作者：DeepFreez

首先需要说明的是，这里的男性社交游戏指代的是《Evoy》、《Travian》、《Camelot》及其仿制品。这些游戏的感染力超过以往的邮件游戏和3X（游戏邦注：意指eXplore、eXpand、eXterminate，即探索、扩张、消灭）单人游戏。最初是冲突的设计风格将男性游戏与女性游戏区分开来，随后二者的差异点越来越多。这些游戏的另一大特色是其社交互动本质，游戏鼓励玩家成立大型协作性组织或联盟。

Gamelot(from stockrants.com)

为何这是种劣质的设计呢？要回答这个问题，我们需要先看看游戏培养玩家做什么事情。首先，游戏围绕竞争有限资源这个中心点来设计。大部分3X游戏都有多个相对独立的阶段。最早是超级扩张阶段，抢占土地和资源是主要目标。一旦大部分可供扩张的空间被占领且边界逐渐清晰，随之而来的就是整军阶段。不久之后，整军就会演化出边界小冲突乃至全面战争。最后阶段通常是联盟间的攻坚战，小型组织逐渐被消灭，直到剩下唯一真正有实力的霸主。如果你能够不断获得胜利，以上这些听起来会很有趣。即便战败方也会体验到其中的乐趣，你可以将自己视为游击队员。尽管无法阻挡征服者前进的脚步，却可以给他们制造麻烦。

必须谨记的是，趣味性始终是游戏的卖点。此类游戏设计中没有平局，也就是说为了取得胜利，我就必须将你打败。而且，其他玩家在游戏后期成了“收割”对象，就是让某些较弱玩家继续生存下去，以便定期掠夺他们的资源。游戏社交元素存在于各种形式联盟以及与其相关的内部和外部派别之争。

然而，所有这些设计元素最终会产生几种不良行为。首先，游戏通过为攻伐奖励更多资源来鼓励攻伐行为。“狼”（游戏邦注：掠夺其他玩家资源的人）通常会选择那些新玩家或弱势玩家作为掠夺对象，以最少成本换得最多回报。弱势玩家唯一的应对策略是尝试加入强大的联盟，希望以此来与“狼”对抗。这是种基本的自我保护意识。这也助长了转嫁责任的思想，做坏事变成可为他人接受的行为，因为别人命令你这么做或者说每个人都这么做。

为何这些行为会让游戏走向失败呢？因为游戏营造的环境对新玩家充满敌意。每款网游都有个自然更迭比率，老玩家离开游戏，新玩家加入。当新玩家数超过老玩家数，游戏才有所增长。对新玩家充满敌意的环境会导致新玩家在游戏中投入的时间不足，无法转变成老玩家，而老玩家正是盈利的出处。将新玩家作为老玩家的消耗性资源只能增加竞争性，从而导致攻伐日盛，进一步减少新玩家的数量。从逻辑上来看，此类游戏最终的结果是自取灭亡，因为其自身设计使玩家数量逐渐减少。

那么，为何这些消极因素不会导致此类游戏立马消失呢？我怀疑原因在于被他人攻伐带来的趣味性，不是攻伐他人并安然脱身带来的乐趣。玩家留在游戏中并生存足够长的时间直到加入某个强大的团伙，随后开始参与到攻击弱小玩家的主要游戏行动中。团伙成员的支持、在游戏世界中隐藏相对较深以及需要“更好货物”的借口使得攻击他人的乐趣油然而生。更令人感到满足的是，玩家的对手并非愚蠢的AI。对手同为人类让十多岁的男性玩家产生极大的满足感。而且，“授权”掠夺的沉迷本质也需要考虑在内。

这种沉迷性的“授权”便是游戏生存下去的缘由。很可惜，它们鼓励的是攻伐和掠夺性行为。我确信，非此类抢夺性战略游戏也能够产生类似的“授权”体验。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Why existing social games for boys should fail but dont.

DeepFreez

First off let me qualify by what I mean by social games for boys. These are the games like Evoy, Travian, Camelot and their clones. These games are the spiritual successors to the play by mail games of the past as well as the 3X (eXplore, eXpand, eXterminate) single player games. These are games for boys as opposed to games for girls due to the design of their conflict, but more on that later. Another element of these games is the nature of their social interaction, encouraging membership of large cooperative groupings, or alliances.

Why is this a bad design? To answer this, we need to look at what this game trains the players to do. First off the game design generally centers around competing for limited resources. Most 3X games have several distinct phases. There is an initial super expansion phase where grabbing land and resources is the primary concern. Once most space for expansion has been occupied and borders have become clear there follows a phase of military buildup. Soon this spills over into border skirmishes and all out war. The last phase is generally a war of conquest between alliances where smaller regions are absorbed until there is only one true power left. All of this sounds like fun, as long as you are winning. It might even be fun to be on the losing side if you can find yourself a niche as a guerrilla or the schadenfreude of rolling stones into the path of the inevitable conqueror.

Keep in mind that a game sells fun. The game design is generally a zero sum game, meaning that in order to win, I have to make you lose. In addition, in the later phases of the game, other players become resources giving rise to “farming”, the practice of keeping weaker players alive to periodically take their resources. The social element of the game becomes participating in some form of alliance and the internal and external politics involved.

However, all this adds up to a couple of bad behaviors. Firstly it encourages bullying by rewarding the bully with more resources. The “farmer” will generally pick on other players that will give the biggest payoff for the least expense, which usually means new or weak players. The weak players’ only recourse is to try and join a strong alliance and hope this would deter the “farmer” long enough. This is of course a basic protection gang. It also promotes the idea of displaced responsibility where it becomes acceptable to do bad things because you are ordered to do so, or because every one does it.

Why should these behaviors lead to a failed game? Because it’s an environment that is very hostile towards new players. Any online game has a natural churn rate where old players leave and new players join. A game grows when new players outnumber older players. An environment hostile to new players thus prevents new players from sticking around long enough to become old players. Old players are where you make money by the way. Requiring new players as a consumable resource for older players simply increases the competition thus making the bullying more pronounced, reducing the number of new players even further. The logical conclusion is that the game should be self terminating because it reduces the number of players playing it because of its design.

So why don’t all these negatives lead to the immediate failure of these games? I very much doubt that it is due to the fun of being bullied. It is rather the fun of being the bully and getting away with it. A player that sticks around and survives long enough to join a strong enough gang will start participating in the primary activity of beating up weaker players. With the backing of the gang members and the relative anonymity of the game world and the excuse that it’s for “the greater good” the fun of beating on others can start. What makes it doubly satisfying is that it’s not some silly AI. The fact that it is another human being that you are dominating is immensely satisfying for the teen male demographic. And don’t underestimate the addictive nature of a testosterone driven “empowerment” rush.

This addictive “empowerment” is why these games endure. It’s a pity that they encourage bullying and gangsterism. I am sure it is possible to get a similar “empowerment” experience with a bit of thought without resorting to these “lord of the flies” tactics. (Source: Harsi)