作者：David Serrano

社交游戏通常运行于固定的格式，但其寿命现在看起来似乎比几年之前更可疑了，因为出现了大量重复的模式和模板（无论成功与否），使用那些能够让相关数据在图表中上升得更高的单一功能。新时代的来临通常要求变革，因此可能运用可行的技术创造出更丰富、强大、富有活力、有意义，比某些社交游戏的空洞感更富情感联系的内容。

此时这种题材的游戏已经在Facebook和移动生态圈盛行，我们已经看到足够的游戏方案的发展和消失，或者成功之后招致大量鲜有创新，只是换了层皮的衍生游戏。但其成功却不容忽视：他们发现它的目标，并建议新玩家采取行动，在游戏中随着时间发展而付费，短时间内体验高粘性周期（这里我们可以指从一天到数月时间）。

但这种成功也是一把双刃剑，一方面，提供建议和高度营销的产品，但缺乏进一步发展（从情感部署或联系来看），创造了一种玩家只能得到一系列无甚用下，但却具有令人着迷的高盈利机制的功能。所以社交就是从其根源上让时间流失，有些开发者试图找到新方法来改造那些媒体加诸其于上的惯例。

提到改造社交游戏，我发现有一个框架可以有效提升游戏，从而帮助玩家获得更出色的游戏体验，并且扩展社交玩法的范围。但除此之外，我真正的计划是打破存在于一系列社交游戏中的实测范围，并显示运用除了当前使用的数据指标之外，还专注于玩家体验的心理学方法。这个模型就是PENS，它是玩家体验需求满足（Player Experience of Need Satisfaction）这一词的简写，是由Immersyve创始人Scott Rigby和Richard Ryan共同提出的理念，其中包括一系列独特的工具，能够让开发者重塑社交游戏的未来。

player’s experience(from safariflow.com)

框架

PENS是一个旨在理解玩家体验的关键元素的模型和方法，并在一个游戏分析甚少涉及的领域用基准问题进行测试。在涉及创造或设计游戏中的玩家体验时，开发者很可能不会想到要运用类似PENS这种具有足够心理学背景的理论，而只是持续测试玩家，询问当前游戏是否有趣。趣味元素评估是一个被PENS所批评的过程，因为它在定义玩家整个体验过程以及每个细节情况中的表现时呈现了自身弱点。这个趣味元素方法专注于一个非常薄弱的层面，即旨在分析来自基于感情（衡量基于情感反应的趣味）或行为（基于对玩家行为的观察）结果的数据。

PENS作者Scott Rigby和Richard Ryan指出我们需要看得更深，并理解构成趣味创建模块，以及游戏情境中的深度满足感的心理体验。这已经成为一个在玩家乐趣和积极经济结果两个方面上关于基本心理需求（玩家的满足需求，以及他对真正成功游戏的期望）更广泛更详细的研究。

PENS定义了玩家参与玩法行为时需要获得满足感的三种不同心理需求。根据游戏题材和用途，这些不同的需求类型也会因玩家所给予的重要性，以及他们从特定产品中获取的结果而有所不同。这三种内在需求分别是能力、自主权和关联性，每一者都有独特的工具部署以及在游戏和系统内部处理问题的方式，这有助于设计师在设计玩法时首先优化结果。

这种方法真的有必要吗？

在社交游戏中，许多开发者在首次成功之后就开始专注于数据指标/基准管理的方法，他们会根据玩家的表现数据调查和制定决策，很难真正考虑玩家体验以及他们的需求满足情况。留存率、收益、玩法会话、延伸技巧，渠道，以及病毒传播因素才是他们关注的重点，如何应对玩家并为他们提供理想的体验则被削弱了，提供了仅有低级至中级粘性价值的糟糕系统。

毫无疑问，有些成功模式如今在市场上颇为盛行，并且从其功能中收获大量资金，其中包括富有吸引力的盈利系统以及更便于玩家购买游戏内部特定产品的关键机制和动态。但这相同的模式显示玩家已经发展出抵抗这些新游戏（只是复制了原作的工作流程和渠道）的技能，并且要求游戏提供更有深度和意义的体验。

我发现Laralyn McWilliam的《The Metrics Aren’t the Message,》这篇文章明确提出开发者应为社交层次运用更有深度的框架，它指出开发者过于关注图表数据，将玩家体验和玩家与游戏之间的情感联系抛至一旁：

在社交/手机游戏中“最佳做法”，尤其是基于障碍性的盈利设置中，我认为我们还有更好的办法。玩家在你的游戏中逗留，是因为它们创造了情感联系。他们为你的游戏花钱，是因为这种情感联系对他们来说是有意义的。

McWilliams的话成功评估了开发者面临体验vs盈利这种无休无止的竞争中所持有的分歧。投入更丰富的体验究竟值不值得？又或者只需要通过扩展那些充斥图表的游戏配方而专注于相同的模式？继续挽留玩家让他们待在已经不再像过去那样提供满足感的游戏，让他们认为社交游戏环境可能不会像其他热门游戏一样优秀，这种做法真的可行吗？

FarmVille 2(from zyngablog.typepad)

（可以说收割庄稼是过去几年中的一个流行元素，但开发者是否认为用户仍会期待同样的老套模式换张皮而卷土重来？）

如果社交就是以更为激烈的方式汇集体验，那么用户可能就会转移到那些体验更丰富的区域，以便让自己同游戏之间建立起更棒的情感联系，创造出可靠而更多样性的游戏。这种情况确实会发生：提供更有深度社交关系、玩家新互动方式，更柔和的刷任务技巧，以及更不苛刻的付费障碍的游戏目前已经吸引了大量玩家，创造了让玩家心甘情愿投入时间，更令人满意的活动。这是一种能够持续发展的做法，在技术上允许创造出更大更富细节的游戏，以及由新老玩家组成的社区，令这种方法论的应用方式比我们所认为的更紧凑。

为了应用PENS框架，我们试图专注于三种关键动机需求，以及它们如何应用于社交游戏之中，首先描述了它们的定义，之后则努力达成一个共识点，即当前社交玩法和PENS方法的力量也许能够相互碰撞产生理想的体验。

能力

能力是对自己所做的事情获得一种精通或效能感的内在需求。

技能是我们超越游戏中任何挑战的一种关键要素。无论这些技能是纯肢体上的，还是基于快速反应性，或者基于记忆/战略部署的，它们都是连接玩家与游戏的核心。快速掌握游戏机制对于一款旨在为玩家提供理想体验的游戏来说甚为关键，令游戏机制足够简单，从而避免玩家一段时间后重返游戏时可能遭遇的失败，让他们轻而易举的在下意识中完成一系列操作，而不是费劲地加想下一个按钮在哪里。

在同个区域的之后环节中，就会出现玩家需应用技能和游戏机制才能够超越的挑战。玩家所执行的所有过程就是所谓的玩法，如果给予玩家表达自己精通能力的机会，这种东西会最小化粘性价值，而不仅仅是克服挑战。不要在标准游戏之上添加极为困难的挑战，而要采用更为循序渐进的方式，让玩家能够体验到操作的精通感，这就是PENS所谓的令玩家重返游戏的有效助推力。能够与精通感共同合作的强大测量要素和增加其激励值的就是反馈，只要执行正确就应该立即响应玩家的动作。

所以玩家越是能够快速跟进自己的行为，就越要通过增加玩家精通度来优化挑战，这会生成与能力相关的更佳体验，因此也会产生较好的粘性和趣味结果。

在社交游戏中，究竟是趣味产生精通度，还是精通产生趣味性？

我们听到能力与技能游戏有关时首先想到的是什么？充斥Facebook和移动设备的大量社交技能游戏已经足够为之制作一个海量的页面资料了。但我们多次看到的这些纯技能游戏实际上是某些方式直接与玩家能力较劲，来管理其痛苦承受力的关卡创造随机性发生器因素（可以称之为运气，不可能性的算法），这就产生了一个问题：究竟是趣味产生精通感，还是精通产生趣味？

社交游戏极侧重于在精通之后才提供趣味，而不是两者颠倒。我们在此并不讨论这是否糟糕的做法，有结果显示基于在精通之后才有趣味的热门游戏能够取得巨大的市场成功，最后让玩家只想克服自己投入大量时间的关卡挑战，但其精通程度仍然没有什么变化，只能靠运气让他们越过障碍，因此让他们继续前进。

玩家能力程度和游戏挑战之间的最紧凑匹配可以让玩家获得一种强大的满足感和胜任体验。

另一个执行得当的法则就是直接和适时的反馈，允许玩家跟进他们的行动，并获得一种对于自己表现的肯定。例如，闪条、攻击数、合击、胜利消息等，要让机制快速响应玩家所执行的每步操作。

如果颠倒了主次，就可能令技能游戏中的盈利因素失效。如果我们总是提供符合玩家技能的下一个挑战，他的进步能力就永远不会是靠付费方法获得，我们也不可能持续调整游戏，以令他们在困难的障碍面前脆弱不堪。但这一模式仍然可以应用于早期阶段，正如某些例子（游戏邦注：《Candy Crush Saga》、《Pet Rescue Saga》等游戏）：让玩家满足自己的能力需求，以通过超越调整得当的挑战而自我激励，最后面临一个截然不同于这种根据技能来调整难度的挑战，并纯粹靠运气来取胜，这只会制造焦虑感而非心流状态。最后一个部分就是要求用户付费获取道具，或参与二次挑战的机会，并解琐另一种这类能力满意因子，创造一个运用某些PENS原则的循环，这种循环迅速被打破并被一个挑战用户的付费墙所取代，直到用户最后用运气战胜了挑战，否则就得花钱加快游戏进程。

操作精通度和理想挑战

操作精通度可能并非多数社交游戏的更新结果，因为盈利漏斗让玩家无法看到自己的技能与挑战的匹配程度，导致玩法行为受限。我们能够把握的主要问题就在于，假如社交游戏所奉行的主要原则就是在掌握玩家技能时添加如此困难的约束条件，就迟早会导致玩家社区产生对这种效应的需求。

当持续应用相同的漏斗时，玩家的兴趣就会转移到另一款相似的游戏中，发现在另一款游戏中无法取得成功时就会让玩家产生无法进步的感觉，即使他已经掌握了足够的技能。如果应用到现实生活中，任何发展完好的技能都有助于我们克服自己所遇到的困难，因此困难更强时，我们就会以更好的方法训练这种技能。为什么这不可以应用到游戏中？对于不成功的游戏来说，有一个主要原因就是，漏斗延伸技巧的重复通常称为“障碍”，导致玩家转移的一大原因通常是由于为了避开出现于其他游戏中的这种付费墙而引起的。如果即将面世的社交游戏在应用粘性功能时无法突破这种局限性，那么游戏头几分钟的留存率就会受到影响。

所以我们应该怎么做？优秀的操作精通度在游戏中必须能够与盈利机制共存。那些更适用于玩家进程并帮助他们认识到游戏仍然处于有效管理状态，并且能够避开那些生硬的付费墙。游戏不应该以持续的失败破坏玩法，应该通过其他途径提供持续游戏的机会：如果玩家无法通过某一关，就为他提供玩另一个关卡的机会，这会让他认识到自己仍然需要加强技能，但并不一定依赖于提升道具，跳过或解琐来获得进展。保持玩法操作持续流畅的需求有助于增加玩家留存率，让玩家在游戏中逗留得更久，并自己决定是否有必要购买不同的道具来加快进程。为玩法所呈现的这种核心功能设置一个约束条件，对于打算在市场中分得一杯羹的游戏来说实在是太冒险了。（本文游戏邦/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）

Rethinking Social Games part 1

by David Serrano

Social games are usually working on standardized formulas which longevity right now seems way more questionable than what it were years before, when loads of reiterative patterns and blueprints were copied (successfully or not) using every single feature that was making competence’s stats grow in charts significantly higher. New times may usually demand changes, and thus may be inspired by applying available techniques to create more richer, powerful, energizing, meaningful and substantially more emotionally connected than the feeling of void that some crucial social game amalgams actually have.

For the times that this genre has been populating Facebook and the mobile ecosystem, we’ve seen far enough schemes of games (drinking beforehand from some classic formulas) growing up and lately disappearing, or just succeeding and causing an enormous growth of side-titles with far less innovation than a reshape of the art. But its success is impossible to be ignored: they found its target, and suggested new players to take action, spending increasing times inside the game and experiencing high engagement periods for short times (in which we may actually refer from a day up to months).

But this success had a double edge, from one side, suggestion and highly marketed products available, and a lack of further developed (in terms of emotional deployment or connection), created a funnel where player’s where only given a set of social games capable of little but deeply engaging features with high monetization schemes deployed on its top layer. So social is getting each time drained from its roots, and several developers are trying to seek new paths for reinventing the actual conventions that the media has built upon them.

fishville

Perhaps is the time to ask some social tendencies for something way…deeper

Thinking about reinventing the wheel of social games, I found what it was a framework in which I actually trusted to be sufficiently powerful to improve them in a way that could help players to get a greater experience out from them, and to give social play a new dimension, but far from this statement, what I really intended is to break the boundaries that actual measurements are being done in a range of social games and show the capabilities of applying a psychological methodology focused on the player’s experience alongside the currently used data metrics. This model was PENS, abbreviation of Player Experience of Need Satisfaction, developed by Immersyve’s  founders Scott Rigby and Richard Ryan, that holds an unique set of tools able to make developers reshape the future of social gaming.

The Framework

PENS is a model and methodology whose aim is to understand the key components of the player experience and benchmark it in a field hardly developed in terms of analysis that games (and even more in their experience side) are. When it comes to creating or designing the player’s experience inside a game, it is more probably that developers wouldn’t even fall into any theory with enough psychological background as PENS show, and just keep on playtesting with the current ask for the player about if a game is just fun or not. The fun factor evaluation is a procedure criticized by PENS as it tries to show its weaknesses when comes to define how the player performs in terms of the overall experience and in every detailed situation. This fun factor method focuses on a very weak layer which aim is to analyze data coming from outcomes based on emotional (measuring fun based on emotional reactions) or behavioral (based on the observation of player’s behaviors) metrics.

PENS authors Scott Rigby and Richard Ryan do state that we need to look deeper and understand the psychological experiences that form the building blocks of fun and deeper satisfaction in the context of games. That is getting a wider and more detailed study about the basic psychological needs that player’s need to satisfy and that he expects from a real successful game, both in terms of player’s enjoyment and positive economical outcomes.

PENS define three different psychological needs that players need to be satisfied when they engage in a play behavior. Depending on the genre and purpose, these different kinds of needs can get unbalanced due to the importance that players give to them and the different outcomes they extract on specific products. These three intrinsic needs are competence, autonomy and relatedness; each one with an unique way of deploying tools and ways to tackle them inside titles and systems, which helps designers foremost to optimize the results when it comes to designing gameplay.

Is such methodology really needed?

When it turns to social games, the way loads of developers started focusing into metrics/benchmarking and leaving aside the player’s experience grew considerably much since the very first successes, making hard to establish if any was really taking into account the player’s experience and the satisfaction of their needs as much as they researched and took decisions over the big data analysis of their performance. Whereas retention, revenues, play sessions, stretching techniques, funnels, whales feed and viral spread factors were (and still are in some cases) the way to go, how to tackle players and therefore bringing them the optimal experience for an enjoyment of their activities were constantly diminished, offering weaker systems of low to medium engagement value, with less key factors and points for overcoming the fun factor delivery of games.

There is no doubt that some successful formulas are populating the market right now, and grossing incredible amounts of money out from their features, in which include an attractive monetization system paired with key mechanics and dynamics which makes players more able to purchase specific intangible ingame products. But these same formulas are showing that players are developing defensive skills against new titles which only aim is to copy such workflows and funnels, and asking for something way deeper and meaningful in terms of an experience.

An article I found clearly decisive to take a step onto applying a deeper framework to social was Laralyn McWilliams’s The Metrics Aren’t the Message, in which stated how developers were taking too much into account numbers in charts and leaving barely attended the player’s experience and the emotional connection created between the game and the player, quoting:

When it comes to social/mobile game “best practices” and especially friction-based monetization, I believe there’s a better way. Players stick with your game because they made an emotional connection. They pay money for your game because that emotional connection is meaningful to them.

McWilliams words assessed successfully the dichotomy that developers face in the never-ending debate of weighing experience against monetization and vice-versa. If is really worth to invest on richer experiences or just try to keep focusing into the same old patterns by stretching the game recipes that blasted charts.Is it really good to keep on shaping the current community of players towards games that aren’t as much as satisfactory in terms of experience as they could get, allowing them to constantly think that social game’s environment may not also go further than what they’re actually seeing in the available list of top titles?

We could tell that harvesting crops has been a fashion way to stretched in the past few years, are developers still thinking thet users are still be ready for a re-skining of the same aged formula?

If social keeps funneling experiences in way more drastic terms, it is probably that users may migrate to those sections where experiences are way richer in order to help them develop greater connections between the game and themselves, creating solid and more versatile titles. And it is happening: titles which offer deeper social relationships, new ways to interact with players, softer grinding techniques and less strict monetizing pay walls are currently grossing in number of players, creating more satisfying activities where they can spend their time. It is a practice that will be continuously growing both by technology allowing to create larger and more detailed games and a community formed of old but new players created out from social networks and mobile; making necessary the application of methodologies way more intense than we could actually think of that suits the mark of social.

In order to apply PENS framework, we’ll try to focus inside the three key motivational  needs and how they can be applied inside social games, first describing what they’re about and later trying to reach a common point where both forces of current social gameplay and PENS approach may collide for creating optimal experiences.

Competence

Competence is the intrinsic need to feel a sense of mastery or effectance in what one is doing.

Skills are the crucial factor when it comes to surpassing any challenge that we face in games. Whether such skills are merely physical and based on quick reflexes, or they’re based on memory/strategy deployment, they are the core and the bridge between the player and the game. Learning quickly the game mechanics is crucial for a game which aims for the optimal experience for players, and making it enough easier for avoiding possible failures when players may retake the game after a period of time, making them to be an effortless and barely unconscious set of actions of their play rather a constant reminder of which button comes next.

Later but in the same field, comes challenges where mechanics alongside player’s skills are deployed in order to surpass every single stage. All of the procedure that players makes is called gameplay and such thing maximizes the engagement value if it gives player’s the opportunity to express their mastery, rather than just overcoming challenges. Instead of trying to put extremely hard challenges on top of standardized ones, a slow but safe procedure will usually work way better, making the player able to experience the mastery in action which PENS identify as a powerful contributor to the player’s desire in order to return to the game. A powerful meter that works together with mastery and increases its energizing value is feedback, being immediately responsive to the player’s actions as long as it is correctly implemented.

So the more the player is able to keep track of his performance instantaneously, and the better the optimization of challenges is done by increasing the player’s mastery and facing it with matching challenges, will lead to better experiences related to Competence, and therefore with better results in terms of engagement and fun.
On social games: with fun comes mastery or with mastery comes fun?

What first comes to our mind when hearing about competence are skill games. The incredible amount of social skill games that actually populates Facebook and mobile devices is large enough to make a outnumbered page document with them. But in these cases of pure skill games where we’ve seen several times that actually the randomizer factor of level creation (call it luck, call it algorithms of impossibility) of some successful formulas that struggles directly with the ability of players to manage their pain tolerance, a question comes into the set:  with fun comes mastery…or with mastery comes fun?

Social games have significantly weighed the balance into providing fun after mastery and not the other way around as commonly suggested by game’s standards.  We’re not here to discuss if it’s a bad practice or not, results have shown that popular games based on fun after loads of mastery turned into mass market success formulas, with nothing less than players wanting to overcome a level in which they’ve spent loads of time, though its mastery level is still the same one way or another, and only luck is capable of letting them surpass such barrier, therefore making them advance.

The closest match between their level of ability and the game’s challenges makes players to feel a strong satisfaction and experience of competence.

Another well done implemented formula is direct and well timed feedback, allowing players to keep track of their actions and feel rewarded by “kind” words about their performance. Streaks, number of hits, combos, winning messages: there are enough resources in the field to probably assume that this feature hasn’t been undermined by any other feature, keeping mechanics rewarded by the fast adaptation that every user makes

.comeptence-satisfaction

Here’s a chart I made based upon the models of optimal challenge (standard successful games) and hard luck generated ones, the difference is clear: while one emphasizes on keeping the players mastery and engagement, the other uses a pay wall or blockage breaking the oportunities of the player to test his skills progressively.

Rethinking the workflow the other way around may be though as a possible nullifying of the monetizing factor that skill games hold. If we do always provide a next challenge matching the player’s skill, his ability to progress will never be suggesting a paying method for advancing sideways, and we won’t be constantly tuning the game for making them vulnerable to hard stages after a set of greater ones. But still the model seems to be applied during some early stages, as some examples (Such as Candy Crush, or Pet Rescue among others) state: making players to satisfy their competence needs to energize themselves by surpassing pretty well adapted stages, to end up facing another completely different no longer based in this close-tuning-to-skills one, and merely based in hard luck to win unleashing anxiety rather than flow. The last part of it is a powerful claim for users to spend and acquire boosts or second chances to end such stage, and unlocking another set of such competence satisfiers, making a cycle where some principles of PENS are applied, by suddenly are teared apart and replaced by a pay wall formula that challenges users until the very last moment where luck matches skill and matches challenge or else there is needed a purchase for advancing.

Mastery in action and optimal challenges

Mastery in action may not be an updated consequence for most social games, provided monetization asks for a funnel where the player is unable to see his skills paired with the challenge presented in front of him, leading to highly exponential breakdowns on its play behavior. The main problem that we could assess, is that provided the main formula that social games implemented by adding such hard constraints when it comes to mastering player’s skills, will lead to a demand of such effect sooner or later on the community.

When the same funnels are constantly applied, the player’s interest to migrate to another close-pattern based (or re-skinned) title will be consequently diminished, seeking another unsuccessful results game that feels unable to make the player progress even though he has learned enough to show what he is capable of without any result. When it comes to real life, any skill well developed helps us to overcome any difficulty we may find, and thus when they should get higher, will end up in training such skills in a better way. Why shouldn’t this be parallel to games? One of the main reasons for unsuccessful titles is the reiteration on funnel stretching techniques often called “friction” provided one of the causes of such player migration is often caused because of the avoidance of such hard pay walls presented in other titles. If forthcoming social titles are unable to seek beyond this schemes when it comes to apply engagement features, the possibilities of retention when it comes to the first minutes of play will be nullified.

So what we shall ask for? A better apply of the mastery of action running constantly through the game that also is able to work altogether with monetization. Formulas that may apply better to the player’s progression and help him to realize that the game is still managed as it should be and avoiding several hard pay walls. Instead of collapsing the gameplay in half by a constant failure, offer always the opportunity to always keep on playing by any other means: if the player is unable to get past a level, offer him the opportunity to play another ones which will make him able to realize he still is in need to empower his skills, but not to rely only in boosters, skips or unlocks to advance. The need to keep the action of play constantly flowing will help to increase retention, making players able to stay longer and decide by themselves (rather than impose) if it’s really needed to purchase different items to help them progress. Placing a constraint in such core feature that gameplay represents is way too risky for new titles wishing to have a portion of the cake that players leave in order to try new titles.（source：games4breakfast）