
We're seeing the birth of a new game genre, something that doesn't happen all that often; it's already acquired the monicker of "social game," which is a terrible name, in a way. "Social games" live on social networks, hence the name, but at least to date use the social connections those networks provide in very primitive ways. And after all, all multiplayer games are social, albeit some more so than others; a game like Elven Blood is actually far less social than, say, Spades or Diplomacy or Hundred Years War, since there are few ways for players to either help or hinder each other -- and no support for 'table talk.'
Virtually all the social games to date -- and all, as far as I know, of the RPG-ish ones -- have a common set of systems. Stats are money, attack, defense, energy, health, and stamina -- the specific names assigned to these vary from game to game, but their function is the same. Energy is used to accomplish missions, and regenerates slowly, typically one point every few minutes. Attack, defense, and stamina affect combat, generally against other players but in the case of Elven Blood also against NPC enemies. Health is lost in combat and also regenerates slowly; Elven Blood (unlike most others) also sells the equivalent of healing potions. Accomplishing missions provides experience points and money; levelling up allows you to increase your stats.
Money is also used to buy equipment, and most missions require you to own one or more equipment items; equipment also often provides stat bonuses (e.g., better weapons providing an increasing boost to attack). Most social games (but not Elven Blood) also allow you to purchase what we might call generically "territories," which provide an ongoing revenue stream -- in the Vampire-themed games, these are typically "minions" you "dominate" for an income of "blood," the currency in such.
All such games provide a strong incentive to invite your "friends" (that is, those whom you have 'friended' in the social network) to join; each person who does so becomes a member of your (in this game) "party" -- or mob, or clan, or whatever, depending upon theme. Many missions and some equipment becomes available only when your group is of some size --- higher numbers required at higher mission difficulties. This is why these games are viral, and spend virtually nothing on marketing; they spread quickly across the network, and some have millions of active players as a consequence.
These games are free to play, but there's a kicker; you can instantly regenerate health or energy, or gain a boost to party size, by spending "favor points." Typically, you begin with a limited number of favor points, but the only way to gain more is to do something that benefits the developer financially. That is, you can buy them via credit card or Paypal, or you can click through some damn offer and, e.g., sign up for Netflix or allow some ethically dubious spam service to send you email you don't want in exchange for points.
What's somewhat amazing about this is that it's actually a pretty lucrative business model -- some of these games earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a day for their developers.
The reason I'm writing about Elven Blood rather than, say Mobsters or Vampires, is because it has one innovative aspect that differentiates it from most social games and, at least to my mind, makes playing it more appealing: a story element, albeit one that's a fairly minor appendage to the game.
At any given time, you are in one 'location' in the game world, with missions tied to the nature of that location. There are also secondary missions that allow you to move to a different game world location -- these usually require you to own a riding beast (increasingly expensive ones for higher level areas). Thus, there is a sense of change, and of exploring and learning more about the world as the game goes on.
What is the appeal of these games? Well, for one thing, I, at least, enjoy games that I can play for short periods once a day or so. There have been others that allow this, but relatively few, previously -- but none have been remotely as popular as "social games," and it's interesting to see a genre that finally succeeds with the model. For another, it's interesting to see that the dopmanine drip of grind-and-level works even in an environment when "fulfilling a quest" simply means clicking on an icon. And of course, there's the pull of rising in level simply to unlock the next tranche of content.
These are, when you come down to it, pure PHP games, carried entirely in conventional HTML on the front end. Most do have a little Ajax counter to tell you when your next energy regeneration occurs, but that's about it -- everything else is static text and images. In short, these are really very primitive games from a technical standpoint -- but their popularity implies that future evolutions of the form may become more sophisticated and interesting. Not merely, one hopes, in a technical sense, however; what's surprising is how little actual player interaction is permitted, and therefore how crudely these games take advantage of the social nature of the environments in which they live.
Player interaction is, in fact, limited to two things: inviting your friends to play, and attacking other players. You don't get to attack just anyone, either; when you wish to attack, you are served a random list of characters of approximately your power. Combat is a matter of comparing your stats, along with those of your friends (other members of your 'group') against those of the defender and his or her friends. That's it; you can't maintain a vendetta against one particular player or group, you can't ally, you can't negotiate, you can't provide money or items. Even the term "group" is fundamentally meaningless; it's just a number, the number of people who have added me to their group with my permission. I'm in Karen's group, and she's in mine, but most of the people in her group are not in mine, and vice versa; there is no fixed group, no collective identity to which we belong, no team. It's just a number. Thus, there's no facility to take advantage of team competitiveness.
And yet even with these crude beginnings, you can see that this style of game can conceivably evolve into something more fascinating. So yes, play this thing -- and add me.



















Web-based games
Interesting stuff. Seems like it's mostly descended from Graaaagh! and its derivatives, with a bit of design from the PHP-based gameplay of Kingdom of Loathing et al.. I guess the Facebook/MySpace APIs have really provided people with some interesting game design possibilities. Hmmm...
(Incidentally, you can't really GET more social than Diplomacy, can you? Just for the sake of argument.)
Isn't it another 'graveyard'?
"For another, it's interesting to see that the dopmanine drip of grind-and-level works even in an environment when "fulfilling a quest" simply means clicking on an icon. And of course, there's the pull of rising in level simply to unlock the next tranche of content."
This surprises me - basically it's like a movie that you have to keep clicking for it to keep playing. Why not get a movie that just plays by itself?
It's exactly the same as 'The graveyard' ( http://playthisthing.com/graveyard ). There you just keep pressing a key to make the movie keep playing.
Doesn't elven blood strike you as being the same as the graveyard?
Yes, it strikes me as very
Yes, it strikes me as very primitive in its own way. But there are options of where to go and what to do next, and different goals to strive for -- simply increasing level, or trying to become at the top of the most lethal list, etc. And I actually have to work a little to unlock the next content; reward for effort feels good, where pressing W doesn't.
Please, I don't think The Graveyard is meritless; indeed, I was careful to point out what I think are its virtues. I just don't see any reason to do it in the context of an interactive application, when the same freight can be more easily carried in another medium -- that is, in film. Film isn't meritless either; indeed, it's a fine art in its own right. But if you're going to do something that supports interactivity, you need to make the act of interaction meaningful.
Agreed that interaction in Elven Blood also has limited meaning -- and that the it provides no where near the emotional impact of The Graveyard. But it is a far better interactive application, considered as such, than The Graveyard.
I'll give you an analogy, if you will. Set up a camera at the front of a theater and film the actors playing Hamlet: Hamlet is a superb play. But what you have is lousy film, because what you have is a single, static camera filming stage theater. Something like, say, What's Opera Doc? is far better film, because it takes advantage of the capabilities of its medium. Yet no one (well, not many anyway) would claim that a Warner Brothers cartoon is finer art than Shakespeare.
Viral Games?
Greg -
These games are fascinating, in their way. Perhaps it would be better to call them "viral games", as you noted, the dominant mechanic is recruitment, and there is actually little "social interaction".
It is an intriguing area for game design. I have some thoughts in this area, as I'm sure you do.
To me, regardless of
To me, regardless of interactivity it seemed to just be going towards 'the chair', ie a predecided destination. That pressing W was made into a bunch of more interactive things doesn't change much.
I take your point about different goals, but their kind of along the way to 'the chair' rather than being an end in themselves. If there were actually several types of 'chair' (hell, even just two), then I'd take it the interactivity was actually there.
But there are options of where to go and what to do next, and different goals to strive for -- simply increasing level, or trying to become at the top of the most lethal list, etc. And I actually have to work a little to unlock the next content; reward for effort feels good, where pressing W doesn't.
An idle thought on that is that in the graveyard its not just that you press W, it's that you do it and then have to wait and wait.
I remember way back with the first doom the developer talked about when you run over a shotgun, you just get it straight away. When you run over health, you just get it straight away. Doing something granted an instant reward- there was no waiting or doing some extra action. I think there's wisdom in that, in terms of design.
In terms of that, elven blood does grant something with each click (and obviously you don't click and hold, it's just a quick click). It's an interesting contrast - what if the graveyard had something like that? Even if in the end, you still just end up at the chair?
Meh
I played for a month or so after a friend invited me, until the game suddenly decided that it needed to ask for permission to pester my friends, at which point I quit.
It's a cross between Progress Quest and a Ponzi scheme, with some pretty artwork and a (very) loose storyline involving some vaguely interesting and grandiose themes, but otherwise not that compelling.
With so many good browser games available, it's hard to recommend that anyone spend time on any of these Facebook-oriented faux-RPGs.