游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

万字长文,游戏的引导设定和玩家的情感共鸣关联探讨,下篇

发布时间:2015-07-22 09:30:32 Tags:,,

篇目1,阐述人类大脑中多巴胺释放与游戏之间的关系

作者:Ben Lewis-Evans

几周前当我在听某一游戏播客时,主持人在描述一款特殊游戏时说到这“刺激了多巴胺”,即关于他们在体验游戏时感受到种种乐趣,并希望继续游戏(游戏邦注:多巴胺是一种神经递质,如大脑中的化学物质)。该评论是即兴的,但却反应了一个常见的观点——释放多巴胺是关于乐趣和奖励,因此这与游戏玩法息息相关。但是该观点是否正确?

如果回到30多年前,研究人员将会呈现出多巴胺是关于乐趣和奖励的的观点。更早之前有一个关于该理念的实验,即在老鼠大脑上安插电极去刺激大脑领域对多巴胺产物做出反应。这些老鼠可以通过按压杠杆去表现大脑受到刺激。为了反应这种自我管理的大脑刺激,老鼠将牺牲一些基本代价去按压杠杆。例如,比起吃,社交,睡觉等等它们更愿意按压杠杠。再加上之后的其它证据,这部分大脑领域被标记为“愉快中枢”,似乎也很有说服力。

dopamine-expression(from scienceofeds)

dopamine-expression(from scienceofeds)

所以那时候的结论便是,多巴胺是让我们喜欢奖励,并鼓励我们去追求奖励的最重要化学物质。同样地,主持人当下也传播了有关多巴胺作为一种奖励和乐趣的化学物质的理念。

不幸的是(不过在长期看来却是幸运的),大脑并没有这么简单。科学一直在发展着,所有的事物也都在发生改变。而该领域的主要研究者建议关于“多巴胺能做什么”的最佳答案是“混淆神经系统科学家。”

虽然该答案很有趣,但却不能帮助游戏领域中的人更好地理解自己的游戏是否能够影响玩家的大脑。同样地,对于我来说撰写本篇文章的目的便是为了解释当前的科学对于多巴胺所扮演的角色和奖励的影响。此外我也会尝试着根据这些神经递质对于游戏创造者的意义而提供一些相关评论。

需要注意的是,在接下来的内容中我将专注于谈论多巴胺(神经递质)本身的效果,而不会谈及有关大脑领域中有关成果或抑制等内容。同时我也会专注于讨论最重要也是最有趣的例子和实验,所以这并不是针对于某一对象的学术评论。

喜欢,学习或想要获得奖励

处理多巴胺问题及它能做什么的一种有效方法便是根据喜欢,学习或想要去分解人们对于奖励的反应。也就是说,当提到你对于奖励的反应(如在游戏中获得某些内容)时,你是单纯喜欢奖励(如它很有趣),掌握了适当的方法去获得奖励(如你能否真正地玩游戏),以及你是否愿意努力获得该奖励(它是否能够刺激你继续游戏)都是完全不同的内容。

喜欢游戏

如果你为了获得某一奖励而有所付出,你便会喜欢该奖励。这便是引导着早前的研究者做出多巴胺与乐趣(“喜欢”)相关的假设的主要原因。基本上来看,他们认为如果老鼠感受不到乐趣的话又怎么会长时间去推动杠杆呢?

关于自我刺激的老鼠的理念是一种可理解的假设。虽然最终证明人们通常都很喜欢奖励,但是为了能够有效改变行为,它们不需要获得人们的喜欢,况且多巴胺本身并不会直接包含于“喜欢”和乐趣中。

随着研究的发展,我们越来越清楚动物也具有自己的能力去创造多巴胺,所以即使它们的多巴胺释放被阻碍或限制(通过药物,手术或遗传),我们也仍然能够证实这些动物“喜欢”某些事物。就像一只因为基因转变而不能释放多巴胺的老鼠它也仍会对糖水或其它食物表现出偏爱。因为这些老鼠喜欢甜味的水,所以在能做出选择时便会略过没有甜味的水。此外,你可以通过遗传工程赋予变体老鼠额外的多巴胺,而这些动物不能呈现“喜欢”不同食物的任何额外标记(尽管在它们的脑子里也充斥着所有的多巴胺)。

这是关于老鼠,那人类呢?研究人员并不能创造变体人类,他们也很难将直接在人体上试用药物或做大脑手术。但是我们可以观察帕金森患者,这便是受到多巴胺生产问题的影响。这些患者与老鼠一样,在对于奖励(如甜味)的喜欢方面也不会发生改变。

考虑到上述的发现以及其它相关内容,研究人员很难继续坚持多巴胺是一种乐趣或“喜欢”化学物质的理念。实际上,在1990年,一名主要的研究员同时也是多巴胺与乐趣息息相关这一理念的主张者Roy Wise便声明:

“我不再相信乐趣的分量与充斥于大脑中的多巴胺数量是均衡的。”

的确,比起多巴胺而言,像类阿片和大麻类等其它神经递质更加贴切“喜欢”奖励。尽管我们也需要注意在大脑中释放类阿片可能间接导致多巴胺系统做出反应,这也再次解释了之前关于多巴胺角色的困惑。但是就像之前提到的,从遗传角度来看老鼠不能在创造出多巴胺后仍喜欢某些事物!

所以你在游戏的时候是否感受到了愉悦?也许多巴胺并不是创造这种感受的原因。同样地,如果有人告诉你他们的游戏是围绕着扩大多巴胺传达进行设计,那么这便不能代表他们的游戏就一定是有趣的。

学习游戏

如果多巴胺并不是关于乐趣,那么它能做些什么?还有另外一种假设(在20世纪90年代开始盛行)是,多巴胺将帮助动物学习如何且在哪里获得奖励(这是在游戏中同时也在生活中需要记得的非常有帮助的内容)。当科学家开始注意到多巴胺活动会在奖励传达前开始提高,从而帮助动物预测到未来奖励这一情况时,这种假设便开始出现了。换言之,当动物之前看到某一刺激与奖励是相互维系在一起时,多巴胺便会被释放出来,从而预测到即将到来的奖励,而不是作为奖励本身的反应。似乎当奖励是不可预测时(就像游戏中随机掉落的奖励),多巴胺系统中的活动便会增加。如果多巴胺是关于学习,那么当动物期待或掌握了一个不可预知的奖励可能出现时,多巴胺活动便会增加。毕竟,如果奖励是不可预知的,你便会投入更多关注/尝试并了解相关奖励标记,从而找出在之后获得奖励的更有效的方式。

再次,虽然有关多巴胺扮演的学习角色的证据也非常合理,但是变体老鼠也再次动摇了这一理念。在有关该领域的某一研究中,华盛顿大学的科学家发现,不能再释放多巴胺的老鼠不仅仍会继续“喜欢”奖励,同时它们也还能学习到奖励来自哪里。也就是这些变体老鼠在接受了咖啡因的注射后仍能掌握奖励是在T形迷宫的左手边。注射到老鼠体内的咖啡因是与多巴胺释放无关的,但却是需要的,因为如果没有这些咖啡因,那么不能释放多巴胺的老鼠便什么都做不了。实际上,这些变体老鼠会因为缺少足够的食物和水而死亡,除非你能够向它们定期注射药物而储存它们的多巴胺功能。

除了上述的实验,当提到学习时,老鼠释放了比往常更多的多巴胺并不能证实它们拥有更多优势。但是就像之前提到的,缺少多巴胺的老鼠会饿死则意味着多巴胺具有一定的作用。但如果多巴胺既不是关于获得奖励的喜悦也不是学习如何获得奖励,它又能做些什么?

想要(渴望,需要)游戏

基于现在的科学,似乎多巴胺与想要奖励更加贴切。这并不是一种主观感受或像“我想要在今晚完成《黑道圣徒IV》”这样的认知声明,而是一种获得奖励的动力或愿望。所以这并不是关于“喜欢”和乐趣的感受,而是推动着我们去做某事的需求或动力。主观上来看,这就像你今晚不得不在停止前于《文明》中再玩一轮或在《暗黑破坏神》中获得更多战利品。当讨论到老鼠实验的结果时,有些研究人员认为多巴胺创造了一种“吸引力”或强制力推动着对象去获取奖励。的确,有人会认为多巴胺扮演“学习”角色的证据只是“想要”获取一个未知奖励的标志,并因此刺激学习作为一种副作用而出现(如果我想要某些事物,我们便有可能尝试着去学习如何获得它)。

我们可以再一次使用变体老鼠去证实多巴胺的“想要”角色。基于不能释放多巴胺的老鼠,它们缺少朝奖励前进的动力。这便意味着这些老鼠虽然喜欢甜味的水,知道甜味水是来自饮水管的右边,但是它们却缺少动力走过去喝水。相反地,拥有比普通老鼠更多多巴胺的变体老鼠拥有更多动力去获取奖励—-不管是基于它们接近奖励的速度还是它们为了获取奖励所付出的努力。是否还记得那些脑子里带有电极,并且会为了获得更多刺激而牺牲一切的老鼠?我们也能够根据“想要”刺激进行解释(而不是“喜欢”刺激)。就像带有强迫性神经官能症(OCD)的人会反复洗手一样,尽管它们并不能从该行动中获得任何乐趣(实际上这是一种被迫性行为)。

让我们着眼于人类,当着眼于帕金森患者时,我们会发现有许多研究显示,当使用药物去加强多巴胺释放时,“想要奖励”的感受便会增加并因此而引出一些强制性问题。就像这些别人都有强迫性购物与其它“疯狂”的行为。

此外,如果我们着眼于有关某个人在大脑的“愉快中枢”中插上电极刺激时,我们便会注意到它们想要执行各种活动的原文和动机在不断提高。但是我们却未能看到有关这些人变得更加高兴的报告。通过种种数值我们可以发现这是对于多巴胺自我刺激的想要回应而不是喜欢回应。尽管它同时也指出,如果你一开始感到沮丧,但是突然受到激励去做某些事,那么这会起到某种副作用而影响你的情绪。

关于上述所有研究的结果便是,比起乐趣或学习,多巴胺更倾向于动机或强迫症。所以当我听到播客的主持人说因为游戏能够释放玩家的多巴胺,所以它们是一种强迫性行为时,我想他们应该是对的。但是多巴胺并不能直接赋予游戏乐趣。

这对于游戏来说意味着什么?

当时我们很爱将“神经”这一词用于各种内容上。在学术界,这便引起了神经怀疑论者的出现,即要求看到更多证据。毫无疑问,这种“神经学”深受欢迎。实际上,甚至有调查显示人们倾向于相信基于神经系统科学模式而呈现的数据,认为它们比基于普通模式的数据更具有科学性。

所以知道所有的这些神经系统科学对于那些创造游戏的人来说意味着什么?从使用角度来看,这对于每日游戏设计的作用并不大。我在此呈现的神经系统科学都是纯理论的,而不是使用科学,是基于我们所知道的某些特定奖励的传达奖励的方法具有特别的刺激性和乐趣的角度(在不同范围内可能或不可能与多巴胺有关)。例如:

*不可预测的奖励(随机掉落的战利品)总是比那些可预测的奖励更具有刺激性。

*奖励应该具有意义,例如食物对于那些已经吃饱的人来说便没有多大刺激性,或者如果你使用的是缺少突出视觉效果的设置,那么全新且独特的刺激内容便能够更轻松地吸引你的注意。

*人们更喜欢即时奖励和反馈,并且很难受到延迟奖励和反馈的刺激。在年轻时期,这种对于即时满足的偏好最为强烈,但也会随着年龄的增长而继续保留着。

*学习去获取并想要某种特定的奖励的想法会因为怎样的行为反应创造了该奖励的即时反馈而增强。关于怎样的行为创造了奖励的不确定性通常都会引起试错式探索,如果出现更进一步的奖励,这种情况便会继续下去。

*如果人们察觉到自己正在朝着奖励前进,即使该过程是幻觉,他们也有可能受到刺激而获得奖励。

*同样的,人们更愿意报告他们努力去挽留自己所拥有的内容,而不是获取自己未曾拥有的。

*人们总是更倾向于大数目。因此在某种程度上它们更喜欢通过战胜每个怪物获取100个XP或需要1000个XP进行升级的系统。

*预测一种奖励能基于行为反应而替代其它奖励(如在游戏中获得点数与拥有乐趣和点数是相互联系,并因此成为了一种刺激性奖励)。

*人们不喜欢那些让人觉得是受控制的奖励。

*如果某些内容比其它奖励更加难以获得,那么精通,自我实现以及不费力的高性能等感受便是一种奖励。

同样地,我所谈及的神经系统科学研究并不是针对于如何创造奖励自己或乐趣,而是注重理解它对生理的影响。如果这是基于一种使用角度,它通常是关于使用药物或直接的大脑刺激去获得结果。

基于游戏从实践的角度来看,然后着眼于游戏设计方向的行为将比从神经系统科学中寻求答案更有价值。的确,即使你能够记录下与游戏相互动的每个玩家的准确多巴胺活动,这也不能创造出具有实质性差别的设计结果。不过也存在例外,即基于理论的神经病学方法可以在无意识的情况下检测出玩家是否想要玩游戏,在这个例子中你也可以无需担心神经病学原理而知道未来行为的结果。这一切都说明,如果你真的想要知道自己的游戏将对人类大脑产生怎样的影响,或者你正致力于一款严肃游戏并想要知道游戏是否能够完善大脑功能的话,那么神经系统科学便是非常有帮助的方法。

因为当下人们更倾向于接受“神经”组件具有科学性的理念,所以基于这种模式去谈论游戏将会是一种更加可行的市场营销策略。但是我们也必须谨慎行事。现在人们似乎认为多巴胺与乐趣相关。同样地他们可能并不在意游戏宣传的目的在于提高多巴胺回应。但是如果某天公众认知发生了改变,人们将会更加清楚多巴胺是关于想要和动机,而不是乐趣,那么这些信息将变得更加难以揣测。因此,信息会从“这款游戏是致力于呈现乐趣,所以你才会想要去尝试它”变成“这款游戏的设计目的是为了让你去进行体验,有可能你根本就不喜欢这么做”。此外,还有一些证据能够证明那些备受压力(生理或心理)或缺少刺激的人更容易受到多巴胺激励效果的影响(这具有进化意义,就好象你现在处在一个糟糕的境遇,你便会受到激励而走出困境并冒险去完善状况—-但是在现代生活中,这种倾向有时候却是有害的)。结果便是,如果你是为了推动玩家多释放多巴胺并将其与盈利维系在一起而设计游戏,你有可能会发现这种方法将有效作用于那些不能有效捍卫自己同时也不大会为游戏花钱的人身上。除了道德感外,这种方法并不能为你带来什么,这种围绕着“多巴胺设计”的游戏(游戏邦注:即依赖于不确定奖励系统且带有直接行为反馈系统的游戏)可能会引来政府的管制(就像日本便已经限制了手机游戏中的某些“赌博”组件)。

一个复杂的问题

在完成这篇文章前,我们需要注意大脑其实是一个复杂的主题。当舆论界提到神经系统科学时,它们通常指代的是大脑的“愉快中枢”或特定神经递质在做一些特定的事。但这并不是实际情况,而是尝试着阐述一个真实故事的副作用那个。在现实中,生理学通常都会遵循着多对一或多对多的模式。也就是说这通常都不是X引起Y的情况,而是X,Z,B或C引起Y,或X,Z,B或C中的任何一个引起Y,J,A,K或U的任何一个,这都是依情况而定。此外,因为神经递质并不是独立存在着,所以你通常都能看到有关一种神经递质中的改变会影响其它神经递质的例子。多巴胺便是一个有效例子,即它是其它神经递质—-去甲腺上腺素的先驱,所以在多巴胺包含于想要奖励的情感中时,其它神经地址也会创造出这种效果。也许多巴胺只能在特定情境下创造出想要情感,但是在其它时间它也具有不同的影响。

另外一个复杂的问题便是,大脑领域的激活(或一直)将创造一种神经递质,如多巴胺,而它的影响将完全区别于其它特定神经递质(这也是我为何在一开始说只会讨论神经递质的行动而不会讨论大脑领域本身的主要原因),此外,接合点经常会被各种不同的化学物质(它们可能是因为能够更有效地吸引某种神经递质)所激活,这意味着在缺少多巴胺的情况下其它化学物质将会与这些点捆绑在一起。还有一个复杂问题则是,多巴胺只会在做出重复性动作时被释放(游戏邦注:如玩《摇滚乐队》或敲打控制器上的按键),而这与奖励可能有关系也可能毫无关系。

总结

在本篇文章中,我也提到其它神经递质的名字(如阿片类和大麻类),但是我主要还是专注于多巴胺所扮演的角色及其对于“想要”奖励情感的影响。

还有许多神经递质能够对人们对于游戏的反应产生影响。就像血清素。同样的,许多游戏也不只是关于奖励。它们也包含了社交元素(催产素和加压素便专注于这一点),竞争,技能表现,负面情感和正面情感,惩罚等等元素。的确,游戏与人类的大脑具有密切的关系。而如果你对大脑这一复杂对象感兴趣,你就需要更深入地了解并学习。但你也必须清楚,当前的人类更倾向于了解与神经相关的主题,而不愿变成神经怀疑论者。

篇目2,情感赢利法,通过玩家情感拉动赢利

作者:David Hom

当我跟游戏开发者讨论产品的生产阶段时,我最经常听到问题是“有什么好办法能赚到更多钱?”最显而易见的回答(对他们而言)是“分析学”—-收集和分析玩家的行为数据,以理解消费者到底怎么玩游戏和如何最大化收益可能。然而,作为一个职业的游戏设计师,我总是更专注于游戏玩法而不是赢利策略。毕竟,如果游戏没有乐趣,游戏就完蛋了。这就是为什么我想在此介绍一个概念——我所谓遥“情感赢利法”。

分析学不可能量化或评估情感,而你的游戏最终是靠情感赢利的。有些开发者认为赢利策略就是A/B测试、市场细分和回报率。不是的。你必须通过优秀的玩法和设计使玩家与你的游戏建立情感上的联系。根据定义,游戏是一系列选择,旨在创造情感依恋和乐趣。当开发者构造的游戏机制允许玩家通过技巧、力量或运气做出自己的决定时,艺术和科学才融合成游戏。例如:

国际象棋中的一系列技巧决定:移动士兵或骑士带走车?

运动游戏中的一系列力量决定:传球还是射门?

老虎机游戏中的一系列运气决定:最大投注还是最小投注?

玩游戏是通过扮演虚拟角色如寻宝猎人、精英运动员或侦探等,暂时逃避现实生活。通过角色扮演,玩家可以感受到各种情感,如克服挑战的成就感、击败对手的快感、获胜的喜悦和同伴情谊等。

做决定然后获得奖励,如下循环反复。以类似的角度思考赢利策略。什么时候引入决定,或者说赢利点?另外,你希望在合适的时间创造情感依恋和展现决定。赢利点在玩法中出现得太早,会让玩家反感;出现得太晚,会错失许多增加收益的机会。以《Candy Crush》为例:第15关以后,玩家被迫在支持0.99美元和邀请3个好友来帮忙之间做出选择。如果是在第7关而不是第15关就要求玩家做决定,玩家的情感依恋还会一样吗?

现在问题是,你可以使用什么技巧或赢利策略?不同的游戏类型需要不同的技巧,但绝对不存在硬性规定。结合和混用不同的技巧可以使你的游戏显得与众不同和吸引人。独立开发者最擅长这个了。

以下是你可以尝试的不同类型的赢利策略:

计时机制

这就是在游戏的各种组件里放置计时器,包括支付跳过计时或等待时间走完。这个方法被广泛运用于手机游戏中需要升级或重置的东西。比如《实况赛车3》就在赛车中放置了计时器,使赛车升级后才能投入比赛。

计时机制为付费玩家和非付费但有耐心的玩家创造了一个公平的游戏环境。然而,你必须为选择等待的玩家提供其他东西玩,否则他们就不太可能长期留在你的游戏中。《实况赛车3》在这方面做得非常好,也就是当某辆车处于计时状态时,玩家仍然可以选择用其他赛车参加比赛。

值得注意的是,许多玩家都知道如何修改游戏中的计时器和设备的时间设置,以绕过这个机制。如果你想了限制这种作弊,就必须把计时器从客户端中移除,然后放在你自己的服务器里。

概率机制

概率机制在游戏中表现为多种形式:施放致命一击、掉落物品、发现宝箱或牌组等。玩家不能从决定中得到已知的结果,是否得到奖励取决于机率。这个机制还非常适用于稀有道具,使这种道具显得特殊、不花钱就难以获得。

未知是一种强大的策略。使玩家产生一种渴望得到某种稀有物品的情绪,通常可以长久地把玩家留在游戏中。你可以用这个机制代替数值变量(比如,把胜利条件从收集20个金币改成一个随机范围如15-25个金币)。

Hay Day(from insidemobileapps)

Hay Day(from insidemobileapps)

《Hay Day》就是一个好例子。收集宝物是很好玩,但当玩家没有存放宝物的空间时,游戏就不好玩了。每次拾取物品都有可能升级仓库或背包。甚至更好,在路边商店有可能找到仓库。耐心的玩家可以慢慢收集,但购买IAP赶进度的吸引力非常强。

刷机制

这是普遍运用于免费游戏的机制,给玩家选择免费玩或付费玩(加快进度)的机会。一旦游戏中建立起虚拟经济和商店,这类机制通常最容易执行。IAP道具如金币倍增器,可以减少刷游戏的时间,对于想快乐玩游戏的玩家来说是必须的。《Subway Surfers》把虚拟经济与IAP商店相给合,效果很好。玩家可以长时间免费玩,也可以购买金币来跳过某些玩法。

“刷”玩法比较多的游戏能否保持乐趣和赢利之间的平衡,很大程度上取决于虚拟经济。如果玩家不能及时得到积极的反馈,玩家要能会很快失去兴趣。应该想办法避免没有情感奖励的重复玩法和寻找调整游戏变量的方法,因为当玩家被要求刷游戏时,他们就会寻找和利用循环的漏洞。

付费继续机制

这个机制类似于“共享软件”或“精简版”,也就是除非付费,否则某些功能或特性不可用。带有付费继续机制的游戏似乎没有开发者期望中的那么成功。

幸运的是,因为免费游戏也能为非付费玩家提供丰富的体验,所以这类游戏最近越来越少见了。在大多数时候,当被迫决定付费或停止游戏时,玩家通常选择玩另一款游戏。如果你的游戏中有付费继续机制,那你就要保证玩家可以继续玩之前的关卡或者付费玩后面的关卡。

candy-crush-saga(from businessinsider)

candy-crush-saga(from businessinsider)

《Candy Crush》是一个好例子。玩家通完15个关卡后,必须选择付费或邀请朋友,才能解锁后面的关卡。虽然邀请朋友似乎比付钱更简单,但这个选项有利于留住玩家。

赌博机制

这种机制不言自明,就是类似于老虎机或扑克游戏。这是将传统的游戏与其他机制相混合形成的一条灰色带。根据分类,开发者很容易把传统的赌博方法和虚拟的扑克游戏和老虎机游戏相给合,比如《Zynga Poker》、《Big Fish Casino》和《Slotomania》。

总之,免费游戏的赢利策略不是现成的,而是将艺术与科学融合,或者叫作“情感赢利法”。你必须站在玩家的立场上,真正理解他们的感受。更重要的是,让玩家对你的游戏产生情感。不同的游戏会使不同的人产生不同的情感,情感是一种伟大的(赢利)力量。

篇目3,以神经系统科学原理分析恐怖如何影响用户的情感

作者:Maral Tajerian

恐惧是人类的本能。它不仅能够帮助我们在危险境况中获得生存,同时它在娱乐产业中的运用也可以带给我们受惊吓的乐趣。电子游戏产业便通过利用人们的这种情感,并将其融入游戏故事和设计中而创造出许多优秀的恐怖游戏。

例如我们可以将玩家放置在一个资源短缺的危险环境中,并且他们需要在此面对各种敌人。设置合理的话,玩家将会心跳加速,手心冒汗,甚至连在晚上睡觉时都会做恶梦!而如果设置不够合理,玩家便只会觉得他们在“走过场”而已。

在过去的20年,一些游戏因为能够成功带给玩家恐惧与紧张感而被定义为恐怖求生游戏(游戏邦注:包括早前的《生化危机》系列,以及最近的《失忆症:黑暗后裔》)。

尽管经过多次成功的迭代,这些游戏都提供了许多不同的敌人,游戏机制和情节,但是对于玩家心理的影响却始终保持不变。本文将着重阐述游戏产业是如何使用人类的这种恐惧心理,并研究如何平衡恐惧与游戏玩法而最终创造出一款成功的游戏。

关于恐惧的科学解析

先是焦虑,然后才开始害怕。焦虑总是我们在电子游戏中最先感受到的。如果说恐惧是对于逼近的威胁的反应,那么焦虑便是对于未来潜在威胁的反应。

人类都带有感知系统,并且根据研究表明,当危险慢慢逼近时,人类便会产生一种焦虑感,并且面向这一潜在危险而提高自己的注意力和敏感度。这就意味着当玩家在游戏中解决一个谜题时他们同时也在感受着恐惧与危险。根据很多玩家的表述,当他们在一个危险的环境下解决谜题时,他们的恐惧感也会随之上升。《寂静岭》便非常擅于通过谜题去突出这种恐惧。

寂静岭2(from gamasutra)

寂静岭2(from gamasutra)

(这是《寂静岭2》中的一个谜题,玩家需要在一个黑暗且破旧的房间中做出解答。)

尽管第一人称射击游戏总是降低了玩家对暴力的敏感度,但是这类型游戏却能够带给玩家面对危险的焦虑。这是一种动物反应行为,并且是一种高度自适应行为,因为它将确保个人能够在一种危险的环境下保持高度警惕。也就是在电子游戏中提升焦虑感便能够帮助玩家更加敏感地面对游戏中的危险。在像《失忆症》等游戏中,整个游戏体验都让玩家笼罩在焦虑中(并且玩家也并不清楚如何保护自己),从而帮助他们更好地应对敌人的攻击。

无助。就像之前所提到的,玩家在生存恐怖游戏中总是会面临一些可怕且不可避免的环境,同时也缺少足够的自我防御措施。换句话说,他们总是会在此面临极端无助的境况。

在《失忆症》中,玩家总会记得将自己锁在壁橱中,或隐藏在角落里长时间盯着空白的墙壁,因为他们知道如果自己移动了(甚至只是一小步),便可能会面临致命的恐怖袭击。除此之外,僵硬的摄像机镜头,笨拙的控制机制(就像《寂静岭》,早前的《生化危机》系列游戏)等元素都有可能剥夺玩家仅拥有的一点控制。

无助是一种非常强大的感受。研究表明,当任何动物在面对让它们倍感无助的环境下总是会产生强烈的恐惧与焦虑。就像是我们去看牙医时的感受。当我们感到无助与失控时,我们必然也会感到焦虑与害怕。在电子游戏中亦是如此。

启动效应。在心理学中,启动效应便是我们对于任何外部刺激所做出的反应。

让我们以低频词汇测试任务为例。在这里,测试对象将面对某些单词,其中有个单词是“lettuce”。然后他便需要填满“let____”。而当测试对象因为之前在实验中看过这个单词而能够准确填出后面的“tuce”时,他便会产生这种启动效应。

很多游戏便是使用这一策略去创造游戏中的焦虑感,即通过使用音效去提醒玩家注意入侵的敌人。在《失忆症》中,当玩家进入各种酷刑室中面对着一个个可怕的受刑犯,他便会产生启动效应,即当他也被锁在这里时,他便会幻想自己将遭到相同的折磨。

《失忆症:黑暗后裔》的酷刑室中的吊刑刑具(from gamasutra)

《失忆症:黑暗后裔》的酷刑室中的吊刑刑具(from gamasutra)

除了这种启动效应,一些不可预见的事物也会让玩家受到惊吓。例如当玩家因为某些事件而安全地穿越游戏关卡时,他们便会在再次面临相同环境时放下所有防备(游戏邦注:例如《毁灭展示3》的前三十分钟或《寂静岭》和《死亡空间》系列的中心)。

这种方法不仅能够帮助我们节省关卡设计时间,同时也能够维持游戏的进程并创造出一种紧张恐怖的氛围。

镜像神经元。镜像神经元是动物大脑的某一块区域中的神经元,当动物在执行某一行动或观察别人如何执行同一行动时这一神经元便会被触动。

早在几十年前,这种神经元就被当成人们理解别人的目的,感受,情感,甚至是效仿他人行为的关键因素。所以镜像神经元在连接人类经历与虚拟角色中起着非常重要的作用。

PET研究(from gamasutra)

(根据PET的研究,我们知道大脑中的相同集群总是会因为个人在观看一种行动(听音乐)或参与行动(演奏音乐)时被激发。)

在大多数电子游戏中,当玩家在三维空间中移动时便会触发出空间定向镜像神经元。在《寂静岭》游戏系列中,相同的游戏机制(如玩家需要将手伸到洞里拿出东西或需要将某样东西从马桶中取出来)将能同时引起玩家的焦虑与恶心之感。

就像在《寂静岭2》中,游戏要求James Sunderland必须将手伸到肮脏的马桶里,这便会让玩家感到恶心,并且这种感受也将映射到他的大脑中,并在某种类似情况下再次表现出来。

类似的情况也出现在《死亡空间2》中,即玩家必须选择在一个极端有限的空间中爬行(摄像机镜头让整个画面都变得有所不同)或者需要将针插进Isaac Clarke(游戏邦注:《死亡空间》的主角)的眼睛中。

最好的情况便是,这些游戏的开发者越来越意识到这一元素的重要性,并更加重视它的使用。就像Frictional Games(《失忆症:黑暗后裔》的开发商)的创始人Thomas Grip所言,当游戏拥有较强的移情元素时,添加镜像神经元便非常重要。换句话说,玩家将真正与游戏主角融为一体。

环境。环境对于人们在认知恐惧并加强吃惊反应中起着非常大的作用。在适当的环境下,我们基本的惊吓感将随着厌恶条件的作用(与玩家相对抗)而逐渐发生变化。

环境同时作用于游戏内部和外部。在游戏外部,气氛能够加强玩家的游戏体验(就像在一个黑暗的房间,带上耳机玩游戏更能让玩家有身临其境之感)。而在游戏内部创造一个合适的环境也非常重要,并且能够有效地利用人类的神经生物学原理。例如我们对于黑暗的恐惧是源于不断进化的日夜节律,即白天与黑夜的循环让我们在夜晚显得较为脆弱。同样的,夜间活动的动物如老鼠在见到光时也会常常呈现出类似的惊吓反应。

心灵杀手(from gamasutra)

心灵杀手(from gamasutra)

(光线的运用也能够创造出一种无助感,通过将玩家笼罩在一个神秘的环境下能够营造出恐怖的气氛。)

同时还需要指出的是,适当的环境设置也能让我们因为一些不是很危险的物体或线索而诱发出恐惧感。基于听觉线索(而非直接的厌恶刺激)的恐怖环境也能引起玩家的焦虑。

《F.E.A.R.》的反派角色Alma便是一个典型的例子——这个小女孩能够做一些非常可怕的事。此外,不可预测的厌恶刺激(如小女孩与带有电锯的男人之间的对抗)也会增强我们的认知焦虑和恐惧。

《F.E.A.R.》的游戏设计师Craig Hubbard说道:“一个带着面具且手持切肉刀的男人追赶着一名女学生听起来很可怕,但是当你从自己的角度进行思考时,你有可能会想自己至少可以伺机踹这个男人的屁股。而如果这个怪异的小女孩是美国特种部队中的一员,你又该如何处理这种情况?”

将恐怖元素融入游戏玩法中

在恐怖游戏中同时创造出恐惧感与互动性并不是件易事。当其它游戏是在挑战玩家解决谜题与对抗敌人的能力时,恐怖求生游戏则是在挑战玩家对于危险的反应。为了创造出一款优秀的恐怖游戏,你就必须仔细考虑如何基于环境以及角色在环境中的目的而带给玩家焦虑感,有效地连接游戏环境与角色间的关系,并除玩家所拥有的控制权。

而这种设计也有可能创造出一种事先设定好的恐惧感(即在《寂静岭2》中,Pyramid Head幽灵般的外观便分散于游戏的各个角落),这将让玩家察觉到游戏的线性玩法,而让他们难以在此感受到个性化的体验/选择,并认为游戏不具有重完价值。

死亡空间(from gamasutra)

死亡空间(from gamasutra)

这同时也将在玩家的游戏过程中创造出一种不可预期感。就像在《寂静岭:破碎的记忆》中便出现了一些特定的事件以暗示游戏向“冰雪世界的过度”,而推动玩家为了避开危险奋力奔跑。

但是这种事件只能创造出一次的焦虑感,之后再尝试也就不见得有效了。但是这却不意味着这种事件不再能够引起玩家的焦虑,它只是达不到之前的效果罢了。

同样地,在《死亡空间》中,玩家也可以规划他们与敌人间的对抗,即朝向附近的通风口或隔栏发动进攻。一旦他们能够这么做了,他们的游戏体验便不再只是恐惧了,还将包括对抗与获取能量。

寂静岭:破碎的记忆(from gamastra)

寂静岭:破碎的记忆(from gamastra)

(在《寂静岭:破碎的记忆》中出现冰雪的转变时玩家便需要奋力奔跑。)

如此看来电子游戏的发展趋势便是更加突出一些本能行动(我们可以通过对比《死亡空间2》与《死亡空间》,或《生化危机4》和《生化危机5》与之前的《生化危机》系列),这就标志着开发者可以更好地基于恐怖游戏(而不是真正的恐怖游戏)创造出一款动作游戏,并有效体现出我们上述所提到的所有动物行为原则。

结论

作为一名神经系统科学家,我很高兴看到电子游戏能够有效地利用科学原理,并且我也发现了这种趋势将持续吸引更多游戏玩家。所以,我们到底能从《失忆症》,《寂静岭》以及《F.E.A.R.》等游戏中学到什么?也就是说,我们该如何将这些基本的神经学原理应用于电子游戏中?

首先我们需要做的便是保持消息的灵通。科学研究的进展总是非常快速,而大多数研究结果却只能在(至少)10年后才真正被大众多了解——即最终发布在教科书上。而最近关于信息交流的改革却也不能完全解决这一问题,所以我们能说这种改革是一把双刃剑。它既能够帮助我们快速传播信息,但同时也仍是一种不可靠的方法。

然后便是需要大胆地尝试各种新类型。通常,新游戏的出现也会伴随着我们对于电子游戏的新认识。尽管这种方法风险重重,但是在这个充满各种游戏的产业中,遵循一个明确且统一的方法非常重要。

最后,我们必须建立起游戏(或者说是主要角色)与玩家间的情感联系。角色扮演游戏便通过模糊了玩家与角色间的界限而有效地呈现出这种情感联系。而在其它非角色扮演游戏中,这种联系便不那么明显了。

建立玩家与游戏间的纽带的最佳方法便是诱发玩家产生强烈的情感。恐怖求生游戏便是利用恐惧感而有效地做到了这一点。但是这却不是唯一方式。最近我们还看到一系列不同的游戏在利用各种不同的情感,如悲痛( Tale of Tales的《墓地》),爱与失去(Thechineseroom的《Dear Esther》)等。显然,“一体适用”的电子游戏时代已经一去不复返了。

最后,我们必须在面向玩家销售游戏前先了解他们。游戏产业中有许许多多游戏工作室,而不管他们开发的是AAA游戏还是独立游戏,肯定没有一个开发者想要冒险创造出一款不可能成功的游戏。所以了解玩家对于吸引人/刺激/上瘾的定义有助于他们创造出真正成功的电子游戏。

篇目4,开发者应如何创造可传达情感的游戏?

作者:Steve Fulton

我想要创造许多种游戏,但是有时候我却不知道该如何做。许多游戏涉及了某些真实情感,即难以通过游戏形式表现出来,但是不管怎么样我都认为自己有必要去创造出这些游戏。从完成水平来看,游戏可以说是我心中唯一的一种“艺术形式”。在某种程度上看,游戏也是我传达自己想法的唯一方式(尽管是以一种较原始的方法)。就像我创造了《Home Computer Wars》这款游戏去传达我在14岁时(1984年)的想法,并表述那时的我如何将雅达利计算机当成是世界上最棒的东西。而《Daphnie’s Balloon Pop》和《Katie’s Heart Catcher》则侧重于传达我在童年时期的一些单纯的情感(如“我爱你,这是我为你制作的一款游戏”)。还有一些非游戏项目,如“Game Storm!”便体现出了我的沮丧(即当我尝试着提出可销售的游戏理念时却发现市场上已经涌现出许多类似理念)。尽管这些简单的游戏都是建立在情感的基础上,但是很多时候它们都不能真实地传达地这些情感,或者帮助玩家在游戏时进行更深刻的理解。

最近这一问题也开始困扰着我。我将游戏作为表达情感的方式(或者说是游戏选择了我?),但是游戏的性质却让它很难真实传达出各种情感内容(除了一些基本的想法和理念)。而那些使用其它表达方式的人似乎比我来得轻松。例如摇滚音乐家可以通过写歌去抒发自己的情感,即如果他们拥有足够的技巧,便能够通过作品向听者传达出自己的想法。画家也有相同的能力,他们可以通过画作向特定群体传达他们的情感。游戏当然也能够包含这些情感,并且这些情感也能为游戏设定一个鲜明的基调,但是我更关心自己是否能够创造出一款让玩家基于实际游戏玩法去感受这种情感的游戏。

在经历了生活变迁的情感体验后,我希望造出一款能够传达出我真正的情感状态的游戏。我并不在乎是否有人愿意玩这款游戏,但是如果真的有人选择了它,我便希望他们能够理解我为什么会制作这款游戏以及我是带着何种感受在制作游戏。

述说情感故事

举个例子来说吧,几年前,我与大女儿一起来到了当地的公园,而她在那遭遇了不幸的事故。事情是这样的:因为我们的城市未能聘请任何人去清扫公园,我便决定亲自去清理游戏区域内的垃圾与木屑。而我的女儿则会骑着她的滑板车绕着公园游玩。但是因为我太专注于清扫工作了,以至于完全忘记了与女儿玩传球游戏的约定。突然,我听到她发出了一声尖叫,当我匆忙看向她时,我发现我的女儿已经掉出了滑板车(试图去避开其他小孩),在看了医生后,女儿的手被打上了一层厚厚的石膏,而我也对此极端内疚。我反复地责怪自己,如果我不如此执着于公园的清扫工作而花时间与她一起玩传球游戏,她便不会遇到这种事故。正因为自己的的选择才导致我们很长一段时间都不能一起玩传球游戏了。

如果我是一名作家,我便会写下一个关于某人专注于某些错事并最终自食其果的故事。而音乐家则会把这些内容转变成一首完整的歌曲。但是游戏制作人是否能够以此创造出一款有趣的游戏,并让玩家理解游戏情景中所蕴含的情感?

以下我将列出一些游戏类型探索——即能够帮助我通过游戏而传达某些复杂的情感。

选择你自己的冒险

这应该是基于游戏故事传达情感的最简单也是最基础的方式。你可以创造出一些具有深度的故事,并让玩家做出一些简单的选择去明确故事的发展方向。虽然这种方法的交互性较低,但是却能让游戏制作人创造出自己想要传达的故事。所以比起游戏制作,这更像是写作,并要求制作人必须具有作家的才能去传达最真实的情感。而为了让玩家愿意阅读大量的文本,你就需要创造出一些吸引人或惊险刺激的场景,并让他们自行决定采取何种行动。但是并不是所有的“情感故事”都拥有这类型的选择。不过至少这是一种非常直接的方法能够帮助你创造出一款简单的独立游戏(如果你别无其它更好的方式的话)。

互动小说:Z-Engine游戏

我认为传达情感的第二种简单地方法便是创造一部互动小说(冠以文本冒险游戏的一个花俏名称)。如今已经有许多成熟的工具能够帮助你创造出如Indocom旗下的文本冒险游戏一样的游戏,即让作者能够在此传达所有类型的情境和情感(游戏邦注:这是其它游戏类型所不允许的)。Inform是游戏制作人在创造互动小说时最喜欢的一种免费软件。你可以先写下一则游戏故事,然后将其编制成Z-Engine兼容文件,即能够呈现在多种不同平台上的文件。你可以使用JavaScript将其运行于一个名为Parchment的网页浏览器中,这时候便能够创建Flash解释器了,但是这些解释器要不就是私有的(就像JayIsGames,com所使用的Violet引擎),要不就是半成品,如大有发展前景的Flaxo引擎。即并不存在一种可行且有效的Flash解释器能够作用于Z-Engine游戏,所以用户将不得不被局限于硬核互动小说中。除此之外,这些硬核互动小说玩家将会发现制作人想要传达的情感都太过原始,并不符合他们所具有的复杂口味。

互动故事叙述:Storytron游戏

Storytron(from storytron)

Storytron(from storytron)

继Z-Engine游戏之后再迈出一两步便是Storytron游戏了,这是Chris Crawford所领导的游戏项目,即通过创造一个系统让开发者能够基于人类互动而创造游戏。《Balance Of Power 21st Century》便是一个有趣的例子。即游戏制作人必须创造一组情境,并围绕着这些情境做出选择然后承担着所有结果。但是这款游戏更像是在模拟一个群组人的感受以及彼此间的反应,而不像是用于传达不幸事件的情感的系统。老实说它还有点像最初的《Balance Of Power》,即要求玩家必须带着足够的耐心去游戏,而如果是休闲玩家便有可能在此做出一些备受争议的选择。

定制的游戏引擎

在阐述了一些最常见的互动小说/故事引擎后,我希望能够创造属于自己的引擎,即让我能够基于复杂的情感去创造游戏并让玩家去体验这种情感。但是我同样也难以避免遭遇与某些游戏一样的引擎失效的情况。不过不管怎样,我都希望尽自己能够面向玩家传达一些复杂的情感并让他们体会到这种情感,所以我便决定开始制作一些能够像游戏那样发挥功效的内容。

名字:《Catch In The Park》

类型:实时策略/资源管理

灵感来源:《疯狂小旅鼠》,《美女餐厅》

背景:在一座拥有较大场地的郊区公园,公园里设有秋千,各种娱乐设施,并且在外围还有一个能够用于骑车和玩滑板的圆形跑道等。

游戏设置:游戏开始于一个沐浴着夏日阳光的质朴且空荡的公园。突然两个小孩与他们的家长这样一行三人出现在场景中。这三个人停留在公园的入口处等待玩家的“任务分配”。

游戏玩法:玩家在游戏中的任务便是确保公园的访客能够开心,并保持公园的整洁。但是这却不如想象中那般简单。因为每个家长将带领两个小孩,所以玩家就必须平等地规划每个家长的注意力(通过使用颜色去标记小孩)。每个小孩都有自己想做的事,而家长必须尽可能与每个小孩待在一起。不管怎样玩家都必须想办法保持家长的“情感”高涨(让他们感到满足)。当小孩到达公园并希望开始“游玩”时,每个家长都是自私的个体,即希望最大限度地满足自己的小孩,并带着满足感离开公园。而玩家只有在让家长满意地带着小孩离开公园时才算完成关卡,并能够获得积分。

游戏关卡:在最初的关卡中,家长将带着两个年龄相仿的小孩。这就意味着他们将会选择做类似的事。如果小孩们想要“游泳”,家长便可以待在他们身边,并同时满足他们的需求。不管是玩滑滑梯,骑车还是玩滑板都一样。这时候的家长总是能够很容易得到满足,并与小孩们开心地离开公园。但是随着游戏的发展,两个小孩的年龄差距将越拉越大,家长将只能够满足其中某个小孩的特定需求。但是这么做将会显得另外一个小孩很可怜,或者会导致他大发脾气。最“高级的”活动要数与年长的小孩在草地上玩传球游戏,但是因为传球游戏需要高度的集中力,所以这也意味着家长将不得不忽视另外一个小孩。而如果小孩在此摔断了胳膊或腿,或者公园处于清扫状态,那么玩家便不得不等待其他家长的到来才能继续去“满足”他们。只有当家长能够“满意”地离开公园玩家才算完成一个关卡。

其它活动:

与小孩玩传球:玩家可以通过关注着小孩何时会跌倒(从秋千上,滑滑梯上或自行车上)并尝试着去扶住他而挽救游戏。也就是派遣最靠近的“家长”去拯救小孩,而这些家长不一定就是小孩的家长。如果发生这种情况,那么小孩的真正家长便会因为尴尬而选择离开公园,不过至少他们是“满意”地离开。

清扫公园:随着时间的发展,公园将会变脏。而如果公园过于脏乱,就不会有玩家愿意来此游玩了。而因为城市难以支付公园的清扫费用,所以玩家便可以派家长们去清扫垃圾。但是这也意味着他们将被迫离开自己的小孩,从而可能导致小孩遇上任何事故。而有效地清扫公园也意味着将会有更多家长和小孩到此游玩。

游戏结果:游戏中并不存在任何方法能够让玩家赢得游戏。因为在更复杂的关卡中玩家将不可能满足家长(或者他们的小孩)的全部需求。如果一天过去了但是却没有足量的家长带着“满足感”离开公园,玩家便算输掉了游戏。这是不可避免的结果,但是玩家却可以通过有效管理家长的情感而延长游戏过程。这是一款具有宿命论倾向的游戏,根本不存在能够让玩家获得成功的方法。

所以《Catch In The Park》算得上是一款游戏吗?从表面上来看它能够吸引那些喜欢管理类模拟游戏的休闲玩家的注意,并带有一些潜在的“乐趣”和“满足”情感。但是如果我们的目标是探索“内疚”和“绝望”,那么这款游戏便不可能做到这一点。当然了,不理解游戏情境的玩家也可以直接操纵游戏,但是对于那些有过相同遭遇的家长来说,他们将能从中感受到不同的情感。相反地,它也有可能促成一种糟糕的结果。即有可能游戏根本不能体现出玩家所希望看到的任何情感。如果这类型游戏不能做到这一点,那么玩家便只能够从中感受到沮丧,生气与懊悔(浪费时间)了。

篇目5,以《Triple Town》论述游戏基本情感及其诱发条件

作者:Danc.

激动人心的时刻到了。现在你可以体验网页版益智游戏《Triple Town》,我们已推出测试版本,会逐步进行优化。值得称赞的是,Cristian Soulos再次将作品变成大众关注焦点。

《Triple Town》是款特别的游戏。游戏在我设计的所有游戏中评价最高(94%)。这也是我多次重新设计的唯一一款作品。为什么会这样?

screenshot 1 from lostgarden.com

screenshot 1 from lostgarden.com

从表面看,游戏采用简单的消除模式,但体验一段时间后你就会发现游戏所蕴含的策略深度。其节奏非常罕见。游戏节奏缓和,玩家在游戏中随意做出系列小决定。这些小决定能够让高级玩家体验超过1个礼拜的时间。体验一段时间后,你发现自己玩的其实是《文明》的消除内容,你非常关心自己所建造的内容。这种强大情感反应总是令我倍感吃惊。

此次发行的内容最主要的添加内容?小熊。

小熊无处不在

《Triple Town》进一步巩固我创建游戏世界和背景的模式。我喜欢探索支撑游戏机制内在情感反应的途径。Kindle版本的设计相当抽象,融入许多象征符号和机制规则。游戏背景非常简单。但由于我自己玩过且还观察他人的体验情况,我发现游戏能够引起系列强烈情感:

* 自豪感:当你创造出美丽城市,你就会想要分享。大家会截屏,然后进行吹嘘。因所创建内容而感到自豪是驱动《Triple Town》玩家的主要情感。

* 好奇心:你想要知晓下个道具是什么样子。新手玩家常因此而努力获得城堡。

* 厌恶:你开始厌恶远程传送的忍者。它们没有攻击你,但会阻碍你的计划。

* 悲伤:首次杀死小熊时你会感到轻微的悲伤。然后你会开始学习如何抑制这种情绪。

* 生气:当命运在错误时间给你错误道具。

* 竞争:当你发现好友比你表现突出。

* 绝望:当你感到版面平台将要关闭,意识到自己无法赶上好友的时候。

* 安慰:当版块开始变填满,但你的一个神奇移动,令版图出现新的细长地带,让你能够重新进行操作。

游戏在激起这些基本情绪上表现突出。无需英雄之旅、故事以及包含沉浸性第一人称镜头的超现实画面。你可以通过机制设计基本原则创造情感丰富的有意义体验。

调整情感

当我重新审视《Triple Town》设计时,其中情感已非常清晰。但我希望探究自己如何更直接地让这些情感配合我的游戏构思。

情感是个复杂元素,所以我们需要找准切入点。大家普遍认为我们可以将情感分成大致几个类别。例如,“瞄准他人的消极情感”。在此粗略分类中,你会看到被我们称作显著情感的变体。例如,厌恶和生气其实高度关联,通常与由他人引起的失败或约束感有关。作为设计师,我要如何扩展引起常见情感的条件,获得我所期望的情感变体?

这有许多相关理论。在《Triple Town》中,我受到情感因素理论和体标记理论的影响。和人类认知许多方面一样,多种输入内容是最终创造优质体验的必要条件。红酒的“味道”是由实际化学味道和红酒的感知质量综合而来。标价100美元的5美元红酒会被认为比原瓶中的酒美味。同样,我们假设我们的大脑根据下述内容综合出最常见的基本情感:

* 模糊的身体反应(肾上腺素变活跃,心跳加速)。

* 所处情形的机制背景。

* 相关过去经验的回忆认知标签。

就《Triple Town》而言,身体反应和机制背景表现突出。我可以通过实验证明实我从玩家身上获得强大情感反应(游戏邦注:即便是通过非常抽象的游戏版面)。但认知标签尚未发展完善。所以此分析能够让我尝试一个特别的策略:

* 若你通过游戏机制激起常见情感反应,那么你可以将刺激因素运用至标签中,然后调节反应,获得特定情感。

怪兽或孩子?

参考《Triple Town》的一个基本标签范例。我所面对的原始信息是某观察发现:当他们杀死恼人NPC时感到极大宽慰。我尝试运用各种标记,获悉我们能够如何调节反应。

* 阶段 1:在建模初期,NPC意外呈现为小孩子。自然当玩家捕获这些孩子,将他们变成庄严石头时,他们会感到难过。意外死亡会带来愧疚和悲伤,而故意杀害则会让人觉得非常残忍。

* 阶段 2:所以后来我们将它们转变成邪恶的怪兽。这是个巨大转变。现在当玩家捕获和杀害怪兽时,他们会感到由衷的高兴。

* 阶段 3:最终在最新的架构中,我锁定眼神有些邪恶的小熊。很多人觉得杀死小熊没什么,但有些人会捉摸不定,感到不舒服。

* 未来:现在我开始深入情感空间,我已创建小熊角色,只要简单调整眼神,我就能够让小熊变得非常可爱,恢复愧疚和悲伤感觉。

clipart Evilbear Goodbear from lostgarden.com

clipart Evilbear Goodbear from lostgarden.com

从根本上来说,我是在平衡和调整玩家的情感反应。和席德·梅尔通过二元搜索锁定准确游戏背景类似,我通过试验各种极值,锁定适合情感。

运用能够获得情感共鸣的形象是个常见做法,但在实际操作中,NPC图标的作用与单放一个死去小孩的图像或截屏截然不同。小熊不是个单纯的形象。相反你需要创建独特的标签,其意义只体现在源自游戏体验的情感基础。丧失机制,你有的只是小熊图像。机制设定背景,提供大致情感反应,因此你能够创造优质情感体验。

避免不和谐情况

在首个阶段的小孩图像中,我看到了不协调因素。我们容易添加不适合的标签,混淆机制激发的情感。

TT pride from lostgarden.com

TT pride from lostgarden.com

《Triple Town》的核心是强烈自豪感和成就感。这些直接来自玩家创建6×6城市时惊人的长时间策略体验投入。设计巧妙的城市代表玩家几小时的精心劳作。

在Kindle版本中,我效仿《俄罗斯方块》和《宝石迷阵》的游戏理念。玩家体验游戏,获得积分,然后转向下个游戏。多数设计师都会借鉴被证实可行的原理,因为创新绝非易事。

遗憾的是,“明显”的设计选择与自豪感的逐渐创建相违背。这使得玩家只是点击按键,在创建新游戏的过程中,除去他们辛苦获得的成果。出乎意料的是,我多次将游戏放置在屏幕后方,不愿令它消失。“这不过是你完成的某个游戏回合,不妨继续前进”的理念不适合其他机制所创造的情感反应。

* 第一阶段:修复此问题的首个尝试包含添加硬币,这样就存在供玩家带到各城市创建回合中的持久资源。这作用显著,但显然还有不足。硬币只是个资源,玩家不会因失去某些简单的象征货币而感到悲伤。

* 第二阶段:第二个尝试就是玩家能够返回,在继续前进前浏览所创建的城市数次。这个方式作用显著,因为这让玩家获得告别机会。情感不协调情况体现在玩家能够以自己的节奏做出让步。这依然有所欠缺。

幸运的是,《Triple Town》是个服务,而不是发行后就被遗忘的游戏。
我后来设计游戏功能时,积极扩大其中自豪感。令我记忆犹新的经验是即便是像如何结束游戏这样简单的内容都涉及标记背景。若不是结束游戏,而是结束城市创建活动呢?

根据游戏机制导出游戏世界的寓意

这些单独情感体验创造了《Triple Town》的独特情感架构。由于存在不和谐,你无法简单将任何主题运用至此组动态情感,然后获得情感连贯的作品。相反,我们需要高度契合游戏机制的主题(游戏邦注:确保游戏机制激起的情感节奏与你所应用的标记存在明确联系)。

在《Triple Town》及我的多数设计中,游戏世界的主题和寓意都来自观看他人体验。我会观察和注意其中情感,然后询问关于所进行体验根本性质的问题。这是否是有关探索的游戏?创造?建造?若这是有关建造的游戏,符合当前独特架构的相关主题是什么?你是否在创建房屋?坟墓?此时NPC在做什么?

体验《Triple Town》几百小时后,我知道适合所有机制的寓意。《Triple Town》是有关殖民地主题的游戏。下面是些创建机制,以及源自寓意的标签如何以连贯方式将他们联系起来。

* 海外君王要求你在未被开垦过的土地上创建新城。

* 在这个过程中,本土居民不断在你的地盘上露面。他们不会攻击你,但会阻止你开垦。

* 所以你将他们赶到旁边。更有经验的玩家会创建小块保留地,将本土居民紧紧约束在里面。

* 由于过度拥挤,本土居民相继死去。

* 你用他们的骨头创建教会和教堂。

* 当出现顽固本土居民试图脱离保留地时,你可以派出自己的强大军队,移除祸害,然后继续自己的天召使命。

殖民主题和游戏机制的情感相当契合,我进行稍微调整,让其看起来没有这么天衣无缝。我没有选择特定受殖民统治的团体,而是将NPC变成道德模糊的小熊。向玩家呈现鲜明选择绝非难事(游戏邦注:这样玩家又回到原先模式中)。我对边缘情况更感兴趣,在这种情况中玩家进行自己认为合适的操作,然后随着时间的流逝,他们开始明白其行为带来的更大后果。在此游戏世界开发阶段,玩家应全心挖掘游戏机制,顾及游戏机制,确定自己的殖民者角色。

起初抽象的游戏定会逐渐变成丰富的游戏世界。城墙那边是什么?长久的殖民和帝国主义主题及其给当地居民文化带来的影响将在系列所设计中的游戏扩充内容中呈现出来。通过在标签上稍做变化,我得以调节系统有关殖民化主题的强烈情感。

同传统主题的差异

我发现这刚好相反,基于机制的主题风格和传统故事叙述大不相同。在注重叙述的游戏中,我总是先考虑角色、情节和信息,然后试图将支撑机制融入组合中。通常你会先向发行商定位游戏世界和角色,然后期望他们找到适合的玩法。思考下述两个典型叙述优先风格的寓意:

* 独特迷你游戏和谜题经常支持故事叙述:一个典型例子就是经典探险游戏,其中你利用的不是核心机制,而是系列符合情节的谜题。谜题的情感元素(游戏邦注:如沮丧和兴奋)同情节的情感节奏只有较少关联。通常为避免同各种故事情感节奏的不协调问题,谜题风格会进行定期转换。我们很难平衡一款游戏,但要求团队平衡系列较单薄的游戏只会导致出现浅层游戏机制。这出现在我细分玩法适应故事的过程中。

* 支持故事叙述的普通玩法:《最终幻想》之类的日本RPG游戏反复利用回合战略战斗机制呈现故事节奏。基于时间的策略战斗机制通常会创造基础情感,如失败、胜利、安慰,感到精力充沛及无力。无论所陈述的故事是什么,机制是用来提供情感支持。这样的模式在多数时候能够避免不和谐情况,但当情节转向非战斗领域,不和谐情况又会重新出现。这出现在所陈述的故事超越玩法支撑范围的情况下。

下面是些我遇到的设计误区。在某项目中,我创造某基于寻找根植于地中海的后Singularity文明遗迹的游戏世界(游戏邦注:大约是100AD)。在另一个项目中,我过度着迷于系列较小缠头生物。在两个项目中,我害怕改变世界。相反,我拼命创造新的游戏机制,希望能够找到适合游戏世界的内容。我几乎一无所获。就我看来,创造富有沉浸性的新游戏机制非常困难,成功机率也难以把握。但创造一个有效游戏世界的投入则相对较少。任何人都能够复制一个有效运作的游戏,顺利发行盗版作品,将其称作优秀作品。

现在我找到一个更好反映这些代价的哲学。玩法优先,空间创建源自玩法机制。更新玩法其实就是打破同特定空间的情感联系,放弃原有游戏世界,制作的新内容应不会让人感到不妥。设计师应该要创建支撑游戏的空间。

总结

《Triple Town》的主题和空间创建内容不是很多。习惯奢华作品(游戏邦注:这些游戏融入过多故事叙述内容)的玩家不会发现我所选择的标签(它们给游戏体验带来一定影响)。但他们及多数玩家都会清楚感觉到游戏节奏。

我在这里陈述的内容并不新颖。我所强调的是要自下而上地创建游戏标签和空间。先从机制着手,然后再寻找适合情感节奏的的标签。基于此玩法基础,你就能够创建游戏空间。

备忘录:调节基础情感的步骤

1. 创造有趣机制

2. 观察玩家在机制中的情感反应。

3. 调节机制情感诱发条件进而增加或减少某原始情感反应。

4. 只要掌握系列预期情感反应,你就可以讨论定义情感的自然标签。

5. 测试标签,查看其如何引起特定情感变体。

6. 将标签捆绑至游戏寓意(游戏邦注:游戏寓意主要传递和加强其独特情感架构)。

注解:情感的OCC模式

Aki Järvinen的论文《Games without Frontiers》谈到一个有趣情感模式(由Ortony、Clore和Collins提出,简称OCC模式)。模式假设情感结果同机制变体相关。例如,玩家沮丧感同可变“可能性”有关:

* 低可能性:若玩家预测特定结果,但根据过去经验,他们觉得几乎没有可能,他们通常不会过度失望。

* 高度可能:可能性很高,结果没有如此,沮丧感会更加突出。

通过调节可能性、投入程度或结果重要性等变量,设计师能够设定系列“诱发条件”。我喜欢这个术语,因为我们因此就具有讨论情感的合适词语,无需受人文科学的不必要干扰。通过合理设置游戏机制变体,你就能够创造生成特定情感的诱发条件。

将这些理念应用至游戏开发是个复杂过程,但仅作为理念框架,其力量就非常强大。下面是Aki制作的几个有效OCC图表,主要罗列条件、变量、主要情感类别和情感变体。

情感图例(from gamerboom.com)

情感图例(from gamerboom.com)

备注:视频游戏的超现实主义

通常优秀视频游戏都和现实世界脱节,也就是所谓的超现实世界。《马里奥》、《吃豆子》、《 Katamari》、《宝石迷阵》以及《Portal》这类的游戏都设定在超现实的空间中,其遵守协会逻辑原则,但可以违背现实世界的理念。更有趣的是尽管大量付出让我们的符号机制只是在表面上具有连贯性,但很多玩家都开心地沉浸于超现实世界中,对此毫无怨言。拖有什么不满,那就是设计师进行不必要的调整,结果带来许多不必要的不协调因素,要求玩家关注无关紧要的细节内容。

我觉得这个超现实现象是基于机制情感节奏创建游戏空间所带来直接结果。不断调整各种游戏标签,力图呈现游戏最佳部分,分化传统叙述过程。那么为何有个移动的海龟?因为他符合游戏机制。这是必要调整,超过限度只会加重游戏体验和开发的负担。最后,适当超现实标签是个有效元素,因为它能够给你带来大量空间,避免出现不和谐因素。由于和现有情感机制高度契合,他们通常会创造更强大的游戏体验。

篇目1篇目2篇目3篇目4篇目5(本文由游戏邦编译,转载请注明来源,或咨询微信zhengjintiao)

篇目1,Dopamine and games – Liking, learning, or wanting to play?

by Ben Lewis-Evans

A few weeks ago when listening to a gaming podcast, I heard the hosts describe a particular game as “giving them their shots of dopamine” in terms of the pleasure they had experienced with the game, and their desire to keep on playing (dopamine being a neurotransmitter i.e. a chemical used in the brain). The comment was made off-hand but reflects a common view – that having dopamine released is related to pleasure and reward, and therefore is relevant to gameplay. But is this view correct?

Well, if we go back around 30+ years, the view that dopamine is the chemical related to pleasure and reward was being presented by researchers. One classic experiment that led to this view of dopamine being related to pleasure comes from even further back and involved rats that had electrodes in their brain stimulating brain areas that (it turns out later) can be responsible the production of dopamine [1]. These rats could press a lever to get this part of the brain activated. In response to this self-administered brain stimulation the rats would push this lever at the expense of basically anything else. For example, they would rather press the lever than eat, be social, sleep, and so on. This, and other later evidence, led to this area of the brain being labelled as the ‘pleasure centre’ and seemed pretty convincing.

So, the conclusion at the time is that dopamine was the most important chemical that made us enjoy rewards and at the same time could motivate us to seek them out [2]. As such, the idea that dopamine is a reward and pleasure chemical, spread and is now mentioned off hand by podcasters (a very scientific metric of cultural spread, I know).

Unfortunately (well, actually in the long run, fortunately) the brain is not that simple. Science has moved on and things have changed. Indeed, a leading researcher in the area has, jokingly, suggested that that the best answer to the question “what does dopamine do?” is “confuse neuroscientists” [3].

That answer, while amusing (I laughed at least), doesn’t really help those working in games to understand what their games may or may not be doing to the brains of those playing them. As such, the aim of this blog is for me to as clearly as possible explain what Science currently says about the role of dopamine and rewards. More than that though, I will also try and provide some comment in terms of what all this neurotransmitter stuff actually means for people who make games.

Please note, in the following blog I will be limiting myself to talking about what is known about the effect of dopamine (the neurotransmitter) itself and not discussing what is known about the brain areas that are related to its production or suppression. I have also limited myself to only discussing the most relevant and interesting (in my opinion) examples and experiments as this is not the place for a full academic review of the subject (If that is what you want, check out the academic reviews listed in the reference section at the end of this blog [4-8]).

Liking, learning, or wanting rewards in gameplay

One useful way to approach the question of dopamine, and what it does, is to break down people’s reaction to rewards in terms of liking, learning, or wanting. Which is to say, that when it comes to how you react to a reward (such as achieving something in a game) then whether you like the reward (i.e. is it fun), have learned the appropriate way to get the reward (i.e. can you actually play the game), and if you want to work to get the reward (i.e. is it motivating to play), can be completely different, and independent, things.

Liking to play

It seems to make sense that if you do something for a reward then you must like that reward. This is indeed part of the reasoning that led early researchers looking at dopamine to assume that dopamine was to do with pleasure (‘liking’) [2]. Basically, they thought, why else would the rats have pushed that lever for so long if they weren’t enjoying themselves?

The idea that the self-stimulating rats were enjoying themselves may have been an understandable assumption. However, it turns out that while rewards are often liked they do not have to be liked in order to be effective in changing behaviour and, furthermore, that dopamine itself does not appear to be directly involved in ‘liking’ and pleasure.

Specifically, as research has moved on, it has become clear that animals (usually mice and rats) that have had their ability to produce dopamine stopped or restricted (either via drugs, surgery, or genetic alteration) can still be seen to demonstrate that they ‘enjoy’ and ‘like’ things. One demonstration of this would be that mice that have been genetically altered to not produce dopamine (a type of mutant “knock out” mouse, or an X-Mouse if you prefer) still show a preference for sugary water and other foods [9]. In that, these mice like and seem to show signs of enjoying the taste of sugary water and when given the choice will pick to drink it over plain, non-sugary, water. Furthermore, you can also genetically engineer mutant mice to have excess dopamine and these animals do not show any additional/enhanced signs of ‘liking’ different foods despite all the dopamine floating around in their brains [10].

So, that is mice but what about humans? Well, researchers aren’t really allowed to make mutant humans and it is not easy to get permission to give drugs or do brain surgery on people. But, we can look at patients with Parkinson’s disease, which is characterised by problems with dopamine production. These patients, much like the rats and mice, also do not appear to show any decreases in the liking of rewards, such as sweet tastes [11].

Given the above findings, and many others (e.g. see the reviews of [4-8]), it became hard for researchers to continue with the idea that dopamine is a pleasure or ‘liking’ chemical. In fact, by 1990, Roy Wise, a leading researcher and initial proponent of the idea that dopamine is related to pleasure stated:

“I no longer believe that the amount of pleasure felt is proportional to the amount of dopamine ?oating around in the brain” ([12] – p. 35).

Indeed, rather than dopamine it seems that other neurotransmitters, such as opioids (Endorphins! Remember when they were trendy to talk about?) and cannabinoids are actually more often involved in ‘liking’ a reward [4, 10, 13-15]). Although, it should be noted at this point that opioid release in the brain can, indirectly, also lead to reactions in the dopamine system, which again could explain the early confusion over the role of dopamine. However, as mentioned above, mice that are genetically unable to produce dopamine still do like things!

So, that pleasurable feeling you get when playing a game? Dopamine is probably not the cause. In the same fashion, if someone tells you their game is designed to maximise dopamine delivery then this does not necessarily mean their game will be fun or enjoyable to play.

Learning to play

If dopamine isn’t related to pleasure, then what does it do? Well, another hypothesis, which became popular in the 1990’s, is that dopamine helps animals learn how and where to get rewards (a very useful thing to remember in games but also in life in general). This hypothesis arose when scientists started noticing that dopamine activity appeared to increase before a reward was delivered and therefore could be helping animals predict the arrival of a future reward [6-8]. That is to say that dopamine was produced when an animal saw a stimulus (such as a light coming on) that had been previously linked to getting the reward and, therefore, the dopamine release was predictive of the reward coming and not a reaction to the reward itself (as it would be if it was just about ‘liking’ that reward or getting pleasure from it). There also seems to be an increase in the activity in the dopamine system when a reward is unpredictable (like a random loot drop in a game). That dopamine activity increased most when an animal was expecting or learning about an unpredictable reward appears to make sense if dopamine is about learning. After all, if a reward appears to be unpredictable then you should pay more attention/try and learn about what signals the reward so you can work out how to better obtain that reward in the future [16].

Again, this evidence for dopamine’s role in learning looked pretty good [7-8]. However, once again mutant mice have shaken up this idea. In a quite clever study in this area, scientists at the University of Washington showed that not only do mice that cannot produce dopamine still ‘like’ rewards but that they were also capable of learning where a reward was [17]. Specifically, these mutant knock-out mice could still learn that a reward (food) was in the left hand side of a T shaped maze, although they did so only after being given caffeine. The addition of caffeine to the mice is unrelated to dopamine production but was needed because without this mice that cannot produce dopamine don’t do much of anything. As you can see for yourself in this video with a normal and a dopamine deficient mouse the mutant mouse tends to just sit there. In fact, these mutant mice do so little that they will die from not eating and drinking enough unless given regular shots of a drug that effectively restores their dopamine function for a day or so [3].

In addition to the above experiment, it also appears that mice that have more dopamine than normal do not demonstrate any advantages when it comes to learning [3]. However, as mentioned, the fact that dopamine deficient mutant mice will essentially starve to death means that dopamine must do something. But if dopamine isn’t for pleasure from rewards, and isn’t for learning about rewards (although argument here still exists), then what does dopamine do?

Wanting (desiring, needing) to play

It turns out, as far as where science is currently at (and remember science does, and should, change as new evidence is found), that it seems that dopamine is most clearly related to wanting a reward [4-6, 15, 17]. This is not wanting as it would perhaps commonly be used in terms of a subjective feeling or cognitive statement like “Oh, I want to finish Saints Row IV tonight” but rather as a drive, a desire, or a motivation to get a reward. So, this is not about a feeling of ‘liking’ and pleasure, instead what we are talking about is a feeling of a need or drive to do something. Subjectively this may be like when you just have to take one more turn in Civilization (or start playing and then 5 hours later realise you are still going) or when you have just get a few more loot drops in Diablo before you stop for the night. Indeed in the literature, when discussing the results of experiments on mice, some researchers suggest that dopamine creates a ‘magnetic’ attraction or compulsion towards obtaining a reward [3, 6]. Indeed, it could be argued that the evidence for dopamine being involved in ‘learning’ is in fact just a sign of ‘wanting’ being directed towards an uncertain reward, which then motivates learning to occur as a side effect (i.e. if I want something, I am likely to try and learn how to get it).

Again, here, we can look at mutant mice to confirm the role of dopamine in ‘wanting’. In mice that cannot produce dopamine, their motivation to move towards and work for rewards (which, remember, they do like and have learnt how to get) is deficient [3, 17]. This means that these mice do like sugary water, and they have learnt that the sugary water comes from the drinking tube on the right; however, they just aren’t motivated to walk over there and drink it [3]. Conversely, mutant mice that have more dopamine than is normal have been shown to be more motivated to gain rewards, both in terms of how fast they approach rewards and how much effort they will expend to get the reward [3, 10]. Also remember those rats with electrodes in their brains working away at the expense of everything else just to get more stimulation? Well that can also be explained in terms of ‘wanting’ the simulation rather than ‘liking’ it [1, 2]. Kind of like how someone with OCD will wash their hands over and over and over again, even though they often get no pleasure from this act (and in fact it can be quite distressing).

Looking at humans, if we examine patients with Parkinson’s disease then there are also studies that show that some of these patients demonstrate increased ‘reward wanting’ and have compulsion problems when given a drug that enhances dopamine production. For example, such patients have been reported to go on obsessive shopping sprees and demonstrate other ‘manic’ type behaviour [18].

Furthermore, if we go back and look at reports of people who, like the previously mentioned rats [1], had direct (self) electrical stimulation of their so called ‘pleasure centres’ in their brain (usually for questionable medical reasons), then we see subjective reports of increased sexual desire or motivation to perform various activities (or just to press the button to self-stimulate, which they would do thousands of times). However, we do not actually see clear reports from these people of increased pleasure, sexual or otherwise (these accounts are mostly from the 70’s & 80’s where this kind of thing was going on, and are summarised in [2] if you are interested). In one highly ethically questionable example, the researchers actually hired a female prostitute at the request (although, one could easily question if this was a true, ethically acceptable, request) of an electrically self-stimulating man who was being ‘treated’, in part, for homosexuality, along with depression, drug abuse, and epilepsy [19]. So, in these human accounts we see suggestions of what looks like a wanting response to self-stimulation of dopamine related brain areas but not necessarily a liking response (i.e. the subjects expressed increased desire but not necessarily increased pleasure). Although, it should be pointed out that if you were depressed, and then suddenly started feeling motivated to do things again that this may, as a side effect, increase your mood [2].

The upshot of all of the research mentioned above is that it appears that dopamine is not directly about pleasure (or learning) but rather it is about motivation or, if you want to be more sinister, compulsion. So, when those podcasters I was listening to said that a game was compulsive because it was giving them their dopamine shot, they may have been right. However, dopamine was not directly responsible for also making the game they were talking about fun (please note, I am not so serious that I expect videogame podcasters to be exact about this kind of thing, rather I am just using them as a convenient example).

What does this mean for games?

It is very popular at the moment to attach the term ‘neuro’ to almost anything. In academia this has led to a, justified in my opinion, neuroskeptic movement that is calling for, well, more evidence. However, there is no doubt that this ‘neurofication’ is popular with people. In fact, there is even research [20] showing that, at the moment, people seem to have a bias towards believing that data that is presented to them in a neuroscience-like fashion (i.e. via an image of a brain scan) is more scientifically valid than the same data presented to them in a more mundane fashion (i.e. via a bar graph).

So, what does knowing all this neuroscience mean for those who are making games? Well, from a strictly pragmatic and applied perspective it could be argued it means very little for every day game design. The neuroscience I have presented here is mostly pure, not applied, science and comes from the perspective that we already know that certain rewards and ways of delivering reward are particularly motivating and pleasurable (and may or may not have anything to do with dopamine to different extents). For example:

- Rewards that are unpredictable (loot drops) are generally more motivating than rewards that are predictable (100 xp per monster) [21-23].

- Rewards should be meaningful, e.g. food is not particularly motivating for most people if you are already full, or if you are in a relatively visually sparse setting then new, unusual, stimuli will attract your attention more readily [16].

- People tend to have a preference for immediate rewards and feedback and are not so motivated by delayed rewards and feedback. This preference for immediate gratification is strongest when young, but persists throughout life [24-26].

- Learning to get and want a certain reward is enhanced by immediate feedback about what behavioural response produced that reward. Uncertainty about what behaviour produced the reward will often lead to trial-and-error type exploration, which will be more likely to continue if further rewards arrive [23, 27, 28].

- If people perceive they are progressing towards a reward, even if that progress is artificial/illusionary, they are more likely to be motivated to obtain the reward (just one more turn…) [29].

- Similarly, people tend to report that they will work harder to keep what they have rather than to gain something they don’t yet possess [30].

- People have somewhat of a bias towards large numbers. Therefore to some extent will prefer, and be more motivated by, a system where they earn 100 xp per monster and need 1000 xp to level up over a system where they earn 10 xp from a monster and need 100 xp to level up [29, 31].

- A predictor for a reward can serve/become a replacement for that reward in terms of behavioural response (e.g. getting points in a game becomes associated with having fun and points can therefore become a motivating reward in themselves) [21-23, 29, 32, 33].

- People tend to dislike rewards that are delivered in a way that is perceived to be controlling [22, 34-36].

- Feelings of mastery, self-achievement, and effortless high performance appear to be quite rewarding, if somewhat more difficult to achieve than other types of reward [35-37].

As such, the neuroscience research I have discussed isn’t, primarily, aimed at working out how to make a reward motivating or pleasant but rather at understanding why it is so at a physiological level. Or if it does take an applied view, it is usually about using drugs or direct brain stimulation to get results.

As such, from a practical perspective in games, then looking at behaviour (such as the masses of data being collected all the time on player behaviour by metrics or even your own small scale playtests) for game design directions is likely to be more valuable than looking to neuroscience for answers. Indeed, it is likely that even if you could record the exact dopamine activity of every player that interacted with your game that it would not really produce a substantially different design outcome than just looking at what they do (i.e. their behaviour). One exception could be that a theoretical neurological approach may be able to detect if a player was ‘wanting’ to play your game without consciously realising it (something that may indeed be possible) but even in this case you could still see the same outcome in their future behaviour without having to worry about the (complicated and costly) neurology of it. All this said, if you are interested in knowing what your games may be doing to peoples brains, or perhaps you are working in serious games and want to see if games can improve (or worsen) brain function. Then, here, neuroscience can be valuable. But please, be neuroskeptical!

One possible application of the research I have outlined here is, I guess, that because at the moment people seem biased towards accepting explanations with a ‘neuro’ component as being more scientific [20], then you could argue that talking about games in this fashion could be a viable marketing strategy. Be careful though. At the moment people appear to think dopamine is related to pleasure. As such, they may not mind games being publicised or talked about as being designed to maximise a dopamine response. However, if the public perception changes and it becomes even clearer that dopamine is about wanting and motivation, not pleasure, then such messages become more sinister. In that, the message changes from “this game is designed to be fun, so you will want to play it” to “this game is designed to make you want to play it, even if, perhaps, you don’t like or enjoy doing so”. Furthermore, there is some evidence that people who are already stressed (physically and/or mentally) or lacking in stimulation are more vulnerable to the motivational effects of dopamine (this makes evolutionary sense, as if you are in a bad position at the moment you should be motivated to go out and take risks to try and improve things – but in modern life this tendency can sometimes be harmful) [16]. The upshot of this is that if you design your game to really push dopamine buttons and tie that into some kind of monetization (or even if you are just asking people to give you their time), then you may have to take the risk that those aspects will be working best on those who are less able to defend themselves and may also be the least able to pay (and you can’t even necessarily suggest that at least you are giving them a fun time because liking, while often correlated with, is not needed for wanting). Aside from any moral feelings this may or may not produce for you, such ‘dopamine designed’ games (which would most likely be games that rely on uncertain reward systems with good direct feedback systems on behaviour) may attract the eye of governments and lead to regulation (as, it could be argued, it already has in Japan with the restriction of certain ‘gambling’ components in mobile games).

A complicated matter

Before I finish up, it should be noted that the brain is a complex subject matter. When neuroscience is talked about in the media there are often references to brain areas being ‘pleasure centres’ or certain neurotransmitters doing very specific things. But that is not the reality but rather a side effect of trying to tell a clear story. In reality physiology often follows a many-to-one or many-to-many pattern. Which is to say it is not usually a case that X causes Y, but rather that X, Z, B, and/or C can, if circumstances are right, cause Y or even that any of X, Z, B, and/or C can cause any of Y, J, A, K, and/or U, depending on the situation. Furthermore, since neurotransmitters don’t exist in isolation you often have instances where changes in one neurotransmitter will affect one or more other neurotransmitters. Dopamine is good example of this as dopamine is a precursor for another neurotransmitter, norepinephrine. So while dopamine may be involved in wanting a reward other neurotransmitters many also produce this effect. Or maybe dopamine only produces wanting when certain other situations are met and has different effects at other times.

Another complication is that it may be possible that the activation (or suppression) of brain areas that produce a neurotransmitter, such as dopamine, can have effects completely separate from the specific neurotransmitter that you are examining (which is why, at the start of this blog I said I was limiting myself to just discussing the action of the neurotransmitter and not of the brain regions themselves). Furthermore, binding sites (where neurotransmitters fit and work) can often be activated by multiple different chemicals (they just may be more strongly attracted to one neurotransmitter), meaning that in the absence of dopamine perhaps another chemical binds a these sites. Another complication would be that dopamine appears to be simply released during repetitive motor movements (such as where you play Rock Band or are just tapping away on buttons on a controller), which may or may not have anything to do with rewards [38].

Conclusion

In this blog, I have mentioned a few other neurotransmitters by name (e.g. opioids and cannabinoids) but I have focused purposefully on the role of dopamine and its role in ‘wanting’ rewards (it is likely that dopamine does more than this but ‘wanting’ seems to be its main role in terms of rewards). As such, I hope that this blog has been an interesting read and that maybe you have learned one or two new things.

However, there are many more neurotransmitters could play a role in how people react to games. Serotonin, for example, is likely to be involved [14]. Also, many games are more than purely about reward. They also often involve social aspects (oxytocin and vasopressin are the neurotransmitters currently getting the most attention here), competition, skilled performance, negative, as well as positive, emotions, punishments, and many other factors. Indeed it seems that games are thankfully, much like the human brain, a complex subject matter. So, if this kind of subject interests you then read and learn about it (check out the references below, the majority of which are open access and not locked behind paywalls). But be aware of the current human positive bias towards neuro-related subjects and instead try to be neuroskeptical.

篇目2,Emotional Monetization – Driving Rev Through Emotion

by David Hom

When I talk to game developers about their games in various stages of production, the most common question I get is “what is the best strategy to make more money?” The most obvious answer (to them) is “analytics”– gathering behavioral data and analyzing player behavior to understand actual consumer game play and maximizing revenue potential. However, as a game designer by trade, I usually always focus on the gameplay rather than the monetization tactics. After all, if the game isn’t fun, game over. This is why I’d like to introduce a concept I call Emotional Monetization.

Analytics simply can’t quantify or measure emotion, and emotion is what will ultimately help your game monetize. Some developers think that monetizing is all about A/B testing, segmentation and return rates. It’s not. You need to establish an emotional connection with your players through engaging gameplay and amazing design. By definition, games are series of decisions, designed to create emotional attachment and be fun. Art and science become a game when a developer constructs game mechanics that allows gamers to make their own decisions with skill, strength or luck. For example:

Skill decisions are a series of chess moves: move the pawn or knight to take the rook?

Strength decisions are a series of physical and mental moves in sports: pass or shoot the ball?

Luck decisions are a series entries when playing slot machines: max bet or one coin?

Games are played to temporarily escape from current life by role playing a life as a treasure hunter, elite athlete, or puzzle solver. Through role playing, gamers can experience emotions, such as: overcoming challenge, defeat, success, and camaraderie.

So, make a decision, reap the reward, and repeat. Think about monetization through a similar lens. When do you introduce the decision, or in this case the point of monetization? Again, you want to create an emotional attachment and present the decision at the right time. Too early in gameplay and it’ll be a turnoff to your players. If you incorporate it too late, you may be giving up on an opportunity to drive revenue. An example of precise timing can be found in Candy Crush where after 15 levels, the player is forced to decide to either pay $.99 or ask three friends for help. Would your players’ emotional attachment be different if it were 7 levels instead of 15?

Now that question is, what technique or monetization gate do you use? The game genre may lend itself to a particular technique, but there are definitely no hard and fast rules. Combining and mixing them can make your game different and compelling. Indie devs are great at this.

Here’s a rundown of the different types of monetization gates you can incorporate into your game:

Time Gates

This type of Gate places timers on various components within a game, which include pay to bypass the timer or wait for the timer to elapse. This is a commonly used tactic in mobile games that represent something being upgraded, built, recharged or repaired. An example is Real Racing 3 where there is a timer placed on the car after upgrading before it can be entered into a race.

Time Gates enables a level playing field for paying and non-paying gamers who are patient. However, you need to offer other things for the player to do while waiting for the component, otherwise they are unlikely to stay for the long term. Real Racing 3 does this well where one car is under a timer, but the other cars can still enter races.

One thing to watch out for is that many gamers know how to bypass this mechanic by changing the time and date settings on the device. If you want to limit cheating, put the timer in your server and remove it from the client.

Probability Gate

The probability gate can be presented to the gamer in various forms such as: landing a critical hit, reward loot, a treasure chest, or pack of cards. Instead of receiving a known return for a decision, the reward a gamer receives is left to chance. This game also emphasizes rare items, which can be used to make games feel special but are difficult to acquire without payment.

The ideology of the unknown is a powerful tactic. Creating an emotion where gamers are excited to have the opportunity to receive something rare keeps gamers coming back for more. You can use this concept in standard game mechanisms as well by replacing static variables (e.g. 20 coins for a victory) with a randomized range (15-25 coins).

Hay Day is a good example. It’s great to collect resources from a lot of farming, but not as great when the gamer runs out of room to store it. Every time a crop is picked up there is a chance to collect rare pieces to upgrade the barn or silo. Even better, there’s the opportunity to find the barn pieces in the Roadside Shop. The patient player can eventually get the pieces required, but the urge to speed up the process with an In App Purchase (IAP) is strong.

Grind Gates

A common gate used in all free to play (F2P), which allows for users to decide to play the game a lot (for free) or pay (to advance faster). This type of gate is usually the easiest to implement into a game once a virtual economy and store is established. IAP items such as coin doublers and coin triplers, are levers used to reduce the grinding necessary for gamers to enjoy a game. Subway Surfers does a good job with integrating a virtual economy and IAP store. Gamers can play a lot and enjoy the game or they can buy coin packs to bypass some gameplay.

Games that focus on grinding have a difficult balance of having fun versus monetizing and are heavily dependent on the virtual economy. If there’s a low or no positive player feedback early on, the gamer could lose interest quickly. Devise ways to avoid repetition without emotional rewards and look into methodologies that would allow game variables to be tuned remotely because when gamers are asked to grind, loop holes are found and used.

Look into methodologies that would allow game variables to be tuned remotely. When gamers are asked to grind, loop holes are found and used.

Premium Gates

This type of gate is analogous to the old term shareware or lite, where a player is not given access to features or levels unless they pay. Games with premium gates often reflect a previously paid title that hasn’t been as successful as hoped.

Fortunately, we’re seeing less and less of these types of games recently in favor of F2P games that offer rich experiences to non-paying users. In most cases, when forced to decide to pay or not to continue the decision made is often go find another game. If you add a premium gate, make sure gamers have the opportunity to play previous levels or give other options to enjoy and consider paying to move forward.

Candy Crush is a good example of a premium gate that hasn’t turned off players. After beating about 15 levels, there comes a point where gamers have to pay or ask their social network for help to unlock. While asking a social network for help may sound easy to do instead of paying for more, this action helps keep more players playing the game.

Gambling Gates

This type of gate is pretty self explanatory with slot and poker games. There is an obvious gray layer here with games that mix traditional games with other mechanics. For categorization methods, it’s easier to stick to traditional methods of gambling with virtual poker and slots. Examples: Zynga Poker, Big Fish Casino, and Slotomania

In conclusion, F2P monetization is not plug-and-play, rather a blend of art and science, or “Emotional Monetization.” You need to sit in your players seat, get in their head, and truly understand what they’re feeling. Practice sending the emotional shifts in your select games and more importantly ask other people the same questions about games. Every game will trigger different emotions for different people, and gauging emotion can make all the difference in the world.

篇目3,Fight or Flight: The Neuroscience of Survival Horror

by Maral Tajerian

Fear is one of the most primitive instincts in humans. Although it has been particularly useful in keeping us alive in dangerous situations, it has also helped the entertainment industry capitalize on our sheer joy of being scared. The video game industry has done a good amount of scaring by taking advantage of these emotions and employing them in gameplay narrative and design.

This practice is best exemplified by putting the player in a vulnerable situation with limited resources to confront enemies. With proper execution, the genre can make your heart race, palms sweat and make you go to sleep with nightmares. However, when executed poorly, players feel as if they’re simply “going through the motions”.

Over the last two decades, several games (ranging from the early Resident Evil series to the more recent Amnesia: The Dark Descent) have defined the survival horror genre by successfully engaging fear and anxiety in players.

Although successful iterations of these games offer different enemies, gameplay mechanics and plot, they all share similar ways of handling the human psyche. This article will discuss how fear as an emotion has been employed in the gaming industry and discuss how the balance between scares and gameplay can lead to success or failure.

The Science of Terror

Anxiety. Next to fear, anxiety is perhaps the most prominent feeling experienced in video games. Unlike fear, which is a response to an imminent threat, anxiety is a response to a future potential threat.

When perceptual systems are taxed, research has shown that a looming threat results in anxiety that heightens attention and increases sensitivity to potential dangers. This implies that solving a puzzle the character is presented with in the game does not take away from the experience of fear and danger. In fact, according to many gamers, solving the puzzles under dangerous circumstances only increases the feelings of fear. Consider how riddles and puzzles in Silent Hill excel in this respect.

An example of a puzzle from Silent Hill 2 that needs to be solved in a dark and dilapidated room.

While games like first person shooters are notorious for desensitizing players to violence, games that raise the player’s anxiety actually sensitize them to danger. This is simply how animals behave, and it’s a highly adaptive behavior, since it keeps individuals on their toes in anxiety-causing environments. Raising the levels of anxiety in a video game will therefore ensure that the player is sensitized to the danger in the game. In a game like Amnesia, the entire experience teeters on anxiety created up to confrontation with an enemy since the player has absolutely no means to defend himself.

Helplessness. As mentioned earlier, players in the survival horror genre are often faced with terrifying and inescapable circumstances, with little means of self-defense. In other words, they are truly and utterly helpless.

In Amnesia, some may remember locking themselves in a closet, or hiding in a corner staring at a blank wall for several minutes, because you’re convinced that if you move, even an inch, a certain and horrible death will soon ensue. Furthermore, elements like rigid camera angles, awkward control schemes (Silent Hill, and Early Resident Evil titles), lighting (Alan Wake, Dead Space), etc. all serve to obliterate what little control the player might have thought she possessed.

Helplessness is truly a powerful feeling. Studies have shown that animals that are faced with situations where they’re helpless develop strong feelings of fear and anxiety. This is also true in the case of humans. You may remember this feeling from your last visit to the dentist. Whenever you experience feelings of helpless and loss of control, you are bound to feel more anxious and fearful. The same stays true in video games.

Priming. In psychology, priming is defined as the effect in which the response to a stimulus is influenced by the exposure to a previous stimulus.

Consider the word-stem completion task, for example. Here, a test subject is exposed to certain words, one of which is the word “lettuce”. He is then asked to complete the following word: “let—-”. The effect of priming can be seen when the subject fills the blank with “tuce” due to the fact that he was exposed to that word earlier in the experiment.

Several games rely heavily on creating anxiety using this strategy, by using sounds that remind the player of an encroaching yet unseen enemy. In Amnesia, visits to various torture chambers (where he actually “hears” victims in an iron maiden, a brazing bull, etc.) leads up to being locked in a cell. The fact that such priming took place (being exposed to the torture scenes) clearly influences the way the player feels when he himself is locked up and dreading the possibility of similar tortures.

A diagram in the Strappado torture room in Amnesia: The Dark Descent.

In addition to this priming, certain events characterized by unexpected novelty can, very efficiently, startle a player. For example, events that can lead a player through a relatively safe part of a level may lower our guard to new threats when revisiting the same environment (i.e.: consider the first 30 minutes of Doom 3 or the hubs in the Silent Hill and Dead Space series).

These choices will often save time in level design while still maintaining progress and the required ambience to startle and terrify.

Mirror Neurons. Mirror neurons are neurons in certain regions of the brain that are active when an animal performs an action, or observes another individual performing that same action.

Discovered a few decades ago, these neurons are argued to be the key in understanding other individuals’ intentions and feelings, empathy, and even imitating the actions of others. It is very possible that mirror neurons play an important role interfacing our experiences with a virtual avatar.

PET studies highlighting similar clusters in the brain that activate between individuals who are watching an action (listening to music) or partaking in an action (playing music).

In most video games, moving in a three dimensional space is likely to trigger spatial orientation mirror neurons. In the Silent Hill series, similar mechanisms would elicit anxiety and disgust when players are given the choice to stick their hand into a hole in a wall or to take something out of a toilet.

James Sunderland from Silent Hill 2 asked to stick his hand in a dirty toilet, likely eliciting disgust in the player, who mirrors this experience in her own brain and, to some extent, “experiences” it herself.

Similarly the same can be said in Dead Space 2, where players are given the choice to crawl in very confined spaces (where the right camera angle make the entire difference) or guide a needle into the eye of Isaac Clarke.

And what’s best is that the developers of these games are increasingly aware of these facts and capitalize on it. As Thomas Grip of Frictional Games (Amnesia: The Dark Descent) himself said at the Games Colloquium at Concordia University last year, the involvement of mirror neurons is important when the empathy factor is high. In other words, you can’t help but put yourself in the protagonist’s shoes.

Context and Environment. Naturally, our environment plays a large role in the perception of fear and potentiating startle responses. In the right context and environment, our baseline startle reflex shows gradual elevation over the course of aversive conditioning (antagonizing the player).

This works both inside and outside the game. Out of the game, mood plays a large role in getting the most out of the experience (consider the importance of playing in a dark room, adjusting the gamma, and wearing headphones). Creating the right environment inside of the game is equally important and capitalizes off of our own neurobiology. For example, our fear of the dark stems from our evolved circadian rhythms that revolve around a diurnal (day-night) cycle making us vulnerable at night. Similarly nocturnal animals like rats exhibit very similar startle responses, only in the light.

The use of light has always created a sense of helplessness and a shrouded and mysterious environment creating ambience in the survival horror genre. Alan Wake (top) and Dead Space 2 (bottom).

It should be noted that the appropriate context can also elicit fear in not so dangerous objects or cues. Fear conditioning with auditory cues can still cause anxiety, with the auditory cue and no immediate aversive stimuli.

An example of this is best exemplified by F.E.A.R.’s antagonist Alma, a little girl who can do rather terrible things. Additionally the unpredictability of aversive stimuli (such as a little girl vs. a man with a chainsaw) increases our perceived anxiety and fear.

In the case of F.E.A.R., game designer Craig Hubbard said that “…a guy in a mask chasing co-eds with a meat cleaver can be scary, but on some level you’re thinking to yourself, you could probably kick his ass if you got the drop on him… But when a spooky little girl takes out an entire Delta Force squad, how are you supposed to deal with that?”

Integrating Terror into Gameplay

Achieving scares and interactivity in the horror genre is no easy feat. Whereas other games challenge the player’s ability to solve a puzzle or take down an array of enemies, the survival horror genre challenges a hardwired and highly adaptive response to threats. To establish one good startle, you need to take into account the ability for your design to establish a baseline of expectations with your environment and the purpose of your character in that environment, build anxiety, connect with the character, and remove any control the player may have (consider the importance of the first 10-15 minutes of Dead Space and the player’s first encounter with an enemy).

This design often leads to the scripted scare (i.e. Pyramid Head’s non-confrontational spooky/disturbing appearances scattered throughout Silent Hill 2), which can remind us of the linearity of gameplay and a lack of a personalized experience/choice and replay value.

Top: Dead Space’s first/scripted encounter with a necromorph does not give the player a chance to fight back, but removes control and increases anxiety. Bottom: Scripted moment with Pyramid Head omniously staring at James Sunderland through impenetrable bars.

This raises the additional challenge of creating unpredictable moments while playing. For example, in a game like Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, certain events can cue an “ice-world transition”, prepping the player to run in order to avoid danger.

The first time, such an event can create anxiety but not as much after the third or fourth. This does not mean that these events fail to create anxiety in the player, but they do not achieve it to the same degree due to our own learning of what a player must do in order to play/win.

Similarly in Dead Space, some players can plan their confrontations by prepping themselves to orient their attack to nearby vents or gratings. In fact, once they do, their experience with the game is not one of fear, but of confrontation and seizing power.

Top: Necromorph whack-a-mole in Dead Space. Bottom: Ice transitions in Silent Hill: Shattered Memories = run.

It seems that with the growing tendency of video games to move towards more visceral action/gore (Dead Space 2 vs Dead Space, or Resident Evil 4 and 5 vs Resident Evil 1 to 3) signals that it is easier to design an action game based off of a terror franchise instead of a true horror game that can succeed in the aforementioned principles of animal behavior.

Conclusions

As a neuroscientist, it is very rewarding for me to see science being used so elegantly in video games, and I can easily see this trend continue to appeal to an increasingly smart gaming audience. So, what can we learn from games like Amnesia, Silent Hill, F.E.A.R., etc.? And in more general terms, how can we implement basic principles of neuroscience into video games?

Clearly, the first step is to stay informed. Research in the sciences is extremely fast-paced, and most of the findings don’t reach the general audience until at least a decade later when they’re published in textbooks. The recent revolution in information exchange does not completely solve the problem and is a double-edged sword. It helps spread knowledge faster, but is often unreliable.

The second step is to be bold enough to experiment with new genres. Every now and then, a game comes along that creates a completely new way of thinking about video games. Although this is a risky approach, it is much needed in an industry that boasts literally hundreds of games that follow the exact same recipe.

Finally, it is important to form a solid emotional bond between the game (or the main character) and the player. RPGs do this beautifully by blurring the line between the gamer and his avatar. For non-RPGs, the task is less straightforward.

One of the ways to establish/strengthen the bond is to elicit very strong emotions in the gamer. Games in the survival horror do this using fear, which can be very effective. However, it is not the only way. We have recently seen an onslaught of different games that capitalize on a range of different emotions such as grief (Graveyard, Tale of Tales), love and loss (Dear Esther, Thechineseroom), etc. It is clearly evident that the era of “one size fits all” video games is long gone.

At the end of the day, it’s important to know your audience before you can sell them a product. With the abundance of game studios, whether it’s the triple-A industry or the budding indie games, no developer can risk making a game that will flop. Understanding what humans find engaging/stimulating/addictive is necessary in making a given video game a success.

篇目4,Using Games To Express An Emotional State Of Mind

by Steve Fulton

There are games I’d like to create, but for the life of me, I cannot figure out how to approach them. Many of these games have to do with true emotions that are difficult to describe in game form, however, I still feel the need to make them. Games are the only “art form” that I personally have ever seen to any serious level of completion. In a way, games happen to be the one of the only ways I can express myself, albeit, in a very primitive way. A game like Home Computer Wars was created so I could express the feeling of being 14 years old in 1984 and thinking my Atari Computer was the best thing in the world. Games like Daphnie’s Balloon Pop and Katie’s Heart Catcher were created to express some rather simple emotions about my children (i.e. “I love You, here is a game I made for you”). Even some non-game projects like Game Storm! were created because of my frustration with trying to come-up marketable game ideas while others flood the market. However, while these simple games were created because of an emotion, they really don’t express it or help the player to understand anything more about it while playing.

Lately, this has started to bother me. I have chosen games as a form of expression (or did games choose me?), yet their very nature makes it difficult to express anything beyond the very basic thoughts and ideas. People who find other forms of expression their forte, (seemingly) have a much easier time with this. Rock musicians can write songs about emotions, and if they are skilled enough, they can convey those emotions their their work. Painters have a similar ability, mostly because they are some very common images that can universally create certain emotions for people. Games can include both of these elements, and they do help set a tone, but I’m more interested in creating a game that let’s someone experience an emotion with actual game-play.

After I have a life-altering (or even semi-life altering as described below) emotional experience, I’d love to have the ability to make game that helps me express my true emotional state of mind in game. I don’t even necessarily care if anyone plays it (OK, I do), but if they did, I’d also like them to get some understanding of both why it was made, and what I was feeling when I made it.

An Emotional Story To Tell

For example, a couple years ago I was at the local park with my oldest daughter, and she had an unfortunate accident. Because the city cannot afford to have anyone clean the park, I had taken it upon myself to clean-up the trash and sweep the wood chips off the play area and back into the pit under the swings. Along with her scooter, my daughter had asked me to take our baseball gloves with us. She does not play baseball, but she loves to play catch . Playing catch with her is one of the greatest simple joys of my entire life. However, I was so involved in my “sweeping” to clean-up the deteriorating park, the gloves and ball lay unused on the grass, and my daughter rode her scooter around the park. All of sudden, I heard her scream, and I looked over to see that she had dived off her scooter (trying to dodge some other little kids), and had landed on her right hand. After a trip to the after-hours doctor, she had a cast on her broken arm, and I had guilt in my heart. If I had not been so adamant about cleaning the park, I would have been playing catch with her, and she would not have had her accident. Becasue of my decision, playing catch (or anything else) is going to be impossible for some time.

So, if I was a writer I could, for example, just craft a story about someone who concentrates on the wrong things and eventually regrets his choices. A musician could take those words and make a song about it. How, as a game maker can do the same thing, but make the game interesting to play, and allow the player to understand a bit about the emotional underpinnings of the situation portrayed?

What follows are some explorations of game types that I might use to create a game that tries to express complex emotions.

Choose Your Own Adventure

This seems to be the easiest and most base form of trying to express some kind of emotion based on story in a game. You create an in-depth narrative, and allow players to makes simple choices to see where it goes. The interactivity level is very low, but it does allow the game-maker to craft the exact story they want to make. This is obviously more like writing than game-making, and it requires a really talented author to pull-off something that is truly “emotional”. However, to keep players interested in reading reams of text, you need to create fantastic and/or controversial situations and cliff-hangers, and then let them decides on the actions. However, not all “emotional stories” have these types of choices. Still, it’s at least a very straight-forward way to go and creating an indie game would be quite simple, if not entirely successful way to go.

Interactive Fiction : Z-Engine

I suppose the second easiest way to express these emotions would be to create a piece of Interactive Fiction (a fancy word name for a text adventure). There are a plethora of mature tools available to make Infocom-like text adventures that allow the author to express all sorts of situations and emotions that are difficult in other game types. Inform is one of the most well-known free pieces of software available for the creation of Interactive Fiction. You write a story-game that then compiles down to a Z-Engine compatible file that can be played by multitude of interpreters on different platforms. You can even find a JavaScript engine to play in a web browser named Parchment , and there are Flash interpreters being built right now…but they are are either proprietary (like the Violet engine used by JayIsGames,com), or unfinished like the promising Flaxo engine. Without a freely available and working Flash interpreter for Z-Engine games, the audience would be limited to the hardcore I.F. crowd. Furthermore, that hard-core Interactive Fiction crowd who would probably find the emotions I want to express rather primitive for their sophisticated tastes.

Interactive Storytelling : Storytron

A step or two beyond Z-Engine games is Storytron, the Chris Crawford led project to create a system to build games based on human interactions. The example game Balance Of Power 21st Century is very interesting. It certainly allows a game-maker to create a set of circumstances in which they must make choices and then live with the consequences. However, the game looks more like a way to simulate how a group of people feels and reacts to one another, and less like a system to help express a emotions stemming from an unfortunate event. Also, to be honest, somewhat like the original Balance Of Power, the game requires someone with an immense amount of patience to play, otherwise the casual player (me) will simply make the most controversial choices to see what they affect.

A Custom Game Engine

So, after going through the most common forms of interactive fiction/story engines, I’m left with the desire to make my own engine that would allow me to create a game based on a sophisticated emotion and let the player experience some of it. However, I cannot escape the feeling that it will not work as any kind of game. Still, my desire to try to express some kind of complex emotion that can be experienced by a player outweighs my misgivings, so I’m going to make an attempt to design something that might work as a game.

Name: Catch In The Park

Genre: Real-Time Strategy/Resource Management

Based On: Lemmings, Diner Dash

Setting: A Suburban Park with a large field, swings, play equipment, and a circular path that can be used to ride bikes, scooters etc, around the outside.

Game Set-Up: The game starts with a pristine, empty park on a bright summer day. Soon, children begin arriving with their parents in groups of 3. One parent and two kids. The groups wait at the park entrance so they can be “assigned” what to do by the player.

Game Play: The player’s job is to keep the park patrons happy, and to keep the park clean. However, this is not as easy as it first looks. Since there is only one parent for every two kids, the player must divide the attention of each parent (color-coded to their children) as equally as possible. Children will want to do different things, and the parents much stay in as close proximity to each child. However, the “emotional” state of the parents much be kept up at all times. While the kids have arrived just to “play” at the park, the parents are the selfish ones, each requiring a specific activity with one or more of their children to be fulfilled before they will be satisfied and leave the park. The player completes levels and scores points as satisfied parents leave with their kids.

Game Leveling: On the initial levels, a parent will arrive with kids that are close in age. That means that they will want to do mostly the same things. If the kids want to “swing”. the parent can remain close to both, and thus fulfilling their (possible) internal desire to push both kids on the swings at the same time. The same thing goes for the slides, or riding bikes/scooters around the path. Parents are easily satisfied, and leave happily from the park. However, as the game advances, the ages of the kids gets further and further apart, and the parent arrives with a desire to satisfy some kid of specific activity with each one. However, by performing an activity with one child, leaves the other open for disaster or a “tantrum” from the other. The most “advanced” activity is to play “catch” on the grass with the older kids, but this also takes the most concentration and leaves the other child open for a disaster. If a child falls and breaks and arm. leg, etc. the park clears-out, and the player has to wait for more parents to arrive to make them “satisfied”. A level is “won” after a set number of “satisfied” parents leave the park.

Other Activities:

?Catching Falling Children: The player can save the day by noticing when a child is going to fall (off the swings, slides, on their bike) and try to catch them. This will send the closest “parent” over to save a child, usually not their own. If they succeed, the actual parent of the child get so embarrassed that they leave the park, but at least the leave “satisfied”.

?Cleaning The Park: As the day goes on, the park gets very dirty. If it gets too dirty, people will stop coming. Since the city cannot afford to send anyone to clean-up, parents can be assigned to pick-up trash. However, this means they will be away from their kids and accidents can occur. Successfully cleaning the park will open it to more parents and their children.

Winning The Game: Ultimately, there is no way to win the game.The parents will never be able to suitably satisfy all their own needs (or their children’s) needs on harder levels. A game is “lost”if the entire day goes by and not enough “satisfied” parents have left park. This is inevitable, but the player can extend their play by getting better and better and managing the emotions of the parents with the needs of the children. Still, the game has a fatalistic streak, as there it truly no way to be successful.

So would “Catch In The Park” work as a game? On the surface, it might appeal to players of “casual” management sims, with the underlying emotions of “joy” and “satisfaction” bubbling to the surface. However, if my goal was an exploration of “guilt”, and ultimately “hopelessness” then the mark would be missed. It is quite possible that the game could be played as straight sim by people who did not really understand the circumstances, but for parents who might find the situations portrayed familiar, it could allow a totally different level of play and connection. On the other hand, it could just be a terrible mess. There is also a pretty good chance that none of the emtions that *I* want to elicit from the players would ever surface at all. If a game like this is not done perfectly, the only emotions that the player will feel are frustration, anger and remorse for wasting their time.

篇目5,Triple Town Beta (Now with Bears)

By Danc.

Exciting times. You can now play our puzzle game Triple Town in your web browser. We are releasing it as a beta and the game should evolve quite substantially over time. Huge kudos to Cristian Soulos for making this project blossom after a long winter. You can play it here.

Triple Town is a special game. It has the highest user rating of any of the games I’ve designed (94%). It is also the only one of my designs that I go back to again and again. Why is this?

On the surface, it is a simple match-3 variant, but after a few games you’ll start noticing the strategic depth. The pacing is…uncommon. There’s a relaxed mellow rhythm to the game where you casually make dozens of micro decisions. Yet these decisions add up to games that can last upwards of a week for advanced players. After a while you realize you are playing the Civilization of Match-3 games and that you care deeply about what you are building. That burst of strong emotion always surprises me.

The big addition for this release? Bears.

Bears, bears everywhere

Triple Town helped solidify how I construct the world and setting in my games. My inclination is to look for ways of supporting the emotions inherent in the game dynamics. If you’ve ever played the Kindle version, the design is a rather abstract puzzle game with highly symbolic tokens and mechanical rules. It has only the briefest of settings. Yet as I played the game and watched other play, I realized that it evoked an intense spectrum of emotions. Here were some of the ones that I noticed:

* Pride: When you create a great city, you want to share it. People take screenshots. They brag. Pride in what they’ve built is the primary emotion that drives players of Triple Town.

* Curiosity: You want to know what the next item looks like. Some people are driven to get a castle for the first time.

* Hate: You learn to hate the teleporting Ninjas. They never attack you, but they end up blocking your plans.

* Sadness: You have slight sadness the first time you kill a bear. Then you learn to steel yourself against the emotion.

* Irritation: When fate gives you the wrong piece at the wrong time.

* Competition: When you notice that your friends are doing better than you.

* Despair: When you feel the board closing in and realize that you can’t possible catch up to your friends.

* Relief: When the board is filling up and then you perform a miraculous move that empties a swath of the board and helps you start afresh.

Games are great at eliciting primary emotions. They don’t need the Hero’s Journey, they don’t need story, they don’t need hyper realistic visuals with immersive first person cameras. You can create an emotional, deeply meaningful experience simply by using the fundamentals of system design.

(You can read a bit more on the theory of how games are unique suited to creating emotional experiences in my previous essay on Shadow Emotions and Primary Emotions. I include a small section at the end of this essay on the OCC emotion model that fits nicely with my process. Thanks, Aki!)

Tuning emotions

When I revisited the Triple Town design, the emotions were already clearly evident. However, I wanted to explore how I could more directly shape those emotions to fit my vision of the game.

Emotions are complex to say the least so we need some sort of entry into the topic. There’s a general consensus that you can divide emotions into rough categories. For example ‘negative feelings toward others.’ Then within those rough categories, you see variations that we recognize as distinct emotions. For example, hate and irritation are actually highly related and are typically related to a sense of loss or constraint caused by others. As a designer, how do I push the conditions that elicit a general class of emotion so that I can dial in the emotional variant that I desire?

There are a variety of theories. In Triple Town, I was influenced by the two factor theory of emotion and the somatic marker theory. Like many aspects of human cognition, multiple inputs are necessary to create the final refined experience. The ‘taste’ of wine is synthesized out of the actual chemical taste and the perceived quality of the wine. A five dollar wine labeled as a 100 dollar wine can be perceived to taste better than that same wine in it’s original bottle. Similarly, we posit that our brain synthesizes most common primary emotions out of the following:

* An ambiguous physical response (your adrenaline jumping and your heart rate elevating)

* The system-derived context of the situation you are in.

* Recalled cognitive labels of related past experiences.

Looking at Triple Town, both the physical response and the system-derived context are very much present. I can experimentally validate that I’m getting strong emotions from the players even using a highly abstract game board. However the cognitive labels are underdeveloped. So this analysis led me to try a particular tactic:

* If you can evoke a general class of emotions with game mechanics, then you can apply evocative stimuli to label and therefore tune that response to elicit a specific emotion.

Monsters or children?

Consider a very basic example of labeling in Triple Town. The raw materials I was working with was an observation that players felt immense sense of relief when they killed annoying NPCs. I experimented with applying various labels to see how we could tune the response.

* Pass 1: During one early prototype, the NPCs were accidentally displayed as small children. Naturally, players felt bad when trapped them and they turned into grave stones. Accidental deaths led to guilt and sadness while deliberate deaths evoked a dissonant feeling of cruelty.

* Pass 2: So next we switched them to evil looking monsters. This was a dramatic change. Now players felt righteous glee when they trapped and killed the monsters.

* Pass 3: Finally, during this latest build, I settle on bears that have slightly evil looking eyes. Most players feel fine killing the bears, but for some there is a slight edge of ambiguity that makes them uncomfortable.

* Future passes: Now that I’ve explored the emotional space a little, I’ve set up the bears so that with one simple tweak of the eyes, I can make the bears incredibly cute and bring back many of the feelings of guilt and sadness.

In essence, I was balancing and tuning the player’s emotional response. Much like Sid Meier using a binary search (“double it or or cut it by half”) to narrow in on the correct setting in his game, I was trying out various extremes to narrow in on the appropriate emotion.

Using evocative imagery is a common enough practice, but in practice the labeling of NPCs is functionally quite different than merely putting up a picture or cut scene of a dead child. The bear is not an image for the sake of being an image. Instead you create a distinct label that is only meaningful due to how it builds upon an emotional foundation derived from play. Without the mechanics, you just have a picture of a bear. With the mechanics setting the context and providing the raw emotional reactions, you craft a carefully refined emotional moment.

Avoiding dissonance

With the children images in the first pass, I saw an example of dissonance. It is easy to add a poorly fitted label that confuses the emotions the mechanics are eliciting.

The heart of Triple Town are the strong feelings of pride and accomplishment. These comes directly from the rather amazing investment in extended tactical play that the player exerts when creating their 6×6 city. A well crafted city can represent hours of carefully considered labor.

In the Kindle version of the game, I used the sort of end game tropes that you find in Tetris or Bejeweled. You play the game, you get a score and then move onto the next game. Most designers rely on proven fallbacks to get the job done since it is difficult to always be reinventing the wheel.

Unfortunately, this ‘obvious’ design choice conflicted rather painfully with the slow and steady building of pride. There comes a point at which the player presses a button and in the act of creating a new game, erases all their hard earned progress. It is surprisingly how many times I’ve let the game sit on the last screen, not willing to leave it behind. The label of ‘its just a game session that you finish and move on from’ didn’t fit the emotional response that the other systems were creating.

* 1st pass: The first attempt at fixing this involved added coins so there is some persistent resource you take with you after each city. That helps a little, but not enough. Coins are merely a resource and players weren’t sad because they were losing some simple generic token.

* 2nd pass: The second attempt involved the ability to flip back and look at your city a last few times before you move on. This was quite effective since it lets the player say goodbye. The emotional dissonance was channeled into an activity that let players come to terms with it at their own pace. This still isn’t good enough.

Luckily Triple Town is a service, not a game that gets launched and forgotten. As I design future features, I’m explicitly creating them to amplify the feeling of pride. Fresh in my mind is the lesson that even something as simple as how to end the game involves labeling the context. What if instead of ending the game, you are finishing cities?

Deriving the world’s metaphor from gameplay

These individual emotional moments form a unique emotional fingerprint for Triple Town. Due to dissonance, you can’t simple apply any theme to this set of dynamic emotions and still end up with an emotionally coherent game. Instead, you want a theme that fits the mechanics like a glove where the emotional beats elicited by the system dynamics have a clear connection with the labels you’d applied.

With Triple Town, as with most of my designs, the theme and metaphor for the world came from watching people play. I would observe and note the emotions and then ask questions about the fundamental nature of the experience that was evolving. Is this a game about exploration? Creation? Building? If it is a game about building, what is a related theme that matches the current unique fingerprint? Are you building real estate? A tomb? What are those NPCs doing if that is the case?

After playing many hundreds of hours of Triple Town, I settled upon a metaphor that fit all the nuances of the mechanics. Triple Town is a game about colonization. Consider the following common dynamics and how labels derived from the metaphor tie them together in a coherent setting.

* You’ve been ordered by the empire from across the sea to build a new city on virgin territory.

* In the process, natives (depicted as less than human) keep showing up on ‘your’ land. They never attack you, but they keep preventing you from expanding.

* So you push them off to the side. More experienced players create small reservations and pack the natives in as tightly as possible.

* Due to overcrowding the natives die off en mass.

* You use their bones to build churches and cathedrals.

* When particularly difficult natives appear that seek to escape your reservations, you bring out your overwhelming the military might and remove the pest so you can continue with your manifest destiny.

The match between the theme of colonization and emotions of the mechanics was so strong, I tuned it back slightly so it wasn’t quite so on the nose. Instead of selecting a recognizable group that suffered under colonization, I made the NPCs into morally ambiguous bears. It would have been very easy to present players with a choices that were obviously black and white where players fall back on pre-learned schema. However, I’m more interested in the edge cases in which a player does something they feel is appropriate and then as time goes on they begin to understand the larger consequences of their actions. At this point in the development of the world, player should naively explore the system and due to the dynamics of game, then form a strong justification of their role as colonists.

What started as an abstract game is slowly but surely turning into a rich world. What is beyond the city walls? Long term, the themes of colonization, imperialism and the impact on native cultures will unfold over a series of planned game expansions. With slight variations in labeling, I should be able to tune in a variety of powerful emotions related to the theme of colonization.

Differences from traditional theme generation

I find this bottom ups, mechanics-centric method of theme generation quite different from a traditional process of storytelling. In a narrative heavy game, I think about characters, plot, or message first and foremost and then attempting to fit supporting gameplay into the mix. Often you pitch the world and characters to a publisher and then are expected to come up with gameplay that fits. Consider the implications of these two popular styles of narrative-first development:

* Unique mini-games and puzzles used to support narrative: One extreme example of this is your typical adventure game where instead of a core mechanic, you have a series of plot appropriate puzzles. The emotional aspects of the puzzle (frustration, delight) are only marginally related to the emotional beats of the plot. Also, in order to avoid dissonance with the wide variety of emotional beats that the story requires, the style of the puzzles is switched up on a regular basis. It is hard enough balancing one game, but asking the team to balance dozens of tinier games results in shallow systems throughout. I think of this as chopping up gameplay to fit the

* Generic gameplay that supports the narrative: A Japanese RPG like Final Fantasy repeatedly uses turn-based tactical combat to illustrate story beats. The time-tested tactical combat system usually produce a handful of primary emotions such as loss, victory, relief, feeling powerful and feeling powerless. No matter what story is being told, the same system is called upon to provide emotional support. Such a pattern avoids dissonance the majority of the time, but then when the plot veers into non-combat area, the dissonance comes back full force. I think of this as telling more story than the gameplay can naturally support.

Some of the most painful design rat-holes I’ve have ever dug myself into followed these patterns. In one project, I created a world based off finding relics from a post-Singularity civilization (circa 100AD) deep in the Mediterranean. In another, I was overly attached to a set of small bobble-headed creatures. For both, I was afraid to change the world. Instead, I desperately iterated upon new game mechanics, hoping to find one that fit my world better. And I rarely found one. As far as I can tell, creating a compelling new game mechanic is hard and success is unpredictable. Yet creating a functional game world’s is surprisingly cheap. Any idiot can copy a working game, toss some pirates on top and call it good.

Now I follow a different philosophy that better reflects these costs. Gameplay comes first and the worldbuilding are flow from the dynamics of play. If, as you iterate upon gameplay you make a rule change that breaks the emotional connection with a particular world, you should feel very comfortable tossing that world aside and starting fresh. Create a world that supports the game, not the other way around.

Conclusion

The amount of theming and world building in Triple Town is still quite light. Those of players used to the extravagant productions that burden a game with an overworked story may not even recognize the labels I’ve choosen as having an impact on your experience. Yet they do and most players will feel the emotional beats of the game quite clearly.

Nothing I’ve outlined here is new. The important insight for me has been creating the labels and world for a game as a bottoms up process. You start with the mechanics and then find the labels that fit the emotional beats. From this game play foundation, you build the world.

Cheat sheet: Steps for tuning primary emotions

Here’s the process for tuning emotions

1. Create a playful system.

2. Observe the emotional reactions of the player within that system.

3. Adjust the system’s emotion eliciting conditions to increase or decrease particular raw emotional reactions.

4. Once you have a rich set of desired emotional responses, brainstorm natural labels that refine the emotions.

5. Test the labels and see how they elicit specific emotional variations.

6. Bundle the labels into a metaphor for your game that communicates and amplifies its unique emotional fingerprint.

Note: OCC Model of emotions

Aki Järvinen’s thesis “Games without Frontiers” (pdf) pointed me towards a fascinating model of emotion by Ortony, Clore and Collins (OCC). It posits that emotional outcomes are tied to systemic variables. For example the strength of a player’s dissapointment would be tied to the variable ‘likelihood’

* Low likelihood: If the player predicts a particular result, but they know from past experience that it is highly unlikely, they typically won’t be overly dissapointed.

* High likelihood: Yet the likelihood is high and the outcome doesn’t occur, dissapointment will also generally be more pronounced.

By adjusting variables such as likilihood, degree of effort or value of results, the designer crafts a set of ‘eliciting conditions’. I love this phrase since it gives us game friendly terminology for discussing emotion without reverting to the fuzzy non-functional handwaving of the humanities. By setting your system variables appropriately, you can create eliciting conditions that spark specific categories of emotion.

There is far more work to be done applying these ideas to game development, but as it stands the conceptual framework is already really quite powerful. I’ve referenced here several useful OCC Charts that Aki assembled that list conditions, variables, main emotional categories and emotional variants. (I do recommend you read the full thesis. It gives a bit more context and it also one of the more clearly written works and easily consumable works to come out in recent years.)

OCC Wellbeing from lostgarden.com
OCC Wellbeing from lostgarden.com

OCC Fortune Of Others from lostgarden.com
OCC Fortune Of Others from lostgarden.com

OCC Identification from lostgarden.com
OCC Identification from lostgarden.com

Note: Surrealism in video games

Often the best video games have disjointed, narratively surreal worlds. Mario, Pacman, Katamari, Bejeweled and even a game like Portal take place in distinctly surreal locations that obey the logic of association, but are freed from the logic of the real world. Even more interesting is that despite immense amounts of effort making our labeling systems externally consistent (They aren’t ‘save points’, they are regen tanks), the vast majority of players happily engage in surrealist worlds with nary a complaint. If anything, the unnecessary justification introduces more unnecessary dissonance into the game by asking the player to pay attention to details that don’t functionally matter.

I see this surrealist aesthetic as the practical outcome of deriving the world from the emotional beats of the gameplay. The constantly tuning and tweaking of various labels needed to bring out the best parts of your game fragments the traditional narrative process. Why is there a walking turtle? Because it fits the mechanics like a glove. That is all the justification that is required and layering on more burdens both the experience and the development process. In the end, light surrealist labels are a positive thing since they gives you substantial wiggle room to avoid dissonance. And due to the solid fit with existing emotional dynamics, they often yields stronger game-centric experiences.


上一篇:

下一篇: