I am not an academic. Neither have I been in Second Life for very long (two years, on 5 December), nor been a public nuisance commentator about virtuality in general, or SL in particular, for more than a few months. So, when I began to see such 'academese' terms as Immersionist and Augmentationist come up in the blogs and forums, I needed explanation. No, wait a minute... I thought I grokked immersion, because that's what happens to me while I'm in-world. Just like when I'm reading, or watching a film or a play, I (at least) partially disconnect from my physical/biological surroundings. I'm not "playing" Second Life, I'm in it.
When I began the research for this post, Wikipedia backed me up...
Immersive digital environments could be thought of as synonymous with Virtual reality, but without the implication that actual "reality" is being simulated. An immersive digital environment could be a model of reality, but it could also be a complete fantasy user interface or abstraction, as long as the user of the environment is immersed within it. The definition of immersion is wide and variable, but here it is assumed to mean simply that the user feels like they are part of the simulated "universe".Exactly my thoughts on the subject! But there's no mention in that article of Augmentation as an opposing philosophy -- nor in any of the linked articles, all of which point to game design theory (here's a good example). There's no mention of Second Life, or other virtual worlds of its type, either -- which are unequivocally not games.
In short, this kitty was climbing up the wrong tree.
Read More
