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

论述游戏设计的道德原则问题

作者:Josh Bycer

“游戏设计”一词代表的意思很多:从《星际争霸》的虫族突袭到《马里奥银河》中的收集星星,甚至是《Farmville》中的诱惑机制。随着社交和手机游戏的兴起,抢占“非玩家”市场的趋势变得越发突出。随后,有更多游戏作品开始通过特殊设计(游戏邦注:例如简单的机制,虚拟交易及在线留言功能)吸引玩家。

farmville from scienceofthetime.com

farmville from scienceofthetime.com

虽然这些策略受到许多主流设计师和独立领域人士的谴责,但这并没有妨碍他们获得用户。这些主要是融入庞大升级曲线及刷任务操作的MMO游戏,以及需要玩家持续体验的游戏作品,甚至包括发明“再来一轮”一词的《文明》游戏。别忘了旨在让玩家持续掏钱的免费游戏领域。所有这些带来一个之前鲜少被谈及的话题:游戏设计的道德标准。或者更具体点:是否存在不道德的设计机制?

主流竞争:

主流和AAA开发者在过去几年遭受严重打击。手机、独立和社交领域已获得显著发展,它们以比EA或任天堂游戏低很多的价格向玩家提供内容。为应对这种情况,游戏植入越来越多旨在降低游戏体验时间的微交易元素。

EA和Capcom纷纷在游戏中融入能够通过掏钱买到的欺骗性伎俩,这能够降低游戏的难度。原因在于,他们不希望玩家在某个游戏回合中困住太久;他们希望玩家能够快速完成一款游戏,然后购买更多内容或另一游戏。这种心理让人回想起街机时代:街机游戏主要基于玩家间的快速周转。

若干备受赞誉的游戏都通过技巧促使玩家持续体验游戏。PopCap游戏旨在促使玩家持续体验。他们的游戏能够快速上手及把握,游戏随后会呈现诱惑元素, 促使玩家保持体验。就这点而言,Zynga和PopCap就像是一个硬币的两面。二者都试图尽快吸引用户眼球,通过游戏设计促使玩家持续体验。其中PopCap试图让玩家持续体验游戏,以看到完整游戏,而Zynga则希望用户能够持续掏钱。

许多独立开发者因上述技巧感到愤愤不平,但他们并没有区分Zynga和EA,《文明》和PopCap设计模式所存在的不同。某些独立设计师存在这样的心理,他们比那些通过机制促使用户持续体验游戏的设计师更胜一筹。但这一观念和主流设计师试图加快用户游戏体验一样狭隘。

艺术&商业:

在今年的GDC,我同时参加了独立颁奖典礼和公众投票颁奖礼。在独立颁奖典礼开始时,主持人的一席讲话给我留下糟糕印象。他大概是这么说的:“独立开发者是唯一能够创造出独特游戏作品的群体,因为只有他们才能做到这点,他们足够优秀和勇敢,这也是为什么他们是最棒的。”似乎很多人都同意此观点。

我非常敬重独立设计师,他们富有创造性,能够设计出独特的游戏作品。但认为他们不在乎收益,因此比其他设计师更优秀的观点非常荒谬。这一观点又回到某些独立开发者所谓的“游戏即艺术”论断:游戏不应着眼于创收,而是应该注重表达。

无论设计师进行多少次强调,或者是否昭告天下,游戏行业最终依然属于商业范畴。若你无法通过游戏创造收益,那么你就无法维持运作。称自己出于艺术目的设计游戏,完全不在乎收益显然有失偏颇。

除非你有份能够带来丰厚收入的兼职工作,或是富有亲戚的遗产继承人,否则游戏的创收水平将至关重要。你可以制作所谓的“艺术游戏”或是并非瞄准大众市场的游戏作品,但不要反复声称自己不在乎收益情况,因为很多设计师们可能会钻空子。

我并没有要对独立社区宣战的意思。关于独立设计师,我看到的更多是这样的情况,他们的成功充分说明有足够生活保障和餐风露宿之间存在显著差异。这些故事通常都有愉快的结尾:设计师最终顺利存活下来,从中赚取丰厚收益,能够做自己想做的事。他们没有自鸣得意,而是对粉丝心存感激。

灰色地带:

这让我们回到最初的问题:“是否存在所谓的不道德机制?”这个问题和我之前的一篇文章非常相似。在那篇文章中,我主要谈论有性别取向的机制设计:或者是否有某些机制主要迎合女性或男性群体。文章的结论是,机制本身并没有这样的倾向,但它们在游戏设计中的运用方式有这样的倾向。

这同样也体现在我对于道德设计的看法。最终这些机制起到什么作用?如果它旨在促使玩家持续游戏或看到特定内容,那么我完全没有疑义。但若机制只是为了促使用户掏钱,那么我就会觉得它缺乏道德性。

World of Tanks from world-of-tanks.en.softonic.com

World of Tanks from world-of-tanks.en.softonic.com

在体验《坦克世界》时,越是后面,我的付费压力越大。晋升至更高等级后,你很容易就会在坦克修复上耗尽自己的多数游戏货币,因为除非你在游戏中表现得异常突出,否则你获得的收益将很少。但若你通过高级账户按月支付费用,你就不存在这一问题,因为你可以在各竞赛中挣得奖励货币。利用高级坦克的玩家(游戏邦注:这只能够通过掏钱获得)将从中获得奖励货币,而这进一步促使用户在游戏中掏钱。

查看免费领域的其他游戏作品你就会发现,其实这并没有明确的善恶分界点。就《英雄联盟》而言,虽然设计师显然希望玩家能够在游戏中掏钱,但所有同玩法相关的元素都可以通过逐步体验游戏获得。但在《帝国时代OL》,你的战略就显得有些中立,除非你在高级文明中掏钱,小规模战斗模式也需要付费。把握提供娱乐和创造收益之间的平衡点颇有难度,而要维持它们之间的关系则就更加困难。

举个正面例子,我在GDC参加了Tom Chick主持的关于免费设计模式优点的讨论。其中一位免费模式游戏的设计师表示:《狂神国度》就是个非常有说服力的例子,游戏完全出乎他的意料。

他表示,通过免费模式和虚拟交易,他得以设计和维持无需向玩家呈现广告内容、没有付费障碍的游戏作品。所有这些都是通过免费提供游戏,让玩家自主选择是否掏钱购买些许小东西实现的。这是我听到过的关于支持免费模式设计最棒的观点。

近来,这一界限在社交和手机游戏领域变得越发模糊。过去几个月来,社交和手机游戏已从模仿《Farmville》之类的游戏作品转变成逐步消除这一中间过程。基于赌场体验(游戏邦注:如扑克和老虎机)的简单应用和游戏开始浮出水面。我个人觉得这非常麻烦,因为我最近刚好亲眼看到真实版本。

拉斯维加斯:

我刚从拉斯维加斯的家庭旅行回来。由于本身不爱赌博,因此我有大把时间研究其中的赌场文化,我个人觉得这非常不道德。从老虎机到旅馆,整个行业并非旨在向用户提供服务,但是想要从中赚钱利益。

赌场的一切都旨在促使你花钱赌博。如果说有什么他们无法进行利用的话,那就是将你变得异常沮丧和糟糕,以致不想继续赌下去。旅馆房间鲜有什么让人感到愉快的设施,因为他们希望你能够常到大厅去。除非你的订的是套房,在此你需要投入众多资金或者进行大量的comps(游戏邦注:额外的积分换钱程序)博弈。

令我惊讶的是,这一心理模式如今已进一步渗透至游戏设计中。我对《马里奥》或策略游戏的“再一回合”设置没有意见。但如果一款从头至尾无非就是想要从我身上榨取金钱,那么我就无法接受。

游戏体验的选择很多,这一讨论话题短时间内不会结束。社交游戏试图促使玩家持续体验游戏,而主流设计师则将密切关注其中什么可行,什么不可行。随着数字推广和DLC时代的日益发展成熟,我们需要判断创收和呈现内容之间的界限究竟是什么。(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

The Ethics of Game Design

By Josh Bycer

When we use the term “game design”, it can mean a lot of things: from a zerg rush in Starcraft, to collecting stars in Mario Galaxy and even the hook of Farmville. With the rise of social and mobile games, the push to grab the “non-gamer” market has never been stronger. From that, more titles are trying to attract people using specific design, such as incredibility simplified mechanics, monetization and the use of face book features.

While the use of these tactics have been denounced by mainstream designers and the indie market, that doesn’t exclude them from trying to hook people to their games. MMOs with huge leveling curves and grinds, titles that require the player to keep playing and even Civilization that coined the phrase “one more turn.” Let’s not forget the F2P market which has been designed to get people to constantly spend money. All this brings up an issue that we haven’t discussed much in the industry: Ethics in Game Design. Or to be more specific: are there mechanics in design that could be considered unethical?

Mainstream Catch-up:

Mainstream and AAA developers have been hurt the most in the last few years. The mobile, indie and social market have grown considerably and are providing content to gamers at a fraction of the cost of a company like EA or Nintendo. To combat this, we’ve seen an increase in micro transactions designed to reduce the time playing a game.

Both EA and Capcom with their games have purchasable cheats available that reduce the difficulty of the game. The reason is that they don’t want people to be stuck at in one game for a long time; they want them to finish the game quickly then buy more content or another game. This mentality is reminiscent of the arcade era: where arcades were designed around a quick turnover between players.

Some of the most highly regarded games use tactics to get people to continue playing. PopCap games are designed to keep people playing. Their games are made to quickly get into and understand, then provide constant hooks to keep them playing. In this regard, Zynga and PopCap are two sides of the same coin. Both try to hook people as quickly as possible and use their design to keep them playing. Where PopCap tries to keep people playing to see the entire game, Zynga wants them to keep spending money.

Many Indie developers cry foul over tactics like the ones mentioned, however they aren’t distinguishing between monetization like Zynga and EA, and design like Civilization and PopCap. There is a prevailing attitude among certain Indie designers that they are better than designers that use mechanics to get people to play (and continue playing) their games. However, that viewpoint may be just as short-sided as mainstream designers trying to speed up people’s playing experiences.

Art vs. Business:

While I was at GDC this year, I attended both the independent award show and the choice award. At the beginning of the Indie award, the host gave a speech that left a bad taste in my mouth. What it basically amounted to was: “Indies are the only ones who can make unique games because they are the only ones smart enough and brave enough to do it and that’s why they are the best.” And it felt that a lot of people agreed with this statement.

I have a lot of respect for Indie designers who are creative enough to make unique games. However with that said the attitude that you’re better then someone because you don’t care about money is very disingenuous. This feeling gets back to the “games as art” argument that some Indies talk about: that a game should not be aimed to make money but to make a statement.

No matter how many times designers say it and if they shout it out from the rooftops, the Games industry at the end of the day is a business. If you’re not making money with your games then you are not going to last. Saying that you are creating a game for art’s sake and not about the money is a misnomer.

Unless you have a lucrative part time job, or a rich relative about to kick the bucket, the profit of your game is a huge deal. Making what could be considered an “art game” or something not intended for the mass market is fine. However, don’t rub it in people’s faces that you don’t care about the money, as there are plenty of designers who could use that.

Now, this is not me raising the war banner against the Indie community. As I’ve read more stories of Indie designers whose success of their game would mean the difference of having a roof over their heads, or being thrown out on the streets. These stories usually end with a happy ending of the designers surviving and making more than enough money to continue doing what they want. They’re not being smug about it, but grateful to their fans for helping them survive.

Shades of Grey:

This takes us back to the original question: “are there mechanics that could be considered unethical?” Thinking about it, this question is similar to a blog post I made several years ago. I talked about the idea of gender specific mechanics: or if some mechanics were predisposed to appeal to men or women. My thoughts concluded that mechanics by themselves were not, but how they were used in the design of the game were.

That same opinion is where my thoughts are on ethical design. At the end of the day, what function do these mechanics serve? If it’s to keep people playing or seeing content, then I’m perfectly fine with it. However, if the mechanics only serve the purpose to force people to spend money then I think that’s unethical.

When I played World of Tanks, the further I went, the more pressure there was to spend money. Once you get to the higher tiers, it’s very easy to lose most of your in game credits on tank repairs due to how little you make unless you play perfectly. However, if you spend money per month on a premium account, then you won’t have that problem thanks to bonus credits earned per match. Premium tanks (that can only be purchased with real cash) come with a credit bonus for using them further giving the incentive to spend money.

Looking at other games in the Free-To-Play market is where things aren’t so black and white. With League of Legends for example, while the designers obviously want you to spend money, everything that is game-play related can be earned over time. Yet in Age of Empires Online, your strategies are neutered unless you spend money on a premium civ and skirmish mode must be bought. The give and take between providing entertainment and making money is a tricky balance, and one that has gotten harder to keep.

As a positive example, while I was at GDC I attended the discussion about the merits of F2P design moderated by Tom Chick. There, one of the developers behind the F2P game: Realm of the Mad God made a very convincing case that I didn’t think about.

He said that with F2P and the monetization available, he was able to create and support a game where he didn’t need to assault players with advertisements and gated payment mechanics. All by keeping the game free and giving the choice for players to spend a few dollars on little things. This was really the first time that I heard a great argument for the pros of F2P design.

Recently, the line has begun to blur even more in the social and mobile game market. Over the last few months social and mobile games have been moving from emulating titles like Farmville and have begun cutting out the middle man as it were. Apps and simple games built around casino play like Poker and Slots have begun to show up. Personally I find this troublesome as recently I had chance to witness the real life equivalent.

Viva Las Vegas:

I just got back from a family vacation in Las Vegas. As someone who isn’t a gambler I had plenty of time to examine the casino culture and I personally find it very unethical. From the slots to the hotels themselves, the whole industry is not built to provide a service to the consumer, but instead to take their money.

Everything in the casino is designed to get you to spend money gambling. And if something can’t be used, then it is made as frustrating and out of the way as possible to convince you to not do it. The hotel rooms had very little in the way of amenities, as they want you out on the floor at all times. Unless of course you booked a suite, where you must have had to spend a lot of money or got enough comps gambling to afford.

The thought of this mentality seeping its way further into game design is one that scares me. I’m ok with games like Mario or the “One More Turn” persuasion of strategy games. But, when a game is designed from the ground up to do nothing but continually take money from me, I have a problem with that.

With so many sources to play games, this discussion will not be going away anytime soon. As social games try to keep people playing, mainstream designers will keep a close eye to see what worked and what didn’t. And as the age of digital distribution and DLC grows, we’ll need to figure out exactly where the line is between taking money and providing content.(Source:chronicgamedesigner


上一篇:

下一篇: