It's been said too much about whether second life is a game or not or what is it. We are analyzing the (non)existence of the rules, goals and everything that is essential to the games. More the story goes, more I'm sure we're flogging the dead horse. Trying to determine if second life is a game while we still have no valid definition of what the game is and trying to get one on the run. But, why not? That's the game for itself. So, I'll just add one more criteria…. to the game.

Are you watching what's happening on the grid from the above or from the "first person's" view? Are you moving the puppet or you are directly involved? Is your human watching the world from the back or through the eyes of the avatar? Or better (because we all know all the problems of the first-person view), how do you feel? And who are you that just answered? How do you see the world? Are you there or the human is playing and watching pixels on the screen?

This should give you an answer whether you are playing a game of not. If you are there that is not quite a game. If you've ever been there you know that real emotions are on the scene, that differences of avatar and human are not important because both are real, each in own sphere. Things, thoughts and events easily jump from one world to the other. On the other hand, if you are watching those little figures on the screen, you know you are playing, right?

But whatever your answer is, don't be silly and think that all should feel like you do. And don't think that we are all in the same mode all the time we spend on the grid. Sometimes we are avatars living our lives, next day we're just puppets of our humans. There is nothing wrong with either. There is nothing wrong with switching, as well. Like, I write this post, take pictures, steal some time to dance somewhere a bit, and by that time I am dead tired and just want to get into the hammock and logoff. From that point, my human takes it over to do the spell-checking, formating, posting… boring part. I'll come back to answer the comments.  :)

Yes, that's the old story of immersionism and augmentationism. One group is completely "in" while other is on the both sides of the monitor. One is playing while the other is "serious". Digital persons with their own lives vs. humans who use a mean of communication. Wait! Something is wrong here. Two paragraphs above, we was like those who are "in" are not playing, and those who are "above" are playing. Right? Now? Now we go other way round. Now those that are outside are serious and not playing, they have avatars that represent their real selves and they have responsibility to act in a certain way. They are not playing, they are living their lives. And those other, those that go in first person, they are playing. 

And what now? Now, we're going to conclude that the story has no point. Extremists insist on their ways and stories. Scientists, analysts and those with too much free time are making theories and distinctions. And I am leaving this post to my lovely human to do the spell-check. I have to go to play. Seriously play.   

Related posts:

• Why This Babe Goes Clubbing? (8)
• When You Least Expect It (7)
• What Are Immersion And Augmentation (26)
• The Game Of Second Life (13)
• Realism Doesn’t Make A Good Immersion (25)