1. There is nothing new about Farmville. It's not a new type of game. The only "new" thing about it, in any way, is the platform it comes on, which is Facebook. Games of the Farmville-type have existed since long before Facebook and I've played many of them.
We also haven't invented any new meats, vegetables, or spices in quite awhile. But it's still entirely possible for someone to combine them in new ways. That's still a type of originality.
Who are you to judge my character and whether I'm resistant to new things or not? That's more than a little arrogant. I'm not criticizing Farmville because I don't like it, but because it's genuinely bad.
I've suggested what might be the case. Arrogance is stating an opinion as objective fact. For instance, stating that Farmville is "genuinely bad," despite the nine-majillion people playing it right now
. It must have some
appeal. Farmville is not your
cup of tea, but others are chugging it by the gallon and enjoying it.
2. ... The only thing Farmville has proven is that location really is key, even on the internet.
They've also proven that linking simple games with an a-la-carte pricing structure to social networking has phenomenal appeal and potential. The innovation is in customer interaction, not gameplay.
3. ... Immediately after we start playing, we begin forming this emotional and psychological bond to our crappy pixel-farm. It's that bond that makes sure people who don't know any better keep coming back every few hours and manage their farm.
And this happens accidentally? A "genuinely bad" game isn't going to elicit an emotional response of that magnitude. A simplistic, repetitive game? Damn straight. See Tetris
. Just because it's simplistic and repetitive doesn't immediate place the Objectively Awful sticker on it.
The Farmville player is not smarter than anyone who dishes out 50 bucks on a game, because at least the 50 bucks-guy makes a conscious choice; he's probably checked up on the game to see if it looks fun for him. If he enjoys it, who are you to say that it was a bad purchase?
(Emphasis mine) I'm not saying that. You are
. Just about Farmville
players and their "genuinely bad" games for the "small, but gullible minority" who "don't know any better."
Now, about the point the author is making.
When I started reading the article, I was expecting a well-written text with many solid points that I could read with sincere interest. Needless to say, I was disappointed. It was more on the level of what I imagine would be a professional troll....
You didn't like the tone. We've established that, and I haven't really disagreed there. It was intentionally sensationalist and inflammatory, and intended to bring out exactly
the sort of reaction you're having--a reaction that proves the point that people with particularly strong opinions (like hardcore gamers) tend to overreact to dissenting points of view. It was fighting extremism with opposing-extremism, which I readily agree doesn't invite dialogue.
But that doesn't mean dialogue can't occur. You've thus far been unable to put aside the tone of the article, and the emotional reaction that it spurred in you. Everything you've posted thus far has been littered with insults and opinion-as-fact absolutes that are indicative of someone posting in anger
. That's a barrier to any kind of rational thought or discussion, but it's one you're choosing.