Essential factors for designing a successful social game

[[146295]]

Back in the day, I was obsessed with Nintendo Power's game rating system. Of course, the overall game was great or terrible, but the categories that determined whether a game was gold or trash were also key to whether it was fun or not. Here's an example from the now-defunct magazine:

The magazine divides their ratings into 5 categories ("Sat" stands for "Satisfied"), but each level carries equal weight. This is obviously more effective than using your thumbs, but it's also a fairly arbitrary approach that isn't very scientific or follows any logical paradigm.

Another reference is the now defunct GamePro magazine, which also used the Nintendo Power system. Here's an example from that magazine:

Let's go back to 2006. At the time I was working for a casual indie game publisher that would review 10-20 games a day, pick which games to publish, and help them publish or fund them. In addition, I would review games we developed in-house and compare them to games we funded or published. I needed a system.

I just read Ken Wilber's "A Brief History of Everything" which contains the following "four quadrant" model of life, science, psychology, image and culture:

The basic element of the model and the book is that all of life and ideas fit into layers. The key concept of these layers is that the upper layers transcend and include the lower layers, not that they transcend and abandon the lower layers. To transcend and abandon is to dominate. To transcend and include is to evolve.

I created the following four-level grading system based on game evaluations:

The publisher I work with is also a game engine developer, and I was contacted by the IGDA Game Accessibility Special Interest Group to advance accessibility options for game developers in our game engine. My parents are both social workers, meaning they have a long history of working with people with developmental disabilities, so the SIF's mission was particularly meaningful to me, and I promoted their advice on our game engine within the company.

Developers can use our game engine to create special gaming experiences for those with visual impairments, such as using 3D audio to create space for movement, or for quadriplegics to play button-based games using their head or breath as a control method.

It was at that time that the casual gaming movement began, with the formation of the Casual Game Association and the Casual Game Conference, as well as the rapid development of publishers like PopCap and Nexon. I immediately made casual gaming a focus, inspired by the promise of "gaming for everyone" and immediately adjusted the accessibility of games in order to bring previously hardcore games to the masses.

The intersection of these two major industry events allowed me to push the usability of our game to the top, because nothing is more important to us than usability.

Accessibility means that the game can be controlled with 1 or 3 buttons at most, not 12 or 101 buttons. Accessibility means that the game is easier for players to understand. It means that players can easily use a platform (sorry Linux, but Grandma doesn't have a system administrator on staff). It means that players can accept this price point. It means that this is a skill level that players can develop. It means that players can understand this tutorial and guide. It means that players don't need a $2000+ PC rig to play the game, and don't need audio drivers for all hardware systems. Yes, this also means that when the voiceover appears, the relevant content is also displayed on the screen to facilitate the deaf and visually impaired, and the font size is adjusted to facilitate users with presbyopia, etc. Finally, it also means basic technical stability. Accessibility can make or break your game. If players can't play your game easily, they won't play it.

The next level is about theme. After usability, theme is another foundation of the game, that is, the subsequent graphics and gameplay are created based on the theme. If the player does not understand the theme, then even if the subsequent graphics and gameplay are excellent, the player will not be able to get out of the theme and the overall narrative. The two most important elements of the theme are the story and the characters. The theme should be attractive enough to bring the player into it.

Total Distortion is an example of a game with a bad theme, where you play as a music producer and use an interdimensional transporter to enter a warped dimension with millions of dollars and guitar robots trying to kill you in order to create a new music video, but it's an incomplete concept. If Guitar Hero was about playing guitar in order to become a hero, it would be easier to understand.

Another example of a bad theme is Irritating Stick - what is this "stick"? Why is its "irritation" interesting? This title clearly doesn't really convey the theme of the game, its story and narrative are incomplete, and it lacks high-quality 2.5D graphics accompanied by procedural particle effects to save it.

Interestingly, I once asked a game design candidate to describe what he thought was the most appealing sample game. He mentioned "Alpaca Farm". My first question was, what the heck is an alpaca? I needed to look it up. Of course, indie developers have plenty of room to create the most original themes because they don't have to create a mass-market product. That's hard to do for most of us in the games industry. Even if you're designing a game for a niche market, if that niche doesn't accept your theme, you're out.

Next comes the audio and visual effects, which are created based on the theme framework and accompany the image and sound layers.

Why are graphics more fundamental than gameplay? Simply put, if your audio scratches or your graphics stutter, the player's ears and eyes will be bothered and they will be less likely to be drawn to the gameplay.

In fact, if your loading screen is terrible, or you use stock models from Poser, players may get angry and quit the game right there and then. In the most extreme case, if your game's box design is terrible (or your marketing page is terrible), players may not even buy the game (or install it) to experience some of the higher-level content in the tier, such as gameplay. If the graphics in your game are terrible, players are unlikely to even consider the gameplay.

The exception to this is low-budget indie games, although this is rare. Indie games describe the graphical style and production quality, and even games with lower production quality graphics (lower budgets) can have a very good style and attract mass audiences (such as Osmos, Darwinia, and Flappy Bird).

Finally, at the top of the pyramid and the most complex element of the overall product, transcending and encompassing all the previous levels is game design. Game design is dependent on all the other levels - it depends on usability, theme, graphics, and is created based on these choices. Game design is something that players can feel internally. It cannot be measured by feelings like usability, it cannot be felt by images and sounds, and it cannot be thought about and understood like theme. It must be felt through play, and only through play.

The near-infinite game design components include player control (activity), objectives, real-time gameplay, metagameplay, pacing, "game feel", things like heroes, enemies, power-ups, collectible items, game world rules (like gravity, physics, bullet logic), timing, game world truths, game world mechanics, puzzle design, level design, multiplayer design, game play, elemental simulation, all those ephemeral "right-brain" elements that define the game world but are themselves hard to define (like Nintendo Power's "satisfaction" variable and GamePro's parallel "fun factor"), and so on. Just like love and faith can't be defined, but they are real elements, so too can satisfaction and fun - this is the fuzzy realm of game design and breathing that can make or break your game. We have to get all of these elements right. And it's a nearly impossible task, which is why there are so few "perfect" games. The gameplay has to be perfect. If your players don't enjoy playing your game, they won't play it.

Now that we have reached a level where we can evaluate and develop games, let's focus on social games.

In 2009, when I started designing social games for a large publisher, I entered a whole new field of design that changed the model I had created. I modified my model to fit social games, and the resulting model was:

Gameplay is no longer at the top. Now social gameplay transcends it and encompasses the purest gameplay as well. Social games use non-social gameplay as a foundation, but also go beyond that foundation.

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

• Parallel play – children use similar toys and play in similar ways, but without any interaction with each other.

• Spectator play – Children watch others play games but do not participate.

• Joint play—two or more children interact by sharing or borrowing toys or materials, even though they are not doing the same thing.

• Cooperative play—Children play with others authentically by taking turns, cooperating, or competing.

Most social games use parallel play as their strongest social feature. Each player has their own game space, where they complete game objectives and levels independently, based on the same settings and game rules as everyone else, and they rarely interact with other players except visiting other players' territories.

We also realized the limitations of using this approach as the primary social game style in The Simpsons, where the friends' realms are consistent, but the player's progress is different, which would be interpreted as a parallel dimension. Usually in these social games, players can only visit one other player and leave a small reward or information. The interaction here is minimal. But this situation will continue to develop.

There are also unique opportunities in social game design to enhance parallel play, create new opportunity mechanics for spectator play (like in poker and some sports games), joint play (gifting and item swapping), and cooperative play (like creating guilds and clans, which is usually seen in MMORPGs but is now being brought into social game design, most notably Clash of Clans).

The next level up on the hierarchy, which goes beyond but also includes and relies on social games, is virality, if the game is easy for players to use, they will spread the game to their friends, family, coworkers, real life neighbors, "friends" on social networking sites, friends they hang out with, etc. In short, a social game without virality is like a virus without virality, it will not spread.

Creating proper viral features means that players don't perceive them as viral features, but rather as normal game features. This doesn't mean they are posted on Facebook without the player's permission, but that the player feels that the game allows them to share screenshots of their achievements and stories about their experiences in the game world with their friends, and that they can share rewards and gifts with their friends.

Done well, viral features are transparent and fully integrated into the overall game experience, enhancing it rather than being a cheap marketing gimmick. Done poorly, they are last-minute junk that accompanies boring, hyper-adhesive content. At their worst, they act like digital stalkers that stare at you throughout the game and insist that everything will be better if you post whatever you want on social. Overzealous viral features don’t transcend and subsume lower categories in the hierarchy; they transcend and reject or dominate them. In other words, they pull you out of the immersion created by the game’s theme and narrative and ruin the gameplay and core fun; they create ugly 2D pop-ups in a gorgeous setting; and they lull recipients into spectating social games instead of offering them a deeper experience.

When implemented, these viral features may have short-term positive metrics that "justify" their flaws, but their impact on long-term retention is the same as the impact we have on victims when talking about stalkers. This is always a pity, when games become something that players need to be cautious about, that is, players need to carefully judge whether unconscious responses will turn themselves into real-life spammers.

At a GDC conference a few years ago, I heard a gutsy commentator declare, "Quality is our virus." While there are other speeches worth quoting, this is my favorite and I couldn't agree more. While additional decentralized and deliberate viral features are necessary, we can't ignore the organic installs created by one player telling another player how great a social game is and verbally inviting them to play. This is often underestimated in social game design. This is how Rovio became world-famous with Angry Birds, without even using very deep viral features. This is also why Tetris is so popular - each brick just falls into place.

The final category for designing and evaluating social games is monetization. Why is monetization at the top of the social game hierarchy? Because monetization transcends and encompasses all other elements on the social game design pyramid. Monetization relies on all of the previously mentioned elements. This is not just about the product side of things, from usability to graphics, from social features to gameplay, monetization design has its own complex rules and best practices. This also explains why those who are responsible for managing monetization in social games, the product managers, need to be the most carefully selected, experienced, and knowledgeable people on the game team.

If IAP prices are hard to reach (i.e. in terms of tier base, accessibility), or even just specific to a particular geographic region’s economy, then even if everything else in the game is A-grade, the game will fail (in that region). If the explanation for why you have to buy something in the game is complex (i.e. theme), the game will fail. If the graphics for paid IAP items in the game have worse visual or sound quality than the free items, then those items will fail. If the gameplay loop is designed without any monetization considerations, i.e. monetization is not integrated into the game and balanced with product development (game design), the game will fail. If the game monetization overemphasizes pay-to-win and abuses gameplay, rather than the low-key approach of sharing the paid items you use with friends or guild members, the game will fail. If the game can’t use purchases as a way to increase consumer status through social means, and offer rewards to players willing to share with more than one friend, the game will not be able to effectively take advantage of the massive viral opportunities at the intersection of monetization and virality. Finally, if monetization design is independent of game design and has its own rules, economies, pacing, quirks, exceptions, science and art, based on bad design and bad management, or goes into a slow long process of optimization and evolution, then the game will fail. If this happens, it is your own choice, there are no coincidences, just that you chose the wrong path. Similarly, if your monetization design is perfect, but any of the lower categories in the hierarchy have intrinsic problems (such as accessibility, graphics or gameplay), then the game will fail.

This is why not only are there a handful of "perfect" games, but also a handful of the best-selling social games that appear on the top lists and stay there for a long time. If a game has the layers right, it has the potential to be a huge success and stay there for a long time. But if any one of the layers is broken, the game won't make the top 10, but it might make the top 100, and it'll have to work really hard to stay there.

Finally, I want to emphasize that this is a new level of user perspective on social game design, in this case mobile social and large app stores like Apple's:

Ease of use

First, players will browse or search for your game in the app store and find it. They can find it easily because of SEO. The marketing text is in a language they are familiar with, so they can understand it. They are using a device that can download the game, they have enough storage and bandwidth to download the game, and they can afford the price you offer. Players understand the basic "code" of the information being presented. If players can't do this, they will stay away from your game at this point.

theme

Players will be introduced to your game's theme through the app store description; first through the game name (please don't use names like Alpaca Farm), then through the company name and marketing text. If your theme and premise are interesting and attractive enough, players will be drawn in. But if they are not interesting at all, players will leave your game right away.

Audiovisual

Players will see screenshots of your game, and if the graphics are high quality and the style is appealing, they will like it and want to see more. You should show them a rich world. If you can provide players with videos, the music and sound effects in the videos will further activate the player's brain and make them want to experience more. But if you can't do this, players will leave your game at this point.

Gameplay

Now the player has downloaded your game and is playing it. The interactions are great. The pacing is perfect. The story and characters are engaging. The gameplay is familiar yet new. The player will proceed cautiously at first, but soon they will let go and move forward boldly. After 20 minutes, the player has started to feel somewhat of a mastery of the game and can guess that continuing to play will bring them more satisfaction and rewards. The gameplay is clear and the goals and rewards are clear, but if the game is not, the player will leave your game in the moment.

social contact

Now that the player has been playing for a few hours or days, the game invites them to connect socially. Social game design is great. The game tells the player upfront that they are going to have a great experience. Social games promise varied gameplay and real social interaction, and use the various methods of social games (parallel, cooperative). If the game does not do this, players will not try to socialize in the game, and if the game only uses social as a method to gain long-term retention, that is, the game is just a social platform, players will leave your game in the present.

Virus

Now players are socially connected - but virality is just about spamming, not something as deep as gameplay. Or conversely, there is no virality in the game, and players have to tell their friends via "push", rather than the game bringing them friends. Players may socially connect and find themselves not communicating with any of their friends, and without effective virality, they are unlikely to invite those they know. This will cause players to leave your game in the moment.

profit

The player is playing the game, has engaged in social interaction, and invited friends to play. Then they encounter a paywall. The game puts a price on the player's head - pay to move on, or wait. The player may choose to leave the game at this point. You can see that the progression of each social game design layer element is not only unchanged after the other sequence progression, but each social game design layer element transcends and includes all previous base elements.

in conclusion

This hierarchy provides us with not only the importance of the categories, but also their order and relationship and relative weight.

Nothing is more important than ease of use.

But if you can't effectively allocate the top of the pyramid, you can't accomplish anything.

Designing a social game requires considering every element from a systematic perspective. In order of their importance, we can design from two perspectives: product design and game design.

When you're weighing whether to include feature A or feature B, you can consider the impact each feature has on the hierarchy and which element of the hierarchy is more important. For example, something that might improve graphics quality but hurts the client engine performance (accessibility) is not a good choice because the impact on client gender is so important. Or a monetization feature that hurts a game design feature instead of boosting it is not a good choice. However, accessibility decisions can limit a graphics feature from climbing up the hierarchy or game design decisions can limit a monetization feature from climbing up.

You should design your game using these steps, one at a time, slowly building up the pyramid, remembering that the upper steps need to transcend and include all the steps below. Any higher category is not more important than the lower ones, or should dominate them. Instead, they should utilize and include the lower levels, as the latter are the foundation for the former.

Although these steps are structured as a logical hierarchy, they are all equally important in the eyes of the game team. The best possible monetization of a game cannot be achieved if QA cannot find technical bugs before they develop; similarly, the best possible QA means nothing if monetization does not use the latest analytics techniques and multiple testing areas to optimize IAP and track assets.

I don't like overly abstract and theoretical game design articles, which are often useless. The point of this article is that if you want to design a social game, you can use the pyramid model above, work from the bottom up, and make sure the higher levels exceed and include each lower level. By doing this, you can create a game with better design, which will better cater to your players. Then players will sincerely open their wallets and spend money on your game.