Any self-respecting videogamer knows most social networking games are flat-out terrible as games. They're dull, repetitive, and derivative. Writer Troy Goodfellow details why they're so terrible, but also why they might get better.

His article at Crispy Gamer proclaims social gaming "the industry's new wild west", which makes them seem more exciting than they really are. But Goodfellow does a great job pulling the curtain aside and revealing the inner workings. It's not just a little man back there. It's a million people, clicking away at Mafia Wars on Facebook. They're the reason the games are terrible.

Everyone I spoke to emphasized that the social part of social gaming is the most important part of the equation. The games only exist to build or expand social capital.

As veteran developer and turncoat Steve Metetzky told him, "Success is determined by how you use the gameplay to make people want to involve their friends."

The article puts these sorts of games in context next to "real" games. For instance, the development process:

...social gaming companies can spend only weeks on a game, launch multiple betas to test new features, and adapt the game on the fly. The immense player base of these games keeps the pace viable, because there are so many avenues for monetization.

Goodfellow also notes a possible sea change in the works. A company named Zynga, for example, recently hired Civilization and Rise of Nations developer Brian Reynolds. Mr. Reynolds has some encouraging words about the future of social game design and Zynga's VP of marketing has an encouraging comment about the importance (or lack thereof) of revenue.

Since I don't play social games -- I spend enough time playing real games, thankyouverymuch -- the real eye-opener for me was this observation from a designer at OMGPOP, a social gaming site that targets 18- to 22-year-olds:

A lot of the micropayment purchases are birthday gifts or a bunch of guys trying to impress a girl.

Ah, callow online youth.