[geeks] Second Life is not a game?

[Jon Gilbert]

On Jul 31, 2007, at 6:47 AM, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> People make real income playing all kinds of games, not just the  
> ugly and
> complicated game called Second Life.  There are persistent game worlds
> where people use it as their only source of income.
>
> SL is a game.  I can't understand why the fact that is has some  
> extra rules
> on top of it, and its interface sucks, somehow makes it less of a  
> game.

In what way is it a game? What is game-like about Second Life? All  
these people who are claiming it is a game do not seem to know  
anything about games. They just look at something that has 3D  
graphics and say "it's a game."

The fact that you can make money within it, is not what makes it "not  
a game." Obviously you can make real life money selling items and  
characters from EverQuest or Lineage or WoW (all of which are games).

The thing that makes Second Life not a game is the fact that it does  
not share any of the characteristics that make games, "games." It has  
a more complex interface because it is more like a 3D-design program,  
instant messaging client, virtual world, and streaming media player  
rolled into one. Of course the interface is going to have a learning  
curve. It's not actually "sucky" once you know what you are doing in  
it. Also it does not have "some extra rules" -- I don't know what you  
are talking about there.


On Jul 31, 2007, at 8:10 AM, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> By that definition, Neverwinter Nights is not a game either.

Neverwinter Nights *is* a game, because it is based on a very  
specific role-playing game (Dungeons & Dragons). Your character  
within it has a character sheet, experience points, hit points, etc.  
It's just a game that lets you customize the levels.

(See below for where I address your point about how NWN is not a game.)

>
> Neither are most things currently called games, since the majority  
> of games
> released today are actually simulations.
>
> Gothic 3 is a simulation of an ancient world with magic.
>
> The only real difference between it and Second Life is technical.   
> If I had
> the sources, I could easily remove the arbitrary limits that SL  
> "players'
> think makes it a game rather than whatever SL is.

No, there are a lot of differences. Something can be a simulation AND  
a game, as in the case of Gothic 3. The simulation part -- the  
physics engine, realistic plants, etc. -- may be more realistic of a  
simulation than those in Second Life.

However on top of that simulation, Gothic 3 is also a game -- you  
have a character, hit points, you can die, there are certain things  
you have to do, etc. etc. Second Life has none of those things; it's  
a simulation without a game (necessarily). The users of SL can make  
games that run within SL; but that's no different from how you can  
make a game that runs on an Apache webserver using Flash. That does  
not make Apache a game.

>
> In fact, I could easily argue that SL is a game and Gothic is not  
> because
> Gothic has realistic flora and fauna simulations built-in, and SL's  
> are
> primitive at best.
>
> When I played SL, it looked like an iconic late 80s 3D game.  By  
> contrast
> Gothic 3 looks like my back yard.  Obviously that makes Gothic a  
> simulation
> and SL a game, right?

Wrong. How realistic of a simulation something is, does not make it  
more or less of a game. What makes it more or less of a game, is what  
you do when you are using the simulation. In a game, you are defined  
in a specific way according to the game developer; you have limited  
choices they have set for you to choose from. In RPGs, you must  
define yourself according to particular traits, classes,  
characteristics. That's what makes them games. There are set  
objectives, quests, etc. etc.

>
> Therefore on purely technical grounds SL is a game and Gothic is  
> clearly a
> professional simulation.
>
> If you look at some of the persistent NWN worlds, they have removed  
> all of
> the elements that Jon said earlier makes those programs a game.

Well, it may be that the NWN software engine is a flexible enough  
tool for creating virtual spaces, that it is able to be applied for  
use in ways that are not game-related. However NWN's clear *intent*  
is as a game. While NWN is a game that can be hacked to be able to be  
used in non-game-related way, on the other hand, SL is not a game,  
though it can be hacked to be able to be used in gaming-related ways.

The closest analogy for Second Life is that it is like the web-server  
software, Apache. Only, it adds a 3D engine, instant messaging, user  
profiles, etc. You use the SL client, as opposed to a web browser.  
Someone buys an account on a webserver, or buys their own dedicated  
server, and they can put whatever they want to, content-wise, on that  
space online. So what if it's in 3D? That doesn't make it a game! Get  
over it.

>
> Do you see how stupid this arbitrary dividing line really is?

No.

>
> I think some people just get too hung up on classification and  
> forget why
> they are using the program in the first place.  If you enjoy it,  
> have a ball,
> but don't expect other people to willingly enter into your reality  
> distortion
> field.
>
> To me SL is a game and a simulation.  It's a hybrid if you must  
> give it a
> single label.

Well, you're entitled to your prejudices, but I could just as easily  
say that the whole internet and all of computers are a game, since by  
your logic, if you enjoy it and it's not part of "reality" then it  
must be a game. An Atari coin-op machine is a computer right?  
Therefore all computers must be games! <sigh>