Is Second Life a Game?

This is about the third time I've responded to this question, and I don't suspect it will be the last. So in an effort to liven up my answer, I will introduce a few remarks that I recently read on forum posts from SecondLife users.

One poster wrote "The economy is such a fascinating part of this game." However, seven minutes later, she adamently rephrased her statement: "Ack! I said game! I meant platform! I meant platform!"

A few posts later, someone addressed her slip "f you want to get techincal about it, it's not even really a game. It's a 3D interactive chat, and platform allowing RT creation of 3D content to the users."

However, another poster disagreed with that assessment. He wrote, "Actually it is a game... some just use it as a platform. But then, I agree to disagree. Call it what you will."

Personally, I would have to agree with the user who described SL as a 3D interactive chat, allowing for the creation of 3D content. In one of our readings a while back, I remember someone claiming that SL was a "tool and a toy." I think that those two descriptions are also appropriate.

Listening to Philip Linden discuss SL, it seemed pretty clear that even he had never envisioned SL as a game; but rather, he viewed it as a "world" in which users could interact, buy, sell, and create.

In my opinion, for something to qualify as a game, there must be a clear objective and pre-established rules. Second Life has neither. There must also be an element of danger/risk. Aside from the mythical corn field prison, I have not heard of any punishments or losses that one might endure. Also, one of the scholars we've read, said that in a game, goods might be exchanged, but nothing is produced. Obviously SL doesn't fall within that scholars frame of what makes a game, since guns/houses/vehicles are created and sold.