next »

[iffi]

i guess its just because theyre sort of weird plugins to social networks

Yeah, it's probably because "social network game" is too long for many people to bother typing or saying.

[SirNiko]

I think the hatred for social games is not really an indie thing, Zynga is hated by mainstream gamers too.

I personally don't play games on facebook because most of them are designed around mechanics that reward spending money and signing up friends, both of which are obnoxious and uninteresting.

[Aik]

What defines a social game again? As far as I can tell from general use, they're those Facebook games with manipulative reward cycles that are designed to suck up time without any real achievement, and work to suck in your friends as well. I think this (mis?)conception makes it pretty obvious why I hate them - they're worthless leeches of time, as opposed to (good) games - not just indie games - which empower the player to do cool or challenging things, engage in discovery, or generally do something worthwhile (in the same way that playing soccer or watching a movie is worthwhile).

It's like if someone was giving out Monopoly money to watch paint dry and people were lining up by the million to do it - it's tragic and pathetic, and I don't understand why people do it (except at the intellectual level with the psychology behind skinner boxes and such).

[bento_smile]

I don't hate social games... just am not too keen on games which are made purely to exploit the players (mostly financially). Also, if people had more self-control, they wouldn't be so exploitable. :/

But if someone enjoys it a healthy amount, how is it a waste of their time? At least, not moreso than collecting all 151 stars on Mario Galaxy, or training up some awesome little magic knight in Demon's Souls, or getting three full sets of master materia in FF7. I could count up the amount of time I've spent playing Persona, and then work out how many games I could have made in that time, and cry a little. (The answer would be one awesome game, or about 26 jam games. So, personally, I don't feel like I'm doing something worthwhile playing any sort of game :/ it's still an indulgence.)

[Aik]

Are you sure that people actually enjoy it though? It's my impression that they don't - in the same way that gamblers don't get all that much enjoyment from pulling levers on slot machines but do it anyway. I know from my experience with MMORPGs that you don't need to be enjoying a game to keep playing it. I'm not trying to claim they're having badwrongfun - if it's actually fun then sure, that's worthwhile - but if it's not fun and just gets people to keep playing through mechanics that exploit our hardwired want of more (even if that 'more' is valueless) - that's shitty.

I'm not saying that a lot of other games don't tap into the same thing - the jRPG grind isn't exactly a wonderful thing either, but at least there's more to it than that. I don't think it's comparable to collecting stars in Mario games - those are rewards earned through skill and exploration, not brainless repetition that goes nowhere.

If you don't think games are worthwhile, why do you want to make them? Go write a novel or something...

[C.A. Sinner]

I hate them cuz they're moneymaking schemes based on psychologically exploiting people and have very little actual merit, gameplay-wise or in any other respect, unless you enjoy looking at godawful clipart-style graphics.

Also, OP, you practically answered your own question. I'm not a big fan of pretending to "speak for everyone" but I think indies generally prefer good games (whatever that is) over games optimized for profit. I mean, I don't look down on people involved with social games, I understand it's a business and people want to make money, but it's a mindset so far removed from what I like about games and game development I just don't a have a lot of understanding for it, TBH.

[Richard Kain]

This is really, really easy to explain. Here you go...

Social games tend to be successful.

Bam, there's your answer. Indie developers tend to despise social games because they are successful. This is the same reason why they tend to look down on any other indie developer who "sells out" to "the man." A lot of the culture that surrounds any indie community has to do with rebellion against the established order. It is why they label themselves as independent. When you become successful, it is normally assumed that you have bought into "the system."

It is also a function of the stereotype that has been established for most social games. Largely thanks to companies like Zynga, social games are viewed in the most cynical of terms possible. Most indie developers just assume that social games are a soul-less cash grab, and that most of the decisions that fuel them were made in the marketing department. Given the current state of "social" games, these assumptions make perfect sense.

[Gorgoo]

This is really, really easy to explain. Here you go...

Social games tend to be successful.

I don't think that's a fair generalization. At least, I haven't seen anyone here saying that they hate them because they're successful. It seems like a lot of people have a problem with the way they work, but not with the fact that they make a large profit.

I'm sure there are people who thinks any successful game has "sold out". But considering that a lot of people here are happy for, say, Minecraft being wildly successful (though it probably doesn't make as much money as Farmville), I doubt that they hate when a game is successful.

[Richard Kain]

I don't think that's a fair generalization. At least, I haven't seen anyone here saying that they hate them because they're successful.

It makes more sense if you ask yourself WHY most social games tend to be successful. Again, we are forced to look at the Zynga model. The social games they develop are specifically tailored to make huge amounts of money. They intentionally build them from the ground up to earn cashola by preying on basic instincts of human interaction. And the vast majority of social games are following in step with this example. They are following because Zynga has managed to prove that there is money down that path. Investors are throwing money at these social games companies expecting to reap a green harvest.

As you pointed out, this is a generalization. There are obvious exceptions where developers are making decent social games with the very best of intentions. But most of those developers aren't getting unholy amounts of venture capital thrown at them. The most successful social game developers tend to be the most cynical. Indie developers tend to be idealists, with visions of making compelling experiences or experimenting with new ideas. The two philosophies tend to clash.

[John Nesky]

I can't comment on what the indie community thinks, because I am not the indie community. But I can tell you why social network games rub *me* the wrong way.

I wanted to like Scott Jon Siegel's talk. He made it clear that the reason why he cares about social network games has nothing to do with their success or popularity. Instead, the reason why he thinks social network games have so much potential is because they are always on. Even when you're not playing the game, you're still playing it. The game world is still active whether you're actively engaging in it or not, and you're likely planning your day around in-game events.

And I'm afraid that this is exactly what I don't like about them. My time is too valuable to dedicate some of my brain power every day to the same game.

I love movies, but I don't watch TV because TV takes too much time. Social network games are the TV of video games.

Full disclosure: I am currently employed in the social network game industry. (Not Zynga.)

EDIT: I don't play MineCraft or Spelunky for the same reason, though I'm sure a younger me would have loved them.

[Alistair Aitcheson]

I don't really play social games because they're not really my cup of tea. I was into Restaurant City for a while, but grew tired of it eventually. I tried Farmville for a short time but it seemed way too much like Harvest Moon, which I never really liked anyway. I don't tend to play them because they're just not the kind of game I enjoy playing.

But I don't have a problem with them being there, and I think there's plenty of things that we as designers can learn from them. The psychological techniques that designers of these games use could be equally applied to other genres, such as shmups, puzzle games, RPGs, in order to make them more engaging, more compelling, more stimulating.

They are also great at attracting people to games who otherwise wouldn't be interested. According to studies social games are popular with a generally older female audience. And there's nothing wrong with making games for a non-standard-gamer audience. Surely they should be able to enjoy playing video games too? There must be tons of reasons, in the aesthetics and in the design, that these audiences are attracted to these kinds of games. Why can't we use these techniques to get this audience playing our games too?

There's all this talk about social games being optimised for profit, but then so were most arcade games that are now regarded as classics. Donkey Kong, Ms Pac-Man, they were all designed to have short play-times but encourage players to continue endlessly, putting in yet another coin to have just one more go. There's no reason profitability and good gameplay shouldn't work together. That whole "one more go" mentality came out of a drive to keep customers inserting money.

Even when you're not playing the game, you're still playing it. The game world is still active whether you're actively engaging in it or not, and you're likely planning your day around in-game events.

I don't see why this can't be a good thing. Surely this is a great demonstration of engagement? When I was hooked to Kongai earlier this year, whenever I wasn't playing the game (or studying for my exams) I was thinking up strategies and trying to determine whether they would be viable in certain situations. And it was fantastic! I felt really engaged with the game, so much so that it permeated into my daily life. The game was very stimulating mentally and expanded my mind. Surely a game that runs over into your daily life can be a good thing in terms of engagement and learning.

Sure, Zynga has employed some very dirty tactics and I don't like them either. Heck, I don't even play social games! But I think it would be foolish of any developer not to look at these games, see what they've done right, and learn something from it.

There was a good article on the escapist a few months back saying similar things

[SirNiko]

The suggestion that Indies hate success is out of line with recent deals like Minecraft's spike in sales, Derek's deal for XBLIG Spelunky, the recent article about kickstarter providing great sums of funding for indies, and moves for Meat Boy, World of Goo, and Cave Story to mainstream consoles.

Regarding Minecraft in particular, if you insult it most TIGforumgoers will react like you shot their mother.

[Perrin]

I don't have a problem with social games at all. I do however have a problem with some of your assumptions in your original posting:

I would go as far as to say originality is a core value of the indie game community.

I don't really think that's true personally. While there are certainly many innovative creators in the community my perception is that the majority of the output in the indie community is people taking their own stab at established genres and styles. I've seen just about every possible permutation of platformer and shoot'em'up come from the indie community and I don't feel like originality is always the creators goal nor is it required.

Indie games strive to be works of art; there is no question about that.

That's obviously a hot button topic around here from the amount of threads about games as art but once again I think "art games" are certainly a niche part of the indie community output as a whole. If you pick any of the high profile games like Spelunky, Super Meat Boy, VVVVVV they're all great games but none of them feel like an attempt to produce works of art to me.

The easiest game to make, and I may get some backlash from this but I believe it's true, is a game for yourself.

I don't think this point is so much wrong as you've come at it from the wrong angle. I don't feel like indies make games for themselves because it's easier I know personally that making games for myself is entirely the only reason to be an indie developer in the first place. If I tried to make games for a target audience then I might as well join the mainstream games industry.

I really don't have a problem with social games. My reason being that I love that the games industry as whole is becoming a much bigger and wider place which caters for gamers of all kinds and not just for people like FPS games. I think it's awesome that FarmVille exists, that tech like SingStar and Kinect get various audience playing on consoles who would hate a game like Fallout 3. It's also great that the DS has a whole host of games for teenage girls that I would never want to make or play myself. I have no reason to resent the existance of any of this stuff because it means more people get to enjoy games that suit them even if they're not something I'd enjoy playing myself.

I do have a problem with your characterisation of indies as this cliched imaged that we're all trying to scrape by making high art while we don't really worry about the money so much. Since that to me shows a lack of knowledge at the depth and breadth of what is actually being created and by whom.

So finally you mentioned apples and oranges in the original post. Here's what I really don't get. Why this matters? Because I don't feel like in general the indie community gets on that well with the makers of Call of Duty or GTA either. I feel like if you take a general view on it I've found a lot of indie developers focus a lot of their love on other indie games. Which makes a lot of sense since those are the kind of games they make and are into. So I don't think it matters if people dislike Facebook gaming.

When you've spend a year working on a weird offbeat game because it's just the thing you always wished someone would make then no maybe you don't like FarmVille, but so what?

[Nitromatic]

I hate 'em because I am not social, nuff said.

[Tuba]

I don't hate social games, just don't like how most of them are uninspired clones of other games.

I think it's possible to make a social game that is fun, creative and has a more interesting gameplay than clicking on cows and telling your friends to click on cows with you! By integrating a game with Facebook, you have access to a list of your player friends (which are in theory his "real" friends), there is some potential there that's not being well used yet IMO.