问题：

我的老板认为只要添加积分排行榜就可以让游戏具有社交性，我该怎么办呢？

回答：

Andy Payne（Appyantion首席执行官）

冷静地坐下，泡一杯茶并写一封具有说服力的辞职信。

Teut Weidemann（育碧在线专家）

积分排行榜是一种间接影响PvP的方式，它并不具有社交性。而是竞争性，这是完全不同的动机。

积分排行榜并不像看上去那么简单。许多人认为它们只不过是用来显示高分而已，但实际上要比这复杂得多。

Martin Darby（Remode首席文化官）

我认为这种误解有部分是来自某些并不再像过去那样玩游戏的“特定一代人”，现在的手机&游戏好比是80年代的8位街机游戏。我们之前就看到了这种情况，在动视首次向移动平台发布《Pitfall》时，我就已经在自己的作品中得出了这一结论。我还看到添加向Facebook发布分数的功能或植入积分排行榜，就好像是一种简单而廉价，并且“可以理解”的社交性操作方式。

Harry Holmwood（Marvelous AOL Europe首席执行官）

我认为Martin所言正中要点——但这并不仅局限于“特定一代人”。我曾遇到许多认为自己应该能够制作出一款社交/手机/F2P游戏，但却并不想这么做的人，他们并不喜欢这类游戏，也没有玩过自己想模仿的游戏。因此他们对这些游戏的作用以及服务就有一个肤浅的看法，口头上承认如果执行得当，这些游戏能够为玩家增加很高的价值，并引来忠实用户和收益，但如果执行不当，就一无是处了。这其中的元素包括积分排行榜、公会、赠礼、收集道具、gacha抽奖机制，以及特殊活动等。

Oscar Clark（Applifier倡导者）

我喜欢这个话题，在给一些工作室提供咨询时也得到了相似的评论。这真是太搞笑了，因为我认为积分排行榜实际上是反社交性的。

这并不意味着它们就毫无价值——正如Teut所言，它们是竞争层面的东西，但居于排行榜顶端的玩家只有一位，基本上人人都属于无缘榜单之首的人群之一。我承认将积分排行榜称为反社交性并不公平，它们内在的异步PvP特点当然具有社交联系（假如它创造了一种促使玩家实现某一目标的目的感）。

问题在于间歇性的玩法甚少能够同紧凑，并且通常意在攀向榜单高峰的玩法相兼容。这意味着玩家有不同的玩法动机。排行榜应该给予玩家可实现和具有关联性的竞争感，这样对玩家才会有价值。正如Autolog，如果设计得当，积分排行榜就会产生极强的玩法动机。但正如大家所言，社交玩法有许多定义，敷衍了事并不会让我们获得什么好处。我想看看当你同时使用玩法记录和积分排行榜时会发生什么情况，这样你就可以看到好友为何能够获得高分。我想这样会不会更有社交性呢？

Anthony Pecorella（Kongregate虚拟商品游戏制作总监）

好，看来我们都已经达成一致意见，即那位假设中的“老板”是错误的，并且严重误解了“社交性”的意义。但之后的问题就是“我该怎么办？”这一点尚不明朗，因为我们还不知道针对的是哪种游戏类型。我们实际上并不知道该游戏究竟是否需要靠社交性才能获得成功。《Candy Crush Saga》果真有社交性吗？除了一些好友门槛（最多是创造一种中立的社交责任/压力），我并不认为游戏中的玩家真正是在花时间为高分竞争或与好友互动。它更像是一款单人游戏，具有几乎永无止尽，非常困难的内容。所以第一步就是要确认它是否有必要具有真正的社交性。如果不是，那就为游戏添加一些积分排行榜，以此取悦你的老板，然后专注于制作能够让游戏成功的核心玩法。

Candy-Crush-Saga(from news.softpedia.com)

如果你发现游戏的确需要一些积极的社交互动，那就是让老板大悦的时候了。用关于积极社交合作和反馈的好处来说服他，让他看看用户生成内容以及用户积极重复访问的强大之处。将此融入你的游戏中，让他理解如何与好友玩游戏，以及他为何会重返游戏的原因。没错，积分排行榜的确具有帮助（游戏邦注：Teut的观点是它们并非一无是处，创造能够吸引每位玩家，并且与大家都有关联性的排行榜才是关键），但要告诉他，如果他真的想让这款游戏获得巨大影响力，那么你就要将其引向协同加强这个层次，总之要跳出惯性思维，并给予110%的努力。如果这并不管用，那就没有其他办法了。

Ben Cousins（DeNA欧洲游戏工作室主管）

我认为如果你使用字面上的定义，积分排行榜就具有“社交性”，我只是认觉得这个问题的情境下有一个隐藏的“社交性”定义。

我个人还是倾向于从具体情况具体分析的角度来看待每个游戏设计，尽量避免遵从特定的套路。

Oscar Clark（Applifier倡导者）

我花了大量时间讨论社交化的6种程度。

下图是关于社交互动角色的Marlow Style模型……但与Marlow不一样的是，我认为这是一个代表维持这些深度社会承诺的所需投入精力的倒金字塔。其理念在一定程度上利用了相互依赖理论。有时候这需要一些正统的学术分析，但一般来说这对我已经够用了。从我的经验来看，越大的环节就代表来自达到该社交程度的玩家收益就越高，但这究竟是一种因果关系还是偶然，我还没有足够的数据支持。

在底部代表玩家能够看到他人的能力。这相当于游戏在向玩家说明，游戏值得他们投入时间。然后我们也希望他人能够看到我们在玩游戏。这可能成为IAP的主要触发器，因为它创造了一种社交资本以及游戏价值。

接下来就是简单的异步PvP，也就是我们所谓的积分排行榜等元素，但我担心游戏在此只是因为之前已经阐明的理由而关注竞争性。

我将合作视为下一阶层的社交性，因为它能够令游戏走向“只会成就精英玩家的激烈竞争”之前发挥其稳定作用。令这一社交性适用于更多用户的明智设计通常还包括支持其他玩家奖励类型（而不仅仅是竞争）的角色，我使用这一定义只是为了便于解释。

最后一个阶段就是公会。求生中的玩家组成了超越游戏范畴的社会单位，其重心也由一起玩游戏转向了以游戏作为社交媒介。

将社交化视为这种旅程，能够为游戏设计提供强大的帮助。

Mark Sorrell（免费游戏设计顾问）

《魔兽世界》的成功据称很大程度上归结于其优秀的单人游戏玩法。我当然也想自己玩游戏，这正是孩子们首次聚在一起玩游戏时的情况。他们并不是单纯因为对游戏感兴趣，而是乐于在同一个地点和大家坐在一起分别玩游戏。

我发现在《天际》中我找不到人来炫耀我的盔甲时的那种失落感，游戏也就在此时失去了魅力。我并不是真的很想同别人一起玩游戏，但也不想独自一人玩游戏。

我在之前关于《Boom Beach》的分析文章中也提到了这一点。该游戏会让你看到其他玩家，所以你可以看到其他人也在玩游戏，但你并不需要直接与之互动，你还是可以落个清静。

毕竟玩家并不都属于社交家，不是吗？（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）

[Gamesbriefers] How do I tell my boss he’s wrong about social?

By Gamesbriefers

Question:

My boss thinks that all you have to do to make a game social is to add leaderboards. What can I do?

Answers:

andy payneAndy Payne CEO of Appynation

Sit down, make a cup of tea and compose an eloquent letter of resignation.

Teut WeidemannTeut Weidemann Online Specialist at Ubisoft

Leaderboards are in indirect way of PvP. Thats not social. Thats competition. Entirely different motivations.

And leaderboards aren’t as easy as they look. Many people think they are merely high scores. But they are more complicated than that.
Martin DarbyMartin Darby CCO of Remode

I think part of this misconception may come from the fact that to ‘a certain generation’ that perhaps don’t play games like they once did, mobile & online seems like 8-bit/arcade games from the 80′s. We’ve seen this before, e.g. when Activision first released Pitfall on mobile, and I’ve certainly come up against this in my work. What I’ve also seen is adding anything with posting scores to Facebook or having a leaderboard as some sort of corporate box ticking exercise: an easy, cheap and ‘understood’ way to tick the box at that.

harry holmwoodHarry Holmwood CEO of Marvelous AQL Europe

I think Martin’s hit the nail on the head – but it’s not confined to a ‘certain generation’. I come across a huge number of people who feel they ought to be making a social/mobile/F2P type game but deep down don’t really want to, don’t really like these kind of games and haven’t played the games they’re looking to emulate in any depth. Thus they end up with a surface impression of what these games do, and pay lip service to things that, done well, add great value to the player and attract loyal users and revenues but, done half-heartedly, add nothing at all. This includes things like leaderboards, guilds, gifting, collection, gacha/fusion, events etc.

Oscar ClarkOscar Clark Evangelist for Applifier

I love this and I get the same comments too when I’m consulting with some studios. Makes me laugh as I would argue that Leaderboards are essentially antisocial

That doesn’t mean they don’t have value – as Teut says they are an aspect of competition but the segment of players who are at the top of your leaderboard is 1 and the segment who are not, is everyone else. And I admit that its unfair of me to call they antisocial as leaderboards and their intrinsic asynchronous PVP is of course socially bonding if (and only if) it creates a sense of purpose or provides a performance bar players aspire to exceed.

The trouble is casual intermittent playing styles are rarely compatible with the intense obsessive playing behaviour often needed to reach the top of these charts. Which means that players have different playing motivations. Competition has too feel achievable and relevant for it to have value. When designed well, like Autolog, leaderboards can be highly motivational to play. But as everyone has so far said social play has many definitions and paying lip service gets us nowhere. I’m looking to see what happens when you use gameplay recordings alongside leaderboards so you can see what your friend did to get that score. I wonder if that might be more social?

pecorellaAnthony Pecorella Director of production for virtual goods games at Kongregate

Ok, so we’re all in general agreement that the hypothetical “boss” is wrong and severely misunderstanding what “social” means. But the question then is “what can I do?” This is (I suspect intentionally) vague here in that we don’t know what type of game this is. We actually don’t know that the game even needs to be social to succeed. Is Candy Crush legitimately social? Outside of some friend gating, which is at best sort of a neutral social obligation/pressure, I don’t think players are really spending time competing for high scores or interacting with friends. It’s mostly about the single player game itself and the nearly endless, very difficult content (someone please correct me if you know otherwise). So step one would be to try to figure out if you think it’s necessary to be truly social. If not, then slap some leaderboards on that puppy, make your boss happy, and then turn your focus on the core gameplay that’ll make the game succeed.

If on the other hand you do determine that the game needs some legitimate positive social interaction, then it’s time to get your boss excited. Pitch him on the benefits of positive social collaboration and feedback. Show him the wonders of user generated content and active re-engagement. Weave it into the fiction of your game, take him through how he’d play it with his friends and why he’d keep coming back. Yes, leaderboards can help (though Teut’s point that they aren’t trivial, and creating leaderboards that are interesting and relevant to each player is important), but tell him that if he really wants this game to be big (the boss version of the classic guilt trip “if you really loved me”), then you need to take it to the next level, synergize, think outside the box, and give it 110%. If that doesn’t work, nothing will.

Ben Cousins1Ben Cousins Head of European Game Studios at DeNA

I think leaderboards are ‘social’ if you use the dictionary definition of the term. I just think there is an implied meaning of ‘social’ in the context of this question.

Personally I prefer to look at every game design from a case-by-case pov and try to avoid applying templates.

Oscar ClarkOscar Clark Evangelist for Applifier

I spend a lot of time talking about the six degrees of socialisation [see Gamesbrief post for more detail].

This is a Marlow Style model talking about the role of social interaction… but unlike Marlow I think of it as an upturned Pyramid to represent the effort required to sustain those deeper social commitments. The idea draws on Interdependence Theory to an extent (looking at how social relationships are stable only in comparison to expectations elsewhere). It needs some decent academic analysis sometime but as a rule of thumb it serves me well. From my experience the larger sections also represent the larger revenue opportunity from players who reach those degrees although whether that’s causal or coincidence I don’t have enough data.

At the bottom is the ability to see others. This provides confidence that the game is worth my time. Then we want to know that others can see me play. This can be a major trigger for IAP as it creates the possibility of social capital as well as the game value.

Next is the simple asynchronous PVP which we associate with Leaderboards but I worry about solely focusing on competition here for the reasons already stated.

I mark collaboration as the next stage because of its stabilising influence before going ‘Head To Head’ where real competition has value and often only for elite players. Smart designs which make this accessible to more people often involve roles which support other Player Reward types than just competition but I use this definition for ease of explanation.

The final stage is the Guild. Where the surviving players form social units which go beyond the game and the focus shifts from playing together to using the game as a social medium.

Thinking of socialisation as a journey like this can be a really powerful tool for design.
Mark SorrellMark Sorrell Freemium game design consultant

The success of WoW has been anecdotally attributed to what a good single-player game it is. I certainly have an intuitive, umm, understanding(?) of wanting to play alone-together. This is how children first start to play together. They’re not directly interesting, but they are happily in the same place playing their separate games.

I remember that Skyrim lost its appeal when I realised there was no-one to show my sick armour to. I didn’t really want to play with anyone, but I also didn’t want to play alone.

The Boom Beach article I juuuust wrote for this very site touches on this I guess. It shows you other players, so you get the confirmation that this good, as others are playing, but you don’t directly interact with anyone, so you still get to play alone.

It also suggests that it might be a better idea for you ‘games’ to cover all the social bases, rather than your ‘game’.

We’re not all the same, eh?（source：gamesbrief）