作者：Dan Cook（Spry Fox首席创意官）

“剽窃”在字典中的含义为“非法挪用”、“抄袭”或“窃取并发布”他人的“语言、想法或表达”，将其作为自己的原创作品。但是，这个概念仍然不算清晰明了。

现代认为剽窃是不道德的行为，追求原创的想法出现于18世纪的欧洲，随浪漫主义运动而兴起。在此之前的数个世纪，人们鼓励作家和艺术家“尽可能地模仿巨作”，避免“不必要的创新”。

到18世纪，在学术界和新闻业这两个领域，剽窃被视为违反学术和新闻道德的行为，可能会遭到驱逐。

“剽窃本身并非犯罪，只是在道德层面上应受到谴责。”——维基百科“剽窃”条目内容

思考：多数职业游戏开发者也是职业剽窃者

以下是面向所有游戏开发者的一组测试问题：

1、你是否遵从“90%相似，10%新颖”的经验法则呢？

2、你正在制作的游戏是否存在相似的同类产品？

3、设计师是否说过“要实现这个功能，我们可以模仿X游戏的做法”，而且经常在讨论中提及这款游戏呢？

4、你是否以过去3-5年间被视为原创的游戏作为首要参照游戏？

5、你的首要设计哲学是不是“我可以制作出比X游戏更好的版本”？

6、你是否认为复制机制并添加诸如关卡或图像等新的内容就可以制作出独特的游戏？

如果你的多数回答“是”，那么你很可能就是个剽窃者。用其他艺术形式的语言来重述游戏行业的黄金准则，那就是：剽窃90%的内容，创造10%的新内容，让玩家觉得自己正在体验的是原创作品。

这种懒散和不道德的行为已经成为我们行业的社交准则。我们甚至从未尝试探索是否存在开发游戏的新方法。我们看着自己的这种行为，承认这是有害的，但仍然因经济、法律、历史和短期的自私理由而坚持下去。但是，“所有人都这么做”显然不能成为进行这种损害行业和伤害少数追求原创的开发者的行为的合适借口。

剽窃与逐渐创新的差别

在新作品中借用来自于之前游戏的某些机制，这是很普遍的做法。这在创造过程中也显得很自然。但是，剽窃者的做法是抄袭整个系统。他们不止借鉴了塞尔达系列游戏的移动机制，而且还抄袭了游戏的地下城设计、力量提升能力的大部分内容以及游戏中的其他各个系统。

游戏设计同机械发明很相似。规则、界面和反馈系统创造出一套可复制的玩家动态。游戏可以视为被发明出的“娱乐机器”，玩家可以从中获得快乐。

在构建游戏时，开发者的发明经历下列阶段：

1、复制设计。多数程序员在学习过程中都会对现有的功能性游戏进行复制，复制包括各个层面，比如界面、关卡和得分等。你对游戏的运转方式并不理解，所以将理解寄希望于复制行为上。你或许会对艺术做些许改变，但本质上依然是相同的游戏。

2、修改现有设计。通常情况下，这涉及到使用现有参数或内容。你克隆了《毁灭战士》，但添加了新的散弹枪和关卡。你仍然不理解游戏的设计方法，但是你开始修改某些变量，比如叙事、关卡设计或主题。这些变量的修改相对较为安全，不大可能破坏核心机制。《魔兽争霸》便是个经典的修改范例游戏，其RTS设计来源于《沙丘2》。

沙丘2(from file-extensions)

3、添加设计。以核心趣味引擎为基础，添加某些内容。这可以比成在现成的汽车上添加涡轮增压器。索尼克的设计以马里奥为基础，但是前者的移动速度更快。最好的情况是，这会导致整个设计产生瀑布效应，你会重新思考设计新的内容、节奏和得分等方面。

4、综合成新设计。将多个独立的部分融合起来，组成有着独特动态的新游戏。《PuzzleJuice》之类的游戏便是综合性设计的绝佳例证，其元素来源于《俄罗斯方块》和《Boggle》。对许多玩家来说，这款游戏感觉像是用熟悉的成分构建而成的全新游戏。

PuzzleJuice(from androapple.com)

5、发明设计。使用各种灵感和资源，创造出新颖独特的趣味引擎。

早期的复制阶段是必要的过程，所有学习游戏设计的人都应当这么做。作为一种学习性的行为，此举不会给你带来大量的金钱，却可以有效地提升自我。只要游戏设计学徒能够标明他们的灵感来源，并且不直接同原创制作者展开竞争，那么冲突便可以降到很低。

后期的发明阶段极具风险，而且也是件很困难的工作。设计师需要历经大量的实验和失败。即便是最简单的游戏发明（游戏邦注：比如《俄罗斯方块》和《Lemmings》），也是专家设计师经过多年辛勤工作后的成果。能够到达这个阶段的设计师并不多，但这些人能够给整个世界带来巨大的欢乐。他们理应从自己的发明中获得收益，通常情况下，玩家也很愿意花钱购买新游戏。

剽窃者是那些走发明过程捷径的人。他们认为，复制的做法较为廉价，而且能够尽可能地保留所复制游戏的动态。于是，他们对游戏稍加修饰，以新产品的形式来出售。改变图像或修改情节是最普遍采用的做法，因为这两项措施较为容易，而且不会破坏游戏原有的动态。观察游戏市场，你就会发现存在许多剽窃作品。最明显的剽窃者是那些完全窃取他人游戏机制和动态而丝毫不做创新的人。

剽窃的经济和人力成本

剽窃者无需调查和发明成本就可以创造游戏，他可以迅速地将游戏投放到原创制作者还未顾及的市场。这样，克隆作品就获得了本应属于原创制作者的盈利和收入。比如，《Minecraft》克隆作品先期登陆XBLA，减少了原创者的收入。

用户或许会认同这种现象，他们可以更快获得自己喜欢的产品，而且随着剽窃者间相互剽窃现象的普及，最终用户可以有更多选择。

但是，这种现象会对创新造成很大的影响。虽然游戏整体市场日渐庞大，但创新者丝毫未受到保护，确保他们可以的创新行为能获得补偿。对游戏创新者而言，法律上的保护极为稀少。剽窃者反而占领了大部分的市场，树立起人所共知的品牌，而创新者受到排挤。

这种反馈循环导致创新者的创新热情受到影响。付出成本进行创新却没有无法提升自己在市场中的竞争力，那为什么还要这么做呢？加入剽窃队伍似乎是个更好的选择，避免付出昂贵的创新成本。所以，游戏行业会出现许许多多革命性作品，但颠覆传统题材的作品会越来越少，这是毫无疑问的。

剽窃者的做法直接导致行业的创意行为减少。仅仅数年的时间，充满卡通色彩的社交游戏便从创新转变为遍布克隆作品的市场，从这点便足以看出剽窃产生的巨大影响。这种做法不利于市场的成长，最终会导致用户的选择变得更为有限。

剽窃者的职业声誉

当然，剽窃也有一定的技术含量，就像伪造名画一样。成为职业剽窃者也需要付出辛勤的努力。我承认这一点。“优秀设计师”同样精于“研究类似游戏”。他们只借鉴最优秀的游戏。

当前，行业盲目崇拜这种技术。但如果你坚持只做剽窃而不进行创新，那么你今后的职业发展之路很清晰。最终，你会成为工资的努力。通常情况下，这种人会受雇于那些不注重突破游戏设计的公司。这些公司的目标在于，通过一个又一个的产品尽量从用户身上获得盈利。如果你在晚上成功完成了之前游戏巨作的复制，那么家人第二天便有了生活的资金。这便是你的创造力的全部价值。你需要仔细考虑，自己是否真得希望将整个职业生涯浪费在复制他人的作品上。还记得何时你是个注重创新的人吗？还记得何时你怀揣有改变世界的想法？

剽窃是个具有一定道德内涵的选择

我们住在经济化的世界中，需要一定的经济基础维持生计。我们所居住的世界也充满法制，我们的行为需要恪守一定的底线。但是作为创造者和艺术师，我们可以选择如何分配我们的创造力。我们创造出的带有道德和情感的内容，这或许比任何金钱报酬更为重要。成为剽窃者并维持这种做法，这是对时间的浪费。

其他的发展之路是什么呢？为什么不创立小型项目原型呢？改变游戏题材，修改题材最基本的元素。给自己的行为定下规矩，不可复制以往的其他游戏。重新构建正在制作的游戏，从整个游戏历史中借鉴合适的元素。这样，你可以创造出属于你自己的独特玩家体验。从这时起，你就不再是剽窃者，而是大师级的游戏设计师。这个行业依然有创造新奇作品的空间。

游戏邦注：本文发稿于2012年1月6日，所涉时间、事件和数据均以此为准。（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）

Opinion: Plagiarism as a moral choice

Dan Cook

“Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the ‘wrongful appropriation,’ ‘close imitation,’ or ‘purloining and publication’ of another author’s ‘language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions,’ and the representation of them as one’s own original work, but the notion remains problematic with nebulous boundaries.

The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, particularly with the Romantic movement, while in the previous centuries authors and artists were encouraged to “copy the masters as closely as possible” and avoid “unnecessary invention”.

The 18th century new morals have been institutionalized and enforced prominently in the sectors of academia and journalism, where plagiarism is now considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics, subject to sanctions like expulsion and other severe career damage…

Plagiarism is not a crime per se but is disapproved more on the grounds of moral offense…”

- Wikipedia’s entry on Plagiarism

Thought: Most professional game developers are also professional plagiarists

Here’s a quiz for all the game developers who are reading:

Do you follow the rule of thumb “90% familiar, 10% fresh”?

When you look at the game you are working on is there a direct comparable?

Do your designers say “For that feature let’s model how X did it” and consistently refer to the same pre-existing game?

Is your primary reference a game considered original or innovative in the last 3-5 years?

Is your primary philosophy of design “I could totally make a better version of game X”?

Do you copy mechanics and assume that adding different content such as levels or graphics makes your game unique?

If you follow these patterns, you are likely a plagiarist. To rewrite the industry’s golden rule in the language of other arts, “90 percent is plagiarized and 10 percent is remixed to give the illusion that the player is engaged in an original work.”

This lazy and morally offensive practice has become a social norm within our incestuous industry. We don’t even consider that there might be alternative method of developing games. We are the equivalent of the western world before the suffrage movement. Or the South before the civil rights movement. We look at our current derivative behavior, acknowledge that it is harmful and then proceed to dogmatically justify its continued pursuit based off economic, legal, historical and short-term selfish reasons. Yet the fact that “everyone does it” fails to provide a strong moral foundation for an act that diminishes our industry and damages the minority that strive to create original works.

Where plagiarism differs from evolving key innovations of the past

It is a common practice to include individual mechanics inspired by previous games. This is a natural part of the creative process. Plagiarists, however borrows systems en mass. They takes not just the movement mechanic from Zelda, but the flow of the dungeons, the majority of the power ups, and the millisecond by millisecond feel of the game.

Game designs are very close to a mechanical invention. The rules, interface and feedback systems all create a reproducible set of player dynamics. Think of a game as an invented “fun engine” that when placed in front of a player yields delight and mastery.

Developers go through a few stages of invention when building games.

1) Copying a design. Most programmers make a simple copy of an existing functional game as part of their learning process. You copy everything including interface, levels, scoring and more. You don’t understand why the game works so you replicate it in the hopes of blindly capturing the magic. You may change out the art, but otherwise it is the same game.

2) Modifying an existing design. Usually this involves just playing with existing parameters or content. You might add a triple shotgun and new levels to your Doom-clone. You still don’t understand the game, but you can play with safe variables like narrative, level design or theme that are unlikely to ruin the value of the core mechanic. Warcraft is a classic example of a modification of the original Dune 2 RTS design.

3) Adding to a design. Taking the core fun engine and add something to it. Think of this as adding a turbo charger on an existing car. Sonic took Mario and made the main character much faster. In the best games this results in a cascade effect throughout the entire design that requires you to rethink content, pacing, scoring and more.

4) Synthesizing a new design. Take multiple disparate parts and put together a new game that has unique dynamics. A game like PuzzleJuice is a great example of a synthesized design that takes elements from Tetris and Boggle. To many players, it feels like a brand new games built out of familiar pieces.

5) Inventing a design. Using a variety of sources of inspiration, create a new fun engine that is unique and new to the world.

The early stages of copying are an essential process that all students of game design should undertake. As a learning activity, there isn’t a lot of money in creating master studies, but it is a respectable pursuit along the path to self improvement. As long as students cite their inspiration and refrain from competing directly with the original creator there is little conflict.

The later stages of invention are risky, difficult work. There’s an immense amount of experimentation and failure. Even the simplest game inventions (such as Tetris or Lemmings) were the result of years of diligent labor by master designers. There aren’t a lot of these people, yet they bring immense amounts of joy to the world. They deserve to profit from their inventions and in general players are excited to spend their money on new, delightful games.

The plagiarist is someone who wants to shortcut the process of invention. They decide that it is cheaper to copy as much a possible so that the dynamics of a previous game are preserved. Then cosmetic tweaks are applied and the copy is sold as a new thing by an original creator. Changing out the graphics or giving the game a new plot are the most common tweaks because they are easily decoupled without damaging the delicate dynamics of play. When you look at the games released on the market, you can easily see that there is a spectrum of theft. The most blatant plagiarists are those that steal the most and innovate new mechanics and dynamics the least.

The economic and human cost of plagiarism

By cheaply creating games without needing to pay the cost of research and invention, plagiarists are able to quickly release games into markets that the original innovator has not fully addressed. Clones therefore capture value that would have otherwise eventually accrued to the original innovator. For example, clones of Minecraft that reach XBLA earlier tap unmet demand and reduce the audience for Minecraft when it eventually releases there.

On first blush, consumer advocates might imagine that this is a fine situation. They get a product they like faster and as the population of plagiarists merrily plagiarize one another, you end up with an explosion of quality choices.

Consider how this effects the original source of the innovation. While the overall market may be larger, the original innovator is left naked with no protection that lets them recoup the cost of the initial invention. There are few legal protections for game inventors. There is only the stark reality that many smaller independent developers, the life blood of innovation in our current markets, are blindsided by a blast of competition that they lack the development resources, distribution agreements or business expertise to successfully compete against. The plagiarists capture the majority of the market, establish well known evergreen brands and the original innovators are at best a footnote.

As a result of this tragically common feedback loop, those inclined to innovate are discouraged from innovating in the first place. Why innovate when it costs you money and doesn’t yield the competitive advantage you might hope due to the nearly instantaneous influx of copy-cat competitors? It may look like a better business option to simply join the plagiarists and avoid the whole expensive innovation thing in the first place. It is no surprise that the game industry tends to have a large number of evolutionary works, but fewer genre-busting founder works.

The plagiarist’s “make a buck at any cost” attitude directly results in a creatively stagnant industry long term. You don’t need to look far to see concrete examples of these dynamics in action. Note how quickly the cartoonishly mercenary plagiarism-focused culture of social games turned a bright spot of burgeoning innovation into an endless red ocean of clone after clone within a mere handful of years. Such a wasteland fails to grow the market and ultimately leads to less consumer choice.

Plagiarist pride

There is of course skill in plagiarizing well, just as there is skill in forging a famous painting. To be a professional plagiarist is laborious work. I acknowledge this. We’ve developed a whole subculture of designers that specialize in the subtle arts of copying the work of others. A “good designer” is one that excels at “researching comparable games.” They steal with great care from only the best. They also excel at “polish” which has been warped to mean the skill at reverse engineering a comparable game so that the copy feels identical down to the smallest detail.

The current industry put such skills on a pedestal. We hire for them and we pay top dollar for reliable execution. Yet at best, these are the skills of a journeyman, mechanically copying the master works of past giants.

If you stick to doing only this, there’s a pretty clear career path. You end up as a wage slave. Typically such laborers are hired by businesses that couldn’t give a damn about pushing the craft of game design forward. Instead, the goal is another product for another slot on either the retail shelf or the downloadable dashboard. Grind it out, worker bee. If you can copy a past hit by the flickering candle of midnight crunch, your family gets its ball of rice for the day. This is the entirety of your creative worth. If you go to sleep each night thinking “I’m a hack, but at least I pay the bills”, you deserve pity. And you need to contemplate the quiet whisper that maybe you don’t need to spend your entire career diligently copying others. Remember when you were a sparklingly original creative person? Remember when you wanted to change the world? Remember that time before you compromised?

Plagiarism is a moral choice

We live in an economic world. Yes, you need to eat. We also live in a legal world. There is a rather low minimum bar for our behavior. But as creators and artists, we can each choose where we put our creative energy. What we create has a moral and emotional component that is perhaps more important for both our mental health than any paycheck. To be a plagiarist and to stay a plagiarist is to waste your very limited time on this planet. What amazing things could you be making if you didn’t spend so much time slavishly copying others?

What’s the alternative? Why not start up a small prototyping project? Knock a genre down to its most basic element. Give yourself constraints so you intentionally do not replicate games of the past. Rebuild your game from that simple foundation, borrowing elements from the entire breadth of game history. Finish a game that has a half dozen influences from widely disparate games that in the end create a player experience that is uniquely yours. This is how you stop being a plagiarist and start becoming a master game designer. There is still time to create something amazing and new. (Source: Gamasutra)