作者：Daniel Steckly

在我之前写的文章中，我曾经把对游戏定义的争论形容为“无休无止和无用的”，也许我的说法太草率了。真正无用的应该是我们争论这个话题的方式。我们并没有从争论中学到任何与游戏有关或者如何把游戏做得更好的东西，我们好像只是因为我们对这个话题持有不同的见解才挑起争论的。对于这个争论，我希望提出一个可能的解决方案，帮助我们理解人们为什么玩游戏。

我相信，我们称之为“游戏”的东西实际上有三种完全不同的玩法，但都叫作“游戏”。虽然这三者往往被混为一谈，但我们可以看到它们在混合后仍然各自保持自己的特点。所有游戏的玩法都可以归到以下三类中，即“投射”、“扮演”和“挑战”。

投射

在投射游戏中，玩家在游戏空间中的角色承担了玩家自己的个性。这类玩法的典型特征是，玩家保持自己的个性，同时将其“投射”到他们的角色身上；他们遇到游戏中的情况，如果是在现实中遇到，对二者产生的反应是一样的。这类玩法的主要动机在于，经历玩家在现实生活中无法遇到的事。

这是世间最普遍的玩法之一，不只是在人类之间，还广泛存在于所有哺乳动物之间。普遍认为，游戏的革命性作用之一是允许我们在安全的环境下经历危险的情况。最普遍的人类游戏之一是什么？捉迷藏，这个游戏与逃离掠食者有关。我们的大脑会本能地从投射游戏中得到乐趣，而不能从中得到乐趣的人更不可能玩这类游戏，也因此更难为摆脱掠食者作准备。

失忆症:黑暗后裔(from gamespot.com)

这类玩法的例子有《迷雾之岛》、《半条命》、《质量效应》、《失忆症：黑暗后裔》和《杀出重围》等。具有显著的投射特点的游戏类型是，大多数的第一人称射击游戏、所有的运动和竞技游戏和绝大多数的策略和恐怖游戏。几乎所有欧美RPG都是投射类游戏，尽管所有这些游戏也有角色扮演的成份，因为如果玩家能够将自己的人格投射到角色身上， 那么他们同样也可以投射不同的人格。

扮演

在扮演类游戏中，游戏的结构和角色的人格是严格定义的，因此，玩家只能接受角色的身份来应对游戏。这就是了电子游戏组合投射和扮演这两类玩法的办法，因为玩家可以选择严格地定义他们如何玩游戏以及如何塑造角色以促进扮演。

扮演的显著特点在于，玩家扮演某个不同于自己的人，而这个人几乎总是他们想成为的那种人。投射与提升和完善玩家的个性有关，而扮演是关于临时采纳一个全新的身份。扮演的最大缺陷之一是，玩家时不时地希望自己是其他人。另外，大脑从新奇的事物中收获乐趣，而变成一个完全不同于自己的人就是最新鲜的事了。

为了成功执行扮演，角色必须处于一个值得称羡且与玩家有关的位置。玩家必须想成为那个角色。当然，这并不意味着角色应该是可笑的玛丽苏，方方面面都完美得无懈可击。没有缺陷的角色，没有遭受挫折的角色是不可信的。因此，扮演类游戏中的角色必须在玩家想成为的人和与玩家有关的事之间取得平衡。

蝙蝠侠：飞跃疯人院（from microsoft.com)

扮演类玩法的例子有《蝙蝠侠：飞跃疯人院》、《侠盗猎车手》、《刺客信条》、《银河战士》、《黄金眼》和《杀手》等。具有显著的扮演特点的游戏类型是，现代“动作/平台”游戏、格斗游戏、许多动作RPG和几乎所有的日式RPG，

挑战

挑战类玩法与其他两类不同，与身份个性无关。挑战游戏是利用已有的知识，再套用新的模式解决问题。用外行人的话来说就是，益智游戏。

挑战类玩法的主要不同点在于，其他两类游戏与“玩家可以成为什么人”有关，而这类游戏是关于“玩家是什么人”。挑战类玩法从表面上看与其他两类非常不同，因为这类游戏往往缺少真正的角色。虽然可能存在“玩家角色”，如果确实存在的话，至多也就是玩家对游戏世界产生作用的抽象代表。

挑战类游戏的乐趣不在于变得更好，而是确认自己已经很好了。因为其他两类从成就中带给玩家乐趣，而对于这类游戏，成就是唯一的目标，所以它是一类独特的玩法。因此，扮演和投射类游戏可以无限地持续下去，而挑战类游戏为了达到令玩家满意的状态，必须有最终结束的地方。这是它的显著特征。现在，不要对此感到困惑了。以《俄罗斯方块》为例，只要玩家一直赢，游戏会一直持续，直到玩家失败为止。

愤怒的小鸟(from androidcommunity.com)

挑战类游戏的例子有《愤怒的小鸟》、《俄罗斯方块》、纸牌、《摇滚乐队》、象棋、《军团要塞2》和《太空化学》等。具有显著的挑战特点的游戏类型是，所有的益智游戏、绝大多数的点击式冒险游戏、所有的音乐游戏、所有游戏竞争节目改编成的游戏和所有多人竞技游戏，还有桌面游戏和现实生活中的运动。

这些就涵盖一切游戏玩法了吗？

不能说以上就涵盖了一切游戏玩法，因为很难做出一款只包含一类玩法的游戏（除非它是挑战类游戏）。你可以说所有游戏中都包含挑战类玩法，如《旅程》或《第二人生》。你可以说玩法可以进一步归为两类：“精通”和“致信”，但我认为如果把这种分类应用于电子游戏，那么投射和扮演就太重复了。

所以，以上分类对设计师有何用途？

据我观察，优秀的游戏往往把重点放在单独的一类玩法上，极少进行种类杂交，但如果确实混合了，它们也混得很仔细谨慎。

我们来看看正确混合玩法的游戏：《蝙蝠侠：飞越疯人院》是纯扮演类游戏，这款游戏将扮演的特点运用到极致。在《蝙蝠侠：飞越疯人院》中，玩家不是扮演蝙蝠侠，玩家就是蝙蝠侠。然而，在打斗部分，游戏加入了挑战类玩法，紧紧控制打斗部分，使之完全取决于玩家的技巧。天才的地方在于，打斗的挑战玩法固巩和强化了角色扮演。在打斗部分表现好让玩家觉得自己更像蝙蝠侠，这就深化了玩家的沉浸感。虽然允许玩家对蝙蝠侠进行有限的自定义培养，但很大程度上只是外观上，因为所有选择都是沿着让蝙蝠侠变得更强的线性过程设定的，并非将他塑造成特别的某个角色。在《蝙蝠侠：飞越疯人院》中，自定义并不是为了让蝙蝠侠更有个性，而是让玩家沿着既定的路线，以最有效的方式升级。游戏中的一切都强化了角色扮演，使游戏最终变得连贯又有趣。

现在让我们看看搞砸了混合玩法的游戏：《质量效应3》。显然，《质量效应》系列的第三弹是纯投射类游戏。玩家角色Commander Shepard 可以有玩家自己喜欢的任何的个性和外表，因为本作正是以玩家的选择为基础的，因此玩家对Shepard的培养选择有重要的影响。这一系列游戏的吸引力在于，没有辜负这一理念，特别是在《质量效应2》中。《质量效应2》不只是在游戏的最终任务中，玩家的决策时刻决定着有团队成员的生死，这一特点被续作沿用了。

投射类玩法的一个关键方面是信任。玩家进入游戏世界，根据它的规则玩游戏，希望游戏也能对玩家赋予相同的信任。背叛玩家的信任会破坏玩家的沉浸感，而沉浸感是让投射类游戏有趣的重要原因。我接下来要说的东西大概会剧透《质量效应3》，所以如果你还没玩过，且不想提前知道，你可以跳过本段的余下部分。直到《质量效应3》的末尾，有一点变得非常明显了，即玩家作出的所有选择，包括整个三部曲中的所有选择，所有失去的伙伴、所有艰难的指示和后悔的决策对整体剧情的结果都没有实际影响；相反地，游戏对玩家抛出的多选题，才唯一决定了结局。通过使玩家选择失效，游戏背叛了玩家的信任，这种做法近乎侮辱玩家。这款游戏的态度是：“你的选择可以影响芝麻大小的事，真正的生杀大权还是在我手上。”这种对信任的背叛破坏了玩家在游戏最后一刻的沉浸感，使玩家长久地对游戏留下消极的印象。

生化奇兵(from blastmagazine.com)

现在让我们看看有效混合玩法的游戏：《生化奇兵》。这款游戏使玩家相信它是投射类的，然而在关键时刻，它又以角色扮演的形式出现。这个方法管用，因为玩家角色的个性确实体现了玩家的作风，多亏了玩家受过其他FPS的调教。玩家角色Jack不能脱离剧情线索，因为他的思想是受控制的，玩家不会想任何脱离游戏线性的东西，因为他们期待线性过程。毫无疑问，Jack遵守Atlas的命令，因为Atlas知道说什么话能让Jack做任何他命令的事；玩家顺从Atlas，因为他们习惯于无条件地遵守游戏的规则。因此，当游戏的本性暴露时，玩家不但不感到被背叛了，而是，更加对游戏着迷了。为了打消玩家对游戏的怀疑，这款游戏采取了玩家默认的、其他FPS的假设，这些假设不会让玩家感到奇怪，游戏让玩家想到这些假设。《生化奇兵》从来没有改变规则；它只是没有告诉玩家所有关于为什么这些就是规则的真相。

结论

我不想让别人以为我在本文中所说的就是对游戏定义的最终解释。我只是希望能让读者对游戏和游戏的作用方式有一个新的理解。（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 Three Kinds of Games

by Daniel Steckly

In my previous blog post, I called the debate over the definition of game “interminable and useless”, and perhaps that was a rash statement. What’s useless is how we’ve been debating it. We haven’t been debating it to learn anything about games, or how to make them better, it seems like we’ve just been debating it because it’s something we can disagree on. I’d like to propose a possible solution to the debate that helps us to understand why people play games.

It is my belief that what we call “games” are actually three completely distinct forms of play, yet all of them can be called “game”, and while they frequently blend together, we can still see how they maintain their separate identities when mixed. Every form of play falls into one of these categories. They are “Projection”, “Roleplay”, and “Challenge”.

Projection

In Projection play, the player’s avatar in the game space takes on characteristics of the player. The defining aspect of this kind of play is that the player maintains their identity, and “projects” it onto their avatar, responding to the situations in the game as they would in reality, given the circumstances of the game. The primary motivation for this type of play is to experience things the player cannot in real life.

This is one of the most universal kinds of play, not just among humans but among all mammals. It is widely believed that one of the evolutionary purposes of play is to allow us to experience dangerous situations in a safe environment, to better prepare us for real danger. What is one of the most universal human games? Tag, a game about running away from a predator. Our brains are hard-wired to take pleasure from projection play, because the people who didn’t were less inclined to play, and thus, less equipped to deal with real predators.

Examples of this type of play include Myst, Half-Life, Mass Effect, Amnesia: The Dark Descent and Deus Ex. Genres that predominantly feature Projection play include most first-person shooters, all sports and racing games, and the vast majority of strategy and horror games. Almost all Western RPGS are projection games, though all of these also facilitate Roleplay, since, if the player is able to project themself onto the avatar, they can also project a different personality onto it. This brings us to the next form of play.

Roleplay

In Roleplay, the structure of the game and the avatar’s persona are rigidly defined, thus, the player takes on the identity of the avatar to respond to the game. This is how video games that allow Projection also allow Roleplay, as the player can choose to rigidly define how they will play the game and characterize the avatar to facilitate Roleplay.

The defining aspect of Roleplay is that the player pretends to be someone that they are not, almost always someone that they would rather be. While Projection involves the elevation and improvement of the player’s identity, Roleplay is about temporarily adopting a whole new identity. One of the biggest draws of Roleplay is that, from time to time, everybody wishes they were someone else. In addition, the brain takes pleasure from novelty, and nothing is more novel than being someone completely different.

For Roleplay to be implemented successfully, the avatar must be in an enviable position relative to the player. The player must want to be the avatar. Now, this doesn’t mean they should be some ridiculous Mary Sue that everything always goes right for. A character without flaws or hardships is unrelatable. Thus, an avatar in Roleplay must be carefully balanced between being someone the player wishes they were, and something the player can relate to.

Examples of Roleplay include Batman: Arkham Asylum, Grand Theft Auto, Assassin’s Creed, Metroid, Goldeneye and Hitman. Genres that predominantly feature Roleplay include modern “action/platformer” games, fighting games, many action RPGs, and almost all JRPGs.

Challenge

Challenge play, unlike the other two styles of play, does not concern itself with identity in any way. Challenge play is about using new paradigms to solve problems with pre-existing knowledge. In layman’s terms, puzzle games.

The primary difference of Challenge play is that while the other two styles of play are about what the player can become, Challenge play is about what the player is. Challenge play is, on the surface, very distinct from the other two kinds of play, since it generally lacks a true avatar. While there may be a “player character”, they are little more than an abstract representation of the player’s effect on the game world, if one even exists.

The pleasure of Challenge play is not in becoming better, but in validating that you are already good. This is why it is a distinct category of play, while the other two do give pleasure from accomplishment, in Challenge play, accomplishment is the only goal. Because of this, Roleplay and Projection play can continue indefinitely, while Challenge play must eventually end in order to be satisfying. This is its defining characteristic. Now, don’t get confused by this. Tetris, for example, will continue indefinitely so long as the player is successful. Play ends when the player inevitably fails. The challenge, then, is to last as long as possible.

Some examples of Challenge play include Angry Birds, Tetris, Solitaire, Rock Band, Chess, TF2 and SpaceChem. Genres that predominantly feature Challenge play include all Puzzle games, the vast majority of point-and-click adventure games, all rhythm games, all adaptations of game shows, and all competitive multiplayer games, including board games and real life sports.

Hey, don’t those overlap a lot?

It’s not so much that they overlap as it is that it’s difficult to make a game that includes only one kind of play (unless it’s Challenge play). You could make the case that Challenge play is included in all games, and I would reply with Journey, or perhaps Second Life. You could make a reasonable case that play can further be reduced to two categories: Mastery and Make-Believe, but I believe that Projection and Roleplay are too binary when it comes to video games for this to apply.

So, how is this helpful for designers?

It is my observation that excellent games tend to put the focus on a single category of play, rarely mixing in other categories, but when they do so, they do it carefully and deliberately.

Let’s look at a game that did this right: Batman: Arkham Asylum is pure Roleplay, and it uses it to incredible effect. In AA, you aren’t playing as Batman, you are Batman, and it is glorious. However, for its combat, AA mixes in Challenge play, making the combat tightly controlled and entirely dependent upon the skill of the player. The genius of this is that the Challenge play of the combat reinforces and strengthens the Roleplay. Being good at the combat makes you feel more like Batman, deepening your immersion. While you are allowed to customize Batman to a limited degree, this is largely a fa?ade, as all of the choices exist along a linear progression of making Batman more effective, not specializing him for certain roles. In AA, the customization doesn’t exist to personalize Batman, but instead to keep you in his shoes, trying to pick the most effective upgrade possible. Everything about the game reinforces the Roleplay, and the result is an incredibly cohesive and phenomenally fun game.

Now let’s look at a game that screwed this up: Mass Effect 3 is, obviously, the third installment in the Mass Effect series, games built on pure Projection. The avatar, Commander [Name of the player’s choosing] Shepard, can have whatever personality and appearance the player wishes, and the series is built on the idea that the player’s choices, through Shepard, have consequences, and thus serious weight. The appeal of the game is that it lives up to this idea, particularly in Mass Effect 2. ME2, more than any In the final mission, the player’s decisions mean life or death for their party members, which, uniquely for a game, carry over into the sequel.

A critical aspect of Projection play is trust. The player enters the game world, plays by its rules, and expects the game to do likewise.  Betraying the player’s trust in this way breaks immersion, and immersion is what makes Projection play satisfying. What I’m going to address next is vaguely spoiler-y for ME3, so if you haven’t played it and want to go in totally blind, skip the rest of this paragraph. In the end of ME3, it becomes apparent that all of the choices the player has made throughout the trilogy, every friend lost, every hard call and regretted decision will have no actual effect on the outcome of the plot as a whole, instead, the player is given a multiple-choice question, and this alone determines the ending. By invalidating the player’s choices, the game betrays the player’s trust in a way that is almost insulting. “Your choices can affect little things,” the game says, “But I get to determine the really important things”. This betrayal of trust ruins immersion in the game’s final moments, leaving a lasting negative impression on the player.

Now let’s look at a game that mixes categories effectively: BioShock. Spoiler warning, but who am I kidding, you know what the twist is. BioShock leads the player to believe that the game is Projection, when, in a pivotal moment, it reveals itself to be Roleplay. This works because the avatar’s character behaves exactly the way the player does, thanks to the conditioning of playing other FPSs. Jack can’t go off the rails of the plot because he’s mind controlled, the player doesn’t think anything of the game’s linearity because they expect linearity. Jack follows Atlas’s orders without question because Atlas knows the phrase that makes Jack do whatever he commands; the player obeys Atlas because they are conditioned to unquestioningly follow orders by other games. Thus, when the true nature of the game is revealed, it comes across not as a betrayal, but quite the opposite: the player’s immersion becomes even deeper. The game takes the player’s unspoken assumptions about what happens in an FPS, the things they don’t consider strange in order to suspend their disbelief, and it makes the player think about them. BioShock never changes the rules; it just doesn’t give you the whole truth about why they’re the rules.

Conclusions

I don’t want to create the impression that I think this is the final explanation of what a game is. All I want to do is provide a fresh perspective on what games are and how they can work. And, even if you don’t agree with me, as long as I’ve made you think, I’m happy.(source:gamasutra)