篇目1，Lucas Blair谈游戏成就系统的设定和价值性

游戏邦注：本文原作者是调查研究博士兼游戏设计师卢卡斯·布莱尔（Lucas Blair），他做了个学术研究，制定出了几个设计游戏成就系统的优化方案。

在游戏领域，成就系统是一个热点话题。 玩家对成就系统的反应从痴迷到冷漠各不相同， 而设计者在成就系统的运用观点上也颇有分歧。 无论是否有争议，成就系统的问题就摆在眼前了，所以游戏设计者必须学习如何把成就系统的潜力发挥到极致。为了让成就系统在游戏中发挥积极作用，就必须在游戏设计过程中深谋远虑，而不是事后再补缺补漏。

在许多情况下，成就系统总是在游戏接近完工时才被随随便便地夹塞到游戏中。一个精心制作的游戏机制却带着个这个粗制滥造的成就系统，悲剧就是这么发生的。

如果设计成就系统能像设计游戏的其他环节一样扎实认真，它也可以提升玩家的游戏体验和游戏的综合素质。

成就系统的设计指导，应当是涵盖广泛的论题、确定的科学研究。卢卡斯·布莱尔在本文通过解析如何在游戏中设置成就系统，与各位开发者分享游戏成就设计特点的分类标准。

标准分类的目的是从设计中总结出成就系统的作用机制。研究表明，成就系统会影响玩家的行动表现、积极性和态度。

虽然作者打算把这个分类标准说得广泛全面一些，但他认为这个观点以后很可能遭到争议并且面临修正。不过就目前来看，如果设计师打算有效地利用成就系统的潜力，暂且可以 认为这是一个不错的讨论起点。

他的观点涉及以下概念：

评价成就

完成成就

乏味任务和趣味任务

成就难度

目标取向

评估成就VS. 完成成就

分类标准的第一部分是对比评估成就和完成成就，此二者描述的是两个不同的情况，根据这两个情况来奖励玩家的行动。

评估成就是给那些完成某个级别任务的玩家提供奖励。可以通过对照其他玩家的表现、他们自己的表现或是游戏设计者设定的标准来评价玩家表现。

我们以《愤怒的小鸟》中的星级为例。在这款游戏中，玩家是凭借自己的游戏表现获得星星。评估成就好比是一种反馈机制，因为它实际上是对玩家表现的一种评价。有关训练和 教育反馈的研究资料表明，因为反馈能反映玩家在自我设定目标中的表现，所以这种反馈对玩家来说大有裨益。

这种反馈增加了玩家的胜任意识，随之激发了玩家的内在动机（游戏邦注：intrinsic motivation——个体发展的一种内在的愿望，渴望去做某件事情，并且很自然地认为做某件 事是有益的）。增加胜任意识可以平衡某些消极影响，例如因滥用奖励而减少了玩家的内在动机。

另一方面，胜任意识并没有告诉玩家他们在任务中的表现如何，而只是在玩家完成任务后就给予奖励。胜任意识可以分为两个子类：偶然成就和必然成就（performance contingent achievements 和non-performance contingent achievements）。偶然成就是个技术活，而必然成就可在游戏过程中自动获得。

在《魔兽世界》中，玩家首次完成地下城的任务才能获得相应成就，偶然成就的获得与此类似。回顾下我们刚才提到的一个说法——用获得奖励来刺激玩家的内在动机，这样可以 更好地理解这个偶然成就的概念。有一些激励设置在玩家的任务表现里发挥了重要的积极作用。然而，这种类型的奖励可能减少玩家的自主性，特别是被滥用时，内在动机也随之 减少。

奖励也为玩家在奖励临界值时的表现制造了一个人为上限。一旦玩家获得了这个成就奖励，他们的就不太可能继续这种任务。对游戏开发者而言，这种情况就体现为游戏的重玩价 值。奖励使得玩家趋向保守，因为他们不想失去奖励的机会。特别是在电子游戏里，游戏设计者鼓励玩家带着创新精神和实验精神玩游戏。

必然成就的获得，就像参与某个游戏事件然后获得一枚徽章或者一只宠物。这对玩家的内在动机就没有什么负面影响。然而，因为这种类型的奖励实在缺乏评估标准，所以玩家不 太可能乐衷于这些奖励，除非这与加强游戏社交联系有关。

优化方案：替换完成成就，用评估成就的反馈作用来刺激玩家的内在动机。

乏味任务VS.趣味任务

完成成就要靠完成一个任务或一系列任务。从玩家的角度看，这是一个经历一系列无聊和刺激的游戏过程。乏味任务获得的成就和趣昧任务获得的成就是不同的。

乏味任务（例如MMO游戏中的贸易技能）可以与外在动机配对，这种任务的成就设置是为了玩家能参与其中。因为玩家不想接手这种任务，奖励也无法刺激玩家的内在动机。

激发玩家参与乏味任务的常规策略有两种。第一种是通过成就的描述，让玩家意识到这种任务的内在价值。

以《致命捕捞：混乱海域》中的“救生员成就”为例，救出船员的人将获此成就。救生员这个词暗示了该任务的重要性，因为这意味着玩家是在救援他人。

第二个是增加任务本身的额外规则或设想。这个方法在所有成就的大部分基础级别中均有应用。

趣味任务不需要其他形式的动机、奖励或者欺骗性描述，玩家也乐意参与其中。所以这种成就（特别是完成成就）应该有节制地使用。

这种成就应该谨慎使用而非以此来增加游戏的人为乐趣，因为这样才能使玩家集中关注重要的任务技巧或策略。此外，通过任务策略提示，可以改善玩家的表现。

《星际争霸2》中的“The Flying Heal Bus”成就是个范例，这个成就帮助玩家更有效地使用某种特殊装置。

优化方案：奖励乏味任务，反馈有趣任务，达成有趣的任务成就。

成就难度

游戏设计者提出了两种成就难度。第一，成就的实际难度应该是玩家能达到但仍存在一定挑战性。第二，玩家在特定任务里应该有足够的自我效能（游戏邦注：self-efficacy是许 多人对于自身能否完成特定任务的能力的认知，它可以将影响行动结果的因素转化为先行因素，对于行动发生效用）使之有信心尝试任务。

成就应该为玩家提供有挑战性的目标，成就难度如果适宜，玩家会在任务中表现中获得在更好的收益和更大的成就感。然而，如果达成成就的难度太大，玩家甚至不会去尝试；但 三两下就搞定的低级成就，显然太没有挑战性。保持游戏任务趣味性的一般策略是，为操作熟练的玩家提供可选择的的任务目标。

玩家的自我效能是设计者需要考虑的另一个重要因素。因为自我效能与增加目标承诺、策略创新和使用以及增加对消极反馈的乐观反应有关，所以增强玩家的自我效能非常重要。

设计者可以通过满足四个因素来影响玩家的自我效能。第一个是相关学科的专业知识水平。游戏之所以能保证所有技术级别的玩家都有成就可以达成，这个因素是重要原因。

目睹周围人的成功，或者叫替代性经验（游戏邦注：vicarious experience，个体首先通过社会比较过程判断他人能力的高低，而后通过信息提供过程观察，并从他人的成功操作 中获取有效的解决问题的策略），是第二个影响自我效能的因素。如果本身与成功者具有相当的能力，这种影响就会非常巨大。在线游戏的排行榜或者像OnLive系统中的“brags”
就反映了这种影响作用。

社会劝导（给别人口头刺激）是第三个影响自我效能的因素。这种因素的作用形式非常简单，就像有人完成一个任务，听到“好样的！”或者《吉他英雄》中出现 “50 NOTE STREAK!”的信息。个人自我感觉是第四个因素。这个因素影响玩家的压力指数、情绪状态和生理状况。

优化方案：在玩家的表现和享受过程中，给予挑战性成就最大奖励。描述成就和设计交互作用增加玩家的自我效能。

目标取向

因为玩家的目标取向会影响玩家如何通过确定个人目标来体验游戏，所以在设计成就系统时，开发者就必须考虑到玩家的目标取向。有两种类型的目标取向，一般被称为成绩定向 和掌握定向。喜欢成绩定向的玩家关注他人对自己表现的评价。而掌握定向型的玩家看重的是提升自己的熟练程度。

因为游戏中不断强调时间和分数这类直接目标，使得玩家往往倾向于成绩定向。可惜，倾向于这种类型的玩家很少冒险，也很少花时间来探索游戏，因为他们害怕这样会影响游戏 得分。

这种情况在第一人称射击游戏中司空见惯。在这类游戏中，玩家反复使用同一种武器和策略，因为他们认为这就是最大化杀伤数的不二法宝。但研究表明，成绩定向型的玩家，往 往只在非常简单的任务中表现得比较好。

为了平衡玩家的这种倾向，设计者必须积极设法在他们定下的目标和反馈中灌输掌握定向的思想。培养掌握定向的倾向有这么几个闪光点：

有这种倾向的玩家乐于接受错误并且敢于接受提高自身能力的挑战性任务；这类倾向的任务中玩家会有更高的自我效能，并且能利用更多有效的策略；研究还表明，掌握倾向型的 玩家，能在复杂的任务里表现得更出色。

为了培养掌握定向的倾向，设计者应该创造也这么种成就——承认玩家做出的努力并且在挑战中支持这种努力。游戏应该把玩家做出的错误和失误当作对游戏的诊断性反馈和改进 的鼓励。

为了有效地传达这种类型，成就的名称和描述非常重要。以《Heavy Rain》为例，“如此接近”战利品，这话是针对那些做出尝试但失败了的玩家。这句话可以看作是鼓励和认同 玩家所做出的努力。

相反地，在《吉他英雄III》一个类似的成就，名为“Blowing It”，这个名称可能就让人觉得有些丧气。

优化方案：在鼓励创新和策略的困难任务中灌输掌握定向的思想。在简单和重复的任务中灌输成绩定向的思想。对于仍在学习怎么玩游戏的新玩家，应设法在掌握定向阶段留住他 们。

现在，我重述一下第一部分内容的扼要。成就系统的设计指导，应当是涵盖广泛的论题的、确定的科学研究。在本文，我会通过解析如何在游戏中设置成就系统，来共享当前游戏 成就设计特点的分类标准。

标准分类的目的是从设计中总结出成就系统的作用机制。研究表明，成就系统会影响玩家的行动表现、积极性和态度。

虽然我打算把这个分类标准说得广泛全面一些，但很可能遭到争议，还面临着以后的修正。如果我们打算有效地利用成就系统的潜力，暂且认为这是一个不错的讨论起点。

本部分将涉及以下概念：

预期成就vs.意外成就

成就通告

成就持久性

成就可见性

预期成就vs.意外成就

当玩家取得一项成就，收到的成就通告的那一刻，玩家就像得到了突如其来的惊喜，或者奋力拼搏终于撞破了终点线。这种期望有赖于游戏成就系统的设计决定——可以让玩家事 先知道能获得什么成就，也可以让成就出乎意料地出现在游戏中。这就是预期成就和意外成就的不同，但二者都能用于提升玩家的游戏体验。

预期成就让玩家在之前就为自己立下目标。这样做有四个确凿的好处：

第一，玩家有了具体目标就可以更好地分配自己的资源。也就是说，玩家为了达到目标，就要重新温习自己的某种技术、节省额外时间或者向朋友求助。

第二，为了目标的达成，玩家更乐意发奋努力。对游戏开发者而言，玩家的这种努力意味着他们体验游戏的时间也在延长。

例如，玩家要花许多个小时来达成《魔兽争霸》中的“Salty”成就（游戏邦注：玩家必须取得所有钓鱼成就）——我可以亲自证明这可能是个无休无止的过程。

第三，带着目标的玩家在陷入困境时也能迎难而上，而那些漫无目的的玩家更可能在困难面前轻言放弃。

第四，为了达到目标，玩家更可能致力于掌握新知识和新技术。这一点对游戏开发者同样意义重大——掌握了新技术的玩家更可能成为回头客。

除了以上好处，预期成就使玩家在体验游戏前就形成一种游戏的心理模式，或叫心智模型（游戏邦注：简单地说，心智模型就是人们接受外界信息后在脑中形成一个思维的模型号 来描述或者刻画外部世界，从而对人们的认知和行为起某种指导作用）。根据这种心理模式，有利于玩家搞清游戏的运作机制和决定应对的措施。如果玩家买了一款新游戏后，查
看了所有自己可以获得的成就，他们对游戏本身就会有更清晰的理解，也就是玩家形成了心理模式。事实上，心理模式的形成也经常运用于提升用户表现的训练项目。

相对而言，意外成就在电子游戏中的运用并不普遍，但对玩家同样有潜在价值。这种像挣外快一样的成就可能有助于鼓励玩家尝试性地体验游戏玩法。

在《成就解锁》中可以找到这个外快策略的典型。玩家在该游戏中几乎做什么都可能获得稀奇古怪的成就。尽管开发者料想该游戏可能戳破游戏成就系统滥用的基线，但《成就解 锁》还是有效地阐明了这款metagame使玩家抱着获得所有神秘成就的目的，任意在屏幕四处上蹿下跳。

最优方案：在游戏中，预期成就占主导，这样玩家可以为自己确立目标，形成游戏心理模式。但要保证成就描述能准确地反映其对玩家的行动要求和该成就的重要性。少量的意外 成就能鼓励玩家的创意玩法，建议开发者适当运用这种策略。

成就通告

成就达成后，玩家必须知道自己完成了什么。游戏开发者可以选择在游戏过程中直接告之玩家，也可以选择过一段时间（游戏的自然中断）后才公布成就达成情况。采用即时通告 或者延迟通告，要根据游戏类型和玩家的经验水平来决定。

游戏过程中出现的成就通告就是一种即时通告，如《魔兽世界》中的成就通告。研究表明，即时通告可以促进玩家对游戏的了解和提高玩家完成任务的效率。当玩家的目标成就与 玩家在游戏中的表现有关时，这一点显得尤其重要。

然而，对于游戏老手，从即时反馈中得到的益处并没有像菜鸟玩家那样多。随着玩家经验的增长，更多地使用延迟通告反而更实在，因为这样老玩家才有机会自我评估表现。

即时通告有一个潜在的干扰作用，这是需要慎重考虑的。这种干扰打断游戏状态（玩家通常称游戏的流畅状态为“the zone”），进而对玩家产生不良影响。

当玩家陶醉于游戏时，玩家的注意力完全集中在游戏里，游戏之外的时空早已置之度外——这种体验对于玩游戏，特别是玩自己最喜欢的游戏的人来说，应该不陌生。

在游戏世界中流连忘返的玩家，会更有动力继续玩下去、体验更多乐趣。所以那种扑面而来的成就通告就直接干扰了玩家的状态，可能并不讨喜。

为了避免分散玩家的注意力，那种费心思的游戏（例如即时战略游戏）最好使用延迟通告。对于《星际争霸》这类环节界定清晰的游戏，在游戏自然中断后给予玩家成就通告则更 合适。

这种类型的通告有着类似延迟反馈的益处——增强对新知识的记忆。所以，在新游戏中首次一展身手的玩家，如果记住了第一次的技巧，更有可能在以后的游戏环节中温习技巧。

最优方案：在过程中缺乏自然中断的游戏中采用弹出式即时通告，且通告上顺带更详细的成就解释。而对那些环节界定明确的游戏和需要高度集中精神的游戏来说，延迟通告比即 时通告更可取。给新玩家即时反馈，给游戏老手延迟反馈。

成就持久性

玩家取得某项成就，过了很久以后，可能会打算重温历史。永久性成就允许玩家回顾辉煌的往昔，而临时性成就对玩家而言犹如过眼云烟，转瞬即逝。

永久性成就分为两类：有形奖励和储存清单。前者指的是达成某项成就后获得的奖品，后者指的是成就描述的目录表。有形奖励是个抽象概念，因为这种奖励只存在于虚拟世界。 但是，像宠物或装备这类有形奖励可以为玩家所用，还能像实际物质奖励一样获得其他人的羡慕。

注意：如果运用于现实世界的奖励法则也被运用于虚拟世界，那就要当心滥用有形奖励的问题。有形奖励会减少玩家的内在动机（游戏邦注：intrinsic motivation—–个体发展 的一种内在的愿望，渴望去做某件事情，并且很自然地认为做某件事是有益的），降低玩家自我决定的意识，还会减少玩家重返任务的可能性。

有了成就的储存清单（例如Xbox Live中的功能），玩家可以随时回顾自己获得成就后的表现，从而温故知新。

临时性成就，就像第一人称射击游戏中的“Unstoppable”或“God-Like”，相当于口头褒扬。不像有形成就，这些口头赞扬增加了玩家的内在动机，也不会破坏玩家的自决意识。 临时成就会随着通告的消失而消失。

最优方案：采用某些储存清单来满足玩家想回顾游戏史的愿望。有形奖励对玩家有极大的激励作用，但玩家获得这种成就后，它就不再有吸引力了。

成就可见性

在单人游戏和多人游戏中，玩家的成就栏通常是对其他玩家开放的，不同游戏成就栏的开放信息也不尽相同。一些游戏将决定权交付玩家的手中。这些托管式的设定使成就变成了 昭然若揭的事。玩家自定义的成就设置，如在《FarmVille》和《星际争霸2》，使玩家可自行决定公开哪些内容。

社会认可是玩家玩游戏的一大诱因。把成就公之于众，可以鼓励玩家为了认同感而努力获得成就。研究表明，社会认同感可作为内在动机，从而对玩家表现产生积极影响。

同级的玩家通过查看他人的成就，可以定位自己的成就目标。成就的奋斗过程和最终达成能促进玩家的自我效能（游戏邦注：self-efficacy，是许多人对于自身能否完成特定任务 的能力的认知，它可以将影响行动结果的因素转化为先行因素，对于行动发生效用），从而有助于完成其他游戏任务。

成就的可见性就像一种游戏简历。一个玩家能当共同奋斗的队友还是不耻下问的老师，看看他的成就获得情况就心知肚明了。

然而，这种对外公开的成就，也潜藏着缺陷。如上所述，简历般的成就可能把一些玩家排挤出其他玩家群体。

在MMO游戏中，这种现象司空见惯。在这类游戏中，其他玩家在允许入组前通常会被查看其成就情况。这就造成一种两难困境——玩家要获得经验，同时本身又必须有经验。过分依 赖作为动机的社会认同感还产生了另一个问题：一旦这种认同感减少或得不到，玩家仿佛失去了预报器，以后的游戏表现就堪忧了。

最优方案：成就对其他有强烈动机的玩家可见。为了防止菜鸟玩家受排斥，肯庇护他们的其他玩家将获得某种成就。让玩家展示一些引起为傲的成就，从而增加他们的游戏积极性 ，同时突出其游戏操作风格。

成就系统的设计指导，应当是涵盖广泛的论题的、确定的科学研究。在本文，我会通过解析如何在游戏中设置成就系统，来共享当前游戏成就设计特点的分类标准。标准分类的目 的是从设计中总结出成就系统的作用机制。研究表明，成就系统会影响玩家的行动表现、积极性和态度。虽然我打算把这个分类标准说得综合全面一些，但很可能遭到争议，还面 临着以后的修正。如果我们打算有效地利用成就系统的潜力，暂且认为这是一个不错的讨论起点。

在本文的第三部分，将涉及以下概念：

·消极成就

·金钱成就

·挑战成就和超级成就

·竞技成就

·合作成就

消极成就（“囧”成就、“ORZ”成就）

通常情况下，达成某项成就是件无比光荣的事——意味着在某任务、等级或财富等方面达到了显著甚至是显赫的程度。但玩家也会有被喝倒彩的时候，所以就有了一些不是那么光 彩的成就——某方面表现差到一“系统认可”的程度的玩家得到这类成就。不少游戏中存在这类成就系统，如在游戏《命令与征服3》中，如果玩家在排名游戏中跌出官方排名20位 ，就会被“授予”某个消极成就；在PS3游戏《战神》中，反复死亡的玩家将收获“我被打得落花流水”（Getting My Ass Kicked）的“荣誉”。

在游戏中表现不佳本来就不是件幸事，更何况还得到了个消极成就，无异于在伤口上撒把盐。玩家可能会因此丧失自信心和独立性，从而降低对游戏的满足感。如果玩家事先知道 游戏中存在消极成就，可能会想方设法避开。但这样的回避毕竟不是长久之计，久而久之，玩家也会整个游戏心生厌烦。

如果游戏设计本身存在缺陷，那么消极成就可能会对游戏造成二次打击。有些玩家在游戏中反复地死亡，如果是因为不合理的等级设计或者崩溃的游戏机制，就不该得到“你太逊 了“这样的成就。否则，玩家只会归咎于游戏而不是玩家自己。

最佳方案：不使用消极成就。为那些表现比较“挣扎”的玩家提供点反馈性的帮助。

金钱成就

金钱成就即获得的成就可以当成虚拟金钱在游戏中通行。这种金钱可以表现为点数、金币或星级等，玩家可以用来购买游戏中的虚拟商品或者现实中的商品。微交易导向型游戏， 如《League of Legends》，它的成就奖励还表现为在游戏中可获得的其他形式的金钱。

当成就以虚拟金钱的形式表现出来，显然是个不错的衡量标准。玩家能达到成就的要求已经是非常荣耀的事了，再加上虚拟金钱的成就奖励，那真是个令人难忘的经历啊。然而， 以虚拟金钱作为成就奖励的方式，也可能对玩家产生广泛影响。

大量研究表明，将虚拟金钱作为成就奖励来刺激玩家的表现，比用无形奖励的效果更好。这可能是因为玩家可以使用金钱成就购买自己想要的商品，而不是得到设计师设计的系统 “钦点”的奖励。

近年以来，有些学校也开始以金钱作用奖励，如奖励课堂出勤、考试成绩，金钱奖励甚至提高了大学入学率。但只有以投入作为奖励标准而不是产出时，成效才会增加。也就是说 ，学生得到奖励的前提应该是他在学习上投入了足够多的时间，而不是看他得到了多少分数。这个例子映射到游戏上就是，以金钱作为成就奖励应该参照的标准是玩家在游戏中投
入的时间、精力，而不是其最终的等级。

金钱奖励通常会与游戏中的无形奖励产生对立。因为它会降低成就获得者的内在动机，即最终玩家关注的只是奖励系统，而不是游戏本身。不少游戏公司都利用这种奖励系统把玩 家拴在一些无聊的任务上。此外，金钱奖励无声无息地煽动玩家去寻找获得金钱成就的路径，其代价可能是降低了玩家在游戏中的创造力。

最佳方案：把金钱作为玩家完成任务的奖励，而不是让其产生强大的控制欲的成就奖励。金钱奖励可以用于提高游戏的吸引力，但不要使之成为玩家参与某游戏活动的主导。

挑战成就和超级成就

大多的时间相关成就是通过完成单个任务而获得。但这里所说的挑战成就和系列成就的达成要求可不是只完成一个任务。

挑战成就的获得条件是，玩家完成一连串小任务单元——这些单元任务本身是附属于同一个完整的大任务，只是各个小任务难度递增。什么是挑战任务？杀掉25万5百怪物或者1千 个敌人（FPS）、收集不同颜色的丝带（《FarmVille》）就叫挑战任务。

超级成就的达成要求是玩家完成不同任务中的一系列成就。如在《魔兽世界》中，玩家要达成“大厨”的成就就必须首先完成所有与烹饪相关的成就。

挑战成就和超级成就都可以作为“循序渐进学游戏”的教学训练。一个看似相当复杂的任务，只有被分解成数个按顺序排列的小任务单元，才能像训练计划那样指导玩家最终完成 整个任务。

这种“肢解”式的任务会给玩家带来间接好处——玩家搞清楚复杂任务的结构后，更有可能参与任务。

要达成挑战成就和超级成就，通常要花上那么一阵子的时间，这与长期任务相似。长期任务的好处之一是，奖励玩家的每一个任务步骤，所以累积收益远大于短期任务；另一个好 处是玩家会为了完成任务而投入更多时间（对游戏设计者而言，玩家将更多时间投入到游戏中当然是件好事）。

这类成就也有潜在缺陷。做一连串相同的任务或动作，犹如跟着撒在路上的面包屑找回家的路，玩家会觉得没有自我方向，从而丧失主动性。所以，成就的数量、其间隔和其挑战 难度的设定就是件值得商榷的事了。

最佳方案：利用这类成就保持玩家的长期兴趣，并以相关活动做指引。无论是在时间还是空间上，各个小任务的间隔要有度，不要让玩家有受制感。

竞技成就

竞技成就的达成前提是一个玩家与另一个玩家的直接对抗（PK）或间接对抗（单一任务得分）。这类成就可以是个人达成（单挑），也可以是团队达成（群殴）。

研究表明，竞技可以增加特定任务的乐趣，从而端正玩家的态度。成功的竞技结果会增加玩家的自我能力认同感，从而刺激玩家的内在动机。此外，处于竞争性环境的玩家在重复 性任务中的表现通常会有所提升。

不仅是游戏，竞技元素在现实生活中的运用也常有良好的效果——在计算机课中增加竞技环节，可以活跃课堂气氛。

尽管竞争性环境有其合理性，甚至优越性存在，但研究同样表明，在某些情况下，竞技性玩法应该有所回避。

玩家的学习过程时常受到竞争性环境的阻碍。究其原因，一部分是因为在竞争环境下，玩家的自我中心主义往往会被激发出来，这种自私的情绪极可能抑制玩家乐于助人的一面。 另外，竞争过激还会对玩家的自我效能（自信心）产生消极影响。在这种负面影响的驱使下，玩家往往对自己和队友的要求更加苛刻，特别是当队伍输掉某个任务或战斗时。

还有一点要考虑到到的是玩家个人的动机问题。那些技术水平上乘的老玩家相对而言更能享受到竞技成就带来的快乐，更少受到其负面影响。所以他们会流连于他们所熟悉的竞技 环境中，且不会因为额外竞争而感到压力。这些达成成就动机高的玩家比动机低的玩家更享受挑战竞争性任务。当然，通常情况下玩家达成成就的积极性也受到游戏类型的影响。 所以，把好玩家人数统计关、定位其游戏兴趣取向，也是游戏成就系统设计中非常重要的课题。

最佳方案：如果要在游戏中设置竞技成就，务必保证玩家对游戏的上手程度。

合作成就（非竞技成就）

合作成就，顾名思义，就是玩家要在游戏中通力配合完成一个共同目标。这种类型的成就在多人游戏中最为普遍，因为在多人游戏中，玩家产生互动的时候更多。合作的情况一般 是这样的：

玩家组队接受团队任务，如杀死一只大怪；或者玩家要杀满1000个敌人，显然玩家单打独斗非常难完成——第一人称射击游戏就是利用这种任务鼓励玩家组队。

大多情况下，合作性环境有利于提升玩家的表现。当评价一个同伴时，合作性环境就已经与更伟大的成就、更强烈的自尊和更高的积极性挂钩了。因此，需要合作的任务相对于一 个人就能解决的任务，更能促进玩家的表现。

合作的另一个优点是，面对不能独立完成的任务时，玩家仍然有更广泛的目标范围。为了体现这个优点，还要鼓励资深玩家与菜鸟玩家合作，然后给予资深玩家相应的成就。

在《City of Heroes》中有一个同伴系统。研究发现，那些在生意上受关照的玩家比起“姥姥不疼，舅舅不爱”的玩家，升级更快、对工作更满意。在游戏中充当“导师、保护人 ”的玩家本身也从这种系统中受益，因为他们可以看到自己的表现和社会地位的提高。

虽然合作性设置有诸多好处，但也不是全然没有风险的。风险之一是，团队成员的态度极端化，导致整体的决定过于拘谨或过于冒险。在这种情况下，就算有机会做出成员自己的 决定，得出的也只是下下策。

另一个风险是，如果成员交流和互助的额外工作阻碍了团队表现，那么游戏过程缺失的情况就会发生。所谓“额外工作”是指因为技术有限产生的交流困难，导致的游戏过程缺失 的情况更加突出。在MMO的突袭行动中，如果玩家没有语音聊天软件，那么玩家就不得不花更多时间在交流沟通上（打字肯定比说话慢嘛）。

团队合作引起的风险还有“南郭现象”。当一个团队规模比较大时，个人的表现往往会被掩盖，这时，滥竽充数、混水摸鱼的人就很难被发现。

最佳方案：为了促进合作环境的和谐，可以考虑给予帮助低级玩家的高级玩家某些成就。给予团队的合作成就要保持相对小，以缓合游戏过程缺失现象及减少“南郭先生”。在团 队合作的任务中，决定成就达成的标准也应被运用于评价玩家个人的表现。

结语

成就系统的设计是一个相当复杂的课题，但非常有研究价值。希望我这篇概要能带给游戏开发者、爱好者们一点启发。这类课题的研究难点在于，总是要借鉴其他领域的研究成果，然后将其调整为符合游戏开发需要的结论。

为了弥补这些论题的不足，RETRO研究室目前正在分门别类地研究成就系统的设计。我们的研究方式是将不同游戏中各种类型的成就加以置换，然后评估各个成就系统对玩家造成的 影响，即考察游戏乐趣和游戏时间等。

如果我们的研究室有新的研究成果出炉，我们将对游戏社区全面公布重要成果。感谢过去几周对我的研究发表评论的意见的朋友们。我希望关于成就系统设计的辩论还能继续下去 ，也希望我的文章能激发大家的讨论灵感。

篇目2，如何在游戏设计中利用战利品掉落表

作者：Daniel Cook

许多游戏都带有战利品。通常情况下这些战利品的分配都是随机的。战利品掉落是特别常见的主题，但却也是每个设计师经常会觉得头疼的内容。以下是我在过去几年所遇到的最佳实践。

你的基本战利品表

这里的目标是为了基于特定几率掉落一组道具。假设当你打败一个敌人，你便有机会获得盾牌，稀有的剑，或者什么都没有。

例子

战利品表

道具：

名字：剑

重量：10

道具：

名字：盾

重量：40

道具:

名字：空

重量：50

设置

道具：你想要提供给玩家的一种道具。

战利品表：将一组道具放进战利品表中。这只是一部分道具。例如一个战利品表将包括：剑，盾，空。

重量：每个道具都带有掉落重量：从1到10000。例如一把剑的掉落率可能是10。

空道具：战利品表中会有一个道具是“空”，这意味着如果滚动到它，便不会掉落任何战利品。

滚动战利品

总概率：首先，计算战利品表中的所有重量。在上述例子中便是10+40+50=100。因为这些数值并不是百分比，所以它们并不需要加到100。

接下来分配每个道具的范围。剑=1至10，盾=11至50，空=51至100。

从1至100生成一个随机数。

将该数值与范围进行比较。这便能够决定到底会掉落哪种道具。

再次滚动：生成多个随机数值去模拟多次滚动。

所以玩家会如何看待它们？我们设置剑的掉落几率为10%，盾的掉落几率为40%，而什么都不会掉落的几率为50%。

作为设计师，我可以将空的重量改为100，而现在我将剑的掉落几率设为6.6%（10/150），盾的掉落几率为26%（40/150），什么都不会掉落的几率为66%（100/150）。

映射到其它常见的随机系统

这一系统只是在重申许多其它相似的随机性方法。这是训练你的设计师大脑在基于战利品表，纸牌或筛子上理解任何随机性问题间转换的有趣方法。

纸牌

想象你能够洗牌并获取的桥牌。

桥牌上的每种纸牌类型都是一种道具。

特定类型的纸牌数量便是道具的重量。

洗牌等同于为每种道具分配范围并生成随机数。

抽取纸牌等同于选择掉落的道具。

现在常见的桥牌都拥有52张牌，但如果是基于战利品表，你便可以不受约束地进行操作。你的桥牌拥有1000张各种类型的纸牌。或者它们可以提供与典型的扑克手所拥有的较小的桥牌。

筛子

筛子同样也能够映射到战利品表上。

每一个独立的筛子都是一张战利品表。

筛子的每一面（1至N）便等同于道具。

筛子的每一面都拥有重量“1”（除非你是在使用超重的筛子！）。

多次滚动筛子代表多次滚动同一个战利品表。所以2D6便等同于抽取一个带有6种道具的战利品表2次。

变量

既然我们定义了一个基本的战利品表，我们还可以做些什么？

变量：道具组合

你同样也可以掉落战利品组合。道具并不需要一定是单一的内容。例如我可以扩展它从而让玩家同时获得一个盾牌和一个生命药剂。

例子

战利品表

道具：

名字：剑

重量：10

道具：

名字：盾

名字：生命药剂 数值：2

重量：40

道具：

名字：空

重量：50

变量：总是掉落

常见的需求是标记一个道具从而提升它的掉落频率。这里存在一种惯例，即带有“-1”重量的道具将会更常掉落。

变量：可重复的随机性

有时候你会希望能够重复一个随机滚动。例如当一名玩家保存了游戏，并能在之后重新加载以避免糟糕的战利品掉落结果，这将导致非常折腾的玩家行为。而如果存在一种方法能够避免这种情况，所有玩家都会很高兴吧。

大多数临时的伪随机数生成程序都是使用一个种子值。只要你能够保存该种子值，你便能够再次运行随机数生成程序并获得同意的结果。

变量：无需改变而滚动

上述系统的问题在于玩家可能会一直滚到“空”。这也是玩家常常抱怨的结果。就像“我玩了3000多次却从未获得MegaGoldenLootGun！”。

在统计学中存在两种基本的抽样类型：

放回抽样：你将从列表中抽取数值然后在记录你所获得的数值后，你会将它们放回去。如此你便有可能在下次抽取时拥有同样的几率。

不放回抽样：你将从列表中抽取数值，并且在你记录之后便将其置于一边。如此你在下次抽取时抽到该道具的几率便会下降，而抽到剩下道具的几率便会增加。

《俄罗斯方块》便使用了不放回抽样。每种俄罗斯方块都有自己的战利品表。每次你获得一个特殊组块时，它便会被移出列表。这种方法能够保证你在长时间等待长方形组块时将能获得它。

以下是关于你在战利品表中如何执行不放回滚动。

当你滚动一个道具时，将其的重量减少1。这也等同于将它的范围和最大范围减去1。

确保在玩家下次滚动时他们的战利品表已经进行了修改。

变量：保证特殊的掉落道具

有时候不放回滚动不够快，而你却希望保证战利品的掉落。暴雪便保证了特定稀有道具的掉落从而让玩家无需长时间地刷道具。

你可以只是提升重量，但是随着玩家多次玩游戏，他们会感受到获得某些有保证的道具的低频率与获得一种道具慢慢提升的几率之间的明确区别。

以下是关于如何执行有保证的掉落战利品。

当你滚动任何无保证的道具时，减少X%无保证的道具重量。

X=100/在有保证的道具掉落前滚动的最大数量。

确保在玩家下次滚动时他们的战利品表已经进行了修改。

例子

假设你想要在5个回合后剑能够频繁掉落，尽管它只拥有10%的掉落几率。

如此X=100/5或20%

所以每次当你滚到剑时，盾的重量便会下降8（40*0.2），而空的重量会下降10（50*0.2）。

在5个回合后，所有其它道具的重量将变成0，剑便会拥有100%的掉落几率。

变量：分等级的战利品表

战利品表通常都是新资源的来源。然而你很容易进入一种情境，即你掉落了太多或太少特殊资源。这时候一些限制将很有帮助。

一种解决方法便是使用不放回的分等级的战利品表。当一种特殊资源用尽时，玩家将不再获得该资源。我们在每日货币奖励中便使用了这一方法。我们想要每天派发100个货币，并且不会超过这一数值。但是我们也想将其作为战利品系统的一部分。

创造两个表：奖励和每日货币。

让主要的战利品表参照每日货币表。

当选择每日货币时，滚动列表并明确你获得了多少货币。

例子

战力品表：奖励

道具：

名字：剑

重量：10

道具：

名字：每日货币

重量：40

道具：

名字：空

重量：50

战利品表：每日货币

类型：不放回

更新率：每日

道具：

名字：货币，数值：1

重量：10

道具：

名字：货币，数值：10

重量：4

道具：

名字：货币，数值：50

重量：1

在上述例子中，玩家有40%的机会获得货币。然后我们将滚动每日货币表并看看它们是否能够基于10次奖励每次1个货币，4次奖励每次10个货币以及1次奖励每次50个货币而在一天中获得最多的100个货币。

当每日货币战利品表空了时，它们只有在隔天更新时才会再次被填满。

变量：有条件的掉落

有时候你会想要测试是否应该基于一些外部变量去掉落道具。在《 Realm of the Mad God》中，我们便想要避免未创造任何伤害而杀死boss的“搭便车者”获得战利品。所以在战利品表中，我们添加了检查。如果滚动到战利品表中的一种有价值的道具，我们便会检查玩家对敌人所造成的伤害是否超过X%。

你可以基于玩家的级别或敌人的级别改变战利品的有效性。就像我更倾向于使用多个较小的战利品表，并且系统非常灵活，足以让你能够轻松地使用一些较大的列表和条件去创造数据。

变量：编辑器

你可以基于以下外部逻辑修改掉落物的数量或重量。例如擅长收集的玩家能够获得比不擅长收集的玩家2倍多的特殊掉落道具。或者你可以修改重量。较高级别的角色的所有道具可能拥有-50%的重量，这远低于他们的级别。

其它使用

掉落物列表通常是用于掉落战利品，但我们也可以在其它地方发现它们。

程序生成：使用列表去创造武器或角色。

AI：使用列表去选择行为，如攻击或移动。

这可能有点愚蠢，但的确存在一些更好的方式去创造AI！一种方式便是将随机性当成任何系统的一阶模型。人类大脑是如何创造系统模型？我们为系统创造了观察报告。并注意到这些观察值重复出现的频率和趋势。在之后我们开始理解“为什么”会发生某些情况以及每个部分之间的临时关系。

在物理学中，我们经常会开玩笑地说，为了创造一只奶牛模型，即一个复杂的有机体，我们需要做的第一步便是“想象一只球形的奶牛。”通过创造一个简单的模型，我们便能够以最低成本生成有用的见解。

很多时候，掉落表其实就是一个复杂系统的以人类为中心的近似值。对于许多系统，大多数玩家的移动都不会超过一个基本的概率理解，所以创造更复杂的模型只会浪费时间。有效的游戏设计是创造模型去最小化必要级别以创造出理想的游戏体验。

考虑：《龙与地下城》便基于必要的战利品掉落表创造了完整的宇宙。这就是专注于最小化系统。

战利品掉落表并不是你需要的唯一工具，但在很多情况下，它却是一种很有效的工具。

程序生成思维实验

以下是使用掉落表的简单程序生成系统。存在许多其它方式能够做到这点，但这却是最需要你进行思考的方法。让我们假设你想要创造一个程序生成敌人。

一开始先创造独特的敌人列表。也许你的敌人是由移动类型，攻击类型，防御类型以及财宝类型所组成。

为每种类型创造战利品表。

基于强度提供给战利品表中的每种道具能量值。例如，刀的攻击可能较弱，那么它的能量值便是5。而较大的铁锤的能量值为15。

创造另一个战利品表。这是各种属性的修改内容。例如，“强大”将为攻击增加20%的数值。你也可以将攻击设为“弱”，这将减少50%的数值。

现在让我们生成一个敌人

设定一个目标：为你的生成敌人设定一个目标能量。假设你想要一个拥有40能量值的敌人。

滚动：滚动每个部分并将其添加到列表上。

分数：添加所有的能量值去获得一个分数。

调整：如果这些部分的总和超过目标值，那就为较低的能量部分添加一个攻击或滚动。如果总和低于目标值，那就为较高的能量部分添加一个攻击或滚动。

重复：重复这一过程直到你到达一个预期的错误门槛（远离能量40）或者你耗尽了你想要消耗的迭代数。

现在你便拥有一个程序生成敌人。对于这一基本系统你可以进行多次调整，但它大多数情况下都是有用的。作为练习，你可以想想：

排除列表：如果选择了列表中的两个部分，那就丢掉敌人再次滚动。

多重限制：基于多个标准进行评判的部分。需要注意的是，当你添加更多限制时，你便更加不可能聚集多重结果。

结论

任何时候都会出现关于随机性的讨论，并且也有许多次要问题会发挥作用。我建议你们能够阅读以下内容：

http://www.lostgarden.com/2012/12/understanding-randomness-in-terms-of.html

http://www.lostgarden.com/2012/12/understanding-randomness-in-terms-of.html

抵抗教条式的随机性。作为一个受过良好教育的设计师，你的美学选择应该是基于亲手实践。这里存在的一个经验法则便是，在你成功使用一种设计工具创造出一些成功游戏之前，你不能轻易批评这种设计工具。

篇目3，解析游戏设计策略之奖惩系统

作者：Brice Morrison

我们的日常生活充满了选择。睡眼朦胧中听到闹钟作响，鲤鱼打挺跳起来还是摁掉闹钟继续睡？今天的晚饭是吃鸡、啃牛排还是吃素好呢？埋头工作还是和朋友外出玩？这些选择就像一盒颜料，你用不同的色彩描绘每天的生活、工作仍至生命。正是通过这些选择，你体验自己的存在、向世界表达自己的存在。

如果人生是一场游戏，那么做这些选择的活动就是人生的基础机制，你有选择、有能力做或不做。这些行为就像生活的变量，你可以把它们输入生活这个系统。总之，无论是什么行动，只要在你的能力范围以内，你就可以随心所欲地做选择。

真的可以这样吗？当然不可以。现实可没有你想象的那么自由。确实，你有选择权，但有选择就有相应的后果、要求和规矩。在人生这场游戏里，你也许有能力冲进图书馆大声喧哗。你可能有能力侮辱最好的朋友或打劫便利店。你大约有能力沮丧地宅在公寓，不与朋友欢度周末。

以上都是你的选择，但你可能不会这么做。即使你有能力有办法去实施，还是受到其他指导性条件的约束。所谓“选择”的内涵远比你想象的要深刻。你的决定仿佛受到一股超脱于自身的无形力量的主宰。

奖惩系统影响玩家的行为

正如上面所讨论的那样，游戏为玩家提供了各种选择。玩家可以跑、射、画、投、吃、躲、攻、瞬间移动等等等。但这些行为都不是孤立存在的，总是有一个更高级的系统——奖惩系统统领这些行为，促使玩家从中做选择。奖惩系统同时赋予了基础机制以意义和份量，迫使玩家慎重考虑自己的选择。

因此，理解游戏设计中的奖惩系统是明白人类行为的重要课题。在特定的时刻，人的选择范围是很广的，然而，最普遍的行为只占了其中很小的比例。原因就是我们上面提到的，有什么样的选择就有什么样的结果。无论是在现实生活还是游戏世界，人们都是从过去的经验中学习，然后根据预期的最理想的结果来选择当前行为。行为与结果的对应关系组成了主宰玩家行为的奖惩系统。

在搞清楚奖惩系统是怎么一回事以前，我们先举一个简单的例子。在《超级马里奥64》中，游戏的基本机制就是跑跑跳跳着通过各个台面（暂不考虑战斗和能量源）。怎么使用这些能力一边前进一边收集通关所需的星星取决于玩家本人。

然而，玩家控制马里奥的行为要受到游戏奖惩系统的约束。如果马里奥撞到敌人，那么他就会挂掉一条命。这是一种简单的惩罚，从中我们可以看出这个系统是如何影响玩家的行为，这种影响远比我们所想象的要深刻。一旦玩家明白撞上蘑菇头就会损失一条命，那么他们的行为就会改变，不会像当初那么横冲直撞了。这就是惩罚的意义所在。

接下来，马里奥继续跑着，又遇到蘑菇头了。从技术上来说，玩家的行为中确实还存在一头撞向蘑菇头的选项，但游戏的奖惩系统已经告诉玩家此时应该躲避。因此，玩家会选择操纵马里奥躲开蘑菇头。

现在你看出什么来没？游戏的基本机制没变，仍旧是马里奥的跑跑跳跳，但玩家的行为改变了。玩家对游戏系统“心领神会”后，他们的决定随之改变。

随着玩家与游戏及其奖惩系统的互动进一步加强，玩家开始形成心智模型——系统的运作原理和行动的最佳方案。玩家能否完全理解系统取决于玩家自身，而奖惩系统的工作就是激发玩家的理想行为。一个好的游戏设计能够反映出玩家的理想行为，然后围绕理想行为构建奖惩系统，从而鼓励玩家做出理想的行为决定。

策略

在马里奥和蘑菇头的例子中，奖惩系统的作用相当明显，但并不是所有时候都那么直接。我们再以塔防游戏为例。在塔防游戏中，玩家必须建防御塔来阻止敌人抵达游戏屏幕的另一边。当敌人经过时，这些塔就会发动攻击，敌人走的总是抵达目标的最短路线。

塔防类游戏的基本机制是：

1、决定设置什么塔（游戏邦注：例如攻击力高低或成本高低等）

2、决定建塔的位置（2D平面）

以上就是玩家要做的选择，具体怎么做还是由玩家说的算，对吧？

如果你有认真看前面的内容的话，你应该知道当然不对。还是从技术上讲，玩家把塔丢哪都行，如果他已经不在乎输赢。游戏的奖惩系统鼓励特定的行为，所以实际上，玩家的选择就是游戏设定好的那种机制。

例如，玩家可以把塔远远地放在右上角，但奖惩系统可不太鼓励。这么做的直接后果就是火力不足，敌人迅速“上位”，玩家失败。最终，玩家会意识到最佳方案是把塔放在中间，这样基本上就完美地阻断了敌人的前进道路。当然玩家也可以继续顽固地把塔放在角落，输了再放，放了再输，不过，老输的游戏还有啥意思呢。

这又是一个奖惩系统决定玩家行为的例子。游戏给玩家一定的选择，但玩家胜利的条件是实施隐藏在系统之后的最佳策略。

奖惩系统的基本原则

奖惩系统怎么作用于玩家的行为？请看以下模式图：

开发者通过基本机制决定玩家的行为。然后，开发者设计奖惩系统来过滤玩家的可能选择，最后形成的是理想的玩家行为。

那么，这种奖惩系统是怎么设计出来的呢？答案就是，先给自己充点行为心理学的电。这门学问的先驱研究者是B.F. Skinner等行为学家，特别是他提出的操作性条件作用（条件反射理论），是观察主体对某种系统的作出反应的行为。

似曾相识？操作性条件作用就是我在本文中所探讨的问题的研究基础。与操作性行为作用相似，游戏中的奖惩系统影响玩家的行为，主要采取以下四种方式：

1、主动奖励：以玩家想要或喜欢的东西作为对玩家行为的奖励。

2、被动奖励：移除玩家不喜欢的东西作为对玩家行为的奖励。

3、主动惩罚：给予玩家不想要或不喜欢的东西作为对玩家行为的惩罚。

4、被动惩罚：移除玩家想要的或喜欢的东西作为对玩家行为的惩罚。

根据玩家对基本机制的运用，游戏给予玩家奖励或惩罚，这样，游戏开发者得以不断修整基本机制的运用。例如，在《超级马里奥64》中，当玩家打败敌人，玩家通常会得到渴求的金币。这就是主动奖励。另外，蘑菇头没了，也就是说玩家在这道关卡的敌人减少了，这是被动奖励。

对于奖罚系统的惩罚方面，如果马里奥掉到火山岩浆里，那么他就得哀号着、失控般地扑灭工装裤上的火焰。这是主动惩罚，即给予玩家不想要的东西——玩家希望始终把对马里奥的控制权掌握在自己手里，而不是任马里奥自己乱来。另外，马里奥损失生命，这是被动惩罚，因为玩家希望命越多越好。

玩家行为塑造法

一开始，游戏的机制又少又简单，后来，不仅数量增加了，复杂程度也随着游戏进展呈螺旋式上升，然后奖惩系统开始变得相当复杂。因此，为了促成理想的玩家行为，清楚地理解设计奖惩系统的基本策略是非常必要的。

再者，所有一切总是从游戏设计的核心体验部分开始。一旦你定义好游戏的核心体验，那么就可以开始设计能够触发理想行为的机制了。在此，请考虑以下普遍原则：

描述理想行为。好的奖惩系统是隐蔽的。大多数开发者倾向于把注意力放在他们希望的行为上，然后设计能够激发那些行为的系统。如果只是关注这个系统本身，可能会产生混乱，最终导致失败。所以你得详尽地描述理想的玩家行为。然后围绕你的描述构建奖惩系统。试着站在玩家的立场来想象你的行为。

调整。如果你所设计的系统没有激发玩家的理想行为，那么你可以进一步调整。当你希望玩家迅速地越过墙时，你想象过（或在做原型时看过）玩家总是撞到墙上的情形吗？这时，你要做的就是稍微惩罚一下玩家的撞墙行为。一点小小的调整可以对玩家的行为产生重大影响。另外，请保证观看你的原型视频，然后再研究如何让游戏激发玩家的理想行为。

反馈时间。另一个要考虑到的重点是奖惩的反馈时间是多少？时间多长你说了算，但你得根据希望玩家如何学习游戏的固有系统来做决定。在大部分游戏中，如《超级马里奥》，反馈是立即的。“我从悬崖上摔下来，游戏马上宣布我死亡。好吧，收到。真惨，别再摔了。”

然而，在其他游戏中，通过延迟给予奖惩反馈，可以增加机制的复杂度。在策略游戏中，如《星际争霸》，玩家需要花更多时间来掌握策略，因为成败的反馈只到最后才知道。比如，玩家在一个难以防守的地点建立基地可能只需要五分钟，但这个选择导致的失败直到一个小时后才出现。但玩家不可能立马就把失败和建立基地的地点联系起来。行为和反馈的循环所需时间越长，玩家越难以有意识地发现其中的关系。

好的奖惩系统会让玩家产生掌握了游戏核心体验的满足感。无论是从巨龟怪那里救下公主还是打败迎面而来的敌人军队，奖惩系统可以指导玩家采取什么行动。另一方面，失败的奖惩系统会拖游戏的后腿，让游戏看起来像是粗糙的半成品。务必协调好游戏的奖励系统，这样才能给玩家带来畅快淋漓的游戏体验，且保持玩家所想和游戏所为之间的和谐。

篇目4，分析常见成就系统的问题及其解决方法

作者：Keith Burgun

尽管我对这个话题非常有感触，但我还是拖延了很长一段时间才着手撰写这篇文章。这是因为我认为，我在现存的成就系统中发现的问题会自动消失。然而，在新发布的游戏中，那些问题显然成功地将自己伪装成“我们期待现代电子游戏所具有的品质”。

我知道有许多人写过这个话题，但我想从另一个角度展开论述。例如，我知道Chris Hecker详尽地谈过外部激励因素。虽然我认为他的观点有道理，但我其实不太有兴趣赞成或反对外部奖励。我要反对的是成就本身，准确地说，是成就如何影响机制。

Lucas Blair就成就话题洋洋洒洒地写了三大节内容。他的文章的基本立场是“无论如何，我们都要做成就系统，所以不防参考以下实用的方法。”我不同意他的基本前提。

在这个世界上，永远不变的只有改变本身。我认为到最后，我们所看到的成就系统要么消失了，要么彻底改变了。如果这个预言听起来太疯狂了，那么我提醒你，有许多成功的iOS和任天堂主机游戏根本就没有成就系统。

我必须澄清和解释，我所说的“没有成就系统”是指它们没有普遍的成就系统的那种执行方式。我肯定你可以想出某一两款游戏似乎具有合理的、无害的甚至有趣的某种看起像是所谓的“成就系统”。要罗列现存的各种成就系统是不可能的，所以我只能从常见的类型入手。

你可能觉得成就系统现在的样子已经很不错了。如果是这样，那么请听我解释。也许我可以说服你转变看法，或至少给你一些将它们做得更好的建议。

《反恐精英：全球攻势》（以下简称《CS：GO》）就存在我所说的问题。这个版本发布于2012年——事实上，它是在8月份之后才发布的。这是一款全新的游戏，由最受欢迎、最被看重的AAA游戏开发团队Valve Software制作。但我可以肯定地说，它包含不少愚蠢的成就设计。另外，我还要从其他两款全新的游戏《XCOM: Enemy Unknown》和《生化危机6》中引用一些例子。

在我进一步解释以前，我要声明，我并不希望成就系统太快消失。不过，成就系统毕竟根植于我们的文化，要等它们彻底消失了，从现在算起大概需要数十年的时间。确实，你必须在微软和索尼游戏设备上设置成就系统（但显然，iOS、任天堂、Android和Steam都没有这种要求）。无论如何，我认为理解成就系统的陷阱对每个人来说都是有意义的，当然，不是所有成就系统都是陷阱。

最后，我还会解释我认为应该取代成就的变体。

主要问题

成就系统到底糟糕在哪里？“成就”系统的根源性问题可以表述如下：好的时候，成就系统没有发挥任何作用；坏的时候，它们影响玩家的行为。

你可能会问，影响玩家行为有什么错？影响行为是件坏事，是因为你只是耗费了一年半载的时间调整一套干扰正常行为的规则。记住，游戏是一套限制和刺激玩家行为的规则。你应该把时间花在修改、平衡、调整直到玩家行为被你想要的方式影响，全都围绕一个中心目标和玩法机制。

如果你没有这么做，那就另当别论了。在这种情况下，你并没有履行游戏设计师的职责。即使是再大的游戏，人们也会发现这个真相：你的游戏并没有向玩家展示有意义的选择和动态的、自然的、灵活的策略性。

我们假设你已经花时间为游戏制作一套动态的、平衡的、积极的规则。现在你准备用其他随意的激励因素作用于玩家？设计大量靠运气就能达到的额外的、可选择的目标？那你的做法无异于制作好一个钟，然后将各种零件倒进去，最后用胶水粘好，你觉得这样的钟能走吗？因此，成就系统其实从另一方面证明了游戏设计普遍缺少原则。

常见的成就系统

成就系统中，最常见的一个类型可以描述为“不可避免的”、“奖励的”、“聒噪的”和甚至“毫无意义的”。以下是取自《CS：GO》中的例子：

“Body Bagger：消灭25个敌人”

“Shot with their Pants Down：消灭正在装弹的敌人”

接下来的是《XCOM: Enemy Unknown》中的类似的例子：

“Bada Boom：用爆炸性武器消灭50个外星人”

《生化危机6》中也有一个基本相同的成就：

“Life Saver：帮助或拯救你的同伴10次”

这些成就是你必然会得到的。你肯定会杀掉25个敌人。你可能还没想到查看成就列表（如果你有想过查看）就已经消灭25个敌人了。

因此，许多玩家正玩着游戏，突然就弹出一个窗口告诉他“获得成就”。这是完全没有意义的信息，对游戏没有任何作用，除了暂时干扰玩家。

不过，这些成就还产生了另一个问题，那就是奖励玩家，你的游戏是不是已经自带奖励/激励系统了？如果是，那么突然地“吓”玩家一下是基于什么目的呢？消灭25个敌人？这有什么意义？游戏给的奖励是玩家已经得到的，而不是这个成就给的。你不妨放一个时间表，每15分钟少量发放随机的、无意义的成就奖励，如“你真迷人”或“你好有幽默感。”

为了不离题万里，我会很快说完下面的内容。根据斯金纳的研究，特别是关于操作性条件反射，即随机间隔发放奖励就是类似于这种成就模式——刺激大脑释放“快乐元素”到玩家的血液中，使玩家即使已经学不到任何东西了还继续玩游戏。我个人认为游戏能达到的效果应该超过操作性条件反射的实验箱，但即使你这么认为，你也应该意识到现在这种普遍的成就系统达到只是类似的效果。

激励

当讨论成就系统时，最常讨论的一个方面就是将其作为外部奖励——来自外部系统的奖励。我同意上文提到的Chris Hecker和其他许多作者如Alfie Kohn等的观点，质疑能否将这些激励运用于有意义的任务。我们的观点是，它们消除了完成任务的成就感，而任务本身就是有趣的和有益的。

我将从稍微不同的角度看待这个问题。首先，我们先看看《CS：GO》中的几个例子，这些例子就体现了我所说的问题：

“Three the Hard Way：用一个HE手榴弹消灭3个敌人”

“Aerial Necrobatics：在你自己空降的同时消灭一个空降的敌人”

《XCOM: Enemy Unknown》中的例子则是：

“Xavier：单个玩家对1个Ethereal进行心灵控制”

我们先想一想《CS》中的HE手榴弹是什么概念。当你购买一个这种烈性炸弹时，你感到兴奋，因为这家伙的威力很大。如果你正好把这东西放在合适的位置，谁知道能消灭多少敌人呢？你可能只会伤到若干人，你也可能杀掉一个人，或者你可能杀掉好几个人。这种灵活性使手榴弹的威力更富动态，更激动人心，你懂得。

当你投出手榴弹时，它确实能杀掉一个人，或者更好一点，两个人或三个人——总之是个大rush。你得到手榴弹但不使用，或使用但效果不大，所有时间都是为这个大rush作准备的。在使用手榴弹时感觉自己变强了——这种感觉才是令人兴奋的。你处于完全特殊的情形，你觉得自己创造了一个奇迹般的成功。

接着，一个小窗口弹出来告诉你，你刚刚取得了一些成就。突然间，那种做了某件了不起的事的感觉消失了大半。在一定程度上，你只不过是激活了一个小窗口——成百上千的其他玩家也做了同样的事。

《XCOM: Enemy Unknown》中的成就与之类似。原本可以让玩家觉得自己的战术了不起，现在这种战术变成了“应该做的事”。

我认为，开发者将这件事写下来供玩家查看，事实上导致这件事变得不那么特别了。而玩家的想法是：让我想象，让我发现，让我体验一些做了真正特殊的事的时刻，不要告诉我，我只是满足了开发者设定的要求。

为了让玩家意识到可以用手榴弹铁消灭很多人，所以那种成就如“Three the Hard Way”是必须的。有人可能会这么反驳我。但是，你应该知道原版的《CS》中并没有成就，并且使用HE手榴弹是非常流行的。玩家不需要有人告诉他这些显然可以自己发现的事。

收集

出于我的游戏哲学观，我认为“收集”本身就有问题。任何基于无空无尽的收集或任何没有明确目标的收集的系统，都是对玩家的剥削，是很无趣的（因此令人失望）。说它剥削玩家是因为它利用人类的“采集”本能，而没有用任何东西弥补我们花在收集上的时间。大多数游戏会挑战我们、激励我们、感动我们。而那些剥削我们的游戏给我们带来的体验是非常没有意义的。

在《CS》中，我到底为什么要收集所有成就？游戏记录我已经收集了百分之多少的成就。如果我的收集达到100%，会怎么样呢？记录这个信息的目的是什么？当我的朋友看到35%的收集率，他们会对我刮目相看吗？那他们看到95%时又会怎么样？

最后，当我的收集率终于达到100%，又怎么样？然后呢？这只是一个死系统。《CS》本来就是一款可玩性非常强的游戏，在游戏中添加这种剥削玩家的收集系统对提高可玩性有什么意义？

影响行为

这是成就系统的最大罪行。正如我前面所说的，游戏已经存在它自己的激励因素了——事实上，游戏设计师的目的是保持围绕着目标的激励因素的平衡，以产生预期的游戏体验。

但有些成就事实上干扰了玩家执行正常的行为。我记得在《军团要塞2》中就有很多这种例子。在游戏中，通常会出现这么一个情况：有一个医疗兵不去医治队友，反而忙着做一些相当愚蠢的事。真是令人生气，我大叫：“老兄，你到底在干嘛？救我啊。”

“我在做成就啊。”他是这么回答我的。

这种事没少发生，特别是在新游戏中。现在，我们会面临这样一种局面：因为成就的存在，玩家不积极地玩游戏，而是干扰或破坏游戏的体验。

一个普遍的错误就是责怪那名玩家。应该这么说：如果你责怪那名玩家只顾着做成就，那么你就证实了我的观点：成就系统必须消失。

《CS：GO》中也有一个影响行为的例子：

“Second to None：在爆炸时间少于1秒时成功地拆除炸弹”

很难想像，当玩家应该开始拆除炸弹时，明明只需要在炸弹的底部来一枪，他却非要一直等到时间少于1秒时。许多时候就是因为玩家错误地估算了时间，所以任务失败。这种行为显然是置其他玩家于危险的境地。记住，游戏的目标应该是所有参与方达成一致。

我的建议：变体

成就系统的烂摊子还有办法收拾起来吗？有的。某些成就——特别是影响玩家行为的成就，可能修改成有趣的变体。虽然我不希望成就系统消失或一夜之间面目全非，但变体提供了另一种值得探索的方式。

变体与成就之间的区别是什么？变体是一个新目标，玩家在游戏开始以前能主动选择，在当前游戏中，只有这个被选择的“目标”会被激活。“游戏”的基础之一是，规则和目标在游戏开始之就已经达成一致。在游戏正式运行中，允许玩家选择目标是不合理的。这只会鼓励玩家根据当前状况，选择最容易达成的目标。更糟的是，如果你允许玩家同时选择所有目标，那么有些目标的完成可能只是偶然的。

在《Nethack》中，变体被称为“conducts”。根据维基百科介绍的《Nethack》：

（尽管玩家可以在没有人为限制条件下完成《Nethack》，但高级玩家可以尝试用conducts增加游戏的挑战难度。）所谓的“conducts”就是对行为的自愿限制，如不使用祝福技能、素食或甚至绝对素食，或不杀死怪物。

在《CS》中，作为一款多人游戏，变体应该作用于所有玩家。如果恐怖分子的队伍胜利了，没有一个恐怖傻分子死亡因为他已经激活了一些特殊的变体，即他不会受到手榴弹的伤害。从技术上说，这没什么错，只要所有玩家事先同意，但这种变体似乎有些混乱和奇怪。

相反地，在《CS》的公共服中已经出现了一些更好的变体。比如，“无AWP/Auto”或“无限的金钱”或“打赌”都可以算是变体。这些变体对玩家构成新挑战——“当狙击枪不可用时，你还能赢得比赛吗？”还有其他服务器的变体，比如增加RPG元素、僵尸和其他规则。

看一下取自《XCOM》中的一个例子，然后告诉我这是不是一个成熟的变体：

“Lone Wolf：一名士兵清理UFO坠毁地区，难度为经典或不可能。”

为什么使用成就系统

作为开发者，我认为应该是“玩家喜欢成就，那我们就满足他们。”我想玩家的想法可能类似，即“好吧，开发者出由某些理由喜欢添加成就系统，那我们就迁就他们吧。”换句话说，其实没有多少人喜欢成就系统，但所有人都相信其他人喜欢成就系统，所以成就系统就一直存在着。

我还认为，成就系统始终存在是因为，坦白地说，现在的许多电子游戏本身没有那么有趣。开发者可以使用成就系统提供的低劣的、干扰的、无聊的收集功能给原本就无趣的系统创造乐趣。它们的主要功能，大多数时候是通过强迫玩家“收集”，用大量时间交换极少的乐趣。它们之所以突出，是因为它们出现在一款并不需要它们的游戏中——如《CS：GO》。

只因为成就系统已经存在许多年了，所以我们就要一直保留它们——我们不应该落入这种想法的陷阱中。现在，我可以肯定地说，我们确实可能一直保留它们，至少以某些形式，但值得注意的是，任天堂不使用这种系统是有道理的，并且似乎没有影响他们在商业或口碑上取得成功。正如我指出的，成就系统存在许多缺陷，随着时间流逝，我可以肯定地说，它们要么彻头彻尾地改变，要么消失。

如果你是成就系统的拥护者，那么我只想让你试着用新的角度审视它们，然后问问自己它们到底对游戏有什么作用，我提出来的问题有没有切中它的要害。

听着，人们喜欢“亚对策”，这点我理解。但如果你有很好的变体形亚对策，好的网络体系（如在线排行榜）和额外的玩法内容，那些因为你没“成就系统”而离开游戏的人应该会非常少。一定程度上，玩家很快就不会再期待成就系统了，就像他们当初那么期待成就系统的一样。

篇目5，论述促使玩家富有满足感的“成就循环”

作为游戏设计师，我常问自己什么令游戏富有趣味。“趣味”一词听起来有些抽象，而且非常主观。电子游戏有众多元素富有趣味：外部环境、令人印象深刻的音效、有趣的故事、有趣的角色及颗粒效应等。但有些游戏包含所有这些元素，但依然不那么有趣。那么究竟是什么元素促使游戏令人满意？游戏满足感来自何处？

我相信大家对此都有不同看法。话虽如此，我对游戏满足感来源的看法一点儿也不抽象。我认为很多游戏开发商都有这样的看法，只是他们没有表达出来。

要令人满意，游戏需要让玩家经历此“成就循环”：

1. 挑战：玩家面临障碍，其克服此障碍的渠道有限。

2. 反复试验：这是辛苦的工作（游戏邦注：让玩家承受一定遭遇非常重要）。玩家试着凭借自己的工具通过各种方式克服障碍。

3. 学习：在尝试使用工具的过程中，玩家也许会遭遇失败，但玩家会学会使用它们。

4. 成功：玩家克服挑战。他觉得自己有所成就，此辛苦工作有所回报。这是玩家享受其中的时刻，他从中感受到满足感。玩家会认为：“是的！我非常擅长这款游戏！”

5. 玩家返回第1点，其中的玩法情境融入更多复杂性/难度。

这看起来有点像秘诀，但其实不是。这能够通过各种方式应用至各类游戏中，但要做好并不容易。

此循环出现在各种经典游戏的细微情况中。让我们将此循环应用至《超级马里奥兄弟》的首个玩法情境中：

1. 挑战：Mario遇到缓缓向其靠近的Goomba。

2. 反复试验：Mario试验各种策略。他径直穿过Goomba，然后死去，或者笨拙地过早跳跃，然后再次死去。

3. 学习：Mario现在更清楚要如何移动和跳跃。

4. 成功：Mario顺利扑向Goomba，弄皱他丑陋的卡其色脸庞。然后取得胜利！

5. 返回：Mario现在将面临更大挑战。

但当游戏没有新鲜内容教给玩家时，它就无法继续循环，因此就会变得重复和单调。

在我看来，很多当前的游戏都无法让玩家保持兴致，因为它们试着通过虚伪方式创造满足感。这类游戏通常让非常强大的角色面临相当简单的玩法情境。所以我们看到的情形是，在体验的头几分钟里，你会觉得自己好像上帝，你会被自己的破坏程度吓到。但不久之后，你就会发现游戏再没有什么新鲜内容，开始令人觉得乏味。更糟的是，当你在游戏中失败时，你无法从中学到什么东西，你觉得自己愚蠢至极，因为你本不应该失败。

此循环呈现很多经典视频游戏所采用的策略：“易上手，难精通”。因为掌握游戏的难度越大，“成就循环”就能够持续越久，保持富有趣味。

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，The Cake Is Not a Lie: How to Design Effective Achievements

[In this first in a new series of articles, PhD researcher and game designer Lucas Blair uses academic research to formulate best practices for designing in-game achievements.]

Achievements are a hot topic in the gaming industry. Player feelings toward them range from obsession to indifference and designers seem equally torn over their use. Controversial or not, achievements appear to be here to stay, so designers need to learn to utilize them to their fullest potential. Achievements, if they are intended to have a positive effect on players, must be a forethought, and not an afterthought, during the game design process.

In many cases they are carelessly tacked on to a game after it is already close to completion. Unfortunately, the benefits of a carefully-crafted game mechanic can be undermined by attaching a poorly-designed achievement to it.

Alternatively, if achievements are designed in the same manner as other aspects of games, they can be used to improve the player’s experience and the overall quality of a game.

There is an established body of scientific study covering a wide range of topics, which should guide the design of achievements. In this article series, I will be sharing a taxonomy of achievement design features created by deconstructing how achievements are currently used in games.

The goal of this exercise is to distill mechanisms of action out of achievement designs, which have been shown by research to affect performance, motivation, and attitudes.

This taxonomy, although intended to be comprehensive, is likely to be subject to debate and future revisions. For the time being however, I think it is a good jumping off point for a discussion that must be had if we are to ever effectively harness the potential of achievements.

In part one I will be covering the following concepts:

Measurement Achievements

Completion Achievements

Boring vs. Interesting Tasks

Achievement Difficulty

Goal Orientation

Measurement vs. Completion Achievements

The first branch in the taxonomy contrasts Measurement and Completion achievements, which describe two distinct conditions under which we reward players for their actions.

Measurement achievements are given to players for completing a task to a certain degree. Their performance can be measured against another player’s performance, their own performance, or some standard set by game designers.

An example of this would be the star rating used in Angry Birds, which gives the player a number of stars based upon how well they beat the level. A measurement achievement can be likened to feedback, because it is evaluative in nature. The literature regarding the use of feedback in training and education indicates that feedback is beneficial to players because it allows them to reflect on their performance in relation to goals they have set for themselves.

This reflection increases the player’s perception of competence, which in turn increases, their intrinsic motivation — a term used to describe a task one finds inherently rewarding. That increase in perceived competence could also mediate the negative effects of other design decisions, like overusing rewards, which decrease intrinsic motivation.

On the other hand, completion achievements do not tell the player how well they’ve performed the task; instead they are offered as an award once a task is completed. Completion achievements can be split into two subcategories: performance contingent achievements and non-performance contingent achievements. Performance contingent achievements require skill to complete while non-performance contingent achievements are awarded for simply being present.

Performance contingent completion achievements, like those received for finishing a dungeon for the first time in World of Warcraft, can be better understood by reviewing what we know about the use of rewards as an extrinsic motivator. Some incentive programs have been shown to have a significant positive effect on task performance. However these types of rewards can decrease a player’s sense of autonomy, especially when given in excess. This decreased sense of
autonomy leads to lower intrinsic motivation.

Rewards also create an artificial ceiling for performance at the reward threshold. Once players have earned the reward, they are unlikely to continue on with the task that they were persuaded to do. For game developers this translates into the replay value of their game. Using rewards makes players less likely to take risks as they do not want to hurt their chances of being rewarded. This is especially relevant to rewards used in video games where designers wish to encourage creative and experimental play.

Non-performance contingent achievements, like earning a tabard or a pet for attending an in-game event, have no negative effect on intrinsic motivation. However these types of rewards do not have a performance measure, so players are unlikely to be interested in earning them unless they are paired with some sort of social reinforcement.

Best practice: Use measurement achievements instead of completion achievements to increase intrinsic motivation through feedback.

Boring vs. Interesting Tasks

Achievements are earned for the completion of a task or series of tasks. These required actions will fall on a spectrum ranging from boring to exciting from the player’s perspective. If a task is boring the reward structure associated with it has to be different from tasks that are inherently interesting to the player.

Boring tasks (such as trade skills in MMOs) can be paired with extrinsic motivators, like achievements, in order for players to engage in them. Because players are not inclined to do these tasks on their own, intrinsic motivation is unaffected by the use of rewards as an incentive.

There are two common strategies used to motivate people to engage in dull task. The first strategy is to make the player aware of the inherent value of the task through the wording of the achievement.

An example of this would be the “Lifesaver” achievement in Deadliest Catch: Sea of Chaos, which is given for rescuing a crewmember. The use of the term “Lifesaver” implies that the task is important because you are helping others.

The second strategy is to add additional rules or fantasy to the task itself, which is what all achievements do at their most basic level.

Interesting tasks which the player would engage in without any form of additional motivation do not need to be reinforced with rewards. Players will engage in these tasks without any coaxing, so achievements (especially those that are completion achievements) should be used sparingly.

Instead of trying to create artificial interest in a task the achievements should be attentional, in that they focus the player’s attention on important lessons or strategies for the task. This could improve player performance by scaffolding “hints” about what the most effective strategy is.

A good example of this would be the achievement “The Flying Heal Bus” in StarCraft II, which leads players to utilize a specific unit more effectively.

Best practice: Reward players for boring tasks and give them feedback for interesting ones. Make achievements for interesting tasks attentional.

Achievement Difficulty

The difficulty of achievements is addressed twice by designers. First, the actual difficulty of achievements needs to be on a level that is attainable but challenging to the players. Second, a player’s self-efficacy for the task(s) associated with the achievement must be high enough that they feel confident in attempting it.

Achievements should provide challenging goals for players to fulfill as moderate difficulty leads to superior gains in performance and a greater sense of accomplishment upon completion. However, achievements that are too difficult will not even be attempted by players. However, those that are too easy will be completed quickly, and won’t provide an adequate challenge. A common strategy to keep in-games tasks interesting is to provide alternative objectives for
those players who have reached a mastery level of performance.

Player self-efficacy (which refers to an individual’s perception about their own ability to produce a desired result for a specific task) is another important factor that game designers must consider. Increasing player self-efficacy is important because it has been linked to increased goal commitment, increased strategy creation and use, and a more positive response to negative feedback.

There are four factors that designers can address in order to affect a player’s self-efficacy. The first is their level of expertise on the subject matter. This is another important reason to make sure there are achievements available for players at all skill levels.

Seeing people around you succeed — or vicarious experience — is the second factor that influences self-efficacy. This effect is likely to be particularly powerful if the person being observed appears to be at the same ability level of the observer. Examples of utilizing this in games are leaderboards for online games or the “brags” in systems like OnLive.

Social persuasion (giving someone a verbal boost) is the third method of influencing self-efficacy. This can be as simple as telling someone “good job” after a performance or the “50 NOTE STREAK!” messages that appear in Guitar Hero. How a person feels is the fourth factor, which includes stress level, emotional condition, and perceived physical state.

Best practice: Make achievements challenging for the greatest returns in player performance and enjoyment. Phrase achievements and design interactions to increase player self-efficacy.

Goal Orientation

A player’s goal orientation must be considered when designing achievements as it will influence how they experience a game through goals they set for themselves. There are two types of goal orientation which are commonly referred to as performance orientation and mastery orientation. Players who favor a performance orientation are concerned with other people’s assessment of their competence. Players who have a mastery orientation are concerned more with
improving their proficiency.

Games tend to push players toward a performance orientation as they are constantly emphasizing direct goals like time and points earned. Unfortunately, players who gravitate toward this type of orientation take fewer in-game risks and spend less time exploring, afraid that doing so might affect their score.

This occurs frequently in first person shooters where players use the same weapons and tactics over and over again because they think it is the best way to optimize their kill to death ratio. However, research has shown that when individuals are given performance oriented goals they typically perform better only with simple, non-complex tasks.

To balance out player predisposition towards performance orientation designers must actively try to instill mastery orientation in the goals and feedback they create. There are several benefits associated with having a mastery orientation.

Players who have this mindset will accept errors and seek challenging tasks that provide them the opportunity to develop their competencies. When given mastery goals players will have higher self-efficacy and utilize more effective strategies. Research has also shown that people given mastery oriented goals perform better on complex tasks.

To help foster this type of orientation designers should create achievements that acknowledge the effort players are putting forth and support them during challenges. Games should treat errors and mistakes the players make as an opportunity to provide diagnostic feedback and encouragement.

The names and wording of achievements are very important when trying to effectively communicate this. For example Heavy Rain’s “So Close…” trophy, which is given to players for reaching, yet failing, the completion of a difficult task, could be seen as encouragement and recognition of effort.

In contrast, a similar achievement in Guitar Hero III, named “Blowing It”, is titled in such a way that it could be perceived as discouraging.

Best practice: For complex tasks requiring creativity or complicated strategies try to instill a mastery orientation. For simple or repetitive tasks instill a performance orientation. Try to keep new players, who are still learning how to play, in a mastery orientation.

For more information on these topics check out the following sources:

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1-27.

Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth? American Psychologist, 51(11), 1153-1166.

Lepper, M. R., & Gilovich, T. (1982). Accentuating the positive: Eliciting generalized compliance from children through activity-oriented requests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(2), 248-259.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57 (9), 705-717.

Bandura, A. (1999). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. In R. F. Baumeister, R. F. Baumeister (Eds.) , The self in social psychology (pp. 285-298). New York, NY US: Psychology Press.

Seijts, G. H., Latham, G. P., Tasa, K., & Latham, B. W. (2004). Goal Setting and Goal Orientation: An Integration of Two Different Yet Related Literatures. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 227-239.

Winters, D., & Latham, G. P. (1996). The effect of learning versus outcome goals on a simple versus a complex task. Group & Organization Management, 21(2), 236-250.

[In the second part of his three-part series, PhD researcher and game designer Lucas Blair continues to present underpinnings in contemporary research which will help formulate best practices for designing in-game achievements. You can read part 1 here.]

Now, to recap. As I wrote in the original piece, there is an established body of scientific study covering a wide range of topics, which should guide the design of achievements. In this article series, I will be sharing a taxonomy of achievement design features created by deconstructing how achievements are currently used in games.

Canada Game Conference

The goal of this exercise is to distill mechanisms of action out of achievement designs, which have been shown by research to affect performance, motivation,
and attitudes.

This taxonomy, although intended to be comprehensive, is likely to be subject to debate and future revisions. For the time being however, I think it is a good jumping off point for a discussion that must be had if we are to ever effectively harness the potential of achievements.

Now, onward to the new content. In part two I will be covering the following concepts:

* Expected vs. Unexpected Achievements

* When Achievement Notification Occurs

* Achievement Permanence

* Who Can See Earned Achievements?

Expected vs. Unexpected Achievements

When a player earns an achievement, the notification they receive can come as a total surprise or as the finish line they were striving for. The expectation that a player has when starting a game stems from the design decision to let them know what they can achieve. Players either know what achievements can be earned before they play a game, or they come upon them unexpectedly during play. Expected and unexpected achievements have different effects on players and can both be utilized to improve player experience.

Expected achievements allow players to set goals for themselves before they begin. There are four well-established benefits to having players set goals for themselves. First, goals will allow the player to have objectives and allocate their resources to complete them. This could mean brushing up on certain skills, setting aside extra time, or asking a friend for help. Second, having a goal increases the amount of effort someone is willing to put into something. For game makers this will directly translate into more play time.

As someone who spent many hours pursuing the “Salty” meta-achievement in World of Warcraft — in which a player must earn all fishing achievements — I can personally attest to what time-sinks they can be.

Third, players who have goals are much more likely to not give up when facing a difficult task in a game, as compared to players without such goals who quit playing once the going gets too tough. Fourth, players who establish goals for themselves will acquire new knowledge and skills in order to meet those goals.
This is also important to game makers, because those players who obtain new skills will in turn want to play your game more.

In addition to the benefits of goal-setting, expected achievements also allow players to create a schema, or a mental model, of gameplay before they begin. Players then refer to this schema in order to make sense of how the game is structured, and what actions they need to do in order to succeed. If a player purchases a new game and looks over all the achievements they can earn, they will develop a better understanding of the game itself. In fact, schema creation
is often similarly used in training programs to help increase user performance.

On the other end of the spectrum are unexpected achievements. Unexpected achievements are relatively uncommon in video games, but can also have potential benefits to players. One such perk would be encouraging experimental play.

An extreme example of this strategy can be seen in the game Achievement Unlocked, in which players can earn quirky achievements for almost everything they do. Although the developers intended it to be a jab at the overuse of game achievements, Achievement Unlocked effectively illustrates the metagame that can be created through convincing players to run and jump around the screen randomly in hopes of earning all the mystery achievements.

Best Practice: Primarily use expected achievements so players can establish goals for themselves and create a schema of the game. Make sure achievement descriptions accurately reflect what needs to be done by the player and why it is important. Unexpected achievements can be used sparingly to encourage creative play.

When Achievement Notification Occurs

After an achievement is earned, the player must be made aware of their accomplishment. Players can be notified immediately while play is still ongoing, or after some amount of time has passed — at a natural break in the action. The decision between using immediate and delayed notifications should be influenced by game type as well as the player’s level of experience.

Achievement notifications that occur during play, like those in World of Warcraft, are a form of immediate feedback. Studies have shown that immediate feedback can improve learning and efficiency. This is especially important when using measurement achievements that directly relate to player performance.

It should be noted, however, that newer players will benefit more from this type of feedback than more experienced players. As players become more experienced, giving them increasingly delayed feedback will be more effective, as it gives them an opportunity to evaluate their own performance.

Another important consideration when giving players an achievement notification during play is the potential obtrusiveness of the alert itself. A disruptive alert could break the player’s flow state, or what they often call “the zone”, with unfavorable results.

When in a state like this, the outside world melts away, time becomes irrelevant, and focus is increased — this is probably a common experience you’ve experienced when you play your favorite game.

Players who are in a flow state have increased motivation to continue playing and experience more enjoyment, so disrupting this sensation with an in-your- face achievement may not be ideal.

In order to avoid distracting the player, games that require a lot of mental muscle (such as those in the RTS genre) will delay when they notify the player about earned achievements. Games like StarCraft which have clearly-defined play sessions tend to give players achievement notification after a natural break in play.

These types of notifications also have the benefit of acting like delayed feedback, which has been shown to produce increased retention when learning something new. So a player who performs an action for the first time in a new game and recognized for it a little while after the fact is more likely to remember how to perform it in future game sessions.

Best Practice: For games with no clear break in play, give immediate feedback with an unobtrusive popup accompanied by a longer explanation available after play. For games with clearly defined play sessions and those that require a greater deal of concentration it is better to use delayed notification. Try to give new players immediate feedback and give more experienced players delayed feedback.

Long after a player earns an achievement, they may want to reflect on the experience. Permanent achievements allow players to relive their former glory while impermanent ones exist only when the player is first notified.

Permanent achievements come in two varieties: digitally tangible and stored lists. These terms basically reflect the difference between the reward you get for earning an achievement and a catalogued description of the achievement. The tangibility of a digital item is an abstract concept, because the item only exists in a virtual world. However, an item that is “digitally tangible”, like a pet or a tabard given as a reward, can be manipulated by the player and admired by others just like a physical reward.

Be careful: if all of the same rules that apply to rewards in the real world apply to rewards in a digital one, there should be some concern about the overuse of digitally tangible rewards. Rewards have been shown to decrease intrinsic otivation (one’s natural desire to do something), lower the player’s sense of self-determination, and decrease the likelihood that a player will return to a task.

Stored lists of earned achievements, on the other hand, like those featured on Xbox Live, allow players to reflect on their accomplishments long after they have earned them. The act of reflecting on past events will give the players a greater understanding of the experience through recall.

Temporary achievements, like the phrases “Unstoppable” or “God-Like” in first person shooters, amount to verbal reinforcements. Unlike tangible achievements, these verbal boosts increase intrinsic motivation and do not infringe on the player’s sense of self determination. After the notification is gone, any record of the achievement disappears.

Best Practice: Give players the opportunity to go over their earned achievements using some kind of stored list. Digitally tangible rewards are a great incentive, but won’t keep the player around after the reward is earned.

Who Can See Earned Achievements?

Achievements that a player has earned are often visible to others in single player and multiplayer games. What information is shared varies by game. Some games take the decision out of the player’s hands. These mandatory systems make an individual’s achievements an open book. Player-defined achievement settings, like those in FarmVille and StarCraft II, give the player the ability to decide what they want to share.

Social approval is a big part of why people play video games. Making earned achievements visible to others will encourage players to earn them for recognition. Social recognition has been shown to have a positive effect on performance when used as an incentive.

Canadian Game Conference

Making earned achievements visible also gives the player’s peers the opportunity to see the reward and decide if they want it for themselves. Striving for and eventually earning those rewards will improve their self-efficacy, their belief that they can accomplish other in-game tasks.

Having visible achievements can also act like a gaming resumé. Another player’s earned achievements might reveal that they would make a good teammate or someone to ask for help.

Earned achievements that are visible to the community have potential downsides, however. Earned achievements that act as a resumé, as discussed above, can have the unintended consequence of excluding players.

This phenomenon often takes place in MMOs, where players ask potential teammates to link a completed achievement before allowing them to participate in game events. This creates a Catch-22 situation, where players must have experience in order to gain experience. Another problem with relying on social recognition as a motivator is that it is not a good predictor of future performance, once the recognition has been doled out or is no longer available.

Best Practice: Making earned achievements viewable to other players is a powerful incentive. To prevent players from being excluded because of their lack of experience, create achievements for players who take other players under their wing. Let players display a few achievements they are proud of to increase motivation and highlight their play style.

[In the second part of his three-part series, PhD researcher and game designer Lucas Blair continues to present underpinnings in contemporary research which will help formulate best practices for designing in-game achievements. You can read part 1 here, and part 2 here.]

Now, to recap. As I wrote in the original piece, there is an established body of scientific study covering a wide range of topics, which should guide the design of achievements. In this article series, I will be sharing a taxonomy of achievement design features created by deconstructing how achievements are currently used in games.

The goal of this exercise is to distill mechanisms of action out of achievement designs, which have been shown by research to affect performance, motivation, and attitudes.

This taxonomy, although intended to be comprehensive, is likely to be subject to debate and future revisions. For the time being however, I think it is a good jumping off point for a discussion that must be had if we are to ever effectively harness the potential of achievements.

In the first two installments of this series, the topics were mostly conceptual and covered a wide range of material including performance measurement, player motivation, and information presentation. For part three, I will be tying up a few loose ends by discussing some specific types of achievements and the potential consequences of their use.

In part three I will be covering the following concepts:

* Negative Achievements

* Achievements as Currency

* Incremental and Meta-Achievements

* Competitive Achievements

* Non-competitive Cooperative Achievements

Negative Achievements

Most achievements are given to a player after they have done something noteworthy and positive. However, some achievements are given to players for a notable performance at the other end of the spectrum. When a player fails epically, they may earn a negative achievement. Examples of negative achievements include the Command & Conquer 3 achievement “awarded” to a player who loses a ranked game to someone 20 places below them in the official rankings, and the “Getting My Ass Kicked” trophy for repeatedly dying in PS3′s God of War.

Negative achievements are the digital equivalent of pouring salt on a wound. Earning this type of achievement can cause players to lose their sense of competence and independence, which will make the game they are playing feel less fulfilling. If players know that there are negative achievements in the game, they will try their hardest to avoid them. Avoidance goals that are constantly in the back of the player’s mind can be tiring and will make the overall experience less enjoyable.

Negative achievements can also make design flaws in the game a double whammy. Someone who dies repeatedly due to poor level design or a broken mechanic is not going to take a “you suck” achievement in stride. The player’s response will be to blame the game and not themselves.

Best practice: Don’t use negative achievements. Provide feedback within the system that can assist struggling players.

Achievements as Currency

Earned achievements could be used as virtual currency in games. Players may receive such currency in the form of points, coins, or stars, and later use them to purchase in-game items or real world objects. Microstransaction-driven games like League of Legends sometimes also have an alternative currency that is earned through gameplay.

Achievements are an obvious choice for a metric when giving out virtual currency. They are memorable moments, with defined requirements, that are already important to players. Using achievements as currency, however, may have a wide range of effects on players.

There is a great deal of research on giving money as an incentive for performance. Monetary rewards have greater returns on task performance than tangible rewards.

This is probably due to the fact that acquiring currency allows a player to decide what they want to purchase with it. This takes the responsibility of choosing an appropriate reward out of the hands of designers.

School systems have recently used monetary rewards with some success. In some cases class attendance, test scores, and even the likelihood of attending college all improved when monetary rewards were offered. Other studies reported similar increased accomplishment, but only when rewards were tied to inputs rather than outputs.

This means that students were rewarded for things like the amount of time they spent studying, but not directly for getting a particular grade. The idea being that if students are paid for good behaviors, the grades will take care of themselves.

The other side of the argument concerning currency is the same one that is often made against tangible rewards. Currency rewards have been shown to decrease intrinsic motivation for the recipients of the reward. Players will end up caring about the reward system more than the game itself. More than one game company has exploited this kind of reward system in order to keep players strung out on boring tasks. Currency systems, like other reward programs, may also lower player creativity by inadvertently encouraging a hyper focus on the reward path.

Best practice: Offer players currency for completing tasks instead of rewards to give them a greater sense of control. Use a currency system to enhance a game, but don’t attempt to make currency acquisition the main reason players engage in an activity.

Incremental and Meta-Achievements

Most of the time achievements are earned for completing a single task. Incremental and meta-achievements, however, are given for completing more than one task.

Incremental achievements are awarded in a chain for performing the same task through scaling levels of difficulty. Examples of incremental achievements are killing 250, 500, and 1000 enemies in an FPS, and earning different colored ribbons in FarmVille.

Meta-achievements are earned for completing a series of achievements that are for different tasks, for instance earning the title of “Chef” by completing all cooking-related achievements in World of Warcraft.

Both incremental and meta-achievements can be used as a type of scaffolding, a “training wheels” approach used in teaching. Here, players are given a rather seemingly complex task to do, only it’s broken up into smaller pieces and sequenced like a training program.

Breaking the task up into pieces also has the side-benefit of helping players create a schema about how the more complex task is structured.

Incremental and meta-achievements usually take extended periods of time to complete. This is similar to long-term incentive programs. These types of programs have been shown to elicit greater performance gains than short-term programs, which give rewards for single actions. Another benefit of these types of long- term goals is that players will spend more time in the game trying to complete them.

These types of achievements, however, can have a potential downside. If players feel like they are only following a trail of breadcrumbs with little self- direction they may lose their sense of autonomy. The number of achievements, the spacing between them, and the amount of challenge each one provides are important things to keep in mind.Best Practice: Use these types of achievements to hold the player’s interest for longer periods of time and guide them to related activities. Make the spacing between incremental achievements, both in time and physical location, separated enough so that players don’t feel too controlled.

Competitive Achievements

Competitive achievements require players to face off with one another in either direct confrontations or indirectly through their scores on solo tasks. This type of achievement can be completed individually or in teams where members work together to defeat other groups of players.

Some research indicates that competition can increase overall enjoyment and attitude towards a given task. Being successful in a competition has been shown to increase intrinsic motivation by influencing a person’s perception of their own competence, and such competitive environments have also demonstrated increased performance on simple repetitive tasks.

Computer science classes in particular have noted success in their implementation of competition to make classes more interesting.

Although some studies have seen positive results from the implementation of competitive environments, other studies indicate that under certain circumstances competition should be avoided.

More often than not, competitive environments have a tendency to impede the learning process. This is in part due to the egocentric behavior that competitive environments often induce, which in turn make people less likely to help one another. Competition has also been shown to have a negative effect on the self- efficacy of learners. This makes players rate themselves and their teammates more harshly, especially when they lose.

Players who have a higher level of skill are more likely to enjoy competitive achievements and be less affected by the negative aspects. They will be at a place where the game is familiar to them and will not be as stressed out with the addition of competition.

Another consideration is the motivation of the individual players. Players that are high in achievement motivation enjoy competitive tasks to a greater extent and have more intrinsic interest than their counterparts who are low in achievement motivation. Gamers in general may have a higher overall achievement motivation, which can also vary depending on the game type. It is important to understand your target demographic and give players what they are
most comfortable with.

Best Practice: If competitive achievements are used in a game, make them available only after players are comfortable with gameplay and no longer learning the ropes.

Non-Competitive Cooperative Achievements

Cooperative achievements are earned by players working towards a goal together in a game. These types of achievements are most common in multi-player games where players can interact with peers. The achievements can be rewards for group tasks like killing a monster, or built into multiplayer games to encourage teamwork, like earning 1000 assisted kills in a first person shooter.

Most research supports the use of cooperative environments to improve performance. Cooperative settings have been associated with academic achievement, increased self-esteem, and higher positivity when evaluating peers. Incentive programs that require teamwork have a greater effect on performance than those that can be accomplished by an individual.

Game Advertising Online

Another great benefit of working cooperatively is that it gives players a wider range of goals that they may not be able to complete on their own. To facilitate this, achievements should encourage veteran players to engage with those less experienced.

The sidekick system in City of Heroes is a great example of this. Research shows that people who are protégés in businesses have a greater promotion rate and more job satisfaction than individuals who were not mentored. The mentors also benefit from these types of systems by seeing their own performance and social status increased.

Although cooperation has many benefits, there are some risks associated with this type of environment. One risk is attitude polarization in groups, which often leads to more cautious or risky decision-making as a whole. In these instances, team members will collectively make poor decisions they otherwise wouldn’t if given the opportunity to decide by themselves.

Another problem that can affect groups is process loss, which can take place if the additional workload from coordinating communication and assisting others hinders group performance. The communication difficulties that can cause process loss could be accentuated in games because of the limitation of the available technology. A good example of this takes place during raids in MMOs, when some group members do not have access to voice chat.

Another problem caused by group size is social loafing. This is a problem in larger groups where an individual’s performance is hidden and they will put forth less effort.

Best practice: To foster a cooperative environment, offering achievements for more advanced players to assist less experienced players is an option. The groups for cooperative achievements should be kept relatively small to decrease social loafing and process loss. The metrics used for earning achievements should assess individual performances within the group setting.

This literature review has hopefully shed some light on a pretty complex subject that I think deserves quite a bit more research. One of the difficulties of this sort of review is that we are borrowing research from multiple fields of study, and bending it to fit our needs as game designers.

To remedy some of the murkiness surrounding a few of the topics, RETRO lab is currently running studies on specific aspects of the taxonomy in order to strengthen the case for achievement design. These studies swap different types of achievements in games and then evaluate how each can affect players, examining factors such as amount of enjoyment and time spent playing.

As findings from the studies become available our lab will be sure to keep the gaming community informed of any significant findings. Thanks for all the comments and discussion over the past few weeks. I hope the debate over achievement design continues and that these articles have at the very least been a catalyst for discussion.

A special thanks to Dr. Clint Bowers for the guidance, as well as, James Bohnsack, Katie Procci, and the rest of RETRO Lab for all the help.

篇目2，Loot drop best practices

by Daniel Cook

Many games have loot. Usually this drops randomly. Loot drops are a pretty mundane topic, but one that almost every designer runs into at some point. Here are some best practices I’ve encountered over the years. Many thanks to everyone who contributed to these tips and tricks.

Your basic loot table

The goal is to drop some set of items at a given probability. Let’s say when you defeat an enemy, you have a chance of getting shield, a rare sword or nothing at all.

Example

lootTable
item:
name: sword
weight: 10
item:
name: shield
weight: 40
item:
name: null
weight: 50

Setup

Item: An item is something you want give the player.

Loot Table: A set of items is put into a loot table. This is just a bucket of items. For example a loot table might include: Sword, Shield, Null.

Weight: An item has a drop weight: 1 to 10,000. For example a sword might have a drop rate of 10.

Null items: One of the items in the loot bucket is ‘null’ which means if that is rolled, no loot is given

Rolling for loot

Total probability: First, sum all the weights in the bucket. In the example above, that’s 10+40+50 = 100. They don’t need to add up to 100 since these aren’t percentages.

Next assign each item a range. Sword = 1-10, Shield = 11 to 50, Null = 51 to 100

Generate a random number from 1 to 100.

Compare that number to the ranges. That’s the item that drops.

Reroll: Generate multiple random numbers to simulate multiple rolls.

So what does this look like to the player? We’ve got a 10% chance of dropping a sword, a 40% chance of dropping a shield and a 50% chance of getting nothing.

As the designer, I could go in and change Null’s weight to 100 and now I’ve got a 6.6% (10/150) chance of dropping a sword, a 26% (40/150) chance off dropping a shield and a 66% (100/150) chance of dropping nothing.

Mapping onto other common random systems

This system is a simple restating of many other familiar methods of randomness. It is a fun superpower to train your designer brain to be able to switch between understanding any randomness issue in terms of loot tables, cards or dice.

Cards

Imagine deck of cards that you can shuffle and draw from.

Each type of card in the deck is an item.

The number of cards of a given type is that item’s weight

Shuffling the deck is equivalent to assigning each item to a range and generating a random number.

Drawing a card is the equivalent of selecting the item that drops.

Now a normal deck of cards has 52 cards, but with loot tables, you don’t need to operate with that constraint. Your decks could have 1000′s of cards and a vast array of types. Or they could have tiny decks that are the equivalent of a typical poker hand.

Dice

Dice also map onto loot tables.

Each individual dice is a loot table.

The sides (1-N) are items (labeled 1 through N)

Each side gets a weight of ‘1’. (Unless you are using weighted dice!)

Multiple dice can be represented as rolling the same loot table multiple times. So 2D6 is the equivalent of sampling a 6 item loot table twice.

Variations

Now that we’ve defined a basic loot table, what else can we do with it?

Variation: Items sets

You can also drops sets of loot. An item doesn’t need to be a single thing. For example, I could extend it so that the players gets a shield and a health potion if that option is selected.

Example

lootTable

item:
name: sword
weight: 10
item:
name: shield
name: healthPotion number: 2
weight: 40
item:
name: null
weight: 50

Variation: Always drop

A common need is to flag an item so it always drops. One convention is that items with weight ‘-1′ always drop.

Variation: Repeatable randomness

Sometimes you want to be able to repeat a random roll. For example, when a player saves a game and then is able to reload to avoid a bad loot drop, it can lead to very grindy player behavior. If there is an exploit that ruins the game for them, most will happily go for it.

Most contemporary pseudo random number generators use a seed value. As long as you can save that seed value, you can run the random number generator again and get the same result.

Variation: Rolling without replacement

The problem with the system above is that players may, through chance alone, always roll ‘null’. This is a common complaint by players. “I played that encounter 3000 times and never got the MegaGoldenLootGun!” This can happen.

In statistics, there are two fundamental types of sampling:

Sampling with replacement: You pull the numbers out of the bucket and then after you’ve recorded what you got, you put them back in. So you have the same chance of getting the same thing again in the next draw.

Sampling without replacement: You pull the item out of the bucket and once you’ve recorded it, you set it aside. You have a lower chance of getting that item again and thus a higher chance of getting the remaining items.

Tetris uses sampling without replacement. Each set of Tetris pieces is in a loot table. Every time you get a specific piece, it is removed from the bucket. That way they guarantee that you’ll always get a long piece if you wait long enough.

Here’s how you implement rolling without replacement in a loot table.

When you roll an item, reduce its weight by 1. This shorten its range by 1 and shortens the max range by 1 as well.

Keep the player’s modified loot table around for the next time you roll.

Variation: Guaranteeing specific drops

Sometimes even rolling without replacement isn’t fast enough and you want to guarantee a loot drop. Blizzard does this for certain rare drops so that players don’t grind for very long times.

You could just increase the weight, but a low chance of getting something with a guarantee can feel very different over multiple plays than a slowly increasing chance of getting an item.

Here’s how you implement guaranteed loot drops.

When you roll any non-guaranteed item, reduce all non-guaranteed items weight by X%

X = 100 / Max number of rolls you before the guaranteed items drop.

Keep the player’s modified loot table around for the next time you roll.

Example

Suppose you want the sword to always drop after 5 turns even though it it only has a 10% chance of dropping.

So X = 100 / 5 or 20%.

So every time you don’t roll the Sword, the weight for the Shield drops 8 (40*0.2) and the weight for null drops 10 (50*0.2)

After 5 turns, the weight for all the other items will be 0 and the sword will have a 100% chance of dropping.

Variation: Hierarchical loot tables

Loot tables are generally source for new resources. However, you can easily run into situations where you are dropping too much or too little of a particular resource. Some sort of constraints would be helpful.

One solution is to use hierarchical loot tables without replacement. When a particular resource runs out, the player doesn’t get any more. We’ve used this for our daily coin awards. We want to give out 100 coins a day, but no more. But we want to do it as part of the loot system.

Create two tables: Rewards and DailyCoins.

Have the main loot table reference the Daily Coins bucket.

When Daily Coins get picked, roll that table and see how many coins you get.

Example

lootTable: Rewards
item:
name: sword
weight: 10
item:
name: dailyCoins
weight: 40
item:
name: null
weight: 50
lootTable: dailyCoins
type: noReplacement
refreshRate: Daily
item:
name: coin, number: 1
weight: 10
item:
name: coin, number 10
weight: 4
item:
name: coin, number: 50
weight: 1

In the example above, a player has a 40% chance of getting coins. Then we roll the dailyCoins table and see that they can win a maximum of 100 coins a day with 10 awards of 1 coins, 4 awards of 10 coins and 1 award of 50 coins.

When the dailyCoins loot table is emptied, they’ll get nothing until it refreshes after a day.

Variation: Conditional drops

Sometimes you want to test if you should drop the items base off some external variable. In Realm of the Mad God, we wanted to avoid free riders getting loot for a boss kill without doing at least some damage. So in the loot table, we added a check. If a valuable item in the loot table was rolled, then we’d check to see if the player had done more than X% of damage to the enemy.

You could also build in switches for which loot is valid based off player level or even enemy level. I tend to instead use multiple smaller loot tables, but the system is flexible enough that you can easily architect your data with a few large tables and use of conditionals.

Variation: Modifiers

You can also modify the quantity or weight of a drop based off some external logic. For example, a player with a skill in harvesting could yield 2x as many of a particular item drop compared to a player without that skill. Or you could modify the weight. A high level character might have a -50% weight for all items marked lower than their level.

Other uses

Drop tables are commonly used for dropping loot. But I also find them useful in other areas.

Procedural generation: Use a table to build weapons or characters from components

AI: Use a table to select behaviors such as attacks or moves.

This may seem a little silly..surely there are better ways to model AI! However, one way to think about randomness is that it is a very rough first order model of any system. How does the human brain model a system? We make an observation about a system. We note the frequencies and tendencies for those observations to reoccur. It is only much, much later that we start to understand ‘why’ something happens or the causal relationship between parts.

In physics, we often joke that in order to model a cow, a complex biological organism, the first step is to ‘imagine a spherical cow’. By creating a simplistic, easy to work with model, we can often generate useful insights at a very low cost.

Many times, a drop table is a ‘good enough’ human-centric approximation of a complex system. For many systems, most players will never move beyond a basic probabilistic understanding so modeling more complexity is a waste of time. Efficient game design is an exercise in modeling elements only to the minimum level necessary to create the desired experience.

Consider: D&D modeled entire universes with what were essentially loot drop tables. That was a deliberate focus on minimizing systems that were in many ways just secondary flavoring to the core roleplaying.

A loot drop table isn’t the only tool you need, but in many scenarios, it is good enough.

Procedural generation thought experiment

Here’s a simple procedural generation system using drop tables. There are lots of other ways to do this, but this is more to get your brain thinking. Let’s say you want to build a procedurally generated enemy

Start by making a list of unique enemy parts. Maybe your enemy is made up of a type of movement, a type of attack, a defensive buff and a type of treasure.

Make loot tables for each one of those parts.

For each item in the loot table, give it a power value based off how powerful you think it might be. for example, a knife attack might be weak so it only has a power of 5. But a large hammer attack might have a power of 15.

Create another loot table of buffs. These are modifiers to various attributes. For example, ‘Strong’ boost a value on an attack by 20%. You can have debuffs as well ‘Weak’ might diminish a value by -50%. These have reduce the power value of a part.

Now let’s generate an enemy

Set a target: Set a target power for your generated enemy. Say you want an enemy of power 40

Roll: Roll each of the parts once and add them into a list.

Score: Add up all the power values to get a score.

Adjust: If the sum of the parts is over the target, add a debuff or roll for a lower power part. If it is under, add a buff or roll for a higher power part.

Repeat: Repeat this process until you hit a desired error threshold (distance from power 40) or you’ve exhausted the number of iterations you are willing to spend.

You now have a procedurally generated enemy. There are tons of tweaks you can do to this basic system, but it works most of the time. As an exercise, think about:

Exclusion lists: If two parts are picked that are on the list, throw the enemy away and reroll.

Multiple constraints: Parts are scored on multiple criteria. Note, the more constraints you add, the less likely you are to converge on a viable result.

Conclusion

Any time there’s a discussion of randomness, there’s a huge number of secondary issues that come into play. I recommend the following for further reading:

Understanding randomness in terms of mastery: http://www.lostgarden.com/2012/12/understanding-randomness-in-terms-of.html

Richard Garfield on Luck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av5Hf7uOu-o

Resist being dogmatic about randomness. Be a broadly educated designer whose aesthetic choices are based on hands on experimentation. A good rule of thumb is that you can’t intelligently critique a design tool until you’ve made a couple games that use it successfully.

Anyway, this is just how I’ve done loot tables; a mundane part of any working designer’s life. I’m curious if other folks have other ways of managing loot (and randomness) that they love and live by.

篇目3，The Game Design Canvas: Punishment and Reward System

by Brice Morrison

You have many choices in your everyday life. Wake up and jump out of bed, or hit the snooze button? Eat chicken, beef, or veggies? Do some work, or go out with friends? These choices, these actions that you can take are the different colors you use to paint the landscape of your day, your week, and your life. It is through these choices that you experience and express yourself in the world.

If life were a game, these actions that you can take are examples of the Base Mechanics of life. They are actions that you can perform, that you have the ability to perform, and that you may choose or choose not to perform. They are the inputs into the system from yourself. You can freely choose from all the possible abilities you have and perform them to your liking.

…Or can you? Well, there’s more to it than that. Your actions and free will are not as free as one would think. Yes, you have choices you can make, but there are consequences, there are requirements, and there are strings attached. You may have the ability to go into the middle of a library and shout at the top of your lungs.

You may have the ability to insult your best friend or to rob a convenience store. You may have the ability to sit in your apartment and be depressed instead of going out and enjoying the weekend with friends.

You could do these things, but you probably won’t. Even though you have the ability and the means, there is something else that is guiding your decisions. There is more to this so called “choice” business than you might imagine. It is as though some invisible force outside of yourself is governing your actions.

Free Will? Or Not So Free?

As we discussed in our last introductory article to the game design canvas on Base Mechanics, every game has actions that it lets the player perform. The player can run, shoot, paint, throw, eat, duck, swap polarity, teleport, or what have you. But these actions are not isolated; they have higher systems that govern them. These Punishment and Reward Systems nudge the player towards certain behavior. They give meaning and weight to the Base Mechanics, forcing the player to think about their choices.

Thus, understanding the Punishment and Rewards System section of the Game Design Canvas is a lesson in understanding human behavior. It would appear that humans have an incredible range of actions they can make at any given moment, yet the most common behavior is but a small percentage of all of those actions. The reason for this is, as we said, is that games couple their actions with consequences. In life and in games, people learn from their past experiences and then choose from among their desired consequences to choose their actions. These couplings of action and consequences make up the Punishment and Reward Systems that govern player behavior.

Death by henchmen? I’ll pass.

To begin to understand Punishment and Reward Systems, let’s start simple and work our way up. In Super Mario 64, the player’s Base Mechanics allow them to run and jump through each stage (ignoring punching and power-ups for a moment). It’s up to the player to decide how to use those abilities to navigate the world and collect the stars needed to complete the stage.

However, the player’s actions when controlling Mario are constrained by the game’s P&R Systems. If Mario is touched by an enemy, then he falls to the ground and loses of health. This is a simple example of Punishment, and we can analyze this System to see how it affects player behavior, because the effects are more far-reaching than one would imagine. Once the player understands that smacking into a Goomba will result in damaging Mario, their behavior will change. And that is where it gets interesting.

So Mario is running along, and the player sees a Goomba. Technically, the player does have the choice of running headlong into the Goomba. However, the game’s P&R System has taught them that this is something that should be avoided. Thus, the player steers Mario around the Goomba to avoid him.

Do you see what’s happened here? The game made no changes to the Base Mechanics: they were still just running and jumping. But they way that the player used these Mechanics has been changed. After the player learned what the game was encouraging them to do, the decisions they made were altered.

As players interact with a game and its P&R Systems, they begin to make a mental model in their mind of how the System works, and how they can best navigate it.

Whether or not the developer wants the player to fully understand the system is up to them, but the job of the P&R System is to evoke the desired player behavior. A good design will be able to plot out the player’s desired behavior and then build a P&R System around that to encourage that very behavior.

Planting The Seeds of Strategy

Mario and the Goomba was an obvious example, but sometimes the effects of a P&R system will be more latent. Let’s take for example the popular tower-defense genre.

In these games, the player needs to erect offensive towers to keep the enemy army from reaching the other side of the screen. These towers attack the enemies as they walk by, and the enemies attempt to find the shortest path to their goal.

In these games, the Base Mechanics are:

? Deciding which towers to place (usually weaker vs. stronger but more expensive, etc.)

? Deciding where to place the towers (usually on a 2D plane)

Those are the choices that the player has before them, and they can execute these Mechanics however they like, right?

If you’ve been paying attention, hopefully you’ve learned by now that this is not exactly the case. Technically, yes, the player can place whatever towers wherever they like, but they are likely to lose. The game’s P&R Systems will encourage certain behavior. So in actuality, the player can only use the Mechanics in ways designed by the game.

For example, the player can put a tower in the top right corner, far away from everything else, but the P&R Systems discourage this. The enemies will not be fired upon as much, and they will likely make it to their goal, causing the player to lose. Eventually, the player will learn that the best choice is to place the towers in the middle, ideally in a way that blocks the enemies. Of course the player could continue placing the towers in the corner, losing, and doing it over again, but that gets very boring very quickly.

Again, this is an example of the Punishment and Reward Systems shaping the player’s behavior. The game gives the player certain actions to perform, but hidden within the System is an optimal strategy if the player wants to succeed.

Fundamental Rules of P&R Systems

A good way to think about how P&R Systems affect player behavior is with the following diagram:

The developer decides what actions to give to the player via the Base Mechanics. Then, the developer constructs the P&R System to funnel the player’s possible choices into the desired player behavior.

So how does one go about constructing such an interesting funnel? To answer that, we need to visit one of the great influences to game design: behaviorist psychology. Pioneered by researchers such as B.F. Skinner, behaviorism, specifically operant conditioning, was a way of viewing a subject’s behavior in terms of their actions and the system’s responses.

Sound familiar? Operant conditioning is the foundational field of research that ties in very closely with what we’ve discussed so far in games. Similarly to operant condition in behaviorism, Punishment and Reward Systems in the Game Design Canvas have four main ways to affect a player’s behavior:

1. Positive Reward – Rewarding the player’s behavior by giving them something they want or like.

2. Negative Reward – Rewarding the player by taking away something they didn’t like.

3. Positive Punishment – Punishing the player’s behavior by giving them something they don’t want or like.

4. Negative Punishment – Punishing the player by taking away something the wanted or liked.

By tying Rewards and Punishments to the player’s use of the game’s Base Mechanics, the game developer shapes their use. For example, in Super Mario 64, when the player defeats a koopa troopa enemy, then they player often receive a coin, which is something they want. This is an example of a positive reward. Additionally, the Goomba is now gone, which is an example of a negative reward, since there are less enemies on the level who could harm you.

For the Punishment side of the P&R System, if Mario falls into the lava, then he begins to wail and dash around uncontrollably, trying to put out the flames on his overalls. This running around is an example of positive punishment, giving the player some behavior that they don’t want — they want to be able to guide Mario, not have to steer him wildly! Additionally, the Mario loses some life when he falls in the lava, this is an example of negative punishment, since the player wants to have as many life bars as possible.

Guidelines for Sculpting Player Behavior

As a game grows from a few simple mechanics to dozens or more, and the complexity of the game itself spirals upwards into hours and hours of gameplay, then the Punishment and Reward Systems will begin to get rather complicated. Thus, good to have a clear understanding of the basic strategies for constructing one in order to get desired player behavior.

Once again, everything always begins with the Core Experience portion of the Game Design Canvas. Once you have the Core Experience of your game defined, then you can begin plotting out your mechanics, which leads to your desired player behavior. Think about following these general guidelines:

Making a first guess. A good P&R System is designed indirectly. Most developers prefer to focus on the behavior they want, then they set up the system to evoke that system, not the other way around. Focusing on the system itself can be confusing and lead to dead ends. So plot out how you’d like your player to act, describing it in detail. Then set up Punishment and Reward Systems around that to encourage that behavior. Try to put yourself in the player’s shoes and imagine what you’d do.

Slight changes and tweaking. If the system you’ve designed doesn’t result in the player behavior you want, then you can tweak it. Do you imagine (or see, if you’re prototyping) players always bumping into walls when you wanted them to swing swiftly through the stage? Then create a light punishment for bumping into walls.

Small changes can make big results in terms of player behavior. Also, be sure to watch our video on playtesting to learn how you can alter your game to achieve the desired player behavior.

Timing the feedback. Another important aspect to think about is how long it takes for the P&R feedback to reach the player. The amount of time you decide for this is up to you, but it depends on exactly how you want the player to be learning the systems inherent in your game. In most games like Super Mario, the feedback is instantaneous. ”I fell off a cliff and the game told me I died. Ok, got it. That is bad. Next time, don’t fall off a cliff.”

However, in other games, complexity is added by not giving the P&R feedback immediately. In strategy games like Starcraft, it takes much longer for players to master strategies, because the feedback of a won or lost match may not come until long after the dooming action. A player may build a base in a difficult-to-defend spot 5 minutes into the game, and that choice may lead to the player’s downfall an hour later. However, it’s unlikely that the player will make this immediate connection.

The longer the loop between action and feedback, the more focused time it will take for the player to consciously understand.

Reward them with a Great Game

A good Punishment and Reward System will allow players to feel the satisfaction of mastering your game’s Core Experience. Whether it’s to save the princess for a giant turtle or to defeat the incoming onslaught of alien armies, P&R can act as guideposts to help the player learn what to do. On other hand, slopping P&R Systems make for a game that feels like it’s unpolished and has no real destination. Making the commitment to fine tune the game’s rewards and carrots for the player will result in a smoother experience and a harmony between what the player wants to do and what the game was designed to do.

篇目4，An Alternative to Achievements

by Keith Burgun

Despite having strong feelings on the topic, I put off writing about achievements for a very long time. This was because I thought that the problems that I saw with the existing model would have gone away on their own by now. It’s clear though that for new digital game releases, they have clearly managed to lock themselves into the “set of qualities we should all expect in a modern video game.”

I know that there’s a ton of writing on this topic already out there, but I’d like to hit the question from a different angle. For instance, I’m aware of what Chris Hecker has talked about at length about regarding extrinsic motivators. While I think his views make sense, I’m actually not interested in arguing for or against extrinsic rewards in general. I’m arguing against achievements themselves, and how they, specifically, work on a mechanical level.

Lucas Blair wrote an extensive three-part piece on achievements here at Gamasutra. His article essentially took the stance of, “we’re going to be doing achievements no matter what, so here are some best practices for using them.” I don’t agree with his underlying premise.

The one thing that remains constant is that things always change. I think that in time, we’ll see achievements either go away or change dramatically. If this sounds crazy, keep in mind that there are a good number of successful games coming out today that don’t have achievements at all, on iOS and Nintendo consoles.

I need to clarify and explain that I’m referring to achievements as they are usually implemented. I’m sure you can think of one or two games that seem to have a sensible, inoffensive and even interesting application of something that looks a bit like what one might call “achievements.” It would be impossible to speak for every single case of achievements that ever existed. Instead, I’m speaking generally.

You may feel that achievements are great as they are. If this is the case, hear me out. Perhaps I can convince you otherwise, or at least, give you some advice on how to make them better.

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is a fantastic example that highlights the problems that I see. Now, this is a 2012 release — in fact, it was only released this past August. It is a brand-new game, by one of the most beloved and highly regarded triple-A video game development teams (Valve Software), and sure enough, it includes a ton of totally asinine achievements. I’ll also include some achievements from the also brand-new games XCOM: Enemy Unknown and Resident Evil 6.

Before I carry on: don’t worry. I don’t expect achievements to actually disappear anytime soon. They’re pretty well rooted into our culture now, and if they ever disappear completely, it will probably be decades rather than years from now. Indeed, you’re required to have achievements on Microsoft and Sony’s consoles (but notably, not anywhere else: neither iOS, Nintendo, Android, nor Steam make any such requirements). Regardless, I think it’s in everyone’s interest to understand the pitfalls of achievements; not all of which have been pointed out elsewhere.

I’ll also pitch something that I think should replace achievements.

Major Problems

What’s so bad about achievements? The mother-problem with any “achievement” system can be stated like this: at their best, they do nothing at all. At their worst, they influence player behavior.

What’s wrong with influencing player behavior, you might ask? Influencing behavior is a bad thing because you (ostensibly) just spent roughly six to 12 months fine-tuning a set of game rules to do exactly that. Let’s remember that a game is a set of rules that limit and motivate player behavior. You just spent a crazy amount of time tweaking, balancing, and turning knobs until player behavior was influenced exactly the way you wanted, all around one central goal and gameplay mechanism.

If you did not do this, well, that’s a whole separate issue. In this case, you’re simply not doing your job as a game designer, and no amount of metagame is going to distract people from the fact that your game isn’t presenting players with interesting choices and dynamic, emergent and elastic strategic possibilities.

So let’s assume that you have taken the time to create a balanced, dynamic, motivating set of rules for your game. Now you’re just going to throw a bunch (most times, a ton) of other arbitrary motivators at the player? A great number of extra, optional goals that can be met even by accident? It’s like spending years building a clock, and then just once you’re done, pouring in a bag of random-sized gears and slathering over it with a dressing of industrial glue. In this way, achievements are yet another testament to the culture-wide lack of regard for the discipline of game design.

Common Achievements

The largest category of achievements is of a type that I would describe as “unavoidable,” “patronizing,” “noisy,” and sometimes even just “nonsensical.” Here are a couple good examples from CS: GO:

“Body Bagger – Kill 25 Enemies”

“Shot with their Pants Down – Kill an enemy while they are reloading”

Here’s a similar one from XCOM: Enemy Unknown.

“Bada Boom – Kill 50 aliens with explosive weapons”

And again, basically the same achievement for Resident Evil 6:

“Life Saver – Help or rescue your partner ten times”

Ah, the achievements you cannot avoid getting. You’re going to kill 25 enemies. Chances are you’re going to kill 25 enemies before you even think to check the list of achievements (if you ever do).

Therefore, a lot of players are simply playing the game, and suddenly some information pops up on the screen telling you that you have just “gotten an achievement.” This totally meaningless information does not change the game in any way, except to temporarily distract you from the game.

These achievements also do one other thing, however, and that’s patronize the player. Did you already design the game to have its own rewards/motivation system? If so, then what is the purpose of having the game to pat me on the back at arbitrary moments? 25 kills? Why is that significant? The rewards that the game gives me are those that I ostensibly have to earn. Not the case for these achievements. You may as well have a timer that doles out a random nonsensical compliment every 15 minutes, such as “you are attractive” or “you’ve got a great sense of humor.”

Without going too far off topic, I want to quickly address this aspect. Those who are familiar with B.F. Skinner’s work, particularly in operant conditioning, probably understand that doling out rewards at random intervals, like the current achievement-model tends to, is a well-understood way to squirt happy-chemicals into a user’s bloodstream and thereby keep them playing long after they’ve stopped learning anything. Philosophically, I personally think that games have the capacity to do much more than just be unfulfilling exploitative operant conditioning chambers, but even if you don’t, you should be aware that this common system of achievements is causing a similar effect.

Attempts to Script The Emergence

The one way that achievements are commonly talked about is with regards to them being an extrinsic reward — a reward that’s coming from outside the system. I join the aforementioned Chris Hecker and many others such as author Alfie Kohn in being skeptical of these kinds of motivators when applied to interesting tasks. Our view is that they take away from the feeling of accomplishment for a task that’s already interesting and naturally rewarding.

I’d like to look at this problem in a slightly different way. First, let’s take a look at a couple of CS: GO achievements which exemplify the issue I have in mind:

“Three the Hard Way – Kill three enemies with a single HE grenade”

“Aerial Necrobatics – kill an airborne enemy while you are also airborne”

Here’s a good one from XCOM: Enemy Unknown:

“Xavier – Mind Control an Ethereal. Single player only.”

Let’s think about the concept of an explosive grenade in Counter-Strike for a moment. When you buy one, it’s exciting, because of the possible destructive potential. If you happen to put one in just the right place, who knows how many people you might kill in one slickly placed move? You may just damage a few people, you may kill one, or you may even kill several. This elasticity makes grenades dynamic and dramatic, and you feel it.

When you throw a grenade, and it actually does kill someone — or better yet, two, or even three people — it’s a huge rush. All of those times that you got a grenade and didn’t use it, or used it but to no effect were all leading up to this moment. A feeling of having gotten better at using grenades — a grokking of the system of grenades — is thrilling. You were in a totally unique situation and you made a call that resulted in an almost magical success.

Just then, a little window pops up and tells you that you’ve gained some kind of achievement. Suddenly, part of that thrill of having done something dynamic and unique is taken away. On some level, you’ve merely checked off a box — the same exact box that thousands of other players have also checked off.

The XCOM achievement is similar. What would otherwise feel like a clever “giving you a dose of your own medicine” turns into a “thing you were supposed to do.”

I argue that the fact that the developers wrote this thing down for you to check off of a list has a subtle effect of making the event less special. Let me imagine. Let me discover. Let me experience a moment of having done something truly unique without telling me that I’ve met some developer expectation.

To those who might argue that achievements such as “Three the Hard Way” are needed to get people to even realize that you can kill multiple players with a grenade, you should know that the original version of Counter-Strike didn’t have achievements, and HE grenades were very popular. Players don’t have to be verbally told everything; some things are obvious and natural enough for players to discover.

Collect Them All and… What, Exactly?

As part of my philosophical view of what games are, I have a problem with collection for its own sake. I think that any system that is based on endless collection, or any system where there is collection without a larger purpose is exploitative and uninteresting (and therefore unfulfilling). It’s exploitative because it’s taking advantage of the biological human need to “gather”, and not giving us back anything in exchange for our time. Most games challenge us, stimulate us, move us. Those that exploit us do nothing for us but the cheap.

In a game like Counter-Strike, why exactly do I want to collect all of the achievements? The game keeps track of what “percentage” of the achievements I’ve collected. Does something happen when I get 100 percent? What is the purpose of keeping track of this information? Is it supposed to impress my friends when they see 35 percent? When they see 95 percent?

And then what about when I do finally get 100 percent? Then what? It’s just a dead system hanging off the side of the application? Does it make sense to have a game like Counter-Strike, one that can potentially be played forever, have some exhaustible collection system attached to it?

Influencing Behavior

This is the worst offender of the whole achievements system. As I previously stated, a game already has its own motivators — in fact, the purpose of a game designer is balancing motivators around a goal to create the intended gameplay experience.

But some achievements actually influence players to act in ways that they would not normally act. I remember this kind of thing happening a lot in Team Fortress 2. Often there would be a medic doing something really stupid instead of healing teammates. Angrily, I’d ask, “What the hell are you doing, dude? Heal us.”

“I’m going for an achievement”, he’d reply.

This is really not that rare an occurrence, particularly when a game is new. We now have a situation where players are actively not playing correctly and disturbing or ruining the game experience for other players because of achievements.

A common mistake would be to blame this on that player. Let’s put it this way: if you’re blaming a player for wanting to make use of the system of achievements, then you’re proving my point even further that they need to go.

Here’s an example of such a behavior-influencing achievement in CS: GO:

“Second to None – successfully defuse a bomb with less than one second remaining”

It’s not too hard to imagine that many a game have already been lost by a player miscalculating when he should start the defuse and having it take too long, or by waiting a few seconds before defusing only to be shot right at the end of the defuse. This sucks for the other players on the team. Remember, the goals of a game should be agreed upon by all participating parties.

My Suggested Replacement: Variants!

Is there anything salvageable to this whole mess? Yes, there is. Some of the achievements — those most-offensive ones that influence behavior, specifically — have the potential to be interesting variants. While I don’t expect achievements to vanish or dramatically change overnight, variants provide an alternative route that should be explored either in their place, or in addition to achievements.

What’s the big difference between variants and achievements? A variant would be a new goal that you actively choose before the game begins, and only that single chosen “goal” is active during this session. One of the fundamental aspects of “a game” is that the rules and goals are agreed upon before the game begins. It doesn’t make any sense to allow players to choose what their goals are on the fly, in the middle of the game. This will just allow them to choose whichever goal is most doable based on “how things are going”. Worse, if you allow all the goals to be active at once, goals are going to be met by accident.

In Nethack, variants are referred to as “conducts.” From the Nethack Wikipedia page,

These are voluntary restrictions on actions taken, such as using no wishes, following a vegetarian or even vegan diet, or even killing no monsters.

In Counter-Strike, being a multiplayer game, variants would have to affect all players. It would be strange if the Terrorist team won, but one of the terrorists lost because he had activated some special variant that said he wasn’t allowed to take grenade damage, or something. Technically, there’s nothing wrong with this, as long as all players agree to it beforehand, but it’s messy and strange.

Instead, better Counter-Strike variants are already seen on public servers. Things like “No AWP/Auto”, or “Infinite money”, or “Betting” would all count as variants. These pose a new challenge to players — “can you win this match when the AWP is disabled?” There are other more otherworldly server-variants that add RPG elements, zombies, and other rules.

Look at this achievement from XCOM, and tell me that it isn’t a full-fledged variant waiting to happen:

“Lone Wolf – Clear a UFO crash site with one soldier on Classic or Impossible difficulty.”

Why We Use Achievements

As a developer myself, I think that there’s this feeling like “the audience expects achievements, so let’s humor them.” I suspect that players probably feel a similar way; something like “oh, well, the developers like to put in achievements for some reason, so let’s humor them.” In other words, few people actually like achievements, but everyone believes that everyone else likes them, so they continue to exist.

I also think that it’s continued to exist because, if we’re being honest, a lot of video games these days are not terribly interesting on their own. The thinking is that developers can use the cheap distraction / lame collection-game that achievements provide to create interest in an otherwise uninteresting system. Their primary function, much of the time, is to stretch out what little interest there is over a larger amount of time by compelling the player to “collect”. They stand out the most when they’re in a game that doesn’t need that – a game like Counter-Strike: Global Offensive.

It’s important not to fall into the trap of thinking that just because we’ve had achievements for over half a decade that we will always have them. Now, I’ll definitely acknowledge that there is indeed a chance that we will always have them, at least in some form, but it’s worth noting that Nintendo has made a point of not using such a system, and that hasn’t seemed to affect their commercial or critical success. As I’ve pointed out, there are a number of flaws with the achievements model, and as time goes on, what I am certain of is that they will either change drastically or disappear.

If you’re a fan of achievements, I would simply ask that you try to look at them with a fresh perspective and ask what it is they really do for your software, and whether or not the points I’ve raised creates issues for it.

So look — people expect “metagame,” and I understand that. But if you have great metagame in the form of variants, great networking (such as cutting-edge, smart online leaderboards), as well as additional gameplay content, the number of people who flip out because you don’t have “achievements” will be negligible. At some point, people will stop expecting them, as quickly as they learned to expect them in the first place.

篇目5，Satisfaction Guaranteed!

As a game developer I always ask myself what makes a game fun. The “fun” word sounds so abstract and is so subjective from one person to another. A lot of things can be fun in a videogame: exotic environments, impressive sound effects, entertaining story, funny characters, particle effects, and so on. However, some games have all of that and can still be not that fun. So what exactly makes a game satisfying? Where does the SATISFACTION come from?

I’m sure everyone has a different vision of this. That being said, my idea of the source of satisfaction in games is not abstract at all. I think that a lot of game developers have this conception too but they simply never put it into words. Here it goes.

To be satisfying, a game has to make the player go through this “achievement loop”:

1. Challenge: The player is facing an obstacle and he has limited means to overcome it.

2. Trial and error: This is the hard work (making the player suffer a bit is very important). The player tries to overcome the obstacle in various ways with the tools he has.

3. Learning: Having tried his tools, and probably failed while trying, the player learned to use them.

4. Success: The player overcomes the challenge. He feels that he accomplished something and that hard work paid off. This is the moment when the player is having fun, he feels satisfaction. The player thinks: “Yeah! I’m good at this game!”

5. Loop back to point 1 with a gameplay situation of increased complexity/difficulty.

This looks like a recipe, but it’s not. It can be applied in many ways in any kind of games, but it’s not necessarily easy to do well.

This loop can be found in micro situations of any classic game. Let’s apply this loop to the very first gameplay situation of Super Mario Bros:

1. Challenge: Mario encounters a Goomba slowly walking towards him.

2. Trial and error: Mario tries various strategies. He walks straight through the Goomba and dies or he clumsily jumps too early and dies again.

3. Learning: Mario now understands better how to move and jump.

4. Success: Mario jumps successfully on the Goomba and crushes his ugly shitake face. He is victorious!

5. Loop back: Mario will now face a greater challenge.

However, when the game has nothing new to teach to the player, it can no longer loop and therefore it becomes repetitive and eventually boring.

In my opinion, a lot of current generation games have problems keeping the player interested because they try to create satisfaction in an artificial manner. The typical game features an overpowered character facing ridiculously simple gameplay situations (because Gameindustryasshole thinks that people only like easy stuff). So what happens is that when playing the game for the first few minutes, you feel like a God, you’re blown away by your own level of badassness. But not long after, when you realize that the game has nothing new to teach, it starts feeling tedious. And worst, when you fail in that game you don’t learn anything and you feel like an idiot because you weren’t supposed to fail.

This loop can also explain the classic or cliché videogame principle tagged to a lot of addicting games: “Easy to learn, hard to master.” Because the hardest a game is to master, the longer the “achievement loop” can go on and still be fun.

I’ve read the book “A Theory of Fun for Game Design” by Raph Koster a while ago. It most certainly influenced this post, so I encourage anyone to read it.