篇目1，从度量和参数角度来权衡游戏的乐趣

艺术和创意领域存在普遍模式，尤其是对于考古、艺术保护、心理学或医学而言，它们既依靠一定直觉，同时也存在某种“正确答案”或“最佳方式”。其发展过程如下：

1. 实践者将他们的领域看作“软科学”；他们并不知道最佳原则或实践。他们最终会把握事情的运作方式，但这多半是通过反复试验。

2. 有人创造某种技术，其从算法上解决许多相关问题。实践者颇为高兴。最终，这变成硬科学。我们无需再进行猜测。许多传统实践者摒弃“传统方式”，将“技术”视作解决行 业问题的方式。而保守派则认为这对传统制作方式构成威胁，持怀疑态度看待。

3. 经过广泛应用后，技术的局限性变得显而易见。实践者发现他们所进行的工作依然包含神秘和情感元素，虽然总有一天技术会解决此问题，但这天非常遥远。广大业内人士之所 以瞬间醒悟是因为人们不再相信自己的直觉，因为从理论角度看，技术在此表现更突出，但人们之所以不信任当前技术是因为其实现效果尚不那么明显。在年轻人士看来，这并没 有他们想象中那般万能；而保守派人士表示，其所起的作用比他们想象的显著。

4. 最终，大家会习惯于这样的模式：他们清楚什么元素能够由计算机程序完成，什么元素需要真正的人类创意思维，随着各优质元素的相互结合，行业变得日益强大（游戏邦注： 但掌握什么元素最适合由人类完成，什么适合留给电脑操作是个学习过程，需耗费一定时间）。

目前，游戏设计刚步入第二步。我们逐渐听到越来越多人谈论参数和数据分析之所以能够拯救他们的公司的原因所在。我们开始发现能够在玩家充分掌握应用知识前通过瞄准玩家 模式解决游戏平衡问题的MMO内容。我们听说Zynga通过将字体由红色调成粉色，吸引更多玩家体验其游戏。如今行业还出现专门帮助开发者获取和分析参数信息的专业公司。行业 开始着迷于参数，但我猜测未来至少有一家完全依靠参数的公司会以失败告终，到那时局面就会发生变化，他们过于执着于数据，完全忘记有些用户体验行为无法通过参数体现。 或者也许不会出现这种情况。

无论如何，如今关于参数的运用，业内存在3种派别：

* 传统Zynga模式：设计完全基于参数。无论你讨厌，还是喜欢，Zynga庞大的MAUU（monthly active unique user）就足以证实这种这种模式的效果。

* Zynga模式反对派：参数容易被误读，被操纵，因此非常危险，弊大于利。假设你衡量用户行为，发现很多玩家点击登陆页面，而非进行其他游戏操作，这并不意味着你应该在游 戏中融入更多登陆页面（游戏邦注：认为说玩家进行此操作就意味着此内容极富趣味）。若你的设计采用参数，你就会将自己局限于仅凭参数设计的内容，错过众多有趣的电子游 戏类型。

* 中间派：参数有其价值，它们帮你调节游戏，发现特定趣味“高潮点”。通过这些信息，你能够将原本颇突出的作品变得更杰出，它们帮你挖掘临近设计空间。但直觉也起到一 定的作用；有时你需要大步跨至尚未开拓的领域，寻找总体“高潮点”，单凭参数无法让你到达此处，因为有时特定趣味性的实现会以牺牲其他趣味为代价，参数无法帮我们判断 出这一点。

假设你将在游戏中设置一些度量指标，以便你能够更好地进行数据分析并保持游戏的平衡。那么你真正需要衡量的内容到底是什么？通常人们会从两个角度出发。一些人会记录下 任何能想到的内容，执行的是先记下再思考的方法。这些人认为比起仅收集一些重要信息，发现不足后再重做测试，他们宁愿先收集更多信息。

还有一些人认为“记录下任何内容”从理论上讲并没有错，但是实际上，面对如此堆积着的外部信息，如果你真的要找到一些有用的信息，那还真的如大海捞针般困难了；并且更 糟糕的是，所有的这些收集信息中可能根本就不存在与你所要找的内容相关的信息。基于这种思维，你将会先思考自己在下一次游戏测试时需要哪些内容，适度衡量，如此便不会 在后来的执行过程中感到迷茫了。

所以你应该明确自己到底适合哪种方法。

我认为做出不同选择主要取决于你所拥有的资源。如果你是和几个朋友一起在Flash上制作一款小型的商业游戏，你可能没有太多时间进行广泛的数据挖掘，所以你最好能够尽快找 到那些对自己有用的信息，而如果后来出现了一些问题要求你使用未收集到的信息进行解决，那么你便可以在游戏中添加更多参数度量指标。而如果你是在一家拥有许多精算统计 学家的大公司，这些统计学家每天的工作便是寻找任何相关数据，那么你就可以省去数据收集这项繁琐的工作，并将更多精力和时间投入于其它任务中。

你需要衡量哪些特定内容？

不管是“只收集我们需要的”还是“尽可能收集所有信息”，这两种方法都不属于真正的游戏设计。有时候你需要真正明确自己需要衡量的到底是什么。

就像游戏设计本身，度量指标也是一个二阶问题。你想从游戏中挖掘出的大多数问题其实并不能直接通过测量而得，而应该尽可能地找出那些重要的内容，并对此进行衡量。

例子：乐趣难以衡量

让我们以单人Flash游戏为例。你总是想知道一款游戏是否有趣，但是我们却很难直接衡量游戏的乐趣。而与乐趣相关并且你能够测量的内容是什么？即玩家是否持续长时间游戏， 是否坚持到游戏最后并获得了许多成就，是否多次回到游戏中继续游戏（特别是尽管他们“失败”了也仍然继续重新游戏）等等，这些都是你可以衡量的内容。但是你也需要记住 ，这些并不是绝对相关内容；因为玩家重新回到游戏中可能基于多种原因，如你设置了庄稼枯萎机制以惩罚未重返游戏的玩家等。但是至少我们可以肯定，玩家愿意继续游戏肯定 是有原因的，而对于我们来说这些原因便是需要挖掘的重要信息。更重要的是，如果很多玩家同时在游戏的在某一时刻停止并未再次回到游戏中，那么你就要思考是否这部分游戏 内容不够有趣或者为何玩家会在此终止游戏（游戏邦注：如果玩家“终止”游戏的位置是在游戏末尾，有可能是因为他们感受到了游戏的乐趣，并最终获胜，但是游戏却未有其它 吸引力能够让他们重新挑战。所有的这些都需要视情形而定。）

玩家的使用模式使也很重要，因为不论他们是否选择游戏，玩游戏的频率怎以及游戏时间长度等都是与他们对游戏的满意程度有关。在那些要求玩家在固定时间后回返的游戏中， 我们经常能够看到月活跃独立用户（Monthly Active Uniques，简称MAU）以及日活跃独立用户（Daily Active Uniques，简称DAU）这两个术语。“活跃”是个很重要的定义，因 为如此你能够避免将那些已经不玩游戏的僵尸用户帐号也计算在内。“独立”这一词也很重要，因为我们并不能把每天登录10次《FarmVille》的独立用户算作10个用户。而这时候 你可能会认为月和日的算法的同等的，只要将以日计算的数值乘以30就可以获得以月计算的数值，但是实际上从用户流失率角度来看，这两个数值是完全不同的概念。所以如果你 能够明确区分MAU与DAU，你便能够清晰地看到游戏中有多少新玩家以及多少回头玩家。

举个例子来说，你拥有一款用户粘性较强的游戏，但是只有较低的用户基础，也就是只有100来名的玩家，但是所有的玩家每天至少都会登录游戏一次。这时候你的游戏MAU就是100 ，而平均的DAU也是100，所以游戏的MAU/DAU就是1。再假设如果你的游戏玩家玩了一次游戏后便不会再回到游戏中，但是你拥有强大的市场营销策略，所以每天都能够吸引100名新 玩家，但是他们也是玩了一次游戏后不会再回头的那种类型。这时候你的平均DAU也仍然是100，但是MAU却变成了3000，所以MAU/DAU比值是30。所以MAU/DAU的变化幅度将在1至28 ，30或31之间浮动（这里的数值取决于每月天数的变化）。

注意：许多度量指标（如Facebook所提供的），便是使用不同方法去计算各种数据，所以一般情况看来，每一套数据的衡量标准其实是不同的。举个例子来说，我曾经看过一个网 站罗列出了100款拥有“最糟糕”MAU/DAU比值的应用，但是说实话这些数据却不应该出现在一起，因为它们可能是来自不同媒体基于不同标准而得出的衡量结果。有些人以百分比 ，即平均数计算一天中玩家的登录数，而这个数值能够从最低点的3.33%（即每天有1/30的月活跃玩家登录游戏）延伸到100%（即所有的月活跃用户玩家每天都会登录游戏）。这是 通过DAU/MAU（而不是MAU/DAU）比值乘以100而获得的百分比。所以当你在任何分析网站上看到这些数值，都要先明确他们的计算方法，以便你不会盲目地将不同层面的内容进行比 较。

为什么我们需要了解这些数值？首先，如果一款游戏拥有较高的玩家回头率，那就说明它是一款好游戏。其次，这也意味着你能够从游戏中获得收益，因为你每天都能够让相同的 人在游戏中驻足——就像是经营实体店时，如果顾客一次流连于橱窗外并未购买任何东西，那就算了，而如果同一位顾客每天都会来看同一样商品，那么最终他便有可能花钱买下 这件商品。

难度衡量

类似于趣味性，游戏难度也是个本质上无法直接衡量的东西，但是你可以衡量进程和失败进展。进程衡量根据游戏的不同而不同。

对于向Retro街机游戏等呈现基于技能的挑战的游戏而言，你可以衡量玩家通过每个关卡所花费的时间，每个关卡中的角色死亡次数。更为重要的是，要了解他们死亡的地点和原因 。收集这些信息使你可以很容易地找到游戏中最困难的地方在哪里以及是否存在打乱难度曲线的内容。我知道Valve就采取这种措施来跟踪他们的FPS游戏，他们还有个可视化工具 ，不仅能够显示出所有上述信息，还能够在关卡的地图上显示出具体位置，这样你便可以看到玩家在哪些地方死亡率较高。有趣的是，从《半条命2：第2章》开始，他们允许玩家 将实时报告上传到他们的服务器上，而且他们将指标显示在公开页面上（游戏邦注：这或许对之前提到的盗版问题有所帮助，因为玩家自己就可以看到上传的东西及其使用情况） 。

衡量游戏平衡性

假如你想知道游戏是否平衡，那要怎么办呢？这也是个无法直接衡量的东西。但是，你可以跟踪任何与玩家、动作或游戏中物品相关的数字，这会告诉你许多有关普通玩法以及战 略、物品和其他内容间的相对平衡的信息。

比如，假设在你的战略游戏中，每个玩家每回合可以从4种不同的动作中选择1种，而且你有数量化跟踪每个玩家回合持续时间的方法。你可以记录在每个回合中，每个玩家做出了 何种动作及其对玩家各自在游戏中的持续时间的影响。

或者说，假设你拥有的是玩家可自行建造船只的CCG，或每个玩家可自行选择战斗者的战争游戏，或玩家可自行选择派别的RTS，或玩家可自行选择种族及职业组合的MMO及桌面RPG 游戏。无论你面对的是何种游戏，你都可以跟踪最抢手和最不受待见的选择，还可以跟踪哪些选择与最终获胜的关联性最高。应当注意的是，以上两个跟踪的内容并非总是相同，有些东西因外观出众和易于使用而深受所有人的喜爱，但他们仍然有可能被经验丰富并且善出奇招的玩家所击败。有时，玩家需要数个月乃至数年时间，历经数万次游戏体验才能 形成主流策略。《万智牌：旅法师对决》中的Necropotence卡牌在发布后将近半年的时间里无人问津，直到某些顶尖玩家弄清楚如何有效地使用。这张卡牌产生的效果很复杂而且 令人费解，但是一旦人们开始尝试使用，他们发现它是最强大的卡牌之一。因而，流行度和与胜利的关联度都是可用来衡量游戏平衡的指标。

如果某个游戏物品的使用率大大超过你的预期值，那么就标志着可能存在潜在的游戏平衡问题。这种现象或许还意味着，某些其他原因导致该物品对目标受众产生更大的吸引力。 比如，在玄幻游戏中，你或许会惊奇地发现，选择精灵族的玩家比选择人类的玩家更多，事实上这与游戏的平衡问题无关。在某些游戏中，流行度能够体现出某种玩法风格与其他 相比更为有趣，而且有时你可以采取一定措施将流行度转移向其他角色、职业或卡片上，提升游戏的整体趣味性。

如果某个游戏物品的使用率远低于期望值，或许意味着它的效能过低或成本过高。但是，还可能意味着它只是用起来不十分有趣而已，即便该物品效果出众。或者，还可能意味着 它的使用过于复杂，相对游戏的其他物品来说有着过高的学习曲线，因而玩家并不愿意过早地尝试使用这件物品（游戏邦注：不可单纯凭借游戏测试者的行为便做出判断，因为测 试者很经常忽视某些物品的存在，将其弃之不顾）。

除了游戏物品外，指标还可以用在其他的方面。比如，用来衡量起点不对称性，首先做出动作的玩家很可能占有优势或处于下风。收集大量与顺序编排相关的数据，将其与最终的 结果想比较。这种做法在职业游戏和运动中并不少见。比如，统计学家已计算出美式足球的主场优势在2.3分左右，《象棋》中先手优势为6.5至7.5分。《卡坦岛》锦标赛数据显示 ，4人游戏中的第2个行动的玩家仅占有微弱的优势，通常情况下完全可以忽略不计。但是要得出如此有份量且令人信服的数据，就必须统计大量的比赛场次数据。

游戏设计与伦理

这里所考虑的伦理问题指的是，这些指标注重的都是玩家的行为，但它们并没有考虑到对玩家生活的影响。有些游戏被人指责是无耻地操控和利用人类心理中的已知弱点，让玩家 不断玩游戏并支付金钱。Facebook游戏在这个方面表现尤为突出，它们对指标的利用已经大大超过其他类型的游戏。现在，上述内容听起来似乎很荒诞，因为我们一直将玩游戏视 为自愿行为，所以游戏“囚禁玩家”听起来似乎是个很诡异的想法。从另一方面来看，任何你投入大量时间来玩的游戏，你都在其中投入了自己的情感，而这种情感投资也是带有 货币化价值的。我认为游戏会让你为它花钱，如果你觉得这种想法很愚蠢的话，那么就看看以下这个例子。假设我发现你所有游戏存档的存放之处，比如主机内存卡或硬盘以及PC 硬盘驱动器。对于网络游戏来说，你的“游戏存档”位于某些公司的服务器上。然后，假设我威胁要摧毁所有存档。不过你无需担心，我只是更换硬件而已。也就是说，有人愿意 免费更换你的硬盘驱动器和主机内存卡，为你提供订阅的所有网络游戏的全新账户。接下来，假设我问你，你愿意支付多少金钱来让我打消计划。我敢打赌，你肯定愿意花点钱解 决问题。原因就在于，那些游戏存档对你来说有一定的价值！假设有款游戏威胁称，如果你不购买额外的可下载内容，就要删除你的所有存档，那么你肯定会考虑付费购买。原因 不在于你想要获得那些额外的内容，而在于你不希望失去自己的存档。

公平地说，所有游戏都会操控玩家的心理，电影、书籍和所有其他媒体也是如此。对多数人来说，这并不会构成问题，他们依然会将游戏体验本身视为生活的附加值。

但是游戏对生活价值的增加和减少值并非恒久不变，它如同难度曲线那样因人而异。这就是为何我们会看到，诸如MMO之类的游戏既能够提升数百万订阅者的生活乐趣，也会导致少 部分人因沉迷游戏而失去婚姻和家庭等惨剧的发生，有些人甚至因为无暇顾及身体机能的基本需求而死于电脑屏幕之前。

所以，如何保持玩家能够在伦理界线之内健康地玩游戏和花费金钱，就成了个需要考虑的问题，那些主要由以金钱指标为主的游戏更是如此。

篇目2，分析现有游戏中常见的对乐趣元素的解构

我们甚至不知道一款解构不出（或者相对单一）乐趣成分的游戏是否能够持续获得用户的深度认可，哪怕现在的网页游戏中最受诟病的点鼠标看过场动画（如果前面这块烦人的进程能够一键跳过或许能够获得更多的支持）最终的意图也是晋升到特定的级别以获得除此之外能够让玩家尽可能舒展发挥自己能动价值的游戏解锁环节（比如帮会组织、竞技场），从而衍生出能够持久沉浸其中的游戏乐趣来。Final Fantasy的角色设计师Tetsuya Nomura在论述游戏目标的时候将开发者付出努力的价值诉求定义为创造和更新可期待的乐趣，而PopCap的Giordano Bruno Contestabile在GDC China论坛上则直接称趣味性是游戏的核心元素（尽管乐趣的定义从开发者研制的角度或者从用户感受获取的角度都相对含糊，甚至我们并不能否认有些玩家哪怕只要有唯美的画面、Q萌可爱的造型亦或者听起来恬静悦耳的循环音效或者一点故事性的伪装就有足够的赏析情怀）。

之于现有的态势而言，可以预估在2013年基于键盘和技能操作的动作类角色扮演游戏、基于资源选项和策略布局的战争策略游戏以及基于概率和简单循环规则的博彩游戏将有可能成为玩家最为青睐的三个着手兴趣点。而这三个概念则可以依次剥离出：

角色扮演

角色扮演一般可以区分为三层不同的释义：其一是在游戏中有一个特定的角色形象替代玩家在虚拟游戏世界中驰骋，这个形象有一个独有排他的身份象征并以此和游戏以外的操作者产生互联关系（一定意义上操作者是根据游戏已经设定好的角色定位大体范畴走的，玩家能够发挥自我能动属性的空间相对有限，特别是当A玩家突然想起自己所操作的角色在被赋以各种无所不能的神力和光怪陆离的遭遇之后，其实所产生的那种境遇和心理满足感和B玩家并没有多大的差别，此时玩家被灌输的无限使命感突然就不再那么崇高了，同样的荣誉几乎同时戴在了千千万万不同类型的玩家身上）；其二是玩家的情感和意义轨迹操纵在游戏中的投射代理（尽管看起来类似于其一所描述的附属补充，事实上玩家在游戏中的所谓投射是更为情感化的，玩家在游戏中被界定为独特化的形象，而这个形象的一举一动虽然是程序行为但是更多被认为是和幕后的操作者直接相关联，特别是在PVP的状况下更是攸关操作者在游戏中的声誉和价值）；其三是虚拟和现实交融的串联者，更多情况下玩家在当刻被认为是暂时疏离现实而沉浸在另外一个数字化的世界（在这个世界中角色被赋以了各种天赋和使命而这在现实生活中一般是不可能具备的，这种释放感驱动了玩家更乐意在这样的环境中呼风唤雨，直到有一天和他有着完全相同经历的其他玩家因为消费力的差异或者时间投入的差异，搅碎了他沉浸的美梦，让所有人都明白这里依然是一个典型的弱肉强食的环境，仍然面临着强势的竞争和不投入就被欺凌的可预见的未来）。

对操作感的追寻

在相当长一段时间的纯鼠标愉悦（比如大量的在线游戏是依赖鼠标引导和按钮点击完成游戏进程的，即便是PVE或者PVP层面的战斗也是以回合制的技能自循环或者过场动画数值比照完成的）之后，对操作感追寻回归的横版格斗游戏开始流行起来（移动端因为设备性能的提升已经出现大量动作类游戏，在PC端的网页游戏层面也已经开始介入键盘操控的强需求，典型的诸如街机三国，尽管只是在以前回合数值比照中加入了具有可选项的即时动作PK，整体进程同样提供了纯电脑计算的托管行为，但终究纯依赖鼠标点击的方式已经完成改变，操作打击感也成为了玩家体验游戏的乐趣追求），最为直接的表现是用户的追捧和开服量的快速飙升，同样也表现为不俗的充值收益（在原先角色扮演的基础上，加入角色键盘动作操控，给以玩家在竞技场当刻淋漓尽致的搏击体验，尽管出招动作一般是技能化和固定化的，参与格斗几次多少就有审美疲劳袭来）。

社交层面

很多人会把游戏所建构的虚拟社区交互层面无限拔高为某种含义的归属感（甚者离开这种氛围还会产生一定程度的失落感），但终究由一款游戏所凝聚的不管是熟人关系还是新友关系都必然会在一个阶段的生命周期后自然走向衰竭，至于衰竭的原因不是我们日常思虑的越来越多的朋友因为各种节点聚合在一起并且越来越巩固以致不仅满意社区也满意游戏所带来的纽带效应，事实上基于游戏的关系链只是随着游戏设置上下波动的临时框架，任何一个玩家只要觉得游戏的乐趣满足不了自己的需求就必然将这种关系链衍化为第二或者第三个优先级而被有意无意抛弃（尽管有些玩家离开游戏会眷恋曾经社区的兄弟情谊之类的，但是再好的社区关系也挡不住一个玩家对乐趣不再的游戏的抛弃，而首要的是在PVE中的每次协作对战强敌是否还存在再延续一次的可能或者在PVP中能否产生屡次再循环的价值）。

当然，诸如社交游戏在游戏性偏弱的状况下，关系链是游戏留存度最核心的牵制力，而好友的流失可能一定程度上立马放大了部分游戏在单机体验方面的弱势而失去再娱乐下去的乐趣点造成了被流失（如果关系链存在，玩家可能还能乐此不彼地体验下去）。

挑战和成就意识

在目前的游戏环境下，一般的挑战和进阶手段可区分为六种：其一是对游戏难度进行预先分级（比如区分为Easy、Normal和Hard），由玩家自愿选择供应挑战的难度级数（一般只是从数值上进行区隔，比如对战AI的智能程度，单次打击对数值的消耗程度）；其二是对单次体验进行成就分级（比如区分为挑战失败和挑战成功，后者在成功的大基础上又为成就做了级差，比如应付自如的通关或者狼狈不堪的通关在玩家的心里满足上是存在差异的），给予玩家技能再学习再重复体验以晋升更高星级的机会；其三是联机比照（比如各种综合排行榜和分项指标排行榜），从单次和历史累积等多个角度将不同玩家的成就放置到一个类比的平台区分出优劣以驱动优胜者跑得更快，滞后者以各种方式获得再进步；其四是单一游戏玩家的内比照，主要的环节包括玩家角色本身的等级提升、装备提升、装饰布局、资源累积和各种设限环节的解锁使用；其五是玩家间的外比较，主要涉及同屏多名玩家的差异比照（比如同屏玩家的装备差异、级别差异，甚至包括PVE或者PVP竞技比照中的实力差异）；其六为成就类型差异，可分为两层，一则为依赖玩家的时间投入、精力专注和技巧实施获得的成就进阶，一则为依赖游戏付费作弊快速获得额外的成就进阶，前者获得真实体验成就后者获得比较优越感成就。

收集嗜好

有时候和奖励（细心的玩家可能会发现在目前的部分游戏中，游戏奖励被按照步骤区分得异常仔细，而每一次的奖励环节又剥离为不同的类别分开呈现，给玩家带来了视觉和错觉上的极大满足感）一样，游戏的收集机制也正在发挥相似的效能让玩家沉浸在对不同物品（卡片、道具、装饰物、游戏币种）的收集、归纳以及合成再使用的迷恋中，特别是当部分收集物（或者其再合成物）具有特别的效用时更能引发玩家的热衷投入（如果这些收集物在和其他的玩家PK时有强大的助力功能或者帮助玩家恢复生命值时则可能更为疯狂了）。

即使哪怕这些收集物本身并不具有强大的能量而仅仅只是一个标注符号，作为玩家在游戏的体验进程中看到有怪物掉落物或者隐藏物品现身，首先的反映本能就是拾获再进入背包（即使明知道这些物品价值性有限，但是举手之劳的事情没有做而其他的玩家一旦都这样做了，就有缺憾感，甚至有顾虑觉得这样是不是会对以后自身的发展带来不合适的负面影响）。

探索属性

固然很多玩家自己是明白的，在大量页游的前面几十级熟悉世界的进程中玩家只需要跟着系统的提示引导点击鼠标即可轻易自动激活游戏设置的部分属性，但是偶尔玩家还是会很想知道假设如果不点击引导确认按钮让角色跟着游戏的预设环节向前发展而是停下系统驱动按照自己的意愿去引导角色做些特别的动作会发生什么样的状况（当然最终的结果还是必然按照系统的引导才能够向下一个阶段进发）。系统设置对于每一个玩家都是相似的，如果能够因为暂时别离系统而独立停下来而发现了开发者没有事先预想的环节，这之于这些好奇的玩家该是如何振奋的事情（在现有游戏中因为情节和场景图例已经预先匹配，能够留存的幻想空间其实是相当有限的，玩家脱离预设环节的作为很难带来足够的新奇和收获）。

Raph Koster（A Theory of Fun for Game Design作者）就认为游戏中存在一定玩家不会自动理解（或者不需要思考就被动接受的部分）的层面就会驱动玩家的探索好奇而引发更大的游戏吸引力。

个性化自定义

如果一个屏幕上有50个玩家在活动，其中有40个造型（配饰、装备）完全一样（当然另外10个可能是其他一个同类造型），我们就基本区分不出哪一个是属于自己的角色，只能按照移位的方式从人群中跑到一个人少的方位再按照附属的角色名称去判别（这个还要归功于地图上不是挤得满满当当的情况下），尽管自定义个性化造型在既定的素材库中可能还是非常有局限性，但相比于更有限的少量选择，个性化的自定义从两个层面有力改善了这一困局：一个是让玩家的自有形象更符合玩家的装扮意图（不管是挖掘玩家自身的创造力还是进一步开放游戏的付费系统都有裨益）；一个是提升玩家游戏角色形象的高识别度，不至于在人群中一个疏失就再也找不到自己的方位（当然将角色移动下是很好的判别方式，但如果能不移动就能有效区分是否会变得更为理想）。

控制欲

一般游戏中呈现出来的控制欲可直接区分为四种：其一是玩家要全面掌控自己的游戏角色（包括附属在角色形象之上的所有的衍生物），不容许自己的发出指令遭遇否决（诸如游戏延时、游戏BUG或者在游戏的格斗环节中力不从心甚至被其他的玩家击败都能够让处于满分控制欲中的玩家暴跳如雷）；其二是成为帮会团队组织发号施令的领衔者（包括虚拟的声望和帮会地位），以及在团队PK中的强者形象；其三是游戏角色在游戏进程中的地位，这个位置包括综合指标和分项指标的排行榜中是否有自己的立足之地，自身的装备和等级是否在游戏的对抗和展示中具有统治力和话语权；其四是对失败（包括死亡）的恐惧延伸出来的对自身实力的苛求（不管是同服的还是跨服的），力争在直接PK和间接比照中都能够立于不败之地（对失败的恐惧和对抗衡的实力控制导致了玩家更乐意接受虚拟的付费作弊而获得额外的竞技优势）。

故事沉浸

几乎每一款游戏都有自己的故事，但往往因为题材的限制关系，大半的故事又几乎大同小异，诸如以四大名著为首的各种游戏改编（典型的三国题材，各种可歌可泣的战役，各种缠绵悱恻的儿女情长已经被千万遍地雷同演绎了），在所有人都耳熟能详的情况下再让玩家以新鲜的当事者假装因此宏大的故事而欣喜不已并不是件现实的事情（在页游中，可以肯定，很多的故事性情节描述的对话是被快速跳过的）。但不可否认，每一则故事都需要一个背景（比如三国的背景就意味着玩家的命运在战场上，而修仙的背景则意味着玩家的命运在各种奇遇和鬼魅的消灭战斗上），并以此来引导玩家的投入方向（设置游戏故事能够带给玩家一种使命感，我甚至还听说有人只是为了知道故事结局而玩游戏的）。

基于此，我们可以综述地引用行业内一句无比知名的话语做结：有趣带来沉迷（时间和精力投入）；沉迷带来持续和各种可能（比如引荐新的玩家，在游戏中的超额消费）。

篇目3，阐述游戏乐趣vs.满足感的定义与区别

作者：psychochild

游戏应该有趣。当游戏中出现不怎么有趣的、应该删除的东西时，往往会得到玩家这样的评论。为什么游戏开发者会愚蠢到留下这种没人觉得有趣的系统呢？或者，为什么那些免费游戏中存在“花钱赢”的策略，迫使玩家付钱避开不怎么有趣的部分？

为什么游戏中存在表面上看起来没什么意思的东西呢？这是有原因的，因为那些部分往往是让玩家产生长期满足感的原因。我们来探讨一下游戏中的满足感及其重要性。

出于本文的目的，我认为读者不必纠结于我所说的“乐趣”的定义。我不打算正式地定义乐趣，因为那太难了。但我认为你的“乐趣”概念还不至于复杂到影响你理解我的论点。

单维度的评估

单纯地从“乐趣”层面来评估游戏的方方面面，会出现问题。即使你把乐趣当成一种持续状态，而不是一种二元状态，人们也总是想要“更多乐趣”，这似乎是自然而然的事。想象一下在某个电视广告上，有人问一群小孩“你想要更多还是更少的乐趣？”再想象他们会怎么回答。

Azuriel曾经发表关于“即时满足与乐趣投资”的文章，其中区分比较了能立即产生乐趣的东西和必须投入时间才能产生乐趣的东西。该文章认为，为了获得乐趣而在某事物上有所投入，这个某事物本身必须是有趣的。这个解释太过强调从单个层面看待“乐趣”。

我们以制作《Magic: the Gathering》的牌组为例。 Azuriel认为制作牌组是必要的，但仍是这个过程中有趣的部分。这个说法具有普遍的正确性吗？我认为，能从制作牌组中发现乐趣的玩家应该是喜欢这款游戏更长时间的人。预设牌组的存在表明，这个过程并非对所有人来说、在所有情况下都是有趣的；有时候你确实只想马上开始玩。

对我而言，制作牌组的部分乐趣来自在游戏中玩那个牌组的期望。对于以前没有玩过游戏（且没有看过指导手册）的人，虽然他可能喜欢牌组的美术设计，但我很怀疑他是否会不由自主地选择从制作牌组中寻找乐趣。再进一步推导：如果只允许某些人制作牌组而不让他们玩游戏，他们是否还会觉得那个过程有趣？有些人可能仍然觉得有趣，但我认为大部分人会觉得极其无聊。

是的，凡事总有例外。我喜欢收集RPG中的角色，即使我从来没有玩过他们。我喜欢探索我玩得并不怎么认真的游戏的系统。但是，像我这样的人毕竟只是少数。这就是为什么我想用另一种方式描述制作有趣的《Magic: the Gathering》牌组时的感受。

添加另一个维度

所以，为什么制作牌组对某些人来说是“有趣的”？我认为“满足感”就是答案。制作一个好的牌组是件技术活：需要知道如何玩这款游戏、如何组合牌、概率等等。制作牌组体现了对这些技术的精通程度，玩家在掌握这些技术中收获满足感。这还有另一个预期因素在起作用：想像你释放一种牌组时会发生什么事，以及抽牌时如何壮观。

当你在实际的游戏中玩这个牌组时，你会产生连续的满足感。如果你做的牌组很好，那么你会因为它丰富了玩法而感到更加满足。我认为这种满足感与玩游戏过程中产生的乐趣是不同的，但又存在密切的联系。

为了更加清楚地看到满足感的作用，请考虑以下三种情况：第一，给你有限的、随机的牌制作牌组；第二，你可以使用任何牌来制作牌组；第三，给你一个预制好的、能获胜的牌组，不允许你做任何调整。然后，你开始玩游戏，并且你在这三种情况下都取胜了。哪一种情形会让你得到最大的满足感？对我而言，这三种情况对我的技术要求越高，我从中得到的满足感就越大。越是让人产生满足感的情形就要求玩家付出越多努力。

尽管与“乐趣”一样，每个人对“满足感”的定义都有所不同。也许有人更乐意得到无数张牌，而不是有限的牌。或者在RPG中，我可能从有序的任务中找到满足感，而有些人则认为那是多余的工作。你可能因为短时间内升到最高级而感到满足，而我认为那是过分追求结果，而享受不了过程。还是那句话，一个标准并非处处适用。

短期vs.长期

对大部分人而言，乐趣往往稍纵即逝，但满足感却长久存在。想像一下在某种活动中，你感到有趣，但并没有产生太多满足感。我们假设你是在和一些朋友玩一款桌面游戏，但没有激烈的竞争或确定的胜利。玩这款游戏你可能会觉得有趣，但第二天，你可能并不会记得太多细节：“是啊，很有趣。”一周以后，你所谓的“有趣”很可能已经对你的生活毫无意义了。至多，你期望再次体验到那种“有趣”罢了。

现在再想象在另一种活动中，你不觉得有趣，但感到非常满足。显然，这种活动就像大学毕业一样成为你的人生里程碑，朝目标前进的过程虽然不太有趣，但往往让你产生强烈的满足感。再举一个更详细的例子：写一篇帮助巩固游戏设计概念的博文。书写过程可能会有趣，但与玩《边境之地2》相比，有趣程度就差多了。但是，哪一件事能让我记得更牢：是在《边境之地2》中捡到新奇武器那一瞬间的多巴胺分泌导致的快乐，还是最终把某些游戏设计理论整理成文字时产生的满足感？肯定是后者。

人们在不同的时期会有不同的渴望。有时候，你就是想暂时关闭大脑，享受一下不费脑细胞的乐趣。又有时候，你希望体验一些更有深度、更有意义、更令人满足的东西。不能说哪一种东西绝对更好，但我认为好游戏应该同时提供乐趣和满足感。然而，你必须理解，让人产生满足感的东西可能并不如其他活动来得“有趣”，而那些其他活动也可能不太让人满足。

所以，我认为满足感解释了，为什么当必须做一些短期内不能最大化乐趣的事情时，人们会追求所谓的“长期的乐趣”——它其实不是我们所说的长期的乐趣，而是满足感。

满足感vs.成就感

满足感似乎是成就感的同义词。我认为二者是相关的，但仍然代表稍许不同的情绪。成就感需要主体得到外部承认才能产生。根据Bartle提出的四种玩家类型，我们知道得到认同对于成就者来说是非常重要的。这就是为什么在网络游戏和游戏机越来越多的今天，游戏中的成就系统却越来越形式化。我认为成就感也是刺激人们玩现代MMO的原因，这些游戏迎合了成就者和羡慕成就者的其他玩家。

相反地，满足感是内源性的。我可以做一些永远不会有人看到的事，但仍然对结果产生满足感。所以，即使没有人读我的这篇文章，我还是会因为增长了自己的游戏设计知识而感到满足（我把这篇文章放在博客上不是为了刷浏览量，而是想看看其他人对我的概念有何反应，以及进一步完善我的想法）。满足感通常与达成个人目标更有关系，而不是外部认可。

不过，满足感和成就感之间存在有趣的互动关系。成就者对自己取得的成就感到满足，因为他知道会得到别人的赞誉和认可。有些人为了个人满足感而做某事，当其他人赞扬他的举动时，惊喜之余，满足感也变成成就感了。

MMO中的满足感

所以，满足感这个概念与MMO有什么关系？二者的关系正解释了为什么某些人认为“无趣”的活动，却成为另一些人的核心体验。

MMO的多玩家属性确实使满足感的概念更加复杂了。正如我在前面提到的，某人觉得让自己满足的东西不一定能让所有人产生满足感。比如，知道一条通向地下城入口的捷径可以让我产生极大的满足感。或者，我可能觉得组队慢慢寻找地下城的入口、一起杀BOSS、沿途捡道具更让我满意。然而，你可能觉得那些事太无聊了，还是直奔地下城秒杀BOSS然后走人来得爽快。如果游戏引入一种类似“最晚完成时间”的设定，慢慢摸索地下城入口的活动可能就不再让我产生满足感了，同时会减少我对该游戏的兴趣。

在之前的文章中，我提到，MMO必须重视社交元素，以便吸引玩家长期留在游戏世界中。正如其他人指出的，等待组队是件特别无聊的事。当做某事需要像组织一次突击活动那样有序时，某事就会让人觉得像强制的义务。但是，成为团体中的得利干将会让人产生某种满足感。知道你帮助你的公会最终战胜BOSS会让你产生满足感，足以抵消连续几个晚上打BOSS的沉闷。

或者，想一想可怕的“刷任务”。虽然许多人认为重复性活动不能产生乐趣，但它却可以让人产生满足感。知道你强大到足以承受原版《无尽的任务》中的“炼狱级”难度。知道你可以挣到足够的钱资助你的突袭行动。知道你自己很聪明，通过不断检查各个角落缝隙就能发现游戏中的秘密。这些重复性活动可以让人产生满足感，即使在这个过程中你并不觉得有趣。

最后举一个例子，想一想简单化游戏，或者你也可以称之为“傻瓜化游戏”的趋势。虽然降低游戏难度可以使玩家更快找到“有趣”的部分，但却是以损失满足感为代价的。回想一下我培养的《Meridian 59》的角色，与我升级的《激战2》的角色相比，我觉得培养M59的角色更让我感到满足。在M59中，决定角色培养的方向是有一定风险的，而在《激战2》中升级角色就没有这种风险。

满足感的危机

将乐趣与满足感区别开来，可以解释某些现你MMO失败的原因。简单化游戏使有些人更快找到“乐趣”，但也导致一些人在游戏中的满足感减少了。《WOW》仍然是一款有趣的游戏，但我认为对许多人来说，它并不能让人长久地满足，所以玩家会越来越少。有些游戏挪用了以前的MMO中的有趣元素，却没有继承其能让玩家产生满足感的元素；这些游戏要保持玩家的兴趣，必须增加能让人产生满足感的元素。

读者们有什么想法呢？你同意乐趣和满足感是两种不同的情绪吗？你能区分你玩MMO时体验到的是乐趣还是满足感吗？使玩法更加令人满足的元素是否存在共性？

篇目4，解析游戏乐趣的常量和创造性的关系

作者：Tadhg Kelly

当游戏开发者问道“什么是乐趣”，专业学者只能回答，乐趣看似简单，但却难以解释。任何东西都具有乐趣的潜质，但是我们却很难对其进行陈述。

当一个问题被广泛讨论之时，人们提出这一问题的初衷也就失去了意义。而且说实在的，开发者并不是真正想知道“什么是乐趣”这个问题的答案，他们只是想知道为什么自己的游戏会那么糟糕而已。如果从实用性角度来看，乐趣是指：

精通游戏机制后便会有一种胜利的喜悦。

但是这十多个字的简单描述也许会惹恼一些人，因为这就像是将游戏约束在一个没有门的框架中。

具有创造性的常量

当意识到“c”（光速）是一个物理常量之时，我们便能够根据相对论对时空进行描述了。而这一实践同时也会引出物理科学（从天文学到核物理学）中的其它问题，并且对于科学的发展具有重要作用。但是从直觉来看，我们却很难去接受它。

“c”描写的是一个有限的宇宙。它告诉我们速率是有限的，而且这也是不可避免的一个事实。从哲学上来看这是一个消极的观点，而作为人类的我们也不喜欢这个观点。因为人类总是有所追求，想象着我们的子孙能够乘坐着飞船在多维空间里穿梭，并翱翔于宇宙中的星际之门。但是“c”的出现便意味着我们的这些梦想永远不可能实现，而我们也会因此感到沮丧。

在艺术中，创造性常量相当于“c”。它的存在是用于寻找艺术，实践艺术，并约束艺术。创造性常量将所有创造性工作汇聚在一起，就像是鸡蛋米糊一样，能够形成受观众认可的形态。它形成了一种艺术形式，而且既是一种依靠也是一种认知助手。

所以，没有情节的故事不是故事。没有拍子的音乐不是音乐。没有韵律的诗歌不是诗歌。并且，没有乐趣的游戏不是游戏。然而，并非所有的情节都需要特定的情节设置，也并非所有的诗歌都必须基于严格的诗歌结构。传统类型（恐怖小说，十四行诗，第一人称射击游戏）与常量（图像识别，认知，情感吸引）存在着差别。传统可以也应该尝试着改变，但是常量却不能。

但是如果是取决于不同的目标观众，常量也是有变化的可能性，如与情节相悖的小说，自由爵士乐或者极端的现代艺术。这种颠覆性的作品很重要，因为它将会进一步挑战艺术的局限性，并纠正常量只是一种不能改变的惯例行为的观点。但是，这种颠覆性作品只能够吸引部分自我意识很强的群体，即通常是那些能够理解这些作品以及创造者创造动机的艺术家们。

乐趣的成份

乐趣并不是游戏所追求的永恒不变的常量，但是如果缺少了乐趣，游戏将很难被玩家所接受。让我们对乐趣进行详细分析：

（1）胜利的喜悦（2）精通游戏（3）公平游戏（4）游戏动态。

胜利的喜悦：玩家玩游戏就是为了获得胜利，但是一名玩家的胜利并不意味着其它玩家的失败。胜利包括形式上的成功以及个人所获得的成就感。胜利就像是一种奖励，能够让玩家打开游戏的下一个关卡，获得升级，完成游戏以及获得其它外部收获等。胜利让玩家们能够看到自己所控制的角色在游戏世界中具有多大作用。

胜利的喜悦同样也具有强制性。在同一种类型或者范围内重复获得胜利将会让玩家感到厌烦，并失去兴趣，或者执着地想去寻找更大的挑战并争取更大的胜利。这时候游戏便不再有趣了，相反地玩家更加沉迷于完成任务而不是享受游戏。

精通：精通意味着学习，完善并发展与战术截然相反的策略。但是有一点很重要的是，即使玩家在游戏中获得了胜利，但是那时的他们也不一定精通了游戏。而同样重要的是，一般精通于游戏的玩家所需要付出的代价便是，他们很少能够体验到胜利的快感。

很关键的是，玩家们都很清楚游戏手段以及他们在游戏中的目标，所以他们自然也就清楚为了精通游戏需要做些什么。如果一款游戏并不能清楚地向玩家表明这些内容，那么将会严重打击玩家的兴趣，让他们不愿意继续前进。这就是为何游戏必须接近现实生活并比现实生活更加简化的原因。

公平：游戏必须保持公平。但是如果游戏本来就站在中立的立场上，那也就无所谓强调是否公平了。简单地来说，公平是指玩家因为自己的行动而创造出一种积极改变所带来的感受。所以，这就意味着他必须能够从自己的行动中看到胜利或者失败。

那些欺骗玩家的随机或系统化修改或者专制的设计都是不公平的做法。玩家并不会想去精通任何不公平的游戏，自然地他们也不会有兴趣去赢取游戏。而且，不管怎样也不能将公平与“困难”混淆在一起。就像是《Blackjack》是一种对玩家不利的游戏，而玩家也知道这一点。在游戏中玩家会遭遇随机杀害，而这也是一种不公平的机制。

游戏动态：游戏始终坚持着一种宽松的结构，并由玩家的行动拉开帷幕。而玩家的行动需要一定的响应（游戏邦注：包括来自于游戏或者其他玩家）才能够决定他们的胜利或失败，这也会形成一种循环。而当这些循环开始构建一种结构并表现出正式或非正式进程时，它们便形成了游戏动态。

游戏动态将游戏乐趣的所有成分组合在一起。游戏的乐趣不只是简单地精通一个游戏动作或者赢得一个奖牌，而是这些内容应该如何交织在一起从而促成整体游戏的乐趣。游戏要如何通过动态去延伸行动，玩家要如何通过动态去发展策略等等都是游戏的乐趣所在。这些看起来很小的事物其实都能够为玩家带来兴奋感。

创造性不受常量限制

按照一特定创造性阶段或者理论知识来看，情感障碍是乐趣常量的限制性因素。而这似乎是在述说着一个事实，即既然乐趣是有限的，游戏是有限的，那么它们也只能是作为人们娱乐消遣的对象而已。但是这却会让玩家感到消极，被动或者守旧。

小说是否会受到情节常量的约束？不会。同样的，音乐也不会受到拍子的约束。每一次，当人们认为艺术的表达形式已经达到极限时，就立即会有其他人指出，他们实际上又将惯例与常量的概念相混淆。但是其实，不论是主题，还是表达或者艺术内容，它们的表达形式都没有极限。

所以关于常量约束创造性的这种说法是不正确的。

正确的是，很多类型的交互乐趣是来自于游戏过程而非游戏本身。而意识到这一点我们也就不再会感到恼火了吧。因为这意味着除了“游戏”，其实还有更多不同的交互艺术形式的存在。

小说的常量并不适用于诗歌。文学并不是艺术形式的总体，它只是几大群组中的一个。交互性亦然。游戏亦是众多艺术形式中的一种。所以还有许许多多艺术形式的存在，有些甚至还没有名字，而有一些还有待人们的挖掘。

篇目5，总结创造有趣游戏体验的7大设计技巧

作者：Juuso

为何有的游戏很有趣而有的却很枯燥？这是游戏开发者在进行游戏设计时必须引以重视的一大问题。影响游戏乐趣的因素方方面面，而以下我将列出7大游戏设计技巧帮你制造出一款有趣的游戏。

技巧1-收集

很多人都有收集的兴趣。有些人喜欢收集邮票，有些人喜欢收集乐队的唱片，有些人喜欢收集电影，还有些人喜欢收集游戏。因为人类喜欢收集东西，所以设有收集机制的游戏能够博得人们的喜欢。《暗黑破坏神》和《魔兽世界》等游戏如此有趣，正是因为玩家可以在游戏中收集东西，游戏中遍布各种各样的收集品。

技巧2-个性化

想想《模拟人生》这类游戏。游戏中并没有一个明确的目标，玩家可以随意地装扮自己的房子（游戏邦注：但游戏并没有规定他们做这些事需要耗费多少时间），并做其他一些个性化的行为。再看看《魔兽世界》（或者《暗黑破坏神》），这些游戏也因为角色的个性化效果而显得更加有趣不是吗？

技巧3-完善

不论是完善游戏角色，武器还是城市，人们都喜欢在游戏中不断完善一些东西。就像是比起“Sparkling Orc Hammer”（对于“green enemies”的攻击力只有“+1”），玩家更想要争取“Sword of Flames”，因为它能够带给他们“+3”的攻击力。不论是获得更多的钱，更多的体验还是更高的分数，玩家总是在游戏中追求着更多的完善。

技巧4-挑战

游戏中的挑战是一个很棘手的问题。做得好的话能够完善玩家的游戏体验，但是做得不好也同时会毁掉所有的游戏体验。人们总喜欢去征服挑战（没有挑战的游戏将会变得很无趣），但是对设计者来说在游戏中安插适当的挑战关卡却是个很困难的任务。也许你会在游戏中添加不同难度的关卡，但是做得不好将会让游戏系统变得更加迟钝，并难以与整体游戏相适应。一个选择是，如果你要在游戏中设置不同难度的关卡，你就先要在游戏中设定一个特定的目标（游戏邦注：例如在赛车游戏中，玩家的目标便是到达终点），并为那些喜欢真正挑战的玩家设定一些可选择的目标（如让汽车毫发无损地穿过一些特定的路线）。这真的是一个很棘手的游戏设计元素：因为玩家虽然喜欢挑战，但是同时也不喜欢太困难的游戏。

技巧5-控制

我们不得不承认，人类总是想要控制自己的生活。我们想要控制自己的所作所为，想要控制生活中的方方面面。也许你也想要控制自己的闲暇时间，或者工作中的各种项目。不管目标是什么，反正你内心的控制欲望总是难以抹灭。所以玩家也不免带有控制欲望（要不他们就不会选择玩游戏了）。例如玩家希望能够知道车子什么时候会向左转。他们希望能够命令游戏中的单位，并让它们按照自己的想法行动。他们希望在游戏中能够通过自己的不同决定而控制游戏故事的发展。玩家喜欢控制权，所以如果游戏能够给予他们更多的控制权（或者感受），也就等同于游戏带给他们更多的乐趣。

技巧6-创造

有些人是天生的创造者：他们喜欢建造或创造东西。他们喜欢在大城市中创造一些东西以消除那些管道系统障碍。他们喜欢建造最高的塔以及最棒的城市。他们想要创造最出色的餐馆或者最佳等级。人们喜欢创造，而如果你的游戏能够满足他们的这种想法，定能够给他们带来无穷的乐趣。

技巧7-神秘感

人们喜欢神秘的事物和秘密。为何《半条命》的游戏故事会备受赞誉？其中一点原因便是故事中那些身着黑衣的神秘男子，他们是什么人？为何玩家会喜欢《Hitman》？不仅因为这款游戏很有趣，而且玩家能在游戏过程中慢慢揭开游戏主角的身世之谜。如果你的游戏故事能够笼罩一层神秘感，并随着故事情节的发展而发展，那么玩家一定会乐意尝试你的游戏。他们渴望能够从中找到答案。

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，Here’s a common pattern in artistic and creative fields, particularly things like archaeology or art preservation or psychology or medicine where it requires a certain amount of intuition but at the same time there is still a “right answer” or “best way” to do things. The progression goes something like this:

1. Practitioners see their field as a “soft science”; they don’t know a whole lot about best principles or practices. They do learn how things work, eventually, but it’s mostly through trial and error.

2. Someone creates a technology that seems to solve a lot of these problems algorithmically. Practitioners rejoice. Finally, we’re a hard science! No more guesswork! Most younger practitioners abandon the “old ways” and embrace “science” as a way to solve all their field’s problems. The old guard, meanwhile, sees it as a threat to how they’ve always done things, and eyes it skeptically.

3. The limitations of the technology become apparent after much use. Practitioners realize that there is still a mysterious, touchy-feely element to what they do, and that while some day the tech might answer everything, that day is a lot farther off than it first appeared. Widespread disillusionment occurs as people no longer want to trust their instincts because theoretically technology can do it better, but people don’t want to trust the current technology
because it doesn’t work that great yet. The young turks acknowledge that this wasn’t the panacea they thought; the old guard acknowledge that it’s still a lot more useful than they assumed at first. Everyone kisses and makes up.

4. Eventually, people settle into a pattern where they learn what parts can be done by computer algorithms, and what parts need an actual creative human thinking, and the field becomes stronger as the best parts of each get combined. But learning which parts go best with humans and which parts are best left to computers is a learning process that takes a while.

Currently, game design seems to be just starting Step 2. We’re hearing more and more people anecdotally saying why metrics and statistical analysis saved their company. We hear about MMOs that are able to solve their game balance problems by looking at player patterns, before the players themselves learn enough to exploit them. We hear of Zynga changing the font color from red to pink which generates exponentially more click-throughs from players to try out
other games. We have entire companies that have sprung up solely to help game developers capture and analyze their metrics. The industry is falling in love with metrics, and I’ll go on record predicting that at least one company that relies entirely on metrics-driven design will fail, badly, by the time this whole thing shakes out, because they will be looking so hard at the numbers that they’ll forget that there are actually human players out there who are trying to have fun in a way that can’t really be measured directly. Or maybe not. I’ve been wrong before.

At any rate, right now there seems to be three schools of thought on the use of metrics:

* The old school Zynga model: design almost exclusively by metrics. Love it or hate it, 60 Million monthly active unique players laugh at your feeble intuition-based design.

* Rebellion against the old school Zynga model: metrics are easy to misunderstand, easy to manipulate, and are therefore dangerous and do more harm than good. If you measure player activity and find out that more players use the login screen than any other in-game action, that doesn’t mean you should add more login screens to your game out of some preconceived notion that if a player does it, it’s fun. If you design using metrics, you push yourself into designing the kinds of games that can be designed solely by metrics, which pushes you away from a lot of really interesting video game genres.

* The moderate road: metrics have their uses, they help you tune your game to find local “peaks” of joy. They help you take a good game and make it just a little bit better, by helping you explore the nearby design space. However, intuition also has its uses; sometimes you need to take broad leaps in unexplored territory to find the global “peaks,” and metrics alone will not get you there, because sometimes you have to make a game a little worse in one way before it gets a lot better in another, and metrics won’t ever let you do that.

Think about it for a bit and decide where you stand, personally, as a designer. What about the people you work with on a team (if you work with others on a team)?

In Part I, game designer Ian Schreiber outlines the debate between metrics-driven design and the more touchy-feely intuition-based design. In Part II, he explains the difficulties with trying to measure the “fun” in your game.

How much to measure?

Suppose you want to take some metrics in your game so you can go back and do statistical analysis to improve your game balance. What metrics do you actually take – that is, what exactly do you measure?There are two schools of thought that I’ve seen. One is to record anything and everything you can think of, log it all, mine it later. The idea is that you’d rather collect too much information and not use it, than to not collect a piece of critical info and then have
to re-do all your tests.

Another school of thought is that “record everything” is fine in theory, but in practice you either have this overwhelming amount of extraneous information from which you’re supposed to find this needle in a haystack of something useful, or potentially worse, you mine the heck out of this data mountain to the point where you’re finding all kinds of correlations and relationships that don’t actually exist. By this way of thinking, instead you should figure out
ahead of time what you’re going to need for your next playtest, measure that and only that, and that way you don’t get confused when you look at the wrong stuff in the wrong way later on.

Again, think about where you stand on the issue.

Personally, I think a lot depends on what resources you have. If it’s you and a few friends making a small commercial game in Flash, you probably don’t have time to do much in the way of intensive data mining, so you’re better off just figuring out the useful information you need ahead of time, and add more metrics later if a new question occurs to you that requires some

data you aren’t tracking yet. If you’re at a large company with an army of actuarial statisticians with nothing better to do than find data correlations all day, then sure, go nuts with data collection and you’ll probably find all kinds of interesting things you’d never have thought of otherwise.

What specific things do you measure?

That’s all fine and good, but whether you say “just get what we need” or “collect everything we can,” neither of those is an actual design. At some point you need to specify what, exactly, you need to measure.

Like game design itself, metrics is a second-order problem. Most of the things that you want to know about your game, you can’t actually measure directly, so instead you have to figure out some kind of thing that you can measure that correlates strongly with what you’re actually trying to learn.

Example: measuring fun

Let’s take an example. In a single-player Flash game, you might want to know if the game is fun or not, but there’s no way to measure fun. What correlates with fun, that you can measure?

One thing might be if players continue to play for a long time, or if they spend enough time playing to finish the game and unlock all the achievements, or if they come back to play multiple sessions (especially if they replay even after they’ve “won”), and these are all things you can measure. Now, keep in mind this isn’t a perfect correlation; players might be coming back to your game for some other reason, like if you’ve put in a crop-withering mechanic that punishes them if they don’t return, or something. But at least we can assume that if a player keeps playing, there’s probably at least some reason, and that is useful information. More to the point, if lots of players stop playing your game at a certain point and don’t come back, that tells us that point in the game is probably not enjoyable and may be driving players away. (Or if the point where they stopped playing was the end, maybe they found it incredibly enjoyable but they beat the game and now they’re done, and you didn’t give a reason to continue playing after that. So it all depends on when.)

Player usage patterns are a big deal, because whether people play, how often they play, and how long they play are (hopefully) correlated with how much they like the game. For games that require players to come back on a regular basis (like your typical Facebook game), the two buzzwords you hear a lot are Monthly Active Uniques and Daily Active Uniques (MAU and DAU). The “Active” part of that is important, because it makes sure you don’t overinflate your numbers by counting a bunch of old, dormant accounts belonging to people who stopped playing. The “Unique” part is also important, since one obsessive guy who checks FarmVille ten times a day doesn’t mean he counts as ten users. Now, normally you’d think Monthly and Daily should be equivalent, just multiply Daily by 30 or so to get Monthly, but in reality the two will be different based on how quickly your players burn out (that is, how much overlap there is between
different sets of daily users). So if you divide MAU/DAU, that tells you something about how many of your players are new and how many are repeat customers.

For example, suppose you have a really sticky game with a small player base, so you only have 100 players, but those players all log in at least once per day. Here your MAU is going to be 100, and your average DAU is also going to be 100, so your MAU/DAU is 1. Now, suppose instead that you have a game that people play once and never again, but your marketing is good, so you get 100 new players every day but they never come back. Here your average DAU is still
going to be 100, but your MAU is around 3000, so your MAU/DAU is about 30 in this case. So that’s the range, AU/DAU goes between 1 (for a game where every player is extremely loyal) to 28, 30 or 31 depending on the month (representing a game where no one ever plays more than once).

A word of warning: a lot of metrics, like the ones Facebook provides, might use different ways of computing these numbers so that one set of numbers isn’t comparable to another. For example, I saw one website that listed the “worst” MAU/DAU ratio in the top 100 applications as 33-point-something, which should be flatly impossible, so clearly the numbers somewhere are being messed with (maybe they took the Dailies from a different range of dates than the Monthlies
or something). And then some people compute this as a %, meaning on average, what percentage of your player pool logs in on a given day, which should range from a minimum of about 3.33% (1/30 of your monthly players logging in each day) to 100% (all of your monthly players log in every single day). This is computed by taking DAU/MAU (instead of MAU/DAU) and multiplying by 100 to get a percentage. So if you see any numbers like this from analytics websites, make sure you’re clear on how they’re computing the numbers so you’re not comparing apples to oranges.

Why is it important to know this number? For one thing, if a lot of your players keep coming back, it probably means you’ve got a good game. For another, it means you’re more likely to make money on the game, because you’ve got the same people stopping by every day… sort of like how if you operate a brick- and-mortar storefront, an individual who just drops in to window-shop may not buy anything, but if that same individual comes in and is “just looking”
every single day, they’re probably going to buy something from you eventually.

[This article is an excerpt from Level 8: Metrics and Statistics, part of Ian Schreiber's course on game balance called Game Balance Concepts.]

Ian Schreiber has been making games professionally since 2000, first as a programmer and then as a game designer. He currently teaches game design classes for Savannah College of Art andDesign and Columbus State Community College. He has worked on five shipped games and hundreds of shipped students. You can learn more about Ian at his blog,

Teaching Game Design.

Player difficulty, like fun, is another thing that’s basically impossible to measure directly, but what you can measure is progression, and failure to progress. Measures of progression are going to be different depending on your game.

For a game that presents skill-based challenges like a retro arcade game, you can measure things like how long it takes the player to clear each level, how many times they lose a life on each level, and importantly, where and how they lose a life. Collecting this information makes it really easy to see where your hardest points are, and if there are any unintentional spikes in your difficulty curve. I understand that Valve does this for their FPS games, and that they actually have a visualizer tool that will not only display all of this information, but actually plot it overlaid on a map of the level, so you can see where player deaths are clustered. Interestingly, starting with Half-Life 2 Episode 2 they actually have live reporting and uploading from players to their servers, and they have displayed their metrics on a public page (which probably helps with the aforementioned privacy concerns, because players can see for
themselves exactly what is being uploaded and how it’s being used).

Yet another example: measuring game balance

What if instead you want to know if your game is fair and balanced? That’s not something you can measure directly either. However, you can track just about any number attached to any player, action or object in the game, and this can tell you a lot about both normal play patterns, and also the relative balance of strategies, objects, and anything else.

For example, suppose you have a strategy game where each player can take one of four different actions each turn, and you have a way of numerically tracking each player’s standing. You could record each turn, what action each player takes, and how it affects their respective standing in the game.

Or, suppose you have a CCG where players build their own decks, or a Fighting game where each player chooses a fighter, or an RTS where players choose a faction, or an MMO or tabletop RPG where players choose a race/class combination. Two things you can track here are which choices seem to be the most and least popular, and also which choices seem to have the highest correlation with actually winning. Note that this is not always the same thing; sometimes the big, flashy, cool-looking thing that everyone likes because it’s impressive and easy to use is still easily defeated by a sufficiently skilled player who uses a less well-known strategy. Sometimes, dominant strategies take months or even years to emerge through tens of thousands of games played; the Necropotence card in Magic: the Gathering saw almost no play for six months or so after release, until some top players figured out how to use it, because it had this really complicated and obscure set of effects… but once people started experimenting with it, they found it to be one of the most powerful cards
ever made. So, both popularity and correlation with winning are two useful metrics here.If a particular game object sees a lot more use than you expected, that can certainly signal a potential game balance issue. It may also mean that this one

thing is just a lot more compelling to your target audience for whatever reason – for example, in a high fantasy game, you might be surprised to find more players creating Elves than Humans, regardless of balance issues… or maybe you wouldn’t be that surprised. Popularity can be a sign in some games that a certain play style is really fun compared to the others, and you can sometimes migrate that into other characters or classes or cards or what have you in order to make the game overall more fun.

If a game object sees less use than expected, again that can mean it’s underpowered or overcosted. It might also mean that it’s just not very fun to use, even if it’s effective. Or it might mean it is too complicated to use, it has a high learning curve relative to the rest of the game, and so players aren’t experimenting with it right away (which can be really dangerous if you’re relying on playtesters to actually, you know, playtest, if they leave some of your things alone and don’t play with them).

Metrics have other applications besides game objects. For example, one really useful area is in measuring beginning asymmetries, a common one being the first-player advantage (or disadvantage). Collect a bunch of data on seating arrangements versus end results. This happens a lot with professional games and sports; for example, I think statisticians have calculated the home-field advantage in American Football to be about 2.3 points, and depending on where you
play the first-move advantage in Go is 6.5 or 7.5 points (in this latter case, the half point is used to prevent tie games). Statistics from Settlers of Catan tournaments have shown a very slight advantage to playing second in a four-player game, on the order of a few hundredths of a percent; normally we could discard that as random variation, but the sheer number of games that have been played gives the numbers some weight.

A Note on Ethics

The ethical consideration here is that a lot of these metrics look at player behavior but they don’t actually look at the value added (or removed) from the players’ lives. Some games, particularly those on Facebook which have evolved to make some of the most efficient use of metrics of any games ever made, have also been accused (by some people) of being blatantly manipulative, exploiting known flaws in human psychology to keep their players playing (and giving
money) against their will. Now, this sounds silly when taken to the extreme, because we think of games as something inherently voluntary, so the idea of a game “holding us prisoner” seems strange. On the other hand, any game you’ve played for an extended period of time is a game you are emotionally invested in, and that emotional investment does have cash value. If it seems silly to you that I’d say a game “makes” you spend money, consider this: suppose I
found all of your saved games and put them in one place. Maybe some of these are on console memory cards or hard disks. Maybe some of them are on your PC hard drive. For online games, your “saved game” is on some company’s server somewhere. And then suppose I threatened to destroy all of them… but not to worry, I’d replace the hardware. So you get free replacements of your hard drive and console memory cards, a fresh account on every online game you
subscribe to, and so on. And then suppose I asked you, how much would you pay me to not do that. And I bet when you think about it, the answer is more than zero, and the reason is that those saved games have value to you! And more to the point, if one of these games threatened to delete all your saves unless you bought some extra downloadable content, you would at least consider it… not because you wanted to gain the content, but because you wanted to not lose your
save.

To be fair, all games involve some kind of psychological manipulation, just like movies and books and all other media (there’s that whole thing about suspending our disbelief, for example). And most people don’t really have a problem with this; they still see the game experience itself as a net value-add to their life, by letting them live more in the hours they spend playing than they would have lived had they done other activities.

But just like difficulty curves, the difference between value added and taken away is not constant; it’s different from person to person. This is why we have things like MMOs that enhance the lives of millions of subscribers, while also causing horrendous bad events in the lives of a small minority that lose their marriage and family to their game obsession, or that play for so long without attending to basic bodily needs that they keel over and die at thekeyboard.

So there is a question of how far we can push our players to give us money, or just to play our game at all, before we cross an ethical line… especially in the case where our game design is being driven primarily by money-based metrics. As before, I invite you to think about where you stand on this, because if you don’t know, the decision will be made for you by someone else who does.

篇目3，Fun vs. satisfaction

by psychochild

Games are supposed to be fun, duh. It seems to be a regular comment that if something isn’t fun, it should be removed from a game. Why are game developers so stupid to leave in systems that nobody finds fun? Or, just look at those EEEEEVIL free-to-play games with their “pay to win” strategies, forcing people to pay money to avoid the parts that aren’t fun, amirite?

Except, there’s a good reason why games have parts that don’t seem fun on the surface, but that build a long-term feeling of satisfaction. Let’s take a look at satisfaction and why it matters in games.

For this post, I’ll assume an unstated, informal definition of “fun”. I won’t try to formally define fun, since that’s tough to do. But, I think your specific definition of “fun” that isn’t too esoteric won’t detract from my point.
Measuring on one dimension

Trying to measure everything in a game solely through the lens of “fun” leads to problems. Even if you look at it as a continuum instead of a binary setting, it seems natural that a person should always want “more fun”. Just imagine one of those TV commercials where someone asks a group of kids “do you want more or less fun?” and imagine the answers.

Azuriel over at In An Age posted about Instant Gratification vs Fun Investment, drawing a distinction between something that’s fun immediately vs. something that you have to invest time in that leads to fun later. The post argues that even things you invest in to have fun should be fun in and of themselves. This explanation relies too heavily on looking through the single perspective of “fun”.

Let’s take a look at the example of building a deck to play Magic: the Gathering (MtG). Azuriel argues deck building is a necessary but still fun part of the process, but is that universally true? I think it’s likely that people who do find deck-building fun are the ones who stuck with MtG longer. The existence of pre-constructed decks show that deck building isn’t always fun for everyone in all situations; sometimes you do just want to get in and play.

To me, part of the enjoyment from building a deck comes from the anticipation of playing that deck in a game. Give someone who hasn’t played before a bunch of cards (and no instruction booklet), and while that person might enjoy looking at the art, I doubt they’ll spontaneously decide to build a deck for enjoyment. Take this one step further: give that person rules for how to build a deck but deny them the ability to play the game; would they find that process fun? Some might, but I think you’d get a lot of people who would find that process particularly unfun.

Yes, there are exceptions. I love rolling up characters for RPGs, even if I’ll never play them. I like exploring the mechanics of a game I might not play in earnest. But, people like me are in the minority. This is why I want another way to describe the feeling when constructing an interesting MtG deck.

Adding a second dimension

So, why is deck building “fun” for some people? I think “satisfaction” may be a better term than “fun”. Building a good deck requires skill: knowing how to play the game, knowing how cards work in conjunction, knowing probability, etc. Building a deck expresses of mastery over these skills, and a player can feel satisfied having mastered them. There’s also an element of anticipation: thinking what happens when you get one of the card combos set up and can pull it off spectacularly.

There’s also the continuing satisfaction of when you play the deck in an actual game. If you have done a good job in building the deck, then it enhances the gameplay and you feel greater satisfaction for constructing a deck that performs well. I think this sense of satisfaction is separate from, but very much related to, the fun had while actually playing the game.

To see the role of satisfaction more clearly, consider three scenarios. First, you are given a limited, random supply of MtG cards to make a deck. Second, you are given access to any MtG cards you want to build a deck. In the final scenario, you are given a champion’s pre-constructed deck and allowed no modifications. You then play a game of MtG and win in each of these scenarios. Which scenario gives you the most satisfaction? To me, the more input I have and the more skill required, the more satisfied I am. The more satisfying situation is the one that requires the most effort.

Although, like “fun” there’s no one universal definition of what is “satisfying” to someone. Maybe someone would be just as satisfied with unlimited cards rather than being limited. Or, in RPGs, I might find satisfaction in a well-organized inventory, whereas someone else sees that as unnecessary busywork. You might think getting to max level in a short period of time is satisfying, where I see that as focusing on the destination rather than the journey. To repeat the cliché, one size doesn’t fit all.

Short-term vs. long-term

Fun tends to be fleeting, but satisfaction lingers for most people. Imagine a situation where you have fun, but where you don’t have a lot of satisfaction. Let’s say you play a board game with some friends, but there’s no deep rivalry or decisive victories. You might have fun playing the game, but the next day you might not remember many of the details beyond, “yeah, it was fun.” A week later the fun you had is unlikely to be meaningful to your life. The most likely outcome is that you look forward to having fun again.

Now consider a situation where you didn’t have fun, but experienced intense satisfaction. Obviously there are major life landmarks, like graduation, that tend to be satisfying but not especially fun while you’re going working to the goal. But, consider a smaller situation like writing a blog post that helps cement a game design concept that’s been bouncing around in my head. Sure, writing can be fun, but I could be playing Borderlands 2 right now which is a lot more fun that writing this. But, which am I likely to remember better: that jolt of dopamine from picking up a strange new weapon in Borderlands 2, or the satisfaction of explaining out a few theory of game deign I’ve finally been able to articulate into words? I’d put my money on the latter.

People will want different things at different times. Sometimes you just want to shut off your brain and have some mindless fun. Other times you want something deeper, more meaningful, and satisfying. Neither is universally “better”, but I think a great game provides both. However, it’s also important to understand that some satisfying things may not be as “fun” as other activities, but those other activities may end up being less satisfying.

So, I think satisfaction explains some of the reasons why people put stock into “long-term fun” when it requires doing things that aren’t the maximum amount of fun in the short-term; it’s not really long-term fun we’re talking about, but satisfaction.

Satisfaction vs. achievement

It might seem like satisfaction is a synonym for achievement. I think they are related, but slightly different emotions. Achievement is something that requires external validation. Achievers are one of Bartle’s four types of players, and we have come to realize that it’s important to Achievers to be recognized for their achievements. This is the reason why achievements in games became formalized when we had more networked games and game consoles. I think this is also a motivation for why people play modern MMOs, these games cater to achievers and the other players are a knowledgeable audience who will appreciate your achievements more.

Satisfaction, on the other hand, is internal. I can do something that nobody else will ever see, and be satisfied with the results. Even if nobody read this blog post, I’d have the satisfaction of having developed some of my own game design tools. (I’m posting this on my blog not necessarily to get a high score in number of views or comments, but to get insight into how others react to my concepts and to refine my ideas.) Satisfaction usually has more to do with accomplishing a personal goal than with external validation.

Although, these two concepts an interact in interesting ways. An achiever might feel satisfied with an accomplishment because he or she knows that recognition will follow. Someone doing something for their own personal satisfaction might be pleasantly surprised when others laud their action and it becomes an achievement.

Satisfaction in MMOs

So, how does the concept of satisfaction relate to MMOs? There are a few ways that explain why activities that some people find “unfun” others find the core of the experience.

The multiplayer nature of MMOs really makes satisfaction tricky. As I said above, what one person finds satisfying isn’t necessarily universal. I might find it very satisfying to know an efficient route to get to a dungeon entrance quickly. Or, I might find it satisfying to meander to a dungeon entrance with a group, killing monsters and harvesting resources along the way. You, however, might find it dreadfully boring and want to just get to the dungeon, get your loot, and scram. Once the game introduces an efficiency like an LFD tool, I will likely no longer get the satisfaction from traveling to the dungeon entrance, reducing my interest in the game.

In a previous post, I argue that MMOs need to re-focus on social elements to promote long-term retention in games. As people love to point out, it’s not particularly compelling to wait for groups to form. It can feel like an obligation when doing something organized like raiding. But, there’s a certain sense of satisfaction in being a productive member of a group. Knowing that you helped your guild finally conquer that raid boss gives a sense of satisfaction that can balance if not outweigh the nights of wiping against that boss.

Or, consider the dreaded grind. While many people don’t see repetitive activity as fun, it can bring satisfaction. Knowing that you’re tough enough to endure a “hell level” in the original EQ1. Knowing that you’re capable enough to earn money to fund your raiding. Knowing that you’re clever enough to ferret out the well-kept secrets in a game by checking every nook and cranny. These repetitive activities can feel satisfying even if they don’t feel very fun while you’re in the middle of the process.

As a last example, consider the trend of making games easier. Or “dumbing down”, if you prefer. Looking at this in terms of satisfaction shows that while making a game easier can make it faster to find the “fun” parts, it feels less satisfying. Thinking back on the Meridian 59 characters I’ve built compared to the Guild Wars 2 characters I’ve leveled, I have felt a lot more satisfaction building the M59 characters. In M59, there’s a real element of risk involved that isn’t present in building a character in GW2.
A crisis of satisfaction

This separation of fun from satisfaction explains some of the failings of modern MMOs. Streamlining has let some get to the “fun” faster, but it has lead to less satisfying games for others. WoW is still a fun game, but I think for a lot of people it’s less satisfying and therefore losing subscribers. Other games that copy the fun elements of previous MMOs but don’t examine the satisfying elements are only getting it part right. They need the satisfying elements to keep people interested.

What do you think? Do you agree that fun and satisfaction are two separate emotions? Do you recognize the experiences you had in MMOs as being fun vs. being satisfying? Is there some common element that makes a gameplay element satisfying?

篇目4，Fun: Simple to Explain, Hard to Accept [Constants]

By Tadhg Kelly

Game developers ask ‘what is fun?’ and academics often answer that fun is seemingly simple but actually fiendishly hard to explain. Everything is potentially fun and trying to encompass it all in one statement is impossible.

When any debate becomes so wide, the intent of the original question is lost. Developers are not really asking ‘what is fun?’’ in the universal sense. They’re asking why does their game suck. Pragmatically then, fun is:

The joy of winning while mastering fair game dynamics.

However the idea that fun can be reduced to 9 little words is just the sort of thinking that makes some people angry, because it sounds like (and is) a hard limit on what games can be.

Creative Constants

By realising that c (the speed of light) is a physical constant, we are able to describe spacetime in terms of relativity. This realisation unlocks many other problems in the physical sciences, from astronomy to nuclear physics, and has been vital to the progress of technology. But it is intuitively hard to accept.

c describes a limited universe. It tells us that there is a hard limit to velocity, which is necessary and inescapable. It’s philosophically negative, and as a species we just don’t like that, We like to aspire, to dream of future generations, starships in hyperspace and warp gates through the universe. c implies that we won’t see those dreams realised, which can be depressing.

In the arts, a creative constant is the equivalent of c. Its presence unlocks the art and makes it work, and yet at the same time sets a hard limit on what it can be. A creative constant binds creative work together, like an egg in a batter, and gives it a shape that the audience can recognise. It puts the form in art form and is both crutch and cognitive aid.

So story without plot is not story. Music without tempo is not music. Poetry without meter is not poetry. And games without fun are not games. However not all plots need to be genre plots any more than all poems need to be based on a strict verse structure. There is a difference between the conventions of genre (horror novels, sonnets, first person shooters) and constants (pattern recognition, cognition, empathic hooks). Conventions can and should be challenged, but constants remain.

Depending on the audience there is also the opportunity for subversion through constants, such as anti-plot novels, free jazz or the extremes of modern art. Subversive works are important because they test the limits of an art and sometimes uncover that what was thought to be a constant was actually just a convention. However subversive works tend to only hold appeal for a self-conscious niche, usually comprised of fellow artists who understand both the work and the motivations of the people who created it.

Components of Fun

Fun is not the only constant for games, but it is probably the hardest one to accept. Let’s break it down:

The (1) joy of winning (2) while mastering (3) fair (4) game dynamics.

Joy of Winning: All games are played to win, though a win does not imply that other players have to lose. Winning covers both victory of the formal kind and achievement of the personal kind. A win looks like a reward, unlocking the next part of the game, an increase in level, completing the game or various other outward expressions. It is empowering, where the player can see the effect of their agency in the game world by the change that it causes.

The joy of winning is also compulsive. Repetitive wins of the same type and scale become boring over time, which can lead to the play brain losing interest or searching obsessively for the bigger win. At that point the game is no longer fun, but instead tolerated in the quest to get back to fun.

Mastery: Mastery means learning, improving and developing strategy as opposed to just tactics. An important point to note about winning and mastery is that wins only delivered at the point of achieving mastery are usually too few. It is important that the player is experiencing little wins while mastering as well as the big payoffs.

It is also critical that the levers of the game be clear to the player, as well as the goals, so that he or she knows what they have to do in order to achieve mastery. If the game is vague or opaque then this actively discourages the play brain from proceeding. This is why games must be enclosed and simpler than real life.

Fairness: The game must be seen to be fair. However it does not have to actually be fair from a neutral standpoint. At its simplest, fairness is the sense that the player is creating active change (or not) because of his actions. So that means that his actions need to be seen to cause wins or failures that are the player’s own fault.

Randomness, systemic corrections that cheat the player or arbitrary design are all examples of unfairness. Unfairness cannot really be mastered so there is little joy in winning against it. It should not be confused with ‘difficulty’ however. A game of Blackjack is stacked against the player, but the player knows it. A game that randomly kills players, on the other hand, is just unfair.

Game Dynamic: Games adhere to a loose structure that starts with the actions of the player. Those actions demands a response (from the game, from another player) to determine a win or loss, which forms a loop. As loops build into a structure that starts to show formal or informal progress, they become a game dynamic.

The game dynamic brings it all together. The fun of a game is not simply becoming a master of an action or the winner of prizes. It’s the dynamic of how those things interweave that makes the overall game fun. How the game extends its actions through the dynamic, how the player develops strategy over the course of the dynamic and so forth are fun. Everything smaller is just cheap thrills.

Hard to Accept

To a certain class of creative or academic, the limits of the fun constant are an emotional hurdle. They seem to say that because fun is a limit, games are also limited and so they will only ever be amusements. It feels negative, unambitious or conservative.

Are novels limited by the plot constant? No. Nor is music by the need for tempo. Every time that someone thinks an art has reached the limit of its expression, along comes someone new who shows them that they have confused convention with constant once again. That there are no limits to theme, expression or artistic intent.

So the idea that a constant limits creativity is not true.

What is true is that there are many kinds of interactivity that may be playful fun but are not gameful fun. Recognising that should not be a cause for anger however. It just means that there are more interactive art forms than ‘game’ can really cover.

The constants of the novel don’t apply to poetry. Literature is not one art form, it’s a grouping of several. So too with interactivity. Games are but one art form among many. There are others, some of which don’t even have names yet and are waiting to be discovered.

篇目5，7 Game Design Elements That Can Make Game Fun

By Juuso

Why some games are fun, and why others are boring? These are questions that game developers must take into account in their game design. There are many elements that impact the fun factor – and here’s 7 game design elements that can help making a fun game.

#1 – Collecting stuff

Some (perhaps most) people are collecting something. Somebody likes collecting stamps, somebody music DVDs of certain bands, somebody movies, somebody games. We people like collecting stuff – and that’s one factor that makes many games fun. One reason why Diablo or World of Warcraft games are fun because you can collect stuff. Lots of stuff.

#2 – Personalizing stuff

Think Sims. There’s no aim in that game, yet one can spend ages just to decorate his house (not to mention how many hours those sequels and expansion packs can take) and make things look personal. Think World of Warcraft (or even Diablo) again – wasn’t it fun to make the character look personal?

#3 – Improving stuff

Whether it’s improving your character, weapons, city or anything – people like if they can improve stuff in game. If they can get Sword of Flames that gives them +3 damage instead of Sparkling Orc Hammer (+1 damage against green enemies) they will love it. Getting more money, getting more experience, getting more points – getting more improved stuff is what players are after.

#4 – Challenging stuff

Challenge in games is tricky issue. Sometimes it can make the gaming experience, and sometimes it might even kill the gaming experience. We people want to overcome challenges (otherwise game gets pretty boring), but finding the right challenge levels is sometimes pretty darn hard to do. One could think about having different difficulty levels… but that might be pretty dull system and might make it hard to find the right factors to adjust. One option – if you need to have different difficulties – is to have certain objectives that must be done (a car game example: getting to finish line) and then having optional goals for those who want a real challenge (for example: not crashing your car and driving through special routes). This is a tricky game design element: players want challenging, but not too difficult game.

#5 – Controlling stuff

Admit it: you want control in your life. You want to be in charge of what you do with your life, and you want to have control over certain things. Perhaps you want to control where you spend your spare time, or perhaps you want to control projects at work. Whatever it is – you want to have control over something. Similarly players want control (otherwise they’d be watching movies instead). They want to make sure the car goes left when they tell so. They want to command their units so that they actually follow player’s orders. They want to feel that they can control how the story goes by making different decisions. They want control. The more you give it (or a feeling of it) – the more fun game might be to some players.

#6 – Creating stuff

Some people are creators: they want to build and create stuff. They want to create anything from huge cities to smooth plumbing systems. They want to build the highest towers and finest cities. They want to create greatest restaurant or finest levels. People like to create – and if you give them tools for creating stuff they will like it.

#7 – Mysterious stuff

People love mysteries and secrets. Why Half-life game was praised for its story? One reason is that the story has mysterious men in black suits – who are these guys? What keeps players completing levels in Hitman? The game was fun, but in addition it the mystery behind the main character just had to be revealed. If you can bring some kind of secret or wrap a mystery around your story, some players will like it. They will crave for the answers.