作者：John Rose

在硬核游戏世界，暴力似乎就是主旋律。当然，并非所有游戏都以暴力为卖点——确实有不少非暴力游戏与暴力游戏也有着相当的乐趣。但暴力，特别是杀戮，对游戏开发者和玩家有着相当大的吸引力。是因为我们骨子里的嗜杀本性和道德崩溃吗？还是说另有更合理的解释？毫无疑问，我认为在游戏中引入杀戮功能确实存在几个优势。虽然总体上说，我并不提倡暴力，但我不否认游戏中的暴力存在确有根基。

killing in video game(from gamingbolt.com)

1、杀戮是基础

我们都希望玩家是带着激动的心情来玩游戏，是吧？有什么方式能比利用玩家内心深处的反应更能调动玩家的情绪？人皆有所惧，皆有求生本能。即使是在游戏的虚拟背景下，玩家也会对死亡做出敏感的反应。出于求生本能，祖先们的猎狩和防御能力在我们的血液中世代相传。即使是杀害一个NPC，也会让我们那可鄙的大脑饱受内疚之苦。这都增加了基于杀戮的焦虑和渴望。这种情结跨越了文明和人种的界线，使之成为游戏最美味的佐料。

2、杀戮与其他媒体颇有渊源

也许是因为杀戮构成了人类体验的重要基础，所以这股嗜杀之风也弥漫到了其他媒体中。在现实世界中，人类文明本身就是一部漫长的杀戮史（战争是历史的永恒主题）。到了小说世界，杀戮之火甚至燃烧得更加旺盛和炫目。可以说，数千年来，艺术家们孜孜不倦于杀戮行为的探索；这样，杀戮理所当然地渗入我们的文明，成为重要的组成部分。正是因为我们暴露在杀戮的空气中，我们可以对杀戮无动于衷（如果不包括杀戮行为本身的话）。人们早已习惯以暴力和死亡作为故事的卖点，所以游戏中暴力的存在并不突兀。

3、杀戮具有多样性

游戏玩的就是新鲜——玩家总是寻找新事物。不知幸运与否，只要想得到，杀死一个人的方式可以成千上万。游戏开发者设计出强悍的武器和灾难，并且将其自然地融为游戏剧情的一部分，这并不困难。这样，我们单凭改变杀死敌人的方式就足以创造出各式各样的游戏玩法。虽然我们的目标永远不变，但杀戮的快感却仍然在增加。如前文所述，开发者是窃取非交互性媒体素材的天才，他们可将其转化为交互性娱乐。

4、杀戮富有视听反馈

毁灭之趣显而易见。即使只是一次简单的杀戮行动，也可以用破碎的画面和逼真的音效刺激玩家敏感的神经。这种类型的反馈极易使玩家得到内心的满足感。因为我们天生就喜欢目睹事物走向毁灭或崩溃，喜欢聆听杀戮和挣扎的链条在地上拖拽时发出的欢快声响。这种反馈和杀戮快感的提升需要新硬件和软件的支持。在游戏中没有什么比杀戮更极端的存在了，特别是在游戏能够创造的史诗般宏大的规模中。

5、杀戮具有对称性

因为杀戮的对称性，它对游戏玩法不无价值。玩家总是千方百计地设法杀死AI或其他玩家，就好比这些敌人也无时不刻地想置玩家于死地。这种基本的对称性催生了一种简单的行为模式——玩家对自身的目标和敌人的目标有着敏锐的嗅觉。这种底线框架是基础：策略、武器和合作可以增加其复杂性。杀戮的价值还体现在，玩家在共同的基本目标的驱使下，能够理解敌人的行为。

6、杀戮可中合威胁

杀戮的价值在玩法上的表现可以从威胁的解除过程中看出来。遭遇一个敌人往往可以引发一场战斗，随着越来越多敌人的加入，战斗就会不断升温。如果活着的敌人就是威胁的根源，那么要斩草除根就是杀掉所有敌人。玩家的紧张情绪就在一个一个斩杀敌人的过程中得到缓解。直到所有的敌人都被消灭，玩家内心的满足感才达到顶峰。根据这种情绪变化曲线来制定游戏步法，构思良好的杀戮行为可以很自然地提升玩家体验。

7、杀戮以动作和方向为基础

考虑到游戏的输入设备，大部分游戏以动作和方向为基础。游戏手柄和鼠标和微调玩家的动作和方向上是行家。第一或第三人称摄像机可以突出玩家的动作和方向。于是出现了这样的结果，掌握以这些标准为基础的杀戮方法，应该在游戏中大力提倡。命中、反应时间、闪避、突袭和预见等技术构成了杀戮。升级这些技能不仅是一种基本的乐趣所在，也依赖游戏的行动和方向的优势。除非游戏的发展能够脱离常规控制方式，否则其他活动带来的满足感都不可能超越杀戮。

如果你以此还有其他思考，我也很乐意听听你的意见：为什么杀戮与游戏的契合如此完美？或者杀戮与游戏在哪些方面有所分裂？（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Why Killing Is Awesome

by John Rose

In the world of games, violence tends to be our focus. Of course not every title relies on it – there are plenty of non-violent products that are equally fun.  But there’s just something about violence, specifically killing, that appeals to developers and players alike. Is it because we’re bloodthirsty and ethically bankrupt, or is there a more reasonable answer?  Not surprisingly, I think there are several advantages to featuring killing in a game. While I should mention that I don’t advocate violence in general, here are a few ideas why I think in-game killing is here to stay.

1. Killing is basic

We want our games to play with emotions, right? What better way to toy with our players’ feelings than by harnessing deep-seeded reactions? Everyone feels fear; everyone is hard-wired with the need to survive. Even in the false setting of a game, it’s not difficult to make people respond to mortality. Along with survival we have inherited the abilities to hunt and defend ourselves. Even killing an NPC triggers something guilty in our reptile brain. It all adds up to a set of anxieties and desires based around killing. These emotional hooks transcend cultural and genre boundaries, which makes them a perfect addition to many games.

2. Killing is important to other media

Probably because killing is so basic to the human experience, it pervades other media. We have a rich history of killing in non-fiction (war is a continual focal point for history). Fiction is even more flamboyant with ways to kill. You could say that artists have been exploring the act of killing for thousands of years, which has made it an important part of our culture. We’re so surrounded by it that we can be desensitized to the thought of killing, if not by the act itself. People are used to plot points and stories revolving around violence and death, so games are no big leap.

3. Killing is diverse

Novelty is important to games – players are always looking for something new. Luckily(?) for us, there are a million ways to kill someone. Developers create some pretty epic weapons and hazards, and it’s not hard to make them believable parts of the game’s fiction. In this way we can vary the gameplay by merely changing the ways we murder enemies. We can keep this goal the same and still add infinite flavors of killing. As mentioned above, developers easily poach material from non-interactive media, taking their ideas and injecting them with interactive fun.

4. Killing is rich in audiovisual feedback

It’s easy to make destruction seem fun. Even a simple kill can bombard the player with particles and sounds, fully engaging his senses. This kind of feedback is easy to make a small reward. Because we inherently like to see things go boom or splat, the chain of fight-kill-fight-kill is more enjoyable because of these sensory hooks. This feedback only gets better with new hardware and software, and killing improves with it. There are few in-game actions as extreme as killing, especially at the epic scale that a game can create.

5. Killing is symmetrical

Killing can be valuable to gameplay because it is usually symmetrical. Players are often trying to kill AI or other players, just as these enemies are trying to kill them. This basic symmetry provides a simple behavioral model – players immediately understand their goals and the goals of their opponents. A baseline framework like this is a foundation; tactics, weapons, and teamwork can add complexity. It’s also incredibly valuable because, since they share the same basic goals, players can learn from their opponents’ behavior.

6. Killing neutralizes threat

Another gameplay benefit to killing is its natural progression from threat to resolution. An enemy encounter makes for a good struggle, which usually ramps up as more enemies appear. If enemies are threatening when they’re alive, they’re not when they’re dead. Killing each enemy removes their threat, and thereby lessens the player’s tension relative to his effort. The threat inherently disappears after all enemies are killed, creating a satisfying intensity curve. Pacing relies on this, so well-conceived killing can naturally provide a more polished user experience.

7. Killing is based on movement and direction

Given their input devices, most games are based on movement and direction. Joysticks and mice excel at small changes to a player’s movement and direction. First- and third-person cameras accentuate a player’s movement and direction. It follows that the mastery of in-game killing, which is also based on those criteria, should flourish in games. Skills like precision, reaction time, evasion, surprise, and predicting enemy behavior are all part of killing. Not only are fundamentally fun to improve, but they rely on a game’s strengths of movement and direction. If games evolve away from conventional controllers, it’s very possible that other types of actions besides killing will become more satisfying.

If you have any more ideas, I’d love to hear more reasons why killing fits games so well, or where it falls apart.（source:gamasutra）