作者：Brice Morrison

Playdom设计师Scott Jon Siegel曾在MIGS 2010上发表了一次演讲，话题是社交游戏及其与独立游戏社群的关系。我自己也是个社交游戏开发者，经常考虑这个问题。令许多开发者和我感到忧愁的是，外界似乎对该领域稍显不满。

许多独立开发者并不赞成主流社交游戏公司制作游戏和开展业务的方法。社交游戏开发商反倒觉得独立开发者所带的观点与他们完全不同，他们认为后者对游戏持有的观点大错特错。为何会出现这种隔阂呢？为何《Farmville》和《Mafia Wars》的开发商与《Super Meat Boy》和《FlOw》的开发者会变得对立？这是否是必要之举呢？

我能理解这个问题的两面性，所以这篇文章的目的不在于责备任何一方，而是将此作为跳板来讨论两类开发者制作的游戏。据我看来，独立游戏开发者和社交游戏开发商产生隔阂的主要原因在于目标和灵感上的区别。正如我们在之前的文章中讨论过的那样，游戏开发的目标影响深远，它可能影响到你使用的资源、你所做的游戏设计决定、你在游戏上花的时间甚至是你如何衡量成功。因而，我们将在下文探讨这两个群体间的主要差别，以及他们为何会有如此强烈的冲突。

two players' combat(from thegameprodigy)

原创性

原创性的意思是新游戏想法，尝试某些前人未做过的事情，探索从未触及的深度。多数独立游戏在原创性方面都做得很好，可以这么说，原创性是独立游戏社群的核心价值。

《Limbo》的原创性在于其使用的轮廓艺术风格，《Crayon Physics》的独特之处是关卡设计，《Blueberry Garden》的原创性在于其双线故事情节和结局。Experimental Gameplay Workshop的游戏每年都在努力做出令人难以置信的原创作品，而且以此来标榜自己。这种做法将游戏推向其从未达到的高度。

但是，那些最为流行的社交游戏似乎并不把原创性当做自己的目标。事实上，许多公司都在抄袭对手的基本机制和奖惩系统。《Farmville》的原型是《Farmtown》，后者的成功主要在于商业运作而不是精巧的游戏设计。这只是个极端的例子，但每个社交游戏公司都或多或少从其他社交游戏处借鉴不同想法。

对独立游戏开发者而言，公然的抄袭是不可接受的。对于这些以做前人未做之事为目标的人来说，制作有人已经做过的游戏完全没有任何价值。事实上，他们觉得这种做法会带来负面影响，抄袭作品可能影响原创作品的成功。他们认为，原创作品才应该获得全部的荣誉。

对社交游戏公司而言，借鉴想法是个绝妙的商业思维。借鉴或学习他人的游戏可以保持竞争性。如果有款游戏通过病毒性功能吸引更多玩家关注，那么这就值得他们将其转移至自己的游戏中。当然，过分抄袭可能带来法律问题，但借鉴成功的概念和想法通常都能够发挥作用，这也是为何社交游戏千篇一律地采用邻居、送礼机制之类的做法。

应该指出的是，游戏设计和场景本身并不存在版权问题。在这个层面上，视频游戏行业很像时装业，只有另辟蹊径才能获得成功。幸运的是，行业在这方面做得很好。可以想象下，如果《波斯王子》中的时间倒回功能有版权，那么像《Achron》和《Braid》之类很棒的游戏就不可能出现了。

撇开法律行动不谈，这两个行业都是合情合理的。努力追求原创性是个很有价值的目标，但从对手处借鉴想法也是个很有价值的举动。

braid-donkey-kong-tim-goomba(from thegameprodigy)

游戏是门艺术还是赚钱机器

独立游戏努力将游戏作为一门艺术来研究，这是毫无疑问的。但何谓艺术作品呢？我相信多数独立游戏开发者都会认同的概念是，艺术作品应该是某些看起来或体验起来很美妙的东西。艺术作品会给你从未有过的感觉，触摸你的心灵。而且在你探究艺术作品时，仿佛变成另外一个人。几乎所有的独立游戏开发者都想要让自己的游戏实现上述目标，这才能真正取悦玩家。

从其定义上而言，高端艺术作品只能为那些有一定认知深度的人所理解。如果你没有玩过《Donkey Kong》，就不会认为《Braid》中类似的场景颇具“艺术性”。你只会把它当成是又一个随意的场景。尽管这种对视频游戏历史产物的尊崇为少数能够理解的人所钦佩，但现实在于如果你随便在街上找个人询问他是否认识，99%的人会说“我不觉得这有什么好玩的”。

多数独立开发者通常也将通过游戏盈利这个目标看得较轻，艺术给他们带来的驱动力要比经济收入要大得多。但对多数社交游戏开发商而言，主要目标并不是艺术性，而是盈利。社交游戏公司和主流AAA主机游戏发行商一样，并非免费工作。之所以他们以盈利为目标，是因为需要游戏来偿还他们和投资者的投入成本。

对独立游戏开发者而言，不具艺术性的游戏根本毫无用处。独立游戏行业确是如此，因为他们的社群较小且更具专业化。独立游戏社群中，几乎每个人都玩过《超级马里奥兄弟》和《传送门》。这是个相对同类的群体。因而，最棒的游戏是那些将这些专业群体带往新层次的人，即便他们所做的东西并非能为所有人所理解。

对社交游戏开发者而言，不具艺术性的游戏可以接受，而且更容易盈利。而且，多数社交游戏努力提升可接入性（游戏邦注：即能为更多玩家所接受）。虽然他们也想把游戏做得更具娱乐性，但并不把艺术当成头等大事，他们将让尽量多的玩家享用游戏当成主要目标。因而，游戏需要足够简单，能为数百万可能之前未曾玩过主机游戏的玩家所理解，或许这些人很少使用电脑，只有个家人为其注册的Facebook账户。这与任天堂发布Wii内置游戏的做法类似。没有人真正对《Wii Sports》背后的游戏设计感兴趣，但所有人都能够理解这款游戏。

Zynga创始人和首席执行官Mark Pincus曾说过，游戏行业现在就像在制作电影，他们公司更像在做每周电视。这番话的意思在于，他理解他们正在做的游戏并非高端艺术作品。数年之后，人们不会回想起这些游戏，认为这些游戏让他们更深层次地思考自己的人生。他们只会想到：“这款游戏挺有趣的！我在其中花了大笔金钱并享受快乐时光。”尽管这个目标为许多独立开发者所不齿，但许多社交游戏公司都对此很满意。

我需要再次说明的是，两方都不好不坏，他们只是有着不同的目标而已。独立游戏努力铸就艺术作品，满足小部分群体玩家的需求。多数社交游戏公司努力创造的是能带来盈利的游戏，为数百万人所接受。这些游戏并不相同，不能用某一方的标准来衡量。

制作游戏为了自己还是他人

冲突的第三个问题在于游戏的受众。制作游戏时，考虑受众和最终玩家通常是件重要的事情。玩家喜欢动作和射击吗？玩家会在这款RPG里找到乐趣吗？玩家小时是否玩过早期的任天堂游戏？还是说他们从未玩过任何游戏？

开发者应该考虑的更深层次的问题是：这款游戏的目标受众是否是像我一样的开发者？

当我在EA担任开发者负责制作《我的模拟人生》时，这款游戏的受众是更年轻的群体，而且大部分为女性。然而，我们仍然成功做出了一款有趣的产品。虽然硬核玩家在Metacritic中对游戏的评分仅在70左右，但小孩子很喜欢这款游戏。

独立游戏玩家看到社交游戏后会说到：“我不觉得这款游戏很有趣。”制作让他人满意的游戏比制作让自己满意的游戏更为艰难。为什么呢？因为你的直觉不再能发挥作用。你觉得有趣的东西可能并不能取悦最终用户，而你觉得无趣的东西或许是最终用户真正认为有意思的东西。

Facebook游戏开发者曾在博客中说道，早期站点只对大学开放之时，开发游戏很容易。因为他们都是大学生，只要构建他们认为有趣的内容，就能够确保用户也喜欢！然而，当Facebook面向全球和各类型玩家开放时，他们就不能再凭直觉开发游戏。他们需要参考的是数据、调查并倾听顾客反馈，因为这些群体与他们并不相同。

社交游戏开发者看待社交游戏的看法是，这款游戏对顾客很有趣。许多社交游戏开发者（游戏邦注：至少比独立游戏开发者要多）制作游戏的目的并非娱乐自己。这并没有错，游戏只是个适合各类玩家享用的产品而已。社交游戏公司的成功之处在于，他们成功地让全球玩家聚集到游戏中并付费。

制作你以及同类用户喜欢的游戏并没有错，而制作你们不喜欢但能为最终用户所青睐的游戏也没有错。需要再次说明的是，这并非社交和独立游戏之间对或错的问题，只是目标不同。

FarmVille(from flickr.com)

两种游戏并不相同

尽管多数社交游戏也像独立游戏那样使用Flash制作，但我觉得“社交游戏公司也是独立游戏开发商”这个说法激怒了许多独立开发者。社交游戏公司的目标是盈利，这与多数独立游戏并不相同。因而，这种比较并非合情合理。

社交游戏比作传统游戏行业更为恰当。微软、动视或育碧之类的公司的目标也不是原创，公司的运营目标是盈利，而且这些公司制作游戏的目标用户有时是像开发者那样的人，有时也不是。这些目标也并没有错，公司的目标与独立游戏社群也并不相同。

我个人认为社交游戏和独立游戏开发者不应起冲突。独立游戏开发者不可因社交游戏的全资本化运作而放弃这个媒介。如果社交游戏也注重艺术性，那么会发生何种情况呢？社交游戏有着自己的特色，它们使玩家与家人和真实生活中的朋友加深联系。

这只是个例子，但我认为独立游戏社群应该考虑人们之间的社交联系。确实，游戏行业从未有更好的机会或平台，使得玩家有此机会同他们在真实生活中最关心的人合作。上述的任何游戏目标本身并没有对与错，它们只是不同的选择而已。我希望开发者们能够理解这种差异性。

游戏邦注：本文发稿于2010年11月12日，所涉时间、事件和数据均以此为准。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Why do Indies Hate Social Games?

Brice Morrison

Playdom designer Scott Jon Siegel recently gave an interesting talk at MIGS 2010 around the issue of social games and their relationship with the indie games community. As both an indie and also a social game developer myself, this is an issue that I think about often, and it saddens me and many other developers to see that there seems to be some kind of resentment around this area.

If you aren’t familiar with the general sentiment, many indie developers usually do not approve of the way the major social game companies make games and do business. Social game developers on the other hand sometimes feel like indie developers are in a different world, that what’s important to them as games are completely off base. Why does this rift, with Farmville and Mafia Wars on one side, Super Meat Boy and FlOw on the other, exist? Is it really necessary?

I can understand and see both sides of the coin here, and so my goal with this article isn’t to point fingers or blame at either party, but rather to use it as a springboard for discussion about the games created by each group. As far as I can tell, the main reasons for the fissures between indie game developers and social game developers are a dramatic difference in goals and aspirations. As we’ve discussed in previous articles, goal setting in game development is everything; it affects the resources that you use, the game design decisions that you make, how long you’re going to spend on the game, even how you measure success. So with that being said, let’s look at some of the main differences between these two groups and how they so strongly conflict.

Originality is King…or is it?

Originality can be defined as a new idea, trying out something that no one has done before, exploring depths of your craft that have yet to be explored. Most indie games do their best to be original; I would go as far as to say originality is a core value of the indie game community.

Limbo was original because of the silhouette art style that it used. Crayon Physics was original in its level design and Base Mechanic of drawing shapes that have meaning. Blueberry Garden was original in its two-part storyline and ending. The games at Experimental Gameplay Workshop each year strive to be incredibly original, and arguably grade themselves on how different what they are doing is from everyone else in the industry. This is a great endeavor that pushes games to places they have never been.

Contrast this with the most popular social games, however, which often do not make originality a goal. In fact, some companies actually actively copy the Base Mechanics and Punishment and Reward Systems of their competitors. Farmville was a direct copy of Farmtown that was then propelled to success mainly through business practices, not through clever game design. And while this is an extreme example, the idea of borrowing at least some ideas from other social games is well practiced by almost every social game company.

To an indie developer, blatant unoriginality is unacceptable. For someone whose goal is to do what no one has done before, they see exactly zero benefit it making a game that someone has already made. In fact, they see it has having negative benefit, because the copy takes away from the original’s success. It’s the original who should be getting all the credit.

To a social game company, borrowing ideas can be a good business decision. Borrowing or learning from someone else’s game is a great way to stay competitive, in games as it is in other industries. If another game has figured out a great way to pull more players into the game through viral features, then it’s worth considering for their own games. Of course the degree to which games are copied can cause lawsuits, but borrowing successful concepts and ideas is often seen as useful, which is why almost all social games follow similar patterns such as having Neighbors, sending gifts, and so forth.

It should be pointed out that game designs and scenarios in themselves cannot be copyrighted. The video game industry is a lot like the clothing or fashion industry in that regard; success must be found in other ways than coming up with a design and patenting it. And thankfully; the industry is better off for it. Imagine if Prince of Persia had copyrighted the concept of rewinding time; great games like Achron and Braid would have been illegal to make.

Aside from instances where legal action has been needed, both sides are perfectly reasonable. Striving for originality is a worthy goal, and borrowing ideas from other games you’re up against is a worth practice as well.

Games as Art…or Cash Cows?

Indie games strive to be works of art; there is no question about that. But what is a work of art? One definition, that I believe most of us indies operate on, is that a work of art is something that is beautiful to see and experience. It is something that takes your mind places it has never been, that touches your heart and leaves you a different person than when you encountered it. Almost all indie developers want to make a game that can do those things, that can truly Delight players, one of the 5 Degrees of Fun.

High works of art, almost by definition, are exclusive to the people who have a depth of knowledge to understand them. If you’ve never played Donkey Kong, then you won’t see the level in Braid that is made to look like a Donkey Kong stage as “art”. You’ll just see it as another random stage. And while this homage to video game history is well appreciated by the few who can understand it, the truth is that if you grabbed someone off the street and asked them if they recognize it for what it is, 99% would say “No, I don’t see anything interesting.”

Most indie developers also usually have only a light goal of making money or a profit for their game; the artistic integrity drives them rather than the financial gain. For most social game developers, however, the major goal is not artistic integrity, it is revenue and profit. Social game companies, like major AAA console game publishers but unlike indie game developers who work on the side, aren’t working for free. They are working so that their games can pay the bills for them and their investors.

To an indie developer, a game that isn’t artistic is a waste. This is fine for indie games, because they serve a smaller, specialized community. Almost everyone in the indie games community has played Super Mario Bros. Almost everyone has played Portal. It is a fairly homogeneous group. So the best games are those that teach that take that expert group to a new level, even if it means making something that not everyone has the background to understand.

To a social game developer, a game that isn’t artistic is accessible and more profitable. Most social games, however, strive to be accessible. While they do try to make their games fun and enjoyable, they don’t make art a priority, instead they make having as many people as possible enjoy the game a priority. Thus, the games need to be easy to understand by millions of people who may have never played console games before, who may barely use a computer or only have a Facebook account because their daughter signed them up. This is similar to the approach that Nintendo took with the Wii launch games. No one was really amazed by the game design behind Wii Sports, but it was easily understandable by everyone.

Mark Pincus, founder and CEO of Zynga, has said that the rest of the games industry is “making movies. What we’re doing is more like weekly TV programming.” What he means by this is that he understands that the games they are making are not high-brow works of art. People won’t look back at those games years from now and say, “Wow, that game really made me think about my life in a deep and meaningful way.” They will look back and say, “Wow, that game was kind of fun! I spent a couple of bucks on it and had a good time.” And while that would fall short of the goals of many indie developers, it would satisfy many social game companies.

Once again, I argue that neither position is inherently good or bad, they are just different goals. Indie games strive to create works of art that appeal to a small group of several thousand people. Most social games strive to create profitable business ventures that appear to millions of people. These are very different games that can cause serious resentment if judged by one another’s standards, while they actually belong in separate camps defined by their goals.

Games for Yourself…or for Others?

The third issue for the rift is the audience of the games. When making a game, it’s always important to think of the audience and the end player. Is the player someone who loves action and shooting? Is the player someone who can crunch numbers and might enjoy an RPG? Is the player someone who grew up on old-school Nintendo and would appreciate pixel art? Or maybe someone who has never played a game before in their lives?

A deeper question that a developer should ask themselves is, “Is this game for people like me, the developer?”

There are a many great games, and products from all types of companies, that are made to be consumed by people very unlike those who are actually making the product. When I was a developer at EA and working on MySims, then I wasn’t really making games for my demographic; I was making games for a younger audience, the majority of which was female. However we still managed to make a fun product that, though the Metacritic scores coming from hardcore gamer reviewers were in the 70′s, younger kids greatly adored.

Indie gamers look at social games and say, “This game isn’t fun for me”. The easiest game to make, and I may get some backlash from this but I believe it’s true, is a game for yourself. It is easier to make a game that you would enjoy than to make a game that you wouldn’t enjoy, but someone else would. Why? Because you can no longer follow your intuition. What you think is fun might not be fun for your end user, and what you think is not fun at all actually might be really fun for your end user.

Developers at Facebook said in a blog post that in the early days when the site was only open to college, it was very easy to work on the site and make it better because they themselves were college students; they could just build what they liked and be certain that their users would like it too! However when Facebook opened up and started serving many different demographics from all around the world, then they weren’t able to follow their intuition anymore. Instead they had to follow data, surveys, and listen to their customers, who were very different kinds of people than they themselves were.

Social game developers look at social games and say, “This game is fun for our customers”. Many social game developers, at least more than indie game developers, don’t actually play the kinds of games they make for fun themselves. There’s nothing wrong with this, it just means it’s a product for a different demographic. And by going after a demographic other than game developers and their ilk, social game companies have succeeded in getting more people around the world to pay games than every before.

There’s nothing wrong with making a game that you and your peers enjoy. There’s also nothing wrong with making a game that you and you peers wouldn’t enjoy, that you think it boring, but your end users are going to really enjoy. And once again, this isn’t a matter of good or bad between social and indie games, it’s just a difference of goals.

Apples to Oranges Aren’t the Same

While social games are mostly in Flash, like many indie games, my feeling is that the saying that “social game companies are indie too” is the main thing that has upset many indie developers. Social game companies are for-profit ventures, which is very unlike most indie games. Thus, the comparison is unfair and unreasonable, as we’ve uncovered in some differences in the core values.

Instead, a better comparison would be to liken social games to the traditional game industry, such as Microsoft, Activision, or Ubisoft. In the same way these are companies who sometimes are not original or boundary pushing, companies who are operating for profit, and companies who make games that sometimes are made for people like the developers and sometimes not. There is nothing wrong with any of these attributes; they are simply radically different from the dominant attributes of the indie community. They are a part of the game industry, albeit a different part than indie titles.

My impression then is that social and indie games got off on the wrong foot. One appeal that I would make to indie developers is to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because social games have been almost entirely capitalist driven up to this point, that doesn’t mean that indie developers should give up on the entire medium. What would it look like for a social game to push the boundaries of games as art? A game where you made a dedication to your real life friends or family? A game where you took your real life siblings on an adventure or a journey?

Those are just some examples, but I implore the indie game community to think of the possibilities that are available from people’s social connections. Truly, there has never been a better opportunity or platform to create moments that are meaningful than by incorporating the people the player most cares about into their real life. As for the goals for a game, none of the ones listed here are right or wrong, they are just different choices. My hope is that developers can grow to better understand these differences and agree to differ in their goals. (Source: The Game Prodigy)