Drewidia

Alright, so I see some point(s) to second life:

1. The ability to create a virtual world, mostly in an architectural form, that others can explore
2. The ability to chat with like-minded individuals in said virtual worlds
3. A medium to inexpensively market to a captive audience

The first point is a fair one. The user is empowered with the flexibility to create buildings, vehicles, clothing and accessories of all shapes and sizes. Character customization offers a great deal independence in comparison to other life-simulators like The Sims. But let’s be real, here: it’s essentially playing with Barbies in a more flexible and ‘adult’ way.

The second point is what irks me a bit. From a social networking perspective, SecondLife is essentially a scaled-down version of IRC. In SecondLife, one can ‘Teleport’ to different ‘Places’ (essentially islands) pertaining to a particular theme or interest (e.g., “I teleported to Goth Island because I love Joy Division”). In IRC, one can ‘Join’ different ‘Channels’ (chat rooms) pertaining to a particular theme or interest (e.g., “I joined the Ubuntu Linux channel because I luuuv Linux”).

The chatroom dynamic is where SecondLife falls short. A user can only be in one place (chatroom) at a time. The user can only chat with people near them. While the user is chatting, they can pretty much just stand there and stair like a crash dummies or perform one of many predefined actions, like goofy dancing or whistling. The problem is that SecondLife attempts to simulate real world human interaction, but fails in the actual interaction portion. Real people use voice inflections and body language to communicate. Granted, real-time voice communication is limited by internet speed, but this is still a major hurdle.

The third point is, well, undeniable. And if you enjoyed the movie I, Robot, then maybe SecondLife is for you.