作者：Jill Duffy

尽管游戏开发者可能未曾听说过，但是学术界对电子游戏确实进行了大量的调查，而且对象不仅仅局限于游戏对玩家来说是好还是坏。在2006年游戏开发者大会（游戏邦注：下文简称“GDC”）的最后一天里，Ian Bogost、Jane McGonigal和Mia Consalvo三位学者公布了2004年和2005年期间开展的10项调查项目，其结果可能会影响游戏开发者思考和制作游戏的方法。

佐治亚理工学院副教授Ian Bogost、俄亥俄州立大学副教授Mia Consalvo以及加州大学伯克利分校博士生Jane McGonigal在会上阐述了10个最重要的调查研究。

他们觉得对游戏开发者最有价值的10项调查项目是：

1、游戏的成败如何影响玩家的参与度？

2、开发者如何结合语言和变化的情感来呈现面部表情？

3、眼睛追踪设备等其他控制器能否提供比鼠标控制更为有趣的PC游戏体验？

4、网游中的玩家交流存在何种策略？游戏能够为这些策略提供更好的支持吗？

5、现有的玩家控制视角能够使用何种创新型的游戏设计？

6、游戏玩家是否像开发者（游戏邦注：或其他玩家）预想的那样在游戏中作弊？

7、其他玩家的存在感能否提高网游的真实性？

8、手势控制器很有趣，但它们确实对游戏可玩性有益处吗？

9、玩家对语音聊天及其在游戏可玩性中的作用有何看法？

10、音乐如何影响玩家对游戏的感受？

学者们另外还提了项调查，就是“游戏开发者应当如何设计旁观者和玩家体验？”

第10项调查由格拉斯哥卡利多尼亚大学的G. Cassidy等人开展，他们发现高情绪化的音乐与玩家对游戏的感受并没有联系。然而，当玩家可以自行挑选播放的音乐时，他们在游戏中成功的可能性会增加，而且对游戏行为的情感反应也更为强烈。McGonigal总结道：“音乐不仅关乎情绪影响或游戏世界的构建，它们也会影响到玩家的成功与否。”她说道，开发者应当认真考虑如何以及何时使用游戏音乐来支持或挑战玩家。

第9项调查来源于墨尔本大学的K. Hew、M. R. Gibbs和G. Wadley，他们关注的是玩家觉得扰人的听觉反馈，比如噪音、他们不希望听到的话语和拙劣的对话。换句话说，差劲的语音聊天设计会影响到玩家的社交意愿，破坏语音聊天最初的目标。Consalvo解释称，调查参与者会慢慢适应周围使人分心的噪音，但是当声音变得过于恼人时，他们通常都会马上摘下耳机。如果开发者想要使用语音聊天，她建议最好能够使用符合游戏的独特方式。

第8项调查来自佐治亚理工学院的S. Griffin，他们讨论的是周边设备或新型控制器（游戏邦注：如用于玩《吉他英雄》的吉他和尚未发布的任天堂Revolution的游戏手柄）等实物界面的优点和缺点。Bogost解释称，从理论上来说，这些设备应该能够推动玩家做出于屏幕上相同的姿势。标准游戏手柄通过玩家身体某部分的移动（游戏邦注：如用手指按动按键）来控制屏幕上的移动（游戏邦注：即游戏对按动按键的回应），而这些新型控制器需要玩家动用整个身体，移动象征性有所下降。然而，当屏幕上的动作复杂且富有象征性时，简单的按键按动的效果却更好。Bogost建议游戏开发者应当利用此项研究来考虑姿势控制和象征控制间的平衡性问题。

手势控制器对玩法的影响(from gamasutra)

第7项调查的实施者是克利夫兰州立大学的C. Campanella Bracken等人，他们尝试了Xbox Live上的《光晕2》、《城市英雄》和《无尽的任务》。McGonigal总结称，他们发现了协作是情感粘性的强大推动力。调查结果显示，对那些每周至少玩12小时游戏的玩家来说，单人游戏并不会让玩家感觉到强烈的存在感。而玩家间的协作恰恰能让人产生最为强烈的存在感，这意味着，当玩家与其他玩家合作以实现目标时，他们会产生巨大的社群感。

玩家在集体中更易形成存在感(from gamasutra)

斯坦福大学的个性和社会心理学部分的D. Miller等人开展了第6项研究。Consalvo说道，尽管他们的调查内容并不包含游戏，但是得出结果可以应用与游戏设计中。研究将观察者置于学生正在参加考试的房间中。当观察者被告知某个学生有很大可能性在考试中作弊时，观察者就会声称他们见到那个学生作弊或者有作弊的嫌疑，而实际上调查人员已在考试前告知这个学生不要作弊。Consalvo说道，在游戏行业中，开发者可以通过此项研究认识到感知的重要性。他说道：“对于多人游戏的公平性而言，感知通常比现实更为重要。”

Michael Nitsche在佐治亚理工学院开展了第5项研究，他关注的是玩家控制的镜头。Bogost声称，尽管玩家控制镜头的互动等同于电影镜头，但是这种做法（游戏邦注：比如使用狙击枪时的镜头）在游戏中的运用日益稀少。在调查的阐述中，Bogost还提到了《GoldenEye》、《Siren》、《毁灭战士》和《Fatal Frame II》等游戏，并分析其镜头设置。

芬兰奥卢大学的T. Manninen和T. Kujanpaa在开展第4项调查时关注的游戏是《战地1942》。McGonigal强烈推荐开发者完整阅读Manninen和Kujanpaa的文章，尤其关注其调查的领域。这项研究提供的数据表明玩家如何在游戏中搜集线索，调查者发现玩家希望以游戏还未提供支持的方式进行交流。玩家想要以游戏机制未曾提供支持的方法与队友合作。比如，玩家无法在游戏中用肢体动作给其他玩家发出信号。他们也无法采用暴力冲突之外的方式与其他玩家互动。McGonigal注意到，玩家发明的工作区战略（游戏邦注：比如用武器而不是手来指明方向）依然受到限制。因为玩家已经发明了这些新型的交流方式，因而McGonigal认为开发者需要开发支持功能来满足他们的需求。

瑞典皇家理工学院的Erika Jonsson开展了第3项研究，他发现当玩家使用研究追踪设备来配合鼠标控制时，他们能从《半条命》中体验到更多的乐趣。Consalvo说道：“使用眼睛追踪设备是个绝妙的方法，有证据表明这是个很有效的功能。”研究参与者在使用眼睛追踪设备时能够在游戏中获得更高的分数。

第2项研究来自于加州大学洛杉矶分校的Y. Cao和南加州大学的W. Tien、P. Faloustos和F. Pighin，这是项受情绪影响而产生的面部表情在言语中的应用的技术性研究。Bogost说道，言语改变面部表情在游戏中很普遍，但是人们在不同情感状态下的外观言语也会有所不同，因而如果面部表情能够与情感和言语相符，就能够更令人印象深刻，而且更具真实性。Bogost声称，开发者或许可以尝试手动指定情感内容或尝试使用支持向量模型来定义基于脚本的情感内容。

游戏成败对玩家粘性的影响(from gamasutra)

失败对玩家来说也非常重要，这便是赫尔辛基商业学院的Niklas Ravaj等人调查后得出的结果。他们使用游戏《超级猴子球2》为调查对象，研究玩家在游戏中的成功与失败对参与度的影响。McGonigal将他们的发现称为“违反直觉的理论”，声称参与者遭遇主动失败时比成功更为高兴和兴奋。然而，被动的失败却会影响玩家对游戏的参与度。所以，开发者规划出可能出现的失败（游戏邦注：包括主动和被动）都对玩家的游戏感受有显著的影响。McGonigal说道：“有时玩家在游戏中表现得很糟糕并不碍事，看到猴子升入太空总会让人产生某种满足感。”

游戏邦注：本文发稿于2006年3月30日，所涉时间、事件和数据均以此为准。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

GDC: Top 10 Video Game Research Findings

Jill Duffy

“How do game events marking success versus failure affect a player’s level of engagement?” The answer to this question marked the “number one” piece of research done in game studies, say Ian Bogost, Jane McGonigal, and Mia Consalvo.

Though game developers don’t often hear much about it, there’s a breadth of research taking place in academia that examines video games—and not just whether games are good or bad for the players. On the final day of the 2006 Game Developers Conference, three academics presented ten research projects from 2004 and 2005 whose findings could impact the way game creators think about and make games.

Ian Bogost, assistant professor at Georgia Institute of Technology, Mia Consalvo, associate professor at Ohio State University, and Jane McGonigal, a PhD candidate at the University of California, Berkeley convened to decide which research would make the top ten cut.

Although the research they considered was not initially limited to the sciences, they opted to leave out work done in humanities departments simply because it was not quantified and thus not easily presentable in the 60-minute time slot afforded to GDC sessions. McGonigal even called the presentation a “rapid-fire top ten countdown,” in reference to the four- to five-minute intervals in which each complex work of research was presented.

The top 10 research projects they find most valuable to game developers (followed below by a brief synopsis of the relevant findings) asked:

10. How does music impact a player’s effectiveness?

9. What do players really think about voice chat and its usefulness in gameplay?

8. Gestural and embodied controllers are fun—but are they good for gameplay?

7. Does the presence of other players make an online game more or less immersive?

6. Are game players cheating as much as developers (and other players) think they are?

5. What innovative game design uses exist for player-controlled cameras?

4. What strategies do gamers invent to communicate to other players in online games, and can games be better designed to support these strategies?

3. Can alternative controllers, like eye tracking devices, offer a PC gaming experience that is more fun and involving than mouse control?

2. How can developers generate facial animation that combines speech and variable emotion?

1. How do game events marking success versus failure affect a player’s level of engagement?

The presenters also half-jokingly included a “number zero” research study that asks, “How do game developers design for spectators as well as player experience?”

Number 10, by G. Cassidy et al., Glasgow Caledonia University, found the high emotional impact of music did not correlate to player effectiveness. However, when players picked their own soundtracks, their ability to succeed in the game increased and they become more emotionally responsive to the activity as well. McGonigal summarizes that “game music is not just about emotional impact or world-building. … Player success actually hangs on it.” Developers should consider thoughtfully how and when they use game music to support or challenge players, she says.

Number 9, by K. Hew, M. R. Gibbs, and G. Wadley of The University of Melbourne, uncovered aural feedback that players actually found disruptive, such as noise, speech not intended for them, and trash talk. Poor voice chat usability, in other words, hinders the players’ attempts to be social, subverting the very goal of voice chat. Consalvo explains that the research participants slowly could adapt to the ambient and distracting noises, but usually removed their headsets when the sounds became “too troublesome.” If developers choose to use voice chat, she advises it be targeted in a way that’s very specific to the game.

Number 8, by S. Griffin, The Georgia Institute of Technology, discusses the advantages and disadvantages of having more physical interfaces, most notably peripheral or novelty controllers, such as the guitar used to play Guitar Hero or the as-yet unreleased joypad for Nintendo’s forthcoming Revolution. Bogost explains that these devices should, theoretically, drive the player to reflect the same gestures being performed on screen. Unlike standard joypads, which abstract the movement of the player’s body (pressing buttons with fingers) from the movement on the screen (button-pressing responses), controllers that take into account the player’s own physical body and motions are less symbolic. However, simple button-pressing works best when the actions on screen are themselves complex and symbolic. Bogost suggests game developers use this research to question the “balance between a gestural control and a symbolic control.”

Using multi-player games such as Halo 2 for Xbox Live, City of Heroes, and EverQuest, the researchers of Number 7, C. Campanella Bracken et al. of Cleveland State University, discovered that “collaboration is an extremely powerful driver of emotional stickiness,” says McGonigal. The findings indicate (of gamers who played at least 12 hours per week) that players depersonalize their adversaries and do not feel a strong personal awareness of them. Player collaboration, on the other hand, resulted in the strongest sense of presence, meaning when gamers work together with other gamers, that’s when they have the greatest sense of community awareness.

D. Miller et al. of Stanford University’s department of Personality and Social Psychology conducted the number 6 study. Although their work did not involve games, says Consalvo, the findings are straightforward enough to be transferable. The study placed observers into a room where young students were administered an exam. When the observers were informed that particular students had a high probability of cheating, the observers reported that they saw the students cheat or saw potential for the student to cheat, even though the student was instructed by the researchers to not cheat. In the game industry, developers can learn from this study the importance of perception, says Consalvo. “Perceptions are often more important than realism for fairness in multiplayer games.”

Michael Nitsche, who conducted the number 5 study at Georgia Institute of Technology, looked at player-controlled cameras. Although player-controlled cameras are the interactive equivalent of cinematic montage, its use in games as such is rare, says Bogost, who cites the “sniper” camera angle as an example. Bogost claims that Nitsche’s research shows why points of view have meaning inside of the gameplay experience. Other games Bogost mentions as examples are GoldenEye (sniper), Siren (“sight-jacking”), Doom (overhead), and Fatal Frame II (third-person fixed perspective).

T. Manninen and T. Kujanpaa of University of Oulu, Finland, in the number 4 study looked at Battlefield 1942. McGonigal, strongly suggesting that developers read Manninen and Kujanpaa’s work in its entirety, is particularly fascinated by their area of research. This ethnographic study compiled data on how players gave cues to one another in the game and found players wanted to communicate in ways that the game did not support. Players wanted to coordinate with their teammates in ways that were not supported by the game mechanics. For example, players were unable to gesture to one another or make other non-verbal cues. They also could not interact with other players without violent physical contact. McGonigal notes that the workaround strategies players invent, such as pointing with weapons instead of pointing with hands or arms, are still limiting. Because players are already inventing ways to communicate in these alternative ways, McGonigal says developers need to seriously explore these possibilities to better meet their needs.

Number 3, conducted by Erika Jonsson at the Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, found players enjoyed playing Half-Life more when they used an eye-tracking device combined with their mouse control. “Use of eye-tracking could be a successful addition to your game, provided it has a useful function and is properly play-tested,” says Consalvo. Participants in the study actually earned higher scores in the game when they used the eye-tracking device.

Number 2, out of the University of California, Los Angeles (Y. Cao) and University of Southern California (W. Tien , P. Faloustos, F. Pighin), was a technical study of emotionally influenced facial animation used for speech. Speech-driven faces are common in games, says Bogost, but people look and speak differently under different emotional states, so the faces would be more expressive and embody realism better if the animation matched both the variable emotion as well as the speech. Bogost notes that developers may try manually specifying emotional content or try using a support vector machine to identify emotional content based on a script.

Failure is remarkably important to game players. That’s what Niklas Ravaj et al. from the Helsinki School of Economics found when they compiled their research. Using the game Super Monkey Ball 2 for GameCube, they examined how player success and failure affected the player’s level of engagement. McGonigal calls their findings “counter-intuitive,” noting the participants felt more pleasure and excitement in active failure than in success. Passive failures, on the other hand, leave players feeling less engaged. So the ways in which developers make failure possible—either active or passive—will have a significant effect on how players receive the game. “It didn’t matter that within the game [the players] were doing really terribly,” says McGonigal. “There’s a certain satisfaction of sending a monkey into space.” (Source: Gamasutra)