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 1333 days.

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

Recommended Posts

I like the last sentence better. It applies to this discussion very well ;)

It doesn't matter how you played Monopoly. You played by gameplay rules. You rolled the dice, you moved your piece, and so on. Intentionally making decisions that caused you to lose wasn't changing the rules of the game at all. You still played an actual game.

Forensics isn't a game in the way that the word was used by the OP, and that's the only way we're discussing it here. The word 'game' is used in all sorts of ways. I stated a couple of them today in this thread. But other uses of the word make no difference as to whether or not SL is a game in the context that the question was asked.

According to the naysayers, everything in life can be considered as a game, and rightly so, because some people will treat all sorts of things as games. For example, gaming the search engine really was a game to me. Making money from SL was also a game to me. I thoroughly enjoyed both of them. But it's not a game in the context of the OP, or in the context of computer games. And neither is 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 dispute that assertion.

Some games have rules that are non-gameplay. For example, in LARP there are gameplay rules: how many spells a mage is allowed to cast, how many hits a warrior can withstand, and how progression occurs in the game. There are also rules that are non-gameplay: at some clubs there are minimum age limits, safety requirements for weapons and armour, and rules for the authenticity of costume. You have to follow these rules to be allowed to play, but they don't affect the gameplay element of the activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Phil Deakins wrote:

I like the last sentence better. It applies to this discussion very well 
;)

It doesn't matter how you played Monopoly. You played by gameplay rules. You rolled the dice, you moved your piece, and so on. Intentionally making decisions that caused you to lose wasn't changing the rules of the game at all. You still played an actual game.

Forensics isn't a game
in the way that the word was used by the OP, and that's the only way we're discussing it here.
The word 'game' is used in all sorts of ways. I stated a couple of them today in this thread. But other uses of the word make no difference as to whether or not SL is a game in the context that the question was asked.

According to the naysayers, everything in life can be considered as a game, and rightly so, because some people will treat all sorts of things as games. For example, gaming the search engine really was a game to me. Making money from SL was also a game to me. I thoroughly enjoyed both of them. But it's not a game in the context of the OP, or in the context of computer games. And neither is SL.

The bolded distinction you made was conspicuously absent your first few replies to this thread, which basically said "Second Life is not a game - full stop."

Meanwhile, you haven't addressed the point that it's standard practice in computer circles to refer to most recreational applications as "games", including those having no more built-in goals than the recreational computer application called Second Life.

You really need to define "gameplay" better - right now your reasoning is very circular. If rolling a die and moving a piece are gameplay rules in Monopoly, why isn't the fact that your avatar will move at certain set speeds in Second Life depending on what keys you press on the keyboard also a gameplay rule? Saying, "It's not gameplay because Second Life isn't a game" is begging the question.

Oh, and I just caught this one: You maintain that "the first posted" definition is the "universally accepted" one of game:

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

And yet you also say there are single-player games, which are by necessity non-competitive. "Universally accepted"? You don't even agree with yourself.

However, that's neither here nor there, because that's not the definition the original poster used anyway. He used:

"A game has to have set objectives for you to complete in order to progress and in a timely fashion."

Which would mean that many, many things that you'd assume would be games wouldn't be under that definition, including Monopoly (no time constraints). However, a forensic debate would be, by both definitions - it's competitive, has rules, a series of defined objectives, and  time constraints.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're just beating about the bush, Theresa.

Your response to the part of my post that you bolded is just plain silly. When there is a topic of conversation, as there was in this case right at the start, it is not necessary to restate the topic each time something is said. We just carry on, with everyome knowing what's being discussed. The OP started the topic, and it only became useful to restate what was being discussed when people, such as yourself, started to change it a little by bringing in other meanings of a word that were not intended by the OP. If you'd chosen to stay on topic, we wouldn't still be having this discussion.

You posted adequate evidence of it in the post I'm replying to, when you quoted the OP as saying, "A game has to have set objectives for you to complete [...]". From that, it is patently obvious that he meant 'game' in the most common and univerally accepted sense. It is very clear that he did not mean 'game' in any other sense. So your best bet is to stop arguing  about it. You can think of SL in any way you want to think of it, but the answer to the OP's question is a straight forward No.

Incidentally, when I say that things like Solitaire and the various Patience card games are games, they ARE games, regardless of some else's difinition of 'game' (that you quoted). So stop beating about the bush, and grasping at straws, and accept that SL is not a game in the sense that the OP meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

So stop beating about the bush, and grasping at straws, and accept that SL is not a game in the sense that the OP meant.

LordHappyCat made it quite clear that he doesn't think SL is a game in the sense he understands the term. But the question he asked (perhaps sloppily) is whether SL can be considered a game. He's clearly not considering it so, but others do, and I can (though I don't. Just because I can do something doesn't mean I will). And so, as I said in my first reply, the answer is "yes". No amount of arguing (okay, maybe a lot) on your part is going to convince me of anything other than arguing is a game to you, that you make up your own rules, and that your goal is to believe you are right.

And, as you can see, I play the same game.

;-).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right that I see arguing as a game. Well, 'game' is the wrong word really. It's fun. That's the proper word for the way I see them. For me, that's what it is and I enjoy it. It's why I miss the bot wars :)

BUT I don't argue unless I genunely believe I am right. I never argue just for the sake of it. For that reason, it would appear as though I always think I am right, and rightly so, because when I'm arguing on one side, I am doing so because I believe I am right. So I always think I am right when I am arguing. That's no different to anyone else, except those who argue just for the sake of it, regardless of whether they believe they are right or not.

What I don't do is make up my own rules to suit an argument. You said I do, but I don't. I never do that. I argue on facts and truth as best as I can. I wouldn't, for instance, attempt to change what was meant by a word, just because it has other meanings which suit my argument better. That's what's been happening in this thread, and not by me.

Not only that, but when I am shown, to my satisfaction, that I am wrong about something, I admit it and I accept it. It would be a long search but you can find examples if you go through all my posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

You are right that I see arguing as a game. Well, 'game' is the wrong word really. It's fun. That's the proper word for the way I see them. For me, that's what it is and I enjoy it. It's why I miss the bot wars
:)

BUT I don't argue unless I genunely believe I am right. I never argue just for the sake of it. For that reason, it would appear as though I always think I am right, and rightly so, because when I'm arguing on one side, I am doing so because I believe I am right. So I always think I am right when I am arguing. That's no different to anyone else, except those who argue just for the sake of it, regardless of whether they believe they are right or not.

What I don't do is make up my own rules to suit an argument. You said I do, but I don't. I never do that. I argue on facts and truth as best as I can. I wouldn't, for instance, attempt to change what was meant by a word, just because it has other meanings which suit my argument better. That's what's been happening in this thread, and not by me.

Not only that, but when I am shown, to my satisfaction, that I am wrong about something, I admit it and I accept it. It would be a long search but you can find examples if you go through all my posts.

I'm perfectly happy to argue on the wrong side of an argument, simply to see if the right side can withstand the strain. I did that all the time in engineering meetings, attacking ideas I thought were sound, much to the consternation of my colleagues, who truly couldn't tell which side I was on.

What I rarely do is argue from a position of certainty. If I really am certain, I'm unlikely to think there's anything to be gained by arguing. I'll think the opponent has nothing to teach me. I like learning.

And, as for changing the rules, maybe I'm not really doing that, but I'm willing to call on my life's experience, which goes well beyond the rules, to give me an edge. And I've had my ass handed to me on a plate by people who do that far better than I.

What I know for sure is that my goals are often not what people think they are, particularly when playing games.

;-).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

You're just beating about the bush, Theresa.

Your response to the part of my post that you bolded is just plain silly. When there is a topic of conversation, as there was in this case right at the start, it is not necessary to restate the topic each time something is said. We just carry on, with everyome knowing what's being discussed. The OP started the topic, and it only became useful to restate what was being discussed when people, such as yourself, started to change it a little by bringing in other meanings of a word that were not intended by the OP. If you'd chosen to stay on topic, we wouldn't still be having this discussion.

You posted adequate evidence of it in the post I'm replying to, when you quoted the OP as saying, "
A game has to have set objectives for you to complete [...]
".
From that, it is patently obvious that he meant 'game' in the most common and univerally accepted sense. It is very clear that he did not mean 'game' in any other sense.
So your best bet is to stop arguing  about it. You can think of SL in any way you want to think of it, but the answer to the OP's question is a straight forward No.

Incidentally, when I say that things like Solitaire and the various Patience card games are games, they ARE games, regardless of some else's difinition of 'game' (that you quoted). So stop beating about the bush, and grasping at straws, and accept that SL is not a game in the sense that the OP meant.

Unlike some participants in this discussion, the OP said exactly what he meant by game. He said, and I quote again, "A game has to have set objectives for you to complete in order to progress and in a timely fashion." This means either that:

1) What he said was the most common and universally accepted sense of game

OR

2) It is very clear and patently obvious that he meant "game" in another sense.

If I were to say, "My landlord won't allow me to have a tiger in my apartment even though the lease says it allows cats and everyone knows cats are any members of of the family Felidae, which includes tigers; my landlord is in the wrong, isn't he?" If we're only considering what I say, of course the answer is a straightforward "yes." However, it would be prudent to examine whether my definition was the appropriate one under the circumstances.

I'm still waiting on you to give us a usable, authoritative definition of "game." You were pretty happy with the quoted Dictionary Definition #1 until I pointed out that it required competition. Your "a game has to have gameplay rules" is utterly useless - it's basically saying "The definition of cat is an animal with catlike qualities."

I'm also waiting on you to refute the point that in the field that Second Life functions in, which is that of a computer application, the word "game" is commonly used for applications very similar to Second Life.

Actually, what I really expect is for you to do is to end this discussion with your usual, "There's no point in my continuing to post in this thread because I'm right and it's obvious that I'm right."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Actually, what I
really
expect is for you to do is to end this discussion with your usual, "There's no point in my continuing to post in this thread because I'm right and it's obvious that I'm right."

 

I see you are familiar with the usual PD act. Do not rule out the senility response when the act is challenged, a card that has been played more than once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Freya Mokusei wrote:

D'aw, I'mma blush. I don't miss much here and has been good to see you posting here again.
:)

It wasn't easy becoming a Lv142 Oldbie, unlocking all achievements and getting on the high tier-scores table long enough to become FIC. Luckily I maxed out my prim-magic and vwrsearch-fu skills early on and dodged all the mobs out for my XP. If SL wasn't such an obvious competitive gaming experience or had harder to find cheat codes I'm sure it'd have taken longer to defeat the final boss.

...Or maybe I just used SL as a creative, micro-economic and socialising platform to better myself and others around me through collaborative hard work and a persistant vision supported by internationally-located cool-peoples' points of view, and applied the lessons I learnt to my emerging professional life while making many many new friends and romantic partners.
:)

Maybe everything isn't so simple!

 

Jeeebus... I have been running around SL for years and have yet to get a single bloody XP.. What the heck? I don't think there is a SIM i haven't been to. WHat am I doing wrong? I wan to level up so i can win this game!!!

In all seriousness, I don't think SL is even remotely a game. Someone said "It's a game because you do things in it for fun" or somesuch. What if you only log in and make things to sell and only treat it as an online business? Is it then still a game? It's a platform, what you do in it matters. The platform is not a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Can SL be considered a game?" Of course it can. You could also consider the moon to be made of green cheese. Both would be wrong assumptions, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

You're just beating about the bush, Theresa.

Your response to the part of my post that you bolded is just plain silly. When there is a topic of conversation, as there was in this case right at the start, it is not necessary to restate the topic each time something is said. We just carry on, with everyome knowing what's being discussed. The OP started the topic, and it only became useful to restate what was being discussed when people, such as yourself, started to change it a little by bringing in other meanings of a word that were not intended by the OP. If you'd chosen to stay on topic, we wouldn't still be having this discussion.

You posted adequate evidence of it in the post I'm replying to, when you quoted the OP as saying, "
A game has to have set objectives for you to complete [...]
".
From that, it is patently obvious that he meant 'game' in the most common and univerally accepted sense. It is very clear that he did not mean 'game' in any other sense.
So your best bet is to stop arguing  about it. You can think of SL in any way you want to think of it, but the answer to the OP's question is a straight forward No.

Incidentally, when I say that things like Solitaire and the various Patience card games are games, they ARE games, regardless of some else's difinition of 'game' (that you quoted). So stop beating about the bush, and grasping at straws, and accept that SL is not a game in the sense that the OP meant.

Unlike some participants in this discussion, the OP said
exactly what he meant by game.
He said, and I qu
ote again,
"A game has to have set objectives for you to complete in order to progress
and in a timely fashion
."
This means either that
:

1)
What he said
was the most common and universally accepted sense of game

OR

2)
It is very clear and patently obvious that he meant "game" in another sense.

If I were to say, "My landlord won't allow me to have a tiger in my apartment even though the lease says it allows cats and everyone knows cats are any members of of the family
Felidae
, which includes tigers; my landlord is in the wrong, isn't he?" If we're only considering what
I say,
of course the answer is a straightforward
"yes."
However, it would be prudent to examine whether my definition was the appropriate one under the circumstances.

That makes sense. What it doesn't do is support your argument that SL is a game - if that's what you are arguing about. You see, unlike your landlord and the cats, the OP not only used the word 'game' but he also stated what he meant by it, so the OP's meaning was never open to discussion or opinion. It was what he said it was, and no amount of arguing that 'game' can mean other things, will change that.

I'm still waiting on
you
to give us a usable, authoritative definition of "game." You were pretty happy with the quoted Dictionary Definition #1 until I pointed out that it required competition. Your "a game has to have gameplay rules" is utterly useless - it's basically saying "The definition of
cat
is an animal with catlike qualities."

Nonense. I don't know if you pointed out that a game needs to be competitive, but I certainly did. I even went so far as to say that single-player games, such as Solitiare, are competitive in that the player is competing against the game itself. You can wait forever for the definiton you want from me, but you won't get one. My definition is irrelevant. The OP gave HIS definition and that's all that counts. It's his definiton that we're talking about. You can't have it any other way - unless, perhaps, you say something like,
SL is not a game in the way that you mean, but it could be considered a game in <such-and-such a way
>
.
But you haven't said anything like that.

I'm also waiting on you to refute the point that in the field that Second Life functions in, which is that of a computer application, the word "game" is commonly used for applications very similar to Second Life.

I don't need to refute it, because it's irrelevant. People can consider anything they like to be a game, but we haven't been discussing that. ALL we've been discussing is whether or not SL can be considered a game
in the sense that the OP meant 'game'
.

Actually, what I
really
expect is for you to do is to end this discussion with your usual, "There's no point in my continuing to post in this thread because I'm right and it's obvious that I'm right."

You're mistaking me for somebody else. I don't do that, and you saying that I do, doesn't make any difference to the fact that I don't. It just shows you up - that even you think your argument is so weak that you have throw in untruths in an attempt to .... well, whatever it's an attempt to do, it failed miserably. What I may do occasionqally, is say something like, "
You are entitled to your opinion, even though it's wrong, and it's clear that I am unable to change it. So I'm leaving this discussion now."
That's quite different, of course.

And, just for the record, remember that BOTH sides in an argument actually believe that they are right, or they wouldn't be arguing - unless it's Maddy
:)
Of course I think I'm right. That goes without saying. It also goes without saying that YOU think you are right. So don't be stupid enough to criticise someone for something that you yourself are doing
at the very same time
.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:


Freya Mokusei wrote:

D'aw, I'mma blush. I don't miss much here and has been good to see you posting here again.
:)

It wasn't easy becoming a Lv142 Oldbie, unlocking all achievements and getting on the high tier-scores table long enough to become FIC. Luckily I maxed out my prim-magic and vwrsearch-fu skills early on and dodged all the mobs out for my XP. If SL wasn't such an obvious competitive gaming experience or had harder to find cheat codes I'm sure it'd have taken longer to defeat the final boss.

...Or maybe I just used SL as a creative, micro-economic and socialising platform to better myself and others around me through collaborative hard work and a persistant vision supported by internationally-located cool-peoples' points of view, and applied the lessons I learnt to my emerging professional life while making many many new friends and romantic partners.
:)

Maybe everything isn't so simple!

 

Jeeebus... I have been running around SL for years and have yet to get a single bloody XP.. What the heck? I don't think there is a SIM i haven't been to. WHat am I doing wrong? I wan to level up so i can win this game!!!

In all seriousness, I don't think SL is even remotely a game. Someone said "It's a game because you do things in it for fun" or somesuch. What if you only log in and make things to sell and only treat it as an online business? Is it then still a game? It's a platform, what you do in it matters. The platform is not a game.

Actually your problem is you haven't been on Second Life long enough. Linden Lab used to pay venue owners Lindens based on how long avatars spent on their lots. It was called "dwell."

I came to Second Life from The Sims series games, which are similiar in a number of ways as both involve creating simulated people and building simulated structures, and both don't have a formal way of "winning/losing" them or fixed objectives. There is even a market for third party game modifications and user content. Many of the Maxis games were like that and Will Wright, the founder of Maxis, preferred to call them "software toys." However, to buy them you went to the game store, because that's the terminology that is typically used in computer circles. In the rest of life you go to a toy store to buy a game (or other toy); in computer circles you go to a game store to buy a toy (or other game.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


LordHappycat wrote:

I find it with mild irritation that some people refer to Second Life as a game.

It is absolutely amazing that so many people have so much vested in demanding others do not refer to SL in certain ways.

This topic seems to come up every few days somewhere in SL. SL is, for different people, different things. Might as well just accept that, get over it, and stop turning one's feather's being ruffled at how someone else is perceiving SL into such drama.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a ludicrous argument, Theresa. I used to sell chess computers into furniture shops, and even into a musical instrument shop that also sold VCR, TVS, etc., because they fit with in what they were selling. Did that make those chess computers furniture or musical instruments? Of course not. They were games. Shops sell items that fit with their stock in trade and that they think will sell. So Sims in a computer games shop fits with the shops wares, but it doesn't change what it is.

I'm sure that the Wii and Xbox are also sold in games shops. After all, that's where they belong, but they are not games. You play games on them, of course. That's what they do but, in themelves, they are not games. You never play the Xbox. You play a game ON the Xbox. Similarly, SL in itself is not game but you can play games in it.

Take a brand new SL - no users, nobody has joined, nothing has been created. It's just there, stright out of the box. Then you log in. What is the game that you play? You may say that it's fun simply being there, and that that's your game, but that's not what the OP described as a game, and we are ONLY discussing the OP's understanding of what a game is. It also happens to be the most universally accepted and understood meaning of the word, but that's incidental ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious about this whole "universally accepted" term being tossed around.

As I understand it, something can only be universally accepted it the majority(at the very minimum, maximum being the entirety of the world) have the same opinion or belief in it. To that end, how can something be universally accepted if the majority do not feel the same about it? Wouldn't one need a much larger sampling of opinions to determine universally accepted...things, especially somewhere like sl? A small sampling from the forums is hardly indicative of such, if we look at the platform in a global sense, anyway, there's just not enough of us here. I guarantee if you ask "can sl be considered a game?" inworld, you will get a lot more YES answers, than you will here. 

I know, it's probably semantics...but it is an odd curiosity I have had while reading this entire thread.

My own personal opinion on whether or not sl is a game, I don't really think is relevant to anyone other than me. But, I don't personally believe it is, I believe it is a vast virtual environment, chock full of all kinds of things and possibilities, wherein games and such CAN take place, but likely don't make up the majority of the activities in which residents participate.(note the *likely* since I cannot speak in certainties, my mind reading capabilities are still charging)

 

But the actual question in the OP title doesn't ask us if sl *IS* a game, but it asks us whether or not it can be *considered* a game. The answer to that is a resounding yes. Because people can consider things whatever they want to consider them, whether or not they are right, have the universally accepted opinion, are dead wrong, or whatever else have you.

There are some things in life that I, personally, believe are child abuse. Others, do not share my opinion, and in some cases, neither doe the law. That doesn't change the fact that *I* consider them abuse, so, therefore, they *can* be considered such(even if I am wrong-though, I'm not :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

That's a ludicrous argument, Theresa. I used to sell chess computers into furniture shops, and even into a musical instrument shop that also sold VCR, TVS, etc., because they fit with in what they were selling. Did that make those chess computers furniture or musical instruments? Of course not. They were games. Shops sell items that fit with their stock in trade and that they think will sell.
 So Sims in a computer games shop fits with the shops wares, but it doesn't change what it is.

Right -  because it's a
computer game
. It appears on
computer game sales charts
. Because under the standard terminology of the computer industry, it's
considered to be
a computer game. The definition of "game" in computer circles is far wider than it is in most other circles. And the computer circle is the one that encompasses Second Life.

I'm sure that the Wii and Xbox are also sold in games shops. After all, that's where they belong, but they are not games. You play games on them, of course. That's what they do but, in themelves, they are not games. You never play the Xbox. You play a game ON the Xbox. Similarly, SL in itself is not game but you can play games in it.

And yet, I hear people saying, "I'm going over to so-and-so's house to play X-box"

Take a brand new SL - no users, nobody has joined, nothing has been created. It's just there, stright out of the box. Then you log in. What is the game that you play? You may say that it's fun simply being there, and that that's your game,
but that's not what the OP described as a game, and we are ONLY discussing the OP's understanding of what a game is. It also happens to be the most universally accepted and understood meaning of the word, but that's incidental
;)

We went over that one several times. The OP's understanding of the meaning of "game" as defined in the first post
isn't
the "most universally accepted and understood meaning", because he injected the time constraint factor. You now say that the OP's understanding is the only meaning we should be considering, despite the fact that you used different definitions yourself and you have been describing things as "games" in this thread that aren't games according to the OP's stated definition.

Incidentally, when Second Life opened it already had multiple regions and pre-built amenities, and before it became what it was then it was actually a shooting game where you terraformed with grenades.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in blue.


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

That's a ludicrous argument, Theresa. I used to sell chess computers into furniture shops, and even into a musical instrument shop that also sold VCR, TVS, etc., because they fit with in what they were selling. Did that make those chess computers furniture or musical instruments? Of course not. They were games. Shops sell items that fit with their stock in trade and that they think will sell.
 So Sims in a computer games shop fits with the shops wares, but it doesn't change what it is.

Right -  because it's a
computer game
. It appears on
computer game sales charts
. Because under the standard terminology of the computer industry, it's
considered to be
a computer game. The definition of "game" in computer circles is far wider than it is in most other circles. And the computer circle is the one that encompasses Second Life.

You make an awful lot of wide-sweeping statements, and expect them to be believed. The creator of something you mentioned said that it was a computer toy - specifically not a game, and yet you went against that and claimed it as a game to try and add to your argument.. But, since I've never used Sims, am I right in thinking that it's like Sim City? If it is, I'd class it as a game, not because there are specifically focussed goals to achieve but because there is an overall goal - a goal that doesn't actually have an end like most games do. The goal is to create a city. SL doesn't have anything like that. The player plays it against the sytem, which produces tornados and goodness know what else. I had very limited experience of it. So, if Sims is anything like that, I'd call it a game.

SL isn't anything like that. It's just an environment in which you can do a lot of things. Like Xbox is a sort of environment in which you can play games.

I'm sure that the Wii and Xbox are also sold in games shops. After all, that's where they belong, but they are not games. You play games on them, of course. That's what they do but, in themelves, they are not games. You never play the Xbox. You play a game ON the Xbox. Similarly, SL in itself is not game but you can play games in it.

And yet, I hear people saying, "I'm going over to so-and-so's house to play X-box"

Don't be ridiculous. It doesn't matter what someone might say. It's what they do that matters, and they don't play Xbox. They play games ON Xbox. Oh, and where do you hear people saying that, anyway? What people? You do realise that I believe you just made it up, don't you?

Take a brand new SL - no users, nobody has joined, nothing has been created. It's just there, stright out of the box. Then you log in. What is the game that you play? You may say that it's fun simply being there, and that that's your game,
but that's not what the OP described as a game, and we are ONLY discussing the OP's understanding of what a game is. It also happens to be the most universally accepted and understood meaning of the word, but that's incidental
;)

We went over that one several times. The OP's understanding of the meaning of "game" as defined in the first post
isn't
the "most universally accepted and understood meaning", because he injected the time constraint factor. You now say that the OP's understanding is the only meaning we should be considering, despite the fact that you used different definitions yourself and you have been describing things as "games" in this thread that aren't games according to the OP's stated definition.

Stop making thing up. It doesn't become you. I've only used one definition of 'game', albeit with different words. I'm not a dictionary that can produce the identical sentence every time. We ALL know what a game is. ALL of us. You included. You are just arguing for the sake of it. You're getting absolutely nowhere with the silly pedantic/semantic arguments, but that's your choice. When you realise that the ONLY meaning that matters to this discussion is the OP's, then you might start to get somewhere with your understanding.

Incidentally, when Second Life opened it already had multiple regions and pre-built amenities, and before it became what it was then it was actually a shooting game where you terraformed with grenades.

Whatever it was back then, it isn't that now, is it?
;)
 

What I don't understand is why you keep on about it. Why does it matter to you that people consider SL to be a game? Could it be that you're trying to win an argument for the sake of winning an argument? Or could it be that you don't want to give in, even when it's become abundantly clear that SL, in itself, is not a game, even though some people think of it a such?

ETA: I'm reminded of a thread from many years ago, in whcih I made a true statement. But one or two people didn't like the statement, and posted against it. Then it seemed like the whole of the forum got on my back, in most cases arguing against their own native language. I'd written "
many, perhaps most
" and all they wanted to do was argue that the word 'many' actually means 'majority'. Not only that, but they also wanted to persuade me that 'majority' is what I meant. They were all stupid, of course. If I'd meant majority, I certainly wouldn't have include "
perhaps most"
- most actually means majority

I'm not suggesting that you are stupid, but I am suggesting that you are arguing something that simply isn't true. We all know what a game is, and we can all give loads of examples of games. But you're arguing that a game is something different, as well as what we all "universally" know. You are correct because it is in many ways, but that's not the point. The point is what the OP meant by it, and your arguments aren't about that at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

We are ONLY discussing the OP's understanding.

And just as with Bible study, we've used 100x as many words as the OP to do it. And he, like the Apostles, is not here (two posts out of 93 and rising).

;-).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm not suggesting that you are stupid, but I am suggesting that you are arguing something that simply isn't true. We all know what a game is, and we can all give loads of examples of games. But you're arguing that a game is something different, as well as what we all "universally" know. You are correct because it is in many ways, but that's not the point. The point is what the OP meant by it, and your arguments aren't about that at all.

Actually my goal is to make you act exactly like you're acting, because it amuses me.

For the sake of the argument, I will accept that the definition of "game" for the purpose of this thread is what the original poster meant.

Rationally, therefore, we must assume that the original poster meant what he said. This is what the original poster said:

For me, a game has to have set objectives for you to complete in order to progress and in a timely fashion. All of those quirks that makes a game strictly that - a game. Not just a part.

So, I really shake my head whenever someone says "I play Second Life". How are you playing it? Do you IM enough people that scores you 100 points each? Are you time-restricted with how often you can walk around? I fail to grasp this.

Note the two separate references to time constraints, and the idea of completion and progression. By this definition Second Life most certainly isn't a game.

Neither are Monopoly or Solitaire (no time constraints.)

Competitive chess has time constraints but no progression - there are no sub-objectives.

I could go on and on, and the count of deposed pretenders to the title of "game" would be staggering.

Are you sure this is the argument you want to make? You keep saying "we all know" what games are, but when somebody says that they could consider Second Life to be a game you immediately say that it can't be one.

You say this about people who call Second LIfe a game:

"I think that those who refer to SL as a game, do so because they are used to playing games, and the SL environment looks a lot like one. Also, I think that such people are usually quite new and haven't yet realised what SL is. They are probably still trying to find out 'how to play this game'."

Have you considered the possibility that people who say Second Life isn't a game might say it because they aren't really that familiar with the full spectrum of "games"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that the term "Game" is used simply because there is no more suitable term? That the vagueness of the term in the context of Second Life is due more to its failure to "fit' in any predefined category? And that this argument continues to continue simply because we aren't really sure what it is?

"One man's meat is another man's poison."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in red.


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm not suggesting that you are stupid, but I am suggesting that you are arguing something that simply isn't true. We all know what a game is, and we can all give loads of examples of games. But you're arguing that a game is something different, as well as what we all "universally" know. You are correct because it is in many ways, but that's not the point. The point is what the OP meant by it, and your arguments aren't about that at all.

Actually my goal is to make you act exactly like you're acting, because it amuses me.

Really? lol. You're playing MY game
;)
So you're just arguing to make me argue, knowing that I enjoy a good argument. As you wish 
:)

For the sake of the argument, I will accept that the definition of "game" for the purpose of this thread is what the original poster meant.
You have no choice, but I'm glad you finally see it.

Rationally, therefore, we must assume that the original poster meant what he
said
.
This
is what the original poster
said
:

For me, a game has to have set objectives for you to complete in order to progress and in a timely fashion. All of those quirks that makes a game strictly that - a game. Not just a part.

So, I really shake my head whenever someone says "I play Second Life". How are you playing it? Do you IM enough people that scores you 100 points each? Are you time-restricted with how often you can walk around? I fail to grasp this.

Note the two separate references to time constraints, and the idea of completion and progression. By this definition Second Life most certainly isn't a game.
It never was. Glad you finally got it 
:)

Neither are Monopoly or Solitaire (no time constraints.)

They don't need to be. You are inventing things again. The OP didn't say that there must be "time constraints" in order for a game to be a game. "In a timely fashion" doesn't mean that it has to be completed within a preset time - no time constraints. It just means that it needs to progress, which is obvious. If a game isn't progressing, then it isn't being played at all - stopped in the middle, perhaps.

His second reference (you said there were 2) - "time-restricted" - was just a suggestion of a possible gameplay. He didn't say that a game player HAS to be time-restricted. In
exactly
 the same way, and immediately before it, he asked about IMing people to score points. He didn't that has to happen for it be a game. It was just a short list of examples of many possible gameplays that would make something a game. So the 2nd reference is invalid in your argument.

It's most interesting to note that you didn't point out that he said that "
a game has to have set objectives for you to complete"
. If you had, then you would have shot your
whole
 arguments in the foot. Your omission is interesting because you made an attempt at cherry-picking certain phrases in order to support your arguments. But it failed because the 1st 'time' phrase didn't match what you said about it, and the 2nd one was totally invalid. You either misunderstood what he wrote, even though you quoted it and held it up to support your case, or you are happy to make things up, in which case, you are not very good at arguing
:)

Competitive chess has time constraints but no progression - there are no sub-objectives.

Of course chess has progression. Are you limiting the word 'progression' to something that only you understand? The first move is a progression towards an end, as are all the moves after it. Sub-objectives is something you've just invented and thrown into the mix quite wrongly. (Where do you get these things from?). Nevertheless, chess does have sub-objectives. Have you played chess? I've played at county level - a long long time ago
:)

I could go on and on, and the count of deposed pretenders to the title of "game" would be staggering.

Please do go on. You haven't yet "deposed" any pretenders to the title of 'game'.

Are you sure this is the argument you want to make? You keep saying "we all know" what games are, but when somebody says that they could consider Second Life to be a game you immediately say that it can't be one.

More inventions on your part? Of course it's the argument I want to continue making. You haven't written anything that actually opposes it. You've had intent, of course, but none of your arguments have held up in the face of scrutiny. We've seen that, and we keep seeing it
:)
Incidentally, I don't deny people the option of thinking that SL is a game. Everyone is perfectly free to think what they like. I simply say that it isn't, because it doesn't have any of the characteristics of a game.

You say this about people who call Second LIfe a game:

"I think that those who refer to SL as a game, do so because they are used to playing games, and the SL environment looks a lot like one. Also, I think that such people are usually quite new and haven't yet realised what SL is. They are probably still trying to find out 'how to play this game'."

Have you considered the possibility that people who say Second Life
isn't
a game might say it because they aren't really that familiar with the full spectrum of "games"?

Nope. I said it from my own experience. My previous online multi-user experience was a text adventure (a D&D type) and, when I first arrived in SL, I expected it to be something similar to that, but in graphics. I wanted to know where the centre was where people gathered, and I asked. In other words, I was expecting it to be something that it wasn't. Not an actual game but something from my multi-user experience. So I suggested that other people might do the same. I.e. they are used to video games so, when they see something that looks like one, they assume that it is one. It was as simple a that. Wasn't it a waste of time digging up that paragraph of mine?
:)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

What if you only log in and make things to sell and only treat it as an online business? Is it then still a game? It's a platform, what you do in it matters.


I first joined SL when I was just shy of 19 years old. I was living with other members of my family back then, and sometimes my mother (not a practical person, and also not someone who understands any kind of technology) would pop her head in and tell me to go to bed as I probably had college/university/work in a couple of hours.

She wasn't aware that I was learning programming, developing one of the earliest examples of distributed prim-counting rental system or a fully autonomous asset distribution server that built its own web-based catalogue. She didn't know I was learning how to build websites, develop and design databases.

So I was told "Stop playing games and go to bed."

See, people like dichotomies. They make things easier to understand and reduce understanding to either/or. Most people are busy and self-involved, they want to categorise an activity and move on. Either you're passing or you're failing, winning or losing. Either you're hard at work studying Excel sheets and Google Scholar, or you're goofing around in some pretty looking 3D "game", flying and dancing. There's no room in peoples' heads for both possibilities or for nuance to take hold, as this would require investing time into working out the motivations and rewards involved. Plenty of people don't have time for this interrogation (many people don't even run these tests against their jobs, relationships), even the users of Second Life - most often - just want to head back in-world and have more good times. Can't blame them.

That's why I think this terminology sticks. I don't think it's a particularly harmful thing, SL is plenty hard to grasp as you're introduced to it for the first time.

My mother's still frequently wrong, and I still sleep on the floor of my scrounged-together 'study' rather than going to bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm in red.

Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm not suggesting that you are stupid, but I am suggesting that you are arguing something that simply isn't true. We all know what a game is, and we can all give loads of examples of games. But you're arguing that a game is something different, as well as what we all "universally" know. You are correct because it is in many ways, but that's not the point. The point is what the OP meant by it, and your arguments aren't about that at all.

Actually my goal is to make you act exactly like you're acting, because it amuses me.

Really? lol. You're playing MY game
;)
So you're just arguing to make me argue, knowing that I enjoy a good argument. As you wish 
:)

For the sake of the argument, I will accept that the definition of "game" for the purpose of this thread is what the original poster meant.
You have no choice, but I'm glad you finally see it.

Rationally, therefore, we must assume that the original poster meant what he
said
.
This
is what the original poster
said
:

For me, a game has to have set objectives for you to complete in order to progress and in a timely fashion. All of those quirks that makes a game strictly that - a game. Not just a part.

So, I really shake my head whenever someone says "I play Second Life". How are you playing it? Do you IM enough people that scores you 100 points each? Are you time-restricted with how often you can walk around? I fail to grasp this.

Note the two separate references to time constraints, and the idea of completion and progression. By this definition Second Life most certainly isn't a game.
It never was. Glad you finally got it 
:)

Neither are Monopoly or Solitaire (no time constraints.)

They don't need to be. You are inventing things again. The OP didn't say that there must be "time constraints" in order for a game to be a game. "In a timely fashion" doesn't mean that it has to be completed within a preset time - no time constraints. It just means that it needs to progress, which is obvious. If a game isn't progressing, then it isn't being played at all - stopped in the middle, perhaps.

His second reference (you said there were 2) - "time-restricted" - was just a suggestion of a possible gameplay. He didn't say that a game player HAS to be time-restricted. In
exactly
 the same way, and immediately before it, he asked about IMing people to score points. He didn't that has to happen for it be a game. It was just a short list of examples of many possible gameplays that would make something a game. So the 2nd reference is invalid in your argument.

It's most interesting to note that you didn't point out that he said that "
a game has to have set objectives for you to complete"
. If you had, then you would have shot your
whole
 arguments in the foot. Your omission is interesting because you made an attempt at cherry-picking certain phrases in order to support your arguments. But it failed because the 1st 'time' phrase didn't match what you said about it, and the 2nd one was totally invalid. You either misunderstood what he wrote, even though you quoted it and held it up to support your case, or you are happy to make things up, in which case, you are not very good at arguing
:)

Competitive chess has time constraints but no progression - there are no sub-objectives.

Of course chess has progression. Are you limiting the word 'progression' to something that only you understand? The first move is a progression towards an end, as are all the moves after it. Sub-objectives is something you've just invented and thrown into the mix quite wrongly. (Where do you get these things from?). Nevertheless, chess does have sub-objectives. Have you played chess? I've played at county level - a long long time ago
:)

I could go on and on, and the count of deposed pretenders to the title of "game" would be staggering.

Please do go on. You haven't yet "deposed" any pretenders to the title of 'game'.

Are you sure this is the argument you want to make? You keep saying "we all know" what games are, but when somebody says that they could consider Second Life to be a game you immediately say that it can't be one.

More inventions on your part? Of course it's the argument I want to continue making. You haven't written anything that actually opposes it. You've had intent, of course, but none of your arguments have held up in the face of scrutiny. We've seen that, and we keep seeing it
:)
Incidentally, I don't deny people the option of thinking that SL is a game. Everyone is perfectly free to think what they like. I simply say that it isn't, because it doesn't have any of the characteristics of a game.

You say this about people who call Second LIfe a game:

"I think that those who refer to SL as a game, do so because they are used to playing games, and the SL environment looks a lot like one. Also, I think that such people are usually quite new and haven't yet realised what SL is. They are probably still trying to find out 'how to play this game'."

Have you considered the possibility that people who say Second Life
isn't
a game might say it because they aren't really that familiar with the full spectrum of "games"?

Nope. I said it from my own experience. My previous online multi-user experience was a text adventure (a D&D type) and, when I first arrived in SL, I expected it to be something similar to that, but in graphics. I wanted to know where the centre was where people gathered, and I asked. In other words, I was expecting it to be something that it wasn't. Not an actual game but something from my multi-user experience. So I suggested that other people might do the same. I.e. they are used to video games so, when they see something that looks like one, they assume that it is one. It was as simple a that. Wasn't it a waste of time digging up that paragraph of mine?
:)

 

So, just to confirm: what the original poster actually meant was what a person using a Second Life avatar named Phil Deakins says he meant, and what he meant just happened to confirm what this person snapped off in his first post of the thread?

Now, seeing that you've brought up Dungeons and Dragons (here I refer to the original version of it, not a computer version), I ask you - is it a game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Nothing in the way of answers now, eh?

So, just to confirm: what the original poster actually
meant
was what a person using a Second Life avatar named Phil Deakins
says
he meant, and what he meant
just happened
to confirm what this person snapped off in his first post of the thread?

Not at all. I simply read his post at face value, and without trying to twist any alternative meanings out of it. There is no need to twist alternative meanings out of it. No need at all. You can never prove to me that SL is a game, and I can never prove to you that SL isn't a game. So what? Why twist alternative meanings out of the OP? If you want to think of SL as a game, it's fine with me. I don't feel the need to persuade you otherwise come hell or high water. But as long as you, or anyone else, tries to persuade me that it is a game, I will continue to defunk the arguments, and post sound reasonings that it is not. And I'll continue to enjoy it :)

Now, seeing that you've brought up Dungeons and Dragons (here I refer to the original version of it, not a computer version), I ask you - is it a game?

I never played D&D, the original or the computer version, and I never said I did. I've never even seen it. What I did play was a UK D&D-like game. That's what I said. It was called Shades. I've no idea whether or not D&D is/was a game. It doesn't matter one way or the other. Shades was definitely a game though. It's interesting to see how quickly you jumped on the mention of D&D, presumably thinking that you can score a point with it. Wrong again, Theresa ;)


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1333 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...