游戏邦注：本文原作者是乔治亚州科技研究所博士生本·梅德勒（Ben Medler），他在本文解析了玩家档案的作用及其局限性。

摘要

在众多游戏和平台系统里储存玩家游戏玩法的数据已成为一种流行趋势。玩家们如今可跟踪他们的游戏进度，分析他们以往的游戏行为，并和他们的玩友分享这些数据。玩家档案就是能提供给玩家分析其游戏玩法的平台之一，也是一个以数据驱动为核心并包含众多玩家信息的工具。玩家档案在为玩家们提供在线社交平台的同时，还能运用统计和形象化手段对玩家过去的游戏行为进行呈现。这篇文章主要分析玩家档案的功能框架并如何与所玩的游戏相结合。玩家档案的一个主要特征是表现玩家在操作这些系统时所得到的奖励，以及验证其它玩家在收集任务之外也重视的游戏玩法的动机。玩家档案情景化的游戏玩法支持玩家在更广阔的社区里分享他们所找到的重要游戏信息。这种本身对游戏旅程的探索比玩家在比赛中得到的奖励更有意义。

关键词：玩家档案，信息可视化，游戏解析，游戏玩法，社交网络，用户资料，成就，备份，数据挖掘

简介

“数据是一种新的土壤”，而游戏数据更是一片沃土。记载和存储游戏数据的能力在最近几年得到爆发式增长，Medler提出了新的分析和共享这些信息的方法。高分，可重复体验，历史匹配，团队排名，玩家幽灵，成就，以及奖杯所蕴藏的供奖杯获得者享用的宝藏信息。信息持续有用地被构建和融合，这形成了一种对数据本身自我奖励的状态。

在创造和消耗交替进行的过程中，一个能将游戏数据的分析资料可视化的模式应运而生。游戏档案是包含众多玩家游戏玩法信息的数据驱动型的可视化报告。从《Farmville》到《Halo:Reach》，这些报告是将玩家游戏玩法数据传送到游戏开发者的一种媒介。一个玩家在游戏里的行为、创造的内容以及成就都可被玩家档案用来分析这个玩家的身份，随着玩家的不断探索，这些信息也会随之发生型变。比如Giant Bomb，一个游戏者可自我修改信息的游戏社区，它通过把玩家在不同竞技平台的成就信息综合起来并将其分析结果用可视化的形式呈现出来。社区里的不少玩家的成就由于被拿来与所注册的玩家一同排名而有所降低。Giant Bomb的档案系统实际上通过另一个方面来鼓励它的玩家去追求更多的游戏成就（等级）。

随着游戏开发商越来越重视游戏数据分析，玩家档案运用逆向思维，反过来为玩家开发数据分析平台。这些系统为玩家提供了可供他们使用可视化工具来自我收集游戏玩法数据的空间。通过这种方式，游戏历程本身也得到拓展，并且玩家档案也会赋予游戏本身更多的价值。玩家档案通过数据之间的对比使玩家更热衷于竞技排名，允许用户分享彼此创造的内容，并鼓励玩家有更多的创造性活动。然而，由于不断增加对相关游戏成就排名系统（玩家档案的主要运用）的依赖，使得此排名系统对玩家行为的改变和游戏的设计有很大的左右力。因此我们必须理解玩家档案在用户游戏体验过程中的积极和消极作用。

为了更好理解玩家档案的工作流程，此架构描述了不同的系统如何被审核。图2列出一个玩家档案的5个功能状态以及如何支持玩家行为的流程图。前3个步骤解释了玩家档案是如何通过验证玩家的游戏玩法以及将其数据进行可视化分析的过程。后2个步骤呈现了玩家档案如何将玩家提供的游戏玩法信息进行分析并使其得到共享。每个步骤都有一个由玩家档案系统操控的可鼓励玩家不断创造更多游戏信息的反馈系统。

储存游戏数据

如果我们对早期定义的玩家档案这个系统进行拆分，会发现其包含两个重要部分：数据驱动型报告和玩家的游戏玩法数据。对于前者，玩家档案是用来描述个体玩家的数据库。比如美国的棒球运动就是通过多个方面来分析运动员和球队过去的表现，以此来提高运动员和球队的成绩，针对游戏机的玩家档案也是如此。混合型玩家档案可对一个玩家进行数千种数据分析。《纽沃斯英雄》， 一种即时战略型游戏，对每一个在线战役有超过130种数据信息的分析，还包括26种对每个玩家的超时游戏分析（杀戮，死亡，积分等等）。这些数值被分解成69种形态的数据，供每个扮演着英雄个体的玩家拿来匹配（图3）. 因此，HoN的系统为每个玩家整合统一档案信息，但游戏玩法数据一直在传输，或者说，不同的属性创造不同的档案信息。

玩家档案的第二个定义是，一个玩家的游戏玩法数据，这定义是针对真正玩游戏这个过程而言。通过安装在玩家电脑终端的遥感软件来收集玩家的行为以及相关游戏活动。Galloway认为玩家的行动可分解为叙事性和非叙事性活动。叙事性活动是指那些与“游戏的整体故事叙述”相关联部分，如奔跑、与游戏中的人物对话、在游戏世界里征服一个迷宫等等都是叙事性活动的例子。非叙事性活动是“指孕育在游戏人物角色和游戏世界里的，伴随外界环境共同发展的元素”比如按下开始按钮或者在游戏里运用预警系统。叙事性活动和非叙事性活动都是发生在游戏玩法里，并且可被遥感系统存储在“整个世界”或者“整个孕育器官”里。

然而，很多玩家的档案系统都是超越叙事性活动这一范畴的。它们存在于Galloway所描述的“整个孕育器官”之外。作为超越叙事性活动这一范畴而言，玩家档案经常藏匿于游戏开发商提供的单机在线系统或者服务内。一些游戏的确可以在单一的手机游戏里找到，但大多数档案系统还是存在于同游戏相关的在线网站。此外，开发者创造了APIs，它允许第三方服务商连接到拥有玩家档案服务信息的数据库。由此衍生了很多关于第三方玩家档案服务的服务产业，它能整合多个竞技平台的信息，使得单一玩家不再只使用他们自己的游戏玩法系统而游离于社区之外。正如在简介中提到的Giant Bomb，它就是从Microsoft、Steam和WoW中将玩家的游戏成就整合在一起的范例。因此玩家档案也被定义成记录游戏玩法数据，呈现所得游戏成就和玩家行为的脱离游戏玩法本身范畴的报告。

作为体现游戏玩法数据的辅助工具，玩家档案系统同样会对玩家玩耍游戏的动机进行验证。当玩家有强烈的好奇心和探索欲时，这个动机会推动玩家去玩耍，此动机也会得到系统档案的多次论证。当玩家被激励着去掌控一个游戏时，它的用户名会因为出现在排行榜而得到验证，而当玩家热衷探险时，他们的手机游戏征途上通常会出现游戏地图。想弄明白玩家档案是如何运作的，就必须对影响玩家行为的动机类型进行分析，并分析此动机是如何形成的。

验证动机

人家经常通过研究玩家产生动机的原因，以此来学习此玩家属于哪种类型。Yee举例玩家的动机通常被分解成3个方面：成就感，社交以及沉迷。拥有获取成就感动机的玩家主要关注游戏本身的进程，他们优化游戏玩法机制以便能同其他玩家竞技。社交型玩家倾向于社会交往，努力与他人构建人际关系并乐于团队合作。最后，沉迷型玩家热衷于寻找游戏玩法里更隐秘的因素，他们完全把自己想象成游戏人物本身，成了游戏控并试图脱离现实世界。也有一些动机框架图将动机分解在相似的目录里，比如Lazzaro将动机分解为4种喜悦的情感类型：战胜困难后的喜悦（如竞技和获得成就），轻松喜悦（如角色扮演和探索），深思熟虑后的喜悦（比如从某种环境逃离或者晋升），人文喜悦（社交和用户化）。看来玩家的动机类型丰富多样，对不同类型的玩家进行研究，我们可以延伸到探讨什么样的“奖励”才是玩家真正在乎的。

除了动机会影响玩家选择何种游戏玩法而言，我们也可以说玩家的动机类型的确影响着他们的游戏行为。成就感驱动型玩家会热衷于争取拥有更多的奖杯，而社交型玩家则更在意拓展游戏中新的社会关系。结果可想而知，玩家档案也是在验证这些动机，因为动机在左右着玩家的游戏玩法。达到成就的玩家会发现档案系统里会专门体现奖励的信息，其它的比如社交型动机也体现在玩家档案里，因为这允许玩家们监测他们朋友的最新动态，关于重复性体验的评论，或者在其它的社交网络分享他们的数据。然而，有人会产生这样的疑问：是否要将玩家的所有动机都体现在其游戏档案里，还是只体现一小部分呢？

由于过分突出玩家所取得的成就并将玩家所取得的目标与奖励联系在一起，因此很多游戏公司已经因为过多注重对动机型玩家的奖励而被人们诟病。动机通常与奖励机制联系在一块，一个玩家会因为对达到目标感兴趣而被激发努力工作。这些动机是如何与行动相结合的？据研究，在玩一款游戏时，通常会描述外在激励和内在激励两个动机。外在动机是驾驭于行为本身之上的，很多实实在在的奖励都被看作是外在动机的表现形式。比如一个奖杯，它实际上就是对在游戏竞赛中获胜者的一种激励，这个奖杯与真实进行过的游戏竞赛体验本身并无关联。反之，那些享受着比赛本身所带来的乐趣的玩家们，他们就是内在激励的真实体现，因为他们关心的是比赛竞技的过程。

如果一个游戏公司过多倚重成就感本身，他们就会过分重视对玩家外在激励的引导而忽视了对玩家内在激励的关注。一些心理学家认为外在动机实际上是受到内在动机的驱使，表现在迫使个人希望能从一个活动中得到奖励，也有人认为外在的奖励早已从个体属性中脱离出来。然而，这些观点都被认为是关于循环逻辑的观点。举个例子，如果一个玩家因为获得了一个奖杯后就停止了游戏，这说明他的外在动机已经被侵蚀或者逐渐下降。反之，如果他们继续玩耍这款游戏，也会有人说这个玩家持续不断地期望得到奖励并且永远受外在动机所驱使。另一方面，让内在激励重新进入并影响一个玩家的行为，从而让深层处的动机一直处于希望的状态，这又不可能。此外，一些研究显示确实有这么一部分人，他们把获得奖励看作是一种利己行为。 有一种观点直接针对成就感给出了总结“目标和结果，包括他们的赋值也好，都是社会决定在更广涵义上的延伸”。社会上一些针对外在激励的奖励也被看作是在某个领域和他们的竞技之一或者体现为对另一社交群体的挑战。看起来要论证外在激励对个人（尤其是玩家）动机的奖励的积极性并不容易。

或许我们可以换另外一种方式来看待动机，比如用在研究玩家动机时将玩家类型扩展到多个方面这种方法取代简单地将动机降低为内外两种激励而言，这不失为一种办法。Riess认为“动机的类型是多种多样的，我们不能简单地将其归纳为两类”，他阐述道：正是因为有不同类型的动机，才能驱使各个玩家去执行不同的游戏任务，这些动机包括：权力，求知欲，独立，社会地位，社会接触，复仇，荣誉，理想主义，身体锻炼，浪漫，家庭，命令，饮食，宽容，淡定，拯救。然而这些动机类型并没有将所有的玩家在游戏玩法中表现的动机类型罗列出来，有一些研究者发现：

*“权力”和“社会地位”与Yee的“竞争”和Lazzaro的“战胜困难后的喜悦”相匹配。玩家档案系统通过展示竞技者所获得的奖励以及以分数和速度为衡量标准的排名，来体现这些动机。

*“求知欲”和“拯救”与“探索”，“晋升”和“轻松感”相类似。比如《荒野大镖客：救赎》的玩家档案系统，它将在下个阶段显示出玩家已经探索过的地点，也会在玩家找到隐藏着的物体或地点做标记。

*“社会接触”和“复仇”与“竞争”、“社交”和“人文喜悦”相关联。大多数玩家档案系统都有供玩家追踪其朋友足迹这一功能，甚至也可以追踪敌人以及向导的行踪。

*“淡定”与“逃避”和“深思熟虑的喜悦”相类似。虽然这些动机很难得到验证通过，但玩家档案却是超越游戏历程本身并能提供和在游戏中逃避行为一样的系统。

另外的一些动机比如“饮食”，因为其所具有的真实性所以很难被呈现出来，但身体锻炼这类的动机可通过玩家档案为Wii Fit或EA Sports Active开发的类似系统中体现出来。“荣誉”这个类型的动机在《星际争霸2》中通过累加玩家在线时中断与其它玩家连接的次数来体现。玩家档案在验证每个动机时肯定不会让每个玩家都察觉到，但这些系统一定是在外在激励情景下体现出来的。

为了能使玩家档案系统在玩家进行游戏玩法时验证其动机，开发者必须做到连贯并且赋予其意义。除非是场景化，否则扔一堆游戏玩法数据给玩家毫无意义——理论上这种方式会与诱使玩家进行游戏相关联。

场景化游戏玩法

有一个在信息可视化文献方面的座右铭是“离开了背景，数据就变得毫无意义”，数据必须是与一些相对容易理解和分析的参考内容相关。可视化和分析统必须有“清楚和精准代表信息的能力”以及要给用户“通过交互而计算出信息的价值这种能力”。同样，玩家档案必须以文字形式体现玩家的游戏玩法数据并提供一个交互系统供玩家们分析、交流和学习这些数据。

3种玩家档案系统被用来测试如何将游戏玩法的数据转化为文字形式。第一包括Bungie专门为《Halo》统计准备的在线门户网站，《Halo》是一款包含玩家成就、赢率和关于如何匹配团队与玩家详细信息的著名第一人称射击游戏。第二是专门为颇受热捧的多人在线游戏——《魔兽世界》开发的Armory，其主要关注玩家的角色化身。最后是《荒野大镖客：救赎》，一个以荒凉西部为背景的冒险游戏，它也有一个可跟踪玩家在游戏探索中的环境以及整个故事情节的玩家档案系统，是为Rockstar的Social Club在线社区开发的。

Bungie.net——对于任何一个版本的《Halo》游戏而言，无论是在《Halo 3: ODST》里的单一玩家作战还是在《Halo:Reach》里的多人作战，战斗一直是最重要的话题。Bungie的玩家档案系统在战斗中将玩家的游戏玩法信息用数字表达出来，并且根据不同的战斗模式将这些玩家数据分解成几个方面。当玩家登陆Bungie时，他们可以浏览他们在过去战役中的表现值（图4），并且可以查看更多详细信息。这种可以大体浏览数据的方法在信息可视化社区里很受欢迎，“先大体浏览，然后慢慢聚焦和过滤，然后关注需求”，这在很多的玩家档案系统里得到运用。玩家一旦跳进《Halo》系统，他们便能浏览与自己相关的战役数据：一系列关于每个战役的等级，过去的多人战役匹配和经验值累加。来自战役和多人在线的战斗数据包括角色死亡次数，使用何种武器，是否获得奖励以及人物完成时间。这数据是以多视角形式呈现的，比如数字表格，热图和发散式制图，这些形象化的数据，伴随着排名榜以及人物跟踪数据，可以反映出玩家在游戏里的战斗力指数。

《魔兽世界》的Armory——其玩家档案系统主要关注玩家各自扮演和呈现的角色。Armory运用WoW里相似的插图和功能来呈现玩家扮演的角色和相关信息（图5）。化身的外貌，项目描述和战斗力都可以通过Armory的数据图表提供给每位玩家。玩家化身所呈现的数据资料还包括：天赋，声誉，成就，PvP排名以及行业信息。使用类似的菜单方便玩家理解如何运用Armory以及从所提供的数据中获得有效信息。玩家还可以在执行任务以及评估对手向导花名册之前去查阅他们朋友的游戏化身页面。既然WoW是一款大型多人在线游戏，Armory所具有的特色可以让玩家知道有多少玩家在关注他们的游戏人物角色信息，以及他们同其他玩家所建立的联系。

《荒野大镖客：救赎》——支持玩家去探索广阔的，虚拟的地域并将玩家带进跨界式的故事情节中。这就是为什么《荒野大镖客：救赎》的玩家档案系统更多关注和收集同探险故事相关的数据。第一，系统呈现了一幅玩家看起来和他们曾经到过的地方非常类似的地图（图6）。有很多事件会在游戏里发生（找出正在藏匿的土匪、结束一个故事、收集赏金、在小型游戏里竞技），所有这些都在系统里呈现供玩家移除或收藏。此外，还有一些玩家所挣取的成就清单，这些或许对游戏玩法并不重要，但由于玩家可以跨越这些环境，所以它也是很有趣的事（比如被捆绑的匪徒或者玩家所拥有的马匹数量）。这些数据都可帮助玩家从开放的外部游戏里汲取很多有价值的东西，监测他们曾经过的地域并且指引他们下一步该朝哪个方向前进。

每个这种玩家档案系统都能捕捉到玩家数据，并且为每个游戏增加图解以便和目标相匹配。侧重于战役和策略的游戏（比如那些在《Halo》里的玩家所关心的）会同玩家在面对AI或者对手时的表现息息相关。角色扮演和大型多人游戏更倾向于体现同玩家的化身，以及同向导或者朋友相关联的数据信息。针对冒险和开放式游戏的玩家档案系统会跟随玩家在故事中的进程，并且会呈现同玩家在游戏探索中相关的数据信息。还有很多玩家档案系统将多种游戏（比如Giant Bomb的等级档案）的数据相结合的例子，但每一个系统都试图通过为玩家呈现游戏玩法数据，从而得到玩家的关注并由此来分析这些玩家的数据信息。

档案分析

玩家档案验证和将游戏玩法数据文字化的方法，与在线用户保存一些资料的方法很类似。两种系统都允许用户提供个性化信息并且对他们的身份信息进行绘制，而其它用户同时也能分享这些信息。然而，玩家档案和用户资料存储最大的不同在于，玩家可以在游戏玩法信息里分析和获取有用的信息，和毫无目的地被牵引着去完成那些按钮不同，这些玩家同时也是信息的自动提供者。

在网络空间里，用户档案一直很受关注。不论在游戏、社交网络、论坛和博客里，一份资料是一个用户在网络社区里为定义自己的身份而自我表达的结果。例如，在一个社交网络里用户的简介可能包含他们在娱乐方面的爱好，一个关于习惯的清单或者另外一些他们愿意被其他用户所知道的个人统计资料。和游戏相关的网站对比而言比如Newgrounds，一个针对Flash内容的网络入口，用户或许会在网站上罗列出们所喜欢的游戏，或是他们运用Flash平台制造出来的作品。用户们经过深思熟虑后将他们认为合适的信息添加进来，在将来也会被允许添加一些自我描述的信息。此类允许自由添加信息的行为可以使一个人的身份信息更加完整，但基本上都是谎言，很多用户只是相对地同他们所提供的信息相匹配。然而，这也可以说明用户简介的信息并非全部可信。

玩家档案的操作方式却不同，虽然玩家的游戏玩法信息也是由玩家们自己提供，但他们却没有权限像在编辑个人资料时那样来控制这些资料。一个玩家可以控制他们的动机来追求一个目标和在游戏中选择不同的方式，但那些决定与档案所要体现的玩家的动机这个目的是相分离的。档案经常有个明确的目的并且在游戏玩法结束时会将所呈现的目标信息返还给玩家。一个《荒野大镖客：救赎》的玩家不能在档案里更改他去过多少个地方，除非他在游戏中又发现很多新的地方。在《Halo 3》里赢或输一场游戏很重要，因为这些数据会被记录在档案里。如果“我们的声誉取决于别人对我们的评价”，那么和用户简介相比较，玩家们在档案系统里就没有自主叙述他们自己声誉的能力。提高一个人的声誉因此变得很难。

然而，玩家们也会变成他们自己历史游戏玩法信息的窥视者。与专注于创造他们自己的身份相反，他们可以监测和分析自己过去的行为，因为对个人简介而言，这是他们在网络活动中必须完成的。游戏是学习的很好工具，同样玩家档案给了用户去从以往经验中学习和成长的机会。比如《星际争霸2》的重新体验信息，它是和玩家的SC2档案相关联的，在多人游戏中记录每次时间和人物，以及建筑物和单元。玩家们可以使用这些信息来看他们的战略是否在比赛中泄露了，并且哪些是可以改进的。档案同样协助玩家们来监测他们在游戏中的进度，运用经验值累加，所取得的成就以及所完成的任务。Wii Fit的档案显示了玩家的健康状况随着时间的推移在发生变化，而服务商如Giant Bomb却在追踪玩家为了获取比赛而丢失了多少等级。

和用户资料比较，玩家档案能提供给玩家分析其过去行为的能力，但这两个系统却不能找到互补点。纽沃斯的档案系统允许玩家对比赛进行评论，玩家可以直接查找到他们过去的游戏玩法数据。使用Rockstar社交俱乐部的玩家可以上传他们在《侠盗猎车手4》或《荒野大镖客：救赎》中的视频，这赋予了玩家可以选择希望什么样的信息出现在公众眼前。因此，玩家档案的最后一个环节应该是玩家如何从分析数据中转移到在游戏社区中同他人分享信息，也就是将游戏玩法中个人资源中有用的信息转移到社交资源中。

创造社会资源

除了玩家自我呈现他们的信息以外，玩家档案系统为玩家提供了可以共享游戏玩法信息的方法。Ad-hoc社交网络经常在玩家档案系统中得到体现，系统可以为公众浏览和与朋友交往提供方便。作为公众和相互关联，玩家档案提供了和社交网络一样的有效信息，并且可被当作是玩家们创造社会资源的有力工具。

社会资源可被定义为“实际和潜在资源的整合，它和可持续占有的与相互认识的有组织的网络有很大的关联”。其它一些定义也有在使用，但通常而言个人的社会价值应等同于他们的社会关系所能在“经济、文化和符号”价值方面的体现。社会资源可以在社会群体中给予个人帮助，运用分享信息和提供感情方面的支持，因此，如果玩家档案系统能够提供给玩家一些社会资源，那么档案报告对玩家来说就是有价值的。

有一种可以表示玩家档案如何希望玩家提供社会资源的方法是运用Putnam的粘合型和连接型社会资源的度量。粘合社会资源“倾向于加强独立身份和同质团队的粘合”以及能为团队成员提供“社会和心理上的支持”。Taylor的研究方向主要围绕着战力型玩家，展示他们如何与自己所在的社区紧密结合，以此创造出粘合性社会资源。他们主要在游戏战略论坛交谈，保持在线和离线时的沟通并对游戏里的行界进行评分，所有这些都能给他们提供社会帮助并加强他们是战力型玩家的身份特征。连接型社会资源“在有差别的社区里寻找与他们的共鸣”和“有助于连接外部的资产和信息传导”。媒介技术非常擅长提供Haythornthwaite所说的隐秘关联，此技术的能力就是创造连接型社会资源, 也被称作“弱关系”。比如，在线社交网络能帮助用户拓展新的社会关系——由此通过用户之间的沟通和信息共享来创造弱关系。用户不需要直接和他人接触就可以在社交网络中快速辨别其他用户的个人信息或获取更多新的观点。

玩家档案系统一般会对游戏玩家社区开放，以便玩家之间能达到信息共享，人们认为它同样拥有和社会网络一样创造弱关系的能力。GamerDNA是一个针对游戏玩家的社交网络，它通过使用Xbox Live等监测网络对每个注册玩家的游戏玩法行为进行跟踪，PlayStation Network提供给玩家关于其它玩家在游戏习惯方面的信息。GamerDNA的玩家档案可以通过玩家所在的游戏风格和平台类型来分解玩家的游戏风格，也可以通过让玩家在回答关于游戏玩法行为的问卷，跟踪玩家是何时开始玩游戏以及它所取得的成就（图7）。与在《星际争霸2》和《荒野大镖客：救赎》中的玩家档案系统相比，GamerDNA的玩家档案虽然没有分析特定游戏玩法数据，但这个档案可以让在游戏习惯和游戏行为模式相似的玩家通过他们所创造的弱关系来快速找到所需相关信息。

比如，现阶段正开始互助游戏的玩家通过使用GamerDNA或许可以得到更好的互动机会，因为这些玩家在使用游戏中的内部沟通系统，这也是它能将体验相同游戏的玩家连接在一起的特色。

在玩家档案系统的另外一种信息传输形式则是，玩家从中找到了高于他们技能水平的游戏玩法。《纽沃斯英雄》的玩家可以对他们喜爱的游戏重玩环节进行排名，这种排名可将玩家导向那些深受其他人欢迎的重玩文档，以及参与这些环节的其他玩家的链接。这些弱关系对那些想在游戏中玩得更好，并在游戏玩法中寻找成功案例的玩家提供了方便。然而，拥有很多的弱关系并不意味着用户会马上变得强大，用户所提供的内容质量依然扮演着重要角色，也就是说强大的玩家仍然可以提供高质量的内容。尽管如此，由于档案系统可让玩家通过这个庞大的系统掌握更高深的知识，他们重返游戏时就会用更新的玩法策略来武装自己，于是玩家档案中的内容又再度循环。

讨论和总结

从一种游戏玩法到另一种游戏玩法，玩家档案框架（图2）可通过抓取游戏玩法信息诱使玩家不断持续体验游戏。所有玩家档案中可编辑/不可编辑的游戏玩法数据，都为玩家提供了一个记录游戏历程的私人账号。游戏档案系统可反映玩家采用某种游戏玩法的动机，并为玩家带来意义远超于“外在”奖励的价值。系统会将这些价值生成文本内容使玩家更容易理解他们的数据信息，当然每个玩家档案所侧重的内容各有不同。玩家因此有能力来分析他们的游戏玩法数据，玩家档案不仅为玩家提供奖励，还能让玩家学习自己的行为。最后，玩家可以通过和其他玩家所建立的弱关系来获取更多社会资源，并分享原来专属于一些游戏亚群体的信息。一旦玩家开始学会分析自己和他人的行为模式，他们便会开始循环这些动作，并创造更多的游戏玩法信息。这不是说玩家档案系统是促使玩家不断体验游戏的唯一诱因，但它确实是个“有生命力”的系统，可以不断察觉和领悟玩家的动机和完成任务情况，并奖励那些因探索和分享游戏玩法而获得有用价值的玩家，如此来让玩家不断体验游戏。

虽然很多关于玩家档案框架的观点都在强调这个系统的优势，但我们还是需要注意这些系统的局限性和存在问题。其中一个主要的缺陷是缺少对玩家档案的研究。一些间接的研究已经简短提

到其它和玩家档案相类似的系统。举例来说，这些研究可涉及的层面包括：玩家使用WoW Armory中的游戏数据进行诈骗、数据跟踪工具在虚拟经济领域所发挥的作用、权力玩家运用监测其它玩家表现的软件、用户反馈参数被用于揭露玩家在虚拟世界里的行为习惯，这些都只是在玩家档案里稍微提及到。

此外，玩家档案研究没有必要过多关注那些游戏开发者所支持的系统。关于玩家通过跟踪他们自己的统计数字信息，或运用游戏数据来为其他玩家建立有用系统的例子已不鲜见。甚至一些玩家档案系统的开发者会模仿其他玩家建立的系统。比如，WoW Armory就是在thottbot.com和allakhazam.com出现多年后而建立的。要相信还有很多目标值得玩家档案的开发者去追逐。

另外一个局限性在于相对那些数据挖掘方法而言，目前玩家档案系统所运用的分析方法太少了。玩家档案系统通常是运用数据汇合来呈现游戏玩法数据，但玩家们却无法在系统里找到这些数据的变化趋势。数据挖掘已被证明它在对AI的研究比如建立游戏剧情叙述是很有帮助的，或是研究更精明的AI对手，但这些系统却无法被提供给玩家们本身。这或许是因为数据挖掘作为实践型工具，又与机器学习领域相关，要运用它并不容易。然而，也有一些格斗游戏拥有数据挖掘的特征，因此可以来记录玩家行为并创造AI代理人程序与玩家直接互动。《Virtua Fighter 4》以及最近在《铁拳》系列的游戏就给到玩家可以创造他们自己“Player Ghosts”的选项，AI控制了那些在学习玩家游戏玩法数据的对手。比如《Virtua Fighter 4》的玩家可以通过同他们的鬼神格斗或在重新游戏中判断他们的格斗风格，以此来训练他们的鬼神。另外一些玩家档案系统比如嵌入在《星际争霸2》里面的已经将玩家和他们的重新游戏结合在一起。运用数据挖掘来制造更精明的《星际争霸》对手，由此来为《星际争霸2》的玩家档案系统建立数据挖掘特征。

最后，在开发和运用玩家档案系统时还必须考虑道德问题。在2009年末，WoW的制造者Blizzard Entertainment，帮助美国当地的警察跟踪一个在游玩WoW的罪犯。此嫌疑人受到保释后便离开了美国，这让警察很难确认他的行踪，后来警察得知他也在玩WoW，就要求Blizzard来帮忙寻找这个嫌疑人。Blizzard给了警察关于这个嫌疑人的一些数据，包括IP地址和游戏玩法习惯。其实单单IP地址就可以显示出此嫌疑人当时在加拿大，当然他也难逃被捕的命运了。

Blizzard的行动很快便引起了人们对游戏开发商收集数据动机的质疑，游戏开发商必须在道德问题上谨言慎行。用户早已忘记了他们之前提供的而被存储起来的信息，然而这些信息却会返回来纠缠着他们。这些例子包括员工由于在网上发布公司认为不恰当的言论而被解雇，人们由于选择错误的身份信息而被驱逐出境，在线声誉系统由于一直被欺骗而遭受商业损失。开发者必须记住他们所收集的用户信息是用户生活内容的具体呈现。并且当玩家档案在鼓励用户自主提供个人信息并由此建立一个在线玩家社区时，如何保护玩家的隐私和用户数据匿名化变得尤为关键。

玩家档案系统的发展一直在演变并且已经成为游戏在线互动的特色之一。因此，开发者必须注意到其目前功能的局限性和道德问题，这引出一个建立遥感定位系统的发展方向。尽管这些问题确实存在，但玩家档案在为玩家社区创造空间时也提供了重要的帮助，它运用可视化方法在网上论坛呈现玩家取得的成就，并允许游戏玩家数据为不同玩家所自由分享。而为玩家档案系统设计更恰当的方法并使用这些游戏玩法数据来拓展游戏体验，这是游戏玩家和开发者的共鸣之处。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，转载请注明来源：游戏邦）

Player Dossiers: Analyzing Gameplay Data as a Reward (by Ben Medler)

Ben Medler is a Ph.D. student at the Georgia Institute of Technology where he is working on his dissertation focusing on game analytics. His work revolves around the concept of Playing with Data, how developers and players can utilize game data in new, playful ways. One of his most recent projects was working with EA and Visceral Games to build a visual game analytic tool for Dead Space 2 entitled Data Cracker. A variety of other game related research projects and publications Ben has worked on include: comparing improv acting and role-playing, conflict representation in games, recommendation systems and adaptive games.

Abstract

Recording player gameplay data has become a prevalent feature in many games and platform systems. Players are now able to track their achievements, analyze their past gameplay behaviour and share their data with their gaming friends. A common system that gives players these abilities is known as a player dossier, a data-driven reporting tool comprised of a player’s gameplay data. Player dossiers presents a player’s past gameplay by using statistical and visualization methods while offering ways for players to connect to one another using online social networking features. This paper presents a framework for understanding how player dossiers function and fit into the process of playing games. While a common feature of player dossier systems is to merely list the rewards a player has received during play these systems also validate other gameplay motivations that may interest players besides gathering achievements. Player dossiers contextualize gameplay allowing players to analyze what they find important and share gaming information with a wider community. This turns the process of exploring past gameplay into its own reward beyond any awarded to a player in game.

Keywords: Player dossier, information visualization, game analytics, gameplay, social networks, user profiles, achievements, archiving, data mining.

Introduction

“Data is the new soil,” (McCandless, 2010) and game data is quite fertile. The ability to record and store game data has exploded in recent years (Medler, 2009) bring with it new ways of analyzing and sharing the information contained within. High scores, replays, match histories, team rankings, player ghosts, achievements, and trophies create a treasure trove of information consumed by their very creators, players. Information constantly being composed and mixed together in gratifying and useful ways, creating a situation where data is a reward unto itself.

In the midst of this creation and consumption process a new model for visualizing game data has emerged. Player dossiers are data-driven visual reports comprised of a player’s gameplay data. These reports are mediators connecting players to the vast collections of gameplay data being recorded within games from Farmville (Zynga, 2009) to Halo: Reach (Bungie LLC., 2010). A player’s in-game actions, created content and achievements are organized into dossiers representing each player’s identity, morphing over time as the player continues to play. For example, Giant Bomb (Gerstmann and Davis, 2008), a game wiki and gamer community website, creates player dossiers by visually combining achievement data from a number of gaming platforms (Blizzard Ent., 2004; Microsoft Corp., 2002; Valve Corp., 2003). Achievements are broken down by game, used to rank registered players against the average community member’s achievements and aggregated to discover the rarity of achievements within the community (Figure 1). Giant Bomb’s dossier system is essentially a visual achievement catalog for their members to peruse achievements from a different perspective.

Figure 1: Giant Bomb aggregates player data from multiple achievement systems to display player dossiers that cross genres and platforms.

With game analytics becoming a major factor for game developers (Caoili, 2010; Medler, John and Lane, 2011; Thompson, 2007), player dossiers are the converse analytic systems built for players. These systems provide new spaces for players to congregate and use visual tools to gain insights from their recorded gameplay. A game’s experience is thus extended beyond the game’s environment into these new spaces and player dossiers add their own value to the experience. Dossiers help promote competition by comparing player statistics (Ubisoft Ent., 2009), allow user-generated content to be shared (Maxis, 2009) and encourage player creativity through re-mixing game data (Evelopedia, 2010; Krush DarkGod and Urme TheLegend, 2010; Map WoW, 2006; Meyers, 2009). However, the increase reliance on related achievement systems, a common staple of player dossiers, have brought up questions regarding their effects on player behavior and game design (Hecker, 2010; Jamison, 2010). We must therefore seek to understand how player dossiers work to identify the positive and negative roles they incorporate into the gaming experience.

Figure 2: The player dossier framework identifying how gameplay is transformed into data that can be analyzed and shared.

In order to understand how player dossiers work a framework describing how these types of systems operate must be investigated. Figure 2 lays out a five part framework consisting of stages detailing both how player dossiers function and afford player actions. The first three stages explain how player dossiers are built to function by recording game data to validate player motivations and visually contextualized that data for a player’s consumption. The last two stages proclaim dossier systems afford the practices of analyzing and sharing game data to players. Each stage contributes to a feedback loop perpetrated by a player dossier system which spurs players to create more game data through continued play.

Recording Game Data

If we break apart the player dossier definition given earlier, which stated player dossiers are data-driven reports comprised of a player’s gameplay data, there are two key components: data-driven reports and a player’s gameplay data. Beginning with the former, dossiers, in general, are defined as reports describing an individual or subject. For example, athletic sports such as American baseball has recorded player and team performance statistics diligently for decades and use them in a number of ways, especially to improve a player’s or team’s performance (Medler, 2009). Player dossiers for video games are no different. A simple version of a player dossier may have a few informative points describing a player’s gameplay: length of play time, experience points gained over time, win/ loss ratios, etc.

Complex player dossiers can have thousands of data points about a player. Heroes of Newerth (HoN) (S2 Games, 2010), a DoTA style strategy game (Defense of the Ancients, 2010), records over 130 data points for every match played online, in addition to the roughly 26 values aggregated over time for each separate player (kills, deaths, points earned, etc.). Those values are broken down further by a multiple of 69, which is the variety of hero units a player can choose to play in any given match (Figure 3). Consequently, HoN’s system organizes uniform dossiers for each player but the gameplay data collected for each player drives, or alters, the variable values creating divergent dossiers amongst players.

Figure 3: Heroes of Newerth player dossier system tracks hundreds of player variables for every online match.

The second component of the player dossier definition, a player’s gameplay data, comes from actually playing a game. Throughout a player’s gameplay telemetric software built into a game’s programming record player actions and other related game events (Medler, John and Lane, 2011; Mellon, 2005; Thompson, 2007). Galloway argues that player actions can be broken down into diegetic and nondiegetic actions (Galloway, 2006) [1]. Diegetic actions are those related to the “the game’s total world narrative action” (Galloway, 2006, p.7). Running, speaking with game characters and solving a puzzle while in the game world are examples of diegetic actions. Nondiegetic actions are “gamic elements that are inside the total gamic apparatus yet outside the portion of the apparatus that constitutes a pretend world of character and story” (Galloway, 2006, p.7) like pressing the start button or using a heads-up display in a game. Both diegetic and nondiegetic actions happen in the “total world” or “total gamic apparatus” which refers to space of time when gameplay actions occur and can be recorded by a telemetric system.

However, most player dossier systems are extra-diegetic. They exist outside of what Galloway describes as the “total gamic apparatus.” As an extra-diegetic feature, player dossiers are often included amid separate online systems or services offered by a game’s developer. Some games do display player dossiers in-game separate from the gameplay experience (Blizzard Ent., 2010a; Electronic Arts Inc., 2010; Nintendo EAD, 2007) but dossier systems are largely still found online as part of a website related to a game (Blizzard Ent., 2010b; Blue Byte Software, 2010; Bungie LLC, 2004; S2 Games, 2010). Additionally, developers create APIs (Microsoft Corp., 2002; Blizzard Ent., 2010b; Valve Corp., 2003) that allow third-party services to connect with databases filled with player gameplay data. This has spawned a new series of third-party player dossier services (Gerstmann and Davis, 2008; Radoff, 2006) that combine multiple games from various platforms, creating systems that would be impossible for any single developer to offer using their gameplay data alone. Giant Bomb (Gerstmann and Davis, 2008), as referenced in the introduction, is an example that combines player achievement data from Microsoft’s (Microsoft Corp., 2002), Steam’s (Valve Corp., 2003) and World of Warcraft’s (Blizzard Ent., 2004) achievement systems. Thus, player dossiers are defined reports driven by recorded gameplay data, displaying the achievements earned and actions performed by players but exist outside of gameplay.

As an auxiliary consequence to displaying gameplay data, player dossier systems also validate player motivations for playing games. The motivations that compel players to play, such as the feeling of mastery or the urge to explore, are confirmed by various dossier variables. Players motivated to master the game are validated through having their username sit atop a leaderboard while players motivated by exploration are shown game maps of their in-game expeditions. Understanding how player dossiers work must include an analysis of the types of motivations that compel players and how those motives are epitomized.

Validating Motives

Players are motivated to play games for different reasons as is often argued by researchers studying player types (Bartle, 2003; Lazzaro, 2009; Yee, 2007). Yee, for instance, breaks down player motivation into three sub-categories: Achievement, Social and Immersion (Yee, 2007). Players with achievement motivations focus on advancement within the game, optimizing their gameplay using a game’s mechanics and competing with other players. Social motivations involve socializing, forming relationships and working with a team. Finally, the immersion category contains motivations for discovering hidden gameplay elements, roleplaying, game customization and escaping from the real world. Other motivation frameworks break down motives into similar categories. Lazzaro breaks down motivation into four emotional categories that players feel when having fun playing games: hard fun (e.g. competition and achievement), easy fun (roleplay and discovery), serious fun (escape and advancement), and people fun (socializing and customization) (Lazzaro, 2009). Player motivation seems to be multifaceted, given the research surrounding player types, stretching the concept of what is important and qualifies as a “reward” for players.

Regardless of which motivations drive a player’s gameplay we can say that those motivations affect their gameplay behaviour. Players who are motivated by achievement will strive to earn more trophies and similarly a player motivated to socialize will seek out new in-game relationships. As a result, player dossiers are a means of validating those motives because they provide a representation of a player’s gameplay. Achievers will find that player dossier systems display awards earned within a game, such as Giant Bomb’s achievement system. Other motivations like socializing are often covered within player dossier system because they allow players to monitor their friend’s data (Bungie LLC., 2004), comment on replays (S2 Games, 2010), or share their data on other social networks (Blizzard Ent. 2010c). However, one should question if all gameplay motivations are represented in player dossier systems or only a certain subset.

With the rise of achievements as a standard practice for rewarding players who accomplish certain goals (Medler, 2009) game companies have been accused of focusing too heavily on achievement rewards and the motivations behind obtaining them (Hecker, 2010; Jamison, 2010). Motivations are often associated with a reward system, a player is motivated to work towards goals or achievements that interest them. How those motivations relate to the activity, that is, playing a game, is often described as the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic motivations (Dweck, and Leggett, 1988; Elliot, 2005). Extrinsic motivators are detached from the activity being performed; most tangible rewards are regarded as extrinsic rewards. A trophy, an extrinsic reward, given to a professional gamer for winning a game tournament is an extrinsic motivator because the trophy itself has nothing to do with the actual game played. Conversely, the motivating feelings the professional gamer experiences while playing in a tournament, those of accomplishment and of attaining a mastery of the game, are intrinsic motivations since those feelings directly relate to the act of playing the game.

If game companies focus too heavily on achievements then they are promoting extrinsic rewards rather than fostering other intrinsic motivations for playing games (Hecker, 2010). Some psychology researchers have argued that extrinsic motivators “undermine” intrinsic motivation by forcing individuals to expect a reward for an activity (Greene and Lepper, 1974) or that extrinsic rewards take away from an activities inherent intrinsic properties (Weiner, 1995). However, these arguments have been called into question as using circular logic (Reiss, 2005). For example, if a player is given an extrinsic reward for completing a level in a game and stops playing, it is argued that the player’s intrinsic motivation has been undermined and decreased. Whereas if they continue to play the game it is argued that the player is now continuously expecting a reward and is forever extrinsically motivated. In either case it is impossible for intrinsic motivation to re-enter as a reason for the player’s behaviour, creating a situation where the undermining factor is always reinforced (Reiss, 2009). Additionally, other research reveals there are certain types of people that benefit from extrinsic motivators like rewards (Elliot and Church, 1997; Lee, Sheldon and Turban, 2003). One argument finds achievements, “goals and outcomes, as well as their evaluations, are to a large extent a matter of social determination” (Hareli and Weiner, 2002, p.183). In social settings extrinsic rewards are seen by some as displaying competence in an area to others (Elliot and Church, 1997) or present challenges to compete with other members of a social group (Lee, Sheldon and Turban, 2003). There seems to be no clear cut argument for or against presenting extrinsic rewards as positive motivators for individuals, especially players.

Perhaps a different way to look at motivation, instead of reducing them to extrinsic and intrinsic categories, is to take a multifaceted approach similar to the methods that player type researchers take when describing player motivations. Riess argues that “motivation is fundamentally multifaceted and cannot be reduced to just two sources,” stating that multiple categories of motives actually drive individuals to perform certain tasks (Riess, 2005, p.7). These motives include: power, curiosity, independence, status, social contact, vengeance, honor, idealism, physical exercise, romance, family, order, eating, acceptance, tranquility, saving. While these motives do not represent an exhaustive list they match quite well the gameplay motives other researchers have found:Power and status fit with Yee’s competition category and Lazzaro’s hard fun. Player dossier systems represent those motivations through displaying achievement awards and ranking players based on measurements such as score or speed.

Curiosity and saving are similar to discovery, advancement and easy fun. Red Dead Redeption’s (Rockstar San Diego and Rockstar North, 2010) player dossier system, as examined in the next section, shows players the areas they have explored in the game while other systems mark when player’s have found hidden objects or locations.

Social contact and vengeance relate to competition, socializing and people fun. Most player dossier systems have the ability for players to track friends but can also be used to track rival players or guilds.

Tranquility matches the escapism and serious fun motivations. While these motivations are harder to validate, player dossiers are systems that extend a game’s experience beyond the game itself and can provide the same type of escapism that games offer.
Other motivations like eating would be hard to represent, being tangible, but motivations like physical exercise can be represented through player dossier systems built into Wii Fit (Nintendo EAD, 2007) or EA Sports Active (EA Vancouver, 2009). The motive of honor is represented in Starcraft 2 (Blizzard Ent., 2010a), a real time strategy game, by accumulating the number of times the player disconnects in an online match [2]. Player dossiers certainly do not validate every motivation that a player may feel while playing a game but these systems certainly represent motivations beyond those argued to be only extrinsic.

In order for a player dossier system to validate motivations using gameplay data it must present that data to players in a coherent and meaningful way. Throwing mounds of gameplay data at players is not helpful unless it is contextualized–ideally in such a way that relates to the motivations for playing a game.

Contextualizing Gameplay

A common motto in information visualization literature is “data without context is meaningless,” data must have some point of reference to be properly understood or analyzed (Few, 2009; Spence, 2001; Tufte, 1983). Visualization and analytic systems must have the “ability to clearly and accurately represent information” and give users the “ability to interact with it to figure out what the information means” (Few, 2009, p.55). Similarly, player dossiers should present gameplay data in context to gameplay and provide an interactive system for players to gain insight or enjoyment from analyzing the data.

Three player dossier systems are examined to show how they place gameplay data into context given their respective game. This first includes Bungie’s online portal for Halo statistics (Bungie LLC, 2004), Halo being a franchise of popular first-person shooter games, which covers player achievements, winning percentages, and detailed information about the matches played by teams of players. The second dossier system is the Armory (Blizzard Ent.,2010b) built for World of Warcraft (Blizzard Ent., 2004), a fantasy massively multiplayer online (MMO) roleplaying game, and focuses on a player’s avatar configurations. Finally, Red Dead Redemption, an open-world action adventure game set in the wild west, has a player dossier system built into Rockstar’s Social Club online community (Rockstar Games, 2008) which keeps track of how players explore the game environment and progressed through the game’s storyline.

Bungie.net – Combat is the most important aspect of any Halo game whether it is the combat from the single player campaign in Halo 3: ODST (Bungie LLC., 2009) or the multiplayer matches of Halo:Reach [3]. Bungie’s player dossier system contextualizing player gameplay data around combat and breaks player data down into different areas associated with each game’s combat modes. When players log into Bungie.net they are presented with an overview report of their past combat achievements (Figure 4) and then allowed to move on to more detailed information. This method of presenting overview data first is a mantra within the information visualization community, “overview first, zoom and filter, then details-on-demand,” (Shneiderman, 1996) and is used in most player dossier systems. Once a player dives into the Halo system he or she can view further combat data related to their: progression through each game’s campaign levels, past multiplayer matches and experience rankings over time.

Combat data from campaign and multiplayer matches includes recording the players kill count, which weapons they used, if any awards were gained and time of completion. This data is organized using multiple visual formats, e.g. data tables, heat maps and sun burst graphs. These visualizations, along with leaderboards and achievement tracking, quantify how combat effect players are in the game.

Figure 4: Most player dossier systems display different levels of detailed player data based on where the player is at in the system.

World of Warcraft Armory – The main feature of the World of Warcraft Armory player dossier system focuses on exhibiting each player’s avatar from the game. The Armory uses similar artwork and functionality from World of Warcraft (WoW) for displaying avatars and their related information (Figure 5). The avatar’s appearance, item descriptions and combat values are all available to a player through their Armory profile. Other data points about a player’s avatar are also displayed including: talents, reputation, achievements, Player verses Player (PvP) standings and guild information. Having a similar setup found in WoW makes it easier for players to automatically understand how to use the Armory and begin taking advantage of data provided. Players can easily jump from their own avatar to their friend’s avatar page before heading over and assessing a rival guild’s roster. Since WoW is an MMO the Armory’s features are indicative of how players focus on their personal game personas and the connection they create between other players.

Figure 5: The World of Warcraft Armory draws heavily from the game’s artwork and interaction to provide an online experience very similar to one found in the game.

Red Dead Redemption – Open world games allow players to explore wide, virtual landscapes and get players involved in storylines spanning different areas. That’s why Red Dead Redemption’s player dossier system focuses on exploration, collecting and story related data. First, the system displays a map of where players have been which is very similar to the one players use in the game (Figure 6). There are many collectables or sets of events that can occur in the game (finding bandit hideouts, finishing story events, collecting bounties, completing mini-games) and all of them are laid out in the system clearly delineating the ones left to complete or collect. Additionally, there are lists of achievements players have earned and statistics that may not be important to gameplay but are certainly interesting events as the player traverses the environment (e.g. hogtieing criminals or the number of horses a player has owned). All of this data helps players absorb the vastness of an open-world game, monitor what they have experienced thus far and plan where to go next.

Figure 6: The map players use while playing Red Dead Redemption is duplicated in the Rockstar’s online player dossier system for the game.

Each of these player dossier systems captures player data and adds context to match the main focus of each game. Combat and strategy focused games like those in the Halo franchise present data that relates to how a player performs against AI or player opponents. Roleplaying and massively multiplayer games will tend to present data related to a player’s avatar and link their data with their guild or friends. Player dossier systems for adventure and open-world games follow the players progression through the story and presents data related to the player’s exploration of the game. Still other examples of player dossier systems combine data from multiple games, such as Giant Bomb’s achievement dossier (Gerstmann and Davis, 2008), but each attempts to present gameplay data in such a way as to make it easier for players to gain insights from analyzing their data.

Analyzing Dossiers

The way that player dossiers validate and contextualize gameplay data is very similar to how online user profiles function. Both types of systems allow users the ability to provide personalized data and construct meaningful information about their identity, which is consumed by other users. However, the major difference between player dossiers and user profile systems is that players can gain insights from analyzing their own gameplay information, which is automatically generated instead of being intricately constructed.

A lot of emphasis is placed on user profiles in online spaces. Whether in games, social networks, forums or blogs, a profile is a product of self-expression that presents a user’s identity to an online community. For example, on a social network a user may include their tastes in entertainment (Liu, 2007), a list of hobbies or other personal demographic information that they wish other users on the network to know (Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe, 2007). For game related websites like Newgrounds (Fulp, 1995), an online portal for Flash content, a user may list their favorite games that appear on the site or their own work built using the Flash platform. Users deliberately add this information and are further permitted to make alterations to their self-described data as they see fit (Walther, 2007). While allowing such freedom can endorse the behavior to “enhance” ones identity, essentially lying, many users are relatively accurate with the information they provide (Toma, 2010; Toma, Hancock and Ellison, 2008). However, this means that information cannot be entirely trusted on user profiles.

Player dossiers work differently. While player gameplay data is certainly collected from a player’s personal actions, players do not have the level of intentional control over the dossier’s content as they do with profiles. A player has control over their motives to pursue an objective and may choose to play a game in a specific way, but those decisions are tangential to how a dossier represents the results of those motivations. Dossiers often have a specific purpose and represent targeted information given back to the player after gameplay concludes. A Red Dead Redemption player cannot change how many locations they have visited on their dossier unless they explore new areas within the game. Winning or losing a game in Halo 3 (Bungie LLC., 2007) is important while playing and the outcome of a match will forever be recorded in a player’s dossier report due to that importance, without the ability for players to alter the results. If “our reputations depends upon how other people judge and evaluate us” (Solove, 2007, p.33) then players are deprived of the ability to guide the narrative of their online reputation within player dossier systems in comparison to user profiles. Enhancing one’s own identity becomes much harder.

However, at the same time a player becomes a voyeur of their own historical gameplay. They can monitor and analyze their past behavior instead of focusing on creating their identity, as they are forced to do when creating a profile. Games are excellent tools for learning (Gee, 2007), and player dossiers give users the ability to learn from their past experiences. For example, Starcraft 2 (SC2) replays, which are linked to a player’s SC2 dossier, record the exact times and order of every building and unit created in a multiplayer match. Players can use that information to see how their strategy unfolded during the match and where they can improve.

Dossiers also help players monitor their progress through a game by keeping aggregated totals of variables like experience, achievements earned or missions completed.

Wii Fit’s dossier shows a player’s fitness progression over time while services like Giant Bomb keep track of how many achievements players have left to gain in each of their games.

Player dossiers certainly offer the unique ability to analyze one’s past compared to user profiles, but these two systems can often be found intermixed. Heroes of Newerth’s dossier system allows players to leave comments about matches, giving players a chance to direct the conversation surrounding their past gameplay. Players using Rockstar’s Social Club can upload videos that they made within games like Grand Theft Auto 4 (Rockstar Toronto, 2008) or Red Dead Redemption, giving the player more power over what information is being presented to outside audiences. Hence, the final piece of the player dossier framework is how players move from analyzing and consuming their own data towards sharing knowledge within a game’s community, thus moving gameplay data away from being merely personal capital, and only useful for the individual, to social capital.

Creating Social Capital

Player dossier systems offer the means for sharing gameplay data socially between players in addition to players reflecting on their own data. Ad-hoc social networks are often featured in player dossier systems, where many systems are open for public viewing and offer friend connections. Being both public and interconnected, player dossiers offer similar benefits that social networks provide (Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe, 2007) and can be argued as an aid for players to create social capital in the system.

Social capital can be defined as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (Bourdieu, 1983, p.248). Other definitions have been used (Adler and Kwon, 2002) but in general an individual’s social capital is equivalent to the resources that their social connections can mobilize in terms of “economic, cultural or symbolic” capital (Bourdieu, 1983, p.249). Social capital can be beneficial to individuals within social groups as a means of sharing information and providing emotional support (Paxton, 1999). Therefore, if player dossier systems can provide some form of social capital to players then dossier reports may be rewarding for players from a social stand-point.

One way to show how player dossiers can provide social capital to players is to use Putnam’s dimensions of bonding and bridging social capital. Bonding social capital “tends to reinforce exclusive identities and homogeneous groups” and can provide “social and psychological support” for members of a group (Putnam, 2000, p.22). Taylor’s work revolving around power gamers show how those players are “highly networked” within their game’s community (Taylor, 2006) and produce bonding social capital. They participate regularly on game strategy forums, maintain online and offline relationships related to their game and form the ranks of many in-game guilds, all of which provide them social support and reinforce their identity as power gamers. Bridging social capital is instead “outward looking and encompass people across diverse social cleavages” and “are better for linkage to external assets and for information diffusion” (Putnam, 2000, p.22). Media technology is very good at providing what Haythornthwaite calls latent ties, the technical ability to create bridging social capital (Haythornthwaite, 2005), which are also called “weak ties” (Granovetter, 1982). For instance, online social networks provide users with the technical abilities to forge new social relationships–and therefore create weak ties among users–by providing features for communicating and allowing personal information to be shared (Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe, 2007). Users can gauge another user’s personal information quickly or gain new perspectives from one another within a social network without necessarily having relationships that are emotionally supportive (Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe, 2007; Granovetter, 1982).

Player dossier systems are generally open to a game’s player community making it easy to share information and can be argued as having the same power as social networks to create weak ties among players. GamerDNA (Radoff, 2006), a social network for game players, keep track of each of their registered player’s gameplay activity by monitoring networks like Xbox Live (Microsoft Corp., 2002) and the PlayStation Network (Sony Computer Ent., 2006) to provide players with knowledge about each other’s gaming habits. Player dossiers on GamerDNA include breaking down a player’s games by genre and platform, streaming events such as when a player first played a game or earned achievements, and other gamer traits which are created when players answer surveys regarding their gameplay behaviour (Figure 7). While GamerDNA does not access specific gameplay data compared with player dossier systems found in Starcraft 2 or Red Dead Redemption, the system allows users to quickly find relevant information through the weak ties it creates between players with similar gaming habits and traits. For instance, players that have recently started a mutual game may have a better chance of interacting by using GamerDNA, which have features that connect users playing the same game, than the players using the game’s internal communication systems.

Figure 7: GamerDNA asks players to take a number of surveys which they then visualize as a set of player gaming traits.

Another form of knowledge transfer that can happen within player dossiers systems is when players find gameplay examples that are above their skill level. Heroes of Newerth’s players can rank which replays they enjoy, which both directs players to popular replay files they may enjoy and links players to the specific players that participated in those replays. These weak ties that exist between players make it easier for players who wish to become better at a game to find examples of exquisite gameplay (Medler, 2009) whereas in the past this information was often locked away in power gamer groups (Taylor, 2006). However, having a large amount of weak ties does not mean that users are immediately powerful (Cha et al., 2010). The quality of the content offered still plays a major roll, which means that players such as power gamers can still provide better quality content. However, player dossier systems make it easier for other players to tap into that extensive community knowledge pushing players to return to their games armed with new gameplay strategies; and the player dossier cycle begins once more.

Discussion and Conclusion

From gameplay to gameplay, the player dossier framework (Figure 2) brings full circle the ability to use captured gameplay as a means to entice players to continue

playing. All player dossiers record diegetic/ non-diegetic gameplay data creating a personal account of a player’s game experience. The motivations behind a player’s gameplay are then validated in a player dossier system and bring more value to the player than just displaying “extrinsic” rewards. Validated values are then contextualized to make it easier for players to understand their data, and each player dossier system focuses on different aspects of the game it supports. Players then have the ability to analyze their gameplay data; player dossiers not only award players with a trophy room but a chance to learn from their behavior. Last, players can gain social capital by using player dossier systems creating weak ties between other players and allow for information transfer that would otherwise be locked within obscure gaming sub-groups. Once players begin to analyze their own behavior and the behavior of other players this ultimately leads to players continuing the cycle, creating more gameplay data. This is not to say that player dossiers are the only cause for continued gameplay but that player dossiers are “living” systems, providing a persistent glimpse into a player’s motivations and their accomplishments and rewarding players for exploring and sharing gameplay that retains its value as long as players continue to play.

While the arguments for the framework presented thus far have featured the benefits of player dossiers, there are limitations and issues to these systems that are necessary to cover. One major limitation is the lack of player dossier research. Tangential research exists that has briefly mentioned similar systems compared to the player dossier examples provided in this article. Such research, for example: game studies research into players cheating using game databases similar to the WoW Armory (Consalvo, 2007); into virtual economies and how statistic tracking plays an economic role (Castronova, 2006); into power gamers using performance monitoring software (Taylor, 2006), and game metrics being collected to discover behavior habits in virtual worlds (Williams, Yee and Caplan, 2008) have only slightly referred to player dossiers.

Additionally, player dossier research does not have to focus on systems supported by game developers. There are examples of player groups tracking their own statistics or using game data to build useful systems for other players [4]. Even developer-produced dossier systems have mimicked other player-created systems. For example, the WoW Armory was built after other player-run systems such as thottbot.com and allakhazam.com had been in service for many years. There are certainly many avenues for future player-dossier research to pursue.

Another limitation is that the current analysis abilities offered in player dossier systems are quite few compared to the analytic methods used for data mining.

Player dossier systems typically use aggregated totals for displaying gameplay data, but players do not have the ability to find trends or analyze data beyond what a system provides. Data mining has proved useful for AI research such as building game narratives (Sharma, et al. 2010) or smarter AI opponents (van Hoorn, et al. 2009; Weber and Mateas, 2009), but these systems are not provided to the players themselves. This may be due to the fact that data mining as a practice, and related fields like machine learning, is difficult (Patel, 2010). However, there are examples of fighting games that have primitive data mining features that record player actions to create AI agents and interact with the player directly. Virtua Fighter 4 (Sega-Am2, 2002) and recent games in the Tekken series give players the option to create their own “player ghosts” (Medler, 2009), AI controlled opponents that learn from a player’s gameplay data. Virtua Fighter 4 players, for instance, can train their ghosts by fighting against them or judging their fighting style in replays. Other player dossier systems, such as the one built into Starcraft 2, already link players to their replays as well. Given the research into using data mining for producing smarter Starcraft opponents (Weber and Meteas, 2009) build data mining features into the Starcraft 2’s player dossier system is not out of the question.

Finally, there are ethical issues that need to be addressed when using and developing player dossier systems. Near the end of 2009, Blizzard Entertainment, the makers of World of Warcraft, helped local United States police track down a criminal suspect who played WoW (Munsey, 2009). The suspect had a warrant out for his arrest but had left the country making it difficult for the police to locate him. That is until the police found out the suspect continued to play WoW and requested Blizzard’s help in finding the suspect. Blizzard responded by giving the police a number of data points about the suspect, including his IP address and gameplay habits. The IP address alone was enough to roughly pinpoint the location of the suspect, who was in Canada, and lead to the apprehension of the suspect.

The actions taken by Blizzard raise issues concerning the purpose of collecting data and game developers must pause to consider these ethical concerns. Stored data lingers for much longer than users remember and can come back to haunt them (Mayer-Sch?nberger, 2009; Solove, 2007). There are examples of employees getting fired for comments placed online, people being deported to other countries because of mistaken identity, and online reputation systems being cheated to hurt businesses or users. Developers have to remember that collected player data represents an “out-of-context” piece of someone’s life (Mayer-Sch?nberger, 2009). While player dossiers do provide the means of promoting repeat gameplay and building a player community online it is also important to decide how the privacy and anonymity of player data will be handled.

Player dossiers are always evolving [5] and are becoming a necessary feature for games that continue to integrate online capabilities. As a result, developers must be aware of the current functional limitations and ethical issues that come with building telemetric based systems. Despite these facts, player dossiers provide important functions by creating spaces for player communities, visually displaying player achievements in an online forum and allow gameplay knowledge to flow between players more freely. It is up to both players and game developers to find common ground through the development of these systems to find proper methods for using gameplay data to extend the game experience.（source:gamestudies）