Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LordHappycat

Can Second Life be even considered a "Game"?

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1327 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Phil Deakins wrote:


Freya Mokusei wrote:

... and has been good to see you posting here again.
:)
 

Thank you, Freya
:)
 From a link in a new thread (about bots), I started to read an old thread that I started in 2012, and posts by regulars back then, who I haven't seen here this time around. It was nice to 'see' them.

But this forum is weird for me. I stay away for a long time and then I think, 'I wonder if there's anything happening in GD', and before you know it, I'm back posting agian. It's not the first cycle like that that I've gone through. But the good old days of bot wars are long gone, so it'll never be the same lol. I miss those bot wars
:(

I'm sure you'll be able to find some sort of "war" in which to participate... you're rather good at it. **

...Dres *loves watching you in action*

** That was meant as a compliment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dresden wrote:


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


Freya Mokusei wrote (edited for brevity):

I just used SL to better myself and others around me through collaborative hard work and a persistant vision, while making many many new friends and romantic partners.
:)
 

It seems there's no reason for you to drink my Kool-Aid.

You've made your own.

I've made my own Crystal Light... does that count?

...Dres

It does, and confirms my suspicion that most of us make our own.

But Crystal Light? Now I'm imagining you with shimmering blonde hair, wearing a long evening gown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

There seems to be a very good reason for ME to drink your Kool-Aid, Maddy, because I was
never
fortunate enough to be one of Freya's romantic partners
:(
The best I got was to be one of
your
roast dinners
:(

Freya???

Every woman has her particular charms, Phil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but most charms hang from bracelets on the wrist and don't come in the shape of carving knives and forks :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

But Crystal Light? Now I'm imagining you with shimmering blonde hair, wearing a long evening gown.

As if... that would never happen...



...Dres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dresden wrote:


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

But Crystal Light? Now I'm imagining you with shimmering blonde hair, wearing a long evening gown.

As if... that would never happen...



...Dres

Which way to the Wonderful Wizard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, you simply follow the yellow brick road, my dear.

...Dres  (But don't drink the emerald kool-aid [i hear it's actually antifreeze].)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dresden wrote:

Why, you simply follow the yellow brick road, my dear.

...Dres  (But don't drink the emerald kool-aid
[i hear it's actually antifreeze]
.)

Antifreeze? With the description 'emerald kool-aid' I was hoping for absinthe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Kelli May wrote:


Dresden wrote:

Why, you simply follow the yellow brick road, my dear.

...Dres  (But don't drink the emerald kool-aid
[i hear it's actually antifreeze]
.)

Antifreeze? With the description 'emerald kool-aid' I was hoping for absinthe.

Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder, Kelli.

I see peril either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




Dresden wrote:


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

But Crystal Light? Now I'm imagining you with shimmering blonde hair, wearing a long evening gown.

As if... that would never happen...



...Dres

We should go shopping together some night.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Dresden wrote:


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

But Crystal Light? Now I'm imagining you with shimmering blonde hair, wearing a long evening gown.

As if... that would never happen...

...Dres

We should go shopping together some night.  
:)

I so can't unsee this thread now..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


KarenMichelle Lane wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:



Dresden wrote:


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

But Crystal Light? Now I'm imagining you with shimmering blonde hair, wearing a long evening gown.

As if... that would never happen...



...Dres

We should go shopping together some night.  
:)

I so can't unsee this thread now..........



My shoes match my hat.

But if you prefer I could wear boots instead.  :)

 



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Phil

>I'll restate the fact, but with a slight modification:-

>People may choose to play games in it, but SL itself is not a game for anyone, even though some people may think of it as a game.

>The modification is that I left the last few words off because it's clear that some people, such as you, think of it as game, whether or not they are actually playing anything in it.

 

And your claim is still 100% wrong. So I will restate what I said, in hopes that you actually read it this time.

 

Your statement is 100% wrong. If you read the posts in this thread or any other on this topic, you will clearly see that there are many people who consider SL itself to be game. Therefore, your statement that SL is not considered a game by anyone is 100% wrong. That you don't think it's a game does NOT make your stance correct and everyone else's wrong.

 

Whether SL is a game or not is irrelevant. But your statement that no one considers it a game is completely, 100% wrong, and if you actually did read anything here, you would know that.

 

Proof: the posts in this thread. The ones where people say SL is a game. These clearly contradict your statement that no one considers SL a game. Feel free to post your proof that no one consideration SL a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


HarrisonMcKenzie wrote:

Your statement is 100% wrong. If you read the posts in this thread or any other on this topic, you will clearly see that there are many people who consider SL itself to be game.
Therefore, your statement that SL is not considered a game by anyone is 100% wrong.
That you don't think it's a game does NOT make your stance correct and everyone else's wrong.

 

Whether SL is a game or not is irrelevant.
But your statement that no one considers it a game is completely, 100% wrong, and if you actually did read anything here, you would know that.

 

Proof: the posts in this thread. The ones where people say SL is a game. These clearly contradict your statement that no one considers SL a game. Feel free to post your proof that no one consideration SL a game.

 

Harrison. Pay attention! And READ!

What I said is 100% correct. What you said is totally wrong. You're not even thinking straight. First I'll address the parts that I've highlighted in red:-

I never said that no-one considers SL to be a game. In fact  I said, "... even though people may think of it as a game".  You even quoted it. Understand now?

Now the brown part:-

See my reply to the red part :D

You've been barking up the wrong tree, Harrison. Now that I've shown you the right tree, perhaps you will concede that what I wrote was 100% correct. If I'd actually said that no-one considers SL to be game, then you would have been right. But that was a figment of your imagination, of which you judged me guilty. May I suggest you actually do what I've done all along, even though you keep telling to do it - that's READ the posts, Harrison. Read and understand. You know it makes sense :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


HarrisonMcKenzie wrote:

    ... your statement that no one considers SL a game.

Ha. I didn't even address this argument in my response to Harrison's post, and it was for one clear and obvious reason.

Phil - being a sensible adult with a functioning brain (how's that for a compliment!) - would never say something like this, because it's an insane proposition. All it would take (clearly pointed out) is one person to consider it a game, bang-splat whole theory falls apart.

Heck if he had said this, I'd be helping supply the torches and pitchforks. :)



But instead all we get to burn down is the strawman. Sillyboots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Can Second Life be even considered a "Game"?

Your question leaves no room for a negative answer, HappyCat. Of course it can be considered a game. Sirhc has done that for you, as have countless others in previous discussions about this. 
Anyone who says "No" (stop doing that, Phil!)
is answering the question you probably meant to ask. Had you asked "Do you consider SL a game?", you'd have left room for varied responses. Though I don't think of SL as a game, the pedantic answer to your question can be nothing but "yes".

;-).

Sorry, Maddy, but SL is NOT a game, so I can't stop doing it when the question arises.

To one of the other repliers - life is NOT a game, so your analogy is invalid.

It is not a matter of opinion. A game is a game because it has gameplay rules; e.g. football, basketball, snooker, tiddleywinks, poker, etc. etc. etc. They all have gameplay rules. SL does not. It is an online environment in which users can do things, and that all it is. There are no gameplay rules, so it is not a game.

 

In Second Life it's possible to rezz things in some areas, but not in others. It's possible for one avatar to rezz an object in a certain place but another avatar might not be able to rezz the same object in the same place. These possibilities are determined by an internal system of rules.

The basic problem with your argument (besides the contradiction I just pointed out) is that you base your case on a definition that you determine yourself without any sort of authority to back it up. You also tend to change your definitions in order to maintain your "correctness." For instance, I assume when you'll see this you'll maintain that the "rules" of Second Life aren't gameplay rules and you'll define "gameplay" in such a way that will make Second Life a not-game.

However, there are dictionary definitions of "game" that would encompass Second Life. Ojiro quoted one at the start of this thread. The reason you're using the definition you're using instead of another is your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

In Second Life it's possible to rezz things in some areas, but not in others. It's possible for one avatar to rezz an object in a certain place but another avatar might not be able to rezz the same object in the same place. These possibilities are determined by an internal system of
rules
.

The basic problem with your argument (besides the contradiction I just pointed out) is that you base your case on a definition that you determine yourself without any sort of authority to back it up. You also tend to change your definitions in order to maintain your "correctness." For instance, I assume when you'll see this you'll maintain that the "rules" of Second Life aren't
gameplay
rules and you'll define "gameplay" in such a way that will make Second Life a not-game.

However, there
are
dictionary definitions of "game" that
would
encompass Second Life. Ojiro quoted one at the start of this thread. The reason you're using the definition you're using instead of another is your
opinion
.

I don't believe those are gameplay rules, however you define them. In life we have all kinds of rules and laws that aren't related to gameplay. Usually we are required to drive slower than the posted speed limit. There are rules of etiquette that suggest we say please and thank you. 'Staff Only' signs in buildings. Rules of grammar, spelling and punctuation. None of these are gameplay rules. Rez/no-rez rules in SL are the same, as are tier requirements, copy/mody/trans rights, the ability to block, ban and mute, and the ToS and CS.

As for the dictionary definition:

game

1.a form of competitive activity or sport played according to rules.

synonyms: match, contest, tournament, meeting, sports meeting, meet, event, athletic event, fixture, tie, cup tie, test

2. an activity that one engages in for amusement.

"a computer game"

I believe you are referring to sense 2. I engage in dancing for amusement (often the amusement of others). Is dancing a game? Are TV shows, books, cinema, crafts, or stamp-collecting games? By that definition, yes they are, but few people really think of them as such. The definition is flawed. Just because a game is an activity, doesn't make every activity a game.

Can Second Life be considered a game? I agree that it can. Should it? Maybe, maybe not. I've made this point in previous threads on the subject: defining a game is incredibly difficult, and without a good defnition, edge-cases like Second Life are hard to categorise. I don't think of it as one, but it has many game-like qualities. Then again, my cat has four legs, and that doesn't make him a table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

In Second Life it's possible to rezz things in some areas, but not in others. It's possible for one avatar to rezz an object in a certain place but another avatar might not be able to rezz the same object in the same place. These possibilities are determined by an internal system of
rules
.

The basic problem with your argument (besides the contradiction I just pointed out)
is that you base your case on a definition that you determine yourself without any sort of authority to back it up. You also tend to change your definitions in order to maintain your "correctness." For instance, I assume when you'll see this you'll maintain that the "rules" of Second Life aren't
gameplay
rules and you'll define "gameplay" in such a way that will make Second Life a not-game.

However, there
are
dictionary definitions of "game" that
would
encompass Second Life. Ojiro quoted one at the start of this thread. The reason you're using the definition you're using instead of another is your
opinion
.

If you look closely at what you quoted of mine, you'll see that I didn't say anything about rules. I only mentioned "gameplay rules". You (conveniently) omitted the word 'gameplay' to make your point, so your point is invalid ;)

What contradiction? I don't see one, and you certainly didn't point one out.

I base my case on what is univerally understood by the word 'game' in the context of the title of this thread.

There were 2 dictionary definitions stated earlier, one of which is the universally understood definiton in this thread's context, and that's the one I've been talking about and I believe the OP had in mind. We sometimes use the word 'game' for other things, such a the game of life, to game the search engines, and so on. We can find all sorts of other definitions besides the two that were quoted, some of which might even be applicable to SL, but none of them can ever make SL a game in the universally accepted meaning of what a game is.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freya Mokusei wrote:

Heck if he had said this, I'd be helping supply the torches and pitchforks.
:)

If I say it, will you chase me round my home with torches and pitchforks please? :matte-motes-delicious:

What I don't understand is why some people insist that SL is a game, when they know that SL itself can't be played. They never say what a person has to do in order to play the game, but they still insist that it is a game. That's beyond my comprehension.

Perhaps when you catch me, you'll explain it to me :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

What I don't understand is why some people insist that SL is a game, when they know that SL itself can't be played. They never say what a person has to do in order to play the game, but they still insist that it is a game. That's beyond my comprehension.


It may not be possible to explain why some people insist that SL is a game. The word "pawn" is used to describe humans used like chess pieces in games they're often unaware are being played. Even when they feel they're being played, they may not understand how, or to what ends. When I feel like a pawn, I'm inclined to subvert the perceived intention. That doesn't mean I understand what, if anything, is going on.

Games can be single player. Someone entering SL with this mindset could call SL a game and proceed to manipulate us according to their whims. Our obliviousness does not negate the existence of their game. As I've said before, people can play aspects of RL as a game. You might not, I sometimes do.

Were I a bit less principled (but no less nefarious), I could easily use SL as a means to game people. Some people feel I have done precisely that. How can I say they're wrong, it's their feeling? It's just as possible for someone to believe they've been gamed as to believe that SL is a game.

Over the years, we've had this discussion many times. I share your opinion that many of those who say SL is a game are not defining "game" in the same way we usually do. I give them a pass. I'm less interested in what they believe than how they act.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

In Second Life it's possible to rezz things in some areas, but not in others. It's possible for one avatar to rezz an object in a certain place but another avatar might not be able to rezz the same object in the same place. These possibilities are determined by an internal system of
rules
.

The basic problem with your argument (besides the contradiction I just pointed out)
is that you base your case on a definition that you determine yourself without any sort of authority to back it up. You also tend to change your definitions in order to maintain your "correctness." For instance, I assume when you'll see this you'll maintain that the "rules" of Second Life aren't
gameplay
rules and you'll define "gameplay" in such a way that will make Second Life a not-game.

However, there
are
dictionary definitions of "game" that
would
encompass Second Life. Ojiro quoted one at the start of this thread. The reason you're using the definition you're using instead of another is your
opinion
.

If you look closely at what you quoted of mine, you'll see that I didn't say anything about rules. I only mentioned "gameplay rules". You (conveniently) omitted the word 'gameplay' to make your point, so your point is invalid
;)

What contradiction? I don't see one, and you certainly didn't point one out.

I base my case on what is univerally understood by the word 'game' in the context of the title of this thread.

There were 2 dictionary definitions stated earlier, one of which is the universally understood definiton in this thread's context, and that's the one I've been talking about and I believe the OP had in mind. We sometimes use the word 'game' for other things, such a the game of life, to game the search engines, and so on. We can find all sorts of other definitions besides the two that were quoted, some of which might even be applicable to SL, but none of them can ever make SL a game in the universally accepted meaning of what a game is.

 

 

A rule becomes a gameplay rule if it's used in a game.

You say that your definition is the "universally accepted" meaning without evidence. The fact that people disagree with you indicates that it can't be "universally" accepted. In the field of computing (which logically would encompass Second Life) the word "game" is routinely used to describe any recreational application, including those without fixed goals or competition. The commonly used terms "sandbox game" and "massively multiplayer online game" both describe Second Life quite well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

What I don't understand is why some people insist that SL is a game, when they know that SL itself can't be played. They never say what a person has to do in order to play the game, but they still insist that it is a game. That's beyond my comprehension.


It may not be possible to explain why some people insist that SL is a game. The word "pawn" is used to describe humans used like chess pieces in games they're often unaware are being played. Even when they feel they're being played, they may not understand how, or to what ends. When I feel like a pawn, I'm inclined to subvert the perceived intention. That doesn't mean I understand what, if anything, is going on.

Games can be single player. Someone entering SL with this mindset could call SL a game and proceed to manipulate us according to their whims. Our obliviousness does not negate the existence of their game. As I've said before, people can play aspects of RL as a game. You might not, I sometimes do.

Were I a bit less principled (but no less nefarious), I could easily use SL as a means to game people. Some people feel I have done precisely that. How can I say they're wrong, it's their feeling? It's just as possible for someone to believe they've been gamed as to believe that SL is a game.

Over the years, we've had this discussion many times. I share your opinion that many of those who say SL is a game are not defining "game" in the same way we
usually
do. I give them a pass. I'm less interested in what they believe than how they act. 

I mentioned single-player games earlier in the thread. I used Solitaire and Patience as examples. So I never suggested that games must have multiple players.

Your example of someone using SL as a means to game people, doesn't hold up, Maddy. What does hold up is that that person is playing a game IN SL, but s/he isn't playing the game OF SL. It's not been in dispute that people can play games in SL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

A rule becomes a gameplay rule if it's used in a game.

I can't dispute that. What I can dispute is that SL rules are used in a game, thus becoming gameplay rules. They are not., because SL itself isn't a game, so thoe rules are not used in a game.

You say that your definition is the "universally accepted" meaning without evidence. The fact that people disagree with you indicates that it
can't
be "universally" accepted.
In the field of computing (which logically would encompass Second Life) the word "game" is routinely used to describe
any
recreational application, including those without fixed goals or competition. The commonly used terms "sandbox
game
" and "massively multiplayer online
game
" both describe Second Life quite well.

People do not disagree with me about the first of the two definitions of 'game' that were posted. Nobody has disagreed with that. And nobody has even suggested that that definition is not the universally accepted meaning of the word 'game', when used in the context of the OP. What some people have argued, including you, is that the 2nd definition is the one that should be used in this case. But that definition isn't quite right in itself, as someone pointed out in a reply to you.

Nope, try as you might, Theresa, but when you talk about something being a game, you'd better be able to explain how to play it and what it is that the player plays to achieve - the gameplay rules.

The real world is not a game, although we all play games in it, and neither is the the Second Life world. They both have rules, but they are not 'gameplay rules'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

A rule becomes a gameplay rule if it's used in a game.

I can't dispute that. What I can dispute is that SL rules are used in a game, thus becoming gameplay rules. They are not., because SL itself isn't a game, so thoe rules are not used in a game.

You say that your definition is the "universally accepted" meaning without evidence. The fact that people disagree with you indicates that it
can't
be "universally" accepted.
In the field of computing (which logically would encompass Second Life) the word "game" is routinely used to describe
any
recreational application, including those without fixed goals or competition. The commonly used terms "sandbox
game
" and "massively multiplayer online
game
" both describe Second Life quite well.

People do
not
disagree with me about the first of the two definitions of 'game' that were posted.
Nobody
has disagreed with that. And nobody has even suggested that that definition is not the universally accepted meaning of the word 'game', when used in the context of the OP. What some people have argued, including you, is that the 2nd definition is the one that should be used in this case. But that definition isn't quite right in itself, as someone pointed out in a reply to you.

Nope, try as you might, Theresa, but when you talk about something being a game, you'd better be able to explain how to play it and what it is that the player plays to achieve - the gameplay rules.

The real world is not a game, although we all play games in it, and neither is the the Second Life world. They both have rules, but they are not 'gameplay rules'.

 

 

Monopoly is considered a game, though I rarely use it as such. I may play it according to its rules, but I ignore it's goals, which I find uninteresting. I might purposely lose to a child, but in a way I hope emphasizes empathy and compassion over greed. I'm playing my own game, using Monopoly as a tool. Although I'm not a fan of parlor games, it's not uncommon for me to get an aside from someone in the group regarding a subtext they felt in my participation. Again, I'm using the game as a tool.

According to my neighborhood high school, forensics, like chess and football, is a game. Although I was home schooled, I was on the forensics team. I played by the rules, though maybe my rulebook had more pages than the others. The coach noticed that my goals might not be his, and commented. I don't think I changed anything as a result of that discussion, but in retrospect it was the first of many indications I ignored that others do not see me as I do.

So, draw your "universally accepted" definitions anywhere in the sand you wish. The more clearly you draw them, the more easily I can (perhaps silently) reject them. As my father painstakingly knocked into my head over the years, certainty from an opponent is... a gift.

And finally, "game" is just a name. It's the underlying behavior that's important...

I do like the opening sentence.

;-).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1327 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...