游戏邦注：本文作者是心理学博士杰米·马迪根（Jamie Madigan），他在文中列出了影响年度最佳游戏评选的五大心理因素。

去年12月，游戏界媒体又将一群业内人士召集到了一块，让大家评选2010年度最佳游戏，结果不出所料，大家当然还是为了说服对方认同自己的观点而相互争持不下。

之前我还是GameSpy.com的创意小组成员时，我们经常关在一间会议室里，为了评选出年度最佳游戏冠军，而不得不围绕一款大型游戏的微小细节进行长达数小时的争论。

我还注意到GotY在GianBomb.com网站上关于游戏评选的争论内容，这些评委看起来也不轻松，经过整整一周每天长达数小时的辩论，才最终敲定了入围游戏名单。

我觉得这种现象很有趣，如果评委们自己意识到了心理因素对评选结果所产生的负面影响，应该就会采取行动避免这种情况发生。下文是我所总结的影响2010年游戏评选过程的五大心理因素：

Need for Speed:Hot Pursuit

1.差异认知偏差（The Distinction Bias）

许多年度游戏评选过程，比如说“最佳XX类游戏”最后总会有两个竞争对手打成平局，这种游戏评审过程就变成了一场拉锯战，这两款游戏的优缺点都会在此时被放大讨论，这就是差异认知偏差所产生的影响。

这个时候，人们就会采用两种评估模式来判断游戏的优缺点：一是综合评估，二是独立评估。在同时比较大量游戏时，采用综合评估方式比较管用，如果是评价单款游戏时使用的就是后面一种模式。

采用综合评估模式时，我们就很可能会过度强调考察对象之间的微小差异。比如说提到《Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit》和《Gran Turismo 5》这两者究竟谁更无愧于年度最佳赛车游戏的称号，我们就可能过份批评前者的低帧频，但如果单独评估这款游戏时，就可能完全察觉不到这个缺点。另外，通过综合评估模式，我们也更容易夸大弱者的弱点，但如果不通过这种直接的对比，我们根本就不会有这种倾向。

如果非要评出一个冠军来的话，这种方式可能会适合GotY的游戏评选，这也是打破两强争霸这种僵局的最佳方法。但如果一堆作品中有两款游戏风格极其相似，新的麻烦又来了。

如果你想从三个入围的强者中筛选出最佳游戏，就极可能对其中最相似的两者进行对比（排除劣势者）。因为这种差异认知偏差的心理在作怪，被淘汰者可能会被贬得更低，即使它其实比另一款非同类的游戏更出色，也完全有可能被挤出入围榜单。

2.社会认同和从众心理（Social Proof and Groupthink）

这两者是互有关联的独立心理作用，我之前曾提到社会认同是指，人们有些时候会为了迎合集体标准，而去承认一些其实有违自己想法的观点。

社会心理学家所罗门·阿希（Soloman Asch）曾做过一个试验，就是在一个实验人群中安插人数更多的托儿，让这些托儿坚持说服实验对象相信，一条短绳比另一条长绳更长（游戏邦注：这两条绳子的长短差距不大，但一般人都能用肉眼准确判断出两者区别），结果发现大部分实验对象都受到托儿的影响，被动承认了这个错误的结论。

在政治或游戏投票表决上，这种倾向就更明显了，因为这是一群陌生人在讨论一个比较难以界定正确与否的议题，所以当占压倒性优势的一群人首先跳出来指出，《魔兽世界：大灾变》（World of Warcraft: Cataclysm）是年度最佳角色扮演类游戏时，其他人就会默认了，尽管这款游戏从许多方面来看，其实并非独一无二的佳作。

另一个就是从众心理，在一个关系紧密、富有组织的团队中，会有许多人为了维护团队稳定，确保集体和谐，而选择附合大家的意见。在这种情况下，《魔兽世界：大灾变》就有可能再次全票当选，因为多数人都不愿意成为败兴的家伙，破坏成员间的友谊。

我认为要消除这两种心理因素的影响，首先得开个玩笑，打趣说双方成员根本就是互有敌意，得借此机会舌战一番，说个明白。这就给双方制造了相互质疑的机会，有利于更严谨地分析、考察游戏作品的优劣。

3.过度强调事物特征（Over-Emphasizing Salient Features）

地位卑微、身份渺小的人企求别人认同自己观点的时候，总会尽量提供最能证明这个论据的解释和理由，片面强调这方面的内容。

比如说，问到你为什么认为《死亡救赎》（Red Dead Redemption）是2010年度最佳动作类游戏时，你可能就会极力去强调这款游戏的动作类元素，认为它的武器装备实在是很强大，所以它应该摘走这个奖项。

但实际上，这些游戏最明显的特征很可能并非你推崇它的原因。在我看来，比起《死亡救赎》中的其他游戏设置，武器装备实在不能算是什么非凡的创意。

在GotY的评选讨论过程中也出现了这种情况，因为这些专业的游戏爱好者很讨厌使用“有趣”、“强大”、“优秀”等暧昧不清的陈词滥调来形容一款游戏（即便这些有点庸俗的字眼其实真的很适合描述该游戏），所以他们就会绞尽脑汁去找其他的论据，最后就不免陷入过度强调游戏某个特征的争执中。

4.先入为主的认知偏误（Confirmation bias）

这是GotY评选过程中的一个大问题。认知偏误是指一般人都会忽视或者看轻那些与我们的设想、看法不一样的信息，但会很重视、强调那种与自己观点一致的内容。

在评选2010年最佳下载游戏时，如果你认为《周一格斗之夜》（Monday Night Combat）会胜出，那么相对其他人而言，你更容易记住它的优点，宽容它的缺点（游戏邦注：比如地图功能的局限性）。更重要的是，你很可能会认为它是瑕不掩瑜，优点完全盖过了缺点。

要解决这种心理倾向，最好的办法就是允许异见相左的人挑战你的观点，你们进行一番辩论。如果能够根据别人提供的意见，详细罗列出该游戏的优缺点，你对这款游戏就会有更全面的认识。

5.近因效应和首因效应（The Recency/Primacy Effect）

近因效应主要表现为，我们很容易记住最近发生的事情（尤其是重要事件），或者一系列事件中的最后一个环节。

首因效应与此类似，是指发生在某段时间的开头事件让人印象最深刻，介于这两种效应之间其他事件，就很容易被人遗忘。

这种效应在GotY的入围游戏名单上表现得很明显：在研究去年发行的游戏时，你很容易首先想起年初和年末的作品，但对其他的游戏却没啥印象。

与此相同的是，我们也很容易回忆起最近玩过的游戏的相关细节（比如《Call of Duty: Black Ops》），或者年初时玩过的游戏（如《Bayonetta》），但回忆2010年中期发行的其他游戏（如《Splinter Cell: Conviction》）时却很费劲。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，转载请注明来源：游戏邦）

The Psychology of Games: Those Darn Game Of The Year Debates

[Continuing his regular look at game-related psychology issues, Jamie Madigan looks at the psychological biases and quirks that may rear their head during those interminable Game of the Year debates.]

Ah, late December. The time when the gaming press gets its members together and tries to convince each other that one awesome game is more awesome than other awesome games – also known as the Game of the Year Awards.

When I worked as part of the creative team on GameSpy.com we would lock ourselves in a conference room and argue literally for hours about the minutia surrounding every big title released that year in order to generate our awards.

I’m also listening attentively to the GotY content over on GiantBomb.com, which is dedicating a full week of multi-hour podcasts to the raw debates that generated its lists.

These podcasts are interesting to me because I keep seeing well established psychological phenomenon coming up, but almost as interesting is when a psychological quirk doesn’t manifest itself because the guys seem to be aware of its danger to the process and have taken steps to avoid it.

So in this post I present my list of 2010′s Top 5 Biases That Affect 2010 Game of the Year Discussions. Sponsored by Crest Whitening Tooth Strips (not really):

5.The Recency/Primacy Effect

The recency effect describes how it’s often easier for us to recall more information (and more salient information) about things that have happened more recently or items towards the end of a list.

Similarly, the primacy effect means the same thing for items at the beginning of a list or that happened towards the beginning of an established time frame. Between the two of these effects, stuff in the middle tends to get forgotten or muddled.

The impact on GotY lists should be apparent: If you’re studying a list of games released in the last year, it’s going to be easier to recall stuff about the first and last few games.

We’re also more likely to recall details about games we played more recently (like Call of Duty: Black Ops) or earlier in the year (like Bayonetta). Details and memories of games released toward the middle of the year (like Splinter Cell: Conviction) might not come to mind as easily.

4. Confirmation Bias

This is a big one for GotY discussions. Confirmation bias is our tendency to ignore or downplay information that dis-confirms our preconceived decisions or opinions and to pay more attention to and emphasize information that confirms them.

If you go into a discussion of the Best Downloadable Game of 2010 thinking that Monday Night Combat should win, you’re less likely to think about its flaws (e.g., limited maps, repetitive comments from the announcer) and more likely to remember its strengths (e.g., class balance, fun character design) relative to someone who didn’t hold the same assumption. What’s more, you’ll probably say that the pros are more important to weighting your decision than the cons.

Good ways to combat this are to get in the mindset of allowing people to challenge your assumptions and engaging in debate. It can also be helpful to list out the pros/cons (with help from others) so that you see them laid out and from a different perspective.

3. Over-Emphasizing Salient Features

I wrote at length about this concept earlier, but here’s the quick version: When puny humans are asked to justify a decision, we tend to focus on the most salient or plausible explanations and then give them too much weight.

To repeat my example from the previous article: if asked to explain why you favor Red Dead Redemption for the Best Action Game of the 2010, you may think about what should be included in the checklist for evaluating an action game, come up with ‘the weapons,’ and then feel compelled to award or take away credit for how the game’s weapons feel and work.

The problem is, the most salient and plausible factors may not be the ones that are really responsible for how much you enjoy the game. The weapons in Red Dead Redemption are, in my opinion, largely unremarkable ‘the game’s appeal lies almost entirely in other areas and any weight given to how cool the weapons are is inappropriate at best.

I keep seeing this come up in GotY discussions because professional game enthusiasts tend to hate using vague, worn out descriptors like ‘fun’ or ‘awesome’ or ‘polished’ even though those words may be perfectly appropriate if a bit mundane. But these Internet auteurs are determined to have something more descriptive to say, so they cast about for something else and end up falling for the trap described above.

2. Social Proof and Groupthink

This one is kind of a twofer since social proof and groupthink are separate but related. Again, I’ve written about social proof before, and the idea is that we will sometimes accept proclamations that are clearly at odds with our own senses just because we often have a desire to conform to the group’s standards.

Soloman Asch showed this in a classic study where he got people to say that a long line was shorter than a short line simply by having someone planted in the group who would immediately pipe up and say so.

The effect is even stronger with a group of strangers and statements with a less clearly defined correct answer, such as politics or game of the year awards. Which is why someone may not speak up when others in the group immediately jump on World of Warcraft: Cataclysm as the Best Role-Playing Game of the year, even though by most reasonable definitions — being an expansion pack –it’s not a standalone game.

The flipside is groupthink, which is when members of a cohesive, established group will ignore information, abstain from critical debate and accept otherwise questionable decisions in order to minimize conflict and maintain warm fuzzies. So again, Cataclysm might win, because so-and-so can be such a pedantic jackass about it and nobody wants to harsh the vibe or destroy the atmosphere of friendly discussion.

One way I keep seeing these two biases being disarmed from the start is by joking among the debaters about how they hate each other and how they anticipate rancorous arguments. This sets the stage that it’s okay – expected, even – to question each others’ decisions and engage in critical analysis.

1. The Distinction Bias

Many Game Of The Year debates in categories like ‘Best [Genre] Game’ come down to two similar contenders, resulting in protracted discussions where the merits of each candidate are obsessively scrutinized. This is a recipe for what’s known as the distinction bias.

The idea comes from a theory that people engage in two modes of evaluation when pondering the merits of an experience: joint evaluation and single evaluation mode. The former is done when comparing multiple things at once and the latter when evaluating something individually.

The distinction bias describes how when operating in joint evaluation mode we tend to over-emphasize and over weight otherwise slight differences between the subjects. If debating Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit and Gran Turismo 5 for Driving Game of the Year, we may make a bigger deal about Hot Pursuit’s lower frame rate than we would have if we were evaluating the game by itself. As a result, when operating in this comparison mode we tend to think worse of the loser than we would have if we had evaluated it without resorting to direct comparisons.

This is perhaps acceptable in GotY debates when we HAVE to pick a winner – it’s often the fine details that act as tie breakers. But the trouble may come when you have a mix of different types of games where two of them are similar.

If you aim to trim the initial list to a set of three finalists, a tempting place to start is by comparing the most similar games (c.f., elimination by alternatives). Because of the distinction bias, the loser in that comparison may end up being evaluated worse than before and may end up getting cut from the list even though it was better than the non-similar games.

So there you have it. Five psychological phenomena that drive game of the year debates. Go listen to your favorite GotY podcast and see if you can catch them in action. If you do, post about it in the comments section!（source:gamasutra）