I'm a freelance writer about gaming topics by hobby - and an IT Professional by trade. I studied computer science and software engineering for my Master's, and that gradually evolved into an interest in trying to understand games better from an academic point of view and bring out their underlying theory. I think that as players understand their games better and take an interest in their design, they'll be more likely to appreciate the potential of the medium and we'll see more interesting projects from the community to build on the potential of the games and engines that exist.
Facebook's Farmville is arguably the most popular game in the world, with 69 million players a month. I took a look at its mechanics and how well it leverages the largest social network, and come to the conclusion that it's more addictive than it is fun.
My response to a popular online article which claims the best way to enjoy competitive games is to "play to win", and deal with games as they are rather than trying to impose additional rules. I get into why I think there are exceptions to both principles
Excellent analysis, it's unfortunate that this is true in a lot of areas--Alexa provides very biased and incomplete browser data, Nielsen ratings are very limited samples, there are a lot of fields in which the available information has serious problems, but people have to use it regardless because it's better ...
That's a good point about persistent online games not leaving you satisfied. You could also say Farmville and World of Warcraft are the soap operas of video gaming, they don't leave you with a clean resolution like a movie does, they're designed to mount a string of never-ending cliffhangers so ...
Oh, and for what it's worth, RPS is definitely in a different category of skill than fully determined games with complete information like Chess or something. But just like there are legitimate games of strategy like Stratego where players have access to different pieces of information and make secret choices, ...
