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,关于游戏交互理念与用户驱动方面的关联陈述,上篇

发布时间:2015-08-03 09:30:58 Tags:,,,

篇目1,解析引导玩家理解游戏交互性的6个层次

作者:Jainan Sankalia

这个模型从一个有趣的角度来说,解释的就是玩家在体验一款明显“由设计师操纵”的游戏时所能够掌握的理解层次。这个模型的每个层次都是基于交互性如何呈现在玩家面前,以及玩家如何在体验游戏过程中运用这种交互性。

开发者可利用这一模型来创造自己的游戏体验。通过观察交互性视角,解析它如何改变游戏所传递的知识,就可以更清楚地发现不同层次的交互性如何引导玩家对游戏的认知和理解。

Layers-of-Player-Understanding(from gamasutra)

Layers-of-Player-Understanding(from gamasutra)

展示美学元素

展示美学元素代表游戏通过视听内容向玩家呈现的感觉信息。这是该模型的核心层次,因为这是玩家最先接触到的体验。

这一层次还代表着交互性呈现给玩家的方式。通常玩家输入的反馈是通过视觉信息输出。这包括视觉信息的形状和风格,环境声效以及乐曲,文本和语音内容——这些信息都能够传达体验元素。

即使是抽象的桌游,例如象棋也会根据棋子的形状和名称来传达中世纪战争元素。骑士、主教的形状可传达他们的行为方式。黑白棋子则可呈现双方玩家的明显区别。甚到是棋子的实体纹理也能透露历史信息。通过美学元素呈现的信息可以传达游戏趣味本质的元素,而这些元素又可用于指导玩家。

例如,这是多数问答游戏用于引导玩家的层次。为了成功学到问答游戏所传授的知识,玩家只需要了解问题,他们的回答一般都会以文字形式呈现。《Trivial Pursuit》就是一个知识测试,在桌面上移动棋子并不会教你关于地理、科学或自然分类。桌面和棋子存在的原因,部分只是为了打破阅读所有问题和答案卡片的单调感。

Twilight Struggle(from gmtgames.com)

Twilight Struggle(from gmtgames.com)

通过观察所有方法,找出向玩家呈现哪种感应输入,开发者可以利用特定方法向玩家传授特定知识。桌游《Twilight Struggle》使用了介于1945–1989年这一历史时期作为故事背景,并用美国和前苏联代表两名玩家,让他们争夺该时期的世界霸权,控制不同的国家/地区。

游戏中每张卡片都有一张历史照片。该照片与游戏机制无关,也并非玩游戏的须知事项,但却传达了另一种冷战背景信息。这一信息也并不会帮助玩家完成游戏,但确实提供了一种与该历史时期相关的教育性知识。该游戏桌面所使用的国家边界也向玩家传递了一种地理知识。

从一个更有趣的角度来看,每个国家的稳定数值代表该国相对意识形态的稳定性,独立性及力量。《Twilight Struggle》通过一系列视觉内容,向玩家传递了大量历史信息。

但卡片和桌面的形状都是标准的矩形。这种形状可以提供额外信息,但却有可能影响整体游戏体验。此外,实体纹理以及光滑的卡片触感却并不能反映历史背景。当然,这要取决于游戏开发者想使用哪些方法来传达信息。关键在于评估游戏呈现美学元素的所有潜在选项是否能够承载这一玩家理解层次的信息。

机制

机制增加了交互性。一个机制是指引发一个输出反馈(游戏邦注:介于玩家和系统之间,或者完全在系统间)的单个输入实例。要理解该输入将为玩家产生什么反馈信息。能够从根本上影响到游戏的是第一个层次,它将交互性与反馈整合到玩家对有趣体验的理解中。在这个基础上,玩家了解了输入和输出规则。他们掌握之后,可能就会开始疑问为何特定的输入会产生特定的输出。回答这一问题可以让玩家掌握特定的逻辑。

关于机制的一个简单典型就是射击游戏中的爆头。在许多射击游戏中,爆头比身体其他部位中弹的伤害更大。玩家也知道头部被击中远比身体中弹更糟糕。当然,比起现实生活的情景,这并非最准确的理解,但每个机制都在向玩家传递该游戏空间的规则。这些游戏规则可用于向玩家传授开发者希望他们去了解的现实逻辑或游戏逻辑。

许多谜题游戏,例如《传送门》,就在逐渐向玩家引进新想法和理念。Test Chamber 10就向玩家传授关于动量守恒定律的游戏机制。通过探索这一理念,玩家就可以学到游戏内在逻辑的额外信息。

Test Chamber 10(from half-life)

Test Chamber 10(from half-life)

开发者也可借助这种探索和发现游戏内在逻辑的理念传递特定知识,例如牛顿物理学(玩家在之后将通过另一机制证实这一知识)。在之后的试验室中,玩家必须使用一个加重的立方体的重力,正如他们之前看到自己被保留在传送门之间的动量。

系统

系统代表某个特定框架,以及游戏中不同规则之间内部反馈的所有可能的输入和输出。系统同不同机制组成,为游戏的仿真性提供一种逻辑感。了解系统中所有可能的交互性,可以传达该系统运行的基础元素。如果规则系统采用了准确的表述,或者游戏模拟了现实,那么该系统知识就会传递现实逻辑。玩家了解更多某个系统中的机制,就会开发出一个关于所有机制如何相互关连的框架。

这种机制间的相互关联是系统对于如何解决问题的思考方法的一个中心元素。观察某个输入形成的大量和长期反馈,可以创造一种对于游戏可能呈现哪种复杂问题的感应能力。这里的系统指的是任何机制的组合。区别并不在于游戏的整个系统及其不同的子系统。这一层次关注的是不同输入和输出在游戏内部的相互关系。这可能会受到玩家在系统中的输入,以及基于游戏内在规则的反馈的影响。

在《Lunar Landr》这款游戏中,推力和重力的关系变化取决于玩家选择的是地球、月亮还是木星。理解了玩家输入的推力如何改变着陆器(基于星际对象的输入选择)的输出结果,玩家就会理解月球上的重力弱于地球,而后者重力又弱于木星这一理念。

通过对交互性之间关系的理解,玩家也许自己就能得出结果,加强自己对游戏体验的理解。

像《模拟城市》、《Microsoft Flight Simulator》等高度基于模拟内容的游戏就致力于系统层面,为玩家创造复杂的情况。拥有主导游戏状态的内部生态系统的游戏也会有一些内部机制(游戏邦注:这些机制会根据它们与其他机制的关系产生一系列可能的内部结果)。

许多开发者喜欢利用Tadhg Kelly的“游戏制作和设计的5个视角”来制作趋于无限可能的复杂交互集合。当玩家发现这些可能性,并决定为何在该系统会发生这种可能性时,他们就开始在系统层面进行操作了。

Daniel Aronson曾以庄稼虫害为例强调了系统思维的重要性,他指出使用一种针对害虫A的杀虫剂将在短期内减少庄稼的损害,但从长期来看却会增加对庄稼的危害。这是一种针对特定昆虫的意外输入导致另一种昆虫数量下降的结果。

在这个系统中存在许多机制,包括昆虫A对庄稼的反馈,昆虫B对庄稼的反馈,以及昆虫A对昆虫B的反馈。将这个案例运用到这一模型上,开发者了解所有的这些机制,就可以让玩家最大化地认识问题所在,以及调整系统层面每个群体,以及每个机制更改游戏状态时所产生的潜在长期后果。

战术

战术是玩家为实现某种输出结果,在了解其他可能的输入方式后,选择了某一特定输入方式。通过了解当前的游戏现状和系统,以及不同输入将如何改变当前游戏状态,玩家就可以制定计划,并立即采取措施根据自己选择的输入方式更改这一状态。

要让玩家获得一种选择感,不一定需要令其了解整个系统,但至少要了解两种可能的输入方式。执行这种选择就属于一种战术。对于玩家而言,了解战略选项正是他们开始获得代理感的关键点,因为他们了解个系统的交互关系时就可以发现有意义的选择。这里所指的玩家代理是“玩家能够采取有意义的行为,并在游戏中看到可视结果的能力”。

桌游《Pandemic》就是一个让玩家制定战术决定的优秀典型。轮到每个玩家时,他们一次都只能采取4步操作。通常游戏状态极为反复无常,玩家在一开始就得应对诸多短期问题。玩家需要即时做出选择,以便对付当前游戏状态中存在问题的城市,及时改变游戏形势。

Pandemic(from themoderndaypirates.com)

Pandemic(from themoderndaypirates.com)

由于这种游戏粘性就来自代理感,这一层次就成为玩家需要理解的重要层次。分析开发者自己游戏中的这个层次,有助于开发者通过确定玩家可能做出哪种战略选择而利用这一粘性。开发者可以在每个时刻决定玩家将面临哪些有意义的选择,以及如何更好地向玩家反馈这些短期决定。

战略

当玩家得到代理感,并且在制定短期战术性决策时,他们就会开始制定一系列战术(或输入),从而影响游戏的长期状态,这就是战略。战略可以从交互层面抽象出来,是玩家开始理论化如何基于一系列交互性改变游戏未来状态的节点。玩家会预测他们的一系列战术除了每次输入以及其他因素(游戏邦注:例如其他玩家的输入)的即时反馈之外还将如何改变游戏状态,如何通过一次输入干预即时而直接的反馈。

这里我们再次以《Twilight Struggle》为例,该游戏使用战略传达了围绕冷战时期的意图和冲突。例如,游戏将根据玩家在非洲国家所获得的力量记分时,双方玩家都会着手计划改变自己在该地区的影响力。当游戏开始时,玩家双方在这些国家都没有什么影响力。有一个典型战略就是利用低稳定数值在一个南部国家推行政变的即时战术,而该国恰好在地沿上接近于其他易受影响的国家。这样,玩家在未来就可以逐渐向北扩散自己的势力范围。

当然,发动政变的戒备状态会令游戏接近于核战结束的状态。或者,玩家也可以选择在中东地区获得足够的控制权,以便向南部灵活扩散。

无论是哪种情节,玩家都要策划好自己将要执行的操作,以便获得尼日利亚、扎伊尔、安哥拉等极大影响游戏得分的关键战场的控制权。这些战略会随着敌手的控制变化而变化。

这些变化迫使玩家采取新的即时战术操作,以便实现长期的战略目标,而这些目标则可通过操作的美学隐喻告知玩家,美苏两大势力在此期间的潜在思考过程以及行动意图。

系统所提供的即时反馈是一个将战略从之前的层次——战术区别出来的中心元素。了解玩家执行短期目标和策划长期目标时的发现,便于开发者提供极为不同的信息。

正如输入系统是由多个机制组成,决策战略也是由多个战术构成。虽然它们在制定有意义的决策方面存在相似之处,但绝对不可混淆战略和战术的概念,因为玩家在这两个层次所需投入的思考过程并不相同。玩家所推理的即时影响和最终影响都是开发者为其提供独特体验和知识的机会。

情境

游戏空间之外的信息也会影响玩家对游戏状态如何变化的理解。这种外部知识就是与游戏相关的情境。这种情境可以是玩家根据之前同个系列游戏的理解层次,或者对类似游戏的理解所认定的知识。

这种情境化的知识也同样适用于玩家对其他玩家在其他游戏,或同款游戏其他事件中行为的理解。了解人类心理可以让开发者知道玩家如何在特定游戏中部署战略。Katie Salen和Eric Zimmerman将游戏空间描述为“魔法圈”。这个魔法圈之外的信息创造了一个认知框架。而“认知框架又创造了理解和影响我们认清事物的情境”,例如游戏状态。

这里以之前提到的射击游戏中的爆头为例,玩家对其他射击游戏中同个机制的了解,会导致玩家认为这一机制也适用于当前游戏。这里的情境就会影响到交互性的机制层次,因为它是通过呈现美学元素来传达信息。整个游戏空间以及所有之前的玩家理解层次,可能都会受到玩家所带来的外部信息的影响。在之前游戏中发挥作用的战术可能会让玩家觉得,同个策略在续集游戏中也会产生相似的结果(除此有人事先告知这样并不可行)。

关于使用外部信息来影响玩家抉择的一个典型,就是与石子剪子布这种简单游戏有关的心理元素。在World Rock Paper Scissors Society页面有这样的描述,“要知道总有一些能够激励对手的动作。你可以使用一些伎俩和技巧来打破这种平衡。”这些伎俩和技巧包括在游戏开始前进行一次冒险,魔法圈之外是能够影响战略选择的游戏空间外部的情境信息元素。

网络系列文章Extra Credits则讨论了《英雄联盟》中的周期性失衡的理念。这一理念解释了玩家如何根据自己对付一般战士的实力来选择特定战士,这导致许多玩家去选择特定战士。而这个战士的弱点则可能被选择了另一种特定战士的玩家所利用。了解亚策略的当前发展状态,可以让玩家获得如何调整战略的情境化知识。

玩家开发的这种意识对开发者构成了挑战,因为玩家可能掌握了那些情境化知识。从制作教程的复杂性,通关攻略对经典冒险游戏的影响,以及游戏对新玩家的易用性,这一切均受到玩家可能掌握的情境化知识的影响。涉及这个模型的其他层次,这种挑战就更加复杂了,因为每个层次都会受到这种情境化知识的影响,而这又会改变玩家对原先知识的理解方式。

总结

开发者认识到玩家可能从中获得知识的这些层次,就有可能据此在不同时间为其打造特定的体验以传达特定的信息。开发者可通过结合每个层次为玩家提供知识的方式,创造一种更为引人入胜或富有教育性的体验。

针对每个拥有输出反馈的输入交互,每个层次都会为玩家提供独特的学习机会。而作为核心层次的展示性美学元素则描述了交互性如何向玩家传递信息。下一个层次,机制则是一个交互性实例。系统是所有可能的交互。战术则是制定单个交互的选择,战略是策划交互的多个选择,最后一个层次,情境则是使用外部信息来影响玩家对这些交互的理解和用途。

篇目2,长篇剖析:Aki Jarvinen分析社交游戏中的社交状况

Digital Chocolate社交游戏主设计师 Aki Järvinen 对目前Facebook游戏中的社会交流进行了分析。他介绍了一些概念来解释这些游戏中能够采纳或不能采纳的社交互动,如社会临场感,社交图和社会空间。本专稿取自Järvinen正在创作的书中的内容。(内容太长,可以看简版:社交游戏是否丧失了社交性)

social game(from gamerboom.com)

social game(from gamerboom.com)

社交破坏了吗?

行业中有些信号暗示着社区游戏中的“社交”已经破坏了。举个例子,在线和社区游戏开发商Three Rings的Daniel James在GDC 2010的演讲中描述道,社区游戏中的“社会性”就像从门底下给朋友传递信息而不是去敲门。社区游戏主要起了分散注意力的作用而不是可以玩的社交互动。

其他开发商也纷纷谴责社区游戏“憎恶”社交性,在一篇关于社区游戏的批判文章中,Ian Bogost认为社区游戏只不过是将社会关系带到了简单的游戏资源中去,暗示着更为可靠的可以玩的社交互动的形式需要捆绑某些不同的要素。

Casual Connect 杂志2010夏季版中,Playdom的David Rohrl透露,让游戏同社交相关联,要具备特定的要素,或更准确的说,“让玩家感觉在同朋友们一起玩(甚至在他们实际上没有在的时候也是)” – 最后一部分意义深远,文章指出,社区游戏开发商实际上正在开发一些虚无飘渺的东西来蒙混过关,创造了社会交流的错觉,实际上什么也不是。

文章从玩家角度继续。根据SoPlay研究项目的结果,玩家会将社区游戏看作单一玩家游戏,除了把他们的朋友列在游戏中外,这些游戏同他们脑海中多玩家游戏的概念“不一样”。让玩家描述他们在Facebook上通过游戏跟朋友们互动时,他们好像也很难说清楚是在干什么,虽然游戏号称是建立在社交基础上的。

这些观察似乎表示,社区游戏设计意味着游戏设计理念从社交互动转移到了社交分散上。当然社区游戏依赖于社交网络平台可以是个理由。那么它们的社交性,是否会被当作社交联络的判断依据,又是怎样有助于社交体验,而不用去衡量游戏性中的社交?在研究特定的游戏和它们的社交设计理念之前,我将以更为广泛的社交网络联系和在线交流为起点展开进行。

社交即交流

社交媒体和网络理论家们一再强调社交网络中的交流所起到的根本作用。没有交流就没有关系的存在,越是共通并互相满意的交流,关系越密切。同样,社区游戏应建立在有效的交流方式和社会交流基础之上。

在社区游戏的案例中,Facebook通过其交流渠道提供社会交流的基本要素。同时,Facebook上实际的社区游戏平台将社会性限制在固定的模式内。然而游戏只是平台上的独立应用,通过在游戏中植入附加的交流工具,开发商们能够摆脱平台的束缚。

在这样做的同时,不管怎样,他们开始向用户要求更多。比平台本身所提供的更为复杂或多样的社交互动方式,会导致赋予社会交流功能的游戏参与度和自发性减弱。

上述中更为限制的方面是,举例来说,Facebook运用它被广为采用的模式显然把自己踢出局,苛求玩家在特定,共享的时间进入特定的应用或站点。这就是同社交的根本不同,相比视频游戏来说,这更像是休闲游戏的延展。社区游戏尝试干预玩家的日常生活而不是换个角度思考:玩家根本不用为了玩游戏而保留特定的时间段。

为绕开这些约束,继续鼓励玩家玩社区游戏,社区游戏开发商们推出了异步交流,作为他们游戏中主要的社会交流形式,本质上是在遵循并持续改变以适应平台的核心交流功能。这种派生类型玩法在儿童游戏的研究中被学术类描述成“平行玩法” – 比如在没有其他人的情况下自己玩游戏但不时查看其他人的游戏进度。

社交通过临场感

异步和平行玩法即通过某种方式感受同伴的存在。在中介沟通的研究中,一项迭代研究问题就是关于:当沟通从即时的身体临近性转向远距离交流时,我们对社会临场感的体验会如何变化。

缺乏非语言信号,如面部表情,眼神交流,减少了沟通情境的感官冲击。从另一方面讲,这一限制让交流更为肤浅,并让信息交换速成。

作为这个领域的研究结果,学者们引入了“社会临场感”这一词条。它将远距离沟通的特点和交谈互动的特点概念化。社会临场感被定义为中介沟通环境下人对人的意识程度。

直接性是社会临场感所要具备的特性 –异步沟通显然没有实时沟通直接。

显而易见,Facebook中的社区游戏社会临场感微弱:它们就像从门底下传递信息而不是敲门。直接性不是社区游戏的相关词条。

去掉前缀,“临场感”是另外一个理论概念,学者们一直用来解释虚拟环境中人们对沉浸性和直接性的感受。临场感在这种关系中被描述成了一个心理学词条,虚拟体验变的微不足道了。

任何类型的高度社交性游戏,其社会交流虚拟性或媒介性都不应被察觉到;社会交流应该是游戏性中的基本组成。或者,社会交流性非常强烈而让人难以忘怀,这才是情感突出体验应该具备的。

目前这种案例不止全部指向社区游戏。在很多案例中,其它方面的社会临场感同样通过牵扯注意力来体现,比如跳出的礼物提醒,邀请更多朋友等。更智能的传播程序在争取这种基本关系,但是总体来说,回到了原点 – 再一次的 – 很难算作是独一无二难以忘怀的时刻。

那么再一次,没有从数以百万的社区游戏玩家中获取的合适的数据样本,尝试着得到这样的结论:这是那些大量的数据不能告诉你的。也许微弱但其他玩家围绕着的社会临场感才适合于网络中的游戏性,网络的首要功能在于游戏之外社交的互动而不是因为游戏而社交。

社交图是社会资本

Facebook上有着庞大的加入即有“社会图”,作为一项关系,指人们在网络中的关系以及他们怎样相互关联遍及全球。社会图虚构并集合了一个人在特定的网络平台中的社会关系。

社会图暗示了为社区应用或站点带来附加值,因为它从你的社区网络中提取信息。社会图利用信息和认证,它是为了鼓励你在同社会图之间的社会交流中使用特定的示例应用而制作。

这一前提是调动社会图将增加你在应用中的经验值。社区游戏以同样的假定开始,在你的触手可及的地方放置社会图,准备好游戏邀请,成为邻居和比赛等。

为了解社会图中社会纽带的作用和本质,可以用“社会资本”这一概念。社会资本是一个人社区网络中的无形价值。要从社会资本中获得的价值并不存在于个体中,它存在于一个人的关系结构和它们被调动的程度中。

理论家们发现两种社会资本:桥梁型和契约型。第一种是比较微弱的纽带,优先交流信息或新的想法。第二种是一张绳结更紧实的网,情感上接近的关系。而社区游戏中的朋友排行榜则是说明社区对象具有桥梁作用,来自社交活动中满是对不同人标注的相册可看作是契约型关系。

MMO游戏的指导,突袭,持续任务要求(包括对等压力)促进了契约型社会资本的产生。相反地,Facebook上的社区游戏像是典型的低维护:任何产生的社会资本从本质上讲都是桥梁型。它是作为传播目的,比如在Facebook小组中要求搜集零件,但它很少在应用和游戏性中有具体的表示。

这一观察同对社区游戏的批判一致,社区游戏把关系当作工具撑门面从中得到好处 – 不过这种设计态度可以单纯的从积极的角度去看:复杂的社会关系因为娱乐而“程式化”了,如果它们应用于游戏中就不用承担关系这个重担了。

然而Facebook上已经浮现了“加我”文化,人们希望通过完美的陌生人拓展社会图来让他们成为游戏中的伙伴。这种现象,尽管专属“核心”社区游戏玩家,正强调了社会图是怎样转变为兴趣图的,在热衷者之间,汇聚有共同兴趣的人和关联– 而不是关系。

add me(from gamerboom.com)

add me(from gamerboom.com)

开发商每一个流行社区游戏广告都带有一列“加我”请求。

将上述观察转换为客户关系管理,我得出结论:桥梁型社交关系的偶然性也许会带来一定程度的占有率和黏着度,但是它不是理想的玩家保有方式- 正因如此,才需要在社区游戏的设计中加入契约型关系。

好友 & 陌生人功能

历史学家告诉我们,合作和竞争总是同人群网络共存。在社区游戏如何分配玩家对战(伙伴还是敌对)上,社交关系中这两种原型方向变得明显了。一点也不惊讶,正是带有竞争元素的游戏将陌生人带入交际范围,而轻度竞争性的游戏依附于社会图,比如某人的朋友。FarmVille中没有陌生人。

Facebook在这种关联上是值得关注的案例,大多数人并不隐姓埋名或者使用假身份 – 可以设想,让想要参与其中的陌生人加入进来,为社会交流埋下了伏笔。同样,通过给出友好交流和与未知玩家对立的选项,City of Wonders这类游戏正在游戏中扩大玩家的社会图。

不管你的社会图是在排行榜中还是在邻居圈中,好友列表成为了社区游戏中标准用户界面。 游戏中的好友的确增加了社会性。

一旦你被鼓动在在游戏中邀请更多的“邻居”,“邻居”这一词暗示着他们没有必要接入你的空间。邻居只是在需要的时候提供协助。在Digital Chocolate的MMA Pro Fighter中,可以邀请朋友去某人的健身中心,从而关联于公用空间,这同现实生活很相似。

除了邻居和创建同盟,还有很多种同类随行技术的转化。尽管这很大程度上依赖于玩家要扮演同样的角色并处于相互平等的地位,像Friends for Sale这类游戏将玩家置于所有权关系,他们是主人的“宠物”, 可以让“宠物”做各种奇怪的杂事。

在玩家向两位朋友发起邀请,初创传播网络的过程中。这连带激发了更多社交上的,以及潜在引出的多种情感回应。从中我们得出,让玩家扮演不同角色有助于产生不同的社会情感,从而让社会临场感更强。

社区游戏中的三个社交边界:空间,任务和传播

上述讨论的可以总结为三个领域,即短期内社区游戏开发的相关途径。所有这三种途径都是游戏设计创新的解决方案,增加游戏中的社交范围。

空间:第一个社交边界

当平行玩法遇到异步玩法,两者相结合将阻碍共享空间,并减少玩家之间的交流模式。然而与此同时,对可靠的社交经验来说,空间是非常重要的。社区游戏开发商应该考虑在不破坏实时互动的同时,怎样克服异步玩法最明显的限制。像FrontierVille这样的游戏已经有所突破。

通过游戏中可认识的社交空间,空间同样能推动社交。在FrontierVille中,出于游戏的目的,日常社交活动被程式化了,他们加强了社交中的“家庭”意味。社交对象,比如某人的物品在其他玩家的地盘上,同样促进了“社交渗透” – 比如,发动玩家之间经常拜访。

任务区分:第二个社交边界

平行玩法仿佛将玩家封锁在任务中了,对所有人的可用技能都相似 – 如果有所不同也是他们装饰或选择了特定的玩法风格。任务区分微乎其微,更导致了游戏缺乏社交多样性。

更多任务类别会为社交互动铺平道路,比如交易。在MMO游戏中,玩家可以专门扮演商人,这立即给出了他们在游戏中社交互动的重点。

至今,社区游戏可以让玩家进行表层的角色定制,但没有任务区分,任务区分将会根据任务类型改变组件功能的二级分类。通过任务分类可以带来声誉,另外一种社交相关的元素,比如可以通过帮助朋友的方式推进社会资产的转化。

传播:社交的第三边界

尽管社区游戏的统治形象只是通过Facebook中恼人的垃圾邮件体现出来,事实上现在传播才是具体要素,社区游戏中当面社交的形式。想象一下大部分Facebook上的游戏没有任何传播途径,然后问问你自己还会剩下什么 – 那就有点像强制性的单一玩家体验了。

对社区游戏设计师来说,玩家之间频繁,鼓励性共享的刺激是社交感受,让玩家相互感觉到对方。从社交角度来看,这提升了玩家保有度。社交上可接纳的传播,当通过核心功能以合适的方式相互传播时,对发送者来说“值得分享”,对接收者来说“值得点击”。

frontierville(from gamerboom.com)

frontierville(from gamerboom.com)

FrontierVille中的社交方式“太远”

从他们的传播的本质上来讲,社区游戏的传播是个挑战。他们的传播很少能在游戏或者它的世界之外引起共鸣,从而在没有玩家的时候变得没有意义。社区游戏The Old Spice Guy一直保持曝光。真正的传播总是能带来讨论从而达到社会交流的目的。

社交的问题

当大量的社区游戏玩家不想通过游戏更深入社交会怎么样?如果社区游戏,尤其是Facebook形式的,推出戏虐,恶搞的互动而不是创造同游戏紧密相连的深入社交,会怎么样?如果我们为社交认证,好奇心,临场感创建更精妙的鼓励方式,他们会来吗?

在点击驱动,厌倦风险正在上升的业务中,没有开发商想要抓住这个机会。没有游戏利用社会图(程式化的邻居图或虚拟世界同盟之外)的优势 – “你的团体”而不是“你的关系”,搭建了最低等级的桥梁。

如果那种简单就完美的适合于社交网络倾向和它所介入的平台会怎么样呢?社区游戏大师们在宣扬社交创新的需要,但是待我们揭去社交表象后也为时不晚,我们应该找到,更多的表象。

篇目3,探讨时间范畴上的同步与异步玩法及其关联性

作者:Tadhg Kelly

异步游戏玩法是个近期较为流行的术语,它描述的是各种将玩家联系起来但不要求他们同时在线的网游所采用的做法。许多资深评论员都谈论过此类玩法成为未来游戏趋势的可能性。

但是,Ian Bogost、Raph Koster和我在Gamasutra上开展讨论时发现,这些术语的含义有些模糊不清。Raph认为异步游戏已经存在了数百年之久,比如用信件来玩的象棋。但是我觉得用信件来玩的象棋属于同步游戏。也就是说,我们两人对游戏同步性的理解有所不同。

许多人认为,同步指的是玩家在现实时间中同时进行游戏。但是我觉得,同步游戏需要的只是玩家在游戏时间中同时存在。这篇文章将详细阐述这个想法,探究现实时间和游戏时间的差异。

游戏时间和现实时间

许多游戏要求玩家在现实时间中的同步。体育、动作游戏、主机射击游戏、竞速游戏以及更多游戏提供的都是实时体验,一个或更多玩家在游戏中做出动作或反应。但是,就像重量和质量的关系一样,游戏时间和现实时间也有所不同。只有在某些特别的情况下才能显示出二者的差异。

诸如《传送门2》之类的单人游戏或许仰赖的是现实时间,但玩家有可能必须离开电脑去煮饭。如果出现这种情况,那么游戏就会被暂停或者保存,以便随后回到游戏中继续。

在信件象棋游戏中,某次移动可能在数天之内都无法得到回应。桌面角色扮演游戏可能在现实时间中经历多次的开始和暂停,跨越很长的时间阶段。

游戏时间通常存在于游戏世界中,其推移并不像现实时间那样每秒都在流逝。然而,现实时间就存在于我们周围,总是以相同的速度向前推移。

这便是两者间的重要差别。

同步

同步是所有游戏的特性:

如果某个循环中的部分胜利需要超过1名玩家的行动方能实现,那么这就是个同步循环。否则,就属于异步。

CityVille(from allthingsd.com)

CityVille(from allthingsd.com)

同步被广泛运用于各种游戏模式中。单人游戏和多人游戏是最为普遍的模式,也有些混合型的游戏。比如,《CityVille》大部分属于异步游戏,但是要求你雇佣好友在某个建筑物中任职却是个例外。雇佣要求好友做出动作才能帮助你完成循环以获得胜利,所以这属于同步。

这也是为何我以循环来定义同步,而不是将术语架构在整个游戏之上。循环是游戏玩法中的基本成分,玩家做出动作之后游戏以某种方式做出响应,决定玩家胜利、失败或进入另一个循环。在异步循环中,响应来源于游戏本身,但是同步循环的完成需要仰赖其他玩家。

循环的长短各不相同。在《光晕》的团队竞技模式中,循环是跟随现实时间进行的,但是在信件象棋中,只有当移动完成一轮后游戏时间才有所前进。所以,单个循环可能要花上数天时间才能完成。对其他玩家参与的需求也有差别。这就是为何与同步相关的是游戏时间而不是现实时间的原因所在。

时间范畴

同步玩法更非正式的定义是“同时玩游戏”。我所定义的对其他玩家的依赖并没有包含在这个定义中。

对我来说,这个定义很不清楚。在游戏设计时考虑到玩家间的联系与上述简单的同步定义大不相同。《YoVille》和《光晕》的死亡模式都是玩家群体同时在玩游戏,但它们是完全不同的。

在Gamasutra的讨论中,我认为同步或异步的非正式定义并不能恰当描述同步。我将其用时间范畴来概述。时间范畴的定义是:

如果游戏的玩法包含两个或更多玩家同时存在,那么就是同时间范畴。否则,就是不同时间范畴。

所以,《反恐精英》或《德州扑克》属于同时间范畴游戏,但是《质量效应》和《Chu Chu Rocket》属于不同时间范畴游戏。

时间范畴关注的是玩家是否同时出现在同样的地方,至于为何他们要这么做就显得无关紧要。

两者的对立统一

同步和时间范畴之间相互作用的方式令我感到十分有趣。

Farm Town(from tutorialsxo.com)

Farm Town(from tutorialsxo.com)

比如,当你在《Farm Town》中访问好友时,他刚好也在线。你帮他收割作物并且你们之间正在聊天。这属于同时间范畴,但并不属于同步。之所以属于同时间范畴,因为你们两个人同时出现在相同的地方。但是之所以属于异步,是因为他本不需要你帮他收获作物。也就是说,你的帮助并非他获得胜利的必要条件。

换个例子,你的好友在《CityVille》向你发出了个赠礼请求。他需要大理石以帮他完成社区建筑的建设,所以希望你能够送他一些。这不属于同时间范畴,因为你无须同时在线也能够发送或收到信息。但是属于同步,因为他需要你的帮助才能够盖起建筑。

同步和时间范畴相互交叉,产生同时间范畴同步、同时间范畴异步、不同时间范畴同步和不同时间范畴异步四种类型。用更容易理解的方法,就是多人游戏、平行游戏、回合游戏和单人游戏四类,虽然并不是很精确。

同步和时间范畴的结合在各种情况下的效果各不相同,而且理解其中的缘由很重要。每种结合方式都在不同程度上测试玩家的忍耐力,所有同步和时间范畴成为游戏中的主要参数。

忍耐力

忍耐力是指玩家会有多大的耐性留在游戏中。

游戏中的所有内容,从教授玩家游戏规则的方式到要求玩家付费的方式,都在测试着玩家的忍耐力。常见的规则是,游戏对玩家的吸引力越小,他们的忍耐力就越弱。

忍耐力是所有游戏无法避开的因素,但是你应该尽量将其减少。同步和时间范畴以许多方式测试着忍耐力。你应该记住,玩家并非都像想象中那样理想。

Jane McGonigal在《破碎的现实》(Reality is Broken)一书中引用了有着数百万玩家的异步游戏《Lexulous》作为例证。这款游戏利用了《Scrabble》(游戏邦注:原名为《Scrabulous》)的基本规则,成为Facebook上的热门游戏。但是,与Jane撰写书籍时引用的那时相比,这款游戏已经失去了大部分的用户。

原因在与《Lexulous》是同步游戏,而并非异步。玩家有时会忘记或不想在自己的回合中做出行动,这使得许多场游戏无故夭折。对于其他与上述玩家一起玩的人来说,对方不做出行动也使他们觉得游戏乏味,因而也使离开游戏的可能性上升。游戏达到了他们忍耐力的临界点。

scrabble_facebook(from gamertell.com)

scrabble_facebook(from gamertell.com)

scrabble_facebook(from gamertell.com)
scrabble_facebook(from gamertell.com)

这便是不同时间范畴同步玩法可能产生的问题,但也正是这种玩法吸引了那些真正愿意在《Scrabble》中投入时间的人。尽管这种游戏的MAU相对较低,但是他们的用户参与度比例(游戏邦注:35%-50%)都比多数Facebook要高。如果玩家真正喜欢《Scrabble》,他们会记得在自己的回合中做出行动。

如何解决同步和时间范畴的另一个范例是《Left 4 Dead》的做法。游戏讲究的是协作性玩法,如果不在游戏中进行协作就会死亡。

但是,这种设计的主要问题在于玩家离开或加入游戏的方法。如果游戏过分依赖协作性玩法,那么当玩家中途掉线怎么办呢?

《Left 4 Dead》解决这个问题的办法是,当玩家掉线时加入AI角色,而且这个AI角色的技术足够让其余玩家获得完全合乎逻辑的体验。如果其他玩家想要加入游戏,那么AI角色随时都会退出,这样忍耐力问题就被降到最小。

总得来说,游戏的协作性越强,玩家的数量就会越少。如果游戏完全依靠玩家的协作来运转,那么就很可能拥有少量对游戏极有激情的用户。

《魔兽世界》多数部分属于异步游戏,只有少部分玩家会加入公会参加活动。到目前为止,《德州扑克》是最为流行的在线纸牌游戏,部分原因是因为游戏的进入退出都很容易。更为严格的纸牌游戏的用户数就会更少。

最后,减少用户的忍耐是许多免费增值模式游戏的基础。在《CityVille》中,你可以付费购买大理石,而不用等待好友送给你。在《Ikariam》中,你也可以付费让游戏加速。这种模式之所以能够成功,正是因为玩家不想等待,他们愿意支付些许金钱来跳过这些繁琐的工作,回到游戏的趣味成分中。

结论

趣味性有各种各样的形式,每个人都想要得到。有些形式需要玩家比其他人付出更多,有些形式需要处理同步和时间范畴的相关问题。澄清二者间的特性和差异,我们就更容易理解它们之间相互作用的方式,避开设计中可能产生的错误。

所以,更清晰地理解术语能够让我们成为更棒的游戏设计师。

篇目4,分析游戏玩家社交化的6个程度

作者:Oscar Clark

爱玩是人类不可或缺的天性,而我们发现其核心总与社交活动有关。甚至在我们将计算机连接在一起之前,电子游戏就已经具有社交元素。这可以是小时候在本地的游戏厅中看好友玩《太空入侵者》,或是聚在彼此的卧室中玩《Elite》。游戏是一种交互媒体,是交流的触发器。它是我们的社交粘剂,我相信如果没有共同的热情,我们就不会从玩游戏中获得如此多乐趣。

鉴于在游戏社区中混迹15年的经历,我自认为已经掌握了一两点令社交玩法生效的技巧。这里我并不单是针对所谓的社交游戏(即《FarmVille》或《Candy Crush Saga》这类在玩法中绑定Facebook功能的游戏)。我在自己的职业生涯中还花了大量时间去理解在线多人游戏,以及虚拟世界等概念。

我发现人们对社交玩法的内涵,以及我们该如何将其整合到我们的体验中存在一个基本的误区。为便于我们理解其运行原理,让我们考虑不同阶段的社交互动,或者说社交化程度。它们分别代表不同的联络程度,以及不同的投入和粘性程度。没错,要认识到每种关系都涉及到投入精力和奖励之间的平衡,如果奖励不足,那么我们当然就会离开这段关系。实际上,这种说法并不完全正确。当我们研究关系时,我们发现相互依存论表明这并不仅仅涉及你在当前关系中的满意度如何,你还应该从中获得比在其他地方更多的价值。

相互依存论是关于我们的个人关系,我调皮地将其扩展到了社会群体中。但是,根据我从游戏服务中看到的情况,我相信这种类比十分恰当。我相信这能够助我想出更好地支持社交游戏社区的服务。

6 degrees of socialisation(from gamesbrief)

6 degrees of socialisation(from gamesbrief)

第一程度–“我看到你在玩”

当玩家首次下载你的游戏时,他们通常会专注于最大化自己的购买价值,或者进入与F2P相关的脆弱“学习”阶段。玩家此时通常还没确定自己是否真的想融入游戏,也不知道游戏是否会让他们看起来很糟糕(例如,我的技能是不是很差?)

即使在《魔兽世界》这种游戏中,也只有34.2%的玩家认为交朋友是游戏最重要的层面,但却有60%的玩家更喜欢独自玩游戏。为什么呢?实际上,社交化需要玩家投入精力,并且会有遭遇尴尬的风险,你可能会遇到一个道不同不相为谋的家伙。但,在社交化情境中玩游戏仍然具有价值。看到其他人也在玩同你一样的游戏,这也具有相当的价值,毕竟你并不像被视为唯一喜欢这款游戏的人。

这个社交化阶段是被动的,几乎是窥探式的,但仍然有助于克服我们通常刚开启学习曲线的初始幻灭感。在游戏中看到其他人还有助于预示游戏未来将提供什么好处,而这一点正是教程或开发者导向的流程所无法实现的。

第二程度–“看我玩游戏”

当玩家适应游戏的初始体验,并开始感觉到社交社区的诱惑时,他们通常会变得更乐于同他人和好友分享自己的体验。玩家玩游戏的动机当然各有不同,但找到志同道合着与现实好友同样重要。玩家以广播形式同他们交流与参与“真正”互动的情况并不罕见。例如,玩家虚拟角色可能会身穿昂贵的行头或者“赞”过游戏的其他层面,甚至是下载一个玩法视频(只要游戏能够让这一内容同日常玩法SDK无缝兼容)。通常在这个阶段,我们并不指望甚至是不想展开一段对话。

当然,所有的这些都需要玩家投入比匿名状态下更多的精力和资源,对某些人来将自己暴露在大庭广众之下这有点冒险。但是,其回报就是有其他人会发现我的机智或优秀之处,无论他们有没有真正看到我。这促成了我在游戏中的行动,也让我的购买行为更有意义。它增加了社交资本。有趣的是,在我玩Playstation Mobile以及木瓜移动平台上的游戏时,我们看到能否在游戏中看到他人的能力,对于玩家是否愿意在游戏中掏钱产生了不容小觑的影响(主要是装饰性道具),也往往是决定玩家之后能否在一个月内消费超过100美元的主要触发器。有趣的是,极少“鲸鱼”(高消费)玩家会持续购买装饰性道具,他们中的多数人专注于提升自己在游戏中的表现。但遗憾的是,在此我们并没有足够的样本数据来确认这一点。

第三程度–“我打败了你的分数”

第三程度就涉及到简单的沟通。在这一点上玩家可能已经真正融入游戏,并接受它成为自己消遣时间和常规生活的一部分这一现实。他们目前有两种沟通方式,仍然相对简单。例如,同现实世界的好友比较分数和成就,或者从其他玩家那里获取建议。他们的相对进展开始变得很重要,即使仅有一小部分玩家真的关注直接的竞争。但是,这其中通常涉及一些关于高分和升级的吹牛元素,不过这更像是玩家让自己重返游戏,以及持续同游戏中的他人互动的理由。MMO中的经典例子就是当你升级时,就向你所在位置的其他玩家大喊“Ding!”这是你同他人分享自己游戏进程的一种方式,即使你与他们素不相识,也经常会收到来自许多人的祝贺。

第四程度–“让我们合作吧”

我们开始形成了对游戏的粘性,增加了在游戏中的信心,创造了我们开始更愿意融入其中的社区。没错,有些游戏很早就这么干了。融入一个“联盟”或“部落”甚至会成为教程中的一个关键环节,这不但是因为它能够让玩家快速获得其他人的帮助和建议,还因为它能够迅速创建粘性。

这就会让我们尝试更深形式的合作,我们甚至开始期待来自其他玩家的回报。在某些游戏中,这相当简单,例如访问好友的农场,或者在FPS游戏中玩同一个地图。玩家之间可能有一些竞争,但这并不是关键。在这个阶段,我们开始更多依赖他人的参与,以便获得游戏中的乐趣。但这里有一个我们必须警惕的设计困境。如果我们过早引进社交互动,就有可能令玩家生厌,但如果我们不呈现转向社交玩法的价值,也许就有许多玩家根本就不会展开社交互动,我们也会丧失社交机制的益处。这需要更高程度的合作投入,这需要玩家(以及游戏开发者)培养好这些关系。否则这些社区很快就会崩溃。

第五程度–“贴身近战”

到目前为止,我们多数讨论的还是简单的交流,以及实际上的异步互动。但是,随着我们步入第五阶段,玩家的虚拟存在这一理念的重要性开始增强,与此同时我们经常看到其重心如果没有转向同步性,那就会更偏向于直接的竞争性。想想《使命召唤》中资深玩家在游戏中,甚至是带领其他玩家所需投入的精力。与此相似,如果你想加入《魔兽世界》中的公会,其他玩家也会希望你能够发挥自己的作用。这与你同现实中的人一起玩游戏具有极大的区别,因为在线游戏玩家有一个在线模式,而其离线体验与在线模式并无多大关联。大量用户实际上是为了维持这种体验,这也不可避免地会将你的用户基础导向同种玩家类型。我们不能忽略用户类型,还应该尝试理解我们如何尽量帮助更多玩家融入游戏中的这种社交层次。有太多游戏忽视了玩家所需投入的精力,以及其中的社交风险,这会危及它们的市场潜力。

这方面可以看看Supercell游戏如何创造学习曲线,在向粉丝展示玩法之前培养玩家技能以及用户粘性。

第六程度–“我们是公会”

最后一个阶段的社交化就是比游戏本身更重要的社交体验,游戏开始变成一种沟通渠道。在这个阶段玩家会同时管理和安排自己的体验。他们与自己的部族或公会成员进行现实世界的联系,可以获得极高的回报,但维持这种关系的所需投入的精力也相当高。由于公会成员一起玩游戏而产生的联系所导致的离婚、结婚和艳遇等现象并不鲜见。只有最具投入性的玩家群体能够维持联系,他们同时也将成为你最棒的资产。如果你给予他们合适的游戏内部工具,忠实玩家会创造你维持其他玩家的兴趣所需要的社交“粘剂”。

这是一个旅程而非终点

这是我通过自己的观察和一些数据所创造的模式,但这只能作为一种思考而非一种原则。其目标是鼓励设计师将社交互动视为一系列阶段,就像玩家生命周期一样,社交投入是一种旅程而非终点。记住相互依存理念,我们在考虑哪些维持或破坏我们社交玩法群体的力量时,就会做出正确的决策。支持一个社区需要投入精力,正如平衡一个倒金字塔一样。忠实玩家越多,游戏的其他方面就越可能失衡。他们是最忠实的玩家,但你不可能因此认为他们就永远不会离开,你也不能只是因为这一群体需欢独处而以此设计游戏,如果没有不同社交程度的玩家,你就永远无法维持游戏的平衡。

但如果我们操作得当,就能解琐玩家的力量,帮助其他玩家融入游戏,让我们的游戏体验更有意义。这并不是因为我们在游戏中所创造的内容,而是因为我们赋予玩家通过游戏进行沟通的功能。这正是社交化发挥魔力的时候。

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

篇目1,Layers of Player Understanding

by Jainan Sankalia

This model explains, from a ludic perspective, the layers of understanding a player can obtain experiencing a heavily designer-authored game. Each layer of this model is based on interaction and how interaction is presented to the player and utilized by the player as they engage with the experience.

This model aims to be a tool for developers to use in crafting their experiences. By looking through the lens of interaction and breaking down how that changes the knowledge a game communicates, a clearer picture emerges about how interaction at its different layers guides the player’s learning and understanding of the game.

Presentation Aesthetic

Presentation Aesthetic represents the sensory information revealed to the player usually expressed through the audiovisuals. This is the core layer for this model, as it is the first exposure the player has to the experience.

This layer also represents how interaction is presented to the player. Often the feedback from an input by the player is outputted by the system via audiovisual information. This is not limited to, but includes the shapes and styles of the visuals, the ambient sounds and musical score, and the written and spoken text — these all communicate elements of the experience.

Even abstracted board games such as chess communicate elements of medieval warfare based on the shape and names of the pieces. The shape of a knight compared to a bishop may communicate aspects of their behavior. The black and white pieces denote a clear distinction between the two players. Even the physical texture of the pieces could reveal historical information. The information presented through the aesthetic can communicate elements of the ludic nature of the game that can be utilized to teach the player.

As an example, this is the layer that most trivia games operate on to educate the player. To successfully learn what the trivia game is trying to teach only requires the player to have knowledge of the questions and their answers usually presented as text. Trivial Pursuit is a test of knowledge; moving around the board using the pieces does not teach the player about the categories of geography, science, or nature. The board and the pieces are there, at least in part, to break the monotony of reading all the question and answer cards.

By observing all the methods by which sensory input is presented to the player, developers can utilize each method for a specific lesson to be taught. The board game Twilight Struggle uses the historical time period between 1945 and 1989 as a backdrop for two players, representing the U.S.A. and the USSR, to compete for influence and control over the various countries and regions of the world.

A historical photo accompanies each card in the game. This photo is not related to the mechanics, nor is it required in order to play the game, but it does provide another avenue of communication about the historical Cold War setting the game takes place during. The turn counter equates to the years between 1945 and 1989 represented by a picture of the leader that was in office during that year. Again, this knowledge does not aid the player towards completing the game, but it does afford an educational knowledge about the time period. The historically accurate map of the world including country borders used by the game’s board conveys a geographic knowledge the players may learn from.

From a more ludic perspective, the values of each country’s stability number reveal each country’s relative ideological government stability, independence, and power. Twilight Struggle does a great job of conveying a variety of historical information by exposing the players to a variety of visual information as they play the game.

However, the shape of the cards and board are a standard rectangle. This shape could have been another opportunity to impart additional information at the potential detriment to the overall experience. Also, the physical texture and feel of the smooth cards don’t contribute to the historical setting. Of course, it is up to the developers of the game to determine which of the many methods they wish to utilize for communication. The key is evaluating all the potential options the game’s presentation aesthetic affords information at this layer of player understanding.

Mechanic

Moving beyond the presentation aesthetic, Mechanic adds interaction. A mechanic is a single instance of an input that causes an output feedback either between the player and the system or entirely within the system. Understanding what and why that input has that specific feedback yields knowledge for the player. This ability to affect the game in a fundamental way is the first layer that incorporates interaction and feedback into a player’s understanding of the ludic experience. At its base, the player learns what the rule for the input and output are. Once learned, the player may begin to question why a particular input has that particular output. Answering that question suggests a certain logic for the player to grasp.

A simple example of a mechanic is a headshot in a shooter. In many shooters, a headshot deals more damage to the target than a body shot. The player learns that being shot in the head is worse than being shot in the body. Of course, that is not the most accurate interpretation compared to a real life scenario, but every mechanic informs the player about the rules of the game space. These rules taught in the game space can be used to teach certain rules the developer may want to educate the player about whether about real life logic or game logic.

Many puzzle games, such as Portal, slowly introduce new ideas and concepts to the player. Test Chamber 10 of the game teaches the player about the game’s mechanic for conservation of momentum. By exploring and discovering this concept, the player is afforded additional information about the game’s internal logic.

That same notion of exploring and discovering the game’s internal logic may be utilized by a developer intending a certain knowledge, such as Newtonian physics, be taught to the player that may be tested later by another mechanic. In later test chambers, the player must use a weighted cube’s momentum just as the player observed his or her own momentum being conserved between portals.

System

A System represents all possible inputs and outputs within a given construct as well as all the internal feedbacks between various rules within the game. Made up of various Mechanics, a System provides a sense of logic to the game’s simulation. Understanding all the possible interactions within the system communicates the fundaments of how that system operates. If the system of rules is an accurate representation, or simulation, of the reality being addressed by the game, then the knowledge of the system conveys the logic of that reality. As a player learns more mechanics within a given system, the player develops a framework for how all the mechanics interrelate.

This interrelation between mechanics is a central component of the system’s thinking approach to problem solving. Observing the multiple and long-term feedbacks from a given input create awareness towards complex problems the game may present. System here refers to any group of Mechanics. A distinction is not made between a game’s overall system and its various sub-systems. This layer focuses on the inter-relationship between different inputs and outputs internally within the game. These may be affected by the player’s inputs on the system, but are also feedbacks within the game itself based on its internal set of rules.

In the game Lunar Lander, the relationship between thrust and gravity changes depending on if the player chooses Earth, the Moon, or Jupiter. Understanding how the thrust input by the player changes the output of the Lander based on the choice input of interstellar object, the player grasps the idea that gravity on the Moon is weaker than on Earth which is weaker than on Jupiter.

Through understanding the connection between interactions, the player may draw associative conclusions enriching their understanding of the experience.

Heavily simulation-based games such as SimCity or Microsoft Flight Simulator focus on this to create complex situations for the player. Games with an internal ecosystem that governs the state of the game have internal mechanics that yield a number of possible internal results based off their relation with other mechanics.

Many developers that fall under Tadhg Kelly’s simulationism lens of game making create complex sets of interactions that lead to near infinite possibilities. As the player discovers these possibilities and determines why a possibility occurred in the system, the player starts operating on the System layer.

In terms of system thinking, the importance is outlined in Daniel Aronson’s example of crop damage by insects. He explains how the immediate feedback of using a pesticide on a particular Insect A in the short-term decreased crop damage, but in the long-term the crop damage increased. This was the result of an unforeseen input of that particular insect keeping another insect’s population down.

In this example system, there are many mechanics at work including Insect A’s feedback on the crops, Insect B’s feedback on the crops, and Insect A’s feedback on Insect B. In this example applied to this model, learning all these mechanics help the player understand the problem at large and potential long-term consequences of adjusting each population at the System layer as each mechanic alters the state of the game.

Tactic

Tactic is the player acting on the system by choosing a specific input after understanding other possible inputs in order to achieve a desired output. By understanding the current state of the game and understanding the system and how each different input will alter the current state of the game, the player can plan and take an immediate action to alter that state based on which input they choose.

Knowledge of the entire system is not needed, but knowledge of at least two possible inputs is needed to provide a sense of choice. Acting on this choice is a Tactic. For a player, understanding
the tactical options are the point at which players begin to feel a sense of agency because they are presented with meaningful choices they have become aware of by understanding the interrelations within the system. Player agency here “is the provision of capability for a player to act meaningfully and with visible effect in a game,” as described in this piece.

The board game Pandemic is a good example of the player making tactical decisions. On a player’s turn they are able to perform only four actions. Usually the state of the game is so volatile that the player must deal with the short term problems presented at the start of their turn. Because of the way the outbreak deck places previously drawn locations back on top of the deck, the player is aware of what problem cities have a high potential of being drawn at the end of their turn. As a result the player makes immediate choices to deal with the specific problem cities in the current state of the game, changing the game state in an immediately apparent way.

Because of the engagement that comes from a sense of agency, this layer of interaction is an important layer for the player to understand. Analyzing what this layer teaches in a developer’s own game provides an opportunity for the developer to capitalize on this engagement by determining what the tactical choices the player can make are at any given moment. On a moment-to-moment basis, a developer could determine what meaningful choices are presented to the player and how best to communicate the feedback of those decisions on the game state back to the player in the short-term.

Strategy

Once the player has a feeling of agency and is making tactical short-term decisions, the player begins to plan a series of tactics, or inputs, affecting the long-term state of the game, which is Strategy. Abstracting away from the acting aspect of interaction, Strategy is the point at which the player begins to theorize how to change future states of the game based on a series of interactions. The player makes predictions about how their sequence of tactics will alter the state of the game beyond the immediate feedback from each input as other factors, such as inputs from other players, interfere with the immediate and direct feedback from an input.

Using Twilight Struggle again as an example, the game uses strategy to communicate the intentions and tensions surrounding the Cold War. For example, knowing that in the future the game will score the balance of power in African countries, both players will plan on how to alter the influence in that area. When the game begins, neither player has any influence in those countries. An example strategy is using the immediate tactic of performing a coup in a southern country with a low stability number that is geopolitically connected to other easy-to-influence countries on the game board. By doing so, in the future the player may slowly spread their influence north.

Of course, by performing a coup the immediate feedback of the DEFCON level lowers putting the game close to the Nuclear War end state. Alternatively, the player may also choose instead to claim enough control over the Middle East to have the flexibility to spread influence south.

In either scenario the player is planning which course of actions to take in order to control the key battleground states in the area such as Nigeria, Zaire, and Angola that greatly affect the game’s scoring. These strategies are altered as opponents also attempt to control these areas.

These alterations force the player to take new immediate tactical actions in order to achieve a long-term strategic goal that via the aesthetic metaphor for the action informs about the potential thought process and intentions of the behaviors taken by the U.S.A. and USSR during this time period.

The immediacy of the feedback provided by a system is a central component that separates Strategy from the previous layer, Tactic. Realizing what the player discovers by acting on short-term goals compared to planning long-term goals provides distinctly different sets of information a developer could teach.

Just as a System of inputs comprises multiple Mechanics, a Strategy of decisions comprises multiple Tactics. Although similar in terms of meaningful decision making, this distinction between
Strategy and Tactic is important because of the difference in thought process a player engages in while operating at these two layers. Both the immediate impact and eventual impact a player
theorizes are opportunities for a developer to provide distinct experiences and knowledge.

Context

Information outside of the game space may also influence a player’s understanding of how the state of the game will change. This external knowledge is the Context surrounding the game. This context could be knowledge assumed by the player based on layers of understanding from a previous game in the same franchise or from understanding a similar game.

This contextual knowledge may also apply to the player’s understanding of other players’ behavior in other games or other instances of the same game. Even understanding human psychology can inform the player on how to strategize within a certain game. Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman describe the game space as “the magic circle.” Information outside of the boundaries of this magic circle creates a cognitive frame. “Cognitive frames create contexts for interpretation and affect how we make sense of things,” such as the state of the game.

Using the prior example of headshots in a shooter, being familiar with this mechanic in other shooters will influence the player in assuming that mechanic applies to the current game as well. Here the context affects the Mechanic layer of interaction as it is communicated via the Presentation Aesthetics. The entire game space and all prior layers of player understanding may be impacted by the external information the player brings. A tactic that was useful in a previous game encourages the player to assume that same tactic will yield a similar result in the sequel unless the player is taught otherwise.

An example of using external knowledge to influence a player’s choices comes from the psychological elements surrounding the simple game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Explained in a passage from the World Rock Paper Scissors Society page, “knowing that there is always something motivating your opponent’s actions; there are a couple of tricks and techniques that you can use to tip the balance in your favour.” These tips and tricks such as suggesting a throw before the game begins, outside of the magic circle, are components of contextual information outside of the game space that can affect strategic choices.

The web series Extra Credits discusses the idea of cyclical imbalance in the game League of Legends. They explain how players may choose a certain champion because of how powerful they are against the average champion, leading many players to choose that particular champion. That same champion has a weakness that can be exploited by players who choose another specific champion. This understanding of the current evolving state of the meta-game provides contextual knowledge an informed player uses to adjust their Strategy.

It becomes a challenge for developers as players develop this understanding, because a player may or may not have that contextual knowledge. Everything from how complex to make a tutorial, how walkthroughs have changed classic adventure games, and issues with accessibility for new players are all affected by how much contextual knowledge a potential player might have. In relation to the rest of the model, the challenge is compounded as every layer is impacted by this contextual knowledge that will alter how and when the player will understand the intended learning.

Conclusion

By acknowledging all these layers a player may learn from, a developer can craft specific experiences to communicate specific information at different times. These layers could be used to craft a more engaging or informative experience by incorporating how each of these layers uniquely affords knowledge to the player.

Based on interaction as an input with an output feedback, each layer provides unique learning opportunities for the player. The core layer, Presentation Aesthetic describes how interaction is
communicated to the player. The next layer, Mechanic is a single instance of interaction. System is all possible interactions. Tactic is a choice of making a single interaction. Strategy is planning for multiple choices of interaction. The final layer, Context is using outside information to influence the players understanding and usage of these interactions.

篇目2,Opinion: Synchronous or Asynchronous Gameplay

Tadhg Kelly

Asynchronous gameplay is a popular phrase for describing various forms of online games that connect players but don’t require simultaneous play. Many eminent commentators have talked about the possibilities for this kind of gameplay, and how it might be the future for games.

However, in a fascinating debate on Gamasutra initiated by Ian Bogost, Raph Koster and I ran across a confusion of terms. Raph said that asynchronous games have existed for hundreds of years, citing play-by-mail Chess as an example. Except I think play-by-mail Chess is synchronous. When talking about synchrony, we actually meant two entirely different things.

Where many people casually talk about synchrony in relation to whether players are together in real time, I think it means games that require players to be in sync with one another in game time. This article elaborates on that idea and describes how real and game time intermingle.

Game Time or Real Time

Many games are played in real time. Sports, action games, console shooters, racing games and more are all real-time experiences in which one or more players acts and reacts to a world that in motion. However, like weight and mass, game time and real time are not the same thing. They only appear to be so under certain circumstances.

A single player game might be played in real time, such as Portal 2, but then you have to go away and cook dinner for your wife. So the game is paused or saved, to come back later.

A single move in play-by-mail Chess might not receive a response for several days. A tabletop roleplaying campaign may start and stop over a number of discrete sessions of real time spaced out by long periods where the game is not being played.

Game time is always internal to the game world, and it may not tick forward on a second-by-second basis. Whereas real time is all around us all of the time and always ticks at the same rate (relativity not withstanding).

This is an important distinction.

Synchrony

Synchrony is a property of all games:

If the achievement of a win as a part of a loop depends on the actions of more than one player, that loop is synchronous. If not, it is asynchronous.

Synchrony is often used broadly, such as different game modes. Single and multiplayer modes are the most common example, but there are some subtle mixes also. CityVille, for example, is a mostly asynchronous game with the exception of the gating mechanism that requires you to hire friends to work in a building. Gating requires their action to complete the loop for you to win, so that is synchronous.

That’s why I describe synchrony in terms of loops rather than the whole game. A loop is a basic molecule of gameplay in which the player takes an action and the game reacts in some way, determining whether the player experiences a win, a loss, or another loop. In an asynchronous loop the reaction comes from the game itself, but in a synchronous one it is dependent on other players.

Loops also vary in length. In team deathmatch Halo the loops are in real time, but in PBM Chess the game time only ticks forward when a turn is taken. So a single loop might take days to close. And yet the need for involvement of other players is the same. So that’s why synchrony is related to game time rather than real time.

Temporany

The more casual definition of synchronous gameplay means ‘playing at the same time’. The dependency on other players that my definition implies is not present, so it could mean players playing alongside each other within a common space, or competitively, or in parallel.

For me that’s just too hazy. Designing with player dependency in mind is very different to that of simple simultaneous presence. YoVille and deathmatch Quake may both be played by groups of players online at the same time, but they are completely different. It is not enough to say they are both ‘synchronous’.

In the debate on Gamasutra, I suggested that the casual definition of synchronous or asynchronous is actually describing a different property to synchrony. I labelled it temporany. The definition of temporany is:

If the play of the game contains the simultaneous presence of two or more players, it is contemporal. If not, it is atemporal.

So your Counter-Strike session or Texas Hold’Em games are contemporal, but your Mass Effect or Chu Chu Rocket games are atemporal. Wandering around Playstation Home or YoVille is contemporal, but visiting a friend’s restaurant in Restaurant City is atemporal.

Temporany is about whether players are in the same place at the same time or not, irrespective of why they are so.

Where the Twain Shall Meet

The fun part (for me at least) is how synchrony and temporany interact with one another.

For example: You visit your friend in Farm Town, and he is online at the same time. You help him clean up his crops and chat to one another. Is that contemporal? Yes. Is it synchronous? No. It’s contemporal because both of you are in the same space at the same time. However it’s asynchronous because he doesn’t actually need you to help clean up those crops. Your help is not a requirement of his win.

On the other hand: Your friend in CityVille sends you a gift request. He needs Marble to help complete his community building, and asks you to send him some. Is this contemporal? No, it’s atemporal because you do not need to be online at the same time to send or receive the message. Is it synchronous? Yes. He needs your help to win.

Synchrony and temporany form a grid. There is contemporal synchrony, contemporal asynchrony, atemporal synchrony and atemporal asynchrony. More conventionally, although less accurately, you might call them: multi-play, parallel-play, turn-based-play and single-play. Quake, World of Warcraft, WeeWar, Portal 2.

Not all combinations of synchrony and temporany work equally well in all situations, and it’s important to understand why. Each tests the tolerance of players differently, and so synchrony and temporany actually form one of the major constraints on all games.

Tolerance

Tolerance is the degree to which your game tests the patience or goodwill of players before they will stop playing.

Everything from teaching the player the rules of the game, to how it asks for money, tests player tolerance. The general rule is that the less engaged the players are, the lower their tolerance.

Tolerance is an unavoidable factor in all games, but you should always try to reduce it where possible. Synchrony and temporany test tolerance in many ways. Largely this is because of the fallibility of individual players, but it’s up to you to remember that players are not ideal and design for that.

Lexulous is a game cited by Jane McGonigal in Reality is Broken as an example of what she calls an asynchronous game with millions of players. Using the basic rules of Scrabble (and originally named Scrabulous), the game was a major hit on Facebook. However, contrary to when Jane wrote her book, it has lost practically all of its 5m users. As have the official versions of Scrabble that followed it.

The reason is Lexulous is synchronous, not asynchronous. Players either forget or don’t want to take their turn, which leaves many individual games orphaned. It’s not fun for other players relying on the forgetful player either, so they are more likely to drift away too. Their tolerance has been reached.

It’s an example of how atemporal synchronous (i.e. turn-based) play can have major issues – but also of how, for the more engaged players of Scrabble, it’s not a problem. All three games may have low MAU, but they have very high engagement rates (35-50%) compared to most other Facebook games. If you love Scrabble, you’ll remember to take your turn.

Another example of how games overcome issues of synchrony and temporany is drop-in/drop-out play in Left 4 Dead. The game is based around cooperative play and, unlike most cooperative shooters, you really can’t just go it alone if other players let you down. If you do you will die.

However the major problem with this design is how players leave or join the game. If the game is reliant on cooperative play then what happens when a player disconnects mid-session?

Left 4 Dead solves this by always being ready to drop an AI character in if a player drops out, and the AI is good enough to make the experience nearly seamless for the remaining players. The AI character is also ready to drop out again if another player wants to join the game. And so tolerance issues are minimised.

What tends to work least well (in terms of tolerance) is designs where players have to depend on each other. In social games the need for scale is paramount for this reason. Similarly, online team sports (such as Football Superstars) also have significant issues because of tolerance.

Generally speaking, the more co-ordinated a group needs to be, the more likely it is to represent only a fraction of players in the game. And if the game is wholly reliant on a co-ordinated group of players, the more likely it is to have a smaller – but passionate – audience.

World of Warcraft is largely played asynchronously, for example, and only a small subset of players get into the guild side of it because it’s a hassle (as satirised wonderfully by The Guild). Texas Hold ‘Em is by far the most popular card game online in part because it’s easy to step in and out of. More serious card games tend to have much smaller audiences.

Finally, easing tolerance is the basis of many freemium business models. In CityVille you can pay for that Marble instead of waiting for your friends to send it, and in Ikariam you can speed your game up by paying. It works because players don’t want the aggravation that comes with waiting, and a small amount of cash seems an easy price to pay in order to get away from busywork and back to having fun.

Conclusion

Fun comes in many forms, and everybody wants to have some. Some of those forms ask more of players than others, however, and some of them have to account for issues of synchrony and temporany in ways that others do not. By clarifying what those two properties are, we are more easily able to see how they interact – and thus account for likely pitfalls in our designs.

So the point of getting the terminology clear is that it makes us better worldmakers.

篇目3,Six degrees of socialisation

By Oscar Clark

This is a guest post from Oscar Clark (@athanateus) Everyplay Evangelist and Author of Games As A Service: How Free To Play Design Can Make Better Games (launching soon)diagram_2

Being playful is an essential part of being human and at its heart we find it’s always been a social activity. Even before we linked Computers together the Video Game had social elements. As a kid whether it was meeting my friends at the local chipshop to play Space Invaders or crashing round each others’ bedrooms to play Elite didn’t matter. The games were a medium for interaction and the trigger of conversation. This was our social glue and I’m sure none of us would have gained as much from playing them without our shared passion.

After working with games communities for 15 years I like to think that I’ve learnt a trick of two about the nature of how social play works. I don’t just mean what we have come to call Social Games; like the long gone Farmville or the still rampant Candy Crush Saga both of which integrated Facebook into the flow of the gameplay. I’ve also spent a lot of my professional life time trying to understand Online Multiplayer games and, as Home Architect of Playstation®Home, virtual worlds.

What I’ve learned is that there is a fundamental misconception of what social play is about and how we can incorporate it into our experiences. To help us understand how this works, let’s consider social interaction in different stages, or Degrees of Socialization. Each of them represents different levels of connection and along with them there are different levels of effort and engagement involved. Yes I said effort. It’s important to realize that every relationship has a balance between effort and reward and if the reward isn’t enough then of course we will leave that relationship. Actually, that turns out not to be quite true. When we study relationships we find that Interdependence Theory shows that it’s more than how satisfied you are in the current relationship, you also have to get more out of an experience than you expect that you could get elsewhere.

Here’s where I have to own up. Interdependence theory is really about our personal relationships and its slightly naughty of me to extrapolate this to social groups. However, from what I have seen from games services I believe the analogy holds remarkably well. More than that I believe this helps us come up with strategies so we can build services which better support social games communities.

The First Degree – “I See You Play”:

When a player downloads your game for the first time they will tend to either be focused on maximizing the value of the purchase they have just made or instead be in that vulnerable ‘Learning’ stage which is associated with FreeToPlay. Players often have yet to decide whether they really want to associate themselves with the game and where the game might make them look bad (e.g. am I skilled enough to play) there may be some caution about shouting about it.

Even in a game like WOW where 34.2% (http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/000192.php) say Making Friends is the most important aspect of the game its seems that around 60% of players prefer to play Solo. Why is this? I Actual socialization requires effort and risks embarrassment; and you might end up talking to an idiot. But, it’s still valuable to play in a socialized context. There is also considerable value seeing that other people are enjoying the same game as you; after all you don’t want to be seen as being alone liking it.

This stage of Socialization is passive, almost voyeuristic, but this it’s still invaluable to help overcome any initial disillusionment which often comes when we start the learning curve. Seeing others also helps foreshadow the future benefits which the game has to offer in a way that no tutorial or developer-led process can.

The Second Degree – “See Me Play”:

Once Players become comfortable with their initial experience of the game and start to feel the allure of the social community they will often become more open to sharing their experience with other players as well as their friends. The motivations vary of course and it’s often interesting to see how finding like-minded people can be just as important than locating real-life friends. It’s not unusual for players to communicate in a broadcasting style than involving any ‘real’ interaction. For example it might be having an avatar that wears an expensive outfit or ‘Liking’ some particular aspect of the game; perhaps even uploading a gameplay video (as long as the game makes this frictionless like with the Everyplay SDK). Generally at this stage we don’t expect or even perhaps want to open up a dialog.

Of course all of this still requires a little more effort on the part of the player than when they were anonymous and for some this feels risky; by putting yourself out there. However, the payoff is the knowledge that someone else might see how clever or good I am, whether they actually see me or not. That makes my actions in the game and importantly the purchases I make feel more important to me. It adds a level of social capital. Interestingly during my time at Playstation Mobile and (perhaps more directly) Papaya mobile we saw that the ability to be seen in a game had a noticeable effect on the willingness of players to spend money in a game (often initially on cosmetic items) and more often than not seems to have been the initial trigger for Players who would later spend more than $100/month. Curiously few Whales continued buying cosmetic items and largely seemed to focus on goods to improve their performance in the game, however to be honest there wasn’t enough of a sample size to know if this was statistically significant.

The Third Degree – “I Beat Your Score”:

We move towards simple communication as we enter the Third Degree. By this point players have probably become truly engaged with the game and accepted it as part of how they spend their free time and play regularly; perhaps even paying already. Whilst their communication is now generally two way, it may still be fairly simple. For example comparing highscores and achievement with their real-life friends or getting advice from other players. Their relative progress starts to become important even if only a minority of player are really focused on direct competition. However, there is often some kind of bragging element to this (imagine that) from high scores to leveling up, however this is more about players giving themselves a reason to keep returning, playing and tentatively interacting with other players in-game. The classic one in the MMO was the shout out ‘Ding!’ to other players in your location when you leveled up. It was a way to share your progress with others even if you didn’t know them and it was usually rewarded with a number of people sending their congratulations; perhaps leading to grouping up. I remember playing a more recent MMO, perhaps SWTOR, and people were still saying ‘Ding!’ despite the audio cue being a fanfare.

The Fourth Degree – “Lets Collaborate”:

As we build out engagement and reinforce our confidence in the game and the community we start being more willing to get involved. Indeed some games set this into motion early on. Getting involved with an ‘Alliance’ or ‘Faction’ can even become an essential part of the Tutorial not least because it is usually rapidly rewarding with help and advice from real humans it can build engagement very rapidly.

This leads us to try deeper forms of collaboration and we even start to expect a level of reciprocation from other players. In some games this is fairly simple, such as visiting a friends Farm or playing the same map of an FPS game. There may well be some competition between players but that’s not really the point. At this Degree we are increasingly relying on the involvement of others to get the enjoyment out of the game. There is a design dilemma we should be aware of however. If we introduce social interaction too early we risk putting off some players; but if we don’t demonstrate the value of transitioning to social play, perhaps even forcing the issue, many players will simply not do it and we will lose out of the benefits of social engagement. It requires a much greater level of effort to engage in collaborative play and this requires that players (and the game developer) nurture those relationships. Otherwise these communities can quickly collapse.

The Fifth Degree – “Go Head-to-Head”:

Until now we have largely been talking about simple communications and essentially asynchronous interactions. However, as we enter the Fifth degree the idea of a player’s virtual presence starts to become an increasingly important aspect and at the same time we often see the focus being more directly competitive; if not necessarily synchronous. Think about the level of commitment to a game, and even training, it takes to take on a group of expert players in Call of Duty. Similarly if you want to participate in a Raid in WOW other players will expect you to be able to play your part and know what to do. There is a vast difference in terms of experience when you play real people and players of games which have an offline mode will often discover that their offline experience is essentially irrelevant online. A critical mass of users is essential to sustain an experience like this and this will inevitably skew your user-base toward players already pre-disposed to the game (and genre). We can’t ignore who are audience is, but we should also try to understand how we help as many players as possible engage with the game at this social level. Too many games ignore the effort needed and the social risks involved and this damages their market potential.

Look at how games like SuperCell have been careful to craft the learning curve, building up players skills as well as their engagement before exposing players to the Superfan gameplay.

The Sixth Degree – “We Are Guild”:

The last stage of socialization takes us to the point where the social experience becomes more important than the game itself; the game becomes merely the chosen method of communication. At this stage players use manage and schedule their experiences together. The real-world connections they make through their clan or guild can be highly rewarding, but the effort needed to sustain them is equally high. It’s probably not a surprise that many a divorce, marriage and affair have happened as a result of people connection through playing with guilds. Only the most dedicated of player groups will sustain them, but these are the same groups who’ll be your greatest asset, if you let them. Given the right in-game tools, loyal players will provide the social “glue” you need to sustain interest from less committed players.

It’s the Journey; Not the Destination

The model is something I’ve built through observation and some data, but it’s a way of thinking rather than a formula. What it sets out to do it to encourage designers to think of Social interactions as a series of stages, just like the Player Lifecycle, social engagement is a journey not a destination. By remembering Interdependence Theory we hopefully have the right mindset when we consider the forces which sustain or break our social playing groups. It takes effort to sustain a community, like trying to balance an upside-down pyramid on its point. The weight of the more committed users risks overbalancing everything else. They are the most loyal, but you can’t assume they will be around forever and you can’t design the game just for those players needs alone; without taking players with you through the different degrees you will never sustain the critical balance.

But if we get this right we unlock the power of our players to welcome and help engage other players and to make our experience even more meaningful. Not because of what we created as a game; but because we empowered our players to be able to communicate through our game. That’s when Socialisation becomes magical.


上一篇:

下一篇: