作者：Erik R

多数人应该听过《Wordfeud》这款游戏吧。它不仅获得了上百万的用户基础，同时也衍生了无数的仿冒品，所以毫无疑问这是一款获得了成功的游戏。但是为什么这类早前的游戏，如拼字游戏会再次流行，而其它同类游戏，如象棋却从来不能成为主流游戏？

我发现了《Wordfeud》之所以能够取得成功并让其它游戏望尘莫及的几个原因。以下我将列出《Wordfeud》之所以有趣的四大元素。并且我认为其它游戏如果希望仿效《Wordfeud》就必须谨慎地看待这些内容，并判断它们是否真的适合自己的游戏。

wordfeud(from wordfeud.com)

1）不存在直接的交互作用

《Wordfeud》的第一大优势是玩家与玩家间不存在直接的交互作用。玩家能够在游戏中聊天与交流，但是游戏却不会强迫着玩家们这么做。这点很重要，因为两名玩家不可能总是同时在线，这就意味着一名玩家要求另外一面玩家针对于行动所做出的反应或准许都会被延迟，直到对方上线。

如果你面对的是《万智牌》这类游戏，即玩家需要对彼此间的行动做出响应，并回应对方的操作等，那么游戏的进程将会明显放缓。即当任何玩家出完一张牌后，必须等到其他玩家登录游戏并同意时，该名玩家才能继续自己的游戏。

而在《Wordfeud》中，即使没有互动没有许可游戏也能继续运行。当轮到自己时，每名玩家便能够完全依照自己的想法完成任务。而当其他玩家登录游戏时，对方也可以立刻执行自己的任务，无需许可别人的行动或等待他们完成任务再开始自己的游戏。

2）有限的回合数

拼字游戏之所以能够长期大受欢迎是因为其中仅拥有少量的回合数。游戏真正的运行时间是从玩家每次登录游戏开始，所以实际上不连续的回合数其实很少。如果拼字游戏中设有100个回合，那么很多玩家便很可能放弃游戏。但是如果只设置了有限的不连续回合数，游戏便能够在玩家对其感到厌烦之前适时结束。

像这种包含了间接的交互作用与有限回合数的游戏，可以让玩家在合理的时间内完成游戏。

3）每个回合需要进行长时间的思考，以及有限的移动

为了保持玩家对于游戏的兴趣，游戏必须为玩家提供足够的思考时间。拼字游戏让玩家能够在每个回合中根据自己所需的时间长度进行思考，并且鼓励着他们这么做。即使你不能把握住找到的第一个单词，游戏也将提供给你更多分数，鼓励你继续思考。与现实中的拼字游戏不同，在游戏中没有人会抱怨你花多少时间进行思考，所以你可以避免过多的负担。

这一点非常重要。例如在蛇梯棋（游戏邦注：一种棋盘游戏）中，尽管游戏具有非常短而简单的回合，但是却不能引起多大的关注。玩家只是登录游戏，掷骰子，移动棋子，后离开。自始至终游戏都未提供给玩家任何激励机制，推动他们进行思考。

4）没有任何隐藏的计划

最后一点可能也是最重要的一点。因为这一点能够很好地说明为何象棋游戏不能跟《Wordfeud》一样受到热捧，尽管它也符合前三点内容。并且很多游戏都很难将这点与第3点结合起来，这也是许多桌面游戏不能获得成功的重要原因。

拼字游戏虽然允许玩家长时间地进行思考，但是却不允许玩家事先计划。玩家总是关注于当前的行动，不会预先考虑接下来的变化，更别说计划10步后的内容了。这一点很重要，因为很多玩家都会同时打开许多游戏，同时在这些游戏中进行比赛。如果游戏要求他们预先计划，他们便不得不制定计划并记住每一款游戏的比赛计划。

而象棋游戏就不同，它要求玩家必须深谋远虑。但是让玩家同时玩5款象棋类游戏真的是个巨大的挑战，更别说20款了。而拼字游戏只要求玩家最多考虑到下一步要怎么做。这就意味着你可以同时运行多款游戏，因为当你每次登录游戏时，只需要思考当前的内容即可。

同样地，游戏也不会要求你进行回想。游戏不会删除早前戏回合中的相关信息。但是如果按照这种形式玩扑克游戏（除了那些不符合第1、2点内容的游戏）就有点小麻烦了，因为你会想知道玩家在之前的游戏中做了些什么。这会让玩家难以了解对手的属性，从而让游戏整体变得更加肤浅。

没有任何隐藏信息，不移除游戏进程中的任何内容并且不要求玩家制定任何隐藏策略，可方便玩家登录任何一款游戏，浏览棋盘，只关注于当前的游戏状态，并做出移动操作。但同时，复杂的移动也意味着他不能只是快速地点击某些内容并离开游戏。他必须拥有足够的时间在游戏中进行思考，并且不会因为游戏的复杂性感到任何压迫感。

我们不能只是简单地将一款现有的桌面游戏转变成同步多人游戏模式，希望本文对那些有意将桌游移植为其他平台应用的开发者有所启发。

（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）

Why Wordfeud worked.

by Erik R

Introduction

So most people have probably heard about Wordfeud. With millions of users and countless spin-offs, it’s probably fair to say that it was a success. But why? Why did an old game that everybody already knows like Scrabble suddenly come back as such a major hit, while others games in that category like Chess never got that mainstream?

I think I’ve founds a few of the things that made Wordfeud work where other games failed. These four elements listed below are what allows Wordfeud to be so much fun. And I think that other games that want  to play out the way Wordfeud does should have a good look and see if these things are true for their games.

1) No direct interaction

The first thing that Wordfeud has, is no direct interaction between players. While it is possible to chat or poke each other about playing, the game does not require its players to interact. This is important, because two players might not be online at the same time, which means that any action that requires a response or approval from another player has to be delayed until the other player comes online.

If you would take a game such as Magic the Gathering, where players can respond to each other’s actions, and then respond to each others reponses, etc. then the game would slow to a crawl. After each attempt to play a card, the other player would need to log in to give his approval, before the first player could resume his turn.

By having no interaction or approval, the game can keep running. When you take your turn, you can take your whole turn. And when the other player logs in, he can immediately take his turn, rather then having to give an approval and wait for the other player to end his turn.

2) Limited number of turns

A second reason that the game stays running is that the game only has a limited number of turns. While the actual running time of a game varies greatly depending on when players log in, the actual number of discrete turns in a game is fairly low. People will only keep playing in a game for so long. If scrabble had 100 turns to run, many players would have given up on their running games after a while. But by only having limited discrete turns, games can be finished up before players grow tired of them.

This, combined with no direct interaction and a time limit per turn, allows games to be completed in a reasonable amount of time.

3) Long thinking time per turn, but limited moves

In order to keep people engaged, the game needs to provide at least a base level of thought. Scrabble lets people think about each turn for as long as they need, but it also provides them an incentive to do so. There can be dozens of points earned by not grabbing the first word you find and playing it. Unlike real life scrabble, nobody will be bothered if you take an hour to think about the word you are going to play.

This will keep the game in a player’s mind. A game such as snakes and ladders, with its extremely short and simple turns, would not be able to hold attention. A player would log in, tap a die, move a piece, and leave. There is no incentive to think about the game.

4) No hidden plans

Perhaps the most critical of the things identified is the last one. I think this is why Chess failed to be the hit that Wordfeud is, despite matching the first 3 criteria. It is also the hardest to combine with 3), and that is perhaps why we have not seen many of these kind of boardgames become big hits.

Scrabble, while letting you think long, does not make you plan ahead. The player is always concerned with the current move, hardly ever with the next, let alone planning what to do ten moves from now. This is important, because players will open many games at the same time and compete in all of them. If the game required you to plan ahead, you would need to formulate and remember a gameplan for each.

Chess requires you to think ahead. To play five games of chess simultaneously is hard. Let alone twenty. But Scrabble mostly only worries about your next move. And that means you can run all games at the same time, because when you log in, you only have to think about the current turn.

Likewise, it doesn’t require you to think back either. There is no relevant information held in previous turns that is no longer visible. Playing Poker in this format for example (in addition to probably failing 1) and 2) anyway) would be an issue, because one of the things you will want to know is what players did in previous turns. That would require a lot of backreading at best, or would simply be impossible at worst. This makes the player unable to get a profile on their opponent, making the whole game more shallow.

Not having any hidden information, not removing anything that happened in the history of the game, and not requiring the player to form a hidden strategy allow him to log in to any of his many games, glance at the board, deduce the current  gamestate, and make his move. But at the same time, the complexity of the move means he won’t just quickly click something and leave. He’ll actually have time to bond with the game, without getting overwhelmed by its complexity.

Conclusion

There is more to converting an existing boardgame to an non-synchronous multiplayer format then just grabbing a game and hoping for the best. Hopefully this article gives some insight into what you should think about when attempting to port (or build) a boardgame designed to run as an app.

Wordfeud has shown that it could be a smash hit. Chess has shown that it can exist for decades and never rise above obscurity. So any information on how to best guide the process is valuable, I would think.（source:gamasutra）