Jump to content

Can Second Life be even considered a "Game"?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1435 days.

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

Recommended Posts


Luxen wrote:

If you want to speak about the philosophy, we can. And the life itself can be considered by some philosopher as a "Game".

For the third time: I never said that is not a game, i just said that it's
too restrictive
to just define Secondlife as a Game when a game can to be just a game as
Pacman
.


Pac-Man has been featured prominently in a few movies; a song about Pac-Man hit #9 on the music charts in 1982.  There have been and still are competitive tournaments based on it. In 1982 one was held in a baseball stadium. There have doubtless been relationships started by or built around Pac-Man. By your logic, wouldn't it be too restrictive to define Pac-Man as a "just a game" as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 329
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Because if you explain at someone what is Pac-mac and your answer is it's a game : it's enough for him to understand.

But to explain at someone that Secondlife is just a game: It's not enough to understand all the complexity that can be a virtual world as Secondlife. So the word "Game" is just too restrictive and Secondlife cannot be considered as just a "Game" for this reason. If it was the question of this Topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:


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. 

 

The computer programs cited above were written because someone decided they'd be the most efficient way of doing something of practical value. Even Lego was originally intended to be a simple, tidy way of building various types of model buildings. If a child decides to build a model building, Lego would be one option, as would Lincoln Logs, as would a cardboard box. It would be up to the child to decide what was the most effective way of getting the desired result.

Now, if somone were to build a model out of Lego only for the sake of building it out of Lego, when there are more efficient ways of doing it, that would be edging into game territory. The goal would be, "How close to this thing can I come using only Lego?" and they'd be playing a game with Lego - Lego wouldn't become a game in itself.

On the other hand, you could easily use something that's undeniably a game - say, Monopoly - to teach certain concept in a classroom setting. You'd be using Monopoly it for something of a practical value but that doesn't mean Monopoly stops being a game.

The question then is, "Is Second Life the most efficient, effective/cost effective tool for doing something other than just being Second Life and being cool?" Having boxes poof out of an avatar's hands certainly isn't the most efficient way of building a digital model or programs like Maya would have avatars. Rezzing out as an avatar in some environment modeled on a server in Tucson isn't  the most efficient way of having an on-line chat with someone by a long shot. Second Life is really not great at doing many of the things people use it for compared to other options. Even a 3D training application could be better done in something closer to OpenSim where you could have greater control over the simulation. People go on Second Life and tolerate the inefficiencies and rules because it's Second Life. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

People can call it what they want, it just always strikes me as odd when someone says they play SL or call it a game. I suppose those people must find it odd to hear it called a virtual world. But from the first moment that has perfectly described my experience. 

I don't tell people I play a game for a living, I tell them I make 3D content for a virtual world (which usually means a blank look ).

Link to post
Share on other sites


Luxen wrote:

Because if you explain at someone what is
Pac-mac
and your answer is it's a
game :
it's enough for him to understand.

But to explain at someone that Secondlife is just a game: It's not enough to understand all the complexity that can be a virtual world as Secondlife. So the word "Game" is just too restrictive and Secondlife cannot be considered as just a "Game" for this reason. If it was the question of this Topic.

Pac-man is more than just a game, it is an exhibit in the Museum of Modern Art and has been at the Smithsonian Art Gallery as part of an exhibition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_in_the_Museum_of_Modern_Art

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Video_Games

A game, but also on some level Art.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Luxen wrote:

Because if you explain at someone what is
Pac-mac
and your answer is it's a
game :
it's enough for him to understand.

But to explain at someone that Secondlife is just a game: It's not enough to understand all the complexity that can be a virtual world as Secondlife. So the word "Game" is just too restrictive and Secondlife cannot be considered as just a "Game" for this reason. If it was the question of this Topic.

Dungeons and Dragons is extremely complex. It developed over time with the input of many people, including those playing it. Although it has a framework of rules those playing it are able to make up additional rules - "Dungeon Masters" need to determine what happens in unexpected situations on the fly.

Most interestingly, it doesn't have pre-set goals. There wasn't even a "sample dungeon"/scenario provided until the second supplement to the original rules. One person has the role of referee/scenario director and he or she generally controls the chain of events, but they need the consent of the rest of the players or else everyone else will just find something better to do with their evenings.

However, despite this lack of hard goals, if you asked almost everyone (except for one Phil Deakins, who rightly detected a trap) what Dungeons and Dragons - the entire environment, framework and phenomenon - was, they'd call it "a game", perhaps even "just a game."

How is Second Life any different?

Link to post
Share on other sites

SL is a game provided by LL.  inexplicable performative

SL is a virtual world platform provided by LL. explicable descriptive

+

Life is not a game when we living in a struggle. explicable descriptive

 

basically life is a game when we can afford it

"Life is a dream for the wise, a game for the fool, a comedy for the rich, a tragedy for the poor" - Sholom Aleichem

 

eta: typs

Link to post
Share on other sites


wherorangi wrote:

basically life is a game when we can afford it

"Life is a dream for the wise, a game for the fool, a comedy for the rich, a tragedy for the poor"
- Sholom Aleichem

I'll argue that life is a game when we can least afford it. There are so many subconscious processes at work in each of us, tuned for a world that hasn't existed for thousands of years. To the extent we're unaware of the purpose or needs of those processes, we're playing potentially self harming games without knowing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask if the word "game" diminishes the value of Second Life to those who oppose the term? I mean to say, when someone says Second Life is a game, do you feel like they are cheapening something you hold dear? 

I've been playing MMOs since I was old enough to "dial up" which is almost two decades. Online games are not cheap experiences for me. They open up a whole new world (just as Second Life does). A world of possibility and wonder. A world where I have made meaningful friendships that translated in and out of that world. I have discovered more about myself and more about others through them. 

I just want to say, when I use the term "game." I by no means mean to cheapen your experience. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

when we can afford it the consequences are dissimilar to when we cant afford it

what is the consequence when life goes on tilt when we are weathy and when we are poor ? bc of the consequences poor people dont particularly consider the proposition: Life is a game

not that they dont understand the proposition and arguments, just that they dont see the relevance of the argument itself to themselves

if they do think about it then they just work on the basis that they only going to get one shot at it

+

eta

on your deeper point

is my experience that more poor people than wealthy people (in aggregate) are more fatalistic while also being more optimistic

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I don't know how many times I've thought to myself (irl) am I living in the Sims? There are actually scientists who make it their business to prove this hypothesis. I am 100% serious. Even the creator of Tesla believes we are living in a virtual world controlled by other beings. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/elon-musk-ai-artificial-intelligence-computer-simulation-gaming-virtual-reality-a7060941.html

Link to post
Share on other sites


Nalytha wrote:

I just want to say, when I use the term "game." I by no means mean to cheapen your experience. 

True and personally that not disturb me at all.

And for the MMOs, it's a little true too.

Personally, i found this thread interesting and the answers don't disturb at all my experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Nalytha wrote:

this experience is different for everyone.

yes. Is different in how we each feel and think about it. How we feel and think doesnt change the facts tho

As I said before:  I say play. I say game. Is only how I think and feel about it tho

Link to post
Share on other sites


wherorangi wrote:

yes. Is different in how we each feel and think about it. How we feel and think doesnt change the facts tho

As I said before:  I say play. I say game. Is only how I think and feel about it tho

So, your argument is that it is either a game or it is not? It is not subjective?

Link to post
Share on other sites


Nalytha wrote:

I never said it was proved. I was remarking on the idea that some folks CAN view real life as a game, philosophically.

the thing is that philosophy is quite disciplined (similar to science). It has rules. Things are grouped: supposition, hypothesis, theory, to which the rules of logic are applied

a philsopher cant just say: I feel or think this is so. Their peers will ask them to apply the rules of logic

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1435 days.

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...