游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

论社交游戏的可玩性交互设计准则

发布时间:2011-05-22 22:20:00 Tags:,,,

作者:Aki J?rvinen

交互性设计如何影响社交游戏的总体设计?如何将对用户动机的理解提炼成设计准则,以此激发新的设计灵感?本文主要探讨设计社交游戏时需面对的几个问题。

摘要:

在本文中,我论证了嵌入交互设计和服务设计有助于开发者针对Facebook等社交网络设计游戏的观点。我认为研究人们使用社交媒介的动机和情感,以及分析当前流行的社交网络游戏,有助于我们理解影响多个社交网络用户的游戏机制。我尝试提炼出一系列设计准则,将交互性、社交性、服务和游戏设计等要素置于同一个设计框架中。此框架包含贯穿于在线社交网络的内在社交性、自发性以及可玩性。

why-we-playing-social-games

why-we-playing-social-games

新兴的游戏运营和开发领域

Facebook应用每个月都能吸引成百上千万用户,该平台前10强应用总少不了游戏产品的身影。此外,社交媒介专家宣称社交游戏以其固有的吸引力、易玩性和灵活性而对所谓的休闲游戏构成威胁。

另外要注意的是,在线应用服务虽然也具有好玩且与游戏类似的特质,但它们的表现和运营方式明显不同于游戏。Facebook也泾渭分明地划分出“游戏”与“仅供娱乐”两种应用类型。

从设计实践来看,这些观点倾向于认为交互设计项目需嵌入游戏任务设计,反之亦然。从游戏设计的优势来看,它已被交互或服务设计任务所主宰。实际上,这意味着设计者需以更复杂的方式,将可用性,或者说可玩性引入游戏设计中。

Valentina Rao已开始研究“可玩情绪”,比如Facebook应用鼓励个人用户出于娱乐和社交目的访问这些应用。如果有些游戏体验不够理想,那么开发者就要重新思考自己有没有从社交媒介或游戏的角度来设计和开发游戏了。

交互性设计如何引导社交游戏设计?我们如何通过对用户动机的观察和发现,总结出影响社交游戏设计的准则?本文将通过定义出色的游戏设计准则,探索这个重叠设计领域的相关要素。

服务/交互/社交设计与游戏设计的碰撞

本文还将提及两种类型的开发群体,他们的创作灵感和方法截然不同:Andrew Chen已划分出了网页开发者和游戏开发者的不同之处,比如在内容制作和发行环节:游戏开发者重视内容的质量胜过发行;社交应用和网页开发者更情愿将游戏视为一种媒介,而游戏开发者更重视特定类型的媒介,他们喜欢为视频游戏机和高端PC开发游戏。

然而,Valve等一些游戏开发商已明确考虑要开发和他们的商业模式相吻合的服务设计。

维基百科对“游戏设计”的定义是:

为一款游戏设计内容和规则的过程。该术语也被用来描述真实游戏的设计,以及描述此类设计的文献。

我个人觉得游戏设计是交互设计的子集而已,这样我们又得来定义“交互设计”。

Dan Saffer的定义如下:

交互设计是促进人类和产品或者服务之间交互活动的一种艺术。

Saffer强调的是人和产品之间的互动(游戏邦注:例如含微处理器的设备和服务等产品)。

因此,游戏设计是交互设计的一个子集,主要侧重于促进玩家和游戏之间的互动。

这和所谓的服务设计又有关联。Saffer定义:“服务是一个拥有发展过程、对终端用户有价值的活动链。”Saffer将服务设计和系统设计联系在一起,指出在服务设计项目里,系统就是服务。他认为服务设计的重点在于环境,如“整个可使用的系统”。

一方面,游戏设计需受制于计交网络服务;另一方面,这种服务的社交功能又有助于游戏设计。Andrew Mayer也同意这种观点,并提出“游戏就是商业服务”的看法:

游戏玩法体验会作为服务链的一个环节而终结。社交游戏却可以让我们向前一步,要求平台为每名用户提供适当、动态而安全的关系网络,从而模糊用户与内容开发者之间的界限。

我认为至少还有一个设计区域,或者至少还有一种形式,能与游戏设计相结合。Joshua Porter提出“社交设计”这个概念,强调社交在特定互动和服务设计项目中的重要性:

社交设计是支持社交互动的一种网站和应用概念、方案和产品。

从中可以得出结论,社交设计是服务设计的一个子集,沟通和分享等社交功能就是其设计驱动要素。

从社交游戏的设计实践来看:游戏设计环节必须作为一个子系统嵌入到社交媒介服务这个大系统中。

这意味着开发者本身并不设计或拥有服务本身,但运用了该服务API等资源优势。结果是API带来了一系列设计限制,但同时也带来了许多可能性。无论何时,社区环境和服务设计一样都是游戏设计的一部分。

运行于社交网络的游戏机制

将游戏设计技术运用于在线应用设计这个理念已日愈受到关注。设计师Amy Jo Kim推出一种“将趣味性转化为实用性”的设计方法,也就是将游戏机制设计运用于社交社区和应用设计。

Kim的“游戏机制”概念则是工具和系统的集合,交互设计者可将于用于创造一种更好玩而有吸引力的体验。Kim在自己的作品中还采用了一些特定的核心游戏玩法,例如收集和交易等玩家行为。

游戏设计师Daniel Cook提出了“建立王室应用”这个观点,比如利用目标结构的等级优势,以及在设计应用的过程中积累技能。Cook以经典电子游戏《Super Mario Bros.》的高级目标为例,将Mario在游戏中的经历视为可运用于任何一种应用的模式。

用户体验设计师Jonathan Follet推崇设计可玩性体验这个观点。Follett认为“一个趣味数字产品必须具备4个特色”:许多小奖励,没有消极的结果,依赖其它玩家的努力,无关紧要的互动。他对于用户体验的可玩性定义如下:

能吸引人们的注意力并让他们参与再创造,消遣和创意娱乐的数字设计元素。

这种定义虽然很有用,但将它用于阐明游戏设计目的则未免过于宽泛。如果要将这些元素作为设计原理来解决设计难题的,我们必须缩小它的范围。

社交游戏的设计空间资源当然还没有被耗尽,新兴社交媒介平台的涌现更是印证了这一点——毫无疑问,这个设计领域仍有不断增长的设计要素和模式有待探索。假如我们已拟定了一些词汇和概念框架来辅助社交游戏设计,事情也许就没有这么复杂。

游戏机制设计:三角测量法

我将介绍一种三角测量法,它是一种有助于设计社交网络游戏体验的方法,它始于更简明的“游戏机制”定义。

在游戏设计的理论概念里,所谓核心机制的设计已被认为是创造可玩性的首要问题。核心机制已被定义为“玩家在游戏中一直重复的动作”。

我并不将游戏机制理解为一般游戏设计要素,但有一个更狭隘但更实际的定义:单个游戏机制可被看作是游戏开发者赋予玩家在游戏世界中表演的一个动词。机制与游戏目标紧密结合,也就是说,它们是达到目的的方式。因此核心机制就是玩家用于达到某种目标的个体游戏机制的组合。实际上,它们之间的关系正是设计游戏玩法的构建模块。

然而在单人模式的电子游戏里,核心机制有可能会为玩家和游戏软件创造像系统一样的反馈循环,在多人模式游戏里,这个系统会更加复杂,因为它管理着多个玩家的动作以及他们之间的关系。在社交网络游戏里,这个系统让社交网络变成一个包含了服务(比如Facebook平台)、个体玩家和玩家社区的大整体。

社交网络的游戏玩法是玩家为达到目标所采取动作的反馈循环,并通过系统或者个体玩家,或者整体社区进行反馈。我们可以将这几个要素的关系想象成一种拥有三个要素的三角形,这个三角循环始于用户开始玩游戏的动作:

Verbs – Goals – Network play model

Verbs – Goals – Network play model

此模式让我们对社交游戏设计的目标和侧重点进行实验性思考,例如我们应该采用哪些要素创建某种游戏玩法,如果是设计另一款游戏又该采用哪种交互性设计。

这里有一个涉及用户的根本问题是:有什么合适的动词或者目标,可以用来描述用户第一时间参与社交网络活动的动机?

在线社交网络和游戏动机

为了将交互设计和游戏设计技术相结合起来,我们首先要考虑用户使用社交媒介的动机,其次是他们玩游戏的动机。

设计者思考用户动机的好处是,他们可以根据用户动机的表现指导游戏设计。因此,社交游戏的设计必须锁定用户使用社交网络的动机,并将其转化为游戏的交互性,让用户自觉或不自觉地产生一种表达自我的感觉。

Yochai Benkler在研究社交网络的过程中,指出人们使用社交媒介的动机包括:社交联络性,心理幸福感,满足感和获取物质。Peter Kollock则定义了4种在线社区活动的动机:互惠,声誉,增强自我价值以及对团队的依赖和需求。

另一方面,角色扮演类游戏玩家的主要动力是在游戏中所取得的成就(比如竞争和晋级),并完全沉浸于游戏世界的活动中(游戏邦注:比如探索,个性化活动,享受故事情节等),这里当然也涉及一些社交因素如团队协作,玩家关系以及总体社交活动。

我认为这两个观点对我们综合研究社交游戏设计的框架提供了一个很好的起点。和大型多人在线游戏(MMORPG)相比,人们体验社交游戏动机可能更具休闲性(随意,短暂,无需投入大量精力)。

根据情感理论家Jon Elster认为,用户可能会与一个特定事件、对象或中介的重复接触而产生一种情感,然后由此形成对它的情感倾向、玩法倾向,这可以看作是玩家长期体验社交游戏的结果。

如果我们回到用户行为就是其动机的表现形式这个概念上,并针对这一点设计游戏,面临的挑战之一就是如何针对玩法倾向设计游戏。将我们已明确的动机和机制转变成促进设计的要素,有助于我们找到解决这些设计挑战的对策,并不断调整和改进设计:

四个设计驱动要素

现在我们准备在社交网络应用的基础上建立一个动机和情感框架,它也可以被阐述为几个设计驱动要素:

Valentina Rao定义了三个Facebook用来表现可玩性的特点:物质性,自发性和内在社交性。而针对特定的游戏设计功能,我认为还应该再增加一个异步性,我将把这四个特征作为一个框架来解释玩法倾向的设计准则。

符号物质性

Rao把Facebook游戏的招牌表现形式定义为“将物质深度添加进玩法互动”中,比如喝啤酒,hi-fiving等等。这些特征实际上是想把实际上的“人体温度”引进非物质的在线游戏中。

自发性

Facebook游戏的简单性表现在,将一个复杂游戏机制精简为一键式轻点按钮,以便支持用户在社交网络中的内在自发性。

内在社交性

Rao的观点是“趣味性是和社交情景内在地结合在一起的,它不能脱离后者而独自存在”。上文所提到的特征也再次突显了这一点——此外,Rao列出了很多针对玩家行为的快速奖励,大量的积极反馈,无消极结果的探索,在他人作品的基础上创建具有内在社交性的设计解决方案——这与我们之前看到的Follett提出的观点很相似。从总体上来说,这些功能与休闲游戏的设计要求存在共通之处。

从设计游戏层面来看,内在社交性激发了玩家的组队意识,因为每个玩家都有自己特定的彼此相识的社交关系网。Nabeel Hyatt实际上已经指出社交游戏严重“依赖于社交环境(游戏邦注:例如学校,工作单位,住宅社区)以为结盟、游戏玩法和动机提供框架”。

异步性

Ian Bogost列举了四种有异步性特色的玩法体验——它“支持多个玩家依次而非同时体验游戏”,它需要一个“所有玩家共同作用,反过来也会影响所有玩家的持续状态”,它与玩家间断游戏的过程有关,“《Scrabble》中的游戏对手总会因上先手间,或者在看邮件而中断游戏”,根据Bogost的观点,这种异步性并不能作为游戏特征。

然而,社交网络的多数游戏似乎都在围绕着这种间歇性做文章,只是间歇的质量和数量取决于系统所在的环境,例如用户总因即时信息或微博而中断社交游戏,这方面的典型就是Twitter,相较于Facebook,它会创造多种异步性,有助于用户以更慢但更有组织的节奏使用该服务。

针对可玩性的交互设计

通过对我们所做的定义和观点的总结,我们可以暂时将社交网络的游戏设计定义为“针对社交玩法的交互设计”。

也就是说,我们应该通过社交平台所提供的功能。设计兼具内在休闲性和高度粘性倾向的游戏等社交应用。

与此同时,为可玩性而设计意味着我们应优先考虑用户的情感粘性,不可错将高度错综复杂和创新的游戏设置放在第一位——即使在这两者并不矛盾的情况下也不能例外。

Matt Mihaly也认同这个观点,他的看法是成功的社交网络游戏更注重让玩家通过沟通来表达自己的情绪。Andre Mayer指出这类玩家知道自己在游戏中的状态以及进程,也知道游戏里的下一个目标是什么,以及如何实现这个目标。

Rao在总结其调查研究结果时表示,“Facebook应用对玩家的吸引力在于其表达情感(好玩或者趣味性情感)而非动作(游戏设置)特征”。她称“真正”的游戏并不会为玩法设置而刻意以固定模式创建动作,这类游戏通常将动作压缩为几个轻点鼠标的操作,然后通过“戏剧性故事”表达出动作所带来的结果。在这种情况下,一点小小的投入就可以为玩家带来很高的回报。

由此我们可以概况出两种不同设计准则的特点:视频游戏开发者主要针对基于技巧的动作(判断某个动作是否成功)而创建游戏调整解决方案;而社交网络游戏设计师则根据社区、故事来创建调整游戏设置的解决方案。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

Game Design for Social Networks: Part 1

By Aki J?rvinen

How can interaction design inform game design practices in the context of designing games for social networks? How can understanding of user motivations be formalized into design principles that would solve and inspire new design solutions in this particular design space? In the first of two parts, I explore specific issues that game designers will have to face when designing games for social networks.

Game Design for Social Networks

Part 1: Interaction Design for Playfulness

Abstract:

In the article, I argue that tasks of designing games for online social networks, such as Facebook, can benefit from understanding the project as a practice where techniques and methods of game design are embedded into interaction design and service design tasks. Research into motivations and emotional dispositions of social media use, and analyzing existing popular games in said networks, help in identifying game mechanics that tap into user practices across social networks. I try to extract a set of design principles into a design framework where interaction, social, service, and game design meet. The framework aims to support the inherent sociability, spontaneity, and playfulness that permeate online social networks. See also Part 2.

Social network games as an emerging area of game business and development

Facebook applications attract millions of users per monthly basis, and game applications frequently reach the top 10 lists of the platform. Furthermore, social media experts are claiming that social media games are threatening the market of so-called casual games, due to, e.g., their virality, accessibility, and scalability.

Furthermore, it can be argued that online applications and services incorporate playful, game-like qualities, even if they are not explicitly presented and marketed as games. Facebook has drawn this line in the water by separating the application category ‘Just for Fun’ from the category of ‘Gaming’.

In terms of design practices, these observations point towards a junction where interaction design projects embed game design tasks, and vice versa. From the vantage point of game design, it becomes engulfed by interaction, or service design tasks. In practice this means that the context of use, or in this case, play, has to be taken into account in the design in more complex ways.

Valentina Rao has studied the ‘playful mood’ that, e.g., Facebook applications encourage, noting that individual use them both for entertainment purposes and socialization tools. Often the games are considered as unsatisfactory experiences, which, on the other hand, forces developers to reconsider whether they are designing and developing games or something on the borderline of social media and games.

How can interaction design inform game design practices in the context of designing games for social networks? Second: How can such observations and findings, based on an understanding of user motivations, be formalized into design principles that would solve and inspire new design solutions in this particular design space? In the article, I explore the overlapping design spaces by identifying prominent game design principles.

Definitions: Service/Interaction/Social Design meets Game Design

The subject and goals of this article also speak to two developer communities that can be quite different in their aspirations and methods: Andrew Chen has made observations differences between web developers and game developers, e.g. regarding the role of content production and distribution: Game developers want to compete in the quality of content rather than distribution. Social application and web developers seem to be interested in games as medium, whereas game developers are interested in the particular genres of the medium, developed for video game consoles and high-end PCs.

However, recent news show that some game developers, e.g. Valve, are clearly considering and developing the service design aspects of their business.

Wikipedia defines ‘game design’ as

the process of designing the content and rules of a game. The term is also used to describe both the game design embodied in an actual game as well as documentation that describes such a design.

I argue that game design is a subset of interaction design. Therefore we need to define ‘interaction design’.

Dan Saffer gives us a definition that goes as follows:

Interaction design is the art of facilitating interactions between humans through products and services.

Saffer goes on to include to his definition interactions between humans and products, which are able to respond to human actions, i.e. devices and services with microprocessors.

Thus, game design is a subset of interaction design that focuses on facilitating interactions of player and games as particular entertainment systems.

In addition, it is useful to relate these fields to so-called service design. Saffer defines it as follows: ‘A service is a chain of activities that form a process and have value for the end user.’ Saffer relates service design to the design of systems by stating that in service design projects, the system is the service. He goes on to say that service design focuses on context, i.e. ‘the entire system of use’.

Game design in this context is, on one hand, succumbing to the constraints of the social network service, and on the other hand, using the service’s social functionalities to its benefits. Andrew Mayer has echoed this by claiming that ‘Your Game is a Service Business’, stating that The gameplay experience ends up simply being another point along that service chain. And social games push us even further out, demanding that the platform provides every user with appropriate, dynamic, and safe relationships that allow blur the lines between users and content creators.

I suggest that there is one more area of design, or at least a term, that we need to relate game design to. Joshua Porter has introduced the term ‘social design’ to emphasize the social aspects of particular interaction and service design projects:

Social design is the conception, planning, and production of web sites and applications that support social interaction.

One could conclude, then, that social design is a subset of service design, where social functionalities – e.g., communication, sharing – are the design drivers.

For the practice of designing games for social networks, the consequences are: The game design part of the design has to be embedded as a subsystem into the larger system of the social media service.

In practice this often means that the developer does not design, nor own, the service itself, but takes advantage of the service API. In effect, the API brings along a number of design constraints, but also possibilities. In any case, the community context, as with service design, becomes part of the game design.

Game Mechanics for Social Networks

The notion of applying game design techniques to the design of online applications is gaining prominence. Amy Jo Kim is a designer who has promoted an approach she has entitled ‘Putting fun into functional’, where the design of game mechanics is applied as an interaction design method for social communities and applications.

Kim’s notion of game mechanics as ‘a collection of tools and systems that an interactive designer can use to make an experience more fun and compelling’, works as a starting point. In her work, Kim has also identified certain core gameplay mechanics, i.e. player actions, such as collecting and exchange.

Daniel Cook is a game designer who has put forward the idea of ‘building princess applications’, i.e. taking advantage of structures like goal hierarchies and skill progression in designing applications. Cook takes the high level goal of the classic video game Super Mario Bros. and uses Mario’s (i.e. the player’s) journey through the game as a structure that could be applied to the use patterns of any application.

Jonathan Follet is an user experience designer who has promoted the benefits of designing playful experiences. Follett outlines four features that a playful digital product should have: lots of small rewards, no negative consequences, building on the work of others, and frivolous interaction in general, ‘just for fun’.

His definition of playfulness in user experience

as those elements of a digital design that engage people’s attention or involve them in an activity for recreation, amusement, or creative enjoymentis useful, yet it seems altogether too broad for game design purposes. We will need to start narrowing down such observations if they are to work as design principles that can be used to solve design problems.

The design space of game design for social networks is certainly not exhausted yet, especially as new social media platforms emerge almost monthly – without doubt, an increasing number of design elements and patterns can be identified and tested within this design space. This can be easier if we lay down certain vocabulary and conceptual framework from which to follow the development of social networks for purposes of game design.

Designing Game mechanics: A Method of Triangulation

I will introduce a method of triangulation, which helps in designing game play into social networks. It starts with a more concise definition of ‘game mechanics’.

In theoretical conceptualizations of game design, the design of so-called core mechanics has been widely acknowledged as being of fundamental importance in creating play. Core mechanics has been defined as ‘the actions that players repeatedly take in a game’ (Salen & Zimmerman, Rules of Play).

Instead of understanding game mechanics as generic game design elements, I suggest a narrower yet more practical definition: Individual game mechanics can be thought of as verbs that game designer give the players to act in the world of the game. The mechanics are linked with the goals of the game, i.e. they are the means to reach the ends. Core mechanics are, thus, combinations of individual game mechanics that are used to accomplish certain goals imposed at the player. In effect, these relations are the building blocks for designing play. (See my PhD for more.)

Whereas in a single player video game, the core mechanics might create a feedback loop between the player and the software as a system, in multiplayer games, the system becomes more complex, as it will govern the actions of multiple players and their relations. In social network games, the system becomes the social network as a whole, consisting of both the service (e.g., the Facebook platform), individual players, and the community as large.

Therefore, the mechanics need to reach ‘outside’ the game itself, or, we need to expand our notion of what a play session with the product is: Besides the actual, rule-governed gameplay, play in social networks games engulfs the in-between moments – and more importantly, the ‘afterplay’ and ‘foreplay’. The latter consists of various means of network propagation that Brenda Brathwaite and Ian Schreiber write about.

Game play in social networks is a feedback loop of player actions that try to accomplish goals, and are given feedback through the network, either through the system itself, or individual players, or community as a whole. This dynamic within these elements can be thought as a triangle with three elements, around which the user experience starts to emerge as play:

Verbs – Goals – Network play model.

The model gives us a tentative idea of the scope and focus of designing games for social networks, i.e. what are the elements through which play can be created in this context. In which kind of rhythm and reciprocity should this dynamic be put into action is another game design question that we will tackle later.

Before that, a more substantial, user-centered question is: What are suitable verbs and goals that speak to a user’s motivations of engaging with social networks in the first place?

Motivations for online social networks and games

In order to bridge interaction design with game design techniques, it is useful to take the motivations of, first, social media use, and second, game play into account.

The advantage designers can gain from thinking about user motivations is that they can proceed to design opportunities for the users to act in ways that become expressions of the users’ motives. Therefore, games for social networks should target motivations of using those networks, and stylize them into playful interactions that give the players a feeling that they are expressing their motives — consciously or unconsciously.

In his study of social networks, Yochai Benkler (2006) has identified the following motivations for social media use: Social connectedness, psychological well-being, gratification, and material gain. Peter Kollock (1999) has defined four motivations of contributing in online communities: Reciprocity, reputation, increased sense of efficacy, and attachment to and need of a group.

On the other hand, people playing role-playing games are motivated by aspects having to do with achievements in the game (e.g., competing, and advancing) , and immersing themselves into the game’s world (e.g., discovering, customizing, enjoying the story aspects). Social aspects matter as well, e.g., working in a team, player relationships, and socializing in general.

I argue that these two sets provide a useful starting point for synthesizing a framework for thinking about game design for social networks. It combines a number of the above features, however, by filtering them through the emotional disposition of playfulness. Therefore the motivations for game play in social networks may become more casual (random, fleeting, effort-aversive) than the ones of, e.g. players of MMORPGs by average.

According to emotion theorist Jon Elster (1999) emotions transform into emotional dispositions through their long-term consequences, i.e. repeated experience of an emotion that is triggered in connection with a particular event, object, or agent, becomes an emotional disposition towards it. Playful disposition, and variations in it, can thus be seen as long-term consequences of emotions experienced during the play of social media games.

If we look back at the notion of user’s behavior as an expression of their motives, and designing for it, the challenge is how to design for playful dispositions.

Principles for such design challenges can be found by transforming identified motivations and mechanics into design drivers, and iterating from there:

Four Design Drivers

Now we are ready to establish a framework of motivations and dispositions regarding social network use, which in turn can be formulated into a number of design drivers.

Valentina Rao identifies three qualities to the playfulness that characterizes Facebook use: Physicality, Spontaneity, and Inherent Sociability. As a particular game design feature, I will add Asynchronicity into these qualities, as discussed by Ian Bogost. I will use this four-fold distinction as a framework for further identifying principles that would support designing for the playful dispositions.

Symbolic Physicality

Rao identifies the symbolic ways that Facebook games ‘add physical depth to playful interactions’, such as poking, drinking beer, hi-fiving, etc. These features essentially try to add ‘human warmth’ of actual physicality to the non-physical online space.

Spontaneity

The apparent silliness and/or simplicity of Facebook games, such as a complicated game mechanic as a verbs being simplified into a click of a single button, is there to support the inherent spontaneity of user behavior in online social networks. Many of the above-mentioned manners of symbolic physicality draw from this quality as well.

Inherent sociability

‘Playfulness is intrinsically connected to social situations and cannot exist without them’, according to Rao. Again, the above-mentioned features highlight this – in addition, Rao lists fast rewards for player actions, abundance of positive feedback, no negative consequences for exploration, and ability to build on someone else’s work as design solutions that support the inherent sociability – very similar aspects that we saw Follett outline earlier. These features are, by and large, similar to ones identified from the design of casual games in general.

In terms of designing games, the inherent sociability opens up possibilities for intuitive teaming of players, since networked individuals might have a particular social context where they know each other. Nabeel Hyatt has indeed pointed out how social network games can ‘rely heavily on social context (namely school, department, and residence loyalties) to provide a framework for alliances, gameplay and motivation.’

Asynchronicity

Ian Bogost lists four features of asynchronous play – it ‘supports multiple players playing in sequence, not in tandem’, it requires a ‘persistent state which all players affect, and which in turn affects all players’, it is organized around the breaks between players: ‘‘opponent turns in Scrabble often mean bathroom breaks, email checks’ (Bogost 2004) Yet, according to Bogost, this kind of asyncronicity needs not be the game’s defining characteristic.

However, it would seem that most games in social networks do center around such breaks, it is just that the quality and quantity of the breaks are based on the nature and/or constraints of the system – i.e. breaks in play in social networks that center around instant messaging or micro-blogging, such as Twitter, would create different variety of asynchronous play than Facebook, which supposedly has a slower, more structured rhythm of use.

Interaction Design for Playfulness

Concluding from the definitions and observations made thus far, we can tentatively define game design for social networks as ‘Interaction design for social playfulness’.

This means designing for inherently casual yet highly engaged disposition to play around in the social network, with the general means afforded by the platform, and the ‘extended’ affordances for play that applications, such as games, bring with them.

Yet, designing for playfulness also means that the focus of the design result should privilege emotional engagement rather than highly intricate and innovative gameplay – even if these two are not necessarily in contradiction.

Matt Mihaly echoes this observation by stating that successful social network games are as much about expressing oneself through communication as they are about gameplay. Andre Mayer has noted that to such players knowing their standing and progress in the game, can be almost as important as knowing what will be their next goal in the game, and how to play towards it.

Rao concludes her research by stating that ‘Facebook Applications seem to appeal to the sphere of emotions (fun and playful mood) rather than actions (gameplay)’.

She elaborates that instead of modeling and stylizing actions concretely for gameplay as verbs, which is what ‘real’ games do, these games rely on compressing that action into a few clicks (at most), and then narrating the resulting action through a ‘dramatic tale’, as Rao puts it. As a consequence, minimal engagement produces high rewards.

One could summarize this difference into a comparative principle: Whereas video game designers create skill-based justifications for resolutions of events, i.e. whether an action was successful or not; social network game designers create community-based, or story-based, justifications for the resolutions of events in their games.

In Part 2 of Game design for social networks, I will explore how ‘interaction design for playfulness’ is evident in a sample of social network games and their designs. From this sample, and by identifying some potential blind spots in the design space for social network games, I will synthesize a set of game design principles.(source:mygamestudies


上一篇:

下一篇: