作者：Nick Bentley

在过去十多年的每个晚上，我总是会在睡觉前思考所谓的抽象游戏，而我也已经设计了好几百款这样的游戏，在我的车库中堆满了好几捆写满种种规则的笔记本。

在醒着的大多数时间里我都在设计抽象游戏，并始终希望能够从这些作品中获取盈利。我会定期重温各种挑战，并经常以受挫告终。大多数在商业上获取成功的游戏都不是抽象游戏，大多数抽象游戏仍被设计师藏在箱子里，而那些发行了的抽象游戏也在不断趋于商业化。

尽管如此也存在一些例外。在本篇文章中我将专注于两款获取了商业成功的抽象游戏角斗士棋和转盘五子棋，以及它们所呈现的经验教训。

我之所以会一直研究这两款游戏是因为它们随处可见，在美国，不管是在游戏商店，书店，玩具店，大卖场，卖新奇小物品的商店，甚至是药店都能看到它们的身影。这是两款带有简单规则的传统，且没有主题的游戏，并且它们的销量均找过了100万，从而使它们跻身最畅销的桌面游戏行列中。

blokus(from attention104)

为什么这两款游戏能够获取如此的成功而其它同类型的游戏却遭遇了失败？经过反复的研究与思考，我最终得出了如下结论：

推销—-一般说来，产品总是很难在拥挤的市场中突显自己，除非有人愿意为其做宣传，并面向所有准买家进行推销。显然许多游戏得不到这样的支持。而角斗士棋和转盘五子棋却足够幸运。

专注于品牌—-角斗士棋和转盘五子棋的发行公司都将游戏当成自己的品牌，并在当时只发行该款游戏。相比之下，许多发行商认为自己就是一个品牌，并发行多款游戏，将这些游戏当成自己品牌的延伸。我不认为这能够推动特定游戏的成功。专注是个重要元素。公司应该围绕着游戏发展，而不是其它杂七杂八的方式。这便是角斗士棋和转盘五子棋的制胜绝招。名为Sekkoia的公司便是仅以销售角斗士棋为目的而组建起来，转盘五子棋的发行商Mindtwister亦是如此。我们可以注意到后来围绕着这两款游戏所发生的变化，但这都是在取得商业成功之后：角斗士棋被卖给了Mattel，而Mindtwister也开始发行其它游戏/玩具，尽管比起其它游戏他们仍投入更多资源于转盘五子棋中。

较短的游戏时间—-游戏应该较短。转盘五子棋只需要5分钟的游戏时间，而《Blokus》也只要20分钟。比起其它游戏，消费者在抽象游戏中需要适应于不同的标准。我并不清楚具体原因，但我猜测是因为抽象游戏很消耗精神，所以大多数人只能短暂地享受精神的发泄。

质量阀值—-游戏必须满足最低质量水平：必须让足够广泛的用户群组感到乐趣所在。我并不认为游戏只有成为同类中的佼佼者才能够获取商业上的成功。我相信在经过“尝味测试”后你肯定能够找到许多足以打败角斗士棋或转盘五子棋的游戏。我的看法在boardgamegeek.com中的抽象游戏评级中得到了证实。这里有许多拥有比角斗士棋，特别是比转盘五子棋更高评级的游戏。这并不是说抽象游戏无需足够优秀便能获取成功。角斗士棋和转盘五子棋从自身来看都很出色。但却不是最好的。有关质量无需超越某些特殊范围的理念是像我这样的游戏设计师需要铭记于心的。我花了许多时间尝试着创造出最优秀的游戏。但是如果只是出于商业目的，这种努力也就白费了。

形状因素—-这是该列表中最容易被忽视的一点。为此我使用了Bentley定律：抽象游戏越小，我们就应该越发专注于它的物理美感。我们总是很难做到极简主义，但是它的威力却很惊人。不管是角斗士棋还是转盘五子棋都带有非常出色的产品设计。就像它们都有吸引人的配色方案，并且游戏中的每个组件都排列有序，从而让游戏整体显得异常整洁有序（游戏邦注：这也是许多成功的抽象游戏所具有的元素，如角力棋或奥赛罗棋）。当然了，这里也存在一个约束条件，即让人惊艳的形状因素必须基于合理的价格点。

Bentley定律的实际推论其实很简单：如果不聘请一位优秀的产品设计师就别发行一款抽象游戏。但是很少发行了抽象游戏的人做到了这点，因为这么做需要不少的费用。但是如果Bentley定律没错的话，糟糕的产品设计便是许多抽象游戏失败的一部分原因，所以在设计上的偷工减料将会导致弄巧成拙的结果。我们可以发现转盘五子棋经历了多次的设计校订（我算过了共有3个木制版本和两个塑料版本，这还不包含多人版本），并且它也是在经历修正后才获得了普遍的商业成功。你该如何判断游戏是否具有合适的形状因素？答案：进行咖啡店测试。在咖啡店提供游戏，如果有人自发地去玩游戏，你便可以继续前进。否则你便需要重新绘制故事板。

新奇的组件—-游戏必须突出一些能让用户觉得新奇的物理组件。如果游戏不能让用户觉得自己获得了新内容，它们便会选择其它类型的游戏。新奇是获取关注的关键元素。角斗士棋带有多联骨牌并且会瞄准位置倒去，而转盘五子棋带有整齐的扭板。大多数玩家在之前都未曾看到这些内容，当他们第一次接触游戏时便会有“哇”的感受。

我认为只有当抽象游戏拥有上述任的每一种元素时，它们才有获取商业成功的可能性。如果遗失了任何一个元素，游戏便永远不会出现在畅销桌面游戏榜单上。但也许也有一个例外：也许一个特别的形状因素能够克服游戏对于新奇组件的需求，因为一个突出的形状也能够是一种新奇的表现。但是如果我们的游戏在物理形式上不具有新奇性，我们也不能去欺骗自己。

除了上述元素之外还有一些不是那么重要，但也能带来帮助的元素：

熟悉的参考—-游戏可以被描述为与买家所熟悉的内容相关的产品。例如，你可以告诉别人角斗士棋“就像《俄罗斯方块》”，那么对方便能够立刻知道这是关于匹配多联骨牌的游戏。或者你还可以告诉别人转盘五子棋“就像一字棋，除了是基于扭板外，”这样对方就知道这是怎样的游戏了。

这种熟悉的参考在零售渠道中宣传产品时非常有用。大多数零售商不了解或不关心游戏本身；他们在意的是是否能够卖出小部件。如此，熟悉的参考便能让他们更愿意接受产品。这便是我所采取的投机方式。

我只有一款游戏具有足够的吸引力，它就是《Catchup》。这是唯一一款非玩家渴求的游戏。它通过了短暂的测试，并需要15至20分钟的游戏时间。

但是它却有两点不足：物理组件不够新奇，很难与用户所熟悉的内容搭上边。我认为自己唯一可以考虑发行的条件便是，我是否成功创造了一个能够通过咖啡测试的物理形式。对于该怎么做我已经有些想法了，但这却具有很大的挑战。

但是不管挑战有多艰难，我已经决定为《Catchup》到Kickstarter募集资金了。我们将期待着它的发展。

如果能够基于不同的推广方式，那么那些已发行的游戏是否能够具有更好的表现？

如果我上述的分析没错，那答案便是肯定的。我认为存在许多带有商业潜能的游戏，而我将在此简单地列举一个例子：Kris Burm的游戏，来自GIPF的项目。他的游戏涉及了大多数抽象元素，并取得了巨大的成功，但却不及角斗士棋或转盘五子棋。他的游戏都很短，其中1或2款在咖啡店测试中表现的很出色，如果与角斗士棋或转盘五子棋进行面对面的“尝味测试”的话，它们肯定有获胜的把握。

比起销售员，Kris Burm是位更出色的游戏设计师，没有人像他那样创建了一家公司并完全专注于自己的一款游戏了。

如果让我选择围绕一款游戏去创建一家公司，我会选择圈套棋。它不仅在咖啡店测试者中有很好的表现（尽管我认为基于更多产品设计的帮助它订能够做得更好—-但是我会保持它们原油的组件并重新设计桌面），它的吊环还具有新奇性，就像玩具似得，同时我们还可以使用用户所熟悉的内容去描述它：“就像奥赛罗棋与一字棋的结合。”

（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）

How Can Abstract Games Find Commercial Success?

By Nick Bentley

I’ve fallen asleep thinking about abstract games every night for more than a decade, and I’ve designed several hundred such games, the rules for which fill out bundles of notebooks I keep in my garage.

Having spent such a colossal portion of my waking life designing abstract games, I’ve long wished there were a way to monetize some of this work. I revisit the challenge periodically, and often end up frustrated. Most commercially successful games aren’t abstract, most abstract games remain unpublished, and most which are published struggle commercially.

Nonetheless there are exceptions. In this post I focus on two commercially successful abstract games, Blokus and Pentago, and the lessons they may offer

I’ve been studying these two because I see both everywhere: game stores, book stores, toy stores, big box stores, novelty shops and even drug stores carry them, across the US. Both are traditional, luckless, themeless games with simple rules, and each has sold more than a million copies, making them among the best-selling  board games of any kind.

Why do these games succeed so spectacularly where others fail? Research and contemplation has led me to believe the following factors are critical:

Hustle – First, as with any product, the most critical among the many critical factors is probably old-fashioned salesmanship and hustle. Generally speaking, products don’t cut through the noise of the marketplace unless they have someone behind them willing to press and press and press their appeal to all prospective buyers. Obvious though this may be, many games don’t have that kind of support. Blokus and Pentago do, or at least did.

Brand Focus – Both Blokus and Pentago, in their rise to commercial success, were published by companies that treated each game as its own brand, and published only that game. Many publishers think of themselves as the brand, publish many games, and treat those games as extensions of the brand. I don’t think this works well to maximize the success of any particular game. Focus is critical. The company should be built around the game, not the other way around. This is how it was for Blokus and Pentago. A company called Sekkoia was formed for the sole purpose of selling Blokus, and a company called Mindtwister was formed for the sole purpose of selling Pentago. Note that things later changed for both games, but only after commercial liftoff: Blokus was sold to Mattel, and Mindtwister started publishing other games/toys, though they still seem to put far more resources into Pentago than any other game.

Short Play Time – The game should be short. Pentago takes 5 minutes to play, and Blokus takes 20. Consumers apply a different standard to abstract games than they do to other kinds of games, in this respect. I’m not sure why, but here’s my best guess: abstract games are mentally taxing, and most people only enjoy mental taxation in short bursts.

Quality Threshold – A game must satisfy some minimum level of quality: it must be enjoyable to play for some sufficiently broad group of people. I emphatically don’t believe a game must be among the best of its kind to succeed commercially. I’ve no doubt you can find many other abstract games that would beat Blokus or Pentago in head-to-head “taste tests” (assuming equally appealing sets of components; more on that below). My claim is corroborated by the abstract game ratings at boardgamegeek.com. There are many games with higher average ratings than both Blokus and especially Pentago there. This isn’t to say abstract games don’t have to be good to succeed. Both Blokus and Pentago are, in their own ways, excellent. But they aren’t the very best. The idea that quality doesn’t matter  beyond a certain point is an important one for game designers like me to bear in mind. I spend most of my time trying to create the Best Game Ever Designed. But for commercial purposes, some of this focus wasted.

Form Factor! – The most overlooked item on this list. I hereby coin Bentley’s law: the more minimal an abstract game is, the more care must be put into making its physical aesthetic absolutely drool- and coffeetable-worthy. Minimalism is hard to do well, but it can be amazing (ask any Apple product designer). Both Blokus and Pentago have excellent product design. Both have eye-catching color schemes, for example, and both have pieces which snap into place on board, which makes the games look neat and ordered in play (a feature many of the most commercially successful abstract games seem to have – see Abalone or Othello for example). Of course, one constraint here is that the amazing form factor has to be achieved at a reasonable price point.

The practical corollary to Bentley’s law is simple: don’t publish an abstract game without hiring a top-notch product designer. Few who publish abstract games do so, because it’s expensive and the cost seems too risky given the commercial record of abstract games. But if Bentley’s law is true, failure is partly the result of poor product design, so the choice to skimp on design could be self-defeating.  Note Pentago has been through several design revisions (I count three wood versions and two plastic versions, not including the multiplayer versions), and widespread commercial success didn’t come until after revision. How do you know if a game has the right form factor? Answer: the Coffeeshop Test. Set the game up in a coffee shop and if people play it, unprompted, you’re good to go. Otherwise go back to the drawing board.

Novel Components – a game must feature some physical components which feel novel to the average consumer. Consumers must feel like they’re getting something new, and that they’re getting some kind of toy in addition to a game. Novelty is key for getting attention (says this Neurobiologist). Blokus has clear acrylic polyominoes which snap into place, and Pentago has that neat twisting board. The average consumer has seen neither of these things in any other game, and both have a pinch of “wow” factor when you first behold them.

I believe commercial success is only possible when an abstract game has every one of the above factors working in its favor.  If any one is missing, the game will never be among the best-selling board games. There may be one exception: it may be that an extraordinary form factor can overcome the need for novel components, because a beautiful form can itself act as a kind of novelty. But we should take care not to fool ourselves when our games aren’t physically novel enough.

There’s one other factor which, while not as critical as the above, probably also helps:

Familiar References – a game can be described as related to something else with which buyers are already familiar. For example, you can tell a person that Blokus is “like Tetris”, and she’ll instantly know it’s about fitting polyominoes together. Or you can tell her that Pentago is “like tic-tac-toe, except the board twists”, and she’ll know she’s in for an n-in-a-row game.

This kind of reference-to-the familiar is probably important in successfully pitching product pickers at retail chains. Most retail gatekeepers don’t know or care about games per se; they care about whether they can sell widgets. For that reason, familiar references can help them feel comfortable with a product. This is my speculation anyway.

Where does this leave me?

Only one of my games has proven the right kind of appeal: Catchup. It’s the only one non-gamers eagerly request. It also passes the shortness test, clocking in at 15-20 minutes.

However, it’s weak on two points: the physical components aren’t novel enough, and it’s hard to describe it as related to something else with which the consumer is already familiar.  I think the only circumstance under which I would consider publication is if I could create a physical form that passes the Coffeeshop Test with flying colors. I have some ideas about how to do it, but it’s a pretty stiff challenge.

[Update] Stiff challenge or no, I’ve decided to work toward a Kickstarter for Catchup. We’ll see how it goes.

Are there published games which could do better if they were promoted differently?

If my analysis above is correct, then yes. I think there are a bunch of games with commercial potential but in the interest of brevity I’ll focus on just a couple: the games of Kris Burm, from the GIPF project. His games are already commercially successful relative to most abstracts, but they haven’t reached the rarefied air of Blokus or Pentago, and I think at least one of them could. His games are short, one or two of them do very well on the Coffeeshop Test, and I they handily beat Blokus or Pentago in head-to-head “taste tests”.

I think this games have fallen short in the Hustle and Brand Focus categories. Kris Burm is a better game designer than a salesman, and no one has yet built a company focused solely on one game of his.

The game I would choose to build a company around is Yinsh. Even in its current incarnation it does well on the Coffeeshop Test (though I think it could do even better with the help of more product design – I would keep the pieces as they are but redesign the board), its rings have a novel, toy-like feel, and it can be described in terms of familiar references: “Othello crossed with Tic-Tac-Toe”.(source:wordpress)