作者：Cary Chichester

无论是什么游戏，都有可能让我们体验到失败的滋味。大多数玩家失败后产生的消极情绪。然而，玩家对死亡的感觉却各不相同，有些玩家会觉得难过，有些玩家会感到焦虑，有些玩家却满怀希望。失败本身并不会损害游戏体验的乐趣，但导致失败的游戏情境决定了玩家会产生什么样的情绪。以下是游戏处理失败的例子，我们将探讨一下为什么有些方法有效，有些方法无效。

新机制导致的失败（如《战神》、《古墓丽影》、《Dragon’s Dogma》）

这些是发生在主要玩法之外的失败。以动作RPG《Dragon’s Dogma》为例，玩家有可能做出导致游戏结束的剧情选择。这款游戏几乎不允许玩家干涉剧情，所以做这些选择不能算主游戏的主要玩法，但出于某些原因，仍然会导致玩家失败。像《古墓丽影》和《战神》这类游戏强调动作和平台玩法，但当玩家在这些主要玩法之外，也就在一些看似琐屑的的事情上失败了，那么玩家对游戏的控制感就会降低，从而很快产生挫败感。

Dead(from gamasutra)

不可能失败（如《波斯王子》（2008）、《Kirby’s Epic Yarn》）

因为失败可能带来的挫败感，所以你可能会认为想让游戏变得更有趣，只能通过消除失败的可能性。2008年版的《波斯王子》就尝试了这个办法，但结果并并没有得到一致认可。如果你在平台玩法部分失败了，那么你会返回这个平台开始的地方，这样玩家就不会对重来一次感到太沮丧了。然而，这个办法并不适用于这款游戏的战斗部分：玩家在战斗中快死了，之后反而被救了，而敌人的血条也恢复了大半。结果是战斗变得不那么有趣了，因为不太费力就能取得胜利，并且玩家通常不会体验到战斗的潜在深度。《Kirby’s Epic Yarn》中几乎不存在任何明显的挫折，这就保证玩家只要一直快进就能成功（我指的不是按快进键）。这款游戏的目标受众是青少年，而《波斯王子》力图提供更加休闲的体验，所以，想避免挫败感的游戏应该消除失败吗？

休闲游戏中的失败（如《愤怒的小鸟》、《超级猴子球》）

典型代表就是《愤怒的小鸟》。即使玩家可能在这款游戏中遇到多次失败（游戏邦注：直到玩家可以在游戏中购买通关神鹰），还是受到全世界玩家的欢迎。休闲游戏的关卡短，且重开速度快，所以休闲游戏得以保持挑战性。在休闲游戏中，一个关卡可能只需要不到一分钟就能通关，而且重开关卡只需按个键。这两个优势使玩家因游戏难度而损失的时间非常少。也正是因为这样，玩家非常容易上瘾；当他们想到“再玩一关就不玩了”的时候，往往是这个念头重复了十次后才真正停止。《愤怒的小鸟》和《超级猴子球》中还有很幽默的死法，比如让小鸟撞到建筑粉身碎骨，而哼哼唧唧的猪头只受了点淤伤；又比如，当通关失败时，猴子会兴灾乐祸。这些形式使失败本身变成了一种乐趣。

因为有趣，所以失败（如《横冲直撞》、《侠盗猎车手》）

在不少游戏中，玩家从失败中得到的乐趣反而比按设计师的意图玩来得多。《横冲直撞》系列的乐趣来自赛车碰撞之后产生的各种夸张震撼的效果，玩家可以从那些丰富的碰撞机制中体验到现实生活中不可能体验到的刺激。类似地，在《侠盗猎车手》中本应该尽量避开警察，但玩家的许多乐趣却来自引发暴动，和看警察以各种不可思议的方式把玩家制伏。相当少的玩家会把整个《侠盗猎车手》玩通，但相当多的玩家从搞破坏中找乐子。

多人游戏中的永久性失败（如《Day Z》、《暗黑3》（硬核））

正是因为可能失败，才使玩家的行为变得有意义。最有效的失败形式之一是，永久性死亡。在多人游戏中，这可以使玩家所在的游戏世界显得真实。玩家在游戏中冒着巨大的风险，随时可能一步走错满盘皆输，这就产生了一种在其他游戏中少见的紧张感。虽然这种永久性失败通常并不有趣，但使玩家的每一步行动都变得相当有分量。玩家在游戏中要竭尽全力生存下来，一旦失败或成功，反应总是相当激烈。这种体验让玩家毕生难忘。

game mode(from gamasutra)

单人游戏中的永久性失败（如《质量效应》、《暴雨》、《火焰纹章》）

当你玩的不是多人游戏，而是单人游戏时，永久性失败仍然有它的价值。与多人游戏一样，玩家的行为影响大，像《幽浮：未知敌人》和《火焰纹章》使玩家不得不谨慎，因为他的一举一动都维系着同伴的生死存亡。单人游戏也很注重把失败的可能性也融入到剧情中。比如，玩家有时候会面临让哪个角色生或死的选择，但这不是失败的例子；而是玩家有机会拯救生命时却没救成，这就让死亡变得有意义了。在《质量效应2》中，玩家可能带着所有同伴迎来胜利，但没有保全所有同伴的玩家在《质量效应3》中会想到自己没能拯救的角色。你可能不会牺牲你自己的角色，但对故事投入感情的人，多少会觉得失落。

从以上提到的失败类型，我发现失败并不一定会让玩家觉得沮丧。如果开发者能多一些考虑，是可以改变玩家对失败的接受度的：

1、玩家对游戏必须有控制感：玩家不想玩丧失控制感的游戏。也就是，当玩家死亡时，他必须觉得自己其实是有办法避免死亡的。不要出现看似随机的快速反应事件（如《猎天使魔女》），没有预兆的情况下不要出现强力攻击，不要“破坏规则”（游戏邦注：比如正常情况下无抗性的敌人居然产生抗性了）。要有挑战性，不要太简单！

2、死亡也可以是一件趣事：在严肃题材的游戏中不适合喜感的死亡方式，但其他游戏可以通过死亡创造更多乐趣。添加一些喜剧元素：当玩家失败时，让玩家会心一笑；当角色死亡时，让玩家不那么难受。

3、平衡挑战和失败：玩家确实渴望挑战，但挑战程度不应该达到引起挫败感的程度。当玩家失败时，必须损失一点点进度，这就足以使玩家产生低程度的沮丧感；而挑战性更高的游戏或任务可能不允许玩家失败后重新开始！大多数游戏都努力在挑战和失败之间实现平衡，但休闲游戏通常更强调保持挑战性，而硬核游戏更讲究让玩家产生一定的挫败性。（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 Fun and Frustration of Failure in Games

by Cary Chichester

Failure is an experience we have in close to every game we play, and it’s an experience that’s largely considered to be a negative one. Yet how players feel towards death can vary, when at times they’ll be livid to others where they’re left feeling more hopeful than upset. Failure itself is not what makes an experience unenjoyable, but the context of the game that led to the failure can determine how it affects the player. Here a few examples of how games handle failure and why some methods work while others don’t.

FAILURE FROM NEW MECHANICS (e.g. God of War, Tomb Raider, Dragon’s Dogma)

These are failures that occur outside of what could be considered the main gameplay. Consider the action-RPG Dragon’s Dogma, where it is possible to make a story choice that results in a game over. This game rarely gives the player choices to make in the story, so making these choices is not considered a main element of the game but for some reason can still cause the player to fail. There are also games like Tomb Raider and God of War that have a focus on action and platforming, but when the player fails outside of that gameplay to something as seemingly trivial as a quick time event, then they have a decreased sense of control over the game which can quickly lead to frustration

UNABLE TO FAIL (e.g. Prince of Persia (2008), Kirby’s Epic Yarn)

With the potential frustration that failure brings, you would think a game could only get better by removing the option. 2008’s Prince of Persia attempted this, but the results were not unanimously approved. If you fail a platforming section then you are quickly returned to where you started, which lessens frustration when forced to repeat a section. This however does not work as well for combat, where if you are about to die then you are instead saved with the enemy then recovering a very inconsequential amount of health. Consequently the combat suffers, and because the ease of passing combat scenarios does not require a ton of effort, the potential of the combat’s depth from combos to counters often goes unexplored by the player. Kirby’s Epic Yarn is a greater offender by not having any notable setbacks for failing, guaranteeing the player’s success as long as they continue pressing forward (I do not mean literally pressing the forward button). Kirby’s Epic Yarn is targeted at younger audiences, and Prince of Persia seeks to offer a more casual experience, so do games that have these goals have a need to remove failure?

CASUAL GAME FAILURE (e.g. Angry Birds, Super Monkey Ball)

One notable poster child for casual games is Angry Birds, which enjoyed widespread success without removing the failure option (at least before they eventually did with the Mighty Eagle purchase option). Casual games are able to keep their games challenging by making levels short and restarts instantaneous. In this game, levels can take less than a minute to finish, and restarting is instant and only requiring one button press; both of these together result in minimal time lost due to the game’s challenges. When retaking challenges is simple and quick it leads to addictive gameplay where you think “just one more level” about ten times before you actually stop. Games like Angry Birds and Super Monkey Ball also include humorous ways of dying, from smashing a bird into a building while leaving behind a row of pigs with bruises to seeing a cute monkey scream and flail when falling off a level. They make the act of failing its own form of entertainment.

FAILING BECAUSE IT’S FUN (e.g. Burnout, Grand Theft Auto)

There are quite a few games where players get more enjoyment from failing or dying than playing the way designers intended. Burnout is a series that’s often enjoyed for its spectacular crashes, and each iteration of the game since its inception has incorporated more mechanics involving crashing, from making other players crash to causing your own large crashes. Similarly, while in Grand Theft Auto games one would normally avoid the police, a lot of fun is had by going on rampages and seeing what crazy methods the police come up with to take you down. With a fairly low percentage of players actually playing through to the end of Grand Theft Auto games, there are quite a few who just take pleasure in getting into crazy wrecks and starting lots of mayhem.

PERMANENT FAILURE IN MULTIPLAYER (e.g. Day Z, Diablo III (Hardcore))

The element of failure is what makes a player’s actions meaningful, and one of the most potent forms of failure is permanent death for a player. In multiplayer games this can make the world the player inhabits feel alive. You play with a huge gamble where everything you are in the game is on the line, creating an amount of tension that’s hard to find in other games. While the act of failing is not usually particularly enjoyable here, its presence gives weight to everything else. Players often stream their attempts at survival to the world, accompanied with exaggerated reactions to either victory or success. If nothing else, these experiences are not easily forgotten.

PERMANENT FAILURE IN SINGLEPLAYER (e.g. Mass Effect, Heavy Rain, Fire Emblem)

When you’re not in a multiplayer world and are instead playing offline, permanent failure still has its benefits. Like in multiplayer, your actions are given weight, and titles like XCOM and Fire Emblem will make you think about your actions given that your party’s life is on the line. Singleplayer games also have large focuses on story that incorporate the possibility of failure. There are sections when you can choose who to let live or die, but that is not an example of failure; it’s when you had to opportunity to save a life but failed to do so that the death has meaning. Mass Effect 2 allows you to finish with everyone in your party alive, but anyone unable to do so goes into Mass Effect 3 being reminded of the people they let down. You may not be sacrificing your own character, but anyone with an investment in the story can feel the loss.

From the types of failures mentioned above, I have found that failing does not have to be a frustrating experience. If the developers want to, there are steps they can take to change how the player accepts failure:

1. Player must feel in control: Nobody wants to play a game and feel like they’re losing their sense of control. When they die, they want to feel like they had a fair opportunity to prevent it. No split-second quick time events that are seemingly random (Bayonetta), no strong attacks without expressing some tell on what’s about to happen, no “breaking the rules” (enemy is immune when they shouldn’t normally be). Be challenging, not cheap!

2. Deaths can be fun: While a fun death will not work in games that take themselves seriously, those that don’t have that requirement have an opportunity to create more enjoyment. Adding a comedic element when somebody fails can make a player smile when they die instead of the usual disgruntled look.

3. Balance challenge and frustration: The idea behind cognitive flow is that the player does want a challenge, but only up to the point where it won’t cause frustration. Low frustration can be achieved with minimal progress loss after a restart, and high challenge can be obtained by doing the opposite and possibly giving no option for restarts! Most games will try to find an even balance of challenge and frustration, but casual or hardcore titles will likely skew in favor of one over the other.(source:gamasutra)