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

如何成功设计一款社交游戏

发布时间:2015-08-20 10:33:11 Tags:,,,,

作者:Joshua Dallamn

过去,我非常沉迷于《Nintendo Power》的游戏评级系统。当然了,不管整体游戏是出色还是糟糕,但是决定游戏是金子还是垃圾的分类也是决定它是否具有乐趣的关键。以下便是来自这本已经不复存在的杂志的例子:

杂志将他们的评级分为5个类别(“Sat”代表“满足”),但每个级别都带有同等重要性。显然这比用大拇指判断有效的多,但这也是一种相当武断的做法,并不是很科学也未曾遵循任何逻辑范式。

另外一个参考对象便是同样倒闭了的杂志《GamePro》,他们也使用了《Nintendo Power》的系统。以下便是来自该杂志的例子:

rating system(from gamasutra)

rating system(from gamasutra)

让我们回到2006年。那时候我正效劳于一家休闲的独立游戏发行商,它每天会评估10至20款游戏,挑选发行对象,并帮助他们发行游戏或给予对方资金支持。此外,我也会评估我们内部开发的游戏,并将其与我们资助或发行的游戏进行比较。我需要一个系统。

我刚刚阅读了Ken Wilber的《A Brief History of Everything》,其中便包含了以下关于生活,科学,心理,图像和文化的“四象限”模式:

model(from gamasutra)

model(from gamasutra)

该模式以及这本书的基本要素便是关于所有的生活和理念都可以融入层级中。而这些层级的关键概念在于上层超越并包含了下层,而不是超越并抛弃了下层。超越并抛弃是为了处于支配地位。而超越并包含则是为了不断演变发展。

我创造了以下四个基于游戏评估的分级系统:

hierarchical system(from gamasutra)

hierarchical system(from gamasutra)

我所合作的发行商同时也是一名游戏引擎开发商,IGDA Game Accessibility Special Interest Group为了为我们游戏引擎中的游戏开发者推进辅助功能选项而联系了我。我的父母都是社会工作者,即他们一直致力于帮助那些具有发育障碍的人,所以SIF的任务对我来说具有特别的意义,我也在公司内部推广了他们关于我们游戏引擎的建议。

开发者能够使用我们的游戏引擎为那些有视觉障碍的人创造特殊游戏体验,如通过使用3D音频去创造可移动的空间。而对于那些四肢瘫痪的人所玩的按键游戏,我则利用他们的头或呼吸作为控制方式。

正是在那个时候,休闲游戏运行开始了,并伴随着Casual Game Association的成立以及Casual Game Conference的举办,以及像PopCap和Nexon等发行商的快速发展。我也立即将休闲游戏作为了关注焦点,即受到“游戏是面向所有人”的承诺的鼓动,且为了将早前的硬核游戏带给大众用户,我立即调整了游戏的易用性。

这两大产业事件的交叉让我将我们游戏的易用性推向了最顶峰。因为对于现在的我们来说没什么比易用性更重要了。

易用性意味着游戏最多只能由1个按键或3个按键控制,而不是由12个或101个按键控制。易用性意味着玩家能够更轻松地理解游戏。这意味着玩家能够轻松使用一个平台(对不起了Linux,因为Grandma并没有固定的系统管理员)。这意味着玩家可以接受这样的价格点。这意味着这是玩家可以发展的技能水平。这意味着玩家可以理解这样的教程和指南。这意味着玩家不需要使用超过2000美元的PC装备去玩游戏,也不需要适用于所有硬件系统的音频驱动程序。是的,这同样也意味着在出现画外音的时候同时也在屏幕上呈现相关内容从而为聋人和带有视觉障碍的人提供便利,并调整了字体大小以方便那些有老花症状的用户等。最后,这同样也意味着基本的技术稳定性。易用性有可能成就你的游戏也有可能将其摧毁。如果玩家不能轻松地玩你的游戏,他们便不会再玩游戏。

下一个层级是关于主题。在易用性之后,主题是游戏另一大基础,即之后的图像和游戏玩法都基于主题进行创造。如果玩家并不能理解主题,那么即使之后的图像和游戏玩法再优秀,玩家也不可能从主题和整体叙述中绕出来。关于主题的两大重要元素便是故事和角色,主题最好具有足够的吸引力能够将玩家带进其中。

《Total Distortion》是带有糟糕主题游戏的一个例子,在游戏中玩家扮演着音乐制作人的角色,将使用内部维度运输机进入一个带有上百万美元的扭曲维度,同时吉他机器人会为了创造全新的音乐视频而尝试着杀死玩家,但其实这却是一个不完整的概念。相比之下如果吉他英雄的设定是为了成为一名英雄而努力演奏吉他的话玩家将能够更容易理解。

关于糟糕主题的另一个例子是《Irritating Stick》,—-这个“棍子”是什么?为什么它的“刺激”感是有趣的?显然这个标题并未真正去传达游戏的主题,其故事和叙述也不够完整,同时还缺少伴随着程序上的粒子效果的高质量2.5D图像去拯救它。

有趣的是,我曾经让一位游戏设计应聘者描述他所认为的最具有吸引力的样本游戏。他说到了“羊驼农场”。我的第一个问题是,羊驼到底是什么?我需要查看看。当然了,独立开发者拥有足够的空间去创造最新颖的主题,因为他们并不需要去创造一件符合大众市场的产品。而在游戏产业中,我们大多数人都很难做到这点。即使你是在为一个立基市场设计游戏,如果该立基市场不能接受你的主题,那么你就会被淘汰。

紧接着便是音频和视觉效果,它们是基于主题框架并伴随着图像和声音层面进行创造。

为什么图像比游戏玩法更基本?简单说来,如果你的音频发出摩擦声或者你的图像断断续续,玩家的耳朵和眼睛便会感到不适,他们便不可能进一步被游戏玩法所吸引。

实际上,如果你的加载屏幕很糟糕,或者你使用了来自Poser的库存模型,玩家可能会当场大怒并退出游戏。最极端的情况是,如果你的游戏的包装盒设计非常糟糕(或者你的市场营销页面),玩家可能根本就不会购买游戏(或安装游戏)去体验层级中一些更高层次的内容,如游戏玩法。也就是说如果游戏的图像很糟糕,玩家便不可能再去考虑游戏玩法了。

不过低预算的独立游戏则是例外,尽管这种情况很少发生。独立游戏会对图像风格和产品质量进行描述,并且即使是拥有较低生产质量的图像(较低预算)也可能拥有非常出色的风格并吸引大众用户的注意(游戏邦注:如《Osmos》,《Darwinia》和《Flappy Bird》)。

最后,在金字塔的最顶端也是整体产品中最复杂的元素,超越同时也包含了所有之前层面的便是游戏设计。游戏设计是依赖于所有的其它层面—-它依赖于易用性,主题,图像,并且是基于这些选择进行创造。游戏设计是玩家能够内在感受到的一方面。它是不能通过易用性等感觉进行衡量,它也不能以图像和声音进行感受,更加不能像主题那些进行思考与理解。它必须通过游戏,并且只能在游戏中才能感受得到。

接近无限的游戏设计组件包含了玩家控制(活动),目标,即时游戏玩法,元游戏玩法,节奏,“游戏感”,像英雄,敌人,升级道具,可收集的道具,游戏世界规则(如重力,物理现象,子弹逻辑),时机,游戏世界真理,游戏世界机制,谜题设计,关卡设计,多人游戏设计,游戏竞技,元素模拟,所有用于定义游戏世界但是其本身却很难定义的短暂的“右脑”元素(如《Nintendo Power》的“满足”变量以及《GamePro》的平行的“乐趣元素”)等等游戏元素。就像爱与信仰是不能被定义的,但它们却是真实的一元,满足和乐趣也是如此—-这是处于游戏设计与呼吸的模糊领域中,并最终可能成就或摧毁你的游戏。我们必须处理好所有的这些元素。而这其实是几乎不可能完成的任务,这也是为什么只有极少“完美”游戏的原因。游戏玩法必须是完美的。如果你的玩家不喜欢玩你的游戏,他们便不会去玩你的游戏。

我们已经到达了一个能够评估并开发游戏的类别层级。现在让我们以社交游戏为中心进行分析。

2009年,当我开始为一家大型发行商设计社交游戏时,我进入了一个改变了我自己创造的模型的全新设计领域。我修改了自己的模型去适应社交游戏,并因此诞生了如下模型:

selfestablished model(from gamasutra)

selfestablished model(from gamasutra)

游戏玩法不再位于最顶端。现在社交游戏玩法超越了它并也包含了最纯粹的游戏玩法。社交游戏使用了非社交游戏玩法作为基础,但也超越了这一基础。

社交游戏玩法包含四个变量,即就像Mildred Parten在20世纪20年代末于明尼苏达州的Institute of Child Development所定义的那样:

平行游戏—-孩子们使用类似的玩具,基于类似的方式游戏,但是彼此并没有任何互动。

旁观游戏—-孩子们只是观看着其他人玩游戏,但却未参与其中。

联合游戏—-两个以上的孩子通过分享或借玩具或材料而进行互动,尽管他们并非做着同样的事。

合作游戏—-孩子们通过轮流,合作或竞赛方式而真诚地与其他人一起游戏。

大多数社交游戏利用平行游戏作为最强大的社交功能。每个玩家都有属于自己的游戏空间,他们将独立完成游戏目标与关卡,并基于与其他人一样的设置和游戏规则,除了访问其他玩家的领域外他们几乎很少与其他玩家进行互动。

而我们也在《辛普森一家》中意识到了使用这种方法作为主要社交游戏风格的局限性,即朋友的领域虽然是一致的,但是玩家的进程却是不同的,这将被解释为平行维度。通常情况下在这些社交游戏中,玩家只能访问另一个玩家,然后留下少量的奖励或信息。这里的互动是微乎其微的。但是这种情况也会不断发展。

社交游戏设计中也存在着具有的机遇能够强化平行游戏,创造全新机遇机制的旁观游戏(游戏邦注:就像在扑克游戏和一些体育游戏),联合游戏(赠送礼物与交换道具)和合作游戏(如创建协会和部落,这通常是出现于MMORPG,但现在也被带进了社交游戏设计中,最典型的便是《部落战争》)。

层级的下一层,即超越但也包含并依赖于社交游戏的便是病毒性功能,如果游戏对于玩家来说具有易用性,他们便会向朋友,家人,同事,现实生活中的邻居,社交网站上的“朋友”,一起休息的朋友等传播游戏。简单说来,没有病毒性功能的社交游戏就像是不带病毒性的病毒一样,不可能传播出去。

创造适当的病毒性功能意味着玩家不会察觉到它们就是病毒性功能,反而认为它们只是普通的游戏功能。这并不是说它们未经过玩家允许便被刊登在Facebook上,而是玩家觉得游戏让自己能够将成就截图以及自己在游戏世界中的故事与朋友分享,并且他们还可以跟朋友分享奖励和礼物。

做得好的话,病毒性功能将是透明的,并且会完全整合到完整的游戏体验中,能够提升游戏体验的价值而不是作为一种廉价的市场营销手段。但是如果做得不好,它们便会是最后一分钟的垃圾内容,并伴随着无趣且具有超强粘附性的内容。最可怕的情况是,这些病毒性内容就像数字潜行者,它们会在游戏中一直盯着你,并坚持只要你在社交网站上刊登任何你想要的内容所有的一切都会变得更好。过度的病毒性功能并不会超越并包含层级中较低的类别,它们只会超越并拒绝或主导这些类别。换句话说,它们将把你带离游戏主题和叙述所创造的沉浸感,并且会破坏游戏玩法和核心乐趣;它们会在一个华丽的场景中创造丑陋的2D弹出内容;并且它们还会将接受营销的人纳入旁观社交游戏中,而不会提供给他们更深入的体验。

在执行的时候,这些病毒性功能可能拥有短期的正面参数能够“检验”它们的缺陷,但是它们对于长期留存的影响就跟我们在谈跟踪者对于牺牲者的影响一样。一直以来这都是件让人遗憾的事,当游戏变成玩家需要防伪的事物时,即玩家需要谨慎判断无意识的回答是否会让自己变成现实生活中的垃圾制造者。

在几年前的一次GDC大会上,我曾听到一个有胆量的评论员宣称:“质量便是我们的病毒。”尽管还有其它演讲内容是值得引用的,但是我最喜欢的还是这句话也完全同意他的观点。尽管额外的分散和慎重的病毒性功能也是必要的,但是我们不能忽视一位玩家告诉另一位玩家一款社交游戏多出色,并口头邀请他们一起游戏所创造的有机安装。这一点在社交游戏设计中经常被低估。而这也是Rovio如何凭借《愤怒的小鸟》享誉世界的方法,他们甚至未曾使用太过深入的病毒性功能。这也是《俄罗斯方块》大受欢迎的原因—-每个砖块只是掉落在适当的位置而已。

设计并评估社交游戏的最后类别便是盈利。为什么盈利会出现在社交游戏层级中的最高处?因为盈利超越并包含了社交游戏设计金字塔上的所有其它元素。盈利依赖于之前所提到的所有元素。这里并不是关于产品方面,从易用性到图像,从社交功能到游戏玩法,盈利设计拥有属于自己的复杂规则,并且也进行了最佳实践。这同时也解释了为何那些在社交游戏中负责管理盈利的人,也就是产品经理需要是游戏团队中经过最严格的筛选,具有最多经验,且掌握最多学科知识的人。

如果IAP价格是难以触及的(即关于层级的基础,易用性),甚至只是针对于特定地理区域的经济,那么即使游戏中所有其它方面都是A级的,游戏也会遭遇失败(在那个区域)。如果关于为什么你必须在游戏中购买东西的解释很复杂(即主题),游戏便会遭遇失败。如果游戏中付费IAP道具的图像具有比免费道具还糟的视觉效果或声音质量,那么这些道具便会遭遇失败。如果游戏玩法循环设计未考虑任何盈利要素,即盈利未能整合到游戏中并与产品开发保持平衡(游戏设计),游戏便会遭遇失败。如果游戏盈利过度强调付费便能获胜而滥用游戏玩法,而不是低调地让玩家与朋友或协会成员分享自己所使用的付费道具,游戏便会遭遇失败。如果游戏不能通过社交手段将购买作为提高消费者身份的方式,并提供给愿意与一位以上的好友进行分享的玩家奖励,游戏便不能有效利用盈利和病毒性传播所交叉的大量病毒性机遇。最后,如果盈利设计不依赖于游戏设计且拥有自己的规则,经济,节奏,怪癖,例外,科学和艺术,基于糟糕的设计和糟糕的管理,或进入缓慢的长期优化与发展过程,那么游戏便回遭遇失败。如果发生这种情况,只能归因于你自己的选择,这里不存在巧合,只能说你选择了一条错误的道路。同样地,如果你的盈利设计非常完美,但是层级中任何较低类别具有本质上的问题(如易用性,图像或游戏玩法),那么游戏也会遭遇失败。

这也是为何不仅只有少量“完美”游戏,同时也只有少数最畅销的社交游戏能够出现在最高列表上并长期停在那里。如果一款游戏层级设置妥当的话,它便有可能获得巨大的成功,并长期维持这一成功。但如果层级中的任何一项坍塌了,游戏便不能进入前10排行,不过却有可能挤进前100的排名,并且它需要非常努力才能留在榜单内。

最后,我想要强调这是以全新用户视角去看待社交游戏设计的层级,在这种情况下的手机社交和像苹果这样的大型应用商店是怎样的情况:

易用性

首先,玩家将在应用商店中浏览或搜索你的游戏,并找到它。因为有SEO,所以他们能够轻松找到游戏。市场营销文本是使用他们所熟悉的语言,所以他们能够理解文本上的内容。他们使用的是能够下载游戏的设备,并且他们拥有足够的容量和带宽去下载游戏,同时他们也能够接受你所提供的价格。玩家能够理解信息所呈现的基本“代码”。而如果玩家做不到这些,他们便会在当下远离你的游戏。

主题

玩家将通过应用商店的描述浏览你的游戏主题;首先是通过游戏名字(拜托不要使用Alpaca Farm这样的名字),然后便是公司名字以及市场营销文本。如果你的主题和前提足够有趣,具有吸引力,玩家便会被吸引。但如果一点意思都没有的话,玩家便会在当下远离你的游戏。

视听

玩家将看到游戏截图,如果图像质量够高,图像风格具有吸引力,他们便会喜欢这些内容并希望看到更多内容。你应该呈现给他们丰富的世界。如果你能够提供给玩家视频,那么视频中的音乐和音效便会进一步激活玩家的大脑并让他们想要体验更多内容。但是如果你不能做到这点,玩家便会在当下远离你的游戏。

游戏玩法

现在玩家已经下载了你的游戏,并且已经在玩游戏了。游戏互动很棒。节奏也很完美。故事和角色非常吸引人。游戏玩法也是他们熟悉且新颖的。一开始玩家将小心翼翼地前进,但不久后他们便会松开手大胆地前行。在20分钟后,玩家已经开始觉得有点掌握游戏了,并且能够猜到继续游戏可以带给自己更多的满足感和奖励。游戏玩法非常清楚,目标和奖励也不含糊,但如果游戏做不到这点,玩家便会在当下远离你的游戏。

社交

现在玩家已经玩了游戏几个小时或几天,游戏邀请他们去进行社交联系。社交游戏设计非常出色。游戏事先告诉玩家他们将获得非常棒的体验。社交游戏承诺了具有变化的游戏以及真正的社交互动,并使用了社交游戏的多种方法(平行,合作)。如果游戏做不到这点,玩家便不愿意尝试进行游戏社交,如果游戏只是将社交作为获得长期留存的方法,即游戏只是作为一个社交平台,玩家便会在当下远离你的游戏。

病毒

现在玩家已经进行了社交联系—-但是病毒性仅仅是关于发送垃圾邮件,而不是游戏玩法那般深入的内容。或者相反地,游戏中没有病毒性功能,玩家必须通过“推送”告诉朋友,而不是游戏为玩家拉来朋友。玩家可能会进行社交联系,并发现自己未与任何朋友进行交流,如果没有有效的病毒性功能,他们便不可能邀请那些自己所熟知的人。这样的话玩家便会在当下远离你的游戏。

盈利

玩家正在玩游戏,已经进行了社交互动,并邀请了朋友一起游戏。然后他们便会遇到付费墙。游戏将抢顶在了玩家的头上—-付钱便能够继续前进,或者在这里花时间等待。玩家有可能在这时候选择离开游戏。你可以看到每个社交游戏设计层级元素的进程不仅在其它序列进程后无任何变化,并且每个社交游戏设计层元素超越并包含了所有之前的基础元素。

结论

这一层级提供给我们的不只是类别的重要性,同时还有它们的顺序和关系以及相对权重。

没有什么比易用性更重要。

但是如果你不能有效分配金字塔的顶端,你便什么都做不成。

设计一款社交游戏需要从系统上去考虑每一个元素,在它们的重要性的顺序中,我们可以从产品设计与游戏设计这两个角度进行设计。

当你在权衡是否应该包含功能A或功能B时,你可以考虑每个功能对于这一层级的影响以及层级上的哪个元素更加重要。例如那些可能提高图像质量但却会破坏客户引擎性能(易用性)的内容便不是一种适当的选择,因为对于客户性别的影响非常重要。或者盈利功能会破坏游戏设计功能而不是推动它,这便不是一个好的选择。然而易用性决策却能够去限制图像功能往层级上方攀爬或游戏设计决策能够限制盈利功能往上爬。

你应该使用这些步骤去设计你的游戏,一次一个,并慢慢创建金字塔,同时记得上方的步骤需要超越并包含所有下方步骤。任何更高的类别并不是比较低的步骤更重要,或者会主导它们。相反地,它们应该利用并包含更低层次的步骤,因为后者是前者的基础。

尽管这些步骤被塑造成一个逻辑层级,但在游戏团队眼中它们都是同等重要的。如果QA不能在技术漏洞发展前发现它们,游戏便不可能达到最佳盈利;同样地,如果盈利并不能使用最新的参数分析技巧和多种测试区优化IAP并追踪资源,那么最佳QA便什么都不是。

我并不喜欢太过抽象和理论化的游戏设计文章,它们往往也没有什么实际作用。本文的重点在于如果你想要设计一款社交游戏,你可以使用上述的金字塔模型,从下往上,并确保更高层次的内容超越并包含每个较低层次的内容。这么做的话你便能够创造出具有更棒设计的作品,从而能够更好地迎合你的玩家。之后玩家便会真心诚意地打开钱包为你的游戏花钱。

本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,拒绝任何不保留版权的转发,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

How to Design a Social Game

by Joshua Dallman

Back in the day, I was fascinated by Nintendo Power’s game ratings system. Sure, the overall game was awesome or terrible, but the sub-categories on what made it game gold or bargain bin fodder was what really made it interesting. Here is an example from the now defunct retro magazine:

The magazine broke their ratings into five categories (“Sat.” was “Satisfaction”), but each held an equal weight, with all on an equal level. Clearly this was better than a simple thumbs up or thumbs down, but was fairly arbitrary, and far from scientific or following any logical paradigm.

Another point of reference was the also now defunct retro GamePro, which riffed on the Nintendo Power system. Here is an example from them:

Fast forward to 2006. I was working for a casual and indie game publisher, evaluating 10-20 games per day, every day, for candidates to publish, help improve then publish, or to fund. In addition, I was evaluating our own internally developed games, and needing to compare them to games we were funding and publishing. I needed a system.

I had just read Ken Wilber’s seminal “A Brief History of Everything” which included the following “four quadrants” model upon which all of life, science, psychology, art, and culture can be neatly tucked into:

The bare essential of the model, and the book, is that all of life and ideas can fit into hierarchies. And the key concept about these hierarchies, is that an upper level transcends and includes the lower levels, not transcends and rejects. To transcend and reject is to dominate. To transcend and include is to evolve.

It was at this publishing desk that I developed the following four tiered hierarchical system of evaluation for games:

The publisher I worked for was also a game engine developer, and I was contacted by the IGDA Game Accessibility Special Interest Group (est. 2003) about promoting accessibility options for game developers within our game engine. I grew up with two parents who were social workers that assisted persons with developmental disabilities, so the SIG’s mission had special meaning to me, and I promoted their advice for our game engine within the company.

Developers used our game engine to create experimental games for people who were blind, for example, by utilizing 3D audio to create space to move within. One button games for persons who were quadriplegic to play using their head or breath, for example, were also created.

Around that time also, the casual games movement just started to take off, with the forming of the Casual Game Association, the Casual Game Conference, and publishers like PopCap and Nexon raking in huge sums. I immediately pivoted to casual games, drawn by the promise of “games for everyone,” which I immediately connected to improved accessibility in order to bring the previously hardcore domain of gaming to the masses (though ironically, having started out as casual arcade games like Pong and Pac-Man).

The intersection of these two meta-industry events led me to make accessibility the foundation of my evaluation pyramid. Nothing is more important than accessibility. Nothing.

Accessibility means more than one button or three buttons instead of twelve or 101. Accessibility means a language the player can understand (what if they are international?). It means a platform the player can use (sorry Linux, but Grandma is no root sysadmin). It means a price point the player can access – which hinted at the rise of Free to Play games at a time of $60.00 MSRP’s during a long economic downturn. It means a skill level the player can engage with. It means a tutorial, and instructions the player can understand. It means not requiring an over-clocked $2,000 PC rig to play at a decent frame-rate, and using audio drivers that work on all hardware systems. And yes, it also means having subtitles during voice-overs for people who are deaf and have hearing disabilities, font sizes that are legible to 40 year old eyes with glasses, and buttons that can be clicked that forgive you if you are a few pixels off or “fat finger” the button. Lastly, it also means basic technical stability. Accessibility will make or break your game. If players cannot play your game, they cannot play your game. You can quote me on that.

Next on the hierarchy we have theme. After accessibility, the theme is the next most foundational piece of the game, upon which all later art and gameplay are built. If the theme is one players don’t understand, then even if the later art and gameplay are great, players can’t get past the theme and overall narrative. Two of the most important aspects of the theme are the story and characters. The theme should at best be a hook with gravity that draws the player in, at worst be neutral as something the player is willing to accept but can comprehend.

One example of a game with a poor theme is Total Distortion, where the player is a music producer who uses an inter-dimensional transporter to jump to the Distortion Dimension with a million dollars in their pocket while guitar robots attempt to kill them in order to try to produce a new music video – kind of cool, but a concept lost on most, and one that is clearly trying too hard and is over-produced. By contrast, Guitar Hero’s premise is, play a guitar well to become a hero – a theme easily understood by all.

Bad themes can be not just over-developed, but under-developed. As another classic example, we have Irritating Stick – what is this “stick,” and why is its’ “irritating” quality fun? Clearly this title didn’t try hard enough with its theme, and the fiction and narrative are under-developed – and no amount of high production quality 2.5D art with explosions of procedural particle effects can save it.

As anecdote, I once asked a game design job candidate to pitch me a sample game he thought would have top 10 appeal as a design test. His pitch? Alpaca Farm. My first question – what the hell is an alpaca? I had to look it up. Of course, indies have the luxury of making far-out themes, because they are not necessarily attempting to create a mass market product. The majority of us in the game industry don’t have that luxury. But even if you’re designing for a niche market, if that niche market doesn’t “get” your theme, you are lost.

Next on the hierarchy is audio and visual, which builds upon the theme framework with a fleshed-in layer of graphics and sound.

Why is art more foundational than gameplay? Simply put, if your audio grates, or your art clashes (and not with clans), players’ ears/eyes will bleed, and they’ll never get far enough along in your level to have that euphoric “ah-ha!” moment where they “get” and become hooked on your gameplay, and subsequently your game.

In fact, if your loading screen is bad enough, or uses stock models from Poser, players may rage-quit on the spot, knowing it can only go downhill from there. At its most extreme, if the box art on your game is sufficiently terrible (or your marketing screens), players will never buy the cart (or install the game) to experience the next higher level on the hierarchy which might be the best in the world, the gameplay. If the art is bad, it reliably follows that the gameplay was crafted with just as little consideration.

Low budget indies are an exception, though infrequently so. However, with them too there is delineation between art style and production quality, and even low production quality art (low budget art) can have excellent style and reach mass appeal (Osmos, Darwinia, Flappy Bird).

Lastly, at the top of the pyramid, the most complex aspect of the overall product, the one that transcends but includes all prior levels, is game design. The game design relies on all other foundational levels in order to be scribed – it depends on choices in accessibility, theme, and art, and is built upon those choices. The game design is the one aspect that can only be felt internally by the player, that must be played to experience. It cannot be measured by senses like accessibility, it cannot be viewed and heard like art and sound, and it cannot be contemplated and understood intellectually like the theme. It must be played, and it is only in playing that all the pieces of the multi-faceted jigsaw puzzle intermix into an orchestra of brilliance, or coalesce into a cacophony of chaos.

The multitude of near-infinite game design pieces include the player controls (interaction), goals, moment to moment gameplay, meta-gameplay, pacing, “game feel,” game elements such as hero, enemies, power-ups, items to collect, rules of of the game universe (gravity, physics, bullet logic), timing, game world truths, internal game world mechanics, puzzle design, level design, multiplayer design, game economies, element simulations, and all the ephemeral “right brain” things that define a game world but are themselves difficult to define categorically, such as Nintendo Power’s variable of “Satisfaction” and GamePro’s parallel “Fun Factor.” Just as love and faith are impossible to define but real (just ask someone in love or someone with faith), so too are satisfaction and fun – and it is within that nebulous realm that the game design lives and breathes, and subsequently, makes or breaks your game. Each of these elements must be gotten “just right.” The task of this is nearly impossible, and it is why there are so few “perfect 10″ games. The gameplay must be perfect. If players don’t like playing your game, they won’t play your game. You can quote me on that.

We have reached a hierarchy of categories to evaluate and develop games based upon. Let’s now pivot to social games.

In 2009, when I began designing social games for a major publisher, I learned new areas of design that changed my self-established model. I modified my model to accommodate social games specifically, which produced the following:

Gameplay is no longer the item of top transcendence. Now social gameplay has transcended but included mere gameplay. Social gameplay uses non-social gameplay as its foundation, but goes beyond.

Social gameplay comes in four varieties, as defined by Mildred Parten in the late 1920′s at the Institute of Child Development in Minnesota:

Most social games utilize parallel play as their strongest social feature. Each player has their own identical play space, progressing through the game objectives and levels individually, using the same set pieces and game rules, and there is little to no interaction with others aside from the visiting of other player spaces.

The meta-awareness of the oddity and limitation of using this method as the primary social play style is spoofed in The Simpsons Tapped Out, where friend spaces are identical but different in progression from the player’s own, and are explained as being in parallel dimensions (literal parallel play narratively!). Typically in these social games, players can only visit another player, then leave a small bonus or message. The interaction is a bare minimum. This can evolve.

There are huge opportunities in social game design to strengthen parallel play, and to introduce and create new mechanics supporting onlooker play (spectating, as in poker and some sports games), associative play (gifting and item trading), and cooperative play (guild and clan play, most often found in MMORPG’s, but which has been distilled in social game designs, notably Clash of Clans’ clan play).

The next tier on the hierarchy, which transcends but includes social play and depends upon it, is that of viral features, essential for the spread of the game to friends, family, co-workers, real world neighbors, social network “friends,” water cooler break buddies, and even cats, if the game is accessible enough for them to play. Simply put, a social game without a viral feature is like a virus without a viral feature – it won’t spread. You can quote me on that.

Getting viral features right means players aren’t even aware of them as viral features, just as game features. This isn’t because it’s posting to Facebook without the user’s permission. It’s because the player should feel like the game is enabling them to take screenshots of their accomplishments and their story through the game world for them, to then brag to their friends about, and/or is allowing them to share bonuses and gifts and buffs with friends naturally.

Done well, viral features are totally transparent, and completely integrated into the full game experience, making them a value-add, not a cheap marketing trick. Done wrong, they’re a last minute spam addition, tacked on with joyless and superglue-like adhesion. At their most horrific, they feel like a digital stalker, watching and following your every move in the game, insisting that everything will be better if you just listen and post what it wants on your social networks, and give permission to whatever it asks for. Overzealous viral features don’t transcend and include lower categories on the hierarchy, they transcend and reject, or dominate them. In other words, they take you out of the immersion of the game theme and narrative; they disturb the core fun of the gameplay; they create ugly 2D popups in an otherwise beautifully rendered artistic scene; they relegate the person being marketed to with only onlooker social play and nothing more, no deep offer to “jump into the ball game” and “help save the game.”

When executed in this domineering fashion, these viral features may have short term positive metrics “proving” their flawlessness, but their impact on long term retention will always be that of the impact of a stalker on a stalking victim. And it is always a sad thing, when a game turns into a thing that a player must put up their defenses and “guard” against, to defend against an unwitting unintended answer on a prompt that will then turn them into a spam-zombie for their real life relationships, when a game should be a vehicle for escapism and fun.

At one GDC talk years ago, I heard a ballsy commentator cocksurely declare, “Quality is our viral.” Though part of a speech and written to be quotable, I loved it and whole-heartedly agree. Although additional discrete and discreet viral features are necessary and not necessarily evil, do not overlook the organic installs that come from one player simply telling another player about how awesome a given social game is, and asking them verbally to play and friend them. This is constantly underestimated in social game design. This is how Rovio rose to then-prominence with Angry Birds taking over the world, without even heavy or deep viral features. This is also how Tetris took over Russia – by being passed, person to person, physical disk copy to physical disk copy. The pieces just fell into place.

The final category to design and evaluate social games on is that of monetization. Why is monetization at the top of the social game hierarchy? To repeat the theme, because monetization transcends but includes all previous elements on the social game design pyramid. Monetization relies on all previous elements of the pyramid. There is no product aspect, from accessibility to art, from social features to gameplay, that monetization design does not include, and yet it has its own set of complex rules and best practices onto itself. This is also why those managing the monetization in a social game, the Product Managers (PM’s), need to be the most literate, experienced, and multi-disciplinary team members on the game team.

If the prices of IAP’s are inaccessible (accessibility, the foundation of the pyramid), even for just the economy of a given geographic region, then even if all other aspects of the game are Grade A, the game will fail (in that region). If the fiction behind why you must buy things in the game is convoluted (theme), the game will fail. If the art for premium IAP items in the game is of no better visual or sound quality than free items in the game, those items will fail (audio visual). If the gameplay loops were designed independently of monetization considerations, with monetization tacked on later instead of deeply integrated in parallel with the product’s development (game design), the game will fail. If the game’s monetization abuses social play with too obvious of pay to win, instead of those same paid pieces used to share with friends or guild members, the game will fail. If the game doesn’t socially surface purchases as raising the status of the one who made the purchase, ideally by offering to share a portion of the purchased bonus with one or more friends, the game will fail to take advantage of a substantial viral opportunity in the intersection of monetization and viral spread. And lastly, if the monetization design, independent of the game design and having its own laws and rules, economy and pacing, quirks and exceptions, science and art, is poorly designed, poorly monitored, or poorly nurtured into a slow long term optimization and growth, the game will fail. If that happens, the road you took led you there, it was no accident but a direct and correct byproduct of the incorrect path you took. Similarly, if your monetization design is immaculate, but any lower level on the hierarchy is substantively broken by itself (accessibility, art, gameplay), the game will fail.

This is why there are not only so few “Perfect 10″ games, but so few break-out top grossing social games that hit the top lists and stay there, and stay there, and stay there. When the hierarchy is done right, a game can hit exponential success, and camp there for the long term. But when even one level on the hierarchy is broken, the game will never hit the top 10, and will be lucky to hit the top 100, and will struggle to stay even there.

Lastly, I want to highlight this view of the hierarchy of social game design as seen through the eyes a new user funnel, in this case mobile social and a major app store like Apple’s:

ACCESSIBILITY

First, a player browses or searches for your game on the app store, and finds it. The SEO is tuned and they find it easily. The marketing text is in a language they can read, they understand what is written (it’s not riddled with “in-jokes” or “only for fans” humor), they’re on a device that can download it, they have the space and bandwidth to download it, and it’s at a price-point that is accessible to them. The player can decipher and access the basic “code” of information presented. If not, the player already churns at this point in the funnel.

THEME

The player reads about the theme through the app store marketing; first, by way of the name of the game itself (not Alpaca Farm, please), next, by the name of the company, then by the marketing paragraph texts. The theme and premise are interesting, have gravity, have a “hook,” and begin to pull the player in. If not, the player already churns at this point in the funnel.

AUDIO VISUAL

The player views the screenshots, the art quality is high, the art style is appealing, they like what they see and want to see more. A rich lively world is presented. If there is a video and the player watches it, the music and sound effects further activate regions of their brain that pull them in to want to experience more. If not, the player already churns at this point in the funnel.

GAMEPLAY

Now the player has downloaded the game, and is actually playing it. Interactions are rewarding and seamless. Pacing is perfect. Story and characters draw them in. Gameplay is familiar yet novel. The player takes baby steps, but soon is walking on their own. After 20 minutes, the player already starts to feel a mini-sense of mastery, and could see how continued play would grant them further self-satisfaction and reward. Gameplay is clear, and objectives and rewards are unambiguous. If not, the player churns at this point in the funnel.

SOCIAL

Now the player has been playing the game, for hours or days, and they are invited to socially connect. The social game design is brilliant. The promises made are the equivalent of being told they will experience the very essence of firework explosions themselves. The social play promises transformative play and true social interaction, using multiple methods of social play (parallel, cooperative). If not, the player fails to attempt to play socially, and with social being the real long term retention provider, where the game is mere platform for the social, the player churns at this point in the funnel.

VIRAL

Now the player has socially connected, and is socially playing – but the virals are mere spam, not gameplay-adding depth. Or conversely, there are no virals, and the player must “push” to tell their friends, instead of the game pulling friends to them. The player may socially connect, then find they have no friends already connected, and without effective virals they never invite those to whom they would otherwise stick with. The player churns at this point in the funnel.

MONETIZATION

The player is playing, socially connected, with invited friends, and is really rocking it. Then they hit a pay wall. The game points a gun to their head – pay to keep playing to progress, or wait here in a permanent plane stall. The player churns at this point in the funnel.
You can see how the progression of each social game design hierarchy element not only comes right after the other in serial time progression from app awareness to in-app purchase, but how each social game design hierarchy element transcends but includes all prior foundational elements before it.

CONCLUSION

This hierarchy gives us not only the categories of importance, but their order and relationship, as well as relative weight.

Nothing is more important than accessibility.

And yet, if you get the top of the pyramid wrong, you can also make nothing.

How to design a social game then, is to methodically consider each of these elements, in their order of importance, and design them from both a product design and game design standpoint, in this order.

When weighing a decision on whether to include Feature A or Feature B, consider how each feature will affect this hierarchy, and which element on the hierarchy is more important. For example, something that improves art but hurts the client engine performance (accessibility) is not a good trade, if the hit on the client performance is significant. Or if a monetization feature guts a game design feature instead of complimenting it, that is also not a good trade. It is, however, ok for an accessibility decision to limit art further up the hierarchy, or for a game design decision to limit a monetization feature further up. This is how it should work.

Design your game using each of these steps, one at a time, and slowly work your way up the pyramid, remembering to transcend but include all lower steps each step of the way. Any given higher step is not “more important” and therefore entitled to dominate over any lower steps. Instead it should utilize but include lower steps, which are its foundation.

Although these steps are fashioned in a logical hierarchy, they are in “game team” terms a circle where all are of equal importance. The best monetization will fail if QA is not exceptional to catch technical bugs before they arise; similarly the best QA means nothing if the monetization is not using the latest in metrics analyzation techniques and multi-variate testing to optimize IAP’s and track sources and sinks.

I dislike too abstract and theoretical of game design articles – they are all too easy to write, and typically have little practical take-away. The take-away intended here is to design your social game, using the pyramid model above, from the bottom consideration up, and to have each higher consideration transcend but include each of its lower foundational considerations. Doing so will yield you an optimally designed product, which in turn will do the most important thing – entertain people and make them happy. So happy that they will pay for your game, and do so willingly – voting with their hearts using their wallets.

I hope you have enjoyed reading my theory on social game design, and I hope it helps you design better games for more people to enjoy.(source:Gamasutra

 


上一篇:

下一篇: