运用社交理论设计游戏内容编辑本段回目录
社交游戏已问世若干年。在这段时间里，我们发现游戏的制作价值得到全方位的提高，玩法变得越来越复杂，行为心理学元素也巧妙地被运用至这些游戏中。但虽然玩法和制作价值出现显著提高，但这些系统背后的社交机制仍尚未完全进化。社交游戏的“社交性”依然保持原状：是个通过其他潜在用户提高游戏曝光度的发展策略。社交机制并没有创建真正的社交体验，而是转而利用其他社区的社交图谱。
这里的问题在于社交性不只局限于此。
本文中我们将给社交玩法的真正定义奠定基础，同时谈论为何要在作品中创建真正的社交体验。
单一操作的游戏
多数游戏都属于围绕单一核心动作的系统。其他机制或源自这一核心动作，或直到动作结束后才开始。这一操作在整款游戏中持续重复，持续带来趣味性。例如：
checker from playfrog.net
西洋棋——移动棋盘格。游戏不会出现其他机制，除非你移动棋子，只有满足适当条件后我们才可以进行特殊操作。
国际象棋——移动棋子。不同棋子有不同的移动方式，但这就是它们全部的操作。
《愤怒的小鸟》——射击物件。我们可以操控物件，但前提是将其击中。
第一人称射击游戏——移动和射击物件。许多变量会影响这两个操作，但这些变量都源自于移动和射击操作。
上述每款游戏都主要依赖于核心机制，而其他所有机制则主要依赖于这一核心机制。在创建游戏时，你需辨别其中的单一操作，进行适当修改，直到将其变得趣味横生。你可以将系列操作设置成核心机制，但这通常会提高系统的复杂性（游戏邦注：系统越复杂，内容就会变得越晦涩）。
把握此核心操作是创建有趣且富有粘性的游戏作品的关键。
融入社交理论
多数开发者都很擅长于把握游戏设计的概念和实践。而且在多数情况下，我们都能够准确理解。但我们在把握社交理念的概念和实践方面就略显迟缓。
开发者们发现，在游戏机制中添加社交元素能够提高此机制的力量。它能够提高玩家继续运用此机制，同其他玩家进行分享的欲望。当前的情况是，社交元素已转变成影响用户外部社交图谱的限制性玩法。典型例子就是“邀请5位Facebook好友进行点击，这样你就能够得到此道具”的机制，或是其他主导Facebook游戏的类似机制。
“社交性”要比提高用户获取率的战略更重要，更具吸引力。它是提高长期留存率和产品创收水平的关键所在。但此关键性体现在运用玩法的社交理论上。
什么是“社交性”？最简单的就是将其看作用户采用的沟通渠道。用户想要进行互动，这是我们的本性。进行互动时，他们会完全投入于互动内容中，这反过来促使他们更投入于你的产品中。毋庸置疑，投入作品之中的玩家会积极寻找可供自己支配的沟通渠道（游戏邦注：无论是否是直接控制的渠道）。只要有其他玩家愿意采用同个渠道，他们就会进行互动。
这些渠道的魔法在于，它促使其他玩家变成内容提供者，而这些内容就是他们的所做和所说。此外，这些生成内容很容易创建，具有高度的动态性，是用户的第二属性。你无需教授他人如何进行沟通。
只要他们开始相互沟通，他们就能够在彼此间建立起真正的持久关系——促使玩家在游戏新鲜感丧失后依然保持兴趣。
因此，在创建内容时，你要知道自己需要考虑什么：用户拥有什么沟通渠道，他们是否拥有沟通理由？
促使其他玩家参与其中
创造沟通理由非常重要——有什么比聊天室无人聊天更糟？更重要的是，你如何激励用户进行沟通？若我们确定，用户相互沟通对你的应用有益，且你已创造相应沟通渠道，那么你要如何直接激励他们运用这些渠道？
让游戏的单一操作变成社交活动。
若游戏的核心机制是作用一块土地，例如种植树木，那么将此设置成你在他人的花园中种植树木。当前的社交游戏从根本来说就是能够查看他人操作的单人游戏体验，例如《FarmVille》在他人农场中施肥的拜访机制。但这是个次要游戏机制——这是要求其他玩家参与核心玩法机制的功能。
FarmVille from unigamesity.com
若你能够直接在他人的农场中种植树木，或创造一个多位玩家能够共同作用于同个沙盒实体的共享空间，游戏体验会变得多强大？这从根本来说能够激励玩家直接进行沟通——他们需要进行合作，方能获得成功。这种合作关系逐步创造出友情，将这些用户变成自我认同的团队，团队每个成员都赋予其他玩家重返游戏的理由。若设计得当，这会将用户变成一个朝同个互利目标迈进的玩家社区。
当然这会带来玩家相互抱怨的问题，但这同时也能够产生积极因素——用户间的分歧能够带来持续的趣味元素，特别是当他们会因存在分歧而采用直接行动。尽管大家都否定肥皂剧，但我们对此非常喜欢，尤其是当我们变成其中一部分的时候。
社交操作模式的游戏
这是指核心操作具有社交性，能够促进用户沟通的玩法。进行沟通的用户在彼此身上投入时间，因此他们会在你的产品中投入时间。此外，通过提供阻碍或同他人进行合作的渠道和理由，你将收获一个供玩家在游戏中创建社区的系统。
你并非利用外部网络的社区，相反你让玩家创建自己的内部网络。简而言之，用户创建的是归你所有的社交图谱，你无需嵌入Facebook之类的第三方社交图谱。这所带来的益处是，你能够基于社区用户的突发行为创建内容，能够调整和完善推动产品成功的各沟通渠道。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，作者：Justin Nearing）
Applying Social Theory to Games
by Justin Nearing
[Justin Nearing is a Community Support Analyst at A Thinking Ape and a co-founder of Vancouver Social Games, a meetup and blog dedicated to connecting game developers in the Vancouver area. You can connect with Justin here.]
Social Games have been around a few years now. During that time, we’ve seen production value increase across the board, gameplay become more complex, and the clever use of behavioural psychology make its way into these games. However, while gameplay and production value has skyrocketed, the social mechanics behind these systems have not evolved. The “Social” in social games is still what it’s always been: a growth strategy for increasing discovery of the game by other potential users. Instead of creating a truly social experience, social mechanics are relegated to exploiting the social graph of other communities.
The problem is that Social can be so much more.
In this post, we’re going to lay down the foundation of what true social gameplay is, and why you would want to create a true social experience within your product.
SINGLE ACTION GAMES
Most games are systems that revolve around a single core action. All other mechanics either sprout from this core action, or are not initiated until the action is done. This action is repeated for the entirety of the game, and this action is endlessly entertaining. For example:
Checkers – movement of a checker. Other mechanics don’t happen unless you move a piece (you can’t “King” a unit if you don’t move it), and special movements are allowed when conditions are met (can jump more than one checker if you are able).
Chess – Movement of a piece. Different pieces have different ways of moving, but that’s all they ever do.
Angry Birds – Shoot an object. The object can be manipulated (yellow bird increasing speed when tapped), but not until it’s shot.
First Person Shooters – Movement and Shooting objects. Many variables affect these two actions, however all variables sprout from movement and shooting.
For each, the entire game relies on that core mechanic, and all other mechanics are dependent upon it. When building your game, you need to identify that single action and tailor it until it becomes endlessly entertaining. You can have a collection of actions as core mechanics, however this tends to increase the complexity of the system. The more complex the system is, the less accessible it becomes (the concurrent tasks of RTS games makes it inaccessible to all but a relative minority of gamers)
Understanding this core action is the key to a fun and endlessly engaging game.
ENTER SOCIAL THEORY
Most developers have become pretty good at understanding the theory and practice of game design. For the most part, we get it. However, we are slower to understand the theory and practice of social theory.
What developers have noticed is that adding a social element to a game mechanic can act as force multiplier to that mechanic. It increases the desire to continue using the mechanic, and to share the mechanic with other people. The reality has become that this social element usually translates to limiting gameplay to leverage a users social graph of an external network. The classic example is the “Get 5 friends on Facebook to click this and you get the item!” mechanic, or similar mechanics that have come to dominate Facebook games.
“Social” is much more important, and can be much more engaging, than a strategy to increase the acquisition of users. It can be the key to creating long-term retention and monetization of your product. But this key is in the application of social theory to gameplay.
What is “Social”? The easiest way to think of it is channels of communication utilized by the user. People want to interact with each other, it’s how we are built. If they interact, they become invested with the thing they are interacting with- and in turn become more invested in your product. Have no doubt, players invested in a product will find ways to use a channel of communication at their disposal- be it a channel you directly control or not. As long as there are other players willing to utilize the same channel, they will be interacting.
The magic with these channels is that it makes other users content providers, the content being the things they do and say. Furthermore, this content generation is easy to create, highly dynamic, and second-nature for today’s audience. You don’t have to teach people how to chat with each other.
And once you get them chatting, you offer users the ability to form real and lasting relationships with each other (if your channels allow it)- giving the user a reason to be interested long after the novelty of your game wears off.
Therefore, when building your product, you know exactly what you have to think about: What communication channels are available to the user, and do they have a reason to communicate?
TO TROLL A MAN
Giving someone a reason to communicate is critical- what could be worse than a chat room with nobody chatting? More importantly, how do you incentivize users to communicate? If we establish that users interacting with each other is beneficial to your application, and you have made available the channels to do so, how can you directly incentivize them to utilize these channels?
Make the single action of your game a social action.
If the core game mechanic is affecting a plot of land, such as growing plants, make it so you are planting in someone else’s garden. Today’s social games are essentially single-player experiences with the ability to observe other users single-player experiences. We have seen a shift where users can effect other players experiences, such as FarmVilles visiting mechanic of spreading fertilizer on another users farm. However, this is a secondary game mechanic- a feature that requires the other user to be engaging in the core gameplay mechanic.
How much more powerful of an experience would it be if you were able to directly plant on another players farm, or more effectively, having a shared space where multiple users can affect an sandbox instance? This inherently incentivizes users to directly communicate with each other- they have to cooperate in order to be successful. This cooperation instills a sense of camaraderie, turning the collection of users into an self-identified group, each member of the group giving the other members a reason to re-engage. Done right, this turns a group of users into a community of players, all working towards a mutually beneficial goal.
Of course, this opens up the problem of players griefing each other, but such can also be beneficial- disagreements between users are endlessly engaging, especially if they are given mechanics to take direct action as a result of the disagreement. As much as people want to deny it, we love soap operas, especially when we are a part of it.
SOCIAL ACTION GAMES
Gameplay whereby the core action is a social one, is one that will inspire communication between users. Communicating users invest time into each other, and therefore invest time into your product. Furthermore, by providing the means and reasons to disrupt or cooperate with other users, you have a system where users can create a community within the game.
Instead of exploiting a community from an external network, you give the users the ability to build an internal network. In short, your users build a social graph that you own, instead of you plugging into a 3rd party social graph like Facebook. The rewards of this allow you to build upon the emergent behaviour of this community, allowing you to modify and improve the very channels of communication that drives the success of your product.（Source：gamasutra）
