游戏邦注：本文原作者是调查研究博士兼游戏设计师Lucas Blair，他在本文第一章、第二章中针对如何设计有效的游戏成就系统的一些看法，以下是第三章内容。

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。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

The Cake Is Not a Lie: How to Design Effective Achievements, Part 3

by Lucas Blair

[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.（source:gamasutra）