作者：Darius Kazemi

这篇文章是我在游戏开发者大会（GDC）上听了Naomi Clark和Eric Zimmerman（游戏邦注：他们是FreshPlanet公司的首席设计官）关于“社交游戏是如何创造一种劳动构想”会议内容而做的随写，所以任何错误或误解都是我的错。这次的会议可以说是迄今为止我最喜欢的GDC会议。除了平常我们所看到技术或者机会分法，他们还假设了第三种分类，即游戏劳动，它将持续影响上述的技术或机会。

从经验上来看，A/B测试（游戏邦注：这是一个科学的统计方法，你需要确定两个元素或版本，即A和B哪个版本更好）可以与人物模型结合在一起而变成一种方法论。理解游戏设计的一种方法便是研究它对人类有何意义。就像我们在设计人物模型并思考这是个什么样的人，他的行为是怎么样的。当我们在雕刻并创造模型时，我们并不希望自己会爱上自己的创造物，就像游戏《Pygmalion》，而因此限制了自己的视野。

我们获得乐趣意味着我们被吸引或者受到激励，换句话说，即我们的要求得到了满足。神经系统科学可以告诉你在激动的时候脑子中的哪个地方会变得活跃。心理学可以为你分析一些基本的动机。尽管模型有时候过于简单，但是经济学也是同样有效率的。

但是我们却是游戏设计者，是在交互式系统下创造有意义且可被理解的东西的人。在我们的游戏系统中玩家的行动意味着什么以及他们是如何理解这些意义的？形式上来看，我们在设计玩家的行动和结果。形式量化正是推动着A/B测试产生的动力。而形式模型能够为我们带来游戏机制，交互性以及测量工具。

我们不得不将这些交互性安置在人物模型的大脑中。我们也可以使用内/外奖励或者奖励安排的心理观念。同时心理学也能够告诉我们形式世界与玩家的内心世界之间的关系。但是因为个体玩家并不存在于真空中，而且甚至没有其它学科能够提供给我们更多相关知识，所以我们便需要开始分析这些文化级别，并化身为有意思的人类学家。

游戏会对玩家的欲望产生影响，因为它们会挫败这种欲望。正是欲望与游戏现实间的摩擦才推动游戏变得越来越有趣。我们想要什么以及我们不能得到什么这中间的鸿沟正是推动欲望产生的力量。而这并不能只用A/B测试进行解释。

让我们来讨论巧克力蛋糕欲望。人类需要糖，因为它能帮我们储存能量以便使我们的味蕾完全打开。但是这并不能解释什么是巧克力瘾。也许是孩童时期的体验或者家长的禁令而引起的这种欲望。将巧克力理想化会让你陷入无尽渴望的旋窝。但是不管怎样，这并不算是生理上的需求。

farmville_art(from gandtblog.com)

有些玩家使用《FarmVille》去制作像素画图像。但是如果这款游戏只是一种绘画程序那还会有乐趣么？这款游戏的部分技巧是需要玩家花点时间去获得一些原材料并用其进行勾勒涂鸦。

Bernard Suits提出了一个描写玩家心态的术语：游戏态度。玩家承担其障碍只是为了能够获得乐趣。举个例子来说，在打高尔夫球时我的欲望是把球打到地上的杯子里。如果我真的这么想，那么我便能够做到。但是事实上我们却只是用球杆碰了下球而让它飞到看不见的地方罢。这是基于欲望的一种有趣的关系。（但是我却认为高尔夫选手不会这么想，对吧？）

欲望意味着什么这一观点构成了游戏欲望环境。所以这种文化构想是处在游戏外部环境，并由玩家为其定义。

我们现在来谈谈劳动的文化构想。当我们谈到游戏机制时，我们可以将其分为机会和技术。我们可以假设第三个分类，即游戏劳动。劳动假设并不是关于游戏机制，而是一种强化游戏机制的文化构想。

机会：机会的定义是什么？这是一个非常古老的话题，你可以用一些超自然观念去思考这个问题，如命运在向你招手，你将有可能取得成功等等。你将是最幸运的那一个，而非其他人。

技术：包括身体和精神方面，意味着除了技术，游戏中的其它因素都不能用于测试。玩家进入游戏与其他人展开竞争，而你的精湛技术将把你带向成功。

显然有很多游戏同时涉及了这两点，就像扑克游戏。

劳动：依赖于劳动机制的游戏与产业构想结合在一起：努力工作你便能够获得应有的回报。投入几个小时进行工作你便能够有所收获。

角色扮演游戏：闯关卡只是在做做样子，真真投入游戏时间才能让你获得升级。

一些游戏设计者认为这是一种有害趋势。Dave Sirlin认为这是一种不公平的手段，即那些有技术的玩家在《魔兽世界》中会被那些没有技术但是却投入大把时间的玩家打败。这种分类需要进行时间投资，而技术只能当成预算或策略，同时这里还有一些快进功能，让你能够减少时间投资。在Facebook上，很多游戏都需要时间投入，且这里也没有快进功能，所做的投资都是长期性的，无需时时刻刻看护着游戏，你可以同时去做其它事随后回来收获即可。

回到机会游戏上。他们更加依赖于通过外部奖励，即现金去保持游戏的趣味性。但是你同样也需要足够的财力支持。技术游戏更突出：在这里只有少数人高高在少，也只有少数人能够与之抗衡。

构想中的劳动是一个非常公平的竞争环境，完全不像现实中存在阶级差别以及各种不可预见灾难的工时（甚至难以用于维持生计）。

为什么劳动游戏的地位会上升？这与当代的文化大有关系。生活在工业化的21世纪中，我们在这些工时游戏中看到一些新的生活方式。我们学着去支持并形成这种工时构想。你无需真正想着如何创造一个虚拟的农场，直到游戏跟你解释这就是你所想要的东西。

游戏其实是处在这个世界边缘的一种东西，就像在《侠盗猎车手》中，你可以在某个时候突然撞向一面墙，而这也是你在现实生活中不可能做到的。劳动游戏的定义是依赖于某些时刻，即当你不得不停止游戏而转向真实工作，或者当你不得不退出游戏时。而在这里我们最常看到的摩擦便是：当你过后回到游戏中却发现你无事可做了。整个农场里都是一些腐烂掉的庄稼，而这正是因为你未能及时回到游戏中进行收割。需要朋友的帮助：你需要朋友帮你点击一个按钮以更好地推动你的工时执行而取得最后的成功。

劳动可以成为何种机制的替代品？首先便是传统的机会模式。机会构想区别于劳动，在这里你是被选择的人，是特别的。除此之外，技术构想也不例外。甚至在一些Facebook游戏中的PVP（玩家对抗玩家）机制也并非着重于技术，反而更为考验玩家的毅力。还有些什么？

有一些游戏同时包含机会和技术，并同时具备风险和奖励设置。你又是如何看待破坏规则以及一些不正当行为呢？游戏其实是一个骗局，并不是每个玩家都知道自己在玩游戏。按照Frank Lantz最喜欢的一种说法，一款好游戏应该让你觉得自己是在行骗，你已经想出如何瞒过系统“眼睛”的策略了（就像之前所说的巧克力禁令）。我们可以打破游戏中的公平竞争环境。提供给玩家一种不对称的游戏角色选择（就像《SpyParty》），而玩家便能化身创造者，按照自己的想象制定出有趣的设计方案了。在这里，不仅是用户能够制作内容，玩家也能够做为设计者在设计空间里畅游。

我们想要探索更深层次的游戏机制：赠送礼物。赠送礼物是人类文化历史中很古老的一部分。礼物被认为是加深关系的重要工具，并且带有一种期许与压力成为了人与人之间交流所必不可少的东西。西方文化中的赠礼便是一个典例。在美国西北部地区，通过赠送礼物可以看出财富差距。最阔气的那个人便能获得最大的荣誉。这就不再只是关于礼物本身的问题了，同时也引出身份地位，人际关系以及所获得的荣誉等内容。我们是否能够利用这种说法深入探析赠礼这一机制？

这些不只是可被替代的游戏机制。它们还是我们提供给玩家的替代构想和欲望。但是它们也存在着一定的危险，就像“把妹达人”，我们抓住了玩家，但是却让他们趋于机械化，而思维枯竭。这么看来这些“把妹达人”和被他们吸引的人都被机械化了。而这种关系并不可能长期存在。

在Facebook上的赠礼机制中你可以赠送礼物给好友，你会接收到很多礼物请求信息，点击“yes”之后你便可以向对方赠送礼物了，而这种方式与传统的赠礼形式相比，让我觉得我们好像在破坏一些本来能够更有意义且更有价值的东西，而只是想着如何去强迫玩家并挽留住他们的心。

关于设计者眼中的欲望，我们必须拓宽视野并从一个非同寻常的角度去看待这一问题。如果我们不这么做，游戏便不可能成为21世纪中的一种主流文化。应该利用科技创造了一种具有社交意义且拥有过去游戏优势的新型社交系统，而我们则是这种系统的设计师。但是，作为设计者，我们要如何管理这些系统？如果做才能让它们更有意义？我们不要再依靠于艺术家来完成这项工作了，而是，我们应该投入更多的爱去完善它们。

游戏邦注：原文发表于2011年3月1日，所涉数据及事件以当时为准。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

GDC Notes: Clark/Zimmerman, The Fantasy of Labor: How Social Games Create Meaning

by Darius Kazemi

These are my notes from Naomi Clark and Eric Zimmerman’s GDC session, “The Fantasy of Labor: How Social Games Create Meaning.” Any mistakes or misinterpretations are my own. This was my favorite session at GDC so far. Essentially they posit a third addition to the usual games of skill/chance dichotomy: games of labor, which reward persistence above skill or luck.

[I arrived at the talk a few minutes late. They were discussing the limitations of metrics and A/B test-driven design: you need to know the right questions to ask, and beware local maxima. I missed some, I'm sure.]

Empirically based A/B testing incorporates models of humans that are embedded into that methodology. One way of understanding design is that is an investigation of what it means to be human. As we design we model and react to ideas about what people are and how they behave. As we sculpt and create we don’t want to fall inlove too much with our creations like Pygmalion and lose sight.

When we talk about fun we mean engagement or motivation — in other words, desire. Neuroscience can tell you what part of the brain activates during excitement. Psychology can tell you about basic motivations. Economics can be useful though models are simplistic at times.

But we’re game designers, creating meaning and understanding within interactive systems. What does a player’s action mean within our game system and how do they understand that meaning? At the formal level we are desigining actions and their outcomes. Formal quantification is the level at which A/B testing happens. Formal models can give us mechanics, interactions, and tools to measure.

We have to put those interactions inside the model of a human being’s brain. We can apply theories from psychology about intrinsic/extrinsic rewards, reward schedules, etc. But psychology also tells us about the interaction between the formal and the inner world of the player. But also individual players do not exist within a vacuum. Even softer science doesn’t offer much to tell us about this; we need to start to analyze on the cultural level and become anthropologists of fun.

Games work on the level of desire because they frustrate desire. The friction between desire and what the game gives us is the heat that makes games good. In the gap between what we want and what we can’t have, that’s where desire springs up. It’s not something that simple A/B testing can explain.

Let’s talk about the desire for chocolate cake. Okay, humans want sugar because it gives us certain energy reserves so our taste buds evolved, etc. But that doesn’t explain excessive chocoholism. Maybe it came from a childhood experience, or the taboo of chocolate that causes the desire. There’s an idealized version of chocolate out there that causes a deep bottomless pit of desire for chocolate. Anyway, this goes way beyond biological needs.

Some players use Farmville to make pixelated art. But would this be more fun if it were a paint program? Part of the virtuosity is that it takes so much time to acquire the raw materials to paint with.

Bernard Suits has a term for the state of the mind of the player: the lusory attitude. Players take on obstacles just for the pleasure of taking them on. Suits uses the example of golf. I have a desire to put a ball in a cup in the ground. If I really had that desire, I would just put it in the cup. But instead we go really far away and hit the ball with a stick. It’s an interesting relationship to desire. [But I think golf players realize it's not "about" getting the ball in the cup, right?]

The idea of what desire means forms the context for these engines of desire that are games. So these cultural fantasies that lie outside of the game and the player that create meaning.

So now we talk about the cultural fantasy of labor. If we think about game mechanics,we may divide them by chance and skill. We propose a third category: games of labor. We’re not just doing this to talk about mechanics, but the cultural fantasies that power the mechanics.

Chance: what is the promise of chance? It’s a very ancient idea that you can submit yourself to supernatural forces from beyond; that fate will smile on you on by virtue of that you will be successful. You’ll be the lucky one, not all the other folks.

Skill, whether physical or intellectual, means that the game eliminates everything but the skill that is being tested. And players come in on a level field and have a contest with each other, and your own virtuosity results in your own success.

Obviously many games cross both of these categories, like Poker.

Labor: games that rely on labor mechanics are tied to the industrial fantasy: keep working hard and eventually you will earn your reward. Put in hours of work so you can get something out.

RPGs: the level grind is going through the motions of combat, laboring to level up.

Some designers see it as a pernicious trend. Dave Sirlin doesn’t find it fair that a skilled player who just started WoW can be defeated by an unskilled player with a lot time invested. The sim genre is driven by time investment; there’s skill involved in budgeting and strategy, and there’s a fast-forward that allows you to kill the time investment. In Facebook the game IS the time investment, with no fast forward button. The investment of time is attenuated, you don’t need to babysit the game, you can do other things and come back and collect your reward.

Back to games of chance. They tend to rely on extrinsic rewards to keep htings interesting: real money. But you also need to have money to put up. Skill games are also elitist: there are very few people at the top and there are few people who can compare to them.

The fantasy of labor is a completely level playing field; as opposed to real labor where there are class differences, unpredictable disasters, etc, that make it hard to even make a basic living.

Why is there a rise in games of labor? It is linked to contemporary culture. In industrialized 21st century cultures there are new lifestyles that are mirrored in these games of labor. We are taught to want and to work for the fantasy of labor. You don’t really have a desire to make a virtual farm until the game explains to you that that is what you want.

Games are defined by the edges of their worlds. In GTA you hit a wall at some point where you can’t do things. Labor games are defined by the moments where you have to stop and do real work, or when they make demands on you extrinsic to the game. The most common form of friction: come back later, you have nothing left to do. There’s no more work for you today, we can’t pay you overtime. There’s the rotten crops mechanic, and in the fantasy of labor this is what happens if you fail to show up for work on time. The need for help from your friends: you need people to click a button to make your labor driven enterprise a real success.

What about some alternative forms of friction? Some are classic, like chance. The fantasy of chance is different than of labor. The idea that you are going to be selected, the special one. Skill mastery is another thing that is left out of the fantasy of labor. Even the PVP mechanics you see in some FB games are less about skill and more about perserverance and optimism. But what else is there?

There are games that combine chance and skill, with a risk/reward scenario. How about rule-breaking and misbehavior? A hoax is a game where not everyone knows they’re playing. One of Frank Lantz’s favorite sayings is that a good game should make you feel like you’re cheating, that you’ve figured out how to slip your own strategy past the watchful eye of the system (which goes back to the chocoholic taboo). We can break the level playing field of the game. Give players asymmetric roles (SpyParty). Then there’s the idea of players as creators. Players make intensely interesting design decisions about their decks in magic. Not just user generated content but giving players the ability to be designers in a deep design space.

We want to dive deep into a particular mechanic: gifting. Gift giving is an ancient part of human culture. Gifts are expected as part of relationships and they come with expectations and pressures to reciprocate. Western culture gifting is one example. A potlatch of NW coast native Americans is competitive gift-giving to redistribute wealth. Honor goes to the people who can give away the most. This is not just about gifts themselve but it’s about status and special relationships and honor that you get through being a gift giver. Can we use these ideas to deepen gift giving?

These are not just alternate game mechanics. They are alternate fantasies and desires that we are offering players. The danger is that like a pickup artist, we instrumentalize our players and get results that impoverish what it is to be human. Both the pickup artist and the person being picked up are instrumentalized. It does not leave to long term relationships. (Some maxima are more local than others!)

When I think about cultural traditions like the potlatch and compare them to gifting works on FB where you can shotgun gifts to friends and you get hundreds of requests, clicking “yes yes yes” to give things to them. We are impoverishing something that could have more meaning and value and hooks to compel and engage our players.

We need to expand the vision of the way designers think of desire beyond the formal level. If we don’t do this, games will not become the predominant cultural form of the 21st century. We are architects of new social systems using technology that carry with them forms of social meaning that draw on things from the past. But as designers, what are we going to do with these systems? How can we make them more meaningful? Let’s not choose to be pickup artists. Let’s choose love.（source:tinysubversions）