We recently moved to a new host. We hope you enjoy the better performance.
PC Gamer: About that lecture you gave recently. I wanted to ask you about social games. And I know you don’t like that as a title.Jonathan Blow: Did I say that in my speech actually?PC Gamer: Well, you called them evil.Jonathan Blow: No, I mean the name “social games.”PC Gamer: I think you said you don’t like it being attributed to some of those games?Jonathan Blow: Well, they’re not very social. A game like World of Warcraft or Counter-Strike or whatever is way more social. Because you actually meet new people in clans or guilds. You go do activities together and help each other out, right?[With certain social games] it’s about the game exploiting your friends list that you already made, so it’s not really about meeting people. And it’s not really about doing things with them because you’re never playing at the same time. It’s about using your friends as resources to progress in the game, which is the opposite of actual sociality or friendship. Maybe not exactly, but it’s not the same thing, right? They’re really just called social games because they run on social networks but they’re way less [social] – like sitting down and playing a board game with friends at a party is a way more social game. That’s an intensely social experience, right? So, like whatever. I hate that name.PC Gamer: Do you still think social games are “evil” then?Jonathan Blow: Yes. Absolutely. There’s no other word for it except evil. Of course you can debate anything, but the general definition of evil in the real world, where there isn’t like the villain in the mountain fortress, is selfishness to the detriment of others or to the detriment of the world. And that’s exactly what [most of these games are].
