Profile Pictures Reflect Differences in Culture

A small study from researchers from two American universities examined Facebook profile pictures to see if cultural differences are visibly reflected in the pictures. It turns out that difference is obvious and, according to the authors, reflects larger cultural patterns of thought.

I wonder if what they found for Facebook users is true for other online communities, particularly gaming communities. Do player-made avatars have differences that reflect culture?

From the abstract of their paper:

Here we have demonstrated that such systematic cultural variations can also be observed in cyberspace, focusing on self-presentation of photographs on Facebook, the most popular worldwide online social network site. We examined cultural differences in face/frame ratios for Facebook profile photographs in two studies. For Study 1, 200 digital profile face photographs of active Facebook users were randomly selected from native and immigrant Taiwanese and Americans. For Study 2, 312 Facebook profiles of undergraduate students of six public universities in East Asia (Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan) and the United States (California and Texas) were randomly selected. Overall, the two studies clearly showed that East Asian Facebook users are more likely to deemphasize their faces compared to Americans. Specifically, East Asians living in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan exhibited a predilection for context inclusiveness in their profile photographs, whereas Americans tended to prioritize their focal face at the expense of the background.

From ABC News interviewed the authors:

“These are not conscious choices,” Dr. Park wrote in an email to ABC News. “This represents the lens through which the two cultures view the world. This relates, we believe, to a cultural bias to be more individualistic in the U.S. and more communal in Asia. We believe these values fundamentally sculpt one’s thought and choices, including design of a Facebook portrait.”

What does all this mean? Huang and Park write of the U.S. as an “individualistic and independent” culture, while people in Taiwan “deemphasize the face and to engage more contextual field information.” Social media — Facebook, in this case — make a giant lab for showing the differences.



June 20th, 2012 by Adam

Wooga Follows Zynga in Metrics-Driven Game Design

Zynga is the leader in the Facebook game market with about 221 million users according to AppData. Now Wooga (36 million users) is looking to edge out Zynga at their own game: using metrics as the primary design method for their games.

The basic idea at Zynga and Wooga (amongst others) is to use a data-driven analysis of game design. Everything the player does is tracked and put through some basic analysis to see how to make the games more sticky for the players. The end goal for these companies is to drive sales and most design decisions lead back to this core goal.

Users are often subjected to A/B testing to see what works best – this happens almost daily. The best design (most clicked or other similar measurement) is then put into the game until another approach is found and that is A/B tested.

Wired has a great look into Wooga and their approach to design:

The result is a rigorous process that practically automates the creation of a social game, and maximises each title’s chance of success. “We A/B test everything, we optimise everything,” says Stephanie Kaiser, a lead game designer. “In the product department, it’s very simple,” says Thorbjörn Warin, a former employee. “They have all of their KPIs [key performance indicators] and metrics. It’s really, ‘This week, we focus on nothing but retention, let’s identify ten activities that can increase that.’ In the first 60 seconds of Monster World, there are 13 to 15 tracking points. For a new user, when they start playing, every three or four seconds, Stephanie and Jens can see what is happening. Usually something has to be improved, and that’s when creativity comes in.” Wooga’s users don’t just play a game; they design it.


Monster World launched in April 2010. But it soon stalled, with only 300,000 daily active users by August (wooga considers one million users the minimum mark of success). “It was not growing virally and it was not a success at all,” says Kaiser. The team focused on three topics: engagement, virality and monetisation, and went to work on the first. Kaiser began with the “user funnel”; she studied 38,863 users who began the game tutorial one week, to see where they dropped off. “A 1.3 percent drop is unacceptable and the game is optimised accordingly,” she says. When such a loss was identified, Kaiser’s team would develop two solutions, put them both live as an A/B test, and find out which performed better. And so on across every part of the game. It worked. On November 16, Monster World reached a million daily active users. “What we learned was that you could really turn a game around post-launch,” says Begemann. “It had always been my belief, but that’s the first time we really proved it, by doing nothing else other than A/B testing, and of course being creative. Four months after launch, that’s when some companies would have given up.”

With this larger user base established, wooga “switched on the monetisation”. Monster World offers several ways for a user to pay to customise their game. But two-thirds of wooga’s revenues come not from these adornments, which account for around only two percent of total sales, but from the items that turbo-charge a player’s progress in the game: magic wands, which harvest crops instantly (240 wands cost 480 Facebook credits, worth roughly £76), and “woogoo”, which produces several other items of value. These may sound whimsical, but “a feature has to be driven by metrics, it can’t just be cool,” says Kaiser.

Is this a bad thing? Well, before Zynga and Wooga made it big on Facebook Jonathan Blow was critiquing their core design philosophy of retention (and later monetization) as the primary goal:

Is metrics-driven design inherently a good or bad approach?

Read Test. Test. Test: How wooga turned the games business into a science at Wired.



January 9th, 2012 by Adam

Once Upon

Once Upon is an art project that took modern popular websites and rebuilt them as if they were designed in 1997. Google+, YouTube, and Facebook are all rebuilt to reflect a design psychology from 97 and are best viewed using Netscape Navigator 4.

Of course, if any of these sites were built back then they would’ve failed for various reasons.

Lucky for us the artists created an absolutely odd film of people drinking beer while surfing the internet:



December 20th, 2011 by Adam

Some Tiny Thoughts on Tiny Tower

Tiny Tower by NimbleBit has been on the app store best sellers list for some time now and only recently did I try it out. The game is clearly influenced by so-called social (Facebook) games and directly takes some mechanics from Facebook games for monetization, the question that always comes to my head when playing gaes like this: which came first, the plan for the game or the plan for how to make money.

Either way, a good free to play game focuses on the play experience first and foremost. Only after the primary game elements have been figured out should the pay mechanics be factored in.* Essentially one should be able to play the entire game and enjoy it without ever paying a cent. The games that dont do that end up not being played for a long time or die in the market place.

What about Tiny Tower then?

Tiny Tower is similar to SimTower in that you build a skyscraper and you manage a couple resources as you build it. Tiny Tower is really simple when it comes to what you manage: money.

The money in Tiny Tower is handled like most freemium games with a ‘hard’ and a ‘soft’ currency. You can earn both in game, but the as always the soft currency is easier to get. Other than currency the only thing I felt I should care about was the happiness of my 8-bit tenants. Their happiness doesn’t matter because it’s not related to anything meaningful.

The game gets repetitive – and fast.

Somewhere in-between building floors 10-20 you’ve experienced everything the game can provide. This gives the player little incentive to keep playing, indeed the only thing that will likely keep people going is how many friends are also playing the game (thus the social aspect), but even that is unrewarding.

The only thing that kept me playing as long as I did was the theme of the 8-bit world and their tongue in cheek tone throughout the game. For example, instead of Facebook the game has BitBook that provides insight into the tenants.

It turns out that Tiny Tower is getting missions and soon. Perhaps I’ll update the game and try playing it again.

*I am fully aware that there are always exceptions. There should be or talking about games would get boring fast.



November 12th, 2011 by Adam
%d bloggers like this: