作者：Alex Wiltshire

来自牛津大学的一名哲学家Bennett Foddy（游戏邦注：主要研究药瘾，肥胖症以及赌博，同时也是一名游戏开发者，正制作一款网页游戏《QWOP》）在最近的利物浦游戏开发者大会上提到了与游戏设计相关的上瘾机制。他认为上瘾游戏不一定是坏事，并称“对于游戏开发者来说，让玩家上瘾是游戏的设计目标。”但是他也警告：“并非所有被电子游戏所吸引的玩家都真正享受到了游戏乐趣，有些玩家甚至后来还会厌恶这种游戏。”

tiny_tower(from next-gen)

他列举了一些实验以解释“上瘾”的功效，如采取某些奖励措施等。以两只老鼠为实验对象，前面各放置一个按钮。在一只老鼠前面的按钮上放着可卡因，而另外一个则什么都没放。按钮上放有可卡因的老鼠会一直按压按钮，而另外一只则不会这么做。只有一只老鼠获得了奖励，也就是说那只吃了可卡因的老鼠上瘾了，尽管长时间使用了这种方法后，两只老鼠都会出现脱瘾状况。

另外一个实验是关于玩家要如何控制自己的行动才能获得所要的奖励。给玩家一个控制杆，并且在屏幕上显示一个虚拟控制杆，只要真实控制杆与虚拟控制杆的行动误差在150毫秒以下，玩家便会感觉自己真的控制了屏幕上的手杆了。

换句话说，如果游戏提供给玩家的回报和行动延迟时间较短，那么这种游戏体验便具有上瘾性。举个例子来说，在《超级马里奥》中，马里奥只要跳起就能够获得回报，所以在这款游戏中回报与行动是同时进行的。

Foddy说道：“在《马里奥》中，跳跃就是一种回报。虽然我们通常意义上的回报都是指奖杯或者高分什么的，但是其实真正的回报非常简单，并且在电子游戏设计中相当普及。”Foddy同时也补充道，但是奖励必须与玩家的行动紧密联系在一起，因此他列举了2008年的《波斯王子》作为例子，在这款游戏中，按压按钮A以及跳跃之间的间隔长达半秒，“这让我们失去了对于游戏的控制感，所以感觉这款游戏并不是很有趣。”

举个例子来说，《Mr Destiny’s Adventure》是一款完全照本宣科的游戏，玩家在游戏中只有按压正确的按钮才能前进，但是游戏的回应速度却非常快。很多玩家会因为能够在游戏中深刻体会到控制感从而为其所吸引。

另外一个实验是关于间歇强化。每隔一段时间或者随机在老鼠前面的按钮中放置食物。结果是，对于随机放置食物的那只老鼠更会使劲按压按钮。老虎机以及《暗黑破坏神》中的奖励机制正是利用了这一原理。

再者是关于奖励递减实验。即老鼠按压1次按钮时可以获得食物，但是后来它要想获得相同的食物就必须按压2次，3次等以此类推。甚至到最后，它按压了100次按钮却也只能获得同等的食物。这与《勇者斗恶龙》中的游戏机制类似，即玩家很容易闯过第一关，但是越往后的关卡就需要他们付出更多的努力。所有哺乳动物都存在这种为了相同的报酬而付出更多努力的自然表现。

如何合理地利用这些上瘾机制？哪一种才算真正的对症下药？Foddy说，这都取决于玩家玩游戏的原因。对于玩家来说游戏中存在何种吸引力？奖励递减机制能够推动玩家面向同一种奖励而投入更多的努力，但是当玩家经历了这一过程后他是否还愿意继续这么做？

当问及过度使用成瘾机制是否会让游戏弄巧成拙时，Foddy回答道，如果玩家在游戏中的体验受到了影响，他们肯定会因此滋生出愤恨感，就像是在某些试验中的老鼠和鸽子一样，肯定也会有相同的感受。《游戏发展国》的设计者也许从玩家身上赚得了许多利益，但是他们却从未关心玩家是否会因为对这款游戏上瘾而不愿意去尝试Kairosoft的其它游戏。

Foddy同时还展示了2个早前的香烟广告，其中一个带有标签“这是用烤的”。我们当然知道所有烟草都已经过烘烤，所以这一标签很明显就是多余的。而另外一则广告的标签是“让你变苗条的香烟”，它错误地暗示了身材与香烟之间的关系。虽然这种方法滥用了玩家的心理过程，但是也许它能够让玩家对你的产品产生积极印象。

Foddy继续说道：“《Tiny Tower》是我最讨厌的游戏之一，”因为玩家只有花钱才能获得短暂的休息时间，并且使用电梯才能再次经营商店。“在这里我觉得自己变成了游戏的剥削对象。付钱玩游戏却只会让游戏变得更加琐碎，就像是你其实不是为了玩游戏而花钱似的。而我认为我们花钱玩游戏是为了消磨时间，而不是争取时间。”

虽然免费游戏本身并无过错，但这要取决于玩家花钱后能够得到什么奖励。这些奖励到底是让游戏更加有趣还是只让它更加上瘾？（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

The ethics of game addiction

Alex Wiltshire

Bennett Foddy detailed the mechanics of addiction as it relates to game design to the audience at Develop Liverpool today. “For game developers, addictiveness is a design goal,” he said, before admitting that an addictive game isn’t necessarily bad. “But not everyone addicted to videogames is enjoying themselves, and lives can go awry,” he warned.

Foddy is a philosopher at Oxford University who focuses on drug addiction, obesity and gambling, but he “moonlights” as a game developer, making the web game QWOP.

He explained some of the experiments that show how addiction works, such as one which reveals it is linked to action providing reward. Two rats are provided a button each. One rat’s button feeds cocaine directly into the brains of the two rats. The other rat’s button does nothing. The rat whose button feeds the cocaine will press it compulsively, while the other rat will not, because only one of them has associated the action with the reward – this rat is addicted, while the other is not, even though both will experience withdrawal symptoms after sustained use.

Another experiment shows how if you’re convinced you have control over the action you can associate it with the reward. A player is given a joystick and shown a virtual joystick that they’re not actually in control of on-screen – they will believe they’re in control, but only so long as the delay between action and response is under 150 milliseconds.

In other words, a gaming experience is more addictive if it has shorter latency between reward and action. Mario, for instance, instantly jumps, so there’s a strong connection with action and reward.

“Jumping is a reward in Mario,” Foddy said. “There’s often talk of trophies and high scores, but rewards are more basic than that. They pervade all videogame design.” But they have to be instantly connected to players’ actions, Foddy added, pointing towards the ‘egregious’ example of 2008’s Prince Of Persia in which there’s a half-second between pressing A and jumping. “It feels like we’re not in control and the game is less compelling.”

For instance, Mr Destiny’s Adventure is entirely scripted; progress is only possible by pressing the correct button, but you get an instant response. Some players are entirely drawn in – the illusion is there that you’re in control, even though you’re not.

Another experiment concerns intermittent reinforcement – rats are given a button that provides food on different schedules – every time it’s pressed, every tenth time, or randomly. It turns out that the rat is far more likely to compulsively hit the button if it’s on a random schedule. It’s a technique slot machines use, as well as Diablo’s loot system.

And then there’s the diminishing reward experiment, in which a rat at first gets food on pressing a button, then has to press twice for the same food, then three times and so on. It will eventually press hundreds of times for the same food. It’s the equivalent to what happens in games like Dragon Quest, in which it’s easy to gain the first level, but subsequent ones are exponentially more work. A willingness to work ever harder for same reward is common to all mammals.

When, though, does taking advantage of these characteristics pass from being a valid part of a game to being exploitative? What’s ethical and what isn’t? It’s down to why the player is playing the game, Foddy said. What’s in it for them? Diminishing rewards is a process that can make players willing to work harder and harder for the same reward – do players still have a reason to do so when they’ve gone through this process?

Asked whether it’s self-defeating for a game to be too addictive because it can breed resentment in players if the spell breaks, Foddy said that you can indeed see resentment in rats and pigeons during related experiments. Though game designers may have made their money from the player and not really care he said that getting addicted to Game Dev Story made him not buy any more of Kairosoft’s games.

Foddy showed two old cigarette ads, one with the tag, ‘It’s toasted’. Because all cigarettes are toasted, it’s a false reason to buy it. Another, with the tag, ‘Slimmer than the fat cigarettes men smoke,’ alluded to a false relationship between thinness and smoking. Such techniques are abusive, taking advantage of psychological processes. But can they also help people to behave in ways that are positive to them?

“Tiny Tower is one of my most hated games,” he continued, because you’re given the option to pay money to avoid playing and using the elevator to get shops running again. “I felt exploited by this game. Paying money made the game trivial – you’re paying not to play the game. Games are about paying money to spend time with them, not the other way around.”

Not that freemium is bad per se – but it depends on what rewards the game is charging money for. Do the rewards make it a better game, or just a more addictive one?（source:next-gen）