作者：Brenda Brathwaite

社交玩家需能感受到游戏结束性。结束原则非常重要，失去该元素游戏，游戏留存率将会降低，且会衍生种种问题。

什么是“结束概念”？

我认为所谓的结束概念就是玩家完成所有任务后离开游戏，在遵守游戏规则情况下，下次返回游戏，一切都有条不紊。玩家完成所有任务或有意未完成某部分（游戏邦注：如能量用尽），完全理解整个游戏态势。

在Facebook游戏当中，若满足以下条件，就会形成结束概念：

* 我理解游戏主要任务。

* 我知道何时返回游戏完成游戏主要任务。

* 我知道若我无法回访会出现什么情况，这一点或通过游戏告知，或通过隐性心理模式而得知。

* 我知道改变此稳定局面的原因（游戏邦注：例如遭到他人攻击，或者获得好友帮助）。

* 我知道如何保护游戏态势或如何补救无法控制局势（及时回访在我的控制范围内）。

若玩家无法实现结束状态，他们轻则困惑离开游戏，糟则以失败告终。通常无法实现结束状态会让玩家做决定时略显犹豫或对其离开后将发生的事情感到不安。怀此心情离开游戏的玩家很少会再回访。为什么要回来寻找更多“困惑”、“失败感”或“不安”？

结束概念是个棘手的问题，其和感觉联系密切。玩家感知的游戏态势要比实际游戏状况要重要得多。

Ravenwood Fair from mmogamesite.com

例如，在开发《Ravenwood Fair》期间，有很多时候我觉得游戏状态呈现某种态势，但其实根本不着边际（虽然我是游戏设计师，但我并不设计动物AI，所以我能够自由感知）。有趣的是，确定感觉出错并未让我感到愉悦。我仍旧维持自己对于游戏运作方式的看法，这种感觉（游戏邦注：是基于心理模式）太过强烈。所以，我并没有感叹，“棒极了”，相反我同自身想法抗争，觉得有必要做出调整。这是我少有的矛盾状态，但游戏最终设计方案带给我结束感。你今天看到的“Protectors”机制是罗梅洛就此问题设计出的有效解决方案（游戏邦注：作者曾认为在玩家离开游戏时，他们会担心游戏中的人物孤身处于森林时会遭到动物攻击，因此要求罗梅洛设计出Protectors角色以保护玩家虚拟形象，从而使他们获得一种心理安全感）。

这个话题颇值得深究：

* 这是个性别化问题。

* 这不会有性别化解决方案。

不是所有结束感问题都依照性别划分（游戏邦注：意思是说不同性别对不同内容的需求程度不同），但这里显然和性别密不可分。这真的会对我离开游戏时的感受带来影响（因此会影响我回访可能性）。研究此问题后，我发现其他女性玩家也有同样感觉，但男性玩家似乎完全不受影响。作为游戏首席设计师，罗梅洛着力研究该问题根源，其设计方案不单要解决我的问题，它还需要给所有玩家带来趣味。否则方案就会像固有机制的附加内容。

所以结束概念在免费社交游戏当中就显得相当重要。我离开必须有这样的感觉：我知道已发生什么，将发生什么，我将扮演什么角色。我需要知道游戏会保持正常运转。我需知道我已将体验时间最大化。若我不知道游戏任务，任务中的各种角色元素或我在游戏中的角色，那么我就会放弃游戏。

结束概念让玩家能够放心地、有计划地离开游戏，这意味着他们很可能会回访游戏。

游戏邦注：原文发布于2010年11月25日，文章叙述以当时为背景。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Closure in Social Games

by bbrathwaite

The player of a social game needs to feel closure.  The principle of closure is so important that without it, a game will struggle with low retention and all the problems inherent therein.

What is “closure?”

I will define closure as the ability to leave the game with a feeling of certainty that one has done all one can do and that things will be okay until one returns so long as the player abides by known rules. It’s all wrapped up – or knowingly left unwrapped (ie. the player runs out of energy) – and the player perceives that she understands the complete game state.

To illustrate with any Facebook game, closure exists if:

* I understand the primary grind of the game.

* I know when I need to come back to tend to the primary grind of the game.

* I know precisely what will happen if I fail to come back either because the game tells me what will happen or an implicit mental model exists.

* I know the things that can modify this stability (being whacked or assisted by another player, for instance)

* I have a means to protect my game state or enact revenge for things happening in my game which I perceive are beyond my control (and returning in time is within my control).

If players are unable to achieve a state of closure, they leave the game feeling confused at best or failed at worst. Typically, failure to achieve a state of closure results in players feeling uncertain in their decisions or uncomfortable with what they perceive will happen while they are away. Players who leave feeling something in this range are less likely, then, to come back. Why come back for more “confused” or “failed” or “uncomfortable”?

Closure is a tricky thing to identify, too, and it’s closely tied to a word I’ve used several times here – perceive. The player’s perception of the game state is more important than the actual game state.

For instance, during the development of Ravenwood Fair, there were multiple times where I perceived the game state was doing something when, in fact, it wasn’t even thinking along those lines (though I am a designer on the game, I didn’t design the creature AI, so I was free to perceive whatever I wanted). Interestingly enough, when I was assured my perceptions were false, it didn’t actually make me feel much better. My perceptions about the way I thought the game was working and my buy-in of the perception (and the mental model upon which it was based) were too strong. So, instead of saying, “Okay, cool”, I struggled with how I thought the game should behave and felt a strong need to see it rectified. It was an odd moment of dissonance for me, but the resultant design solution gave me closure. The “Protectors” system you see in the game today was Romero’s effective design solution to this problem.

It’s worth going into this a little deeper on two points:

* This was a gendered problem.

* It couldn’t be a gendered solution.

Not all problems of closure are gendered, meaning that one gender feels a much stronger need for something than the other, but this clearly was. It was something that genuinely affected how I felt when I left the game (and therefore affected my likelihood to return to it). Researching the issue, I found it was a feeling shared by other female players, but the male players seemed completely unscathed by the issue. As its lead designer, Romero worked to fully understand the root of the problem, but his design solution needed to do more than solve my issue – it needed to be fun for all game players. Otherwise, it risked appearing like a Band-Aid on an otherwise tight system. For those interested in gendered issues in game design, I recommend Sheri Graner Ray’s Gender Inclusive Game Design.

So, closure.  In the social space where the player has absolutely zero investment, it’s critical. I must leave feeling that I know what happened, what will happen, and what role I am expected to play in it. I need to know (not merely feel) that everything has gone right. I need to know I have maxed my gameplay session. If I don’t understand your grind, the role of various components in the grind, or what my role is in some part of it, you’ve lost me (and some part of your DAU, too).

Closure allows players to comfortably leave the game with a plan, and that means they are much more likely to return.（Source：wordpress）