For a while, the Second Life backlash was going so strong that I was considering, albeit briefly, actually whipping out a couple of posts in defense of the Linden Labs boys and sticking up for them, just to be contrarian. But to be honest, I can only take so much of the fanbois who keep trying to explain, in patronizing terms, that we simply don’t get the vision of Second Life.

I get it. I read Snowcrash. Second Life is no Snowcrash. Second Life is a marvelous experiment with some real potential behind it, but it has severe issues holding it back in both design and technology, and until it actually addresses them, it will never even get into the same ballpark with its own hype.

Perhaps it was inevitable then, that the backlash to the backlash would arise. James Wagner Au has posted an article criticizing all of those who criticized Second Life. Now, normally I like what he has to say, but when he starts talking about Second Life, he tends to lose all objectiveness. So that being said, I thought it was time to start the backlash to the backlash of the backlash.

James Wagner Au is incensed that people who have not played the game much are criticizing it. Which I suppose is would be a fair criticism, if it were true. But look at what he claims is not enough.

Regarding proficiency with Second Life, [one reviewer] e-mailed back, “Mark me with an F. Make that an F minus.” He estimates his total visitations as ten hours or under, in which he more or less randomly explored a world the geographic size of an entire state, to form his assessment.

That’s right – 10 hours is not enough time to make an honest assessment of the Second Life experience. By comparison, my games rack is full of games that didn’t survive an HOUR of playtime. Electronic Arts (and most other companies) force their designers to obsess over the first FIVE MINUTES of gameplay, because most games don’t even survive THAT. Okay, someone reviewing the game should probably give it a tad more time than than but… 10 hours – not enough!

I personally played it for about 5 hours, most of which was a bewildering struggle with the interface, and a desperate attempt to find any player created content that wasn’t broken, partially textured, furry in theme, or so whimsical it was clearly an inside joke to its creator. In any game with player created content, the designers must operate with the 99% rule (99% of everything created will be crap), and break their backs ENSURING that players find the good stuff. Heck, even The Sims Online figured this out.

I’m a professional game designer. I work in this space for a living. I have a vested interest in finding this information. I failed miserably. What makes you think that Joe Sixpack will make even half the effort?

Helen of Seriosity is a committed gamer who found that aspect of SL lacking: “Give me laser guns,” went her plea. “Give me pretty blonde elves that twirl in cute circles and sophisticated incentive systems…”

But this was strange, for laser guns and the like are rife in SL. There’s a truly impressive real-time strategy game, for example, a beautiful sword-based melee game with numerous clans, and a popular mini-MMORPG originally created by a professional game developer which has been running in Second Life for over three years. So I e-mailed Helen to ask if she’d played any of these; she said she hadn’t.

But Helen estimates 60-80 hours of total experience in Second Life… (just [not much] on gaming).

60-80 hours of total experience is not enough time in Second Life. By comparison, any single player game released today that was 60-80 hours long would be considered a behemoth. If a player cannot find the good content in the gamespace that matches their interest in 60-80 hours (or more reasonably, in 1 hour), the problem lies with the gamespace, not the reviewer.

Neither was Churbuck familiar with the asynchronous communication tools for SL groups (which is regrettable, since groups are an essential part of the community experience), and though he lamented its lack of interoperability, told me he hadn’t seen any of the many user-created applications (as here, here, or here) which do offer some interoperability between Web and world.

This guy was a loser because he didn’t mystically know which ‘essential’ add-ons make the game usable. At this point, it seems useful to point out Raph’s post where he essentially described those who talk about Second Life as insular and detached from reality.

Second Life is a good idea that is hampered by overwhelmingly complex UI, an utter lack of direction, and movement that feels like wading through molasses, among other issues. Then you get into the tech issues: hacks, in-game worms, the CopyBot fiasco and press events being interrupted by flying phalli. All of this is actually fine, if Second Life were content with being a niche game. Hey, I’ve worked on niche games. I know all about uncomfortable business realities forcing unfortunate design and tech priorities. But instead we’re treated to constant stories about how SL has reached 2.5 million customer trials, with almost no discussion about how only 20K of those are online concurrently at any time. The resulting percentage is cause for panic, not tribulation.

Somebody is going to actually deliver the vision behind Second Life. And it’s going to be wicked cool. In my opinion, the real question is whether Second Life can shape up and deliver on that vision, or if they will continue on their current track and sour pretty much everyone on the idea before whoever does so gets a chance to get something to fruition.

(Note, any responses should not attempt to explain that Second Life is a country whose success should be measured by its GNP).

Original comments thread is here.