sims series - it is generally referred to as a "game" but it also doesn't have a clear win/lose dynamic and Will Wright referred to it and the other Maxis "games" he made as "software toys." Perhaps Second Life should be considered a toy instead of a game. I'd be comfortable with that...

[Syo Emerald]

My main problem with calling SL a game is not so much a problem of definitions, but more a problem of the approch that follows such a statement. In my experiance people who call SL a game are either griefers, who refuse to feel any guilt when they destroy what others create, steal and harasse. Because...you know, its just a game. :smileyfrustrated:

Or they are lazy and spoiled as f... They come to the forum (if they find it) and rant about how they hate that it doesn't run as smooth as a regular AAA game, how theres nothing to do here, how its too complicated and they actually have to use their brain and how unfair it is, that they have to pay for stuff.

And last but not least its a term usually followed by insulting those who are residents here and dare to get upset about things here. The "get a real life" insult.

[Six Igaly]

RL is a game as well, I'm at level 54 now..

[Perrie Juran]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Tari Landar wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Your premise isn't quite right. For instance, I sometimes correct people who call SL a game, but calling it a game doesn't offend me in the slightest.

---

How does the fact that you do not get offended make Gadget's premise incorrect?

---

Because he asked, "

Why get offended when SL is called a game?

" It assumes that people get offended. Therefore, it's an incorrect premise.

---

So he left out the qualifying adjective "some."

Whooped dee doo.

I guess I could get offended if someone asked, "Why do people chew on their toe nails?"

I don't chew on mine.

Actually it is your premise that is wrong, assuming that he meant "all."

[Perrie Juran]

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

So, I was replying to another thread, and in that thread, I compared SL to a video game like an MMO.

I was gonna start rambling on there, but I decided it needed a new thread.

We already know that SL isn't a game by the standard definition. SL isn't a game like WoW or SWTOR or BF4 is a game. Most of us know that. 

Here's what I always find interesting, though. Whenever someone does call SL a game, somebody around here always pops up and acts REALLY offended by that title.

Whenever I see that, I can only ever think that those people have never played any good MMOs, or they'd be able to see the similarities.

Any time I describe SL to a non-technical person, I do call it a "sort of a game, kinda like WoW" (because everybody's freakin' heard of World of Warcraft). It's easier for them to understand. Computer, internet, 3D world, virtual economy, etc. Just like WoW.

So I suppose the topic for discusion here is "Why get offended when SL is called a game?"

---

I've almost gotten tired of the "SL is not a Game" discussions, we've had them so many times.

For various reasons I prefer to not call it a game:  Like you I don't think it's a game in the same sense that WOW, etc, is, etc.

As to why some people get offended, I can't really see into other peoples psyches. 

Someone once got offended by my tag line in the Forum when it read, "Suffering from post coital flatulence."  Some people thought that was funny.  But at least one person found it very offensive and told me so.

If I were to guess at a reason people get offended when other people call SL a game it would be that they take SL very seriously.  But now -the   a question would be whether that is sane or not?

ETA: I struck "the" because it may not be the only question.

 

[Perrie Juran]

Tagging my own post here:

If This Person is for real, would they be the epitome of someone who does not consider SL a "game?"