Slashdot Mirror
Braid Creator on 'Evil' Social Games
PCGamer recently spoke with Jonathan Blow, creator of the popular indie platformer Braid, about his views on the rise of social games over last few years. He thinks many games in that category aren't actually very social, and when asked if he thought such games are evil, he replied, "Yes. Absolutely." Quoting:
"[With certain social games] it’s about the game exploiting your friends list that you already made, so it’s not really about meeting people. And it’s not really about doing things with them because you’re never playing at the same time. It’s about using your friends as resources to progress in the game, which is the opposite of actual sociality or friendship. Maybe not exactly, but it’s not the same thing, right? They’re really just called social games because they run on social networks."
He's right to a point.
But I have actually met people on Facebook games like Castle Age (Mafia Wars clone) and got to know them a bit. We cooperated on some things in the game without ever being on at the same time.
My mother met a lot of people playing Farmville. (Or one of those farm games.) She would meet them in the chatroom and 'work' on their farm and stuff, and get to know them while she did it.
So yeah, they can be played anti-socially, but they don't have to be.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
There's always been a trend among online games to encourage recruitment of new players. Social networks like Facebook have just allowed this to become even more invasive.
I've de-friended a few, less close, contacts because of messages from games etc (before FB sorted it out). Had to tell closer friends that I'd have to de-link them if they didn't get more selective about messages they send out (most of whom were ignorant of what they were doing). Yesterday I removed a friend because I got a notification that he answered a question about me on some Facebook application. I didn't join this app, and a friend who is willing to give details about me out to a third party so casually isn't someone I am willing to share a link with on this type of system.
All of the above isn't Facebook's fault, or even the game makers. It is the users who allow all this, who send all the invites, who accept or tolerate those invites etc. Sadly, as most users aren't going to change, we are reliant on FB etc to implement changes to protect us.
Finally, before this turns into another thread of endless "I don't use Lamebook" etc posts. No one gives a shit. No one. Bothering to post to say you don't use the tools makes people assume you're a social pariah. The people who don't use facebook, and aren't, don't need to shout about the decision whenever there is an opportunity.
Initially attracted to Mafia Wars due to it's similarity to a good text rpg I had played for a while before Facebook way around, I have grown disillusioned with all the Wall spam and NON-real interaction that I found the game to be about.
Glad I never stopped playing the original.. If you want to see what a Social game should be more like try http://www.torn.com/130690 Yes I would get a referral bonus, but only if you make it to level 10, Which I doubt many would make it to just in the course of checking it out.
I Need someone to rebuild a Digitech Digital Delay pedal for me....for me...for me...for me.
its rare to see people put rather muddy concepts into words as clearly as this.
Read radical news here
" It’s about using your friends as resources to progress in the game, which is the opposite of actual sociality or friendship. Maybe not exactly, but it’s not the same thing, right?"
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end" -- Immanuel Kant
He certainly isn't the only person who would consider such games "evil"...
It summates all of these facebook games down to their core purpose - to make people click a lot and see ads, plus pay money.
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
Sorry, but no-one gets to be the arbiter of voluntary human interactions. No-one is forcing you to participate, and decrying others for what they clearly _mutually_ enjoy is interference.
To be sure, many errors are made. Feelings get hurt. The real test of person's worth is how they recover from errors. Not making any is camouflage.
Isn't Braid a single player game? That's not very social!
I see what you did there, Jonathan Blow.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
Jonathan Blow is one of the most outspoken critic of these games. Check out his excellent lecture about recent game design trends: http://the-witness.net/news/?p=650
They aren't "social" games, they're "capital" games... use whatever resources you can to maximize personal gain!
Most "social" games aren't social? So sitting in front of a PC and shooting imaginary objects is, just because they're swearing at you as they "die"?
The biggest problem I have online is that I *don't* want the social element. I have friends, thanks, and if I'm gaming it means that I'm not with them. Sometimes we join up and have a LAN game or similar but it's rare and it's usually quite a private, organised affair.
When I do go online to play (because single-player is my favourite but does have its disadvantages after a while) I don't really *want* to socialise, or step into a well-established social circle that I'm not part of. Try joining any L4D2 game and see how "social" it is - co-operate with everything everyone says or get kicked.
Online games of *any* kind are about playing the game. Don't play the game and you'll rapidly lose "friends", find less and less servers willing to take you and will hate the whole thing. But you can play for thousands of hours without ever once being "social" in the true sense of the word.
When I'm playing a game, it's to advance myself in that game - whether that means by skill and experience, or just by some arbitrary metric. It's nice to have a "friendly" place but everyone has their own circle of friends and you can't be friends with everyone. Hence, I buy my own servers. Friends can pop onto them and even have admin if necessary. The general public are welcome to make up the numbers, but I come down pretty strong on anyone who's not playing the game properly, obviously. And in the end it doesn't matter whether it's social or not. I can name dozens of regulars that hardly speak when they're playing.
I have a run lots of servers, my latest ones are for Altitude. Almost every night they're packed full (14+ players each), some times they are empty (middle of the day). They're nice people and we often have a laugh and a chat about nothing in particular but long conversations are frowned on - you're there to play the game. And rarely do the same people come into contact on the same server regularly and if you *wanted* to meet up specifically, you'd find a common server that you both like or make one yourself.
The social element is aside from the game. In the same way that "social" networks are not social, nor are "social" games. Nor are most games. And even when they are, the social part comes from something external to the game itself (e.g. clans, private servers, LAN matches, forums, etc.).
I don't play MMORPG's for exactly that reason - it requires co-operation from complete strangers or large groups of friends playing together under the guise of "socialising". I'd much rather the two thing were separated so I could play my game properly and still talk to my friends when necessary. Hell, I have more MSN/Skype conversations while playing Steam games than I ever do over any sort of in-game chat/talk facility.
What happens if your friends aren't able to play a game at the same time as you due to time zone differences? This is where this kind of game is cool cause you can still do stuff together and maintain friendships.
-Xen
The real problem with so-called "social games" such as mafia wars is not that they are exploitive, though they are, and not that they are not very social (ie, no real player interaction). These things are possibly problematic, or not, depending on your views. No, the real problem with these social games is that they are pure time sinks.
A real game ought to be *winnable*. This is a basic principle and exceptions prove the rule. Maybe you can't "win" at dungeons and dragons, but you can complete definable goals and make advancements. You most certainly can *lose*. In facebook time-sink games you cannot win AND you cannot lose. Because they are ever-expanding you cannot even "complete" the game by exploring 100% of its features. These are not games, these are activities for the sheeple masses; a form of circus to keep the percentage of the populace that has too much time and not enough imagination content.
I am always offended by these so-called "games" and feel disgusted when I see people playing them. I say this as a long time gamer and a fan of both hard core and casual games. There's nothing wrong with wasting your life playing video games (or other games) but please, PLEASE do not waste your life "playing" these time sinks. There is no purer form of wasted time anywhere. You are throwing away the precious hours of your existence for absolutely no reward, no effect and no return. If that's what you want to do suicide is similar and far more efficient.
I want my Cowboyneal
These games provide entertainment value, don't they? Ultimately, that's the point of a game, not whether it has a definable ending or not. If you're sending invites to friends for items presumably they're playing as well. If they are then the benefits provided are mutual.
I do have a real problem with all the pay walls and various schemes built into these games, and that's why I don't play them.
But if other people want to spend their time playing these games what the hell is the problem? And what exactly inherently "evil" about them? It's not like anyone is being misled; if you don't know what you're getting into from the start you're rather stupid. People really love throwing around that ridiculous term, don't they?
Has anyone bothered to port old door games like Operation Overkill or Trade Wars to fb yet? At least those were antisocial and fun!
I see a lot of similarities,
99% of arcade games are/where awful attempts to con players into inserting one more coin but its that last 1% that we remember as worthwhile.
Personally I just have trouble with thinking of social games as any more evil than indie artfags.
???
Braid sucks.