作者：kyoryu

一般情况下我们总是需要面临3大决策阶段：

1.分析

2.对手

3.执行

decision-making(from usmansheikh.com)

分析

分析阶段主要是关于信息收集。但是我们却不一定需要在作决策时进行分析——主要取决于我们所收集到的信息。而当我们收集到了相关信息，我们便需要对此进行分析，并根据对手的行动将其转变成一系列可能的结果。

就像在即时战略游戏的开始部分，如果我们假设这里存在3种“经典的”选择，即防御，扩张和急冲，那么在分析阶段我们便需要明确基于每个选择我们得到了什么或失去了什么，以及我们的对手又能得到什么。

对手

当你对信息做出合理分析后，你便能够做出决策了。显然我们总是会抛弃那些糟糕的选择——判断一个选择是否糟糕主要是取决于你的对手所作出的反应。所以我们才会在许多游戏中看到“心理元素”，即思考你的对手将会做些什么，或引导着他们相信你的做法（而事实上你却是背道而行）。

执行

当你决定要做些什么时，你就需要真正去落实行动！这时候纯技能就需要派上用场了。

不同游戏强调不同阶段

不同游戏将会把侧重点放在不同阶段上。就像在象棋中不存在执行阶段，而保龄球却又非常重视这一阶段。

甚至是拥有不同变量的同类型游戏也会侧重于不同阶段。举个例子来说吧，《7张牌梭哈扑克》更重视分析阶段，而《德州扑克》则简化了分析阶段并强调于对手阶段。并且这两款游戏都未侧重技能阶段，也就是未体现出“纯粹的体能感”。

拥有不同能力的玩家重视不同阶段

不同玩家也会重视不同的决策阶段，甚至是在同一款游戏中。对于那些同时包含3个决策阶段的游戏来说，玩家（从低技能到高技能排列）所强调的顺序通常是：

执行

分析

对手

这也很容易理解。对于拥有较低技能的玩家来说，有效执行一种技术的能力总是比选择合适的行动来得重要。如果玩家双方都拥有较低的技能，我们便很难看到成功的执行过程，并且尽管我们不能马上清楚选择一个糟糕行动会有何种代价，但是技能的执行结果却是非常明显的。适合于这种能力水平的玩家的游戏通常都侧重于突出进攻，并提供给玩家各种“得分”机会——而不管是否可行。

一旦玩家掌握了一种基本技能，接下来他们便需要做出一个合理的决策。在这个层面上玩家将能够看到自己决策的结果，并且敌人也将能够更有效地利用他的各种错误。所以这时候分析情境将变得更加重要，并且玩家也需要加以利用对手的弱点。尽管这时候的技能仍然具有价值性，但是如果玩家做出了糟糕的决策，便有可能破坏一切而导致技能略低一筹的对手赢得游戏。在这一层面上玩家所面对的是更加有序且紧凑的游戏，并将依赖于对对手的分析而进一步发展。

当玩家双方都能够有效地分析情况，游戏便会变成一种心智游戏。这时候你便需要猜测对手的行动而明确可能的结果。仅仅只是做出最佳行动并不能代表什么，你的对手也会期望做到这一点，而你需要做的便是努力打败它。这便是游戏理论中关于作决策所包含的重要内容，即假设玩家双方都能够执行决策，并能够有效地分析结果。

这便是最高层面的游戏玩法。在这一层面上，我们在之前阶段所找到的一般规则将成为起点（而不是一种绝对值）。在这个阶段上，玩家将积极融入游戏中而影响对手的行动。

电子游戏以及3大阶段

一般来说，电子游戏总是拥有一些很容易预测的人工智能——即在特定情境下，玩家将会面临相同的选择。在某些游戏中，玩家所面临的对手是预先设计好的系统。如果从这点来看，单独的电子游戏会更强调决策的分析和执行阶段。

这听起来很有趣，因为如果你的对手是可预测的，那么玩家便能在任何特定场景中做出最佳决策。而游戏也将变成关于学习如何分析最佳决策以及如何完善执行能力。如果玩家的游戏技能越来越强大，那么能够保持他们游戏兴趣的方法便是提供给他们更高的技能，或在作决策过程中引进其它元素。

复杂和深度

当我们在面对游戏时总是能够听到这两个术语，而我将在此明确定义它们：

复杂是指分析可能性选择的难度。

深度是指那些不属于强势策略的可行选择的数量。

“强势策略”涉及不管你的对手做了些什么，那些总是会比其它特定选择更糟糕的选择。就像在“剪刀石头布”中就不存在“强势策略”。而如果你多添加了“炸弹”（游戏邦注：能够炸毁石头和布，但也会因为剪刀而被分解），它的主导地位就越过了“布”。也就是不管对手出什么，“炸弹”的功效总会至少和“布”相近，所以这时候玩家便没有理由继续选择出“布”了。

如果我们假设可预测的人工智能在特定情境下总是会做出相同选择，那么游戏便只能提高复杂度或技能而不再是深度了。但是这却不一定是坏事。就像我写此文的目的并不是判断谁对谁错，而是帮助设计师创造出一个合理的框架以解释这些观察结果。如果你有特定原因，那么提高游戏难度便是合理的。但是我们也不能忽视提高难度所带来的副作用，特别是当我们想通过提高难度去吸引新玩家尝试新游戏/类型时。

游戏邦注：原文发表于2008年4月16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）

3 stages of decisions

2008.04.16

by kyoryu

It seems that, in general, there are 3 stages of decision-making.

Analysis

Opponent

Execution

Analysis

The analysis stage is about gathering information.  This doesn’t have to be done at the exact moment of the decision – it’s based on all information gathered to that point.  Once the information has been gathered, it has to be analyzed, to turn it into a series of likely outcomes, dependent on what your opponent does.

At the beginning of an RTS game, if you assume the “classic” 3 choices of defend/expand/rush, the analysis stage would result in how much you’d gain or lose based on each option, for each choice that your opponent could take.

Opponent

Once you’ve analyzed the information available, you have to make a decision.  Obviously bad choices are simply thrown away – choices which may be better or worse dependent on what your opponent reacts are considered.  This is where a lot of the “mental game” occurs in any game – figuring out what your opponent is going to do, or leading him into thinking you’re going to do one thing when you actually do another.

Execution

Once you’ve decided what to do, you have to actually do it.  This is the area where pure skill comes into play.

Emphasis on differing stages by game

Different games place different emphasis on stages of the process.  The execution phase is essentially non-existent in chess, while it’s always a large factor in bowling.

Even variants of the same game can place different emphasis on various stages.  For instance, 7-card stud poker places a great deal of emphasis on the analysis stage, while Texas Hold’Em streamlines the analysis stage and places a greater emphasis on the opponent stage.  And neither of them are particular based on skill, in the “pure physical” sense.

Emphasis on differing stages by player ability

Players also seem to emphasize different aspects of the decision making process, even within the same game.  For a game which includes all three stages of decision-making, the order in which players emphasize them (lowest skill to highest skill) seems to be:

Execution

Analysis

Opponent

This makes sense.  At low levels of skill, the ability to effectively perform a technique will be more important than choosing the right action to take.  If both players have little skill, a successful execution will be somewhat rare, and so the cost of choosing a poor action is not immediately apparent, while the results of performing the technique well are.  Games played by players at this ability level are often characterized by an extreme focus on offense, and of attempting any “scoring” opportunity, no matter how improbable.

Once basic skills have been mastered, good decision-making becomes the next most important aspect.  A player at this level will start to see the consequences of his decisions, as his opponent becomes more able to effectively take advantage of his mistakes.  Analysis of the situation then becomes more and more important, as weaknesses in the opponent’s play can then be taken advantage of.  While skill, and increased skill, still are valuable and provide an advantage, bad decisions can nullify them, allowing a lesser-skilled (but still competent) opponent to win.  Games played at this level become characterized by an increasingly well-organized and tighter game, relying upon their opponent to make a mistake.

Once both players are able to analyze the situation effectively, the game becomes, primarily, a mind game.  At this point, you are considering what is the likely outcome based upon what your opponent will do.  Simply making the “best” play is no longer enough, as your opponent will expect it, and be aware of how to counter it (assuming that the game isn’t horribly broken, that is).  This is also the aspect of decision-making that game theory primarily covers, as it assumes both players are capable of executing decisions, and have the ability to analyze the outcomes accurately.

This is the highest level of gameplay.  At this level, the general rules discovered in the previous stage become a starting point, rather than an absolute.  At this stage of the game, the players become more actively involved in influencing the play of their opponent.

Computer and video games, and the three stages

Generally, computer games have AI that is very predictable – in a given situation, it will always make the same choice.  In some games, the opponent is a system that is designed to be entirely predictable.  Because of this, solo computer games typically emphasize the analysis and execution stages of decision-making.

This is somewhat interesting, then, because if your opponent is predictable, then any given scenario will always result in exactly one best decision, for any set of circumstances.  The game becomes learning how to analyze the best decision to make, and improving the ability to execute it.  As players become better at the game, the only way to increase the interest level is to either require higher levels of skill, or introduce more factors into the decision-making process.

Both of these options have the unfortunate side effect of making the games less accessible to new players.  At the early stages of this process, new players will have a more difficult time getting into the game.  However, as this continues over the course of years, eventually the games will become so complex that new players will be all but unable to learn how to play the game.

Complexity and depth

We hear these terms a lot when dealing with games.  I’m going to try to define these:

Complexity refers to the difficulty of analyzing the available choices.

Depth refers to the number of choices available that are not dominated strategies.

BTW, “dominated strategy” refers to a choice that, no matter what your opponent does, is inferior to a specific other choice.  In rock paper scissors, there are no dominated choices.  If you add in the “bomb” (blows up rock and paper, fuse is cut by scissors), then the choice of paper is dominated by the bomb.  No matter what the opponent chooses, “bomb” always does at least as well as paper if not better, so there is no reason to ever choose “paper” if “bomb” is available.

If we assume a predictable AI that will always choose the same option in a given situation, then that game can only increase in complexity or skill, not depth.  That’s not necessarily a bad thing.  One of my goals in this blog is to not make judgements about what is good or bad in games or game design, but to rather help devise a framework that can explain observations.  Increasing in complexity is fine, so long as you’re doing it deliberately, and for a specific reason.  But, be aware of the side effects of increased complexity, especially the increasing difficulty to attract new players to the game/genre.(source:Game Design the Wrong Way)