
Why Zynga's Success Makes Game Designers Gloomy - edw519
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/09/pl_games_zynga/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo
======
jdk
So I used to be a game designer in the very hardcore PC MMO world. I now work
as a Lead Game Designer at Zynga. You know what? I'm not gloomy in the
slightest. If I stayed in the MMO space, I'd be making the same games that I'd
been making for the past 10 years, chasing WoW because that's where publishers
want to throw their money. Facebook games on the other hand offered a
different audience and a different set of rules to design against. It's MORE
interesting work, to be honest. The are new and interesting challenges in
terms of both gameplay and scale ("raid encounters" for 20? try upping that a
few orders of magnitude!)

The whole "Oh god, Zynga is morally and creatively bankrupt" line is at least
6 months old at this point (and for a company that's only 3 years old, that's
a pretty long time). Look at the recent acquisitions and releases...
FrontierVille was made by Brian Reynolds's team (you know Civ 2, Alpha
Centauri, and Rise of Nations, right? Yeah, that Brian Reynolds.) and is by
all accounts quite successful. Zynga just bought Bonfire (ex-Ensemble,
responsible for Age of Empires and Halo Wars). "Good" (more interesting, fun,
higher production values, etc) games are slowly cropping up on Facebook, and
more people on getting on board, not just because it's a perceived money
train, but because it actually allows you to do something new as a designer.

For the first time in 12 years, my mother understands and enjoys the kinds of
games I make. My aunts hassle me to add particular items to my game. Granted,
I still haven't figured out a way to tell people what I do without them
narrowing their eyes at me... (Previous: "You work on video games, huh? Like
Grand Theft Auto, that game is so violent and bad for society!" Now: "You work
on FarmVille!? I [love|hate] that game!")

Incidentally, two of the people quoted (Jesse Schell and Daniel James) both
make very similar social games on Facebook.

~~~
Lewisham
To be honest, it doesn't really matter what personnel you have on board or
whether you feel there's some moratorium on bad press (I don't know why the
other commenter got down-voted, because you do really state that), it's about
the games Zynga produce. The games that Zynga are designing are pretty much
bankrupt in terms of enjoyment in and of itself. They're a Korean MMO grind,
with the key difference that you have to force your friends into that grind,
or pay up.

I really did enjoy Frontierville for the first week or so. There was something
therapeutic about tending to my farm, hitting snakes, adding some new
trinkets. It's the same pleasure centers as Animal Crossing hits. Then I need
to build a building, which requires all sorts of tools, which you can either
buy with real money, or get from friends. Those took a couple of days to
acquire from my friends. "I'm glad I don't have to do that again" I exclaim.
Lo and behold, it's revealed to me that if I want the next building, at my
rate of tool acquisition, building the house would take _months_. My choice
was "Pay up, spam more friends, or I dare you to quit." I quit.

Does it matter that a game designer I greatly admire was putting me in this
ridiculous situation in his game? Actually, yes it does. It makes it burn
_more_ when a man I respect is telling the press how great Zynga is and how
much freedom he has, and then he's producing games like this. It's hard not to
feel he's simply happy cashing pay checks, players be damned.

I'm not adverse to the idea of paying for games that are Freemium, I put a
decent amount of money into Free Realms. But FR was careful to make the
transactions in there not required: much of the game (apart from some jobs)
was available to you, and that game design didn't require a microtransaction
sword or whatever to progress. No money was required, which is the difference
with Zynga's games.

Facebook games are a great new place to be. I have no chip about Zynga's
Scrooge McDuck money bins, and respect them for their success, the metrics-
based technology they have at the backend, and the amazing team they've
managed to put together. But the products they produce are cynical and anti-
player. And that's why people hate them.

------
narrator
Game wise, Farmville has the feel of nickel slots. You give up something of
value, your spare time, for a chance at a reward. Since many view their time
as low value, the reward is worth it. The interaction is based solely on luck.
The buying of virtual goods helps people justify the time they waste on the
game because it shows them that in game rewards have cash value.

I would really love to read a full blown social psych journal article on
Farmville.

------
BenSS
Zynga depresses them because they don't make games to be fun, amuse, educate,
or tell a story. It's all about the addiction and funneling factor to get
users to pay. The 'normal' rules for app developers also do not apply, the
founder even admitted to abusing every FB feature possible to grow.

~~~
sjsivak
You are just not the target audience. If Zynga games were not fun to everyone,
no one would play them. Just because you do not find them amusing does not
make them bad games.

I don't like the My Little Pony games aimed at 6 year old girls, but I won't
say they are bad because I know I am not a 6 year old girl.

~~~
Lewisham
They're "bad games" by any usual metric bar with which games are critiqued,
unless your metrics are "money made" and "addiction." But they're businessmen
metrics, not the ones a game designer would use.

PopCap are definitely the company to look at here. They spent a decent number
of years cloning smaller games, which was not to their credit. In the last 4
years or so, they've been creating amazing original IP. And those games are
doing gangbusters with all sorts of audiences. You don't have to create bad
games in order to engage new audiences, you just have to tap into what they
are interested in.

~~~
sjsivak
What is the "usual metric bar with which games are critiqued"? I am pretty
sure that is your opinion because there is no metric bar that all games are
measured against.

Game reviews do not use a good game checklist to explain why a game is good or
bad, they give their opinion. You can say Zynga games are bad, but supposing
that your opinion should apply to everyone is arrogant.

~~~
Lewisham
There are plenty of metrics, like engagement, enjoyment etc. etc., but there
is some very tangible metric bar by which games are measured, it's called peer
approval.

By what metric are other art forms judged? How are the Oscars awarded to
movies? Who chooses the winner of the Booker prize? Or the VMAs? Peer
approval.

Zynga doesn't have peer approval from many game designers. This article
highlights some dissenting opinion, but there's plenty more out there. Just
Google it. Their infamous speech speech at GDC Awards show doesn't help their
cause either. [1]

Note I am careful not to say "games reviewers" because reviewers are writing
for their audience, and that core game audience usually does not intersect
with Zynga.

[1]: <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-20002221-52.html>

------
gacba
My favorite quote about Zynga, relevant to this discussion, is that "their
motto is the exact opposite of Google's 'Do No Evil'". That's what makes me
gloomy. They're like the spoiled love child of EA and Microsoft.

They have no scruples or creativity and no apologies to make for it.

~~~
Lewisham
Oh yes, that reminds me how much of Zynga's properties are ripped off from
existing games. Farmville was a straight-up clone of Farm Town, PetVille was a
clone of Pet Society... The properties that Zynga are most proud of are the
same as the ones they didn't design.

~~~
bemmu
Farming games actually have a pretty long history:
<http://www.chinasocialgames.com/?p=400>

I think this type of game has occurred to many people. Back when I was doing
coding for a MUD I was considering adding farming mechanics, because I thought
it would be fun to come back later to the game to gather and sell the plants.
More fun than the mining mechanic they had, which consisted of basically
moving around the map and just typing "mine" over and over again.

But then I figured, who would care about farming when you can already kill
monsters in battle. Instead I created a virtual sauna.

------
wccrawford
Let me fix that for them:

"We're afraid because we make big-budget games, and Zynga has made people pay
for low-budget games."

I've thought for quite some time that game budgets in the millions are getting
out of control. (And movies, too, for that matter.)

Good controls, decent visuals and audio, and great plot and/or mechanics.
That's what makes the best games. Big-budget games ramp up the visuals and
skimp on the rest. I'm sick of that.

Not that Zynga has plot (at all) or mechanics, mind. But they're cheap enough
and they make you happy, so it works. I broke my Facebook games habit about 6
months ago. Prior to that, I did 'donate' way more than I should have to a
couple (non-Zynga) games. Eventually, the repetitive mechanics palled and I
broke free of it.

Big-budget game companies need to learn from Zynga. They need to use the same
techniques that compel people to play Zenga games, but in bigger, better games
that actually have more. Instead of being scared or saying Zynga is breaking
their market, they should learn and improve.

And some have been doing it for years. Achievements, collectables, upgrades,
bonuses... Pokemon even has it as the slogan: "Gotta catch 'em all!"

Any game designers that are 'gloomy' over Zynga's success are flat failing to
learn from the situation.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
Not all of them make big-budget games - at least, "puzzle pirates" doesn't
scream high-end 3D gameplay to me.

Also, there's a distinction between fun and addictive.

Finally, I'm not sure they are actually losing all that many sales - how many
people playing Farmville would have paid for Neverwinter Nights?

~~~
helium
_how many people playing Farmville would have paid for Neverwinter Nights?_

You just stumbled onto the real issue right there. All these people have been
making amazing games, but they all appeal to the _gamer_ market. Zygna has
found out how to reach the the traditional _non-gamer_. It might be a hard
pill to swallow, but the truth is that games like Farmville appeal to the
majority of people who would never really pay for games before.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
> stumbled

Well, no, I was well aware of that argument. But I'll take it in the spirit it
was intended. ;-)

------
jlgbecom
Game developers hate Zynga for the same reason that real comedians hate Dane
Cook: Uninspired, unoriginal (borderline theft), and a dilution of the craft.

Sure, you could chalk it up to jealousy of success, but the reality is that
there are people out there who are in it for more than money, and sometimes it
hurts on a visceral level to see mediocrity succeed wildly.

~~~
rick888
"Sure, you could chalk it up to jealousy of success, but the reality is that
there are people out there who are in it for more than money, and sometimes it
hurts on a visceral level to see mediocrity succeed wildly."

Mediocre is a relative term. What is this based on? To you it might mean
graphics to me it might mean the storyline.

This happens in more than just the gaming industry. Look at how much attention
instant youtube got a few weeks ago. The developer just slapped together some
ajax using a pre-built API. As a developer, I could have written the same
thing in a relatively short amount of time. Yet, it got him lots of attention
and a job offer.

I also say the same thing about things like Django. Rather than knowing how
everything works, developers are putting blocks of pre-built code together to
build applications. I am almost certain the assembly guys were saying the same
thing when C became popular.

------
_delirium
I suspect many of the game designers quoted here actually have somewhat more
nuanced views on the subject. Chris Hecker complained that his quote was taken
out of context from a 1.5-hour interview:
<http://twitter.com/checker/status/25917674678>

It's pretty lame tabloidish reporting, really. There could've been an article
about this, and if the reporter actually conducted 1 hr+ interviews, he had
the material to write one. But instead he cherry picked four quotes, slapped
on a big image, and hit publish.

------
dgant
As in many creative fields, a common goal for many game designers is to create
a thought-provoking work of art that's also a runaway commercial success. Who
wouldn't want to create the next SimCity, Minecraft, or Civilization?

But the harsh reality of the game industry often dictates that designers must
choose between the two goals. And the harsh reality of having to eat and pay
rent often dictates that one must prioritize the latter.

Zynga's success puts this tradeoff in the starkest possible relief.

------
chops
_In Zynga games, you’re just trying to get more stuff. You’re caught up in
this junkie behavior, and you have to keep upping the dose. That has me
terrified._

This exactly is what playing most MMO games is all about: the grind for stuff.
I don't see a reason this should be considered that threatening to anything.
The draw of MMO Games is the sense of accomplishment (next level, next piece
of gear), and in any games now that've implemented achievements (Modern
Warfare 2, Left 4 Dead, Quake Live, Starcraft 2 the list goes on forever) it's
the same feeling of accomplishment when you get your 500th midair knife kill.

That's just the direction games are going. Give the user a a feeling of
accomplishment.

I don't see anything warranting a gloomy outlook on games because of
farmville, especially, since I don't see a huge overlap in target markets.

~~~
kevingadd
The level of actual social engagement in a game like Left 4 Dead (between the
four human players) far surpasses that in a game like Frontierville, even if
they both have achievements. Likewise, the level of depth and sophistication
in something like Starcraft 2 is virtually impossible to compare. One could
argue that Frontierville and the like are simply serving people's need for a
simple, relaxing pastime - that's probably true - but as games, they still
fall short. Facebook games, for the most part, exist as a space with the sole
purpose of creating reasons to spam your facebook friends. I applaud Zynga for
adding things that actually resemble game mechanics, but it's still kind of
insulting to call them 'social games' when they're not particularly social and
still barely games.

------
rsbrown
Talk about sour grapes. Industry standard game design has been terrible for
many, many years and it's not Zynga's fault.

------
edkennedy
It makes me gloomy because of the incentive advertising they included to drive
traffic to affiliate offers. From what I remember, Mafia Wars had teeth
whitening, diet pills and dating sites.

------
alizaki
Listening to Zynga execs talk, they don't really consider their products as
games, but rather 'social experiences'. They rely on having people you care
about playing the games and enabling communication between players through
self-expression, gifting and other mechanics. They constantly compare
themselves to email and other communication channels. A lot of that is
obviously feel good fluff, but at some level, I think its based in fact and a
lot of the opportunities they have to materialize rise out of this too.

------
far33d
TL;DR - designers who have been making games for themselves lament that
someone started making games for everyone else.

------
VladRussian
c'mon, people. Classic music is less popular than pop-music. Hollywood movies
frequently gather more monies than supposedly more highly sophisticated and
artful ones. So what? Zynga isn't the first (and isn't the last) to make money
off mindless simplicity of the populus.

(just don't get me wrong - i like Hollywood, especially "governator", and it
isn't Bach that is in my earphones - pop-culture has it for each of us, i'm
just too old for Facebook/Farmville)

