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

游戏到底应该为玩家提供多少选择?

发布时间:2012-01-04 19:03:33 Tags:,,,

作者:Jim Cummings

界面的个性化设置能够让玩家更深刻地感受到游戏资源和游戏体验,通过亲力亲为地处理一些游戏信息而进一步融入到游戏过程中。

有些人会认为,这种定制行为本身就是游戏设置中的刺激因素。的确,一些关于满足感,学习以及用户界面的文章都表示,人们总是希望掌握一定的控制权,也就是我们所谓的定制化或个性化。特别是在大型多人在线游戏(MMO)中,如果玩家能够自己设定游戏角色,他们便能够更加深刻地感受到角色在屏幕上的行动。

用于解释这种结果的一大原理便是自我决定论(游戏邦注:SDT,这是一种关于经验选择的潜能,是在充分认识个人需要和环境信息的基础上,个体对行动所做出的自由的选择)。SDT本身还带有许多次级理论。SDT主要说明人类总是希望能够控制生活中的环境,为自己的行动做出选择并拥有自主权。此外(也是对于我们本次讨论具有决定性作用的理论),根据SDT,因为受到自主权的驱动,人类总是会选择那些能够自己决定结果的条件。换句话说,我们希望对周遭环境拥有足够的发言权,因此我们会选择拥有选择权的选择。

如此倾向便解释了为何玩家能够在游戏中能够感受到乐趣,特别是那些允许玩家定制角色以及周遭环境的游戏。例如,角色扮演游戏允许玩家为角色命名,自我组队,创造角色的外观,设备,决定角色技能专业化的深度和广度,自己寻找各种获胜策略,并以一种非线形结构探索游戏故事和环境。

的确,这些元素在过去几年里也开始向其它类游戏渗透。第一人称射击游戏如《Modern Warfare》和《Borderlands》也包含了更多技术专门化以及设备定制化的系统。体育类游戏也加入了“专营模式”系统,即玩家不仅可以制定专属的体育活动,同时还可以决定上场比赛的阵容,挑选队员的标准以及合同内容等。甚至一些简单的益智游戏如《宝石迷阵闪电战》也在每一轮游戏中添加了一些可供选择的游戏奖励。如此看来,各种传统的游戏“类型”都通过添加更多选择以迎合玩家对于游戏体验和游戏环境控制权的需求。一些学术研究也表明,玩家认为那些能够给予他们更多选择机会的游戏更加有趣且更具有吸引力。

然而,尽可能多地提供给玩家选择是否真的是一种好方法?围绕现实环境的许多研究表明,尽管人们偏爱各种选择,但是如此被困在一个一味迎合需求的情境中将会导致一种负面结果(我们称之为“选择悖论”)。例如,过多的选择会让玩家失去动力,变得越来越迟钝或大大降低执行效率。除了如此行为反应,“过多的选择”也会影响玩家的程度。如在选择时出现犹豫或麻痹状态,做出一些错误的选择而留下遗憾等。出现这种负面结果主要是因为面对过多选择导致玩家个人必须处理更多信息而做出最后的决定。当选择范围变得越来越广泛时,压在玩家身上的任务便会变得越来越苛求并越来越艰难。然而,即使面对这些负面因素,人们还是义无反顾地希望拥有更多可能的选择。

Too many choices(from dmn3.com)

Too many choices(from dmn3.com)

“过多选择”所导致的这些负面问题还会继续长存于虚拟游戏环境中吗?如果这些选择所呈现的信息较少,只会导致一时的结果,且允许玩家能够简单改变选择,那么游戏便能够避免选择给玩家带来挫折、无力与后悔了。但是这种方法已经逐渐失去功效了。如今,游戏中的选择不仅数量越来越多,而且更具有永久性并需要玩家为此付出更高的代价——特别是在大规模的虚拟世界或者在线网络游戏中。除此之外,玩家定制的选择变得越来越重要,不论是克服了硬核挑战还是获得社交资本,这些选择甚至主导着玩家在游戏中的成功。

举个例子来说,在《魔兽世界》中,玩家面对着1万9363种类型的装甲,718种贸易商品,150至250种不同的能力级别,150至250种具有不同级别的能力,263种不同的动物坐骑以及1千999种消费商品(有限使用)。此外,玩家可以根据各种属性等级做出不同选择,如一种装甲的等级和性能等。如此属性,包括数量和效能,便是影响着玩家进行思考并做出选择的决定性因素。

bank items(from smithfamilypage.us)

bank items(from smithfamilypage.us)

对于很多面对这些选择的玩家来说,他们必须谨慎地做出正确的选择,因为这关系着角色能否完成新任务或者探索新领域,以及玩家在团体环境下能否获得社会期许(的确,不论玩家是属于成就者,探索者还是社交者,都能从“正确”的选择中受益)。在充满各种选择的环境中做出一个明智的选择需要一定的认知度。玩家需要投入一定的时间和努力去鉴定相关信息,衡量并比较每一个选择,做出最后的选择。虽然一些玩家热衷于测试不同选择的优势与劣势,但也还有一些玩家并不看中这种行为。这类型玩家(从游戏类型看这些玩家更偏向于休闲游戏而非硬核游戏)更希望自由做出选择,而如果局限于游戏中的“正确”选择便会让他们倍感挫折。

最后,游戏世界中的“过多选择”问题远远比现实世界来得严重。与现实世界不同,游戏希望能够将乐趣传达给玩家。而当玩家发现他们必须为了前进去面临那些让他们倍感挫折的选择时,他们的游戏乐趣便会大打折扣。

因此,如果玩家所面临的选择变得越来越多,越来越复杂且越来越苛刻时,设计师该如何做才能避免因选择过多而让玩家受挫?

1)减少选项。一个解决方法便是减少玩家在游戏中所面临的选择数目。但是这种方法往往得不偿失:虽然这种方法能够驱散选择带来的负面结果,但是同样也会破坏SDT原理中提到的玩家对于选择的内在需求。

2)减少信息量。另外一种方法是保持当前的选择数量供应,但是减少这些选择所承载的信息。例如减少玩家在选择时需要进行比较的多种组件属性。但是我们必须适当地使用这种方法,否则将只会导致更多肤浅且无意义的选择的泛滥。

3)减少信息加工。使用决策辅助工具,以简化玩家需要承担的信息负荷,并且同时也保证他们能够做出真正的决策。上文提到的改变用户界面在某种程度上就等于认可了这一方法。还有一些有益的工具,如玩家易用的数据聚合器以及整合资源的技能。尽管这些设备也有自己的缺陷(例如,降低了玩家融入游戏故事的沉浸感),但是比起减少选择或者选择属性,这一方法对于用户粘性的影响相对较轻微。

开发者目前还能够掌握玩家对于游戏选择的喜好,但是如果这种趋势持续前进,各种类型的玩家很快就会发现游戏选择的相关信息已经超出他们能够控制的范围了。这时候设计师便需要采取适当的方法,既迎合玩家的自由选择需求,并避免“过多选择”所造成的危害。如果能够做到这一点,便能够同时平衡玩家在游戏中的认知需求以及他们对于自主选择权的渴望。

游戏邦注:原文发表于2010年11月8日,所涉事件和数据均以当时为准。(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

How much choice do players really want?

by Jim Cummings

In his last post Matt discussed how players may modify different UI components so as to deal with the slew of motivationally relevant elements they encounter during complex and dynamic gameplay.

This personalization of one’s interface allows the player to attend to and process information in a manner that is maximally engaging by allowing a closer match between one’s pool of cognitive resources and the cognitive demands of one’s gameplay experience.

One might also note that this act of customization is likely in itself a motivating aspect of gameplay.  Indeed, literature on gratification, learning, and user interfaces all find that individuals tend to prefer and become more engaged in exercises in which they are permitted at least some degree of control, customization, or personalization. And research specifically focusing on MMO gameplay like that discussed by Matt has found that players who are allowed to customize their avatar are actually more physiologically aroused by and cognitively in tune with their avatar’s onscreen actions.

One explanation for these sorts of findings stems from self-determination theory. SDT, which itself is comprised of multiple sub-theories, essentially suggests that we all have an innate, adaptive desire to exert control over the circumstances in our lives and that in being able to make choices for ourselves we exercise and validate a sense of  autonomy. Further, (and key to our discussion) SDT reasons that because we are driven by a need for autonomy, we are more likely to be intrinsically motivated by conditions in which we can determine our own outcomes. In other words, we enjoy having a say in what happens to us, and therefore we enjoy having the option to choose.

Such a predisposition naturally explains the enjoyment one might find in the diversion of games, particularly those types of games in which players are permitted to define themselves and their conditions through customization and deciding between alternatives. Role-playing games, for example, do exactly this, as they typically allow players to name characters, assemble self-selected teams, customize character appearances and equipment, decide both depth and breadth of character skill specialization, discover multiple winning strategies, and explore both narratives and environments in a non-linear fashion.

And indeed, in the last few years other game types have become increasingly infused with such elements. First person shooters such as Modern Warfare and Borderlands are including progressively more intricate systems of skill specialization and equipment customization. Sports titles across the board have picked up “franchise mode” systems in which players not only enact the sporting events themselves, but get to make decisions regarding line-ups, draft picks, and athlete contracts. Even fairly simplistic puzzle games like Bejeweled now regularly include the player selection of alternate gameplay bonuses for each round. It would seem that titles found in all sorts of traditional “genres” are catering to a player desire for determining the circumstances of one’s own gameplay experience by including more choice decisions and more alternatives from which to select. And such commercial trends have been corroborated by academic research which has found that subjects report higher levels of enjoyment for and tend to spend more time playing games that offer relatively greater amounts of choice to their players.

However, can there be such a thing as offering players too much choice? A number of studies in real world environments have found that despite being driven by and showing a preference for an increased number of options and alternatives, people placed in scenarios that cater to this drive may experience certain negative consequences (a phenomenon termed the “paradox of choice”). For example, having an extended amount of choice options has been found to be demotivating, resulting in inaction or decreases in performance quality. In addition to such behavioral effects, “too much choice” has also been said to lead to specific cognitive detriments. These include delay or paralysis when faced with making a decision, negative affect or frustration in light of making a decision, and potential regret with one’s choice after a decision is finally made. Such negative consequences stem from the fact that having a large number of choices increases the amount of information an individual must process in order to make an informed/wise/rational decision.. This can become quite a demanding, challenging, and frustrating deliberative task as options are made more extensive. Yet, despite these negatives, people tend to nonetheless show preference for having an extended number of choices available.

Is there reason to believe that the problem of “too much choice” may carry over to virtual game environments? Well, to the extent that the choices they present are informationally sparse, have short-lived consequences, and allow for switching a decision at a low-cost, then games can likely avoid decision-paralysis, frustration, and regret on the part of players. However, this is increasingly not the case. In-game choices are not only becoming more numerous and extensive, but also – particularly in the case of large-scale virtual worlds and online networked gaming – more permanent and more costly to undo. Further, player customization options are increasingly non-trivial, as many decisions have real consequences for in-game success, in terms of both overcoming the hard-coded challenges and garnering social capital within a community of players.

Take for instance World of Warcraft, in which players currently face an environment filled with 19,363 types of armor, 718 trade good items, between 150-250 different abilities per player class, another 150-250 different talents per class, 263 different animal mounts, and 1,999 types of consumable (finite use) items (http://www.wowhead.com).  Moreover, many of these different options are compared on a large number of attribute ratings – bonuses to one’s armor rating and stamina, for instance. Such attributes, both in their number and in their often incomparable effects, only exasperate the process of deliberating over and selecting from alternatives.

For many players facing these choices it is important to make the right decisions, as they often have implications not only for a character’s ability to complete new missions or explore new zones, but also for the social desirability of the player in the context of team-based group play. (Indeed, whether achievers, explorers or socializers, all types of players are often best served by making the “correct” decisions.) But again, to make an informed decision in such an information rich choice environment requires some cognitive heavy-lifting. It takes time and effort to identify relevant information, to weight and compare options, and to then make a decision. And while a given number of players may get their kicks from this process of testing out the relative superiority of alternative “specs” and gear sets, we may anecdotally assume that many players do not particularly enjoy such an exercise. Such players (likely more casual and less hardcore in their gameplay style) surely still take pleasure in the freedom to choose, but may find it frustrating to do the work necessary for ascertaining the “right” choice.

Ultimately, the issue of “too much choice” may pose a relatively larger problem for game environments than real world scenarios. Unlike the real world, games are constructed with the express intention of being enjoyable.  However, if players who find it frustrating or paralyzing to deal with extensive options are required to do so in order to progress, frustration may increase and enjoyment may suffer.

Therefore, as player choices become more numerous, complex, and consequential (and thus more taxing and demanding), how might designers reduce the potential for players to grow frustrated or paralyzed when deliberating over what decisions to make?

1) Reduce choice. One solution would be to simply reduce the amount of choices players are permitted in games. But such an approach would throw the baby out with the bath water: a reduction in the number of options and decisions presented to a player would indeed dispel the negative consequences of choice, but would also junk the intrinsic rewards SDT tells us are conferred by the freedom to choose.

2) Reduce information. Another approach would be to continue the current trend of increased availability of choices, but to simplify the informational load of these choices. For example, this could be achieved by decreasing the number of component attributes players need to compare when deciding between multiple alternatives. However, such a tactic would have to be conducted in moderation, otherwise it may merely result in a multitude of choices that feel obvious, hollow, or insignificant

3) Reduce processing. An alternate solution may be the inclusion of decision-aiding tools that help streamline the information load placed on the player while still placing the actual decision in the hands of the player. Returning again to Matt’s post, UI mods already permit this to some extent. Other tools would include player-accessible data aggregators and the ability to crowd-source.

Though these devices may have their own drawbacks (for example, decreasing the player’s immersion into a virtual world’s fiction), they may still be less detrimental to player engagement than flat reductions of choice or choice attributes.

Developers have thus far been able to keep up with the increasing preference amongst players for more choice in their gameplay experiences. Yet, if current trends continue, players in all sorts of games may soon find themselves with more choice-related information than they can handle. At that point designers will need to find means by which to stave off the detriments of “too much choice” while still catering to a player desire for freedom. However it’s done, it will clearly require a careful balance of alleviating the cognitive demands placed on players with promoting the feeling of autonomy that makes our choices meaningful.(source:motivateplay


上一篇:

下一篇: