GAME JOBS
Contents
Interview: The Secrets Of Wooga's Social Game Success
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
June 6, 2013
 
KingsIsle Entertainment, Inc.
Concept Artist
 
Red Storm Entertainment, a Ubisoft Studio
Assistant/Associate Producer
 
Wargaming.net
Build Engineer
 
Gameloft - New York
Programmer
 
Wargaming.net
Build Engineer
 
Virdyne Technologies
Unity Programmer
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
June 6, 2013
 
Tenets of Videodreams, Part 3: Musicality
 
Free to Play: A Call for Games Lacking Challenge
 
Cracking the Touchscreen Code [2]
 
10 Business Law and Tax Law Steps to Improve the Chance of Crowdfunding Success
 
Deep Plaid Games, one year later
spacer
About
spacer Editor-In-Chief:
Kris Graft
Blog Director:
Christian Nutt
Senior Contributing Editor:
Brandon Sheffield
News Editors:
Mike Rose, Kris Ligman
Editors-At-Large:
Leigh Alexander, Chris Morris
Advertising:
Jennifer Sulik
Recruitment:
Gina Gross
Education:
Gillian Crowley
 
Contact Gamasutra
 
Report a Problem
 
Submit News
 
Comment Guidelines
 
Blogging Guidelines
Sponsor
Features
  Interview: The Secrets Of Wooga's Social Game Success
by Christian Nutt [Interview, Social/Online]
9 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
September 16, 2011 Article Start Page 1 of 5 Next
 

When looking at Facebook developers, Wooga is third behind Zynga and EA. Before PopCap's stats were merged with EA's, Wooga was number two. How does a German company few in the U.S. have heard of reach such heights of success in just a few years?

In this interview, Wooga's head of studio Henric Suuronen lays down the social game design law. You've often heard that designing for Facebook takes a radically different approach to console game design, but how different is it, truly? According to Suuronen, it's fundamentally different -- so much so that designers who come over from the console space often do not have a place at his company.



That said, Suuronen is a gamer. He devoured classic games like Super Mario Bros. on the NES as a child, and NHL '95 on the Sega Mega Drive and Dune II on the PC as a teenager. From these, Suuronen built up knowledge of games he considers indispensable to his current work -- knowledge he continued to amass until he stopped playing in college.

What he did after college, however, was join Nokia and work on the N-Gage reboot before moving over to Digital Chocolate and work on the pioneering Tower Bloxx, as well as Millionaire City.

He was there for the social gaming revolution and now blends his fond memories with the hard facts of the extremely competitive and challenging social space. In this interview, he describes exactly how.

I've done very few design-oriented interviews about social gaming. I usually end up talking to execs. What I like to get to the heart of is the philosophy of design. What is important about social game design, in your view, that sets it apart?

HS: I have a pretty strong design background. I've never worked with the title "game designer" -- I've been the product manager, or a senior product manager, or director-level guy. But I don't know, just because my background as a kid -- I played so much -- I kind of have like a library of game mechanics, and what you should do, and what works, and what does not. So I end up working quite a lot with game design.

When it comes to game design, for social games specifically, I think the most important part is the game loop. So, what do you do over and over again? So Millionaire City, for example, you buy a plot, a piece of terrain, you buy a house, place the house, you wait a little certain amount of time, and then you collect money from it. And you do this over and over again, and when you get enough money, you buy another house. And you place it, and maybe connect it with road, and all this stuff.

The game loop is the game. That's the most important thing.

When it comes to what to think about when designing for social games, I think you have to almost throw everything from your console brain, or your hardcore things, into the garbage. That will get you on the wrong track.

Not only is it social, but it's free-to-play. And free-to-play, I think, changes the game design even more than [the fact that] it's social. The free-to-play is a mindset that a lot of console guys don't get. They're used to getting 60 bucks first, then they kind of have a lousy menu, but the guy has already invested 60 bucks, so he will browse through the menu and try to learn the game, because otherwise he would feel stupid.

Social games are free-to-play games; it's totally different. So you have to think about, "Whoa, the guy has not invested anything over the game -- not a single dime!" So how do I get him through the menu -- if there's a menu -- how do I get him through the tutorial, and how do I get him hooked to the game -- as quickly as possible? And this is the game design [element] which is, I think, the most difficult part.

Obviously it's social, so you have to think about how is it better with friends. So we have this abbreviation: BWF. Better With Friends. What is the BWF of your game? So is it just visits, or can you upgrade something, can you help, can you ask for parts, can you staff something, can you play together asynchronously, can you play synchronously? Different stuff like that.


Magic Land

How do you feel about the current implementations of social mechanics in games? Are they robust enough? Do you see a lot of potential for growth there?

HS: Yeah. Obviously. Take a look at it. I've done social games now four years, when I did Tower Bloxx there was Jetman. It was this lousy game, probably coded in one day, a guy was flying through a cave. But it was pretty fun, it was a high score-driven game.

Now moving four years forward, you have games like CityVille, Pioneer Trail from Zynga, Kabam games, Digital Chocolate games, and Zombie Lane -- great game -- and now Magic Land. So it has really evolved. So why would the progression stop here? So I think it will evolve, as it has done from four years ago with Jetman and Scrabulous and Tower Bloxx. So it will evolve again in the next years.

So what I think will happen is that there will be some kind of more elaborated, asynchronous, co-op play. So I'm thinking I have ideas on how to do it well in Magic Land, and we will investigate how to do it -- maybe launching something like that pretty soon. And there's a lot of in co-op and social interaction that is better. I don't think it will remain at the level that, "Hey, I'm missing a part, can you give it to me?"

I don't think it can...

HS: People will get eventually tired of it.

 
Article Start Page 1 of 5 Next
 
Top Stories

image
Keeping the simulation dream alive
image
Q&A: With Neverwinter inbound, Cryptic founds Seattle studio
image
A 15-year-old critique of the game industry that's still relevant today
image
Advanced audio streaming in Unity
Comments

E McNeill
profile image
Interesting stuff, but I hope I misunderstand this part:



"Because you know, if you have an ethical game designer, he doesn't want to bother the user to monetize ever. He wants to make the best game ever and leave him bread and water."

Bevan Bennett
profile image
The pronoun is somewhat ambiguous... I parse it as "He (the designer) wants to make the best game ever and leave him (the designer) bread and water.", meaning that the ethical designer designs solely for the game's sake and doesn't give any thought (in the design) to his own reward or livelihood.

E McNeill
profile image
I figured that was the case. What I was "hoping I misunderstood" was the implication: that Wooga considers its designers to be something other than "ethical". To me, that would be pretty worrisome.

Kathleen Lilly
profile image
I am glad that monetization is continually discussed in these articles and forums, and that all games treat it a bit differently. I tend to prefer games that allow me to work my way through without feeling cheated if I don't put in a bunch of cash. For example, speeding up progression (and removing the grind) makes more sense to me than having a clear advantage over another player by gaining access to abilities that aren't otherwise available.



I agree with Raoul on usability. I love the fact that design teams place such a high priority on making the game fun immediately...and not just after a few hours.

Leo Gura
profile image
Every great "hardcore" game I've ever played has been fun immediately. That's not specific to social games (in fact, for me, quite the opposite).

Chris Daniel
profile image
"But it seems like all the monetization options you're discussion are more a way of removing limitations from the game, right?



HS: Yep."



That's todays "free-to-play" philosophy in a nutshell:

Ship a broken game and let the user pay for the fixing.



At least he is honest.

But as a game designer I have to say......no I better do not say what I just wanted to say.

Christopher Lee
profile image
I've heard a lot about the iteration, iteration, iteration model of games on FB. Just wanted to say I tried to release a title on the iOS that way, didn't work out so well. What you're saying about making sure the "game loop" or to put it in another sense the "core gameplay" is solid even before the iterative launch I think is very crucial to gaining initial traction.

Michael Joseph
profile image
This interview is quite revealing.



If only we could get McDonalds scientists and engineers to be so forthcoming about their alchemical processes.


none
 
Comment:
 




UBM Tech