Famed game designer Jonathan Blow, the brains behind Braid and the upcoming The Witness, raised a few eyebrows this week when he vehemently decried social games as “evil.”
Specifically, he says the games are “exploiting” their players. These games are “trying to take the maximum amount while trying to give the minimum amount” (emphasis added).
Well. Isn’t that the basic nature of any sort of capitalistic endeavor? You want to get back more than you put in; that’s called making a profit, and it’s very popular amongst people who like to both eat and pay their mortgages.
But I don’t think he’s opposed to these basic principles. (He’s not giving Braid away for free, for example.) Rather, I think he’s talking about the the attitude of the games and — more importantly — their designers.
- Evil attitude: What can get I get from the players? Then, how much to do I have to give them in order to get it?
- Good attitude: What can I give to the players? Then, how much do I have to charge in order to give it to them and still come out ahead?
Motivation is what determines the “morality” of a game. If you make a game to fill your players with joy, fun, and illumination — oh, and to get rich if you can — I think Mr. Blow would stick your game in the “good” bin. But if the profit motive comes first — and it shows in the gameplay — then your masterpiece will end up on “evil” pile.
The key phrase here is, “it shows in the gameplay.”
We cannot tell a game designer’s motivation except by his product.
Hey, designer. What’s your game saying about your motivations?
As a closing side note, I wonder how Mr. Blow feels about traditional coin-op video games? If FarmVille is evil, then Space Invaders must be the devil.
