作者：Javier Arévalo Baeza

Adam Saltsman常在Gamasutra的一些文章中指责那些“邪恶”游戏设计系统，我认为他的反应太过激了，因此觉得有必要撰写此文纠正他的部分说法。

Adam曾表示：“我所提出的指导方针并不只是针对于玩家，而是面向所有人类。我的原则并不是针对游戏类型或游戏难度，而是讲述如何才能更好地尊重玩家。”

我们都认为不管是玩家还是人类都应该得到尊重。玩家感受到游戏乐趣并希望更深入地体验游戏，这与你鼓励他们为游戏消费其实并未牵扯到太多的尊重之说。如果真的要说尊重，你付出了劳动力而为玩家创造乐趣，并且他们因为感受到乐趣而付出金钱，这应该算是一种尊重吧。单纯的“付出模式”可能会影响你制造产品的积极性，并不能因为开发者通过游戏盈利就说他们过于贪婪。

“只要够有趣就行了，”Adam说道，“如果游戏玩法比起‘物品清单’更重要且更有吸引力，我想肯定没有人愿意为了获得更多‘物品清单’而花钱吧。”

在这里，Adam似乎将“游戏玩法”视为一个单一而不可分割的整体。事实并非如此。大多数现代游戏，特别是绝大多数成功游戏并未只包含一种游戏元素，而是能够同时支持并结合各种体验，机制和类型的游戏。

不同玩家喜欢不同游戏机制和游戏类型。另外，同一个玩家在不同时间点，或者基于不同心情等游戏外部因素也会选择不同的游戏机制和游戏类型。

Farmville(from myfundarkside.blogspot.com)

让我们以《FarmVille》为例，我想这是Adam口中“剥削性游戏”的最佳例子。人们会出于不同原因并以不同方法玩游戏：创建并装扮一个漂亮的农场（修整园艺）；与他人竞赛（无需面临直接对峙的压力）；放松心情（你只要点击鼠标便能够看到美好事物）；制定出最合适的策略（随后继续往前走）；作为一名收集者（有时候甚至异常着迷）。还有更多的其它动机。

大多数游戏都结合了各种不同的机制以迎合玩家的不同游戏玩法；而且玩家也不会只玩自己感兴趣的机制而略过剩下的所有内容。就像是我不会忽视《暗黑破坏神》中的战利品而只玩游戏中的战斗部分；我不会略过《猎天使魔女》中的boss对抗，也不会略过《旺达与巨像》中的探索任务。

当然了，免费游戏也必须在特定的游戏玩法中植入适当的付费激励元素。它们采取的一种方法便是让玩家付费便能够略过一些不感兴趣的内容。如果说这就能够说明此类游戏强调的是“物品清单比游戏玩法更重要”，那么这种看法未免过于片面了。

在不破坏游戏的完整性，价值以及乐趣的前提下植入付费机制算得上是一种非常巧妙的设计以及平衡过程。虽然很多游戏做不好这一点，但是对于那些成功做到这点的游戏来说，如果能够更好地面向真正的目标用户，它们就能够从中获取巨大的利益。

玩家的能力曲线以及明确的目标是设计师所运用的传统机制。虽然经验丰富的玩家可能会嘲笑这种机制如此简单（如升级或明确列出目标/任务），但是这确实是一种非常有效的机制，因为即使是没有经验的玩家也能够轻松理解任务，并从中感受到乐趣，愿意继续体验这种机制。

随机性也是同样道理：大多数游戏体验中所渗透着的不确定性，多样性以及期盼性都是通过这种简单的方法创造而成。

“邪恶”的设计师也许会尝试着使用这些机制创造出“邪恶”的“斯金纳箱”（游戏邦注：是新行为主义心理学的创始人之一的斯金纳为研究操作性条件反射而设计的实验设备），但是这并不意味着游戏机制就是一些有害或者缺乏道德的内容（就像斯金纳箱实验中的光，电或者芝士也都不是有害之物）。除了赌博，我不知道有哪一款游戏是纯粹由斯金纳箱元素所组成。

实际上，大多数成功的免费游戏的收益是来自于较少的用户基础，对我来说，这说明游戏确实为玩家提供了纯粹，无杂念，且具有伦理价值的有益内容。若非如此，那些想避开斯金纳机制的玩家根本就不会来玩游戏了。因此，Adam所担忧的斯金纳元素其实并不存在，或者说影响范围非常小，深深隐藏于游戏价值之下。大多数游戏设计师会将这种设计方式称为“对人类基本行为的理解”。

游戏邦注：原文发表于2011年10月22日，所涉事件和数据均以当时为准。（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）

On Freemium, playstyles and evil game design

Javier Arévalo Baeza

In a couple of Gamasutra blog posts, Adam Saltsman (of ‘Canabalt’ fame) ranted against what he feels are ‘evil’ game design systems. I characterized his arguments as ‘hysterical’, which is perhaps a bit unfair since rants are meant to be hot. Anyway, at some point I felt compelled to write a long reply, and I’m reposting it here. I’ve edited it only slightly, so it’s possible that some of it is confusing outside of the context of the original discussion.

My guidelines are not for gamers; they’re for humans. My guidelines are not about styles of game or difficulty of game; they’re about treating players with a modicum of respect.

Now, we agree that all players and all humans should be treated with respect. But there is no inherent lack of respect in ensuring that your game encourages players to pay if they like the game and want to enjoy more of it. If anything, you are asking players to respect YOU as a creator by paying something for the enjoyment they derive from your work. Short of a pure donation model, this encouragement must affect the product you create in some ways. That doesn’t make the creator greedy, which seems to be Adam’s characterization of the monetization process.

In the section ‘As Long As It’s Fun, It’s Ok,’ Adam says:if the gameplay was more important and more compelling than the checklist, then it follows, I think, that no one would actually pay money in order to be able to achieve more checklist progress with less gameplay.

Adam is talking about ‘the gameplay’ as if it were a single, indivisible unit. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most modern games, and particularly most successful games, are not reduced to a single element of gameplay, but rather support and combine a wide array of experiences, mechanics and play styles.

Different players are interested in different mechanics and playstyles. Equally important, even the same player will be interested in different mechanics and playstyles at different points in time, depending on mood, available time and other factors external to the game.

Let’s take FarmVille, which I assume would be a good example of what Adam calls ‘predatory’. People play that game for different reasons and in different ways: to build and decorate a pretty farm (gardening without the dirt); to compete with others (without the stress of a direct confrontation); to relax with a mindless passtime (where you click things and nice stuff happens); to figure out the optimal strategies (and probably move on afterwards); as a collector / completionist (sometimes even obsessively so). I’m sure there’s more.

Most games mix and combine the mechanics that support all their different playstyles; a player can’t ONLY play the mechanics she is interested in and skip the rest. I can’t ignore the loot in Diablo and only play the combat game; I can’t skip boss battles in Bayonetta; I can’t skip the exploration in Shadow of the Colossus.

Freemium games by definition must embed their payment encouragement elements within regular gameplay. One of the ways they do this is by asking players to pay if they want to skip or ignore some of the aspects of the game that are not of interest to them. To characterize this as ‘the checklist is more important than the gameplay’ is a terrible, terrible simplification.

Doing this embedding without ruining the integrity, value and fun of your game is a very delicate design and balancing process. Most games that try get it wrong, and among those that get it right, some can reap massive benefits if they are aimed at the right audience.

Player power curves, and defined goals, are age old mechanics in a designer’s toolbox. A common trend is for sophisticated players to mock the distilled versions of these (leveling up, and explicit lists of goals / quests) as simplistic. And I guess they ARE simple! That’s why they are so successful: because they work as mechanics that a less sophisticated player will enjoy, understand and want to work with.

Same goes for randomness: it’s an incredibly easy way to create uncertainty, variety, anticipation, and similar feelings that are pervasive to most play experiences.

An evil designer may try to create an evil skinner box using these mechanics, but that doesn’t make the mechanics themselves evil or unethical in any way (just like in the original skinner box the lights, the electricity or the cheese are not evil). And outside of gambling, I don’t know of a game that consist purely of a skinner box.

The fact that most successful freemium games derive their revenue from a small % of the playerbase to me means that these games must contain a lot of unadulterated, not-evil, absolutely ethical value for their players. If that were not the case, any players that evade the skinner mechanism that forces them to pay, would simply not play at all. Therefore, the evil skinner component that worries Adam so much must, in fact, do not exist or be minimally present, buried under all that value. Most designers will call this presence simply ‘understanding basic human behaviour’.（source:iguanademos）