Amen!

Lewis,

For a game not to be a waste of time, I think it should have to impart something on the player. A new perspective, a thought, or maybe just a lot of fun. I've been playing Torchlight recently, and I think overall it's a waste of time. I really enjoy how customizable my character is - and for that I'm glad I played it, since it showed me something interesting about game design - but grinding through levels is definitely not getting me anywhere.

Most console and pc games are of course more exciting, but in the end, do you really gain anything from them? Your typical hack and slash rpg is basically just an amusing grind all the way through. Or consider all these XBLA games that are just about shooting things. Lots of FPSes as well. They're much more complicated and pretty, but aren't they just as much of a waste of time? How is a pretty game with a meaningless story and meaningless interaction not a waste of time?

Instead of leveling up my character, I could be doing something productive or spending time with my friends.

What do you think?

I think that yes, you not enjoying them comes down to your personality and expectations of a game. My entire family, excluding myself, plays Farmville. To me the game doesn't have what I want from a game: challenge. I can learn the game far too fast and it will leave me with nothing for my mind to consume. However, watching my mom, brother and sister talk about what their farm has, what they want to plant, what they will give each other as gifts, laugh and generally be having a good time together... well I can't really knock a game that does that.

I guess a new era of things will be games not targeted at gamers. Ce la vie.

@Rod
If the game results in social interaction that the players enjoy, more power to all. If the players are having a good time together, then the game is successful to some degree.

However, people can have a good time together playing Monopoly, and Monopoly is a mediocre game design at best. What most people remember about Monopoly sessions is being with relatives and friends during holidays or vacations, the game itself is usually most unmemorable.

So if we're going to make games, why not make ones that are in themselves in some way memorable?

@Bo
I'm afraid many video games are essentially wastes of time, because there is no social interaction and nothing that's really memorable.

Shooters can be quite elaborate wastes of time, but on the other hand they do provide certain kinds of challenges and can help improve coordination and even (in not so many cases) exercise the brain. Some of them (Half Life?) can be quite memorable.

Computer RPGs, especially MMOs, clearly are not as much fun (on average) as old tabletop RPGs, partly because the computer cannot match a good human referee, but mostly because leveling up has replaced having a good adventure as the purpose of the game, while dying makes so little difference that players don't really care what they do, they'll succeed by sheer perseverance. Memorability suffers severely.

Re: Time-wasters > The same argument can be made about any game - they serve to entertain and distract. Facebook games have their place, but they are obviously not targeted at core-gamers who would rather spend their game time on a console or MMO game.

Facebook games benefit from ease of entry - 10 second installs and free to play. IMHO, you get what you pay for. I enjoyed Mafia Wars for what it was, but I never paid a dime. If they made anything off me, it was through advertising alone.

It seems to me games are usually played for three general reasons: for the sake of passing time, for the sake of playing the game and for the sake of Something Else.

Obviously, they're not exclusive - one can start playing a game to pass time because they're bored, but then become engrossed in it and continue playing it far longer than they intended to, collecting loot and building up their character etc. Suppose we're talking about an MMO, the player might reach the level cap and the attraction of new loot will lose its sheen, they've played for a year and the character is about as twinked out as it can get. But in the process they've joined a guild and have lots of new online friends they enjoy socialising with and doing raids together. They're no longer playing the game for the sake of the game, but for the sake of Something Else - in this case social interaction.

Personally, I only find games worthwhile if they offer the third - they can give me Something Else. These are the games that I wouldn't say are 'time-wasters', they do more than 'distract or entertain me'. The case is clear-cut for an MMO which offers socialising or even Wii Fit, which (supposedly) helps improve physical fitness. Other games can offer less tangible rewards, perhaps rather personal ones. The same as a good book or film, a good game can offer a fresh perspective, give you insight, instill an idea, make you experience something, teach you etc. all things that you can take away from it.

To me as a game designer, in fact almost every game is worthwhile because there are always interesting things to be gleamed from its design, from its production, concept and execution. As a person though, games that offer an interesting Something Else are unfortunately few. However, I hope I make my main point clearly enough: that games definitely do not have to be exclusively wastes of time.

Returning to the three reasons and the original question, I have to remark that (what I believe to be) the most played PC game of all time is solitaire. I'm certain that it can be played for the sake of the game itself and some people even play it for the sake of Something Else - Patience games have been and likely still are used to foretell the future, but the vast, vast majority of those who do play it do it merely in order to pass the time ("Congratulations Mister Jones, you haves succesfully passed time," said the archangel to the man that spent his life playing solitaire as he stood before the pearly gates - or so the joke goes).

Although I don't think solitaire to be an especially worthwhile game, I even play solitaire quite a bit myself, particularly when I find myself with nothing much to do during periods short enough to make starting a larger game meaningless or impractical, but long enough to make simply waiting around tedious. In short, they serve as mental chewing-gum. Given that Facebook overall is largely popular as a means of procrastination, in particular amongst students evading the doing of their coursework, short and simple games that can distract the mind will always be well-received on that platform and would not work nearly as well on, say, LinkedIn.

That said, I don't see why any game shouldn't strive to be able to satisfy all three of these needs. Indeed it seems to me that being able to meet all three is the mark of a game with very wide appeal and a basis for financial success.

Games in general are not a waste of time. They're entertainment, and we value entertainment, or else we wouldn't play.

With that in mind, when the author says that THESE games are a waste of time, I understand what he's saying: these games are not fun, they aren't things that you'd play cause you really want to play them. They're things to click on while you're procrastinating, plus elements of addiction and peer pressure.

The Facebook platform does have potential. The advantages are easy enough to sum up. There is no install, and there is 'out of the box' integration with your social network software.

I believe this is what console vendors are going for now with their Live networks and Miis. Except this is a much, much bigger market, including millions of regular gamers.

I think a contributing factor to this cruft you found is that many developers have basically said there are two kinds of people: Hardcore gamers, a tiny and reclusive niche, and people who are incapable of anything more than clicking on vegetables.

For some reason, developing on Facebook exagerates this phenomon, and people go at it with the mindset that vegetible clicking games for the unwashed masses are the absolute only thing you can make.

Throw in some amateurs, tinkerers curious about the Facebook APIs, and Farmville imitators and you have Facebook gaming today.

Of course sooner or later someone will think outside the box we've made, and we'll all boggle at their success like they found life on the Moon.

I think the main thing here is that FB games are generally played by people who don't play (what I'd call, with a bit of snobbery) REAL games. That's why they are so popular -- there are lot of folks such as 40 house wives playing them. And their are a lot of 40 year old house wives out there.

"I think the main thing here is that FB games are generally played by people who don't play (what I'd call, with a bit of snobbery) REAL games."

Well, that's who they're all made for because everyone assumes that this is the only thing they'll play.

But a large portion of people who do play "real games" _are_ on Facebook, and that's not counting the people who might play but haven't been properly introduced yet.