Jump to content

Can Second Life be even considered a "Game"?

LordHappycat

By LordHappycat,
in General Discussion Forum

 Share
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2684 days.

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

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 329
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Theresa Tennyson

Theresa Tennyson

Posted
Posted

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

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
.

Now I'll return to my original post in this thread - note that I never directly replied to the OP or specifically stated that Second Life is a game. Instead, I was replying to Phil Deakins, saying that he tends to behave a certain way on the forums. Consider this the affirmative case of the debate. Phil, of course, will say that he doesn't, basically by saying "I don't do that." However, the opinions of the participants in a debate as to who won it are of course meaningless.

Judges?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phil Deakins

Phil Deakins

Posted
Posted

LMAO! :smileyvery-happy:

Run out of sensible answers, have you? And resorting to other people's posts in a last ditch attempt to hold your end up? I LOVE IT! :smileyvery-happy:

You appear to be winding down now. You have finally resorted to writing only negative stuff about me personally. That's always a sign of someone who can't find a way to hold their end up in an argument.

Since you appear to have no more arguments to put forward, and because you have failed to answer most of the sensible points I put to you (I do notice, y'know ;) It's typical of those who cannot come up with suitable answers but still want to carry on. I haven't felt the need to challenge you about it because you've always given me more suitable stuff to shoot down, so I haven't needed to). But I'll say that you did say one true thing in your last post - along the lines of that it's irrelevent who won the argument. As a matter of fact we both won it, because it absolutely doesn't matter whether each person considers SL to be a game or not. Nobody cares, and I include me as one of the nobodies :) And you :) As has been said a number of times in this thread, it really doesn't matter one way or the other what each person thinks. SL is what it is, and what anyone thinks it is doesn't change what it is it.

I DO behave in certain ways in the forum. You are not wrong about that. You've been here long enough, so you should know that. It's no secret. But I don't do everything that is sometimes said about me. Just because it's said doesn't mean it's true. You've made stuff up about me a couple of times in this thread, and Maddy was wrong, that's all. Because they are getting nowhere with an argument, some people turn to minor accusations like that (Maddy has other reasons ;) ). In those cases, I do say that "I don't do that", but only when it's true that I don't do it. It's common knowledge here that I enjoy a good argument, and I've become very experienced at people resorting to personal attacks - some minor like yours have been, and some major. It's what some people resort to when their arguments fail, or when they get frustrated because their arguments are not being accepted. It's what you just did. And you did it a couple of times during the thread. You tried long enough to twist what the OP wrote into other meanings, but it didn't work. You even made things up along the way (about chess among many more), but that didn't work either. So now you've resorted to soliciting someone else's post in an attempt to make a minor personal attack - very very minor, but nevertheless personal, and nothing to do with the discussion. That failed too.

I hope the whole thing has been sufficiently amusing for you. It's been very enjoyable for me :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HarrisonMcKenzie

HarrisonMcKenzie

Posted
Posted

I am shocked that this argument is still going on.

 

Let me approach this from a different angle. Why is it so terrible, so abhorrent for someone to call SL a game that we have to attack each other? What is so important that you have to argue with people for weeks about something that doesn't matter? Is calligraphy SL a game or not a game so horrible that it would destroy your reality to classify it?

 

I consider SL a game, which thus answers the OP's question about it being considered a game. But what is so nd about video games and this label that it would cause people to lose their minds over it and argue to no end everytime this comes up? And in the reverse, why would someone saying it isn't a game cause such a visceral and negative reaction? Why does it matter? How does labeling it prevent you from enjoying it?

 

I like the colour green, hate eating steak, and don't care for soccer. Those are called opinions and preferences. Opinions and preferences differ from person to person. No one is burning me at the stake or having their reality shattered because they like red more. Me not liking doesn't prevent you from enjoying it.

 

Again, to me, SL is a game. But I know and am friends with people who see SL as a job, a joke, or as literally the only means they have to experience life. I have friends who have literally are their avatar and use SL as a form of therapy and to allow them to be their own person. There's nothing wrong with any of that. Our opinions and preferences about SL are just that.

 

So please, for the love of god, explain to me why it is so important that SL be or not be a game, and why you must crusade with sword and fire to keep people from disagreeing with you. Please show me on the doll where the video game touched you, because I simply cannot comprehend why this is such and issue for people. I don't care what you opinion is because it affect me in a negative way. I don't care if you think SL isn't a game because it doesn't rob me of my ability to enjoy it. And you should care that I think it is a game because that shouldn't rob you of your enjoyment of it.

 

I *play* SL, but it's ok if you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phil Deakins

Phil Deakins

Posted
Posted

You replied to the OP's original post, but what you wrote indicates that you weren't addressing him.

There was no need to be shocked that this argumnet is still going on, because it wasn't still going on until you just posted.

Also, you can't have been reading the thread or you wouldn't have written much of what you wrote. In a nutshell, nobody minds what other people think SL is. Does that relieve the shock?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HarrisonMcKenzie

HarrisonMcKenzie

Posted
Posted

If only you could here the sigh I just made.

1. I clicked Reply for the thread. That is how the internet works. What does it matter which post I replied to?

2. The last post before I replied was less than 2 days prior. And in an 11 page thread that has been going on for weeks, that means it's still active. Again, that's how the internet works.

3. I really have no idea where you are coming from. I read, and commented on, PAGES of posts. So yeah. I read most of this thread, and it is nothing more that a peeing match of people arguing about nothing. I'm not sure how you came up with your conclusion, because I see 11 pages of people arguing intensley about whether SL is a game or not.

So thank you for your pointless reply to my post, which you obviously didn't read or think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phil Deakins

Phil Deakins

Posted
Posted

You are mistaken, Harrison. If you'd read the last posts, you would have seen that the discussion had ended 2 whole days earlier (as you noticed) and, therefore, it was not "still active". That's how the internet works ;)  Actually, that's how life works too.

There may well have been 11 pages of "peeing contest", but that was over 2 days before you resurrected it again. Most of the latter pages were just me and Theresa enjoying the argument. Not really a pissing contest at all. Just having a bit of enjoyment. Theresa said that it amuses her, and it's common knowledge that I enjoy a decent argument. That was all said in the thread. You would have known if you'd read it all. So "peeing contest" isn't an accurate description. Competitive arguing for pleasure is much better :)

Nope, Harrison. The only one left arguing was you - when you chose to resurrect a closed agument, in order to argue about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Rhonda Huntress

Rhonda Huntress

Posted
Posted

Th3Unkn0wn wrote:

YES ITS A GAME YOU PLAY IT ON YOUR COMPUTER DON'T YOU JUST LIKE WARFACE L4D2 ANY OF THOSE GAMES 

Just like Word or Outlook or Excel or Photoshop or Skype or SQL Server or Quicken or Internet Explorer or Visuall C# or Python or Google or AutoCAD or Calibre or Mathmatica or Blender or Notepad or Rosetta Stone or Hyperterm or Oracle or Foxit or Snagit or RSA ID or even DOS 3_point_freakin'_4

What's your point? 

 

I can create games you can play in Excel; does that make Excel a game?  Second Life is a tool.  You can create games with it.  You can poly games with it.

I have heard quite a few compelling arguments on the "it is a game" side.  Not one of them have ever used CapsLock.

 

Just saying.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nalytha

Nalytha

Posted
Posted

I realized I contributed to going off topic in that other thread. Oh, great. Look I can actually say something on topic! 

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. Many of you already know I contend that Second Life qualifies as a game. 

But something some of you have said has been rolling around in my brain: A game has an objective. Second Life doesn't. Well, I'd have to argue Second Life DOES have an objective. A rather large one: Create Second Life. It is the player's task to build this world. From building the smallest bits of detail like textures and grass to the grandest mansions. From building sims where you can go to amusement parks or meditate in the woods. From building an economy in Second Life, where everyone is a player - whether you create, buy, or even just use "freebies." 

You may argue, "I don't build anything. So you are wrong." I would argue by the very fact that you log in and in some way interact in this world, you are in fact contributing to it's creation and longevity. You are a participant. You are a consumer. You are the demand that the suppliers (builders) need to keep creating, for them to find it worthwhile. 

Flying around Second Life, I'm sort of reminded of Minecraft. What's the point of that game? Create. So, yes, you need to deal with the things that go bump in the night. To me, that can just be replaced by player controlled characters -- griefers. (Yes, some games let you play as the good or bad guys). If you were to turn off the monster option in Minecraft, and all that was left was the ability to create, would you say Minecraft is not a game? I think creation games are some of the coolest. 

At the end of the day, this argument will never be solved. I suppose we have to accept that to some Second Life users, Second Life IS a game and to some, it is not. I guess to some people, it's just a chatroom with avatars. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ilithios Liebknecht

Ilithios Liebknecht

Posted
Posted

As one can see by reading through this quite lengthy thread, SL is most certainly a game by any definition that does not exclude other things which are clearly games, for example Minecraft, The Sims, and even GTA V.

Some people may try to argue that the fact that some people make their RL living from it makes it not inherently a game, but this also does not hold up. There are people who make an RL living from other computer games as well, notably Starcraft competitors and MMO gold farmers among others. Instead of reclassifying the game as no longer a game, we call these people professional gamers.

I suspect that certain people have a vested interest in convincing themselves that SL is not a game because they don't want to feel like they have dedicated so much of their lives to something that is "only" a game. However, if you see games for the wide spectrum they are, understand that gaming can be and often is a worthwhile pursuit during which people develop real skills and real relationships, and not just a waste of time, this should no longer be an issue.

In the end discussing whether or not SL is a "game" is nothing more than an intellectual exercise of course. Calling it a game or not calling it that won't change anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phil Deakins

Phil Deakins

Posted
Posted

Ilithios Liebknecht wrote:

As one can see by reading through this quite lengthy thread, SL is most certainly a game by any definition that does not exclude other things which are clearly games, for example Minecraft, The Sims, and even GTA V.

Some people may try to argue that the fact that some people make their RL living from it makes it not inherently a game, but this also does not hold up. There are people who make an RL living from other computer games as well, notably Starcraft competitors and MMO gold farmers among others. Instead of reclassifying the game as no longer a game, we call these people professional gamers.

I suspect that certain people have a vested interest in convincing themselves that SL is not a game because they don't want to feel like they have dedicated so much of their lives to something that is "only" a game. However, if you see games for the wide spectrum they are, understand that gaming can be and often is a worthwhile pursuit during which people develop real skills and real relationships, and not just a waste of time, this should no longer be an issue.

In the end discussing whether or not SL is a "game" is nothing more than an intellectual exercise of course.
Calling it a game or not calling it that won't change anything about it.

And neither will writing such rubbish.

If the world (that's the planet Earth) is a game, then SL is a game. If it's not a game, then SL is not a game. Both are environments (worlds) in which people do all sorts of things - including playing games, of course. One is real and one is virtual, but that's all they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pamela Galli

Pamela Galli

Posted
Posted

Rhonda Huntress wrote:

Th3Unkn0wn wrote:

YES ITS A GAME YOU PLAY IT ON YOUR COMPUTER DON'T YOU JUST LIKE WARFACE L4D2 ANY OF THOSE GAMES 

Just like Word or Outlook or Excel or Photoshop or Skype or SQL Server or Quicken or Internet Explorer or Visuall C# or Python or Google or AutoCAD or Calibre or Mathmatica or Blender or Notepad or Rosetta Stone or Hyperterm or Oracle or Foxit or Snagit or RSA ID or even DOS 3_point_freakin'_4

What's your point? 

 

I can create games you can play in Excel; does that make Excel a game?  Second Life is a tool.  You can create games with it.  You can poly games with it.

I have heard quite a few compelling arguments on the "it is a game" side.  Not one of them have ever used CapsLock.

 

Just saying.

 

 

Exactly what I thought. SL is a world, a platform, a medium, a tool, not unlike the other tools you mentioned (and add Legos to the list). You can make all kinds of things with and out of it, including games, but it is certainly not itself a game.

The all caps claim seems to sum up the argument that SL is a "game" -- after all it is on a computer, and so are computer games, so SL must be one. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wherorangi

wherorangi

Posted
Posted

ooo! retro thread !!!

when we say that "SL is a game" then in the literature this is referred to as a inexplicable performative

meaning that the phrase is non-descriptive. To be descriptive a phrase evaluates to true in all cases. When not then the phrase is performative. When a performative is a command and is true then is a explicable performative. When not is inexplicable. Another word for inexplicable performative contextually is declarative

e.g. I declare SL is a game

as such the phrase is neither descriptive (provably true) nor explicably performative (provably true)

as Colbert once kinda said: Inexplicable performatives are founded on truthiness. Or as Eve Sedgewick might put it more delicately: A transformative or promissory performative

truthiness examples: SL is accessed thru a computer therefore SL is a game. WoW is a game therefore SL is a game. and so on

google ref people like: William James, Eve Sedgewick, John Austin, Judith Butler, Stephen Colbert, etc

+

ps

in lay terms I often call SL a game as well. But then I am aspire to be a intellectual, sooo more correctly

I declare that SL is a transformative aannnd promissory inexplicable performative !

how cool is that ?!?!! I am sooo brainy ! I am amaze myself even. jejejje (:

eta typso

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Luxen

Luxen

Posted
Posted

Hello,

I was reading some days ago something about a single woman losed her job during the recession and survived by becoming a Second Life entrepreneur.

I was reading too something about Donations and support to help people in Real.

I know that there are many free associations too in secondlife.

So i think to tell that Secondlife is a Game is just too restrictive and that the definition of the word game can't define a virtual world than Secondlife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Luxen

Luxen

Posted
Posted

True but is not what i said.

I said that:

"So i think to tell that Secondlife is a Game is just too restrictive and that the definition of the word game can't define a virtual world than Secondlife."

I can't enumerate all, and some users have already explain many things in this thread. Some people come in Secondlife for the friendship. Some come in Secondlife just to play at some Inworld games. A lot of users create things or just lean the 3D Design or the scripting, there are many designers and scripters and teachers too, they are just here to create things and they love that. I know some photographers and bloggers too...

So to tell that Secondlife is just a Game. It's just too restrictive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Madelaine McMasters

Madelaine McMasters

Posted
Posted

wherorangi wrote:

I am aspire to be a intellectual

Aspire all ya want, emotion is lurking right around the corner...

https://www.amazon.com/Games-People-Play-Transactional-Analysis/dp/0345410033

A quote from "Games People Play"... "We think we’re relating to other people–but actually we’re all playing games."

And, there's this...

http://sciencenordic.com/we-become-more-motivated-when-we-think-were-playing-game

This may explain the persistence of those who think SL is a game, but it doesn't explain the persistence of those who don't.

So, are those who proclaim that SL is not a game giving an inexplicable performance?

;-).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Theresa Tennyson

Theresa Tennyson

Posted
Posted

Luxen wrote:

True but is not what i said.

I said that:

"So i think to tell that Secondlife is a Game is just
too
restrictive and that the definition of the word game can't define a virtual world than Secondlife."

I can't enumerate all, and some users have already explain many things in this thread. Some people come in Secondlife for the friendship. Some come in Secondlife just to play at some Inworld games. A lot of users create things or just lean the 3D Design or the scripting, there are many designers and scripters and teachers too, they are just here to create things and they love that. I know some photographers and bloggers too...

So to tell that Secondlife is just a Game. It's just
too
restrictive
.

To do all these things they consent to doing it with 1) an avatar, that is 2) simulated in a specific set of 3D environment simulations. All of these things can be done more efficiently without using an avatar and/or having it simulated in a 3D environment. However, they consent to doing it only because they're doing it within something called Second Life.

According to Bernard Suits, a philosopher who studied games, this would make it a game:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1LmESO3NBuoC&dq=bernard+suits+grasshopper&pg=PP1&ots=ZGr95SWQN8&sig=uLawRktL8VWKdVYdFr3hwZApVkg&prev=http://www.google.co.uk/search%3Fhl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%253Aen-GB%253Aofficial%26hs%3DLdR%26q%3Dbernard%2Bsuits%2Bgrasshopper%26btnG%3DSearch%26meta%3D&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&hl=en#v=onepage&q=bernard%20suits%20grasshopper&f=false

Link to comment
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2684 days.

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

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...