Braid Creator Calls Social Games "Evil"

[David Bray]

Yup! 100%

The two things social games need to get over is the crowbar need for real payment to progress, and the friend spamming.

 

[manythings]

I do agree, to an extent.

But maybe that's because I've long since grown tired of people sending me various digital items in an attempt to lure me into the game as well.

Well the team of behavioural psychologists they have on staff whose purpose is to study and implement game features that enforce addictive behaviour aren't on the side of rainbows and happiness.

 

[teknoarcanist]

I do agree, to an extent.

But maybe that's because I've long since grown tired of people sending me various digital items in an attempt to lure me into the game as well.

Well the team of behavioural psychologists they have on staff whose purpose is to study and implement game features that enforce addictive behaviour aren't on the side of rainbows and happiness.

Sometimes I wish forums had an applause sign.

 

[[.redacted]]

I couldn't agree more, it's good to see someone going ahead and calling the devs out on it.

 

[BloodRed Pixel]

finally someone...

 

[Originality]

I agree - I see nothing rewarding about playing one of these "social" games.

 

[Undead Dragon King]

Outspoken as he is, Jonathan Blow has uncovered a nugget of truth. I've always somehow guessed that there was something inherently wrong with a game in which your friends are only meant to build your own stuff, as well as to admire it, and try to build a better garden, or farm, or whatever.

Hell, it's the "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality in game form! And that, my fellow Escapists, is simply institutionalized envy.

 

[e2density]

Blow said that games like World of Warcraft or Counter Strike were actually much more socially orientated, as players could forge new relationships with the members of their clan or guild and then work as a team.

This is assuming that the players are actually GOOD at the game and have good chemistry...there is a reason that most of the teams in CEVO/ESEA right now will be disbanded by next season, with most of the players on a new team anyway. Assuming everyone will have perfect chemistry with eachother and be of equal skill level is a very uneducated assumption.

You can't say that having a more "socially oriented" game will make people magically love eachother...

 

[craddoke]

I think he's working from a pretty solid definition of evil - and, by that definition, he's correct. The only tweak to his argument I would make is that evil is about the corruption and mockery of something good - despotism is a mockery of law and order, rape is a mockery of love and sex, domestic abuse is a mockery of familial bonding, etc. Social games take friendship and twist it by making interpersonal connections into a commodity (not that this is the only venue in which this happens, of course).

 

[Something Amyss]

A lot of these titles are misnomers. A lot of hardcore gamers are more casual than "casual" gamers. "social" games may be a misnomer, but it's in strong company there.

 

[The Philistine]

"Social" gaming's invite system is no more exploitative than chain letters. Although chain letters are pretty darn evil.

 

[Therumancer]

Actually I think he's right, and there is a lot of supporting evidence going by the words of the guys like Zynga executives.

So called "social games" are designed to prey on the lowest human denominator. They are designed to hit an odd sweet spot of low quality and addictiveness for the target audience. What's more there are subtle design elements incorperated into them to get people to spend money as they play more, or simply to waste the "free" points people get through intentionally bad menu design. What's more as we've seen in case of kids racking up bills worth thousands of dollars, they also seem to be designed with intentionally bad security so children can "accidently" invest a ton of money without realizing what they are doing, or to simply exploit the stupid adults that make up the lowest human denominator.

It's kind of easy to be dismissive of morons when your smart enough to realize a problem, but honestly when I get past the elitism I don't think that there it's the fault of stupid people for being stupid, it's like discriminating against skin color on a lot of ways. There are limits to what you can do while maintaining freedom, but yeah... I think people DO need to be protected from their own stupidity, and this area is as out of control as various fine print/contract scams, or the gimmicks/deceptions that were being used to lure people into buying property they couldn't afford, causing a massive market crash. Heck, I'd even argue that in the USA at least our country is founded on the idea of protecting the stupid from themselves which is why we have inalienable rights that people can't sign away, even with a smarter elite pressuring them.

I'm in a place right now where I pretty much feel cash shops and social-gaming "virtual property" businesses should be pretty much banned entirely. I think it was a worthy experiment, but like the drug trade it's just too easy to exploit. I see it very much as being like those "foreign pay line" scams from decades ago run through the phone system. The very fact that Zynga has made billions off of things like "Farmville" is indicative of the problem and demonstrates exactly why such things should be banned. Especially when a company admits that they design their games to addict stupid people, that's just like using subliminal and hypnosis techniques in advertising which was also banned.

 

[DanielDeFig]

I don't play these kind of social games, but from what i know about them, he does have a valid point. If these games didn't involve money, i would have a harder time to swallow his argument, but their involvement tips the scales (by showing how these games are DESIGNED to take people's money).

 

[Iglock]

All true. Although I wouldn't exactly say social games are "evil"- that suggests they can make moral choices.

In related news...

 

[AstylahAthrys]

He addressed exactly why I hate playing social games. I like avidly playing whatever games I pick up and I hate nagging my friends for help in order to get farther along in the game. My sister talked me into playing Cityville, and it was amusing, but I can't raise my population without harassing my friends. I hate it. At least Ubisoft had the kindness to not involve that in Project Legacy, the only game I play on my Facebook.

 

[Madmanonfire]

It's impossible (to) deny that social games are designed to make money out of their players - Zynga's recent multi-billion dollar is a testament to how effective that design is - but to call them evil seems a little excessive. Blow might might not like social games, but to say that they degrade the people who play them is verging on hyperbole.

Careful with your proofread there.

 

[Darkauthor81]

I have to say im always surprised how successful theses "games" are considering iv never spoken to anyone who has plunked down real money on them

Few people do. But those people that do usually spend a LOT of money. That's why "free" games and MMOs are so profitable. You go from taking a monthly fee from everyone to taking fortunes from a few. People who play casually don't care enough to lay down money. But the people who want to be competitive for pvp, raids, or what have you. They normally have to lay down large amounts of money, regularly, for each character.

 

[coldfrog]

Hah! JB is using evil in a sense that was described in the tabletop gaming article a few weeks back about alignment. I couldn't agree more with his description too. It doesn't enrich anything, and it doesn't add any new social aspects. "Treating your friends as a resource" is about the summary of the entire game.

 

[Zyphonee]

Moronic, really, to catalogue a game that is intended for a public that is not interested in forging new relationships as blatantly machiavellian because they seek to fulfill a different need.

Games lie FarmVille are incredibly well designed; they do not seek to offer a strong narrative or introduce incredibly intricate mechanics, but just offer a very approachable product that one the is not trying to dedicate a lot of time to can penetrate very easily, and play for 15 minutes a day. They don't actually diminish the artistic potential of games, because they aren't encroaching the territory of "Hardcore" games. If anything, I know a lot of people who started playing Farmville, then eventually moved on to other more intricate games.


"Social" games are a completely different branch off the games we play, and there's nothing to fear about them.