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

分析社交游戏《Triple Town》中的创新设计

发布时间:2011-12-22 19:02:12 Tags:,,,

作者:Raul Aliaga Diaz(Vostu首席游戏设计师)

《Triple Town》是款由Spry Fox开发的解谜游戏,原先针对的是Kindle平台,随后延伸到Facebook和Google+。我们将在本文探讨社交游戏思维模式中有趣的游戏设计决策。

其他解谜游戏都采用类似的3元素配对(连线消除)机制,比如《Bejeweled Blitz》和《Diamond Dash》,但是《Triple Town》在上述机制上创新了“城市建设”的内容。社交游戏往往会限制每个游戏进程所需的时间,因为用户访问社交网络只是为了获得短时间的娱乐而已。也就是说,社交游戏之间竞争的是用户的时间。

Triple Town(from gamasutra)

Triple Town(from gamasutra)

在建设类的社交游戏中,游戏进程时间限制普遍通过“能量机制”来实现,但是解谜游戏不直接使用这种方式,所以我们在此类游戏中可以看到的做法是:(1)游戏进程的时间固定,玩家需要在该固定时间内尽可能获得更多的分数;(2)做法与前者相似,但是游戏进程消耗的“生命”或能量会以比消耗更慢的速度随时间恢复,直至达到最大值。

无论游戏采用上述何种方式,解谜游戏都会存在时间的限制,而这个时间的消耗速度和节奏在各种浏览器上并非一致。所以,假如你已经适应了较快的节奏,那么节奏较慢时可能会不适应。

因而,该游戏的关键创新之处就在于,改变解谜游戏回合制的机制和节奏,将其变为玩家更为熟悉的能量机制。

游戏的第二个重要因素就是其盈利策略。由Nexon开创的微交易系统的设计初衷是通过那些付费内容让玩家从自我表现中获得更多游戏体验。该系统的主要特征就是拥有两种货币,即游戏货币和可用金钱购买的货币。

使用这种系统,既可以避免游戏中可能出现的经济系统失衡问题,也不会让其他玩家觉得付费玩家在游戏中占有优势(因为Nexon的游戏主要是MMO游戏,因而该公司会特别注意这种问题)。

传统玩家将这种盈利模式视为社交游戏的弊病,因为大部分游戏的进程如下:通过平台的病毒性渠道,玩家要么“刷任务”要么“付款”,考虑到“刷任务”是游戏中惟一的可行方式,传统玩家对这种无需技巧的行为完全无法接受。

因为《Triple Town》中不含有玩家虚拟形象,也没有任何需要花费大量金钱来持续制造的内容,所以他们的选择是出售更多的回合(游戏邦注:也就是能量)。但是,为什么不设计成用一种货币来购买回合,另一种货币来购买游戏市场中的东西呢?

currency(from gamasutra)

currency(from gamasutra)

依我的观点来看,这款游戏真正的聪明之处就在于只使用1种货币。乍看之下这是种不妥的做法,因为如果采用这种方式,那么在游戏中争取高分还有何意义呢?这个问题的答案根据提问玩家类型的不同而不同。

如果你是个典型的社交网络玩家,假设你不玩其他传统游戏,那么你不一定会认为这款游戏只采用1种货币的做法有何不妥,因为你对此并不在乎,你感到这种设计更加方便,因为更为简单。

对传统游戏的硬核玩家而言,他们可能就会想“如果你付费就能买到货币,那还有什么意思?”而设计师则需要自问“这真的是一个问题吗?”。既然游戏的目标用户就是经常玩社交游戏的群体,那么就无需过于在意部分玩家对这点小瑕疵的不满。

即便那些玩家带着自己的疑惑接触游戏,游戏玩法的平衡性也能让他们最终明白,付费游戏玩法根本不存在优势。

游戏能够同时让两类玩家感到满意。而且,游戏只使用1种货币的做法也对玩家产生了更大的吸引力。

而且,它同时满足两类玩家需求的特点,加上其蕴含的深度也有利于将用户培养成铁杆玩家。

这让我想起了第3点:游戏深度。如果你开始定期玩游戏并参与到游戏活动中,一开始你会注意到游戏中某些更有效率的玩法。但是,在好友与你分享部分游戏玩法(游戏邦注:比如他们完成了某些疯狂的动作或发现某些新的游戏内涵)后,随后你会开始考虑在下次游戏中尝试不同的玩法。

游戏平衡恰当,回合数量充足使你可以快速地移动,于是你就会在脑中勾勒出长远的游戏战略,比如“我要建造城堡”,“我要建造大教堂”等,但是几个回合用完你离开游戏,几分钟或几个小时后你回到游戏中时,或许你已经遗忘了自己制定的战略。

原因在于,随着你对游戏及其深度的了解,你会逐渐通过与好友或社交网络上的其他玩家分享体验时了解到游戏提供的多种玩法竞争类型。

这样,你便有足够的动机玩更多回合。当你不玩游戏时,你会考虑要在游戏中采用何种玩法。理想情况下,你会与好友或已经在玩游戏的其他人讨论游戏。

最终的结果是你会玩更多回合,在游戏中逗留足够长的时间,只是为了等待数个回合以完成你的当前战略,思考何种行为能够为你想要使用的玩法类型提供支持,将你的想法与好友及他人讨论。

因而,游戏深度可以提升游戏动机、留存率和病毒传播性。

该游戏是否还有改进的空间呢?它还有很多提升的空间。对于传统Facebook玩家来说,游戏应该设置更为清晰更为图像化的教程。该游戏放弃已为人所熟知的病毒性渠道,单纯依靠玩家的口头宣传,这一点也有待改善。只采用单种货币也是种颇具争议性的做法。

游戏部分内容有更新,添加了南瓜、松木以及相互交谈的村民,移除了每次开启游戏后都会出现的语言选择。与其他社交游戏一样,该游戏未来肯定还会出现更多功能,其开发商将会根据玩家反馈来修改游戏。

总体说来,尽管游戏不完美,但依然足以进入Gamezebo的“2011年最佳Facebook游戏”榜单。游戏的可借鉴之处在于,让节奏与环境和平台背景相适应,依靠玩家对竞争性游戏的熟悉度来支持大胆的游戏设计,通过加强深度来提升玩家的游戏体验。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,拒绝任何不保留版权的转载,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

Triple Town: A Social Game Design Analysis

Raul Aliaga Diaz

Triple Town is a puzzle game developed by Spry Fox, originally for Kindle and then Facebook and Google+. There are several reviews out there, but chances are you already played it, and if you haven’t, try it or check this video to see how it flows.

We’ll discuss the set of game design decisions that are interesting in the mindset of social games. Spry Fox’s Daniel Cook himself wrote about designing to find emotional resonance choosing the right setting from the systems design, so we’ll concentrate on other design issues.

Comparable games are other puzzle games with match-3 mechanics such as Bejeweled Blitz, Diamond Dash, among others, but Triple Town promotes a “city building”, following match-3 mechanics. Social games take advantage of limiting the game session length to fit into the expectation of visiting the social network for a short break -after all, social games compete for people’s time.

Also, in the context of something-building social games, the session length is limited by the almost pervasive “Energy mechanic”, but puzzle games can not directly use this, so what we can found here is: (a) limiting game session to a fixed time and to get the most points possible within that time (b) Just like (a) but the number of game sessions take each one “a life” or energy, refilling over time with a relatively low max cap around five.

In any case, playing a puzzle game constrained by a clock on an environment in which not all browsers perform at the same speed, pacing and responsiveness suffer, and if you’re already used to play at another, quicker pace, adjusting to play like that might not be accepted.

Therefore, a key innovation is to change the mechanics and pacing of the puzzle in turns, translating those turns to a familiar Energy mechanic.

A second important element is the monetization strategy. As pioneered by Nexon, microtransactions were originally conceived to enhance players’ experience through content to express themselves. An important distinction was to have two currencies, one in-game and another payable with real money.

This way communication to the player of how to spend their money can be clarified, it separates possible inflation issues and other players might not feel unfair competition from paying players ensuring there are no gameplay advantages because of paying, specially since Nexon games were mainly in the high peak of MMO’s, games in which that concern is extremely important.

Traditional gamers saw this monetization model as a deep flaw in social games, as much of the progress is: through the platform’s viralization channels, grinding or paying, considering grinding the only possible acceptable option, then unacceptable anyway because is done without (directly perceivable) skills involved.

Since Triple Town doesn’t have avatars, neither any expensive-to-produce-continually content, the option is to sell more turns (energy). But why not one currency for turns and another in-game currency for the pieces on the market?

Well, in my opinion the genius move here is to have only one currency. This is at first perceived counter intuitive, because in this case, What’s the point of achieving high scores if paying players can buy their way in gameplay? The answer to this question is not unique, and it depends on the type of player asking it.

If you’re a typical social network player, and assuming you don’t play other traditional games, the fact of having only one currency instead of two isn’t necessarily perceived as something wrong because you don’t care, you’re used to it or even better, it’s simpler.

For a hardcore player of traditional games, the answer to the question “What’s the point of this if you can pay?”, the game designer has to ask first “Is this a real problem?”. Given that the audience that generally play social games can be designated as the primary target, the fact that some people might dismiss the game at all because of this perceived flaw at first can be considered not that important.

But if those players end up actually playing it against their initial doubts, thanks to the gameplay’s balance they’ll eventually know that the advantage of payable gameplay progress is negligible.

The game can satisfy both type of players, through familiarity and simplicity to the feeling of outsmarting others, whether they’re paying or not. Also, the fact that there’s only one currency carefully balanced masks the one who pays with the one who plays a lot earning currency finishing cities, having a direct trade-off in time in the context of games that again, compete for their players’ time.

Moreover, satisfying both type of players and having a great amount of depth supports to satisfy everyone in between nurturing them to become expert players from any point they might be in the video games-familiarity spectrum.

Which brings us to my third point: the depth of the game. If you start to play and engage regularly, you’ll notice that there are some patterns to play more effectively, at first sight. But later on your friends share stories with you of gameplay cliffhangers in which they accomplish crazy things or discover new stuff such as different uses for the “match anything” crystal, and then you’ll wonder which things you want to try differently next time.

The board is fairly balanced, and the amount of turns give you room to move quickly if you feel smart enough, and then you draw a mental picture of what’s your grand strategy to play the game: “I’m going for castles”, “I’m creating cathedrals”, etc, but once the turns run out and you come back in a few minutes/hours, chances are you forgot what you were doing!

This is because the game offers several competing styles of play that unfold gradually as you play it and learn its depth, usually by sharing your experience with friends or other engaged players on social networks.

All this gives you enough incentives to either pay for more turns -and don’t forget what you were doing- or to think and debate about what style of play to choose when you’re not in the game, ideally discussing it with other friends and people already playing it.

Thus, you end up paying for more turns, staying on the game long enough to wait for just those couple of turns to finish your current strategy or thinking what moves support the playing style you want to use, discussing them with friends and others in any platform you engage with them.

Therefore, the game’s depth drive monetization, retention and viralization.

Does the game have room for improvements? Lots of it. It’s a risky move to have an insufficiently clear -or insufficiently graphical- tutorial for your traditional Facebook player, a bold move to not use known viralization channels and to rely purely on word of mouth -though differentiating the game from all the “noise”- and a controversial move to have only one currency, despite the fact that metrics don’t support such controversy.

There have been some updates featuring pumpkins and now pines, addition of cute villagers that talk to each other, and the removal of the annoying language question each time you opened the game. Nevertheless, more features are coming for sure, but sticking to the smallest shippable game, allowed Triple Town developers to focus on their game’s strengths, to test their hypotheses and leave room to focus future developments based on player’s feedback, as every social game should.

In summary, even though the game isn’t perfect, it doesn’t have flaws that blocked it from achieving the Best Facebook Game Award 2011 at Gamezebo, and some key lessons to learn from it are the adaptation of pace to the environment and context of the platform, relying on players familiarity with competing games to support bold game design moves such as only one currency that embraces all kinds of players through careful balance and to design for depth to enhance your core metrics and greater emergent game experience. (Source: Gamasutra)


上一篇:

下一篇: