"Social games" are crap. There, I've said it. Now everyone else can breathe a sigh of relief that the elephant in the room has been well and truly pointed out.
But why are they crap? Well, the main reason is that they just aren't very fun to either play as games or use as a means of socialising. I've tried out Mafia Wars and We Rule in particular. And neither of them are very fun.
Both of them involve a lot of clicking and waiting. Click on a button to complete a task. Wait for something to happen… in real time. While you wait, why not spam your friends to "help" you by clicking on the same button that you did? You'll both get XP! Yay XP! Of course your level means little more than how long you have bothered to waste your time playing what is basically an Access database, but that's beside the point.
The social angle is flawed too. There's no interaction. You can request "help" from other players but there's no means of actually playing together concurrently. In some games you can't even send messages to each other.
Then came Blur. Blur single-handedly shows the correct way to develop a good social game: by building a good game first, then a social network around it. Too many other titles do this the other way round, and that's what causes them to be the shallow, meaningless garbage that they are.
Blur is different, though. Even without the social features it would be a great racer featuring the "why hasn't anyone done this before?" combination of realistic racing and Mario Kart-style powerups. But add in the ability to taunt friends publicly via Facebook and Twitter, not to mention the incredibly solid "Friend Challenge" system, and you've got a winning experience on your hands.
Playing Blur is actually remarkably akin to logging into something like Facebook. Starting the game greets you with a "Previously on Blur" feature showing you the next milestones you might reach, a bit like Facebook's News Feed shows you recent happenings. Then you might want to check your messages, so you look at the Friend Challenges screen. You see that three of your friends have challenged you to beat their times, so you while away a short while beating them senseless… or not. Then you take on some of the single-player, and achieve something you know none of your friends have, so you post it to Facebook. Then… the list goes on. All the while you're having a good time playing a great game AND sharing the experience with friends.
So, social game developers? Please stop being satisfied with the derivative shit you're coming out with. The shit you are deriving your new shit from wasn't very good in the first place. So actually hire someone who has played a video game before to design your game, then build the social features around it.
Rant over. I'm off to play Blur.
People who comment first on things should be applauded for their tenacity. Assuming they have anything worthwhile to say. However, unfortunately, the sort of person who enjoys pointing out the fact they are the first to comment on something rarely has anything useful to say. This then has the knock-on effect of causing the following commenters to assume that the thing that has been posted is the sort of thing only enjoyed by twats and, by extension, is not something over which a reasonable, thought-provoking or entertaining discussion might take place. Please see what you can do to stop this happening.
The immediacy with which information is available on you is astounding. During the last paragraph, I was able to quickly look up the word "tenacity" to ensure it was, in fact, the correct word I was thinking of. (It was.) However, this does not mean that more lengthy prose no longer has a place in society. Whether on a message board, a blog post, an online news article or a Wikipedia article, the saying "less is more" is not always true. Consider these two sentences: "Pete is a dude." and "Pete is an awesome dude who likes video games and music, and has also recently taken to punctuating his blog posts with MS Paint stickmen representations of himself and numerous other anonymous people." Which of the two sentences tells you more about Pete?
Laughter is the best medicine, but it is not punctuation. We already have some perfectly good punctuation marks to use. Here is one: a colon. And a full stop. And oh look – a dash! And an exclamation mark. But what about a question mark? Or some sort of slash/"quotation marks" combination? All of these things are fine and serve to make our written communication more clear.
I've bought things in the past. I once bought a copy of Oasis' first album Definitely Maybe the day before their second album (What's the Story) Morning Glory? came out. I didn't know any better at the time, as I was just getting into popular music, but I wasn't annoyed, because Definitely Maybe is a good album too. I was quite impressed that my friends at the time didn't feel the need to take the piss out of me for this, because they too knew that Definitely Maybe was still a worthwhile purchase even though the next album was on the way.
Finally, Internet, I believe that one of your most exciting features that you told everyone about when you first appeared on the scene was the ability to bring the whole world closer together. Terms like "information superhighway" and "global village" were coined for us to all imagine one big happy family holding hands and enjoying things together.
My good friend Mr George Kokoris had 








Times change, especially when it comes to kids. As new parents inevitably say at some point or another, "they grow up so fast". One minute they're a mewling, puking, shitting machine that whinges and moans about everything. Then they move out of their teenage years and leave home.