next »

[gimymblert]

social game is the new crossward/sudoku

[McMutton]

Relevant:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2487-The-Skinner-Box

[vinheim3]

Yeah, but how many of them actually move on from Farmville? Most people I know who play that sort of thing have zero interest in other types of games.

Social and casual games also don't do a whole lot to counter the whole "videogames are a waste of time" attitude, because they're designed to waste time for when you have "nothing better to do."

I'm not too social with older people into this stuff, but I know a hell of a lot of girls who have moved onto mainstream popular titles after having experienced Farmville/Mafia Wars/Zynga Poker. Granted it's harder to get them to move onto indie games, but I did get 1 of em into An Untitled Story, and a group into Braid and Recettear. It'd make sense if older people would be harder to sway, even if it's the popular mainstream titles.

Also, I do agree these games don't counter that attitude, but I think people with that attitude are content with that anyways. They have an excuse not to move onto time-wasters like your average console game or indie game since they'll be worried they'd be hooked. Facebook games usually have an energy system that allows it to be played an hour or 2 per day so they get their constant wave of accomplishments while keeping their attitude towards games.

Returning to my original point on the topic, I can't agree with others who "don't like manipulated" or "being exploited by the designer's ways of creating addiction", it sounds weak. You don't like Facebook games cause they exploit players' minds for money? It's sorta like hating on shops down the road or any business that sells products, "this shop sells all types of candy, they're exploiting the fact that kids love candy, just for money, these kids are being manipulated".

This is coming from someone who is currently not hooked to any Facebook game, I like innovation.

[s0]

Returning to my original point on the topic, I can't agree with others who "don't like manipulated" or "being exploited by the designer's ways of creating addiction", it sounds weak. You don't like Facebook games cause they exploit players' minds for money? It's sorta like hating on shops down the road or any business that sells products, "this shop sells all types of candy, they're exploiting the fact that kids love candy, just for money, these kids are being manipulated".

I dunno, I don't really view games as purely commercial products like that. I dislike social games because they're made for maximum profit rather than maximum quality. Maybe I'm being overly idealistic about this, but I think we need less marketing and commercialism in games. More developers should just try to make a good game and then think about how to sell it (if they want to), not base their entire design around some marketing concept.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i think good games should be addicting yes -- but not to an extreme. perhaps a better word is compelling, you should definitely *want* to play it, but not feel that you have to, or not feel that you could not stop if you wanted to stop. you should not have to force yourself to stop, but you should also not have to force yourself to continue, or get bored of it.

[Sankar]

Sometimes I feel that people look at facebook like: "pure mechanics to addict you". I gotta disagree with that, there are lots of games in facebook who are very, very pretty. As a visual artist, I'm happy that 2d artists are still getting illustration jobs in the industry, since today even the handheld systems are going for a 3D approach.

Zynga is constantly updating their games with new content, new art, new rewards. Vampire Wars and Mafia Wars are even somewhat complex.

I usually play these games for a week or so, without ever spending a dime on it. I find challenging to find a way to level up without having to pay.
I've played CityVille for almost a month now. Its fun to mess around in it, when you have nothing better to do.

People get addicted on it because they want to be "number one", they want to be better than all their friends, have the highest level and so on. It's more of a human trait, than some "Magic" by the game itself.

Now, of course, they aren't memorable games. But lots of non-casual games aren't memorable too. Being really memorable is something that only few movies/songs/games can do. Even some great games aren't memorable.

[mirosurabu]

Stretching content because you know players will go through it to get the reward is a bad thing. It rewards procrastination. No game should do that.

Grinding is an example of that. I remember when I used to grind a lot. After some time, I'd look at the clock and think to myself "holy shit, I just wasted 3 hours doing nothing when I was supposed to do this other thing".

[baconman]

A game the rewards you for your fifth day of playing: cool enough.
A game that rewards you only for playing five days in a row? Not so much.

That sort of design only frustrates any player who cannot access their game EVERY. FREAKING. DAY. Which is the sort of "addiction by design" that I think most applies to this topic. It rewards bad habit-forming and prioritization.

[Tiderion]

Good games are not always addictive and addictive games are not always good.

These sets overlap but one is not within the other.

[droqen]

I've noticed many people have been saying that 'good' and 'addicting' are necessarily entwined, but I think that's sort of missing the point as they're also separate (and this has been agreed-upon) -- if a game is good and addicting but its addictive quality can be reduced, should it be, if it will retain the exact same 'good' (whatever that means)?

Is 'addicting' something that is neither necessarily good nor bad? Does it change depending on the game? What affects that?


Er, and last thing, what's the difference between good+addicting vs good+nonaddicting? Is that simply replay value? (if that is the case addicting doesn't seem like the right term)

[Tiderion]

if a game is good and addicting but its addictive quality can be reduced, should it be, if it will retain the exact same 'good' (whatever that means)?

Is 'addicting' something that is neither necessarily good nor bad? Does it change depending on the game? What affects that?

Er, and last thing, what's the difference between good+addicting vs good+nonaddicting? Is that simply replay value? (if that is the case addicting doesn't seem like the right term)

I think this depends on the goal of the game. MMOs attempt to be good but almost always prefer to be addicting. Obviously, they make money off of micropurchases or monthly fees and so it only makes business sense. If addicting is simply described as the quality of a game that makes a player want to play more often and/or for longer periods of time then it is simply the replay value of a game. Golden Eye was addicting according to this model.

To provide consistency to our terminology, an addicting game admits some negative aspect. Otherwise, it is a fun game with high replay value. Farmville is addicting but this is because it is not a good game. You feel drawn in with false promises and end up playing for weeks because you just have to buy crap that doesn't actually change the game. That is addictive. Left 4 Dead on the other hand is a wonderful game that has high replay value. The draw is that you want to get better and try new strategies and win. In doing so you get just that plus a great experience.