Calling SL a game

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

one of those infinite number of monkeys writing Shakespeare

---

May I please borrow this phrase to use in my signature?

...Dres

[Ted McGregor]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

one of those infinite number of monkeys writing Shakespeare

---

May I please borrow this phrase to use in my signature?

...Dres

---

Maybe you should discard your love for Low Hanging Fruit first.

[Parhelion Palou]

SL is used for many more things than have been mentioned here. A few I know of: Educators use it to teach, artists use it as a creative medium for their art, some people earn their living in SL, nonprofits use it for outreach and simulation, some have used it to model RL buildings as part of their design process. These don't qualify as games. I originally looked into SL as a way to model control systems for physical systems, particularly vehicles. That didn't work out, but I found that decorating my plot of land worked nicely as an online zen garden. It's relaxing. Neither use is particularly a game.

Say you have a big pile of lumber. You can build a game using the lumber, or you can make up games using the lumber (see how far you can toss a 2x4, for instance). You can build a shed or even a house. An artist could use it to create art. You could teach woodworking. You can build things and sell them. You can sell the lumber. You could even set the pile on fire and talk while roasting marshmallows.

The answer is obvious: SL isn't a game, it's a pile of lumber. (It may also be both a floor wax and a dessert topping.)

My answer to the original question: My opinion is the previous replies about emotional/financial involvement and about the tie-in between griefers and "it's only a game" seem the likeliest reasons for getting offended about SL being called a game.

As for me: It's a free metaverse - call SL whatever you wish.

[Paul Hexem]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Tari Landar wrote:

---

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. 

---

I accept that what he wrote could have been meant that way, but he didn'r ask why some people get offended. He asked why get offended, which appears to imply (to me), that all people get offended. That's why I wrote that his premise is wrong. It does appear to be wrong to me.

Since he hasn't responded to my post, we can't be sure which way he meant it.

However, to the best of my knowledge, his premise is wrong anyway. Does anyone actually get offended? Does anyone actually take offense when SL is called a game? His question assumes that they do, but I haven't seen any of it. All I've seen is people, including me, correcting the statement, which doesn't mean that any offence was taken.

 

---

I did too. It was my first reply.

I said "You may not, but I have seen people that do."

[LlazarusLlong]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

one of those infinite number of monkeys writing Shakespeare

---

May I please borrow this phrase to use in my signature?

...Dres

---

I'd be honoured.

If you like you can even mis-spell one or more of the words in it.

That would be self-referentially amusing.

Although Shakespeare changed his mind about how his name was spelled several times during his lifetime, apparently.

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Pussycat Catnap 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.

---

If it didn't offend you, you would not need to "correct" people who are not wrong.

---

What sort of silly logic is that? People correct people without offense being any part of it. Teachers correct spelling mistakes, factual errors and maths mistakes, etc. but the teachers aren't offended by their pupils getting things wrong. They may be disappointed, and they may even get annoyed sometimes, but they don't get offended. People in this forum often correct others without offense being anywhere in sight.

Not only is your logic flawed but the premise of it is just plain wrong. I didn't say that I "need" to correct people. I said that I sometimes correct people - just like I'm correcting you now because you added a word to what I wrote, which changed the meaning, and pretended that I wrote it or its meaning. But I'm not offended by your addition to what I wrote. I'm actually glad you did it, because it's provided me with a little bone to chew on

You see now? Offense isn't needed for people to correct others. I hope that helps

[LlazarusLlong]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Your premise isn't quite right. For instance, I sometimes correct people who call SL a game

---

Correcting people who call SL a game is like corrrecting those who, correctly and accurately in a particular non-decimal base number system, say 9x6=42. Your underlying premises are entirely different, and just because they are wrong in your eyes does not mean that they are actually wrong.

The moral being, don't tell people who are probably cleverer than you that they are wrong, when you are incapable of processing information outside your own restricted imagination.

[arton Rotaru]

---

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?"

---

Well, I assume you are referring to this Thread? Even though I haven't seen anybody there who was offended by the OP calling SL a game. You obviously didn't got why people told him that's it's not a game, in the sense the OP apparently expected it to be. Even though it wasn't about the gameplay, it was that old boring performance argument. That they can run the latest AAA games on Ultra with super smooth performance, but that SL game doesn't.

And the reasons why the performance isn't on a par with a AAA game from a major studio like Rockstar Games, Blizzard, Ubisoft, Naughty Dog...you name it, has been pointed out in that thread.

Comparing the performance of a game from a professional game studio with Second Life just doesn't do it justice. It's simply not that "Game". That's the whole point in that thread.

Not to hard to understand IMHO.

[Paul Hexem]

I'll be honest. I was gonna troll you and insult you a little, maybe thank you for proving my point, but I've changed my mind.

Instead, I'll simply ask you to look at the date on this thread and on that one.

 

 

 

[arton Rotaru]

Alright, I got that wrong then. This thread just popped up for me on the first page, and I just looked at the date of the post above mine. You have my apologies.

[Paul Hexem]

---

arton Rotaru wrote:

Alright, I got that wrong then. This thread just popped up for me on the first page, and I just looked at the date of the post above mine. You have my apologies.

---

Yeah, the forums really should show the date of first post as well as last, instead of just bumping replies to the top.

[LlazarusLlong]

Some threads are timeless though!

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

Some threads are timeless though!

---

Some threads are consistently wrapped around my genitalia... what's your point?

...Dres