作者：Michael Eilers

当我开发UAT严肃游戏的部份课程时，发现可以引用的材料非常之少。如今过来十年了，我还是没有什么用于在“严肃游戏”的标签下讨论和分析多种不同风格和玩法类型的标准鉴定框架。以下内容并非我确定或建立的一种标准，而是探讨我们区分项目的框架，以及我们该如何更准确地剖析和检查这种分类。

我的这些课程是在“严肃游戏”的情境下，从模拟游戏的5种不分区分法入手。这些方法以娱乐形式贯穿游戏（这是两种游戏的自然现象），其核心的一定的交互性（当然还有趣味性）。这些方法呈现渐变性，从最真实和直接的模拟，过渡到试图以我们所熟悉的电子游戏抽象世界来平衡模拟世界。

simcity(from giantbomb.com)

拟态模拟

这些游戏/交互产品最直接地反映或模拟现实世界，我将之称为拟态模拟。这意味着“镜像”，这类模拟产品试图创造最具真实感和真正的体验，并且可能拥有较少的真正“游戏”内容。

拟态模拟游戏是通过融入玩家或用户的想象，而非依靠视觉保真度来创造模拟感，而并且不为极具吸引力的图像或传统玩法元素（例如赢取积分）而牺牲真实感。

这类模拟产品的目标用户是小规模的“硬核”用户，其中可能包含一些非游戏主题的内容，例如空中交通管制、定向运动，登山运动，交通管理，股市交易以及水文地理等。这些主题通常高度强调教育内容，其前提是玩家已经是该领域的教授，或者对原材料已经十分熟悉。拟态模拟的核心是以1：1的保真度复制人类与被模拟系统的互动点，因此拟态空中交通管制模拟内容会采用即时形式，并包含所有相关职责，甚至可能不含有暂停游戏的选项（游戏邦注：正如我们在现实生活中没有暂停设置一样）。

尽管这些产品是为细分市场的用户所制作，拟态模拟游戏实际上远比你所想象得更普遍，尤其是在培训模拟领域。（由于大规模的承包预算）获得商业成功，并且尽量保证1：1视觉保真度的模拟游戏极为罕见，而它们的主要用途也是展示信息而非实现艺术追求。

系统化模拟

系统化模拟试图以一种可用而富有逻辑的方式复制活动的现实系统。它们采用与我们的直觉相呼应的系统工作原理式的“常识性”设计。与拟态模拟一样，视觉保真度在此并非一个必备条件，系统化模拟试图复制一个已知环境的“大体框架”。系统模拟有赖于在一系列固定规则下，玩家对事物运行原理的认知，以及如何与该系统互动的有限方向。

被模拟的系统并不需要是真正存在的对象，只需要以人们已知的，我们所期望的常识性规则运行即何。系统化模拟令玩家成为一个复杂系统的管理者，但通常会隐藏这些系统的真正结构和工作方式，它们在此方面不同于拟态模拟游戏。我们可以将系统化模拟视为拟态模拟的后一个环节，例如，你可以拥有一个包含管理控制塔或多个机场全体员工的系统化航空交通管制系统，而非直接的空中交通管理控制本身。系统化模拟通常是以“管理者”的视角来操作系统，而非直接与模拟系统的组成部分交互。

适配性模拟

适配性模拟试图模拟的是一个特定环境以及一系列行为，但强调的是玩法而非纯粹的现实感。这类模拟内容通常具有较高的视觉保真度，使用了拟态和系统化模拟元素，但以玩法作为核心的决定性结构。娱乐vs“严肃”游戏用户之间的分支或混合通常发生在适应性模拟内容中，它们的预算通常会向娱乐方面倾斜，目标是取得商业上的投入回报。

适配性模拟包括来自一个环境的“所有优秀内容”，但不会吸收那些会令人受挫的拟态模拟元素，因此他们会“调整”严格的拟态规则，使之成为更友好型的玩法环境。例如，在一款拟态F1赛车模拟游戏中，你可能得制作加油站或让车子用完油，而这在适配性模拟游戏中是一个很罕见的功能，因为后者根本不会在仪表盘中显示燃油量表。适配性模拟的真实性来自在我们对游戏环境（与系统模拟一样），视觉模拟游戏环境及其元素、现实品牌名称和产品的常识性反应。

内在或外在模拟

具有内在模拟特点的游戏在其非现实感或不可行的环境中包含着现实元素，将真正感带入游戏体验中。这可以视为适配性模拟方法的相反面，因为我们都知道游戏并不是真实的，但我们却会期望在游戏世界的情境中实现一定的“真实感”。

与系统性模拟一样，常识在其设计中也占据相当重要的比例，我们从来没有玩过手枪，但这些枪确实需要子弹，有时候也可以看到刚刚拿枪对准我们的士兵就死在枪口下。视觉和声音保真度对内在模拟游戏来说十分重要，如果M-16来复枪看起来和听起来都正常，那么它在对付僵尸和吸血鬼时就会成为一种真实元素，而这正是玩家想象的产物。

物理、重力和其他现实世界原理也是内在模拟，甚至可以成为外表极不具有真实感的游戏的有效设计元素。《超级马里奥》中的跳跃或者是史上讨论和分析最多的游戏机制之一了，它的确是基于模拟重力的元素，而该游戏中其他元素却完全是想象出来，与现实生活没有多大相似性的东西。

历史性模拟

我选择将基于历史的模拟划分为一个独特的类型（虽然它们通常会使用到以上部分或全部模拟元素），原因是此类模拟具有特定的倾向和受众。历史性模拟通常本质上是拟态或系统化模拟，但会倾向于坡一种“重放”历史的方法真实再现历史事件，因此系统和机制会根据这一目标而进行调整，不会采用纯模拟的一般做法。

这种历史性模拟在设计上可能呈现适配性模拟的特点（游戏邦注：例如二战模拟游戏），但会提取历史信息元素，并为特定用户再现特定时期或事件的经过。这些游戏通常具有教学用途，或者搭配辅助材料来证实模拟的真实性，令其有别于纯娱乐产品。几乎整个Battlefront(http://www.battlefront.com/) 的目录都可视为历史模拟内容，只是其中的拟态、系统和适配性方法有所不同罢了。

总结

所以这种分类法有何用途？“严肃游戏”设计以及教育/培训游戏作品之间的许多核心设计矛盾就在于这些“游戏”中的哪些元素应该具有交互性，哪些应该具有教育意义或者便于用户消化的“分块”信息。我经常向一名客户展示一种设计（或向学生展示一个模拟问题），他们会坚持认为有些元素应该“模式化”或者呈现交互性，而其他元素则应成为玩家必须了解的文本或测试元素。将这些分类元素划分为不同方法有助于更好地展开此类对话，并且有助于将一个复杂的游戏系统拆分为不同的开发目标。（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）

Classification Methods for Simulations and Serious Games

by Michael Eilers

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.

The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

When I was developing parts of the curriculum for the University of Advancing Technology’s Serious Games coursework, there were very few source materials to draw from; ten years on, there still seem to be very few standardized critical frameworks for discussing and analyzing the many different styles and types of play lumped together under the “serious games” label. The following is by no means an attempt to be definitive or establish a standard, but rather to spend some time thinking aloud about the boxes we use to compartmentalize our projects and how we might slice them more accurately for examination.

I began my material for these courses by identifying five different approaches to simulation, in the context of “serious games” (I continue to use the quotes, not as sarcasm, but as an indication of how dubious I am about what this particular label can tell you about the product itself). These approaches bleed over into games for entertainment, which is a natural occurrence as both, at their core, promise some degree of interaction (and yes, fun.) These approaches are on a gradient, so to speak, from the most sincere and direct attempts at simulation, to approaches that try to balance simulation with the abstracted world we more strongly associate with video games.

Mimetic Simulation

Those games/interactive products which most directly attempt to mirror or mimic reality, I classified as Mimetic. This means “mirror image”; these sims attempt to create the most realistic and authentic experience and may have little actual “game” content.

Mimetic sims do not rely upon visual fidelity to create a sense of simulation; instead they attempt to engage the imagination of the player or user and do not sacrifice realism for attractive graphics or traditional gameplay elements (such as earning a score).

These sims are made for a small, “hardcore” audience and may include such non-game subject matter as air traffic control, orienteering, mountaineering, traffic management, stock market trading, and hydrology. Often there is a high emphasis on educational content and an assumption that the player is very familiar with the source material, if not in fact already a professional in that field. The core approach of a mimetic simulation is to duplicate the interaction points between the human and the system being simulated with 1:1 fidelity; so a mimetic air traffic control simulation would be real-time and include all the associated duties, perhaps even as far as not including the ability to pause the game (as, alas, we can not pause time in real life).

Though they are produced for niche audiences, mimetic sims are in fact much more common than you would think, especially in the areas of training simulation. On very rare occasion (fueled by massive contracting budgets) you would find a commercial simulator that also attempts 1:1 visual fidelity, but again this is for presentation of information and not aesthetic purposes.

Systemic Simulation

Systemic sims attempt to replicate real-world systems of activity in a way that is approachable and logical; they operate on “common sense” designs that work with our instinct as to how a system should work. As with mimetic sims, visual fidelity is not a requirement; systemic simulation tries to replicate a “big picture” of a known environment. The systemic sim relies on a mix of the player’s sense of how things should work, given a known set of fixed rules, and limited direction on how to interact with that system.

The systems being simulated do not have to actually exist; instead, they just have to operate by known, common-sense rules of how we expect them to operate. Systemic sims place the player in the role of a manager of complex systems, but often hide the actual structure and workings of those systems; in this way they differ from mimetic sims. A systemic sim could be considered one step back from mimetic; for example, you could have a systemic air traffic control system which involves managing the staff of the control tower or multiple airports, rather than the direct air traffic control itself. Systemic simulation often has a “god’s eye” point of view rather than direct interaction with the simulated system’s integral parts.

Adaptive Simulation

Adaptive sims attempt to simulate a specific environment and set of behaviors, but with an emphasis on gameplay rather than pure realism. Often of high visual fidelity, these types of sims use mimetic and systemic elements, but focus on gameplay as their core determining structure. The branching-off or blurring of the entertainment vs. “serious” game audience occurs in adaptive sims, and they tend to have budgets that skew towards the entertainment side of the industry (as in larger) and be aimed at a commercial return on investment.

Adaptive sims include “all the good stuff” from an environment, but leave out those things which make mimetic sims frustrating; thus they “adapt” the rigid mimetic rules into a more friendly gameplay environment. For instance, in a mimetic F1 racing sim, you would have to make pit stops or run out of fuel; this is rarely a feature  in adaptive sims, which don’t even bother to include a fuel gauge on the dashboard.  Authenticity in adaptive sims comes from a combination of our common sense responses to that game environment (as with Systemic sims) and from visually simulating the game environment, its elements and real-world brand names and products.

Intrinsic or Inclusive Simulation

Games with intrinsic simulation include realistic elements inside an unrealistic or impossible environment, as a way of bringing authenticity to the experience. These could be considered the inverse of an Adaptive approach, as we know reality is not being addressed yet we have expectations of some degree of “realism” within the context of the game world.

As with systemic sims, common sense is a big part of the design; we’ve never fired a plasma pistol, but it makes sense that they require ammo, sometimes overheat and can be found on the bodies of dead soldiers that we have just witnessed firing said weapons at our person.

Visual and audio fidelity are very important in intrinsic simulation; if an M-16 rifle looks and sounds right, then it becomes an element of reality even when using it to battle zombies and vampires, which (one would hope) the player knows are imaginary.

Physics, gravity and other real-world principles are also intrinsic simulation, and can be effective design elements even in games which are utterly unrealistic otherwise. Mario’s jump in Super Mario, perhaps one of the most discussed and dissected game mechanics of all time, is indeed based (loosely) on a simulation of gravity, although every other element of the game is pure fantasy and bears little or no resemblance to reality.

Historic Simulation

I chose to break out history-based simulations into a unique category (although they often use some or all of the approaches above) due to the specific mindset and audience for those simulations. Historic sims are often mimetic or systemic in nature, but always lean towards authentic reproduction of historical events in an attempt to “replay” history; thus the systems and mechanics are altered by this goal rather than being a generic approach to pure simulation.

These historic sims may be adaptive in design (such as a WWII battle sim) but draw strongly from historical information and attempt to replicate a particular period or event experience for that specific audience. These games often have an educational basis or come with supplemental materials, to prove the authenticity of the simulation and set it apart from a pure entertainment product. Almost the entire catalog of Battlefront (http://www.battlefront.com/) could be seen as Historic in mindset, with varying degrees of mimetic, systemic and adaptive approaches as seems to fit the source material and audience.

Conclusion

So, what is the purpose of such a fine degree of classification? Many of the core design dilemmas present in “serious games” design and educational/training game creation hinge on what elements of this “game” should be interactive, and what are rendered as didactic or “chunked” (overused buzzword alert!) information for the user to digest. On many occasions I would try to present a design to a client (or simulation problem to a student), and they would insist that some elements needed to be “modeled” or presented as interactive, while others needed to be text or quiz elements that establish the facts you need to know. Being able to classify elements as different approaches to the goal made better sense of those conversations, and helped tremendously in breaking down a complex simulation into development targets.（source：gamasutra）