我们必须记住，新颖性是游戏中的重要元素。全世界都偏爱新奇事物——人们想了解新颖事物的性质，以及它们的意义。iPad一问世，《Saturday Night Live》就有大量新闻标题声称iPad“开启了人类买东西只是因为想知道它是什么东西的时代”。我认为这是真实的现象——人们并非因为他们知道什么是Kinect而购买Kinect，而是因为他们想看看Kinect到底是什么东西。因为它的产品理念听起来很酷，所以他们想一探究竟。
Jesse Schell on the future of Facebook games
by Edge Staff
In our newest issue, we feature an in-depth interview with Jesse Schell, the game designer and former Disney Imagineer, about how the ‘gamepocalypse’ he envisaged for a speech at DICE 2010 has actually played out. When he described cereal packets awarding 20 points when you fill your bowl and buses awarding 1000 points from government schemes to encourage use of public transportation, free-to-play was in its infancy and Kinect had yet to be released. Here we present some extra cuts from the interview.
Your vision of new sensors powering the gamepocalypse seems to be borne out by the success of Kinect.
One of the things to remember about games is how important novelty is. The world loves novelty – people want to understand what new things are about and whether they’re meaningful for them. After the iPad launched there was a great Saturday Night Live news item where they said iPad ‘Ushered an era where people buy things to find out what they are’. I think that’s a real phenomenon – people aren’t buying Kinect because they know what it is – it’s because they want to see what it is. It sounds cool and they want to check it out.
Novelty is difficult to maintain, though.
Yeah, it doesn’t last – Tamagotchi is an interesting example of that. They were absolutely huge, but then the world understood what they were. It’s part of what’s happening with Facebook and Zynga right now – their market has flattened because people know what Facebook games are, and people who like it are into it and those who don’t aren’t. We’ve got to understand novelty better.
Have you started seeing any of the prophecy realised yet?
Yeah, people are getting more ambitious when it comes to new types of sensors. Things like the Pokéwalker, or Kinect, and then putting badges on everything. Everyone’s trying to figure out where badges work and where they don’t. Even the MacArthur Foundation has this whole initiative about the best way to use badges for education.
Psychology is central to your ideas behind the gamepocalypse, but you’ve said psychologists don’t know much about the psychology of games. Why?
There are a number of factors. One is that a vast amount of psychology is about preventing suffering, which makes sense. People go to therapists because they have problems, not because they want mowing the lawn made more fun. On the other side, in the early days psychologists weren’t very scientific, and the world of science gave them a lot of grief about that. So in response they realised they had to get very scientific, but when you’re doing experiments on the human mind, there are only certain places you can go, like focusing on predicting behaviour. That’s working out what people will do, not how they feel; working out how people feel is mostly about asking them, and that’s not very scientific.
Game designers have become adept at applying psychology to their work, though.
Yes – the way I’ve been trying to put it is that we like to think we understand the human mind fairly well, but there’s so much that we don’t know. The right way to be a game designer these days is to look at the human mind as dark, unexplored territory. You mustn’t be afraid of that. When you take a point of view of just trying things out, it changes things. What’s weird is that there are a lot of things that psychologists don’t understand, and game developers are going to be the ones who understand it first.(source:edge-online)