I feel a little more organized with some of the possibilities of Second Life after meeting up with the Web 2.0 class on Friday. Most of the commands I had figured out just by intuition (and a lot of hours of World of Warcraft as a reference to online worlds), so I didn't feel like I was that bad off. I really enjoyed sitting around the table in a "meeting" with everyone, and I really liked chatting with people in the class on the voice network. Of course the normal problems arise with any voice network where people have hot mics and naturally with a large group, not everyone can speak. But I think it's always nice to put a voice with a name since this is the first time I've had this opportunity with people in this class.
It was fun to learn to fly a little bit better (I couldn't figure out the keys for that before then), and it was also interesting to see how people really get into this game. We encountered a woman who has a second life husband, land, dogs, and a 27 year old body. I think for people like that, Second Life has become more and more like a first life.
Neil mentioned in his blog that second life is hard to define as a web 2.o tool since it is a download and not technically on the web. I tend to agree with this assessment. It feels more like a game to me than anything, but it's frustrating that there really are no goals in Second Life besides those that are present in normal life: work, make money, get a home, and find friends and companionship. I also think that for something to be Web 2.0, it needs to be a little quicker. I think a majority of my time on SL is spent waiting for enviroments to fully load. I have a great computer, so I'm not sure why it takes forever. It also seems like SL is very empty a lot of the times. I'm sure that there are plenty of places where there is a vibrant community, but I've only found ghost towns and places that have long been abandoned. This seems to suggest that this place isn't really growing towards anything but that it is either stagnant or dying. I don't think that I would place this in Web 2.0 for this reason as well.
Could this be what Web 3.0 could be like? Sure, absolutely! But it seems like SL is more of a fantasy world than real. I would think that things like video chat would be more of what Web 3.0 would embrace rather than an avatar that looks like how many people wish they looked than they actually are. It seems like this alone would make people question the authetic, especially if, what we saw in this week's youtube videos are any indication, we seek community and being part of something genuine. But perhaps something along the lines of SL more revamped is what would be seen in Web 3.0.
There are a lot of movies that explore the idea of using your mind to control an avatar of some form to do things that a normal person might never do (think Keanu Reeves in The Matrix - "I know Kung fu!), but at what point does a person stop being a real person when this happens? If you only experience life through fancy gimmicks, is it really experiencing life? Even at the end of Avatar SPOILER (highlight to see) the main character made the choice to experience life for himself and actual become one of the natives rather than living a life of smoke screens and computers. END SPOILER
A world like SL seems to straddle both lines. It has one side that is all fantasy, but then it also has the side where a person might do everyday tasks like shopping, walking a dog, or sitting in a meeting. Even if the graphics are nice (after they load), it still seems like a weak comparison to sitting with an actual person and having a conversation or going to a mall with a friend. It's easy to see how people could want to live in a world like SL and would probably readily embrace it if this slowly became our future, but for now, I don't think that I'm ready to give up the real for a facsimile.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Maureen- I'll chime in in response to a couple of your points: If you're using SL to replicate real life, that's missing the point. If you're using it to BE a game, that's also missing the point. There are games WITHIN it, and elements of life (real and simulated) within it, but it's really neither.
ReplyDeleteThere is certainly a fantasy element - and that's part of the appeal. Instead of skyping with your spouse in africa, the two of you can "meet" in a much nicer virtual place and watch the sunset. It sounds corny, but i've talked with enough people about this to understand that for them it's quite meaningful.
The slow rendering is likely your connection, not your computer- it relies both on the processor and the speed of the loads- both of which have improved much over the last few years, and will continue to improve in the future.
What if some day you get the quality of a 3D movie, but instead it's you doing the moving? What if we could meet for class, but present ourselves as our avatars, while in real life sitting in our pajamas?
As far as it being a web 2.0 tool- it depends on your definition. It is most definitely social media- but not a web application. However, where do we draw the line? The driver for my logitech camera is 85MB, but second life is only 30. Skype, does the same things as google chat/video- but one is browser based and the other client based- yet they are doing the exact same thing - so is one web and the other not? Yes - but does it matter?
If google gets their way, it'll all become web, including the operating system - interesting futures ahead!
d.i.
DI your comments have really made me start to re-look at my views on SL. I think I agree with Maureen on many points, but after readin your comments will try to look at it differently when I go back in. Thanks.
ReplyDelete