社交游戏产业的信徒们或许会被各式各样的批判所淹没，比如有人认为社交游戏不具备足够的社交性，或认为它们邪恶十足。对此我不得不表示赞同，但我也不得不唱唱反调。的确，现今的Facebook游戏仅仅利用社交作为达到目的的手段，社交游戏玩家们同样仅仅结交了许多虚拟朋友。说实话，那些玩伴是可以取代的，但如果情况相反又会如何呢？

social game slave

比如说，如果你在《FrontierVille》中的朋友，可能并不仅仅意味着获得X道具或实现458号目标的渠道。想象一个只有真正的好友施予援手时，才能解决麻烦的《FrontierVille》的游戏场景吧。假设当你在帮好友清理房屋时被蛇咬伤，一个弹出窗口就提示你，“快让朋友们一起来创造解药，否则情况不妙！”

你有两个小时来集结你最亲密的Facebook朋友，让他们在一个实时的谜题小游戏中合作调制解毒剂。如果他们不能按时创造并交付解药，你的角色将死亡。别担心，他们的努力将得到经验值和钱币的奖励。这听起来有趣吗？另一个结局又是怎样的呢？另一个情境：你的朋友找全了升级杂货铺的零件，但需要你和另外三位朋友即刻到他家中帮忙修建。游戏邦提醒你，如果不在六个小时内作出回应，那么随着时间的流逝，他的木板将会摇摇欲坠、钉子也会生锈，他将不得不从头开始。因为你忙于工作，你的朋友浪费了1.5万枚钱币，他很不开心。

当然，这是两个十分极端的场景。但Zynga等开发商还能怎样做到在保持游戏紧迫性的同时，又让它们更具备社交性呢？我们都希望社交游戏可以更好地利用Facebook的社交功能。但对于Facebook的用户来说，他们只需和在你的用户墙上留言的人保持联系就足够了。游戏邦认为，如何在保持盈利的同时让社交游戏中的友谊更有意义，并强化促使玩家持续游戏的紧迫性，这毫无疑问是开发商最为关心的问题。让你的朋友在紧要关头感受到游戏的乐趣，还有比这更好的途径吗？

社交游戏开发商们有没有考虑过这样的开发策略？当然还没有。不过，这是唯一能够在赚取美元的同时，建立起更深层次的社会联系的方法。注意到了吗？反对者们在大声抱怨社交游戏的同时从未解释过“更深层次的社会联系”是怎样的。在游戏中为好友的快乐负起责任，同时也希望对方做出同样的回应，这也是一种更深层次的社会联系，在选择盟友时它会迫使你做出一个抉择。但这种责任不是会扼杀游戏乐趣吗？如果这就是“更深层次的社会联系”导致的结果，那就把我排除其外吧。（本文为游戏邦 /gamerboom.com编译，转载请注明来源：游戏邦）

Social games aren’t social enough, but do we really want more?

Many followers of the social games industry likely feel inundated with the claims that social games are not social enough or they’re downright evil. While I can’t help but agree, I also can’t help but play devil’s advocate. Social connections are used by today’s Facebook games as mere means to an end. Today’s social gamers are only as successful as the amount of dedicated friends they have, regardless of whether those “friends” are genuine. Truth be told, those friends are replaceable. But what if they weren’t?

What if your friends in, say, FrontierVille were more meaningful than just a source of Item X for Goal #458? Imagine a FrontierVille that featured real consequences that could only be resolved through the help of your most dedicated of friends. Say your avatar is bitten by a snake while clearing debris from his homestead. A pop-up appears reading, “Ask yer friends to join together an’ create an antidote or yer as good as gone!”

You have two hours to rally your closest Facebook friends to collaborate in a real-time puzzle mini game to concoct an antidote for the poison. If they can’t create and deliver the medicine in that time, you will die. Don’t worry, they’ll be rewarded with XP and coins for their efforts. Does this sound like fun? How about on the other end? Another scenario: Your friend has the parts to upgrade his General Store, but needs you and three other friends to join him in real time on his homestead to build it. If you can’t respond in six hours, his planks of wood will warp, his nails will rust from time passed and he’ll have to start from scratch. Your friend just wasted 15 thousand coins because you were busy at work, and he’s not happy.

Sure, these two scenarios are wildly extreme. But how else would a developer like Zynga make its games more social while maintaining the urgency that you? We all want social games to make better use of the social connections that Facebook fosters. Yet as Facebook users, it can be enough just to keep in touch with whomever writes on your wall. For friendships in social games to become more meaningful while maintaining profitability–which is no doubt a chief concern for developers–then the urgency to keep playing has to be intensified. And what better way than to put your friends’ enjoyment of the game at stake?

Would social game developers ever attempt such an exploitative tactic? That, of course, has yet to be seen. But it’s the only foreseeable method of creating deeper social connections while raking in the dollars. (Ever notice how dissenters never explain what these “deeper social connections” would be when crying out for them?) Responsibility for your friends’ enjoyment of a game and likewise is a deeper social connection, one that would definitely force a selective hand when choosing allies. But wouldn’t this type of responsibility kill the fun of it? If this is what “deeper social connections” would lead to, then count me out.（source:games）