作者：Brice Morrison

对于更深层次的情感生活来说，选择是非常必要的一个因素。选择包含人们如何表达自己，如何设计自己的生活以及如何犯错等等。通过选择，我们可以建立自己的过去并塑造未来。选择让感受变得更加活跃和真实。

选择也经常出现在游戏中，很多时候，当开发者尝试着在游戏中创造一些有意义的选择时，他们都遗漏掉一些关键的因素。所以我们在游戏中经常看到的那些选择都较为空洞，不重要或者甚至看来并不像个选择。

幸运的是，当我们尝试着去设计一些有意义的选择时，我们并不是在黑暗中独自摸索（也有一些设计挑战）、有意义的选择是指你我在现实生活中每天所体验到的。而在这方面，生活又是如何教会我们去进行游戏设计？

有意义在此意味着什么？

让我们开始明确定义这篇文章的目标。我将“有意义的选择”定义为玩家按照自己的喜好做出的选择，他们深思熟虑做出的选择，他们所重视的选择。也就是当他们做出了选择，便会为此感到满足或后悔。

选择是来自于玩家的反应。交互性是区别游戏与其它媒体的最重要因素。赋予玩家选择的权利同时就等于给予他们表达自己的机会，并能够以此区分不同玩家的不同游戏玩法。你不只是要给他们讲故事的机会，同时也应该让他们知道自己行动的结果，而不是只提供一些已成定局的行动。正是这一点使游戏比起其它讲故事形式显得更加有层次。

根据游戏设计标准的原理，有意义的选择是在奖惩系统的基础上形成的。在此有三个关键因素，忽略其中的任何一个都会使选择失去意义。这三个因素分别是意识，结果以及持久性。

首先我们来说说意识

也许你会认为这是一个再明显不过的因素，但是最后你都会发现在早期有很多开发者（其中也包括我在第一款游戏中）都在这点上犯了错。让一个选择变得更有意义，是指游戏能让玩家在一开始便意识到这个选择的存在。所以如果玩家没能意识到选择的存在，那么就是游戏和开发者的错而非玩家自己的过错了。

试想一下如果玩家沿着走廊一直往下走，经过了盆栽和窗户，进入了一扇门中并最后伫立在那里。随后听到游戏大声地宣布：“是你自己选择进入这扇门的，不是吗？”

其实在这个情节里，玩家可以选择在窗户那边掉头而不用进入那扇门里的，但是如果玩家不知道这个脚本，那就等于他们并没有选择权可言。如果玩家没能够意识到选择的存在，那么无形中他们便会错失选择的机会。如果游戏只是让玩家简单地跑着穿过某些地方，那么有无选择也就没有任何区别了。

游戏必须清晰明显地将选择呈现在玩家的面前。这样做有几点方法。开发者可以明确地告诉玩家他们的选择是什么，《神鬼寓言》便是个例子，这款游戏的用户界面告诉玩家他们可以破坏滚桶或者离开它们。游戏还有其它表达选择的方法，如Valve的《传送门》中的交叉点设置，在这里玩家将倒在一个火坑里，但是在旁边他们却可以找到一个安全的矿层。还有一些游戏系统本身便隐含着选择，如很多竞争类游戏。在《星际争霸》中，玩家有机会去创造更多富有能量的煤矿单位或者攻击单位，而他们可以通过HUD上的按钮获得这些信息。

一旦玩家意识到了选择的存在，他们便能够对结果有一定的了解。这并不会影射出即将发生什么或者泄露游戏中的惊喜，而是能够给予玩家一些情境内容，告诉他们选择意味着什么。如果玩家一点都看不透游戏的结果，那就说明这种选择没有任何意义了。

所以同样以走廊为例。假设游戏可以这样解说：“你是要选择离开窗户还是走进门里？”

如果你掌握了游戏所提供的内容，那么你便可以任意做出选择了。而且因为在这个例子中你并不知道走廊里有什么，走廊外有什么，也不知道自己为何要做出这个所谓的“选择”，所以对游戏的进展不会产生任何不好的影响。你需要知道如何去衡量不同的选择，并有根据地做出判断。

让我们以这个情境下的相关背景为例进行说明。假设你是一个正在被警察通缉的歹徒。你听到身后的楼梯上有走动的声音。你忘窗外望去，发现自己站在二楼里。那么现在你会选择跳出窗户还是走出门外？

在这里你的任何选择都会受到情境的影响，而根据这些情境你可以自己做出最合适的选择。考虑到游戏的发展，窗户也许是帮助你最快逃生的方法，但是你可能会在掉落之时受伤。门可能会更安全点，但是你也许不能快速地出去并下楼梯逃走。不论做出什么选择都将取决于你。

除了告知我们游戏设计的决策，我们还可以在这些选择中找到一些对现实世界有影响的因素。我们在现实生活中总是会漫无目的地度过每一天，每一周以及每个月。来自硅谷的一名投资者Paul Graham注意到，很多刚毕业的大学生都没有意识到他们可以选择创立自己的公司，而追随大流走上了找工作的道路。因为他们并没有意识到这个选择，并没有清楚地感受到这个选择的重要性。如此看来，他们好像是走上了一条没有选择的不归路了。

意识到选择以及限制对结果的认知意识都很重要。而正是这种意识让我们察觉到第二个重要因素的存在。

第二个选择因素：结果

你正在玩一款游戏，而你也明确地知道游戏中的重要选择。你可以拯救一个小孩但却会因此受伤，或者你可以放任小孩的生死不管而自己获得逃生。你会怎么做？

让我们假设你选择救小孩。而这时你的游戏角色的生命值便会削减一半，或者你会因此遭受到其它损失。然后你便进入到下一个游戏关卡，但是在那你将不会再看到那个小孩的身影。这是个如此重要的选择啊。

另一个假设是你忽视了小孩的安危。你的生命值保持不变，而游戏将会在此对你播放一些特殊的音效，如“我将会一直对此感到后悔……”随后你便进入下一个关卡，并忘掉那个小孩的存在。你再次做了个很重要的选择。

在这两种情境下，哪种选择才是有意义的？

是否玩家忽视了小孩的安危会让他变成一个没有道德的人？在现实生活中确实如此。但是在游戏中呢？一点都不会。为何？因为即使他不这么做也不会导致任何有意义的结果。

有结果的选择才是有意义的。与其它媒体相反，在游戏中你有能力改变未来的任何结果。这就是选择：能够改变未来的选择。但是如果未来不会因为你的选择而改变，那么选择也就没有任何意义了。

在拯救小孩的例子中，问题便不在于玩家没有意识到选择的存在——这个选择在游戏的一开始便明确阐述了，而在于当玩家做出选择后，游戏对于玩家的这种选择并没能做出太大的反应。除了播放几秒钟的动画和叙述，游戏仍然没有发生任何变化。如果游戏能够出现更多结果，那么玩家肯定会更加认真地做出选择，也许会做出完全不一样的选择。

正如上述所描写的，无论小孩生与死，玩家都能够进入下一个关卡。而小孩也不会再次出现于游戏中。我曾经在许多游戏中看到了类似的选择，并且对此感到失望不已，因为这种选择缺少了足够的结果，所以没有任何作用。但是如果是不同结果又会怎样？假设你会在接下来的游戏中频繁碰到这个小孩。如果你拯救了这个小孩，那么你还可以看到他活蹦乱跳地在公园里玩耍，他的妈妈会前来感谢你，甚至会在你今后的任务中帮助你。这个小孩会在游戏的末尾向你挥手感谢。另外一种情况，如果这个小孩死了，那么你在后来的游戏中将会经过他的坟墓。也许当你向他的妈妈寻求帮助时，她只会默默地流着眼泪而不会回应你的求助。而在游戏的最后，你将会看到这个死去的小孩生前一张留着眼泪的相片。

如此看来区别便很明显了，不是吗？如果游戏能够传达给玩家这种结果，那么玩家便会对于要做出何种选择再三掂量了。

在现实生活中，结果是赋予选择重要意义的一大因素。在《侠盗猎车手》中，我可以选择抢钱犯下盗窃罪也可以选择无视这些钱而继续往前走。我可能会被警察抓走也可能会被袭击而受伤。警察会在背后追着我，而我有可能最后会被抓到监狱中，因此丢掉了我的工作，我的朋友以及家人。如此看来，这个选择将会导致各种结果，而这些结果则让这种选择变得更有意义。

几年前我曾经玩过《Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance》，在这款游戏中有30多个游戏角色，但是我却只记得其中一个，Boyd。这是一个有着绿色头发的年轻男子，他还有两个深爱着的兄弟。Boyd是个很优秀的战士，而且还是个心直口快的人，这些都使他成为一个很讨喜的角色。随着时间的过去我几乎忘了游戏中的其他角色，唯独他例外。

为何我会记得Boyd？因为我在游戏中导致了他的死亡。

游戏角色在游戏中死亡是在正常不过的事了。但是Boyd却不是。虽然在很多游戏中游戏特定的角色都必须死去，但是Boyd却不是因为这种原因而死亡的。是我在一次策略战斗中犯下了错误而导致Boyd的死。那时候我面对了一个选择：让Boyd幸存下来或者让他死去。也许是我没有足够的技巧，所以我犯下了错误，而Boyd最终战败而亡了。

但是Boyd的死却对我的影响很大，我想《Path of Radiance》的设计者肯定认准了我会牢记Boyd的死。因为在接下来的游戏中，任何角色在做评述的时候都会提及Boyd，如“如果Boyd还活着，他肯定会与我们一起并肩战斗。”“Boyd会说些什么？我的耳边仿佛还回荡着他的声音…”“我不会放弃！我不会让我的兄弟Boyd白白牺牲！”

所有的这些评述都让我不得不再次回想起Boyd的死，每一个游戏角色都在提醒我，“你，就是你！Brice！你原本可以选择让Boyd活下去的！但是你却放弃了这个机会。是你的选择导致了这个结果。”也许对于开发者而言为那些已逝的角色编辑一些文本很简单，甚至这些文本能够让我在多年以后依旧清晰地记住这个游戏角色。这就是带有结果的选择的重要性。

当游戏在向玩家陈述选择时，也需要让玩家知道在他们做出不同选择后会出现哪些结果，而以此提醒他们自己曾作出何种决定。这些都是根据开发者是如何判断这些结果是属于美学还是相关的游戏设置，而且还应该能够让玩家回想到过去，告诉他们“是你做出这个选择的。”

第三个选择因素：持久性

“但是，等等，”你也许会问,“为何你不能选择重新开始战斗？关掉游戏再开启，并选择让Boyd生存下去！”

而这个观点将我们带进了第三个选择因素，即持久性。如果你能够很容易改写你的选择，那么它就不再有任何意义了。

我们已经在前面提到了，选择的结果是指那些有意义的内容。如果没有结果，那也不存在意义了。所以，如果你能够改变选择的结果，那么同样意味着你剥夺了选择的意义。

《生化危机》也是一款热门游戏，它深刻理解了持久性这一因素的重要性。虽然这并不是《生化危机》这款游戏最主要的过人之处，但是却对于它的成功有非常重要的帮助。在以前的游戏机游戏中，玩家能够复苏的几率很低。即让玩家能够在一些重要关卡中拯救游戏的次数非常少，这么做是对的。因此，即使你在游戏中遇到一些复苏关卡，你也许会决定绕开它继续前进。

为何游戏设计者要这么设计游戏？很多玩家总是抱怨他们不理解游戏设计的意义。就像在《生化危机》中的有限拯救点便让玩家必须更加谨慎地做出选择。当你走过院子的时候，你便会害怕自己走错路，因为你可能会因此被杀。左？还是右？如果你的选择是错误的，那么你将会退到很远之前的游戏关卡中重新开始挑战。这种左和右的选择就像生和死的选择一样。不只是你的游戏角色的选择，也是你在游戏中的时间投资。而正是这种机制保持了游戏结果的重要性。

如果你可以尽可能地拯救自己的游戏角色，那么游戏选择也就没有了意义。如果你打开了错误的门并遭到僵尸的致命一击？没关系，只要重新回到之前的关卡重新选择便可。这样做这种选择还有什么用？这样做你就体会不到游戏中的紧张感。你更不会在游戏中犯任何错误了。

在《Path of Radiance》的例子中，这里也只有有限的复苏策略，而且都不是很明显。你可以在战斗时保存游戏，而每次的战争几乎都要花费你2个小时的时间。我正是在战争开始的1个半小时后失去了Boyd。开发者正是通过这种方法去保障他们所设定的选择。

如何在游戏选择中融入持久性因素是开发者必须做出的决策。你可以限制保存游戏的次数，或者你可以设置让游戏自动保存，而不用玩家回到失败的起始点再次作选择。你也可以让玩家在碰到选择之前投入大量的时间于游戏中，这些他们就不会愿意回到过去再尝试一遍挑战了。不论你采取什么方法，都必须让玩家明白，比起撤销原先的选择，接受现实并继续往前走才是最正确的。

结论

掌握这三个因素，即意识，结果与持久性，我们能够在游戏中提供给玩家更有意义的选择。有意义的选择能够直接影响到我们的情绪，并让我们能够感到悲伤，后悔，激动或者放松。而这些情绪一般都是我们在游戏中难以触及到的。选择能够帮助玩家更好地在游戏中表现自己，去认真感受游戏世界，并仔细思考他在这个世界中所遇到的每一个选择。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

To Be or Not to Be: Ingredients for Meaningful Choice in Games

by Brice Morrison

Valkyria Chronicles is a game that embodies well designed choice.

Choice is often necessary for the deeper emotions of life.  Choice are how people express themselves, design their lives, and make mistakes.  It is through choices that we build our pasts and shape our present.  Choices make life feel alive and real.

Choices can also appear in games, but for some reason, when many developers attempt to create meaningful choice in their games, they miss key components.  Oftentimes poorly executed choices in games tend to feel empty, unimportant, or as though there really was no choice at all.

Luckily, when trying to design something like meaningful choice, we are not groping in the dark (as with some other design challenges).  Meaningful choice is something that you and I experience every day in our real lives.  What can life teach us about game design in this area?

What is meant by meaningful?

Let’s start be defining exactly what our goal here is.  I am defining a “meaningful choice” as a choice that the player makes that they actually care about.  They deeply considered the choice.  They felt the weight of the choice.  And after the choice was over, they remember it and feel either satisfaction or regret.

A choice is a reflection of the player. Interactivity is one of the most important aspects of games that sets them apart from all other media.  By giving the player a choice, you give them a chance to express themselves and differentiate their gameplay.  You give them the chance not just to tell a story, but to show them the meaning of the consequences of their own actions, not just a set of actions that was predetermined.  This lifts games above all other forms of storytelling.

According to the Game Design Canvas, meaningful choice is build using the bricks of the game’s Punishment and Reward Systems.  There are three essential components.  Neglect any one of them and the choice is rendered meaningless.  The three ingredients are awareness, consequence, and permanence.

First Ingredient of Choice: Awareness

This may seem obvious, but you would be surprised how many early developers (including myself in my first games) make this mistake.  For a choice to be meaningful, the player must first be aware that they are even being presented with a choice.  Failing to recognize a choice is not the fault of the player, it is the fault of the game and the developer.

Imagine if a player is walking down a hallway, past potted plants and windows, and enters the door that they see plainly stationed at the end.  The game then narrates aloud, “And so you have chosen to enter the door, have you?”

What?

In this scenario, the player may have had the option to leave through the window instead of the door.  But if they didn’t know, then they didn’t really have a choice.  When players are presented with choices they aren’t made aware of, then they just blow by them.  In a single run through, there is no difference between the scenario with a choice and the scenario with no choice.

The player must absolutely be made aware of the choice that is being presented to them.  This can be done any number of ways.  The developer can explicitly tell the player what their choices are, such as the case with Fable; the game’s UI tells the player they can destroy the barrels or leave them be.  The game could draw their attention to other options, such as the mid-point in Valve’s Portal, where the player is decending into a firey pit but sees a safe ledge off to the side.  The game’s systems themselves could also imply choice, such as with many competitive games.  In Starcraft, the player always has the choice to create more energy-mining units or offensive units, presented to them via the buttons on their HUD.

Once they are aware of the choice, then they must also be somewhat aware of the results.  This doesn’t mean telegraphing exactly what will happen and giving away the surprise, but it does mean giving some context to what the choice could mean.  Without at least some awareness of the results, the choice is rendered meaningless.

Again, consider the same hallway example.  Let’s say the narrator says, “And now you may choose to leave from the window or the door.”  Which one would you choose?

If you only knew what I’ve told you here, chances are you would just pick randomly.  It doesn’t really matter, because in this example you don’t know anything about this hallway, you don’t know anything about what’s outside, and you don’t know why you’re making this so-called “choice”.  You need to have at least some idea so that you can weigh the options and make your decision.

Let’s give some context to that situation.  Say that you are an outlaw being chased by the police.  You hear the coming up the stairs behind you.  You look outside the window and see that you’re on the second story.  Now would you choose to go out the window or the door?

At this point you have some more context around the choice, and so you can begin to decide for yourself.  Given how the game works, the window may be a faster escape route, but you might hurt yourself in the fall.  The door may be safer, but you might not get out and down the stairs as quickly.  The choice is up to you.

In addition to informing our game design decisions, there are some interesting real world consequences of this observation.  Oftentimes in real life we tend to go through our days, our weeks, and our months as though we have no choice.  Paul Graham, a silicon valley investor, noted once that many students, upon graduating college, don’t realize that they have the choice to start their own companies instead of getting a job.  Because they are not aware of the choice, it is not a meaningful interaction to them.  It is as though they have no choice at all.

Awareness of the choice, and limited awareness of the consequences are necessary.  Which brings us to our next ingredient…

Second Ingredient of Choice: Consequence

You are playing a game and you are presented with a deadly choice.  You can save the child and harm yourself, or your can let the child die and get away clean.  What do you do?

Let’s say that you save the child.  Your character’s life bar is cut down by half, or some other punishment.  Then you go on to the next chapter and never see the child again.  Big deal.

Let’s say you ignore the child.  Your life bar is intact, and the game throws some melodramatic narration at you, “I will always regret that day…”  You then move on to the next chapter and never think of the child.  Again, big deal.

Meaningful choice?  In both situations, don’t think so.

Does the player ignoring the child make that player an immoral person?  In real life, it would.  But in a game?  No, definitely not.  Why?  Because there is no meaningful consequence.

Choices only carry weight when they have consequences attached to them.  The thing about choice, about interactivity, about games as opposed to all other media is that you have the chance to change the outcome of the future.  That is what choice actually is: an opportunity to change the future.  But if the future is the same no matter what choice you make, then why even call it a choice at all?

In the saving the child example, the problem isn’t that the player isn’t aware of the choice; that is made perfectly clear beforehand.  The problem is that after the choice has been made, there are no effects to cause the player to reflect on that choice.  Other than maybe a few seconds of animation and narration, the game stays the same.  If there were more consequence, the player would have taken the choice more seriously, perhaps even gone the other way.

As described, the child either dies or survives, and then the player goes on to another level.  The child is never seen or referred to again.  I have seen this in some games and shake my head; this is choice rendered useless by a lack of consequence.  But what if it were different?  Imagine if instead of never seeing the child again, you would run into him quite often.  If the child was saved, then you would see him playing in the park.  His mother would come and give you a thank you letter or help you on a later mission.  He would wave to you in the game’s end credits.  On the flip side, if the child dies, then you may walk by his grave later.  You may ask his mother for help, but she can’t speak through the tears.  At the game’s credits you might see tear-covered Polaroid pictures of him before he passed away.

That’s a pretty drastic difference, isn’t it?  Trusting that the game would deliver consequence would certainly make you think twice about your choice.

Consequences are why choices are meaningful in real life.  In Grand Theft Auto I might be given the choice of committing a robbery and I may do it, take the money, and move on.  But in real life, there are much more dire consequences for a robbery.  I would likely be caught, I could be hurt or attacked.  I would have the police after me and could end up in jail.  I could lose my job and access to my friends and family.  Truly, that choice is fraught with many consequences, and those consequences give it its meaning.

Several years ago I played Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance.  Out of the lush cast of 30-something characters in that game, I only remember one.  Boyd.  He was a young man with green hair who had two brothers he loved dearly.  He was a good fighter and had a snarky mouth on him, but that made him endearing.  Over the past years, I have forgotten all the other characters.

Why do I remember Boyd?  Because I let him die.

People die in games all the time.  But not like Boyd.  While in most games a certain character must be killed, Boyd did not.  He died because I made a mistake in a tactical battle.  The choice was there: survive the battle with Boyd alive, or let him perish.  I wasn’t skilled enough, I made errors, and he fell.

But Boyd’s death did not go unnoticed by the game; the designers of Path of Radiance made sure I remembered it.  Throughout the rest of the game, characters made comments in reference to Boyd.  ”If Boyd were still here, he would want us to fight.”  ”What would Boyd have said?  I can still hear his voice…”  ”I can’t give up!  I can’t let my big brother Boyd down!”

Each of these comments tore me up inside.  Each of them reminded me, “You, you, Brice, had the opportunity to keep Boyd alive.  But you blew it.  The choices you made resulted in this consequence.” Think of how easy it was for the developers to author a few text strings for each character that could have passed away!  And yet to this day, years later, I still remember him more vividly than all the other characters in that game.  That is the power of choice with consequence.

When presenting the player with choices, be sure that there are recurring consequences long after the choice has been made that remind the player of their decision.  It’s up to the developer to decide if these consequences are aesthetic or gameplay related, but they should harken back to the past and tell the player, “You chose this path.”

Third Ingredient of Choice: Permanence

“But wait,” you ask.  ”Why couldn’t you just restart the battle?  Turn the game off and do it again, and keep Boyd alive!”

This suggestion brings us to the third ingredient of meaningful choice: permanence.  A choice that can be easily undone means nothing.

We have already stated that the consequences of a choice are what give it meaning.  Is the consequences are not there, then the meaning is not there.  Thus it follows that if you can change or alter the consequences of a choice, you strip the choice of its weight.

Resident Evil, now a blockbuster franchise, began with a game that understood the ingredient of permanence.  This is not an aspect of Resident Evil that is often talked about, but it was absolutely instrumental in its success.  In the original game for the Playstation, you only had a limited number of saves.  That’s right, the number of times that you could save your game at a checkpoint were scarce.  Thus you would sometimes find a save point and decide to bypass it and truck on through.

Why on earth would they design the game like this?  Many players who complained about it failed to realize its design meaning.  The limited saves in Resident Evil made you take your choices seriously.  When you were walking through the courtyard, you were terrified that if you went the wrong way, you would be killed.  Left, or right?  If you choose incorrectly, you will be sent back, far far back to a save long ago.  This made the choice of left or right a choice of life or death.  Not only of your character, but of your investment of time.  It maintained the meaning of the game’s consequences.

If you could save as much as you wanted, then your choices would be meaningless.  Open the wrong door and get beheaded by a zombie?  No problem, just save back and don’t open the door.  The choice is rendered meaningless.  The heart-stopping tension is gone.  Any mistake can be undone.

In the Path of Radiance example, they had a similar limited-saves strategy, though not as overt.  You could only save the game in between battles, and battles could take almost two hours.  When I lost Boyd, it was about an hour and a half into the battle.  If I were to start over, I would have wasted an hour and a half.  In this way the developers build some insurance into their choices.

It’s up to developers to decide how to inject permanence into their choices.  You can limit the number of saves, or you can save the game automatically so they can’t go back.  You could require a significant time investment before the choice is presented, which would discourage them from going back and doing it again.  Whatever the method, the point is to make it more difficult for the player to undo the choice than to sit and be content with it.

A Recipe for Engagement

With these three ingredients, awareness, consequence, and permanence, we have the perfect concoction for meaningful choice in games.  Meaningful choices reach into our hearts and make us feel sorrow, regret, thrill, or relaxation.  These emotional are often difficult to reach in games.  Choices provide the tools to let the player express themselves in a game, to feel the weight of the worlds we pull them into, and to think carefully about where they tread.（source:thegameprodigy）