作者：Tony Ventrice

本系列文章的第一部分围绕游戏趣味元素探讨了游戏化的可行方法，第二部分则关注成长与情感元素，本文解析的是选择与竞争元素。

选择

“选择”一词可以定义为策略性选项或战术风险，我们在讨论成长、学习与克服挑战时已经涉及这两个话题，现在我想讨论的定义则是：自由选择与自由行动。换句话说，也就是自主权。

许多现代文明都是构建于自主权是与生俱来的权利这个概念，我们可以将这个概念称为：自主、自由和表达。我认为每个自主性的选择都包括三个因素：冲动、影响和道德。即对推动变化的渴望，这种变化所产生的后果，以及这些后果的道德含义。

我要重申的是，这些并非我们做出选择时缺一不可的考虑因素，但至少需要满足其中一者（假如三者俱无，那么这就是一种随机性的举动，根本算不上是一种选择）。

冲动

也就是随心而欲。冲动是人类精神的一个基本元素。例如，我想得到什么就拿什么。我觉得某些东西应该是什么状态，就采取行动令其如己所愿。尽管如此，我们还是不能完全让冲动来支配自己的行动。

事实上，我们其实无法满足自己的大多数心理冲动。因为我们知道一些行动的后果，以及不计后果会带来的风险，所以我们会克制自己的行为。但这种自律心理有时会让我们纠结和烦恼。我们很想表达自己的意愿，尽情地做自己想做的事情。人们谈到“无拘无束”一词时，基本上是指放下一切束缚、规矩和限制——通过躲藏到自己的小巢、进行远足或者玩电子游戏等安全的地方，满足自己的一部分小冲动心理。

影响

简单地说，影响就是指每项行动的结果。每一个选择也必然会伴生一个结果。从冲动的角度来看，这两者的因果关系非常明了，例如，我选择草莓酱的原因是它的味道比葡萄更好。

但对于长期影响来说，它可能是一种可深刻改变人生的重大影响：我选择在洛杉矶攻读计算机科学，这个选择直接影响了我后来遇到的人、我去的地方和我的所做所为等人生事件。

值得一提的是，这些选择并不只是影响了我们本身，它们还影响了他人以及我们所处的环境。假如我们的存在不会带来任何影响，那么我们所扮演的角色及我们本身的存在意义就很成问题。

如果我的行为不会对社会造成任何影响，我又何须降临人世？

我们可以将影响划分为三个不同层面：

自身：这是影响的基本层面，深受西方文化影响的人通常认为，自己的命运应该对世界产生一定影响。这是人们的一个主要期望，其中还包含一定的责任感（我要对发生在自己身上的事情负责）。假如我爬上屋顶并不慎摔了下来，我就得处理自己受伤的事情。

环境：这是影响的下一个层面，人们常觉得自己应该对周围环境施加影响——改变周围环境的条件。这是人们的第二个期望，其中也包含适度的责任感（我是环境的一分子，我的行为会对这个空间的未来资源产生影响）。假如我搞坏了屋顶，我就得修复它，以免屋顶漏雨。

他人：在第三个层面，许多人都希望自己能对他们产生影响，这是人们的第三个期望，并且带有高度的责任感（我会对他人遇到的事情产生影响）。假如我让某人爬上屋顶，对方摔下来受伤了，我可能就要为此负责。

道德

自主选择的第三个因素就是道德。它意味着我们所做出的许多决定包含公众普遍认知的正确与错误选项。因为道德准则是由社会而定，其中难免有一些原则与个人本意相悖。

当个人意愿与社会追求并不一致时，道德准则就成了我们采取行动的唯一选择。个人究竟该遵循自己的冲动，还是社会诫律？前者可以让个人得到好处，而后者则是社会认可的行为。

在强大的社会体系中，人们常因慑于惩罚而做出道德选择。在害怕惩罚的个人看来，真正意义上的的道德选择可能仅局限于一些琐碎的事情。例如，我可能会有闯红灯（较小的缺德行为）这种行为，但却从不会考虑去杀人（这是极大的违法行为）。

这里我们谈到了法律，而法律则代表社会对个人选择的最基本影响。社会的影响还包括其他形式，例如较不正式的规则，体统、骑士精神、尊重和礼貌。这些都是一种道德选择形式，都是社会制定的标准。这些规则并不像法律那样正式，违规惩罚也并不像触犯法律那样严重。假设我是个粗鲁的人，我绝不会因此而入狱，但会发现周围人很难与我相处。

如果免除了惩罚手段，道德选择就会成为一个很有趣的讨论话题——即使社会规则失效，你也还是会为了社会福祉而令个人意愿让步吗？

游戏中的冲动、影响和道德

游戏中的冲动元素：游戏都有一些限制条件，或者说是一套游戏规则。玩家在游戏中并不能随心所欲地行动，实际上，他们在游戏中所能做的事情远少于现实世界。但人们还是觉得在游戏中比在现实生活中更自由。

这是因为许多游戏虽然都在模拟现实，但却只是现实生活的简化或者超现实主义翻版。它们比现实生活中的约束更少，原因在于它们仅局限于狭碍的交互行为，在这种有限的范围内，游戏可以移除现实中的许多约束。

例如，在《侠盗猎车手3》中，我虽然不能做参加厨艺培训班，不能躺在沙滩上晒太阳，不能纹身等许多事情。但却可以射杀他人，盗窃任何一辆汽车，并且在马路上横冲直撞却无需担心因车祸受伤的问题。

我不能在游戏中做一些事情是因为游戏本身并不涉及这些内容——只要我自己不并不想去做这些事情，它们就不能算是限制性条件。只有当游戏激发我们进行某些操作的欲望，但却无法令我们实现时，我们在游戏中的冲动才会受挫。

例如，在一款破坏箱子的游戏中，我们发现两个箱子堵住了一个门口，而我们却不能去破坏这个出口时，我们就会感到失望。假如这里原来并没有这个门，我们就不会对门外边的世界产生期待。

冲动对装饰层面的心理也有影响。例如，在《模拟人生》等支持玩家发挥创意装饰内容的游戏中，玩家可以选择今天用蓝色的墙纸，明天用红色条纹的墙纸。玩家的这种反复无常的个性并不仅体现在装饰虚拟玩具屋，游戏中的虚拟角色形象也是这种心理的体现。

由于游戏模拟现实的精确度日益上升，冲动性选择也开始逐渐成为游戏中的一个强大元素。随着游戏深度和真实现的提高，玩家将可在游戏中满足更广泛的冲动而无需担心会有什么风险。

游戏中的影响：我们可以将游戏视为一个系统，玩家则是系统中的一分子。玩家在游戏中通常以虚拟形象示人，但有时候则像是一个不可见其形的天神，以其无穷的力量影响游戏世界的变化。无论是哪种情形，我们进行游戏设计时都必须承认玩家对游戏的影响力。玩家对游戏施加的影响各不相同，既包括可一直产生回应的操作，也包含那些导致玩家需持续重建游戏世界的行为。

关于持续影响的一个早期典型就是《吃豆人》，玩家在游戏中逐渐消灭界面中的豆子，而在现代射击游戏中，玩家甚至可以完全摧毁周遭的环境。

例如《上古卷轴》系列等现代RPG游戏致力于打造一个“富有生命力”的世界，整个游戏过程始终贯穿玩家所做出的抉择。从这个极端例子来看，这里产生的持续性影响意味着玩家无法不计后果地肆意妄为。

但具有持续影响的行为也有一些好处，它会增加玩家决策的重要性，让玩家的游戏体验更具沉浸感，使虚拟世界更具真实感。这种影响是以一种趣味为代价而催生另一种趣味性。

天神类型的游戏采用的是最为极端的做法，其影响力不仅是一种真实感来源，而且还是游戏的娱乐之源。在这类游戏中，玩家不再只是个简单地应付自己的决策所产生的后果。玩家在这里是天神，可以随心所欲地主宰他人的命运。

而在《文明》、《黑与白》或《模拟城市》中，玩家拥有掌握整个社会命运的主导权，而且不需要担心其决策的直接后果。这些游戏当然也有一些明确目标，但其目标的重要性多数时候要让位于自由选择和影响这两个要素。我记得小时候玩《模拟城市》时，我是同龄人当中少数乐于建设城市而非摧毁文明的玩家之一。

游戏中的道德感：到目前为止，游戏中的道德元素仍然有限。这从不少玩家在游戏中屠杀千万敌军、进攻NPC的房子并将其洗劫一空等行为就可以看出端倪。

但电子游戏的深度和游戏体验都在日益增强，它们对现实世界的模拟也开始更上一层楼，并且更易于将现实社会中的道德观植入游戏世界。

许多现代游戏采纳了这种做法，在游戏玩法中引进了简单的道德或者因果关系。在这些系统中，玩家的某些行为会产生因果报应，而其他行为则会减少报应，结果就是玩家会被贴上“善良”或“邪恶”的标签。多数时候，这种因果关系还会与解琐新功能挂钩，而玩家所作的选择可能会更具策略性而非道德性。

若要让决策具有真正的道德感，游戏就应该让玩家难以比较两个选项结果的好坏。例如，“邪恶”会带来财富，而选择“善良”则拥有好名誉，而这两者之间却难以进行转化。

《质量效应2》就属于分离道德选择的典型，它创建了道德立场模糊的场景，让玩家自己进行裁断。它其中的道德困境融入了重要但与实际游戏玩法无涉的故事内容。

《现代战争2》则是一个不同的例子，其中有一个富有争议的机场大屠杀情景，玩家在其中的任务就是向无辜的人群扫射。无论玩家是选择完成这项任务，还是简单地向空中鸣几枪，相信这个场景都会深深烙在他们的脑海中。

道德感并不仅局限于现实主义的电子游戏。Brenda Brathwaite广为人知的试验性桌面游戏《Train》也通过简单的玩具火车和木制人质呈现游戏中的道德压力。该游戏的目标是让玩家尽可能在火车箱中塞入更多人质，然后将车箱推向轨道，它让玩家将自己想象成一个把人质押送到集中营的德国军官。

因为道德感具有天然的主观性，我们最好从客观角度设置道德元素。不要给玩家强行贴上“善良”和“邪恶”的标签，而要创造与现实生活类似的道德困境（例如，牺牲小我成全大我），然后让玩家遵从内心的想法作出抉择。假如道德选择过于倾向于其中一方，我们可能就需要向其添加策略性的动机以“平衡”选项，并鼓励玩家自己权衡利弊。

结论

人们每天都会遇到各种相互冲突的需求。例如索取资源的自私需求与为后人留下遗产，尊重他人的道德需求之间的矛盾。为平衡两种需求而采取的折衷做法总是无法让人们为其中一个选择感到满意。游戏为玩家创造了一个有机会行使权力、施加影响力和履行责任的虚拟环境，他们在这种情境中可以自由探索现实生活所无法给予的各种选择。

如果要让这种移情体验更为形象，那就要让游戏环境准确模拟现实中的选择情境。

竞争

我们对胜利的激动和失败的痛苦这两种情感并不陌生，除非你一直受到父母无微不致的呵护，否则肯定都经历这两种极端情感。

竞争描述的是一种双方或多方参与的状态，其结果必定有输赢。正如前文所述，竞争具有情绪化特点，以致于有人困惑为何不将竞争划入情感元素之列。但我们也有足够理由可以解释这一点，例如，许多成人只是单纯为了竞争而做出一些情绪化且不合时宜的举动。

我们之所以将竞争独立讨论，还有一个原因是，缺乏竞争元素，游戏中的情感就会有所差别——玩家可能会对游戏主角心生同情，而有了竞争机制，游戏主角就是玩家的化身，他们对人物的同情心理则会更直接而具体。

可以说，竞争是传达情感的一个工具（尤其有助于创造戏剧性效果），人们置身于竞争状态时，往往无法分清现实与虚拟，他们仿佛身临其境，与游戏融为一体。

这也正是竞争的强大之处，竞争是一种原始情感，它会让期望、紧张、害怕和兴高采烈等情感不由自主地喷发出来，这是一种像坐过山车般无法预期的兴奋情感。

竞争的形式

凡是可以衡量比较的事情都具有竞争性，主要可划分为7个大类：

肢体技能：这是关于力气、速度和精确度的比较。其例子包括棒球、冲浪等体育运动，以及《Pong》和《使命召唤》等对玩家反应要求较高的电子游戏。

创意技能：其范围包括绘画、舞蹈、烹饪、指挥、写作等。这种竞争的目标是发挥创造力，博得评委们的认可。

策略技巧：它包括任何与策略相关的领域，例如理解和预测一个系列的行为表现（包括其他玩家的影响力），其例子包括《文明》、国际象棋等。

外交：它包括理解和预测潜在友盟的行为，并以富有影响力的想法采取相关行动。一般可称为政治或人气，其例子包括选举竞争、划分阶级以及多方战争游戏。

知识：它考验玩家对规则或事实的精通程度和积累，其例子包括桥牌以及知识竞答等。它也可以包括策略技巧元素——如果某个系统的规则并无定论，那么其中的最佳策略就是胜者。

时间：这是考验耐力和耐心的竞争，其例子包括参与广播电话交谈节目，黑帮题材的在线社交游戏，或者凝视大赛（游戏邦注：这是让参与者睁大眼睛，看谁最先眨眼的比赛）。

运气：比赛结果具有随机性的竞争活动，例如掷骰子游戏、纸牌游戏、体育运动、赌博等。但由于现在许多人都知道结构分析法，人们已经可以预测这种竞争的统计概率，如果多次试验几次，这种运气游戏也迟早将演变成一种统计知识竞赛。

从许多例子来看，一种竞争状态都会同时体现出以上的其中几种形式。例如《命运之轮》这个电视节目考验的就是参与者的知识积累和运气，而《疯狂橄榄球》则不但要求玩家具有肢体技能，而且还要具有对方球队的背景知识，擅用相关策略应对该队球员，《星际争霸》则几乎包括以上所有竞争类型（除了创意技能之外）。

零和博弈

在真正的竞争状态中，玩家的胜利结果取决于其他参与者的表现。这意味着，假如有一名玩家获胜，其他玩家则必败无疑。

所有人都是赢家的竞赛绝非零和竞争状态。只要有一名玩家比其他玩家赢得更多，这种竞争就可称为零和游戏（在这种情况下，那些表现一般的玩家所获结果都是零）。

但零和游戏中的赢家和输家数量并不需要对等分配，例如《大富翁》中有一名玩家赢了，那么其他玩家就都输了，而在轮盘赌游戏中，只要有一名玩家输了，其他人就都是赢家。

在一些竞争性环境中，零和博弈可能无法明确体现所有玩家的成就和表现。例如，某个社区是根据玩家表现进行排名，但系统仅显示跻身前10强的玩家排行榜，而剩下的玩家成就排名并不为人所知（排在第4557名并不是个好成绩对吧？）。

问题就在于，无论你采用的是明示还是暗示手段，玩家就是想知道零和博弈的确切结果。

非零和状态

采用非零和博弈的竞争并非与其他玩家相较量的竞争，而是玩家与系统的竞争。虽然我们可以比较玩家的游戏进程，但这是根据游戏系统的普遍门槛来衡量玩家进程，并不具有相对性。

非零和状态的优势在于，这种竞争中没有输家。而其潜在劣势就是这种人人共赢的结果会削弱玩家获胜的快感。

公平

并非所有的竞争都很“公平”——这意味着并非所有竞争者的起点都一样，都有均等的获胜概率。而游戏这种娱乐形式却始终在追求公平性，给予玩家几乎同等的获胜机会。其唯一的不公之处就在于玩家本身的能力（游戏邦注：例如肢体技能、策略技巧等）不平衡。

破坏游戏公平的另一种做法就是“购买”优势。这种方式可以让游戏开发者大获其益，但却可能对游戏的整体布局造成影响，因为它会削弱其他竞争形式（例如策略、技能等）的重要性。

多数社交游戏的收益来源于这种购买优势的机制。人们已普遍能够接受时间与金钱等价的说法，在当前这种按时间计费的社会中，我们已然习惯于将时间与金钱划等号。

隐藏失败

几乎人人都喜欢获胜，没人希望失败。竞争之所以如此具有吸引力，原因在于它既产生胜利兴奋感也伴生了最让人不悦的感觉，即失败的丢脸。

有些社交游戏成功地在让“人人皆赢”的情况下，制造了一种零和博弈的假象。坦率而言，这意味着这些游戏系统通过“补偿”输家而掩盖失败。例如，在《大富翁》当中，玩家每次踏上对手的地盘时，银行都会帮他们偿还大部分债务。

这种手段造成的一个后果就是打破游戏经济系统的平衡，另外就是让游戏永无终结（多数社交游戏采用了这种做法）。

竞争的运用

在本系列文章中，竞争也许是与游戏最有关联的趣味性元素。竞争对非游戏活动的主要作用之一就是令其显得更像游戏。

而且我们也很容易运用这种元素——只要简单地衡量参与者的表现，并与其他参与者进行比较，这种情况就属于竞争。但正如我前文所述的观点，竞争是极具情绪化的元素，因此很容易给参与者带来压力。

在游戏中植入竞争元素也许是可取做法，但在非竞争活动（例如跑腿打杂等）中融入该元素却未必能取得理想效果。

无论结果更好还是更坏，竞争元素都会改变一种行为或活动的整体情境，但我们不能轻视这种变化。（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）

Gamification Dynamics: Choice and Competition

by Tony Ventrice

[In the first installment of this series on gamification, Badgeville's Tony Ventrice looked to frame the discussion around what's possible with gamification by attempting to discover what makes games fun. Two dynamics he explored before were Growth and Emotion, and in this article, he tackles Choice and Competition.]

Choice The word “choice” could be defined to describe strategic choices or tactical risks. But those are topics we already covered when we discussed growth, learning, and overcoming challenges. The definition I would like to discuss now is: the freedom to choose and the freedom to act. To put it another way, I’d like to talk about autonomy.

Many of our modern cultures are founded on the concept of autonomy as an inborn right. We give it names like: freedom, liberty, and expression. It is a favorite topic of philosophers, and an investigation of the subject could easily lead to the likes of Locke and Kant, but for our purposes it shouldn’t be necessary to go that far.

Instead, I’d like to stick to simple definitions. To start, I think it’s safe to say every autonomous choice implies three potential considerations: impulse, influence, and morality. The desire to effect change, understanding the results of that change, and the moral implications of those results.

I’ll reiterate that these are possible considerations; a choice need not consider all three, but only a minimum of one (if it considered none, it would be essentially random, and not really much of a choice at all).

Impulse

To act on a sensation. Impulse is a very rudimentary aspect of the human psyche. I want something and I take it. I wonder what something feels like and I do it. Yet, as these two statements probably have already implied, we cannot follow through with many of our impulses.

In fact, I would estimate most of our impulses go unfulfilled. We know the repercussions of acting out, the risks of ignoring consequences, and we restrain ourselves.

But all this self-editing can be tiring. We yearn to express ourselves, to feel unhindered, free to do as we please. When people talk about “unwinding”, they’re talking about dropping all the restraint, the rules and restrictions — of going someplace safe where they can fulfill at least a small subset of impulse; be it a den, a hike, or a video game.

Influence

Influence simply states that for an action, there will be a reaction; for a choice, there will be a result. In the case of pure impulse, this relationship is rather banal: I choose strawberry jam because it will give me greater sensory pleasure than grape.

But in the case of choice based on predicted long-term influence, influence can be profound and life changing: I chose to pursue a Computer Science degree in Los Angeles and that choice directly influenced every event in my life thereafter, from the people I met to the places I went and the things I’ve done.

It’s also worth noting that choices not only have an effect on ourselves, they often affect others and our environment. And we typically like this. We the like feeling that our presence makes a difference. When it doesn’t, our role comes into question — sometimes even our very existence. If my actions have no impact, why am I even here?

To break this down even a little more, lets look into these different dimensions of influence:

Self. At the fundamental level, people in Western cultures feel a need to have an influence over their own fate. This is a primary expectation and carries some degree of responsibility (I am responsible for what happens to me). If I climb on the roof and fall off, I have to deal with the injuries I incur.

Environment. At the next level, people feel a need to have an influence over their environment — to change the conditions that surround them. This is a secondary expectation, and carries a moderate degree of responsibility (I am part of an environment and my actions will impact the future resources of this space). If while climbing on the roof, I damage it, I will have to deal with the leaks when it rains.

Others. At the third level, many people like having an effect on others, to share in their autonomy. This is a tertiary expectation, and can carry a high degree of responsibility (I have an influence over what happens to other people). If I cause someone else to get on the roof, I may be responsible if they fall off and hurt themselves.

Morality

The third aspect of autonomous choice is morality. Morality implies that, for many decisions, there are universally acknowledged right and wrong options. The moral guidelines are defined by society and may not always be in agreement with the desires of the individual.

Morality becomes a choice precisely when the desires of the self and the society are not in agreement; does the individual follow personal impulse or the precepts of decency? One the one hand, personal gain; on the other, social approval.

In strong societies, the choice of morality comes couched in the threat of punishment. For the punishment-fearing individual, real moral choice may be limited to the mostly trivial cases. For example, I may make the immoral choice to turn right at a red light without stopping (a minor moral infraction), but I would probably never consider murdering someone (a major infraction).

What we are talking about are laws and laws represent just the simplest example of society’s influence on individual choice. Society’s influence comes in other forms, less formal rules, things like decency, chivalry, respect and politeness. Each a form of moral choice, each adherent to standards determined by society. The rules are less formal than laws and so are the punishments. If I am rude, I’m not thrown in jail, but I may find that other people are less willing to cooperate with me.

Morality becomes interesting and potentially fun when you remove the threat of punishment. Many consider this to be the true test of moral fiber — will you defer your personal desires to those of the society, even when the society is unable to enforce its rules?

Impulse, Influence, and Morality in Games

Impulse in games. By virtue of the simple fact that games have limitations, they can be said to have rules. The player can not do anything he likes inside a game; in fact, there is very little a player can do inside a game compared to the real world. Yet, people often find games more liberating than real life.

This is because while many games model reality, these models are generally accepted to be simplifications or surrealistic interpretations. They are perceived as less limiting than reality because they focus on a narrow band of interactions and, within that range of focus, key restrictions have been removed.

For example, in Grand Theft Auto III, I can’t enroll in cooking classes, lie down on the beach, get a tattoo of a manatee or a thousand other things. But I can shoot someone with limited repercussions or steal any car I want and tool around town on the wrong side of the street until I crash and pop out, free from injury.

The thousands of things I can’t do are out of the scope of the game — as long as I don’t expect to be able to do them, they aren’t acknowledged as limitations.

Impulse only disappoints in a game when the game sets the expectation of being able to do something, only to prevent it from being done.

For example, in a game where boxes and crates can be destroyed, finding two crates blocking a doorway that cannot be destroyed disappoints the player’s impulse to find out what’s through the doorway. But if the door was never there in the first place, the player would never wonder what was on the other side of the wall.

Impulse also covers the dimension of decoration. A game that allows for decoration, such as The Sims, allows players to redecorate as the whim strikes them. Blue wallpaper today, red stripes tomorrow. This sense of capricious personalization is not limited to virtual dollhouses; it frequently turns up in the form of avatar builders that let the player change or evolve their in-game appearance.

Impulsive choice is a powerful aspect of games that is becoming increasingly relevant as games are able to model the real world more and more accurately. As games become deeper and more realistic, players will be enabled to indulge a wider range of impulses without risk of consequences.

Influence in Games. Games can be thought of as systems and the player should be considered part of that system. Often, the player is represented literally, through an avatar, but other times the player acts more like a god, influencing the game world from above with no physical representation within it. In either case, it’s a fundamental rule of game design that the game acknowledge the influence of the player. Influence can vary from actions causing reactions all the way to actions causing permanent reconstruction of the game world.

Persistent influence has evolved from early examples like Pac-Man, where the player gradually cleared the board of dots, to today where, in many modern shooters, the players can literally tear down the environments around them.

Modern RPGs, such as the Elder Scrolls series, strive to go even further and create “living” worlds where decisions follow the player through the game. Taken to this extreme, influence seems to be in opposition to the goal of impulse; persistence means players can’t act impulsively and without consequence.

But there is a benefit to actions having lasting effects; as decisions carry greater weight, the fantasy becomes more immersive. The fictional world feels more real.

Influence enables one type of fun at the expense of another.

God games take the most extreme approach, and embrace influence as more than just a source of realism: as a source of entertainment in itself. The player is no longer a simple actor who must deal with the consequences of his decisions. The player is a god, free to decide the lasting fate of others.

In games like Civilization, Black & White, or SimCity, the player has complete freedom to steer the fate of a society without fear of direct consequence. Sure, there are explicit objectives to these games, but for many, they take a secondary role to the freedom of choice and influence. As a child, I can still remember discovering I was in the minority of my peers in that I played SimCity primarily to build cities and not destroy them.

Morality in games. Up until recently, games paid very little attention to morality. Conventions like killing enemies by the thousands, invading NPCs’ homes without thought and destroying furniture in the search for cash and power-ups are evidence of this legacy.

But as video games have become richer experiences and greater depth has been instilled into their worlds, they have come much closer to modeling our real world. As the resemblance gets closer, it becomes easier to project the morals of our real world onto the game world.

Many modern games have embraced this convergence, introducing simple morality or karma systems into gameplay. In these systems, certain actions increase karma, others decrease it, and the result is the player is labeled as either “good” or “evil”. More often than not, the karma system is also tied to the unlocking of features, and the choice runs the risk of becoming more tactical than moral.

For a decision to be truly moral, the tactical results of the two options should be difficult to compare. For example, “evil” provides wealth, while “good” provides reputation, and translating between the two is an inexact science.

Mass Effect 2 does a good job of isolating morality in choice by building morally ambiguous scenarios and then asking the player to arbitrate. The dilemmas involve significant story investment yet carry little actual gameplay relevance (at least that the player is able to predict while making the choices).

In a different example, Modern Warfare 2 has a controversial airport massacre scene, “No Russian”, where the user is asked to fire into a crowd of innocents. Whether the player chose to contribute or simply fire into the air makes no real difference to the progress of the game, but probably leaves a lasting impression in the mind of the player nonetheless.

Morality is not limited to realistic video games. A game need only evoke parallels to real-world moral choices to be effective. Brenda Brathwaite’s widely cited experimental board game Train was able to pose moral tension through simple toy trains and wooden pawns.

The objective of the game was to cram as many pawns into your boxcar as possible and move it to the end of the track. The moral difficulties arose from the aesthetic elements, which not-so-subtly invited players to imagine themselves as German officers tasked with transporting people to concentration camps.

Because morals are inherently personal, it’s advisable to approach them objectively. Rather than force subjective “good” and “evil” labels on players, provide opportunities to draw parallels to real-world moral dilemmas (for example to sacrifice an individual for the good of many) and then give your players the freedom to choose without persuasion. If the moral choice is too clearly one-sided, tactical incentives could be added to “balance” the choice and encourage players to weigh morals as part of a larger equation.

Conclusion Individuals are daily faced with conflicting demands. Selfish demands to acquire resources and leave a lasting legacy and moral demands to respect others.

This balancing act of constant compromise rarely gives individuals the opportunity to indulge either side to satisfaction. Games offer a virtual environment where players have the opportunity to play with power, influence and responsibility in a context where they have the freedom to explore choices reality does not afford.

For this vicarious experience to be effective, the game environment must be able to accurately model the real-world choices. In non-games, where modeling an entire world is probably not feasible, the focus will most likely need to be narrow and explicitly designed.

Competition

We’re all familiar with the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. Not only is it a familiar phrase but, unless you’ve grown up with the world’s most protective parents, you’ve probably experienced both ends of the spectrum a few times yourself.

Literally, competition describes a situation involving two or more parties, the outcome of which results in a winner and a loser. And as the initial quote implies, competitions tend to be emotional, so much so that you might be inclined to ask why competition wasn’t included back in the emotion section. There’s certainly ample reason to address it there; I’ve personally seen grown adults do some very emotional and inappropriate things for no reason other than competition.

Yet I think there is a distinction that makes it wise to address competition separately. Without competition, the emotions of games are largely vicarious: the player feels empathy for a protagonist. With competition, the protagonist is the self and the empathy is direct.

In a way, competition is a vehicle for emotion (particularly drama). Once competition enters the picture, many people can’t seem to emotionally separate reality and fiction; we project ourselves into the game so completely that there is no longer an emotional distance between participant and game.

And this is what makes competition so powerful. Competition is raw emotion. Anticipation, Anxiety, Fear, and Elation all come bursting out uncontrolled, an emotional rollercoaster that is as exciting as it is unpredictable.

Forms of Competition

Anything that can be measured can be competitive but once one gets down to categorizing, competition seems to fit into seven broad dimensions:Physical skill. Competitions of strength, speed and accuracy. Includes sports like baseball or surfing, and reaction-based video games like Pong or Call of Duty.

Creative skill. Competitions of creativity, such as painting, dancing, cooking, directing, writing, etc. The goal is to innovate and please the sensibilities of a group of judges.

Mental tactics. A broad category that includes anything strategic — that involves reading and predicting the behaviors of a system (including the influences of other players), from Civilization to chess to the play-calling of American football.

Diplomacy. A form of strategy that involves reading and predicting the behaviors of potential allies and acting with the intent of influencing opinions. Often called politics, or popularity, and includes contests from elections to hierarchies to multi-sided war games.

Knowledge. The accumulation and mastery of rules or facts, from highly formalized games like bridge, to straightforward trivia contests. Can also act as an alternate approach to mental tactics — if the rules of a system can not be deduced, optimal strategies can be observed and memorized.

Time. Competitions of persistence or patience, measured by time and participation. Includes contests of participation such as a radio show call-in, an online social “mafia” game, or a staring contest.

Luck. Anything truly random, including (in many aspects) dice games, card games, sports, gambling, etc. Yet, given structured analysis, statistical odds become predictable and, over multiple trials, luck games will evolve into contests of statistical knowledge.

In many cases, a competition takes the form of some combination of the above seven forms. For example, the game show Wheel of Fortune requires both knowledge and luck, while a Madden football game requires physical skill, mental tactics and knowledge of the opposing team, and StarCraft involves at least a little bit of almost all of the categories (the exception being creativity).

The Zero-Sum

In a true competition, success is measured relative to the performance of the other players. This means that if one player succeeds, another necessarily fails (the metaphorical sum total of their success being zero).

A competition in which everybody wins is not a zero-sum competition. Although if one player is recognized as winning more than the others, the competition could be perceived as being zero-sum (in this case, the performance of the theoretical average player would count as zero). A college course that grades on a strict curve is an example of a zero-sum competition.

The distribution of winners and losers does not need to be symmetrical across the full set of participants to count as zero-sum. For example, in Monopoly, only one player wins while all the others lose, and in credit card roulette, only one player loses while all the others win.

Implied Zero-Sum

In some competitive environments, the zero-sum comparison may not be explicitly measurable by the community at large. For example, imagine a community of players ranked according to performance. Participants are only shown a leaderboard of the top 10 players. In a large community, where the bottom end of the range is essentially unknown, many ranks lack context. (Is 4,557 a good rank?)

Yet it’s naïve to assume that just because the zero-sum is not clearly expressed, it doesn’t exist. Players will fill in the blanks by estimating their success, and often not accurately. Imagine in this community there is only one measure of success: being on the leaderboard or off the leaderboard. If the actual size of the community is 10,000 players and only 10 players appear on the leaderboard, there is a strong implication to 9990 of the players that they are losers.

The takeaway is players have a tendency to seek out the zero-sum, whether you make it explicit or not.

Non Zero-Sum

A competition which is not zero-sum is not truly a competition against other players but actually a competition against a system. Although players’ progress may be compared, they are measured against universal thresholds and not relatively.

An example is a college course that does not grade on a curve. The advantage of non zero-sum is that it does not require losers. A possible disadvantage is that some of the thrill might be removed from winning if it is possible for everyone to win.

Fairness

Not all competitions are “fair” — meaning not all competitors start the competition with an equal opportunity to win. But games, as a form of entertainment, almost always strive to be fair, meaning all players start with a roughly equal opportunity of victory. The only unfairness in games should be the player’s innate natural ability (i.e. physical skill, mental talent, etc).

An alternate means of breaking fairness that has been turning up lately, is buying an advantage. While this can be profitable for the game’s maker, it is potentially dangerous to the integrity of the game if it weakens the significance of the other forms of competition (tactics, skill, etc).

The profitability of most social games is based on buying advantages. In most cases, money seems to be most acceptable as a replacement for time and this may not be unusual; in a world of hourly wages, we are already conditioned to perceive time and money as analogous.

Hiding Failure

Almost everybody likes to win and very few enjoy losing. The very reason that competition is so appealing — the thrill of victory — creates an equal opportunity for being unappealing — the shame of defeat.

Some social games have managed to create the illusion of a zero-sum situation in what is actually an “everyone wins” situation. Bluntly, this means hiding failures by “paying off” defeats from the game system itself. For example, if this technique was used in Monopoly, the bank would help players by paying the majority of their debt every time they landed on a rival’s property.

One consequence of this technique is an inflating game economy, another is a game that will never end (the latter being desirable in a social game).

Competition in practice

Probably more than any other topic covered in this series, competition is the aspect of fun most strongly associated with games. If there is one thing competition does to a non-game activity, it’s make it feel like a game.

It’s also incredibly easy to accomplish — simply measuring a behavior and comparing it between participants implies a competition — so it may be perceived as an easy gamification win. But as I mentioned at the start of this discussion, competition can be highly emotional and therefore cause stress.

It’s one thing to include competition as an expected part of a game, it’s entirely something else to have competition appear in a non-competitive activity, such as running errands, or donating your time.

For better or worse, competition changes the entire context of a behavior or activity and this change should not be taken lightly.（source:gamasutra）