"The demo seemed targeted specifically to existing FarmVille players, because I (having never played the game) couldn’t make heads or tails out of how one is supposed to play or what sort of entertainment it was supposed to provide."
FarmVille isn't intended to provide entertainment, it's only intended to addict you (to Zynga's benefit). It's one of the more horrible things one can invent with software.
There are certain design tradeoffs between entertainment and addictiveness, but I don't think a game which encourages players to get up at 4 in the morning to click on isometric squares to harvest virtual crops chose the "entertainment" side of that tradeoff.
In fact, I don't think any game where the central mechanic involves clicking on isometric squares repeatedly to plant and harvest virtual crops is entertaining. You may claim they intended Farmville to be entertaining, but they're not that incompetent--they certainly made it addictive.
> In fact, I don't think any game where the central mechanic involves clicking on isometric squares repeatedly to plant and harvest virtual crops is entertaining.
I'm still unclear on your argument. Are you saying that any activity that people engage in, that you don't find entertaining, was invented solely to be addictive?
No universal quantifiers--I'm just saying that Farmville, in particular, was designed to be addictive at the cost of being entertaining. If you have a counterpoint, kindly make it--this isn't quite the right forum for a Socratic argument.
FarmVille isn't intended to provide entertainment, it's only intended to addict you (to Zynga's benefit).
That's an absolutely ridiculous statement, and I'm shocked that it has gotten so many upvotes on Hacker News. Slashdot, sure, but not here.
Do you have any insight into Zynga's development of the game? If not you have no grounds upon which to make that hyperbolic statement.
...Unless you're arguing that anything you don't find entertaining was therefore designed solely to be addictive.
Farmville, in particular, was designed to be addictive at the cost of being entertaining.
Are you saying that its entertainment value is lessened by its addictive aspect, or that it's not entertaining at all? If the former, your original statement needs modification.
"Do you have any insight into Zynga's development of the game? If not you have no grounds upon which to make that hyperbolic statement....Unless you're arguing that anything you don't find entertaining was therefore designed solely to be addictive."
That's a false dichotomy. Please stop throwing around universal quantifiers like that, it's quite reckless.
"Are you saying that its entertainment value is lessened by its addictive aspect, or that it's not entertaining at all? If the former, your original statement needs modification."
I think it's pretty clear what I'm saying. I also think you're engaging in message board gamesmanship here, which is tiresome and boring for others to read. If you want to keep this one-on-one going, my email address is in my profile.
Just about everyone I know - including people who play FarmVille - agree that it's really not very fun, but the app (I hesitate to call it a "game") compels them forward with a number of addictive mechanics.
No offense, but it really sounds like you have a horse in this race - do you work for Zynga?
Just about everyone I know - including people who play FarmVille - agree that it's really not very fun, but the app (I hesitate to call it a "game") compels them forward with a number of addictive mechanics.
Few people I know classify watching TV as "fun," but it passes the time and is entertaining.
No offense, but it really sounds like you have a horse in this race - do you work for Zynga?
None taken. I absolutely have no relationship whatsoever with Zynga.
Consider the argument
Television isn't intended to provide entertainment, it's only intended to addict you (to the networks' benefit).
I can't imagine it would be so uncritically received by Hacker News.
Clearly FarmVille has addictive elements, like any game. I'm shocked that Hacker News so enthusiastically accepts that "FarmVille isn't intended to provide entertainment", and is punishing me for saying so.
A similar statement about TV (or most other games for that matter) wouldn't match our experience. Most of us have been entertained or know someone who has been entertained by TV. FarmVille does not share this quality. Most of us know at least one person who has played it, but no one who actually seems to be entertained. My girlfriend used to play it a lot, but she spoke of it in terms of fulfilling a need or obligation rather than deriving enjoyment. I suspect a lot of people have similar experiences, and that is why they find your comparison to TV to be specious.
Few people I know classify watching TV as "fun," but it passes the time and is entertaining.
Bad argument--few people classify any form of passive entertainment as "fun". That word seems to be reserved for active forms of entertainment, like games. When there's an extremely popular game out there that no one characterizes as "fun", we have an interesting situation.
> Apple should have put iPhone 4 units on display in Moscone, like they did with the original iPhone at Macworld 2007, if only to inspire developers to create double-resolution artwork for the custom UI elements
I think the Simulator provides all the inspiration a developer needs. Seeing your work suddenly presented to you at twice the resolution and detail is very stunning and thought provoking.
I wonder if he thinks their new products and direction are the future of technology.
If anything, he might have been too hard on apple, in suggesting that they do something different than the exact thing that they did, because apple is flawless with marketing and product differentiation. And the iPad is _fast_.
I can't wait for more footnotes from the revolution.
FarmVille isn't intended to provide entertainment, it's only intended to addict you (to Zynga's benefit). It's one of the more horrible things one can invent with software.