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


wherorangi wrote:

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

 

Well, the video I posted showed one man's logic. There are multiple videos and articles you can find about this hypothosis. I'd leave it to you to decide whether the logic is sound. Philosophy is not a hard science though, and rules of logic are much looser to interpretation than science. 

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

Top Posters In This Topic


"is not subjective. Wembley stadium is not football. This is the rule of logic being applied"

 

So, to be 100% clear, your argument is that Second Life is not a game and anyone who says so is not being logical?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Nalytha wrote:


"is not subjective. Wembley stadium is not football. This is the rule of logic being applied"

 

So, to be 100% clear, your argument is that Second Life is
not
a game and anyone who says so is not being logical?

 

the descriptive isnt that SL is not a game. The descriptive is that SecondLife is a virtual world platform 

if a person then argues that SL is a game then they have to show by the rules of logic why this is. And then when they do, it will be categorised as either a supposition (weaker form) or hypothesis (stronger form)

is not for another person to [counter] argue that SL is not a game, when they already have a descriptive which is true

 

eta: [counter] 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but what you are saying is not making sense to me. It sounds like what you are saying is that anyone who says Second Life is nothing more than a virtual reality platform inherently is speaking the truth. Anything someone says to argue that Second Life is a game can only be using a supposition or hypothesis, and is therefore automatically discredited.

 

Because, a lot of reasons have been given for why Second Life is not a game. And a lot of reasons have been given for why Second Life is a game. And even some concede that it is a game for some, while not others. But what it sounds like you are saying is any argument for Second Life being a game is weak and not worthy of countering.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Nalytha wrote:

For me, both of these statements are true:

 

1. Second Life is a Virtual World.

2. I play Second Life.

You believe them both to be true, but #2 is definitely untrue. Perhaps you think it's true  because of your slightly flawed understanding of english.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in red.


Nalytha wrote:

I'm sorry, but what you are saying is not making sense to me. It sounds like what you are saying is that anyone who says Second Life is nothing more than a virtual reality platform inherently is speaking the truth. Anything someone says to argue that Second Life is a game can only be using a supposition or hypothesis, and is therefore automatically discredited.

Exactly right - except that the latter people have a flawed understanding of SL.


Because, a lot of reasons have been given for why Second Life is not a game. And a lot of reasons have been given for why Second Life is a game. And even some concede that it is a game for some, while not others. 
No. You've completely misunderstood. No doubt it's because of your bias. We concede that some people
think of
SL as game, but not that it
is
a game for them. It isn't.
But what it sounds like you are saying is any argument for Second Life being a game is weak and not worthy of countering.
I'll second what she said.


 Incidentally, remind me why you think that SL is a game. Brief points please.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:


Nalytha wrote:

For me, both of these statements are true:

 

1. Second Life is a Virtual World.

2. I play Second Life.

You believe them both to be true, but #2 is definitely untrue. Perhaps you think it's true  because of your slightly flawed understanding of english.

"Play" is a verb. It's used to denote interacting with games, but also interacting with musical instruments and portraying a role onstage, neither of which are typically considered games. It's obviously a versatile word. What basis do you have for saying this particular verb isn't appropriate for doing whatever you do in Second Life, and what, then, would be the appropriate verb to denote "virtual-world-ing"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil, my understanding of the English language is quite fine, I assure you. I am telling you that I PLAY Second Life. I don't know or care what you do, but I PLAY it. I play Second Life, like I play the Sims -- to dress up. I play Second Life like I play WoW -- to RP, I play Second Life like I play Minecraft -- to create. All of those are "platforms" to engage in whatever it is I wish to do, but in all examples, I am in fact playing. 

We can argue about platforms all day. Every game uses a platform to achieve the outcome desired. So does Second Life. Because so much of the content is character made, instead of by a creator as the majority of games are, it may feel like there is no game at all. However, the game is created by the users. You are right, Second Life is a platform because that's mostly all the creators gave us (which is grea!). That doesn't mean it's ONLY a platform.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

You stated the 3 meanings of the word 'play', and none of them fit SL.

SL isn't a musical instrument or a game. You may be tempted to suggest that playing a part (acting, roleplaying) is playing SL, but you'd be wrong to suggest it. Actors play a part on a stage or similar. Roleplayers roleplay wherever it is suitable, such as in SL. A stage or similar isn't a game. Actors/roleplayers play ON a stage or wherever. The stage or wherever is not the game. They don't play the stage. They play the role.

If you're suggesting the we can all invent new uses for words, well....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your definition of the word Second Life is too limited. Second Life is not just some program you download and open. If that's all it were, sure, maybe we could end at the word "platform." However, Second Life is much, much more than that. Second Life is an entire WORLD, with all of the complexities that go into such.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Nalytha wrote:

I assure you. I am telling you that I PLAY Second Life. I don't know or care what you do, but I PLAY it. I play Second Life, like I play the Sims -- to dress up. I play Second Life like I play WoW -- to RP, I play Second Life like I play Minecraft -- to create. All of those are "platforms" to engage in whatever it is I wish to do, but in all examples, I am in fact playing. 

 

We can argue about platforms all day. Every game uses a platform to achieve the outcome desired. So does Second Life. Because so much of the content is character made, instead of by a creator as the majority of games are, it may feel like there is no game at all. However, the game is created by the users. You are right, Second Life is a platform because that's mostly all the creators gave us (which is grea!). That doesn't mean it's ONLY a platform.  

I'm with Nalytha on this one.

I think the people who insist this is NOT a game have not had much experience with other MMOs to give them perspective.

Second Life is a Sandbox MMO.

I could explain it to gamers by saying it is like taking 'Sims' and mixing it with Mincraft, Landmark, and Everquest, Star Trek Online, Star Wars, and 'if there was a Dr Who MMO'.

In fact... for many people Second Life IS a Dr Who MMO, and / or a  Stargate MMO.

For many others, it is the 'Gorean MMO'.

Those references are not in chronological order though, of course. Minecraft and Landmark are actually 'descendants' of Second Life.

Minecraft is kind of 'what if we limited the prims more, and used more iconic simple shapes to extract it down, and then tied building to a rewards system' and Landmark is 'what if we made the prim editing just as good as having a mesh editor, and then tied the graphics to a very PG theme, and used a Minecraft inspired method for earning prims.'

- But they are otherwise Second Life clones...

 

In the 1980s to very early 1990s, we had MUSH and MUD. MUSH is basically text only Second Life. MUD is basically text only Everquest. The peope making them and using them were often the same people back then... and the divide and claim by one side's users that is has no connection to the other side is kind of insulting... but understandable given that so few of Second Life's users were around this stuff before they found Second Life, and fewer still have branched out to see the other 'graphical MUSHes' and 'graphical MUDs'.

The above said... I'm not a user of the other graphical MUSHes, I've only samples the 'graphical MUDs', and I was homeless during text-only heyday. But I've explored enough to know where these things came from and where the next generation of them is thus-far going.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Nalytha wrote:

Phil, my understanding of the English language is quite fine, I assure you. I am telling you that I PLAY Second Life. I don't know or care what you do, but I PLAY it. I play Second Life, like I play the Sims -- to dress up. I play Second Life like I play WoW -- to RP, I play Second Life like I play Minecraft -- to create. All of those are "platforms" to engage in whatever it is I wish to do, but in all examples, I am in fact playing. 

 

We can argue about platforms all day. Every game uses a platform to achieve the outcome desired. So does Second Life. Because so much of the content is character made, instead of by a creator as the majority of games are, it may feel like there is no game at all. However, the game is created by the users. You are right, Second Life is a platform because that's mostly all the creators gave us (which is grea!).
That doesn't mean it's ONLY a platform.  

The bolded statement is inherently false. Second Life in and of itself is ONLY a platform. The Sims inside the platform are where the various activities take place. Simply because there are some RP sims does not make SL as a whole a "game." SL as a whole is nothing more than a virtual world platform. Plain and simple.

Put it this way.. i play  D&D every Saturday night in my living room. Does that make my living room a game room? Perhaps on Saturday nights it is, but that does not make my house a game room. 

Second Life is the Earth, the Sim is my house and my RP parcel is D&D around the table on Saturday nights. Does that make more sense?

Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

You stated the 3 meanings of the word 'play', and none of them fit SL.

SL isn't a musical instrument or a game. You may be tempted to suggest that playing a part (acting, roleplaying) is playing SL, but you'd be wrong to suggest that. Actors play a part on a stage or similar. Roleplayers roleplay wherever it's suitable, such as in SL. A stage isn't a game, or musical intrument, and actors/roleplayers play ON a stage or wherever. The stage or wherever is not the game. They don't play the stage. They play the role.

If you're suggesting the we can all invent new uses for words, well....

Of course we can invent new uses for words - that's called "language." When St. Peter's in Rome was built an onlooker described it as "awful" and "artificial" - he meant that it filled him with awe and it showed great artifice. Obviously words have changed meanings since then.

(Second request) So, what is the appropriate word for the act of manipulating the platform that is Second Life? Verb me, Philly boy...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in red.


Nalytha wrote:

Phil, my understanding of the English language is quite fine, I assure you. 
I beg to differ.
I am telling you that I PLAY Second Life. 
You don't. You may think do but you don't.
I don't know or care what you do, but I PLAY it. 
Wrong.
I play Second Life, like I play the Sims -- to dress up. 
Dressing up isn't a game.
I play Second Life like I play WoW -- to RP
roleplaying/actine isn't a game. You may play a role but it's a role you're playting, not SL. You are doing it IN SL. That's all
, I play Second Life like I play Minecraft -- to create
creating isn't a game. It's creating - an activity.
All of those are "platforms" to engage in whatever it is I wish to do, 
Yes they are, and so is SL. Is the light dawning?
:)
but in all examples, I am in fact playing. 
Oh, you may be playing in some of those - roleplaying, for instance - but you're doing it IN SL. You can also do it in an RL theatre, or part, or hourse, or wherever, but none of those a games. You can play games IN them, as well as lots of other things, like cooking, for instance. that's all.


We can argue about platforms all day. Every game uses a platform to achieve the outcome desired. So does Second Life. 
No. Second Life doesn't use a platform for anything. Second Life IS a platform, in which you can play games. Sigh. And you think you're understanding of english is fine. Sigh...
Because so much of the content is character made, instead of by a creator as the majority of games are, it may feel like there is no game at all. However, the game is created by the users. 
No. If there are games in SL, and I know there are, then using those is actually playing a game. But that's playing those, not playing the platform. The platform is exactly identical to the planet Earth, except that it's virtual. Users of Earth have built all manner of things, including games, but the Earth isn't a game. If you think it is, how do you play Earth? lol.
You are right, Second Life is a platform because that's mostly all the creators gave us (which is grea!). That doesn't mean it's ONLY a platform.  
Oh yes it does mean that - exactly that, and only that. Had the creators created the platform for the purpose of users creating games, then what you say may be a little nearer the truth, but, even then, SL would only be the platform, and never ever the game itself.


 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

You stated the 3 meanings of the word 'play', and none of them fit SL.

SL isn't a musical instrument or a game. You may be tempted to suggest that playing a part (acting, roleplaying) is playing SL, but you'd be wrong to suggest that. Actors play a part on a stage or similar. Roleplayers roleplay wherever it's suitable, such as in SL. A stage isn't a game, or musical intrument, and actors/roleplayers play ON a stage or wherever. The stage or wherever is not the game. They don't play the stage. They play the role.

If you're suggesting the we can all invent new uses for words, well....

Of
course
we can invent new uses for words - that's called "language." When St. Peter's in Rome was built an onlooker described it as "awful" and "artificial" - he meant that it filled him with
awe
and it showed great
artifice
. Obviously words have changed meanings since then.

(Second request) So, what
is
the appropriate word for the act of manipulating the platform that is Second Life? Verb me, Philly boy...

I say "use" myself..

Link to post
Share on other sites


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:


wherorangi wrote:


Nalytha wrote:

For me, both of these statements are true:

 

1. Second Life is a Virtual World.

2. I play Second Life.

consider

1. Wembley is a
football
soccer
football stadium

2. I play
footbal
soccer
football


FIFY

 

J/K

 

FIFY ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two parts to these sorts of games: The tangeable program and the more elusive definition of the world created. 

World of Warcraft is a program that I can download and run on my computer. It is filled with lots of zeros and ones. It is a platform to play.... the WORLD of Warcraft. An immersive world where we interact with others and the world. The platform (program) controls the limits by which I can interact in the world. I am not playing the platform. I couldn't. That would be absurd (which is where I take it most of you are at) I am playing in the WORLD that is only made possible BY the platform. 

Second Life is a program, a platform. I can download it and run it on my computer. I can not play this platform. I can only run the program which allows me entry to the WORLD of Second Life. I play the WORLD of Second Life. I do not play the platform. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:


wherorangi wrote:


Nalytha wrote:

For me, both of these statements are true:

 

1. Second Life is a Virtual World.

2. I play Second Life.

consider

1. Wembley is a
football
soccer
football stadium

2. I play
footbal
soccer
football


FIFY

 

J/K

 

FIFY
;)

Anytime you want to pit your football players against ours... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Iron Realm MUDS are still around. I still log in every once in a while. MUDs were my entry point to online gaming. It's a great example of the playerbase shaping the world, instead of just the game makers. Much of those games are/were playermade -- economies, religions, class systems, wars, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:

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 ).

It took a while for me to fully embrace an explanation of what I do for a living, but I eventually did. I play, with the intent of making the things I imagine come to life. I no longer collect money for doing that, which I suppose makes me "retired", although I was never tired in the first place. That's the benefit of playing.

But this doesn't mean I consciously treat life as a game. If I do that subconsiously, I hope someone will point it out to me.

ETA: I should point out that I do play "games" in RL, unbeknownst to those around me. My latest has been to insert myself into the recollections of a few friends, using a method I learned listening to RadioLab. It's suprisingly effective and I'm quite enjoying it. My boarder is now certain I've been with him to places I've never visited, and I have no trouble believing the modified stories myself.

I think my little experiments are harmless, but there is the possibility people won't be happy to know I'm conducting them.

;-).

Link to post
Share on other sites


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:


Nalytha wrote:

Phil, my understanding of the English language is quite fine, I assure you. I am telling you that I PLAY Second Life. I don't know or care what you do, but I PLAY it. I play Second Life, like I play the Sims -- to dress up. I play Second Life like I play WoW -- to RP, I play Second Life like I play Minecraft -- to create. All of those are "platforms" to engage in whatever it is I wish to do, but in all examples, I am in fact playing. 

 

We can argue about platforms all day. Every game uses a platform to achieve the outcome desired. So does Second Life. Because so much of the content is character made, instead of by a creator as the majority of games are, it may feel like there is no game at all. However, the game is created by the users. You are right, Second Life is a platform because that's mostly all the creators gave us (which is grea!).
That doesn't mean it's ONLY a platform.  

The bolded statement is inherently false. Second Life in and of itself is ONLY a platform. The Sims inside the platform are where the various activities take place. Simply because there are some RP sims does not make SL as a whole a "game." SL as a whole is nothing more than a virtual world platform. Plain and simple.

Put it this way.. i play  D&D every Saturday night in my living room. Does that make my living room a game room? Perhaps on Saturday nights it is, but that does not make my house a game room. 

Second Life is the Earth, the Sim is my house and my RP parcel is D&D around the table on Saturday nights. Does that make more sense?

If Second LIfe is only a platform then why do the users have to do things that would be utterly idiotic for a simple creativity program? Before you can do anything in Second Life you need to create an account, rezz out as an avatar and then drag that avatar around when you're doing completely non-avatar-related things. You can't even upload a texture without having an avatar clunking around a simulator. Why, if it's "only a platform"?

Link to post
Share on other sites


Nalytha wrote:

Your definition of the word Second Life is too limited. Second Life is not just some program you download and open. If that's all it were, sure, maybe we could end at the word "platform." However, Second Life is much, much more than that. Second Life is an entire WORLD, with all of the complexities that go into such.

LOL.

Second Life is a world, just like the Earth. I've said that a couple of times in recent posts, and probably in the post you replied to. Maybe you stated it because you'd read my posts but forgot who wrote them so you thought you'd teach me lol.

The Earth if very complaex too, much more complex that SL. And yet the Earth isn't a game. The complexity of a system has no relevance on whether not it is a game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pamela said she doesn't say she plays for a living. I've seen multiple SL documentaries where sellers explain how great it is that they can make money playing a video game. It's obviously, to some degree, subjective. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was around back in those days, Pussycat. I played a UK MUD called, Shades. It was a scrolling-text game. It was mostly used just for chatting and such, but it was game, pure and simple, because it had gamplay and goals to achieve by following that gameplay. I.e. you collected items and cashed them in for points, thereby going up the levels until you became immortal. Then the game was over. MUDs were like that.

I don't know why you brought those things up though. They have no relevance on this topic.

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...