作者：Aki Farvinen

所谓设计框架是指通过分析若干社交网络游戏总结而来的设计模式。我们不妨看看那些炙手可热的多人模式游戏，如《Farmville》、《Lil’ Green Patch》、《Mafia Wars》和《Who Has the Biggest Brain?》，或者《Parking Wars》、《PackRat》和《PhotoGrab》当中有趣的游戏设计模式。

我们将分析结果转化为图表结构；这个设计方案可以成为设计师们集思广益，汇集社交网络游戏构思的灵感来源和出发点。

社交网络体验机制的设计框架

以下是设计驱动因素的视觉框架图。

social network games design drivers

第1部分：叙事性。这个概念指通过社交网络描述玩家体验行为和结果。这就是为什么我们认为叙事性是设计框架中最重要的组成部分。

异步体验遍布社交网络当中：体验行为或依次发生，或每个玩家利用个人单位时间（游戏邦注：这被认为是促进社交体验的体验机制）进行。这就是为什么我们以橙色、循环路线（玩家会不时回访游戏）绘制该部分。此外，玩家的游戏进程、网络地位和声誉的发展是跟随核心体验机制的循环过程而进行。

画面上，个人体验时间段之间的云朵代表玩家体验行为产生的影响或者‘PX’（某个特定过渡时期所带来的结果）。因此，设计框架的理念是影响和产生过度阶段的设计方案可以划分为不同关注点，有些影响结果的关注程度可能更高，从而使游戏体验拥有不同潜在风格。

现在，我们就来谈谈互动体验四大内容的设计模式：自发性、象征物质性、内在社交性和叙事性。

社交网络体验的设计模式

以下图表解析了辅助社交游戏体验某个特定内容的设计模式。各个模式均已得到系列特定运用（游戏邦注：特别是在Facebook）平台，社交体验还会产生新的内容。然而，这些设计方案均受到该平台不同程度的限制。

social network games design solutions

设计社交网络体验：抛弃游戏设计，充分理解网络体验

传统观念认为，设计主题和成功优质游戏之间的关系不大，它们需要得到关注，但并非游戏突破的关键。例如，游戏平衡，举个例子：运用和谐方式设计游戏目标和奖励，确保每位玩家均能获得满意游戏体验，这对于社交网络游戏而言似乎不那么重要（游戏邦注：这对棋牌游戏、电脑游戏或者电子游戏比较重要）。

从某种程度而言，我们需要抛弃的另一方面是：对于设计社交网络体验来说，游戏机制的巧妙性以及游戏机制带来动态因素并不那么重要。这多半是因为游戏是依托于社交网络，且包含音效和情景因素，其中包括以天性幽默的玩家替换复杂的游戏设计，创造富有趣味的体验过程。

游戏设计师很难拆分上述模式，这也就是游戏和设计的迷人所在。但在线社交网络和玩家体验方式也同样颇具吸引力，对吧？

社交网络游戏未来创新之路

上述内容并不意味着社交网络游戏不会出现设计创新，而是说创新多半会出现在网络的特色元素之中（游戏邦注：而不是作为设计目标的整个游戏）。

这个例子旨在说明社交网络游戏其实就是活动和服务，开发商们应该从这个角度出发设计游戏。也就是说开发商们要高度关注网络平台的限制性和发展潜力，关注游戏推动的在线玩家互动行为。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，转载请注明来源：游戏邦）

Game Design Framework for Social Networks

The design framework is the result of analysing a number of social network games. Looking at the most popular multiplayer games such as Farmville, Lil’ Green Patch, Mafia Wars, Who Has the Biggest Brain?, or interesting game designs such as Parking Wars, PackRat, PhotoGrab.

Translating the results into a framework that can; inform design decisions, be used as an inspiration, and a starting point when brainstorming social network game concepts.

A design framework for social network play mechanics

Here is a framework of design drivers in visual format as devised by Aki Jarvinen.

Part 1: Narrativity. This is the concept that various player actions and play results are narrated across the network. That is why I argue that Narrativity, in this sense, deserves to be identified as an important aspect in the framework.

Asynchronicity permeates play in social networks: Play takes place in turns, or in individual time units (‘ticks’) per player which then get acknowledged by the game as a system facilitating networked play. That is why it is pictured as an orange, cyclical path of game play along which players repeatedly go through. Furthermore, their progress, network standing, and reputation evolves parallel to this cyclical process of core play mechanics.

In the visualization, the clouds between individual play moments specify some consequences for player experience, or ‘PX’ as Nicole Lazzaro calls it, that the particular transitions bring about. Therefore, the idea of the framework is that design solutions affecting and producing such transitions can be put into specific focus, and some perhaps emphasized over the others, thus giving the play the game facilitates potentially a different flavor.

Now, let’s start identifying design patterns which relate to the four aspects of playful interactions: Spontaneity, Symbolic Physicality, Inherent Sociability, and Narrativity.

Design patterns for social network play

The illustration below unravels a number of design patterns that can be used in supporting a particular aspect of social network play. Various specific implementations of each pattern can be found already out there, especially in Facebook, and without doubt, new ones will be introduced. However, such design solutions are constrained by the particular network they are implemented within, to varying extent.

Designing social network play: Unlearning game design and embracing network play

Design topics traditionally held as integral to good, successful games matter less – they are there to pay attention to, but they do not necessarily break your game. For example: game balance, i.e. designing the goals and rewards in a balanced way for each player to guarantee satisfactory play experiences, seems to matter less in social network games than with board games, or computer and video games.

Another aspect to unlearn, to an extent: Subtlety of game mechanics, and the dynamics they create, are not that important, when we are designing networked social play. This is largely due to the fact that it is the network, and its whimsical and contextual factors, including players with playful dispositions, that substitute such design sophistications in creating fun (enough!) experiences.

As a game designer, it can be hard to break from the above-mentioned tools of the trade, as they can be the very reason that games and designing are fascinating. But online social networks, and how people play them, is fascinating as well, right?

The near future of innovation in social network gamesThe above is not to say that new game design innovations won’t be seen in social network games – however, it is to say that the innovations will more likely take place in the aspects that characterize the network, rather than the game as a design object.

This example gives evidence that games in social networks are events and services, and they should be designed as such. This means being sensitive to the constraints and possibilities of networks, and the online human interactions – and creativity – they facilitate.（Source：playgen）