作者：Natalie Golub

小时候，我常与姐妹们玩弹珠游戏。我们先把一条绳子的两头绑紧，然后制成圆形放在地上。接着我们会把所有弹珠放在圆圈内，从中挑选出各自的弹珠，而后轮流将它们弹出圆圈之外。弹出每个一般大小的弹珠可获得1分，而弹出大弹珠可获得2分。在最后一个弹珠出界后，我们便开始计算各自得分，通常是我的分数较高，而妹妹总是略胜一筹。

一般而言，分数是游戏中的重要部分。它们是测量比赛输赢（游戏邦注：比如弹珠游戏）的有形方式。在单人模式中，它们可以提供刺激因素，鼓励玩家重玩游戏进程。

在设计与评价儿童的互动游戏时，最让我感兴趣的莫过于游戏的分数可以表现反馈与玩法说明。分数有助于儿童知晓自己的玩法是否正确，或者是否需要进行一些改进。有时，对于正在苦苦研究游戏说明的新玩家来说，计分方式可以提供文本无法说明的信息。而这只需依赖一个条件，即玩家应理解计分系统。就算是未阅读游戏说明的玩家也能够理解三颗星的分数高于一颗星。例如，弹珠游戏呈现出的复杂计分系统以及无尽的数值能够告知用户他们取得了高分，或让其列入名人堂中，但儿童用户则可能无法理解这些分数背后的隐性含义。

point system(from gamasutra)

大多数计分系统均会对游戏玩法造成意想不到的效果。它们可能会分散玩家的注意力，造成他们的困惑，甚至会呈现出游戏中并不存在的另一种玩法。如果玩家们无法理解计分原理，他们可能会选择完全忽略分数。

因此，现在让我们仔细研究两款不同游戏的计分原理。它们同属有趣游戏，而且游戏内容均适合学前儿童，但它们的计分方法截然不同。

《Jirbo Match》是一款计分系统远远复杂于游戏本身的记忆配对游戏。由于它倡导配对概念与基本空间认知，所以其内容适合学前儿童。然而，该游戏采用的计分方法却更加适合中学生，至少我并不理解该计分系统。它会以大量数值随机嘉奖玩家分数，并以同种方式减少玩家的得分。

就在几次错误的匹配之后，我的分数一下子降为-34分（负数？虽然我并未深入研究，但我还未遇见哪个学前儿童能够理解负数概念），接着，仅仅因为一次成功配对，我神奇般地取得了1139的高分。而该例子显示出计分系统的抽象性，以及其难度超过了目标群体的理解能力。

现在，我们以傻瓜游戏《Push the Button》为例。没错，该游戏的目的就是看你在规定时间内可以按下多少次按钮。虽然该游戏无法帮助你的孩子成为一个领罗氏奖学金的研究生，但它具备了一个直观出色的计分系统。用户每按下一次按钮，便能取得相应的1分。

这是简单的一一对应模式。系统也会清晰地自动增加分数。如果用户并不确定游戏的玩法，四处点击，该计分系统会提醒道“你因多次按下按钮而获得相应奖励”。该游戏极具重玩价值，而且能够刺激玩家产生无用的动作。最后，儿童可以根据系统的分数递增原理算出自己的实际得分。

因此，分数有何意义？以下是关于计分系统设计方面的建议：

-确保分数可以提供清晰的激励效果。游戏应方便玩家理解分数奖励原理，并在屏幕上清晰显示出来。

-鼓励重玩价值。游戏应让儿童简单地理解计分原理，同时为他们留下获得改进的空间。

-计分系统应采用适合该年龄层的数学知识。如果游戏的目标群体为学前儿童，那么应采用最方便儿童理解的一一对应的计分方式。

-利用分数提供表现反馈与玩法说明。儿童可以利用得分或失分判断自己的玩法是否正确。在面对苦苦研究游戏说明的新玩家时，利用分数作为与其交流的次要手段可能会束缚整个玩法解析。

在我看来，针对儿童的计分系统应如同弹珠小游戏般简单。如果系统使用较小数值，儿童多少不会排斥这类游戏。我建议设计师赋予游戏更多乐趣，奖励玩家提示选项。而且，设计师的最终目标是实现分数统计，同时不再突显出乎意料的结果。你可以认为我的行为十分疯狂，但我确实喜欢得分。毕竟，游戏的内容才具有挑战性，而奖励模式并不具备。（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）

Getting to the point of points in games

by Natalie Golub

When I was little, my sister and I used to spend hours playing with marbles. We would tie a piece of string together and then lay the newly created circle on the floor. Then we would put all of our marbles within the boundary of the string, each pick our own marble, and go to town taking turns and whacking the marbles out of the circle. Each normal marble was 1 point, and then, of course, those big ones were two solid points. After the last marble was out of bounds, we would count up our points, and then, as usual, my way better, younger sister would have more points than I did. (Though I’m pretty sure I could beat her now, if only I had some marbles on hand.)

Points have always been an important part of games. They can serve as a tangible way to measure competition, as in, say, a game of marbles. They can provide incentive and encourage replayability when playing solo.

Most interesting to me when designing and reviewing children’s interactive games, points can provide performance feedback and game clarification. Points can let children know if they are playing the game correctly, if they are improving. Sometimes, especially in the case of new and struggling readers, points can provide information that the text cannot. There’s only one catch: children need to understand the point system. Even a non-reader knows that getting three stars is better than getting one.  A complex system and a bottomless pit of numbers, such as those seen in pinball games, may be great for alerting users of their high score, or placing them in a hall of fame, but it may rob children from the implicit language behind points.

Large number point systems can have unintended effects on gameplay.  They can be distracting, irrelevant, confusing, and they can even assume a level of curriculum that isn’t actually taught in the game.  And if players cannot make sense of the points, they may choose to ignore them completely.

So, now let’s look closely at the points in two different games.  Both are fun and can be played by preschool children, but each takes a different approach to points.

Jirbo Match, a memory-matching game that uses a point system that is more complex than the game itself. The content in this app is appropriate for a preschooler, as it promotes the concept of pairing and basic spatial cognition. The points used in this game, however, are more appropriate for a middle schooler, and the system is a mystery, at least to me. Points are awarded in seemingly random and large amounts, and taken away in the same way.

After only a few mismatches, my score was at negative 34 (Negative?! I haven’t been trying too hard, but I have yet to meet a preschooler who understands the concept of negative numbers) and then after only one correct match I magically made my way to 1139. This is an example of a point system that feels arbitrary as well as much too difficult for age appropriate children to grasp.

Now, take the silly game, Push the Button. Yes, the goal of the game is to see how many times you can push the button in a given timeframe. While I will not claim that this game will help your child become a Rhodes Scholar, I will say that it has a magnificently straightforward point system. For every touch of the button, the user receives one point.

It’s simple one-to-one correspondence. The point is given automatically, and for a clear purpose. If the user is not sure how to play, and starts poking around, the point system will alert him that he is being rewarded for button pushes. It is extremely replayable, and provides incentive for an otherwise useless gesture. And finally, children can be exposed to high order counting in this point system by watching the numbers go up incrementally by one point. (Incidentally, Barendregt, Lindström, Rietz-Leppänen, Holgersson, & Ottosson, in a 2012 conference paper called “Development and evaluation of Fingu: a mathematics iPad game using multi-touch interaction,” point out that using their fingers to count on a multi-touch interface, especially large sums, was very important to children’s counting skills.)

So, what’s the point?  I recommend, the next time you find yourself designing a points system:

-Making sure that the points provide a clear incentive. The awarding of points should be easily understood and the points themselves should be clearly visible on screen.

-Encouraging replayability. Points should be simple enough for children to understand, while leaving room for the child to strive for improvement.

-Using math for the point system that is age-appropriate. If the game is for preschoolers, one-to-one correspondence, if applicable, will be easiest for children to understand.

-Using the points to provide performance feedback and gameplay clarification. Children should be able to use their points, or lack of points, as cues to what they are doing right, and what they are doing wrong. In the case of new or struggling readers, using points as a secondary means to communicate with the user may scaffold the curriculum.

Like my little game of marbles, point systems for children need to be simple. Children aren’t going to enjoy a game any less if the point system uses smaller numbers.  I propose that it makes it more fun, giving context to the player’s reward. The ultimate goal for designers is to achieve the intended purposes of points, while de-emphasizing their unintended results. Call me crazy, but I like to get the point. Afterall, the challenge should be in the game’s content, not in its reward.(source:gamasutra)