Can Second Life be even considered a "Game"?

[Nalytha]

I've never played a MUD that was suddenly "over" at some point...

[Phil Deakins]

---

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...

---

Lol. So you really did mean that. I rest my case

The word I would use to answer your "second request" is.... live.

When I'm in SL, I'm living in SL. I do all sorts of stuff but a generic word would be 'live'. Or to put it another way, the word to describe "the act of manipulating the platform that is Second Life" is the same one you would use to describe the act of manipulatring the platforn that is the world (Earth). It's what we all do, 24/7 in the world. Live

[Phil Deakins]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

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...

---

But your American football players wear protective armour. Softies! Let's see them without that, and up against our rugby football players, who never wear armour, except gumshields and one, whose position is in the middle of the scrum, wears a soft leather head protector. Not a great metal helmet

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

It's what we all do, 24/7 in the world. Live

---

I get the point you're making and approach SL much as you do, but there's a growing mindfulness movement that's hoping to increase the amount of living we actually do in 24 hours. I'm certain I don't avail myself of all the living I can do during a day and that's increasingly bothering me. It also seems to be bothering Bill Murray...

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

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...

---

Lol. So you really did mean that. I rest my case

The word I would use to answer your "second request" is.... live.

When I'm in SL, I'm living in SL. I do all sorts of stuff but a generic word would be 'live'. Or to put it another way, the word to describe "

the act of manipulating the platform that is Second Life

" is the same one you would use to describe the act of manipulatring the platforn that is the world (Earth). It's what we all do, 24/7 in the world. Live

---

Because that's not inventing a new use for a word, is it? Well, we already established that's perfectly appropriate.

I assume when you log out - i.e. stop manipulating the world - you die, and are reborn when logging in. Very Hindu, this world....

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

I assume when you log out - i.e. stop manipulating the world - you die, and are reborn when logging in. Very Hindu, this world....

---

Could SL's declining concurrency mean that some people are discovering that they die (maybe a li'l) when they log in?

;-).

[Phil Deakins]

---

Nalytha wrote:

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. 

---

Oh, there is no doubt that you are not alone is your error. We know that. Many people call SL a game. It's because it looks like a game, and many of them came from actual games that look like SL. It's not a difficult mistake for many people to make, but that's what it is - a mistake.

Also, some sellers are having fun when they sell stuff (make money). I made a lot of money for years from SL and it was fun. Perhaps the sellers you refer to mistakenly think of having fun as playing a game.

[Nalytha]

What a lovely video. Thank you for sharing that. 

Perhaps this time it is I that have a too limited definition, but for me, I live LIFE and only life. I play in virtual worlds/games (the two are one and the same to me when they concern MMOs) 

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I

was

around back in those days, Pussycat. I played a UK MUD called, Shades. It was a text-only scrolling 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 chased 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.

---

The refusal to look at the larger context and history of something, and to insist anything but one's own talking points is not relevant - is a big factor in why some end up with such narrow limiting definitions of Second Life.

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

I assume when you log out - i.e. stop manipulating the world - you die, and are reborn when logging in. Very Hindu, this world....

---

Could SL's declining concurrency mean that some people are discovering that they die (maybe a li'l) when they log in?

;-).

---

There was a regular poster in the technical section of the forums who talked about "massive losses of concurrency since [this, that, the other thing]" so often that I figured according to her reasoning that concurrency in Second Life had long ago become negative, meaning that there were humans in the real world being controlled by their avatars. Which would explain a lot with some people...

[Phil Deakins]

---

Nalytha wrote:

I've never played a MUD that was suddenly "over" at some point...

---

I only played that one MUD, and it was over when you gained 200,000 points to become immortal - 400,000 if you were a pacifist so you didn't lose points when fleeing from a fight or being killed.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

It's what we all do, 24/7 in the world. Live

---

I get the point you're making and approach SL much as you do, but there's a growing mindfulness movement that's hoping to increase the amount of living we actually do in 24 hours. I'm certain I don't avail myself of all the living I can do during a day and that's increasingly bothering me. It also seems to be bothering Bill Murray...

---

Perhaps it depends of what's meant by what you can do. I consider, laying back and being entertained by the TV as 'doing' stuff. I'd soon burn out if I tried to be too active all day. I like a nice - a bit of this, a bit of that, and a bit of the other

[Nalytha]

Ah I see. Our experiences with MUDs are drastically different and I can understand why you find them being brought up irrelevant to the topic. The majority of MUDS are/were online universes driven by the players. They were the introduction to MMOs and the beginnings of the possibilities such as Second Life. In them, you could customize yourself, interact with objects, socialize, have a home, play games, etc. Most of the things you can do in Second Life you could do in MUDs, to a much more limited extent (however, it could be argued that you were only limited by your imagination).

Actually, the social interaction I found to be of much higher quality. In Second Life, I often find myself in a social place like a club or coffee shop or what not and only see people say "Hello." over and over again, with very little substance. Sure, I'm sure some of them are having private conversations, but I imagine not all. In MUDs, where everything relied on text, the conversations were of much greater imagination and substance.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I

was

around back in those days, Pussycat. I played a UK MUD called, Shades. It was a text-only scrolling 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 chased 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.

---

The refusal to look at the larger context and history of something, and to insist anything but one's own talking points is not relevant - is a big factor in why some end up with such narrow limiting definitions of Second Life.

 

---

I didn't refuse to look at it. I actually addressed it. You even quoted me on it. It's just that I don't see any relevance that scrolling text MUDs have with SL. MUDs were actual games (in my experience). SL isn't a game.

[Pamela Galli]

---

Nalytha wrote:

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. 

---

Well we are not playing anything, that's why it's called work. That we can do it from home is a life saver for many of us but I never have the feeling I am playing a game just because I work in a 3D environment. Evidently some users do but I have no understanding of why . 

If SL is a game then Blender must be too. Not a real fun one. 

[Perrie Juran]

(Not directed specifically to you Phil, just tagged out of convenience).

Ever since Th3Unkn0wn necro'd and then deserted this thread I've been following the discussion.  And I do wonder what the point of all this is, and especially why some folks are so insistent that SL is not a game.

I do not consider SL a game though I acknowledge that there are some people who all they do is play games in SL.

To me personally Second Life is simply a Virtual World.  I log in and via my Avatar I interact with and have relationships with other individuals via their Avatars in the Second Life world.  To me that is not a game.

 

 

[Nalytha]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

 

Well we are not playing anything, that's why it's called work. That we can do it from home is a life saver for many of us but I never have the feeling I am playing a game just because I work in a 3D environment. Evidently some users do but I have no understanding of why . 

If SL is a game then Blender must be too. Not a real fun one. 

---

I don't understand a lot of things people say about Second Life. I won't invalidate them all though, especially on a topic like this. I totally get what you are saying about Second Life being work. But I can't just say those people who say they get to get paid to play a video game are wrong either. They feel like they are playing a game, who am I to say otherwise. Especially since we live in a current climate where it's becoming more and more popular to get paid to play games -- streamers, Youtubers, bloggers, competitive play, etc. So the idea that some SL users lump themselves in with the rest of those players just doesn't seem that ludicrous. 

[Ilithios Liebknecht]

---

 Philosophy is not a hard science though, and rules of logic are much looser to interpretation than science. 

---

I didn't watch the video being mentioned in this post but just popping in to point out that this quote above is not true at all. Logic is most certainly not loose or open to interpretation.

Also one cannot compare science to logic. Science uses logic. Both science and philosophy use logic although science is much more empirical than philosophy which one might argue makes it a good deal more loose and open to interpretation than philosophy. In any case, the only real difference between science and philosophy is the subject matter being dealt with. In fact almost all of what is now called science was once called philosophy. There was simply a change in labeling at some point along the way.

[Pamela Galli]

I just have never heard any full time content ccreator I know say they make a living playing a video game, even if our work is something we used to do for fun. (But the same is true when I was teaching, which was far more fun and more difficult.)

The guy who wears the Mickey Mouse costume at Disneyland is working, not playing.

[Nalytha]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

I just have never heard any full time content ccreator I know say they make a living playing a video game, even if our work is something we used to do for fun. (But the same is true when I was teaching, which was far more fun and more difficult.)

The guy who wears the Mickey Mouse costume at Disneyland is working, not playing.

---

Well, here are two examples I can find offhand. I would have to dig a bit deeper to find some of the other videos and articles where I have heard this mentioned. 

 

 

[Nalytha]

---

Ilithios Liebknecht wrote:

---

 Philosophy is not a hard science though, and rules of logic are much looser to interpretation than science. 

---

I didn't watch the video being mentioned in this post but just popping in to point out that this quote above is not true at all. Logic is most certainly not loose or open to interpretation.

Also one cannot compare science to logic. Science

uses

logic. Both science and philosophy use logic although science is much more empirical than philosophy which one might argue makes it a good deal

more

loose and open to interpretation than philosophy. In any case, the only real difference between science and philosophy is the subject matter being dealt with. In fact almost all of what is now called science was once called philosophy. There was simply a change in labeling at some point along the way.

---

With science, a conclusion is usually met. Now, there will often be contention and sometimes that conclusion will ultimately be found to be inaccurate. But for a time, the majority will agree on a scientifically proven fact. 

 

If philosophy was the same, we wouldn't have people holding such a wide spectrum of different philosophies. One would be proven to be the most "logical." This simply isn't the case. 

[Ilithios Liebknecht]

---

 

If philosophy was the same, we wouldn't have people holding such a wide spectrum of different philosophies. One would be proven to be the most "logical." This simply isn't the case. 

---

Oh but this is very much the case with philosophy as much as it is with science. In philosophy, as with science, progress is constantly being made, older theories being discarded in favor of better ones. While, just like in science, there are often debates, people who follow philosophy don't hold all that wide a spectrum of beliefs.

The problem truly arises when people use the term "philosophy" to mean something it does not mean. For example, you say "we wouldn't have people holding such a wide spectrum of different philosophies.' but this sentence makes no sense. There is no such thing as a philosophy. You would not say people hold a wide spectrum of sciences would you? No, because people don't have their own science just like people don't have their own philosophy. Science and philosophy are areas of study and their associated methods, not belief systems in and of themselves.

People do, of course, say things like that, and in that case they are just using the word "philosophy" as a synonym for "belief" but that is no more related to the discipline of philosophy than a "bank" where you keep your money is related to the "bank" of a river.

People are often unaware of the advances of philosophy because they are not well reported on, but they most certainly do exist and just because people are unaware of them and therefore believe ludicrous things anyway does not mean that philosophy is more loose; it means people aren't using it.

[Aethelwine]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Nalytha wrote:

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. 

---

Oh, there is no doubt that you are not alone is your error. We know that. Many people call SL a game. It's because it looks like a game, and many of them came from actual games that look like SL. It's not a difficult mistake for many people to make, but that's what it is - a mistake.

Also, some sellers are having fun when they sell stuff (make money). I made a lot of money for years from SL and it was fun. Perhaps the sellers you refer to mistakenly think of having fun as playing a game.

---

A bit like the way playing cards looks like a game such that people commonly talk about playing cards.... but they are of course wrong because playing cards are just the building blocks for games like Canasta, Bezique, Bridge, Solitaire and Poker?

At what point though does common usage determine meaning? Is the usage in that kind of context now so common that by extension the usage of play and game extends not just to Cards but also to things like Lego, Meccano and virtual worlds like SimCity, or Secondlife?

[Aethelwine]

---

Ilithios Liebknecht wrote:

---

 

If philosophy was the same, we wouldn't have people holding such a wide spectrum of different philosophies. One would be proven to be the most "logical." This simply isn't the case. 

---

Oh but this

is

very much the case with philosophy as much as it is with science. In philosophy, as with science, progress is constantly being made, older theories being discarded in favor of better ones. While, just like in science, there are often debates, people who follow philosophy don't hold all that wide a spectrum of beliefs.

The problem truly arises when people use the term "philosophy" to mean something it does not mean. For example, you say "we wouldn't have people holding such a wide spectrum of different philosophies.' but this sentence makes no sense. There is no such thing as a philosophy. You would not say people hold a wide spectrum of sciences would you? No, because people don't have their own science just like people don't have their own philosophy. Science and philosophy are areas of study and their associated methods, not belief systems in and of themselves.

People do, of course, say things like that, and in that case they are just using the word "philosophy" as a synonym for "belief" but that is no more related to the discipline of philosophy than a "bank" where you keep your money is related to the "bank" of a river.

People are often unaware of the advances of philosophy because they are not well reported on, but they most certainly do exist and just because people are unaware of them and therefore believe ludicrous things anyway does not mean that philosophy is more loose; it means people aren't using it.

---

You are both talking about Philosophy as if there is some common conception of it. But even a cursory knowledge of Philosophy reveals its subject areas remain debates with a multitude of sides and differing opinions. Even concepts of truth are debated and the words used by Philosophers often only apply within the context of that particular authors conceptions. For example, Noumenon in Kant is a different usage to Plato.

An Existentialist view would hold that it is the individual that is the source of meaning, not culture or tradition. Perhaps when someone says SL is a game and someone else says it is not, there is in fact no actual disagreement, because they are both describing their own experiences not arguing that the other person is wrong, just that they have a different experience and relationship with the meaning they derive from the words game and play and the way they use Secondlife.

[Nalytha]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

---

You are both talking about Philosophy as if there is some common conception of it. But even a cursory knowledge of Philosophy reveals its subject areas remain debates with a multitude of sides and differing opinions. Even concepts of truth are debated and the words used by Philosophers often only apply within the context of that particular authors conceptions. For example, Noumenon in Kant is a different usage to Plato.

An Existentialist view would hold that it is the individual that is the source of meaning, not culture or tradition. Perhaps when someone says SL is a game and someone else says it is not, there is in fact no actual disagreement, because they are both describing their own experiences not arguing that the other person is wrong, just that they have a different experience and relationship with the meaning they derive from the words game and play and the way they use Secondlife.

---

This resonates well with my interpretation of philosophy. I'll admit, I have only taken a couple of courses on the subject, but I was never given any impression of some inate truth. For example, a philosophy that focuses on the individual would probably not be "logical" for a collectivist society. 

 

It helped that my teacher refused to share any personal opinions/stances on the various philosophies until the end of the semester. His approach sounds very similar to what you describe as existential.