Understanding Social and Why it's Amazing

[GunFlame]

I've said this a few times here and there, but there still seems to be a negative stigma attached (well, it's not like folk are going to take my opinions so highly as to counter that...), but; Social Gaming is a very exciting future.

 

The first thing to define, is that Zynga and Facebook are not 'Social Games', or at least not the only example of Social Games.

 

They may have popularized the term, but I think we can all agree that genre groupings tend to blur a lot and often lose meaning at some point. But what social is as an element, is what we find in many favourites; Battlefield, Diablo, World of Warcraft, Team Fortress 2, Monster Hunter and so on...

 

These are all multiplayer, but they are also all social. The above games don't really work, or at least work far better when a level of interaction between players has been established. Communication. This is a core aspect of Social, and these games do it far better than many Facebook games, so the reality is, is that these games are true Social games.

 

Now, with that, Zynga and Facebook games in general still do things very well; they encourage to share. This is a great feature, but often we don't think that because the idea of sharing or asking for assistance in a game, often brings to mind they guy or gal you don't really like sending you a request for a game that you don't even play. And this is where it fails, and this is where the stigma is. It's not that people don't like Social Games, it's that they don't want to play certain games with certain people.

 

I'll give you an example of what could be better;

 

Imagine you are sitting on the bus or the train on your way home, and browsing your phone or tablet. While doing so, you get a ping from one of your good gaming buddies. They ask if you can set your MMO character to buff theirs while they are trying to complete a quest. You agree.

 

You go to your MMO app and fire it up, it loads your character and you move a couple of sliders that set a couple of buffs, then from a list of players you choose, the target; your buddy. He then gets auto buffs from you, and you both earn some XP, Gold or whatever from the quest. Yours will be a little lower, but it's there.

 

Another could be your friend is player GT or Forza, they send you a request to borrow one of yours cars. You set the winnings split that you want for the load (50/50), and they get access to your car for the race. It's always annoying in GT when one of the cups wants a car that you don't own, and don't have cash to buy and tune. It's an option.

 

These are just a couple of simple examples, there are many more possibilities and they can bring in actual gameplay elements like the games first mentioned do.

 

The key thing though is to offer choice. As long as the player doesn't lose anything for going solo, the inclusion of Social elements or more varied social elements outside standard communication, can only really ever add to the experience.

[MasterDex]

I agree that the social aspect of games is very important but I disagree that it can only ever add to the experience. Certain games play better without the social aspect because adding in a social aspect can diminish the immersion factor. Playing with people brings you out of the virtual mindspace and back to the real world. Let's say Mass Effect was a co-op RPG, then let's say a friend joins you to play through the game with you, chatting to you with a mic. While you're both travelling around, you're discussing real world topics - what you're doing for the weekend, etc. Not only that but when a conversation pops up, you start discussing with your friend which options you pick. You're friend is saying "Pick the second opton because that gives the most points." but if you were on your own, you'd pick the third option because that fits with the type of character you want to roleplay. Social aspects in games can disconnect you from the game a couple of steps so you know you're playing a game rather than living an experience.

 

That said, for certain types of games, focusing on the social aspect is crucial to their success. I rarely ever play BF3 on my own, I'm usually on teamspeak with at least 4 or 5 friends, and we're together in squads owning the pubs. We're not talking about how we're doing, we're shouting "Tank at C!", "Enemy going for A!", "Let's flank from the right!", etc. In BF3, that social aspect increases the immersion by several factors.

 

I think developers have to be very careful about adding social aspects to games, be it co-op or any other form of social integration. They should be sure that the game they're working on would benefit from it before they add it in, because as much as social aspects can add to a game, they can take away quite a bit as well.

[GunFlame]

That's a very valid concern, but as I see it, it's not so much an issue with Social, but with those who you play with. And as long as choice stays there then there shouldn't be too much of a problem.

 

If you have that Mass Effect scenario, and you choose to decline the invite because you want to get into the story, then that's cool. The choice is there. But if you know the guy who's prompting to join, and they'll be able to get into the story with you, then everything SHOULD be okay.

 

Again, it's all down to choice in the end, and making sure that the player has the options to ignore completely or at the other end of the spectrum, fully embrace any of the features that get added.

 

But it's a new feature, one that developers really haven't explored too well. So it'll evolve, improve and likely become awful too at some stages of it's integration. But the potential is there, and I believe that a lot of the real gaming enthusiasts would love great social features, as long as they are playing how they want to, who they want to, and what they want to.

[fuchikoma]

I agree that there is great potential in exploring the social aspects of games - and after all, I grew up playing 2P on NES/SNES and it wouldn't have been nearly as compelling or meaningful if it didn't open so many doors socially as well. I do agree that it can detract though. Even in a game where you have the total technical freedom to accept or decline the social aspects, that doesn't guarantee "social" freedom to do the same. Dex's example of picking an option because a friend wants you to is a good one. Playing MMOs, I've found that you might make a new character with your friends, and you want to play one class, but they need another one in their party, so there's pressure to play that one, at least as an alt. There's also a strong pull to do things out of a sense of obligation to others, and what was started as a game becomes another job. (I watch my mom play FrontierVille... by "play" I mean log in and then spend 15 minutes doing favours for 100 people.) Then there's the rush to keep up with others who are playing, so you don't fall behind and end up alienated from the group - you're entirely free to get left behind and wander off and do your own thing, but then the social aspect fails since you're gated from your friends and become technically irrelevant to their characters.

 

So while you always have the freedom to embrace the social aspect or decline it, whenever you decline it, that also has meaning in the social context. For whatever it's worth, you become "that guy who didn't want to go do mission X with me."

 

At the same time, the potential is definitely there. Look at Demons Souls or Journey - games that pretty much NEED their social aspect, but don't force it on you and don't pressure you to embrace it. (Both also widely praised overall as games.) There is a lot of potential for exploring new social elements in gaming, but I think designers also need to realize that when they start to involve things as complex as other players, that choice in a social game doesn't simply boil down to the mechanical option of opting in or out of the social feature of a game - that opting out can also be opting into another social context, and that has its own repercussions, especially if they opt in sometimes and opt out others.