游戏邦注：本文原作者是调查研究博士兼游戏设计师卢卡斯·布莱尔（Lucas Blair），他做了个学术研究，制定出了几个设计游戏成就系统的优化方案，全文总共三个章节，以下是第一章内容（点击此处阅读第二章、第三章内容）。

在游戏领域，成就系统是一个热点话题。 玩家对成就系统的反应从痴迷到冷漠各不相同， 而设计者在成就系统的运用观点上也颇有分歧。 无论是否有争议，成就系统的问题就摆在眼前了，所以游戏设计者必须学习如何把成就系统的潜力发挥到极致。为了让成就系统在游戏中发挥积极作用，就必须在游戏设计过程中深谋远虑，而不是事后再补缺补漏。

在许多情况下，成就系统总是在游戏接近完工时才被随随便便地夹塞到游戏中。一个精心制作的游戏机制却带着个这个粗制滥造的成就系统，悲剧就是这么发生的。

如果设计成就系统能像设计游戏的其他环节一样扎实认真，它也可以提升玩家的游戏体验和游戏的综合素质。

成就系统的设计指导，应当是涵盖广泛的论题、确定的科学研究。卢卡斯·布莱尔在本文通过解析如何在游戏中设置成就系统，与各位开发者分享游戏成就设计特点的分类标准。

标准分类的目的是从设计中总结出成就系统的作用机制。研究表明，成就系统会影响玩家的行动表现、积极性和态度。

虽然作者打算把这个分类标准说得广泛全面一些，但他认为这个观点以后很可能遭到争议并且面临修正。不过就目前来看，如果设计师打算有效地利用成就系统的潜力，暂且可以认为这是一个不错的讨论起点。

他的观点涉及以下概念：

评价成就

完成成就

乏味任务和趣味任务

成就难度

目标取向

评估成就VS. 完成成就

分类标准的第一部分是对比评估成就和完成成就，此二者描述的是两个不同的情况，根据这两个情况来奖励玩家的行动。

评估成就是给那些完成某个级别任务的玩家提供奖励。可以通过对照其他玩家的表现、他们自己的表现或是游戏设计者设定的标准来评价玩家表现。

我们以《愤怒的小鸟》中的星级为例。在这款游戏中，玩家是凭借自己的游戏表现获得星星。评估成就好比是一种反馈机制，因为它实际上是对玩家表现的一种评价。有关训练和教育反馈的研究资料表明，因为反馈能反映玩家在自我设定目标中的表现，所以这种反馈对玩家来说大有裨益。

这种反馈增加了玩家的胜任意识，随之激发了玩家的内在动机（游戏邦注：intrinsic motivation——个体发展的一种内在的愿望，渴望去做某件事情，并且很自然地认为做某件事是有益的）。增加胜任意识可以平衡某些消极影响，例如因滥用奖励而减少了玩家的内在动机。

另一方面，胜任意识并没有告诉玩家他们在任务中的表现如何，而只是在玩家完成任务后就给予奖励。胜任意识可以分为两个子类：偶然成就和必然成就（performance contingent achievements 和non-performance contingent achievements）。偶然成就是个技术活，而必然成就可在游戏过程中自动获得。

在《魔兽世界》中，玩家首次完成地下城的任务才能获得相应成就，偶然成就的获得与此类似。回顾下我们刚才提到的一个说法——用获得奖励来刺激玩家的内在动机，这样可以更好地理解这个偶然成就的概念。有一些激励设置在玩家的任务表现里发挥了重要的积极作用。然而，这种类型的奖励可能减少玩家的自主性，特别是被滥用时，内在动机也随之减少。

奖励也为玩家在奖励临界值时的表现制造了一个人为上限。一旦玩家获得了这个成就奖励，他们的就不太可能继续这种任务。对游戏开发者而言，这种情况就体现为游戏的重玩价值。奖励使得玩家趋向保守，因为他们不想失去奖励的机会。特别是在电子游戏里，游戏设计者鼓励玩家带着创新精神和实验精神玩游戏。

必然成就的获得，就像参与某个游戏事件然后获得一枚徽章或者一只宠物。这对玩家的内在动机就没有什么负面影响。然而，因为这种类型的奖励实在缺乏评估标准，所以玩家不太可能乐衷于这些奖励，除非这与加强游戏社交联系有关。

优化方案：替换完成成就，用评估成就的反馈作用来刺激玩家的内在动机。

乏味任务VS.趣味任务

完成成就要靠完成一个任务或一系列任务。从玩家的角度看，这是一个经历一系列无聊和刺激的游戏过程。乏味任务获得的成就和趣昧任务获得的成就是不同的。

乏味任务（例如MMO游戏中的贸易技能）可以与外在动机配对，这种任务的成就设置是为了玩家能参与其中。因为玩家不想接手这种任务，奖励也无法刺激玩家的内在动机。

激发玩家参与乏味任务的常规策略有两种。第一种是通过成就的描述，让玩家意识到这种任务的内在价值。

以《致命捕捞：混乱海域》中的“救生员成就”为例，救出船员的人将获此成就。救生员这个词暗示了该任务的重要性，因为这意味着玩家是在救援他人。

第二个是增加任务本身的额外规则或设想。这个方法在所有成就的大部分基础级别中均有应用。

趣味任务不需要其他形式的动机、奖励或者欺骗性描述，玩家也乐意参与其中。所以这种成就（特别是完成成就）应该有节制地使用。

这种成就应该谨慎使用而非以此来增加游戏的人为乐趣，因为这样才能使玩家集中关注重要的任务技巧或策略。此外，通过任务策略提示，可以改善玩家的表现。

《星际争霸2》中的“The Flying Heal Bus”成就是个范例，这个成就帮助玩家更有效地使用某种特殊装置。

优化方案：奖励乏味任务，反馈有趣任务，达成有趣的任务成就。

成就难度

游戏设计者提出了两种成就难度。第一，成就的实际难度应该是玩家能达到但仍存在一定挑战性。第二，玩家在特定任务里应该有足够的自我效能（游戏邦注：self-efficacy是许多人对于自身能否完成特定任务的能力的认知，它可以将影响行动结果的因素转化为先行因素，对于行动发生效用）使之有信心尝试任务。

成就应该为玩家提供有挑战性的目标，成就难度如果适宜，玩家会在任务中表现中获得在更好的收益和更大的成就感。然而，如果达成成就的难度太大，玩家甚至不会去尝试；但三两下就搞定的低级成就，显然太没有挑战性。保持游戏任务趣味性的一般策略是，为操作熟练的玩家提供可选择的的任务目标。

玩家的自我效能是设计者需要考虑的另一个重要因素。因为自我效能与增加目标承诺、策略创新和使用以及增加对消极反馈的乐观反应有关，所以增强玩家的自我效能非常重要。

设计者可以通过满足四个因素来影响玩家的自我效能。第一个是相关学科的专业知识水平。游戏之所以能保证所有技术级别的玩家都有成就可以达成，这个因素是重要原因。

目睹周围人的成功，或者叫替代性经验（游戏邦注：vicarious experience，个体首先通过社会比较过程判断他人能力的高低，而后通过信息提供过程观察，并从他人的成功操作中获取有效的解决问题的策略），是第二个影响自我效能的因素。如果本身与成功者具有相当的能力，这种影响就会非常巨大。在线游戏的排行榜或者像OnLive系统中的“brags”就反映了这种影响作用。

社会劝导（给别人口头刺激）是第三个影响自我效能的因素。这种因素的作用形式非常简单，就像有人完成一个任务，听到“好样的！”或者《吉他英雄》中出现 “50 NOTE STREAK!”的信息。个人自我感觉是第四个因素。这个因素影响玩家的压力指数、情绪状态和生理状况。

优化方案：在玩家的表现和享受过程中，给予挑战性成就最大奖励。描述成就和设计交互作用增加玩家的自我效能。

目标取向

因为玩家的目标取向会影响玩家如何通过确定个人目标来体验游戏，所以在设计成就系统时，开发者就必须考虑到玩家的目标取向。有两种类型的目标取向，一般被称为成绩定向和掌握定向。喜欢成绩定向的玩家关注他人对自己表现的评价。而掌握定向型的玩家看重的是提升自己的熟练程度。

因为游戏中不断强调时间和分数这类直接目标，使得玩家往往倾向于成绩定向。可惜，倾向于这种类型的玩家很少冒险，也很少花时间来探索游戏，因为他们害怕这样会影响游戏得分。

这种情况在第一人称射击游戏中司空见惯。在这类游戏中，玩家反复使用同一种武器和策略，因为他们认为这就是最大化杀伤数的不二法宝。但研究表明，成绩定向型的玩家，往往只在非常简单的任务中表现得比较好。

为了平衡玩家的这种倾向，设计者必须积极设法在他们定下的目标和反馈中灌输掌握定向的思想。培养掌握定向的倾向有这么几个闪光点：

有这种倾向的玩家乐于接受错误并且敢于接受提高自身能力的挑战性任务；这类倾向的任务中玩家会有更高的自我效能，并且能利用更多有效的策略；研究还表明，掌握倾向型的玩家，能在复杂的任务里表现得更出色。

为了培养掌握定向的倾向，设计者应该创造也这么种成就——承认玩家做出的努力并且在挑战中支持这种努力。游戏应该把玩家做出的错误和失误当作对游戏的诊断性反馈和改进的鼓励。

为了有效地传达这种类型，成就的名称和描述非常重要。以《Heavy Rain》为例，“如此接近”战利品，这话是针对那些做出尝试但失败了的玩家。这句话可以看作是鼓励和认同玩家所做出的努力。

相反地，在《吉他英雄III》一个类似的成就，名为“Blowing It”，这个名称可能就让人觉得有些丧气。

优化方案：在鼓励创新和策略的困难任务中灌输掌握定向的思想。在简单和重复的任务中灌输成绩定向的思想。对于仍在学习怎么玩游戏的新玩家，应设法在掌握定向阶段留住他们。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，转载请注明来源：游戏邦）

The Cake Is Not a Lie: How to Design Effective Achievements

[In this first in a new series of articles, PhD researcher and game designer Lucas Blair uses academic research to formulate best practices for designing in-game achievements.]

Achievements are a hot topic in the gaming industry. Player feelings toward them range from obsession to indifference and designers seem equally torn over their use. Controversial or not, achievements appear to be here to stay, so designers need to learn to utilize them to their fullest potential. Achievements, if they are intended to have a positive effect on players, must be a forethought, and not an afterthought, during the game design process.

In many cases they are carelessly tacked on to a game after it is already close to completion. Unfortunately, the benefits of a carefully-crafted game mechanic can be undermined by attaching a poorly-designed achievement to it.

Alternatively, if achievements are designed in the same manner as other aspects of games, they can be used to improve the player’s experience and the overall quality of a game.

There is an established body of scientific study covering a wide range of topics, which should guide the design of achievements. In this article series, I will be sharing a taxonomy of achievement design features created by deconstructing how achievements are currently used in games.

The goal of this exercise is to distill mechanisms of action out of achievement designs, which have been shown by research to affect performance, motivation, and attitudes.

This taxonomy, although intended to be comprehensive, is likely to be subject to debate and future revisions. For the time being however, I think it is a good jumping off point for a discussion that must be had if we are to ever effectively harness the potential of achievements.

In part one I will be covering the following concepts:

Measurement Achievements

Completion Achievements

Boring vs. Interesting Tasks

Achievement Difficulty

Goal Orientation

Measurement vs. Completion Achievements

The first branch in the taxonomy contrasts Measurement and Completion achievements, which describe two distinct conditions under which we reward players for their actions.

Measurement achievements are given to players for completing a task to a certain degree. Their performance can be measured against another player’s performance, their own performance, or some standard set by game designers.

An example of this would be the star rating used in Angry Birds, which gives the player a number of stars based upon how well they beat the level. A measurement achievement can be likened to feedback, because it is evaluative in nature. The literature regarding the use of feedback in training and education indicates that feedback is beneficial to players because it allows them to reflect on their performance in relation to goals they have set for themselves.

This reflection increases the player’s perception of competence, which in turn increases, their intrinsic motivation — a term used to describe a task one finds inherently rewarding. That increase in perceived competence could also mediate the negative effects of other design decisions, like overusing rewards, which decrease intrinsic motivation.

On the other hand, completion achievements do not tell the player how well they’ve performed the task; instead they are offered as an award once a task is completed. Completion achievements can be split into two subcategories: performance contingent achievements and non-performance contingent achievements. Performance contingent achievements require skill to complete while non-performance contingent achievements are awarded for simply being present.

Performance contingent completion achievements, like those received for finishing a dungeon for the first time in World of Warcraft, can be better understood by reviewing what we know about the use of rewards as an extrinsic motivator. Some incentive programs have been shown to have a significant positive effect on task performance. However these types of rewards can decrease a player’s sense of autonomy, especially when given in excess. This decreased sense of autonomy leads to lower intrinsic motivation.

Rewards also create an artificial ceiling for performance at the reward threshold. Once players have earned the reward, they are unlikely to continue on with the task that they were persuaded to do. For game developers this translates into the replay value of their game. Using rewards makes players less likely to take risks as they do not want to hurt their chances of being rewarded. This is especially relevant to rewards used in video games where designers wish to encourage creative and experimental play.

Non-performance contingent achievements, like earning a tabard or a pet for attending an in-game event, have no negative effect on intrinsic motivation. However these types of rewards do not have a performance measure, so players are unlikely to be interested in earning them unless they are paired with some sort of social reinforcement.

Best practice: Use measurement achievements instead of completion achievements to increase intrinsic motivation through feedback.

Boring vs. Interesting Tasks

Achievements are earned for the completion of a task or series of tasks. These required actions will fall on a spectrum ranging from boring to exciting from the player’s perspective. If a task is boring the reward structure associated with it has to be different from tasks that are inherently interesting to the player.

Boring tasks (such as trade skills in MMOs) can be paired with extrinsic motivators, like achievements, in order for players to engage in them. Because players are not inclined to do these tasks on their own, intrinsic motivation is unaffected by the use of rewards as an incentive.

There are two common strategies used to motivate people to engage in dull task. The first strategy is to make the player aware of the inherent value of the task through the wording of the achievement.

An example of this would be the “Lifesaver” achievement in Deadliest Catch: Sea of Chaos, which is given for rescuing a crewmember. The use of the term “Lifesaver” implies that the task is important because you are helping others.

The second strategy is to add additional rules or fantasy to the task itself, which is what all achievements do at their most basic level.

Interesting tasks which the player would engage in without any form of additional motivation do not need to be reinforced with rewards. Players will engage in these tasks without any coaxing, so achievements (especially those that are completion achievements) should be used sparingly.

Instead of trying to create artificial interest in a task the achievements should be attentional, in that they focus the player’s attention on important lessons or strategies for the task. This could improve player performance by scaffolding “hints” about what the most effective strategy is.

A good example of this would be the achievement “The Flying Heal Bus” in StarCraft II, which leads players to utilize a specific unit more effectively.

Best practice: Reward players for boring tasks and give them feedback for interesting ones. Make achievements for interesting tasks attentional.

Achievement Difficulty

The difficulty of achievements is addressed twice by designers. First, the actual difficulty of achievements needs to be on a level that is attainable but challenging to the players. Second, a player’s self-efficacy for the task(s) associated with the achievement must be high enough that they feel confident in attempting it.

Achievements should provide challenging goals for players to fulfill as moderate difficulty leads to superior gains in performance and a greater sense of accomplishment upon completion. However, achievements that are too difficult will not even be attempted by players. However, those that are too easy will be completed quickly, and won’t provide an adequate challenge. A common strategy to keep in-games tasks interesting is to provide alternative objectives for those players who have reached a mastery level of performance.

Player self-efficacy (which refers to an individual’s perception about their own ability to produce a desired result for a specific task) is another important factor that game designers must consider. Increasing player self-efficacy is important because it has been linked to increased goal commitment, increased strategy creation and use, and a more positive response to negative feedback.

There are four factors that designers can address in order to affect a player’s self-efficacy. The first is their level of expertise on the subject matter. This is another important reason to make sure there are achievements available for players at all skill levels.

Seeing people around you succeed — or vicarious experience — is the second factor that influences self-efficacy. This effect is likely to be particularly powerful if the person being observed appears to be at the same ability level of the observer. Examples of utilizing this in games are leaderboards for online games or the “brags” in systems like OnLive.

Social persuasion (giving someone a verbal boost) is the third method of influencing self-efficacy. This can be as simple as telling someone “good job” after a performance or the “50 NOTE STREAK!” messages that appear in Guitar Hero. How a person feels is the fourth factor, which includes stress level, emotional condition, and perceived physical state.

Best practice: Make achievements challenging for the greatest returns in player performance and enjoyment. Phrase achievements and design interactions to increase player self-efficacy.

Goal Orientation

A player’s goal orientation must be considered when designing achievements as it will influence how they experience a game through goals they set for themselves. There are two types of goal orientation which are commonly referred to as performance orientation and mastery orientation. Players who favor a performance orientation are concerned with other people’s assessment of their competence. Players who have a mastery orientation are concerned more with improving their proficiency.

Games tend to push players toward a performance orientation as they are constantly emphasizing direct goals like time and points earned. Unfortunately, players who gravitate toward this type of orientation take fewer in-game risks and spend less time exploring, afraid that doing so might affect their score.

This occurs frequently in first person shooters where players use the same weapons and tactics over and over again because they think it is the best way to optimize their kill to death ratio. However, research has shown that when individuals are given performance oriented goals they typically perform better only with simple, non-complex tasks.

To balance out player predisposition towards performance orientation designers must actively try to instill mastery orientation in the goals and feedback they create. There are several benefits associated with having a mastery orientation.

Players who have this mindset will accept errors and seek challenging tasks that provide them the opportunity to develop their competencies. When given mastery goals players will have higher self-efficacy and utilize more effective strategies. Research has also shown that people given mastery oriented goals perform better on complex tasks.

To help foster this type of orientation designers should create achievements that acknowledge the effort players are putting forth and support them during challenges. Games should treat errors and mistakes the players make as an opportunity to provide diagnostic feedback and encouragement.

The names and wording of achievements are very important when trying to effectively communicate this. For example Heavy Rain’s “So Close…” trophy, which is given to players for reaching, yet failing, the completion of a difficult task, could be seen as encouragement and recognition of effort.

In contrast, a similar achievement in Guitar Hero III, named “Blowing It”, is titled in such a way that it could be perceived as discouraging.

Best practice: For complex tasks requiring creativity or complicated strategies try to instill a mastery orientation. For simple or repetitive tasks instill a performance orientation. Try to keep new players, who are still learning how to play, in a mastery orientation.

For more information on these topics check out the following sources:

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1-27.

Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth? American Psychologist, 51(11), 1153-1166.

Lepper, M. R., & Gilovich, T. (1982). Accentuating the positive: Eliciting generalized compliance from children through activity-oriented requests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(2), 248-259.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.

Bandura, A. (1999). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. In R. F. Baumeister, R. F. Baumeister (Eds.) , The self in social psychology (pp. 285-298). New York, NY US: Psychology Press.

Seijts, G. H., Latham, G. P., Tasa, K., & Latham, B. W. (2004). Goal Setting and Goal Orientation: An Integration of Two Different Yet Related Literatures. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 227-239.

Winters, D., & Latham, G. P. (1996). The effect of learning versus outcome goals on a simple versus a complex task. Group & Organization Management, 21(2), 236-250.（source:gamasutra）