Last year he created a special focused on Video Games called “GamesWipe”. It has the same snarky attitude as his regular show, and featured this bit of commentary on game content by British comedian Dara O’Brien.

The first few minutes are as cogent an argument as I could ever make about why the idea of “Great Game Narrative” is most often a fool’s errand. That’s not to say it isn’t possible, but it also isn’t what, at the core, makes a game “good”.

The relevant content begins at 2:15
(and contains some NSFW words)

Such systems solve no problem the user has, and offer no service we want. As a result, conversations about small payments take place entirely among content providers, never involving us, the people who will ostensibly be funding these transactions. The conversation about small payments is also not a normal part of the conversation among publishers. Instead, the word ‘micropayment’ is a trope for desperation, entering the vernacular of a given media market only after threats to older models become visibly dire (as with the failed attempts to adopt small payments for webzines in the late ’90s, or for solo content like web comics and blogs earlier in this decade.)

The invocation of micropayments involves a displaced fantasy that the publishers of digital content can re-assert control over we unruly users in a media environment with low barriers to entry for competition.

It’s worth noting that his issues are distinct from virtual goods, and payments for objects in closed environments. But the idea that paying a little bit here and there fixes problems is just a fantasy.

It may be that the term itself just causes confusion and does more harm than good.

"For the vast majority of players, even those who regularly play and enjoy violent games, violence was not a plus," study lead author Andrew Przybylski, a Rochester graduate student, said in a news release issued by the university.

The plus isn’t for the player, necessarily. But what violence does do is communicate clearly.

"Kill or be killed" is a primal and simple way to explain to a Player their relationship between themselves and the other objects in the world. And their first goal will be to find out just how the game intends to let them do that.

It’s certainly not the only way, nor is it going to be popular with a lot of demographics, but everyone gets it, whether they like it or not. Violence avoids the need to try and create a context for why I might you might want to match three of a similar object together.  Gore shows you that you’ve done the right thing, because if something is exploding into a shower of blood, then you probably did what you were supposed to do.

The research, consisting of two online surveys and four experimental studies, found that overcoming hurdles, getting a feeling of accomplishment and having multiple choices for strategy and action appealed the most to seasoned video gamers and novices alike.

There are reasons to not use violence and gore as your basic toolset, but the above quote confuses cause and effect. Games use violence because it communicates accomplishment and helps you overcome hurdles, not because it feels good to be violent.

As games become more socialized violence will probably become a tool favored more by cooperative games (us vs. them) than head to head play (you vs. me).  After all, it’s far more socially acceptable to shoot a computer generated monster than your best friend.

Traditional games are primarily focused on the experience of play. It’s the old "gameplay is everything" model, and while that’s still important, the equation has changed a bit. What a social player is most concerned about is status. After all, telling other people about how you’re doing is what Facebook does best, whether it’s what you’re watching, reading, thinking, or playing. In the end your "wall" is a billboard that gives you a chance to let other people know what you’re up to. It wasn’t all that long ago that only Presidents and movie stars got the kind of attention we’re all getting now.

And if you look at the early social platform successes, you can see that while the gameplay isn’t all that compelling your status is clearly something they all have in common. X-Wars games like Mob Wars are constantly telling you where you’re at, what you need, and what’s next. Scrabulous was also a strong a status game. It constantly let players know when it was their turn, and immediately gave them a "lay of the land" when they saw the game board. For users of these applications "where am I at?" can be almost as important as "what’s next?"

With players coming to your games looking for five minutes of fun you need a place for them to start and end that experience, and a strong status screen is always going to be the place to call home.

And Bejeweled Blitz, PopCap’s first official Facebook offering is no exception. It’s a perfect distillation of the classic three-in-a row experience that they pioneered. It, once again, reinvents the game by forcing you to try and go for your best score within sixty seconds. It’s a game I’ve played a hundred times before, has been cloned a thousand times, and yet somehow they’ve managed to make the gameplay feel fresh once again.

Too bad it isn’t actually a social game.

Looking at it from a chicken vs. egg perspective it seems like there’s always an advantage in making the social elements your driver. Especially if you’re not Popcap. After all, no one has bothered to argue that virality isn’t a good thing for a very long time. And socializing your product means reaching out to a new audience in a way that goes beyond what gameplay alone can do.

That’s why the catch-all term "Social Games" really bugs me- a lot. It reminds me of the early days of casual, when everybody knew that there should be a better term, but nothing else would stick. Looking at the current condition of the casual marketplace and their relation to the platforms, I think it’s beneficial to differentiate between the elements that the publisher/developer can own and the ones they can’t. It may already be too late, but I’m hoping that people can do more to separate games that are simply played on social platforms (Facebook, Myspace, etc.) from games that deeply integrate social elements.

The term I’m using is "Social Platform Games". It’s a little more specific  but leaves the door open. And if you’re all about the social platforms why not call yourself something that describes it that way. It’s a moniker that a game like Bejeweled Blitz can wear proudly, without having to worry about when or if they’re going to add in all the awesome social elements. And if you’re a true social game on top of that, even better.

Right now it’s a one man crusade to see if I can get people to adopt it the term. But if someone wants to come up with something a little more catchy accurate let me know

When rolling out a new platform, website, or service your first instinct to create some easy content is to go back and mine the history of games for something that can be exploited for a quick clone or sequel. But socializing games is about more than just slapping a new coat of pixel paint onto Bejeweled. You can add social features to classic games, but to succeed with a savvy audience those elements will need to wound directly into the game’s DNA.

2) Social Games aren’t only for a specific audience

In a world where you have crossover success stories like World of Warcraft, Habbo Hotel, Pogo, and Maple Story it’s pretty clear that you have to decide to carve out a single demographic, psychographic, or cohort, and decide that’s the place where Social Games are going to be big. Something as innately viral as social gaming is all about breaking down the walls that have kept players apart for far too long.

3) Social Games aren’t the new Casual Games

The rise of Casual Games over the last half decade has been about defining a new model of game designed to appeal and broaden a specific group of players. And while adding social elements to a game can increase the potential pool of players, that doesn’t mean it’s a label that defines a specific "genre". Social gaming is medium, not a message. And anything that dives into the social pool is going to end up getting wet.

4) Social Games aren’t all about Gameplay

It used to be that for game to be a good game it had to have good gameplay. Social gaming breaks that old rules and makes up a new one: For a social game to be good it has to be a good experience.

5) Social Games aren’t always part of a Social Platform

In case you hadn’t noticed it, one of the most cutting edge social titles to come out this year didn’t appear on MySpace or Facebook. It was called "Left 4 Dead" and it appeared on the Xbox. All types of games are going to get more social in the months and years ahead, and you may end up learning just as much from a big budget title as the next X-Wars game.