游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

参与度和动机是游戏化设计的关键所在

发布时间:2011-12-19 12:50:47 Tags:,,,,

作者:Kelly Rued

近期,我从Gabe Zichermann的文章《Top 5 Ways to Make Your Site More Fun》中获得了诸多乐趣。Zichermann正在探索社交网络站点及其奖励计划如何有效地使用游戏机制。他挖掘出大量有着很高价值的信息,可用于针对非游戏玩家的互动软件设计中。他认为负责设计网站、商业应用、营销计划和筹款大会的人现在都可以学习到游戏机制的好处。

gamification(from joannapenabickley.typepad.com)

gamification(from joannapenabickley.typepad.com)

趣味性的意义所在

但是,对于将“趣味性”视为在网站或应用中使用游戏机制的主要关注点的想法,我并不完全认同。我相信众游戏设计师也有普遍看法:娱乐只有在获得成就或令人满意的解决方案(游戏邦注:包括胜利、拯救世界、完成所谓的英雄之旅,最终赚到足够的分数购买你渴望获得的虚拟道具等)时才会结束。只专注于趣味性也正是游戏设计为何作为艺术媒介无法取得极大成就的原因所在。在游戏设计中,众人普遍认为趣味性是种让人产生压力的积极体验,有许多严肃的游戏设计书籍都在尝试解释如何正确地构建趣味性。但从人们消费的媒体内容来看,人们多将游戏视为甜点,而不是牛排等主食。

趣味性方面存在的问题是,成功和有效的娱乐并不一定要有趣。人们有可能被深层次地吸引、激励并最终从令人沮丧的体验中获得娱乐,引发我们思索更多的问题。而且,人们可以从完全乏味、重复和极令人沮丧的游戏、媒体和体验中感受到娱乐(游戏邦注:比如,在最喜欢的大型多人游戏中赚取经验值是件很烦闷的事情,尽管最终会获得奖励,但是这个过程并非总是很有趣)。

我觉得有趣的是,即便人们好似已经理解了日常生活中无处不在的游戏化做法,他们依然会将注意力放在趣味性元素上。就好像生活、工作和世界上所有重要东西都应当首先考虑趣味性。我猜想如果带上有色眼镜,那么所有东西都可能存在潜在的趣味性,但是现实情况是,我不认为所有的体验都有趣味性潜质。对于那些我们在市场中进行的商品和服务交易行为来说,上述感觉愈发强烈。

我认为睿智的营销人员会利用游戏机制来提升参与度和诱发关键行为,只根据消费者对产品的感觉和换取的价值来设置相应的趣味性。例如,消费者认为订购飞机票和预订酒店房间等大金额商品既昂贵又有趣。但是,购买诸如牙膏和厕纸等日常用品就不是那么有趣。

获胜动机

游戏设计包含的参与度设计必杀技并非趣味性,而是动机。你要如何让某些人保持做某些事情的兴致?我们有很多方法可以使用,而游戏机制正属于可供软件设计师使用的最为可靠的技术之一,让最终用户有激情继续做你想让他们做的事情。

如果你正在制作的是主流电子游戏,那么趣味性是非常重要的。如果你正在设计的是对Charmin厕纸忠诚用户的奖励计划(游戏邦注:目标在于售出更多厕纸),那么你真正需要从游戏机制中借鉴的是能够驱动营销运动的动机。趣味性和幽默感已经不再能够起到大作用。

此外,如果你购买或使用的所有东西都想要将这种体验转变成游戏,那么你会对“趣味元素”产生何种想法?你想要在购买厕纸时获得分数吗?抑或这只是给你原本已经复杂的生活增添更多复杂层面?你应当考虑用户动机并选择相应的游戏机制,而不是将所有东西都进行“游戏染色”。

“游戏染色”=更繁琐的工作

“游戏染色”是我自创的术语,指的是将游戏机制和不必要的趣味性添加到实用主义体验中。最终的结果往往是,游戏和元游戏因为这种“假装”有趣的任务而产生更多琐事。

举个例子:Chore Wars。我在游戏中是个硬核成就者,从日常生活事务中赚取XP听起来确实很吸引人,但是如果获得XP的结果是产生更多的工作,那么就会产生相反的感觉。我在这场游戏中待的时间越长,就越会认为《Chore Wars》只是某个人激励其他人做比之前更多事情的睿智方法而已。它更像是人们可以用来影响家庭、室友或同事的游戏。《Chore Wars》显然不是个玩家为了获得自我满足感而玩的游戏。

挑战=动机

你可曾体验过,游戏进程越过某个趣味点后仍觉得游戏有趣?你之所以会继续玩游戏,是因为趣味性只是某个深层次参与的积极副作用而已,这个深层次参与就是由游戏或体验营造出来的动机。即便已不显得有趣,但是我们仍能继续保持做某些事情,是因为有些东西激励着我们。有时,游戏体验的挑战感觉起来很令人沮丧,但是我们仍能够坚持下去,因为我们心中有战胜该挑战的动机。因而,挫败体验有时也是游戏能够拥有玩家参与度和动机的原因所在。这种现实或许与你的想法相反(游戏邦注:许多人认为成功游戏会将100%的内容设置成趣味内容)。

没有人会否认《俄罗斯方块》是款成功的游戏。但是《俄罗斯方块》中的较高节奏较快关卡对多数玩家来说并不有趣,除非你是个对自我惩罚极度狂热的玩家(游戏邦注:或可称为专家级玩家)。但是,游戏的机制仍然让我保持努力的劲头,希望能够在游戏中取得更好的表现。有些人或许会辩解称,这种令人感到挫败的挑战也是种趣味,但是当我在紧张时,在接近最高分却又失败时,首先进入我脑海的可能并非“这款游戏很有趣”这种想法。

有时,优秀游戏并没有100%的有趣内容,正如优秀电影、书籍和生活本身也不是100%有趣。但是,虽然趣味性并不具连贯性,我们仍然愿意参与其中并获得乐趣。

所以,想想你曾经一遍遍玩的最具沉迷性的游戏。如果你不是游戏玩家,可以想想你曾经拥有的那些最富挑战性的浪漫经历。有时,我们不需要使用趣味性来构建参与度(游戏邦注:比如假设所构建的网站和社区讨论的是丧亲之痛或破产事宜,那么或许趣味性就不是合适的目标体验)。

游戏机制并非万能丹

还必须指出的是,仅仅采用游戏机制并不能营造趣味性。

Coke Rewards是个颇有价值的成功奖励计划,我不介意让孩子们来输入代码。但是,我并不认为参加Coke Rewards的体验是有趣的。输入代码是个家常杂务。这是个我乐于将其委派给孩子们做的事情,而不愿意将自己的时间花在这上面,虽然它有着点数系统、将近和许多精心设计的功能。计划能够产生中等动机,但是通常情况下,所需做的工作量要超过奖励内容。但是Coke肯定能够从中获得很多好处,比如站点参与度、页面访问量(游戏邦注:包括广告访问量)和某些市场研究数据的收集。计划确实具有游戏性,但是我不认为多数参与者在他们参与Coke Rewards计划的多数时间会觉得有趣。

在许多应用和体验中,你不能硬塞入趣味性体验,因为参与度和动机也很重要,而且这两个方面是基于用户的。在这些案例中,积极游戏机制只会对用户体验产生不利影响。消极游戏机制或许会有用,但是并不存在完全消极的游戏系统。

正如Zichermann在他的文章中所说的那样,Quicken(游戏邦注:一款家庭和个人财务管理软件)不会让你在使用后感到兴高采烈,我认为多数人在意识到使用Quicken是自己每天最重要的事情后他们可会觉得很沮丧。还记得那个让Microsoft Office显得更具趣味性和个性化的Clippy吗?我知道这是个精心制作的帮助功能,微软希望能够对你的Office工作产生帮助,但是多数人只会觉得它打扰了工作,并为他们带来更多的工作(游戏邦注:你需要点击关闭才能让它从界面上消失)。

不要为你的应用添加过多的“趣味性”,因为这有可能妨碍到用户使用网站或应用。而且,趣味性并非你真正需要追求的东西,动机和参与度才是。

游戏邦注:本文发稿于2010年8月16日,所涉时间、事件和数据均以此为准。(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

Having Fun Isn’t Always the Point

Kelly Rued

Recently, I had the pleasure of reading Gabe Zichermann’s article Top 5 Ways to Make Your Site More Fun. Hallelujah! I am very excited to see more people finally connecting the dots between successful interactive entertainment software (video game) design and effective engagement design in software and websites for business. This is the kind of stuff I preach to clients, colleagues, and my (polite, but bored) boyfriend on a regular basis.

Game Design for Business Apps

Game-inspired engagement and motivation techniques that seemed obvious to me 10+ years ago are now being recognized as useful tools for user experience design in all kinds of business applications.

I’m sure many game designers feel some sense of “duh, we knew this already” but that’s why the development of business-friendly encapsulations of staple game design techniques (like Zichermann’s Funware concept) are exciting.

Zichermann is doing a great service by framing discussions of rewards programs and social network sites in terms of how they use game mechanics effectively. He is distilling a lot of tremendously valuable information about what works in interactive software design to non-gamers and people outside of the somewhat myopic games industry.

Accordingly, people who design websites, business apps, marketing campaigns, and fundraising events can now learn why game mechanics get results.

But is Fun the Point?

However, I do have a minor quibble with the focus on “fun” as a main reason to use game mechanics in your website or application. My objection here is pretty much an extension of one I have with game designers in general: The obsession with entertainment that only culminates in a warm, fuzzy feeling of achievement or at least a satisfying resolution (winning, saving the day, completing the so-called Hero’s Journey, finally saving up enough points to buy a virtual item you covet, etc.). The focus on fun alone is also why game design, as an artistic medium, has not yet produced a Schindler’s List (or even a Life Is Beautiful), though at least we got Train. In game design, it’s largely presumed that fun is a positive experience with nothing but good, productive stress, and many an overly-serious game design book has been written trying to explain how FUN is crafted. People think of games as the candy in our media diets, not the whole grains or the steak.

The problem with fun is that successful, effective entertainment does not need to be fun. People can be deeply engaged, motivated and, ultimately, entertained by experiences and media that are downright disturbing, sad, and leave us with more questions than answers, more tension than resolution. Moreover, people can be entertained by games, media, and experiences that are patently dull, repetitive, and frustrating as hell (for example, the grind to get experience points (XP) in your favorite massively multiplayer online (MMO) title – sure, it has a payoff at the end, but it isn’t always fun while you’re doing it).

Interesting to me is that even when people seem to understand the trend of pervasive gaming, gameification of everyday life, they still focus on the element of fun. As if life, work, and everything important in the world can or should be primarily fun. I suppose with rose-colored glasses on, everything might have fun potential, but realistically, I don’t think every experience does have the potential to be fun. The feeling goes double for a lot of the mundane transactional chores we do in marketplaces for goods and services.

Rather, I think the savvy marketer will employ game mechanics to promote engagement and motivate key behaviors, with fun regarded only in proportion to how the consumer feels about the product and exchange of value. Big-ticket purchases like airfare and hotel rooms are considered both expensive and interesting choices by consumers. Household staples like toothpaste and toilet paper… not so much. The gratification your market will get from the game marketing you employ will most likely be a function of how much interest or expense the customer has already associated with your product (before they even play your advergame or participate in your rewards program).

Motivation for the Win

The holy grail of engagement design, game design included, is not fun. The holy grail is motivation. How do you make someone WANT to keep doing something? There are many ways, and game mechanics are some of the most tried-and-true techniques software designers have to keep end-users doing whatever it is you want them to do.

If you’re making a mainstream video game, then fun is important. If you’re designing a rewards program for the loyal users of Charmin toilet paper (in order to sell more TP), then what you really want from game mechanics is motivation that drives your measurable, performance marketing campaign. Fun and whimsy doesn’t come into it as much as you might think.

Besides, what do you think will happen to the “fun factor” when every damn thing you buy or use wants to make that experience into a game? Do I want points and levels every time I buy more toilet paper, or is that just adding another distracting layer of complication to my already complicated life? Think in terms of motivation and choose your game mechanics accordingly, rather than trying to “gamewash” everything in sight.

Gamewashing = More Work Than Fun

Apparently, I just coined the term gamewashing. And by gamewashing, I mean applying game mechanics to shoehorn gratuitous fun into utilitarian experiences nobody cares to enjoy. The net result is often that the game and meta-gaming adds more busywork in its misguided quest to make something more fun.

Case in point: Chore Wars. I mean aren’t chores time-consuming enough without adding a meta-game process that requires me to keep a log whenever I scrub the toilet or fold the laundry? I’m a hardcore achiever in games and getting XP for life work does sound tempting… but not if tracking and awarding the XP actually creates MORE work (though I am perverse enough to want to write a strategy guide for Chore Wars for people who want to put in the extra time to metagame their Chore Wars group in order to get maximum XP for minimum actual work). The longer I dwell on it, the more I think Chore Wars is just a brilliant way for one person (perhaps the neatnik or parental type who fusses the most over chores) to motivate others to do more than they were doing previously. In which case, it’s more of a social exploit, or a persuasive marketing game that people can use to influence their family, roommates, or co-workers. Chore Wars is certainly not a game one plays for the personal satisfaction of playing, though it has loads of entertainment value as comedy fodder.

Challenge = Motivational, Not Fun

Ever played a game well past the point where it was actually still fun? You kept playing because fun is just a positive side effect of the deep engagement—the motivation—created by any game, or any experience (since this whole concept of engagement goes far beyond games). We keep doing stuff, even when it is not fun, because something motivates us. Sometimes the challenge of the game experience feels quite frustrating, but we persist because we are effectively motivated to beat the challenge. Thus, experiences of frustration rather than fun, can sometimes be a big part of why a game is effective at engagement and motivation. This reality runs counter to what you might expect (especially if you think successful games are 100% focused on fun).

Nobody will argue that Tetris is not a successful, effective game. But unless you’re a real glutton for punishment (or expert player), Tetris is simply not fun at the higher, fast-paced levels. It pisses me off. But it also makes me want to become a better Tetris player, so I keep trying. One can argue that a frustrating challenge is a type of fun, but when I’m tense and exhausted from getting soooo close to beating my high-score, only to fail yet again… fun is not the first “f” word that comes to mind. Sometimes good games are not fun 100% of the time. Sometimes good movies, books, and life itself are not fun 100% of the time. But they can still be engaging and entertaining despite the lack of wall-to-wall fun (especially in retrospect, where the real “assessment” of value is made by the participant).

So remember the most addictive (yet frustrating) game you’ve ever played again and again. Or, if you are not a gamer, remember the most challenging romantic relationship you’ve ever had (more than likely, there were plenty of times it was more “engaging” for you than “fun”). Sometimes we need to build engagement without cultivating fun (for example, if your website and community is about bereavement or bankruptcy… maybe fun is not quite the right experience to shoot for).

Game Mechanics Don’t Enhance Everything

It’s also fair to note that the mere presence of game mechanics alone does not create fun.

Coke Rewards is a successful rewards program that offers enough value that I don’t mind saving the codes and asking my kids to enter them (they also get to claim the points). However, I would not describe the experience of participating in Coke Rewards as fun. Entering the codes is a chore. It’s a chore I am happy to delegate to kids who are still young enough to thrill at a free pop redemption, but it’s not a chore I would spend my own time on, regardless of the points system, sweepstakes, and many well-designed features. There is moderate motivation in the program (stronger if you are broke or a freebie/coupon hobbyist), but generally, it’s more work than reward. Coke sure gets a lot out of it though, in site engagement, page views (ad views) and collection of some market research data. It’s gameified, and effective, but I do not think most participants are having fun the majority of the time they are participating in the Coke Rewards program.

There are also many applications and experiences where you just can’t shoehorn a genuinely fun experience into them because the engagement and motivation is too directly task or outcome based for the user. In these cases, any active game mechanics are only getting in the user’s way. Passive game mechanics might be useful, but there is no such thing as an entirely passive game system (at some point, to even be experienced, the game system needs some amount of attention from the user, else it is invisible and not really experienced at all).

As Zichermann says in his article, Quicken doesn’t leave you feeling elated and I suspect it’s because most people would be pretty depressed if they realized using Quicken was a highlight in their day. Remember that little goofball Clippy who tried to add some fun and personality to Microsoft Office apps? I know he was part of an elaborate help feature that was supposed to assist you with Office tasks, but most people just found him (and his other fun, cute cartoon friends) an annoying interruption that actually created more work (you had to click to make him go away).

Don’t add so much “fun” to your application that you get in the way of people trying to USE your website or application. Again, it’s really the motivation and engagement that you want, not necessarily the fun. (Source: Game Theory)


上一篇:

下一篇: