游戏邦注：本文作者为Jon，他在文中就社交游戏发表自己的4点看法。

你有没有听过类似评论？社交游戏是邪恶的，它们甚至称不上游戏。

社交游戏 from tgbus.com

当然“社交游戏”这个术语本身并没有带来任何启示意义。当大家批评游戏邪恶性或者认为其称不上游戏的时候（游戏邦注：前者观点代表如Jonathan Blow，后者观点代表如任天堂的Iwata），他们指的是社交网络游戏。我之前曾谈到社交游戏历史，社交游戏发展至今已有数千年。我们不应责备Blow和Iwata毁谤游戏历史，而是应该反思这对社交网络游戏有何启发。

我们应该忘却批评言论，除非这个批评挥之不去，不时浮出水面（游戏邦注：特别是像在GDC这样的场合）。以下是我对社交游戏的几点看法：

1. 社交网络是创造新游戏玩法的平台。设计师还在不断探索之中。很多类型的游戏都在不断发展，推广渠道亦是如此。社交游戏也不例外，我们未来有望在社交网络发现更多令热瞠目的游戏玩法。

2. 社交游戏变得更具有社交性。是的，早期很多游戏的社交性仅体现在游戏要求玩家邀请众多好友参与之中，以便获得充分体验。但现在社交游戏已不再向非玩家用户发布消息（至少在Facebook平台），这使得设计师不得不探索其他社交互动模式。团队合作、合作和馈赠，这些元素都促使社交游戏向其他多人在线游戏（游戏邦注：如大型多人网游、第一人称射击和即时战略游戏）的方向发展靠拢。

3. 社交游戏属于游戏。也许你不喜欢社交游戏的某些规则，但它们的确属于广义文化产品，广义文化产品不仅包括一字棋，还包括《魔兽世界》。

4. 游戏是项业务。我们应该庆幸能有新商业模式和推广渠道融入日渐衰老的游戏行业，迫使大家重新思考昔日设想，学习如何能够更有效推广和销售产品。按照Jefferson的话来说就是，游戏行业之树需要有志之士不时注入新鲜血液才能保持旺盛生命力。

当然，创收是社交网络游戏的目标之一。失去这个元素，也就没有所谓的持续发展业务。但社交领域也是创作新游戏的重要场所，这就是为什么Sid Meier、约翰·罗梅洛和史帝分·马瑞察克等各类游戏行业人士纷纷涉足该领域。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Social Games are Evil (and other stupid memes)

by Jon

Have you heard the news? Social Games are evil. And they aren’t even games.

Of course, the term “social game” isn’t very helpful. When people criticize games as being evil (as Jonathan Blow did), or as not actually being games at all (like Nintendo’s Iwata recently did), they’re talking about social network games. I’ve pointed out in my post about the history of social games that social games have been played together for thousands of years. So we’ll forgive Blow and Iwata for maligning the entire history of games, and instead focus on what they mean with respect to social network games.

One could dismiss the criticisms except that they seems to stick around and resurface regularly (especially in venues like GDC) like a bad case of cold sores.  Here are some thoughts:

1. Social networks are a new way to create novel forms of gameplay. Designers are still figuring it out. Lots of game genres evolve, as do their distribution channels. Social games will be no different, and we’ll see some amazing gameplay on social networks as the years advance.

2. Social games are getting more social. Yes, it’s true that many early games were only social to the extent that they forced you to signup lots of your friends for you to benefit from the gameplay. But social network games can no longer direct wall posts to people who don’t want them (at least on Facebook) and that’s caused designers to think about all the other social interactions that these games can enable. Teamwork, collaboration, gifting–these are all moving social network games in the same direction as other multiplayer online games (MMOs, FPS, RTS).

3. Social games are games. Maybe you don’t like the particular rules they use, but they certainly belong in a broad classification of cultural products that includes everything from tic-tac-toe to World of Warcraft.

4. Games are a business. We should celebrate new business models and distribution channels that inject life into aging industries, forcing everyone to rethink old assumptions and learn about more effective ways to market and sell products. To paraphrase Jefferson, the tree of industry must from time to time be refreshed with the new blood of entrepreneurs.

Sure, profit is a motive for social network games. Without it, there wouldn’t be a sustainable business. But it’s also a great field to be making new games in–which is why legendary designers as varied as Sid Meier, John Romero and Steve Meretzky have all gotten involved in social gaming.（Source：radoff）