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

长文解析:Gardenscapes的成功和Playrix的转型分析

发布时间:2018-07-20 09:21:23 Tags:,

长文解析:Gardenscapes的成功和Playrix的转型分析

作者:Adam Telfer 译者:Vivian Xue

一年前,消除/益智游戏市场仿佛还是King的天下。

从去年开始,情况发生了变化。虽然King依然稳居宝座,但是一个新的竞争者悄然兴起了。

Playrix,一家老牌休闲游戏开发商,旗下有两大热门作品《梦幻水族箱》(Fishdom)和《梦幻花园》(Gardenscapes)。尤其需要指出的是,这些作品向大众展示了益智游戏的盈利模式不止一种。

2016年9月至今,《梦幻花园》常居游戏盈利榜,并且没有任何衰退的趋势。

《梦幻花园》吸引了行业内的大量关注。它是自2012年《糖果传奇》(Candy Crush)发行以来,益智游戏领域的第一次成功创新。

那么Playmix的《梦幻花园》到底凭借什么脱颖而出的呢?

Playmix与《梦幻花园》历史

要了解《梦幻花园》成功的原因,我们得先回顾下Playrix与《梦幻花园》品牌的历史。

Playrix是一家成立于2004年的公司,开发PC端休闲游戏,主攻消除和寻物游戏(游戏邦注hidden object games)。早期的成功作品有《梦幻水族箱》、《梦幻花园》、《写意农场》(Farmscraps)、《四大元素》(4 Elements)和《皇家特使》(Royal Envoy)等。

有趣的是,King.com、Big Fish、PopCap和Playmix都是在休闲游戏市场的竞争中发展起来的。如今很多的顶尖益智游戏开发商在十几年前都是做PC市场的,这并不是巧合。

Gardens capes(from pocketgamer.biz)

Gardens capes(from pocketgamer.biz)

与2017年休闲游戏市场的竞争相类似,PC时代的开发者们尝试通过新的游戏机制和主题脱颖而出。休闲游戏公司试图在旧的三消游戏玩法上进行创新,通过添加一些模拟元素、装饰元素、暗黑主题和故事情节。

自2004年诞生起,Playmix所处市场的竞争趋势很像如今的App Store。三消游戏玩家们流转于大量的《宝石迷阵》复制品中。关注叙事和装饰元素早已是十年前的套路。

2009年,Playrix打进F2P市场并在Facebook上发行了第一款模拟游戏《梦想小镇》(Township)。到2013年,他们重新设计了《梦想小镇》并发行了移动端版本。移植完《梦幻水族馆》后,他们的下一项挑战是移植《梦幻花园》IP。

《梦幻花园》,一款寻物游戏

PC版本的《梦幻花园》其实并不是一款消除游戏,而是一款寻物游戏。

游戏重点不在于装饰花园,更多的在于准备床和早餐,招待前来拜访的客人。

有趣的是,如果我们把这些老版本和现在进行对比——主角、动画风格,用户界面/体验设计与最新版是保持一致的。

因此《梦幻花园》像《梦幻水族馆》和《梦想小镇》一样被移植后,它将会是Playrix的第一款寻物F2P游戏。据VentureBeat报道,《梦幻花园》手游的研发时间长达4年,它并不是一个简单的项目。

尽管如此,在经历了四年的制作后,2015年,《梦幻花园》迎来了测试发行,与如今的《梦幻花园》拥有相同的剧情、角色和特色(只不过不是三消模式)。

在这次测试发行过程中,Playrix决定要把这个寻物游戏改成三消模式。这并不是一个容易的决定。大部分开发商宁愿直接放弃一款游戏也不愿意在开发后期做这么大的变动。

尽管如此,Playmix还是把消除玩法从《梦幻水族馆》(他们当时唯一的一款三消游戏)那里移植了过来,并在2016年重新测试发行了《梦幻花园》。

Playrix必然是看到了希望,因为《梦幻花园》在被改成三消游戏后,逐步取得了今日的成就。

那么为什么三消玩法能够让《梦幻花园》成为热门大作呢?

《梦幻花园》转型的两个原因

与寻物游戏相比,三消模式更利于F2P游戏的长期发展。原因有两个:内容的扩展性和游戏核心玩法的盈利能力。

原因一:内容的扩展性

正如我们之前多次谈到的,F2P游戏成功的必要条件是从内容中获取最大的价值。

像寻物游戏和消除游戏这类由内容驱动的游戏,内容的消耗速度很快,因此尽力缩短内容制作时间的同时最大化内容的价值和可玩性尤为重要。

消除游戏在简化内容制作方面有一个很大的优势。正如我在GDC演讲上对于内容扩展性的讨论中提到的,制作一个消除游戏关卡一般需要6至8小时。包括概念设计、实行、平衡、测试和完善。

关卡的实际内容(美术设计、机制和物件)在所有的关卡内都是重复使用的,并且玩家通常需要重复关卡数次才能过关。

因此,三消游戏的内容制作相对容易并且玩家们会很乐意一遍遍地重玩相似的内容。这是一种良性的内容消耗。

而寻物游戏的内容制作成本要高很多。光是游戏背景和场景中的物件的制作就十分费力,更不用说还有关卡设计和平衡。

并且这些内容很难在多个场景中被重复利用——每个场景的色调和光线都不一样,如果一遍遍用相同的内容会让画面看上去很别扭并且会使寻找物品变得很容易。

那些明显是粘贴到场景里的阴影完全不一致的物品会让游戏变得很低端。每一个寻物关卡的内容制作过程都非常漫长,内容难以重复使用因此游戏设计者们只得想方设法让玩家们重复玩同一个关卡,这样才能控制内容消耗。

因此,与寻物游戏相比,三消游戏的内容制作速度更快,并且内容的消耗时间更长。这正是内容驱动游戏所需要的。

原因二:游戏核心玩法的盈利能力

寻物游戏与消除益智游戏的最大区别是,益智游戏的核心玩法更能有效地刺激付费。

寻物游戏一般通过提示道具盈利。无法在场景中找到某样物品?用提示来引导你找到它。这能够帮助玩家通关,但是效果却不如三消游戏中的增加三步或局内强化道具。为什么?因为寻物游戏没有失败的状态。

在Pearl’s Peril, Criminal Case和原版的《梦幻花园》中,玩家只能提高他们的关卡得分,不存在失败这种情况。寻物游戏鼓励玩家在有限的时间内找到所有的物品,但是玩家不会面临不能通过关卡的状态。

大多数寻物游戏是通过逼迫玩家反复玩某一个关卡(为了合成某个道具或者获得某个材料)来盈利,而不是通过把玩家卡在某一个关卡内。

因此,寻物游戏需要更大的创新来盈利,一般更多地依赖计时玩法来控制玩家的节奏。

相对的,三消游戏的核心玩法能够更有效地盈利。因为玩家会面临失败(游戏邦注还没完成关卡就耗尽了步数)。

当步数用尽后,玩家会被鼓励使用付费增强道具,否则他们只能从头来过。这显然更能刺激玩家消费。

除了通过增强道具盈利,三消游戏还可以通过运气、而非单纯的技术来调整玩家的节奏。在一场很棒的GDC分享会上,Florian Steinhoff直接谈到了运气对于调整玩家节奏的重要影响。

由于三消游戏中存在运气的因素,关卡的设计者可以保证所有的玩家,无论技术高低,都能够在关卡内得到合理的调整。

三消游戏包含很大的运气成分,因此设计者们在平衡关卡的时候几乎可以确定,各个水平的玩家会在一种接近成功的状态下失败——而这是一种提高留存和盈利的有效手段。

而寻物游戏,由于物件都是预先设定好的,并且讲求技术,因此无法达到同样的效果。

因此,《梦幻花园》做出了一个很重要的设计决定。游戏中玩家无法通过内购获得星星(游戏邦注游戏内推动进程的元素),在《梦幻花园》中,你唯一能购买的是金币,可用于获得增强道具、生命和额外的步数。

他们完全依赖于三消玩法来盈利,而不允许玩家不参与游戏直接跳过关卡。

这也是《梦幻花园》收益如此之多的关键原因。游戏内只允许购买增强道具,玩家无法直接购买进程,他们得付出努力。

为了解锁他们想要的内容,玩家们只能通过参与游戏,并且这些关卡需要极大的耐心和很多增强道具才能通过。

从寻物游戏中学习

Playrix的转型似乎取得了成功。但是尽管他们把消除作为游戏的核心,他们仍然保留了原版寻物游戏的metagame元素。

保留了剧情和装饰元素使得《梦幻花园》从其他消除游戏中脱颖而出,并且使他们可以最大程度地利用现成的内容。

《梦幻花园》引人入胜的故事内容使其超越了其他的三消游戏。也许你不太喜欢这种剧情,但是对于他们的目标受众来说,这种轻量化的剧本,慢慢打扫并装饰属于自己的花园,非常具有吸引力。

剧情对F2P游戏留存竟具有如此大的影响力。一个优秀的故事对玩家的吸引力不亚于Saga地图或者排行榜。

除了长而丰富的剧情,游戏还允许玩家们决定如何装饰自己的花园。玩家们将慢慢重建一个庞大的花园,每清理完一块区域后可以装饰它。但关键的一点是,玩家们的选择是有限制的。

玩家只能够在有限的装饰品中做出选择,放置的区域也是设定好的。比方上图中的路灯——它只有三种样式,选择完毕后原先的四个会全部被替换掉。

当然,这限制了自我表达,但是显然控制了他们的可用性和生产成本。玩家们将通过有限的选择创造出相似而美丽的花园,这给了他们更明确的目标。

比较《梦幻花园》和《梦幻水族箱》中的游戏目标设计。在《梦幻水族箱》中,玩家能够按照自己的喜好花费金币任意购买装饰,并且玩家是否想得到后面的解锁内容决定了他们是否有必要继续进行游戏。玩家们可能很快就会厌倦了挑选装饰和花费金币。

同时在《梦幻水族箱》中,Playrix必须要经常发布一些新的吸引人的内容——否则玩家们没有理由继续玩下去。然而,《梦幻花园》将这一过程简化了,提供给玩家有限的选择:这对于休闲玩家来说更有效率。

最后,《梦幻花园》在创建游戏的核心循环时选择了正确的方法。为了解锁花园中的装饰,玩家必须要消耗星星。

每一颗星星通过完成关卡获得,非常容易理解。这一系统本身无法盈利,也不需要,因为三消模式足以有效地拉动消费和调整玩家的节奏。

《梦幻花园》拥有一个完美的核心循环:通过装饰和故事情节推动用户留存,同时游戏的核心又可以有效地调整玩家节奏和盈利。

总结:《梦幻花园》成功的四大关键因素

《梦幻花园》的成功之路十分漫长。Playrix为制作成功的休闲游戏奋斗了将近14年。

因此当《梦幻花园》2015年的测试发行没能符合他们的期望时,他们做了一件大部分公司永远不会做的事:成功转向了一个完全不同的游戏类型。但是他们怎么成功做到的?

—Playrix是一个经验丰富的休闲游戏开发商,看透了休闲游戏的套路。他们知道玩家们最终将渴望一个拥有更深层次的剧情及装饰的游戏。

—Playrix做出了从寻物转向三消模式的正确选择。这使得他们能够更快地扩展他们的内容,通过运气因素来调整游戏节奏并且通过核心玩法盈利。

—他们的完全依赖三消盈利。他们不让玩家直接购买装饰(像大部分寻物装饰游戏一样),而是通过依赖游戏玩法来盈利。

—装饰+故事情节的强大组合赋予了三消游戏创新性。当他们在游戏中加入这些系统的同时保留了游戏的核心成功标准。

因此,Playrix成功地融合了寻物游戏和消除游戏,并且促使消除游戏开发者们进行更多的思考,而不是盲目跟风。

无论是不是有意的,Playrix已经转变了消除游戏的风向。休闲游戏开发商再也不会认为Saga才是唯一的模式。

你已经看到了这股趋势的影响力:越来越多的消除游戏把装饰和剧情作为核心,越来越多的游戏正在探索能够重新包装消除玩法的新系统。

对于未来,这意味着什么?

谁会成为下一个成功者?

下一代成功的益智游戏进阶系统会是什么样子的?

让我们拭目以待吧。

本文由游戏邦编译,转载请注明来源,或咨询微信zhengjintiao

Turn back the clock only one year, and it felt like the matching/puzzle game genre was locked up and dominated by one player: King.

Since last year, things have changed. King’s still on top, but there has been a new contender slowly moving up the charts.

Playrix, a veteran casual game developer, has created two huge hits on mobile: Fishdom and Gardenscapes. In particular, each of these games has shown that there is more than one way to monetise off a puzzle

Gardenscapes: New Acres by Playrix has now been a staple in the top grossing charts since September 2016, showing no signs of fading.

Gardenscapes has made many companies within the puzzle genre turn their heads. It’s the first major successful innovation in the puzzle genre since 2012 when Candy Crush launched on mobile.

So what has Playrix done with Gardenscapes that so many have failed to do?

The history of Playrix & Gardenscapes

To understand the success of Gardenscapes, we have to go back to the history of Playrix and the Gardenscapes brand.

Playrix as a company started in 2004, building casual downloadable games for PCs. They specialised in matching and hidden object games. Playrix during its early days released many successful titles like Fishdom, Gardenscapes, Farmscapes, 4 Elements and Royal Envoy.

It’s interesting to note that King.com, Big Fish, PopCap and Playrix all competed within the casual market in these formative years. It’s not a coincidence that many of the top puzzle game developers today competed back in the casual PC market more than a decade ago.

Similar to the competitive market of launching casual games in 2017, developers during the casual PC downloadable era fought to try to stand out with new mechanics and new themes. Casual game companies attempted to innovate on the match-3 formula by adding simulation elements, decoration elements, darker themes and narrative elements.

Playrix competed in a market from 2004 which mimicked the competitive trends we’re seeing now on the App Store. They’ve seen the cycles that match-3 players go through after playing too many Bejeweled clones. Focusing on narrative and decoration had already been proven, only 10 years prior.

By 2009, Playrix moved into free-to-play and launched their first simulation game, Township, onto Facebook. By 2013, they had redesigned and launched Township on mobile. After porting over Fishdom, the pressure was on to port over their Gardenscapes IP.

Gardenscapes, the hidden object game

Gardenscapes on PC actually was not a matching game, but a hidden object game.

As you can see from the above video, it was less about decorating a garden and more about running a bed and breakfast, looking after the guests that come visiting.

What’s interesting is comparing these old games to now – the characters, the animation style, the UI/UX design have all stayed consistent with the latest New Acres release.

So when it came time for Gardenscapes to follow in the footsteps

of Fishdom and Township, this would have been PlayRix’s first hidden object game in free-to-play. According to VentureBeat, Gardenscapes for mobile was in development for over four years. It can’t have been an easy project.

Regardless, after four years of creating hidden object gameplay, gardenscapes was soft launched in 2015, with the same story, characters and features you see in Gardenscapes: New Acres today (just without the match-3). Watch this video to see how Gardenscapes soft-launched:

During the course of this soft launch, Playrix decided to shift their strategy from making a hidden object game to making a Match-3 game. This decision can not have been an easy decision to make. Most developers would sooner throw away a game than make such a drastic change so late in development.

Regardless, PlayRix ported over the matching gameplay from Fishdom(their only mobile match-3 game at the time) and soft-launched again in 2016.

Playrix must have seen promise with shifting away from hidden object, because after this change to matching gameplay, Gardenscapes grew to become the success we know today.

So why is it that the match-3 gameplay turned Gardenscapes into a hit?

Two Reasons why Gardenscapes Pivoted

For creating long lasting free-to-play games, a match-3 style core will always beat out hidden object style core. It comes down two reasons: the scalability of content and the ability to monetise from the core gameplay.

Reason one: Scalability of content

As discussed many times before, driving the most value from your content is imperative to free-to-play success.

In content driven games like hidden object and Matching games, where players rip through content quickly, it’s increasingly important to minimise the amount of time it takes you to build content while maximising value and replayability of this content.

Matching games have a huge leg up when it comes to the simplicity of creating new content. As I discussed in my GDC talk regarding the scalability of content, Matching games typically take about six to eight hours to produce one level. This includes concept, implementation, balancing, testing, and polishing.

The actual content in the level (the art, the mechanics, the pieces) are all reused many times throughout all levels, and players are usually asked to replay the same level multiple times before progressing.

Thus, content is relatively easy to produce and players are happy to re-play similar content over and over. This is a healthy content cost.

To create content in hidden object games, the process is significantly more expensive. There is the arduous process of creating the backgrounds, the pieces in the scene, on top of the level design and balancing of each level.

This content is far less likely to be repeated through multiple scenes – each scene has a new colour palette and lighting is completely different, using the same content over and over makes the scenes feel awkward and easy to spot.

Objects which don’t have the same shadows or obviously look pasted onto a scene make the gameplay trivial. Content takes significantly longer to produce for each hidden object level, content can’t be easily reused and game designers have to get really creative at pushing players to replay the same level over and over again just to keep a healthy content consumption for their players.

As a result, match-3 games can create more content significantly faster than hidden object games can, and this content can last longer. This is exactly what you’re looking for in a content-driven game.

Reason two: Monetising from the core

The biggest difference between a hidden object core gameplay and a matching puzzle game is that a puzzle game can effectively monetise off its core gameplay, where as a hidden object game can’t.

Hidden object games typically monetize only through hints. Can’t find an object in the scene? Use a hint to let us guide you to the object. This helps players finish a level, but isn’t nearly as powerful a driver as +3 moves or in-game boosters in match-3 games. Why? Because hidden object games don’t have failure states.

In Pearl’s Peril, Criminal Case and the original New Acres release (as seen above), a player can only maximise their score in a level, there is no chance that you can lose a round. Hidden Object games incentivise players to find all objects in a limited time, but they don’t have a state where a player can’t progress in the level.

Most hidden object games instead monetise off of pushing players to grind a stage multiple times over rather than block the player from progress whether they win a level or not.

As a result, Hidden object games typically have to get far more creative to monetise off their player base, usually relying significantly more on a timer-filled metagame in order to pace players.

Conversely, match-3 games can monetise very effectively off their core gameplay. Because there is a failure state (you can run out of moves before completing the level), players are invested in winning the level to progress.

When running out of moves, players are incentivised to use premium boosts to win the level, or else they will lose all their progress in the level up to that point. There is significantly more pinch to monetise in matching games over hidden object.

On top of being able to monetize through boosts, match-3 games can pace through luck, rather than only skill. In an excellent GDC presentation, Florian Steinhoff directly talks about the power that luck has in pacing players.

Due to luck, level designers can ensure that all players, regardless of skill level, are paced appropriately within a level.

Match-3 games contain so much luck that designers can balance each level with a fair degree of certainty that players of all skill levels will come close to winning even if they lose – the recipe for strong retention and strong monetisation.

Hidden Object games, with their pre-placed objects and skill driven core gameplay, can’t boast the same.

As a result, Gardenscapes made a very important design decision. Rather than allow players to purchase stars to progress through in-app purchases, in Gardenscapes you can only purchase coins, which can be turned into boosts, lives and extra moves.

They fully leaned on their matching gameplay to monetise rather than allowing players to ignore the match-3 gameplay and skip ahead.

In Gardenscapes, players can only purchase boosters in the core gameplay. Unlocking narrative and decorations can only be done by winning the match-3 levels

This is the critical reason why Gardenscapes as a match-3 game monetises so well. By only allowing purchases of boosts, players can’t buy progress, they have to earn it.

Players have to roll the dice with the match-3 gameplay in order to unlock the content that they want, and these levels require plenty of patience or boosts to win.

Taking lessons from hidden object

Playrix’s swap to a match-3 core seemed to have paid off. But while they moved to matching as a core, they still kept the metagame of their original hidden object game.

By keeping the narrative and the decoration aspects it separated Gardenscapes from all other matching games while leveraging all the content they had already built.

Gardenscapes has a compelling narrative which drives the game forward between match-3 gameplays. This style of narrative may not be your preference, but the light narrative of slowly cleaning up and building out your garden is clearly compelling for their target audience.

It’s refreshing to see more free-to-play genres prove the impact of narrative on retention. A story can be just as compelling to pull a player a long as a saga map or a leaderboard, if done right.

On top of a long, overarching narrative, Gardenscapes allows its players to choose how to decorate their garden as they rebuild it. Players slowly rebuild a massive overgrown garden. As you clean up the areas, you’re allowed to decorate it. But the key decision here is that players are only allowed slot-based decoration.

Instead of allowing players to place decorations freely, they can only choose from a limited set of decorations in any area of the game. See for example the lampposts above – this can only be chosen from-3 different styles, and it replaces all four instances.

This of course lacks in self-expression, but obviously keeps their usability issues and production costs in check. Players are restricted to creating similar, nice looking gardens, and this gives players clearer goals.

Comparing goal setting in Gardenscapes to Fishdom shows this. In Fishdom, players are allowed to spend their coins on as many decorations as they’d like, and progressing in the saga is only meaningful if you actually desire the content unlocked in the late game. Players can quickly feel overwhelmed with the choices Fishdom offers to decorate and spend coins.

Also in Fishdom, PlayRix constantly has to come out with new and desirable content – otherwise their players have little reason to grind. Gardenscapes however streamlines this process and always gives players limited choices: this is far more effective for casual audiences.

Lastly, Gardenscapes chose the right approach when crafting the core loop. In order to unlock decorations in your garden or progress the story, players must trade in their stars for progress.

Each star is earned by completing a level, an easy to understand system. This system could never monetise on its own, but because the match-3 core game can monetise and pace players so effectively – it never needed to.

Gardenscapes have crafted a perfect core loop: Their decorations and narrative teases players to stick around for the long haul, while their core can effectively pace and monetise of its player base.

In summary: The four keys to Gardenscapes’ success

The success of Gardenscapes was a long time coming. Playrix has been in the business of making successful casual games for nearly 14 years.

So when Gardenscapes was soft-launched in 2015 and didn’t meet their expectations, they did what most companies would never do: pivoted successfully to an entirely different genre. But how were they successful at this?

Playrix was a veteran casual game developer, through their history they’ve seen the cycles that casual game players go through. They knew that the audience would eventually hunger for a deeper layer of narrative and decoration.

Playrix made the right choice to move to match-3 overstaying in the hidden object genre. This allows them to scale their content faster, pace through luck, and monetise off players more from the core puzzle gameplay

Their core monetisation strategy relied entirely on the match-3. They do not allow players to purchase decorations directly (like most hidden object decoration games do), instead they relied on the core gameplay to drive monetisation.

Strong decoration + narrative aspects brought innovation to the match-3 genre. While adding these systems, the core success criteria for a puzzle game stayed intact.

As a result, Playrix have successfully merged the hidden object and matching game genres, and pushed everyone in the matching genre to think twice about just blindly following the trend of saga-based progression.

Whether intentionally or not, Playrix has turned heads in the matching genre. No longer are casual game developers believing that Saga is the only model.

You’re already starting to see the trend take impact: more matching games have decoration and story at its core, more games are looking to combine new systems wrapping around a matching gameplay.

What does this mean for the future?

Who will be the next developer who drives success?

What will the next successful progression systems look like in the puzzle genre?

I for one am excited to see what happens next.(source:pocketgamer


上一篇:

下一篇: