作者：Stephen Dick

本文的灵感来自于Nir Eyal最近发布的文章《When Designing For Good Is Bad》。大家都知道自己应该循环利用资源，都知道应该吃更多有机蔬菜，都知道坏事无处不在，他们应给予帮助。但他们通常都没有这么做。

这要责怪谁？我们作为用户无疑存在部分责任。但也许这并非完全是我们的错。

由于设计糟糕，许多试图成为正面推动力量的机构最终都适得其反！我们通常责怪自己，“我们不知道要从何入手，健康饮食看起来非常困难；要将此放进5个回收站中哪个；我无法发挥什么作用，所以何必自寻烦恼等。”

无论出于什么理由，由于糟糕设计，避开本该完成的事情已变成一种习得行为。毕竟，直接避开比承担操作失误风险要简单得多。这带来冷漠状态，由于愧疚我们完全忽略问题。我们直接走过坐在Target外索要善款的人士身旁，假装视而不见或是忽然专注于手机。

“说的不是你，是我，抱歉。”

我们都知道，“设计内容非常简单，设计简单内容则非常复杂。”但也许还应补充一点：“设计不当非常危险。”

游戏能够给玩家及他们的行为带来显著影响。我们目睹社交游戏如何发挥显著作用，创造沉浸性行为，改变用户的优先选择，改变用户的时间利用方式。

由于应用、Facebook和智能手机，有更多用户开始体验游戏。这意味着，作为游戏设计师，我们能够通过游戏带来世界更多影响！

我们完全能够设计出改变这些冷漠习得行为的游戏。我们完全能够设计出让用户明白提高自身及他人生活品质多么简单及有趣的游戏。但糟糕设计可能带来消极影响。

设计着眼于教授用户全球人权问题、教孩子要吃蔬菜及循环利用资源重要性的游戏非常令人钦佩，但这无法解决玩家的普遍“习得冷漠”问题。普通玩家会像避瘟神般避开这类游戏。让孩子选择吃芝士汉堡和苹果，他们定都会选择芝士汉堡。

burger & apple from balanceitoutarkansas.com

玩家知道坏事即将发生，希望自己能够采取相应举措，但会觉得愧疚，因为他们更愿意进行玩乐。他们看到关于血汗工厂、人权问题及健康饮食的游戏，坦白说，这些听起来并不有趣！所以他们并未进行体验（游戏邦注：体验游戏的首要目的是逃避现实）。他们因此感到愧疚，但将小鸟投向小猪远要通俗得多，逃避愤怒的猴子远要简单许多。射击坏人更具满足感。这变成习得行为，玩家能够避开任何基于“社会公益”主题的内容。不是因为他们想要这么做，而是因为这有些晦涩，缺乏趣味，略显复杂。

即便是最具善意的游戏，如果设计不当，也会带来危险结果，会强化消极行为。

但将有益社会的积极元素同普通玩家愿意体验的有趣游戏结合起来的优秀游戏设计将带来巨大影响！在我看来，这里的关键是，呈现较小投入的即时结果。

你无法期望从灌输玩家社会意识问题的游戏中获得积极反馈。记住，这里我们试图放弃习得行为，引用Yoda的话来说：“你必须忘记你所掌握的东西。”思维的僵化模式无法被轻易打破。

通过制作用户愿意体验的游戏，同时逐步植入促使他们提高自身及他人生活品质的方式，这转变他们的观念，教给他们新行为。呈现发挥作用的简单性及趣味性是我们的职责所在。若我们能够做到这点，我们将能够促使玩家探索更多发挥作用的方式。

Yoda就是个典范。他们利用《Farmville》风格游戏的沉浸特性就你的散步行为给予奖励，你走越多路，就能够获得越多的虚拟货币，这些货币可以通过简单方式运用至游戏中，或是捐给慈善机构。还有种树，提供接种，给小孩提供清洁水。小事情就能够发挥显著作用。

关于这一类型的游戏，移动、社交及休闲游戏领域尚有很大的挖掘空间。基于社会意识问题的社交游戏设计是个有待挖掘的领域。作为游戏设计师，我们有机会设计有益社会的内容。通过优质游戏设计，我们可以促使一代人意识到，他们可以改变世界，他们能够发挥作用，这既简单又有趣。

但这绝非易事。糟糕设计只会进一步固化错误观念和错误行为。发行商担忧这一设计模式，这尚未得到验证，鲜有人敢于进行尝试。当你向投资者或发行商谈及这一观念时，他们的第一反应是“在我印象中，似乎没有公司尝试这一模式最终取得成功。”我不知道你的看法，但这对我来说颇具挑战性。（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）

When Designing Socially Conscious Games Is Bad…

by Stephen Dick

This post was inspired by Nir Eyal’s recent article When Designing For Good Is Bad. Everybody knows that they should recycle, everybody knows they should eat more organic vegetables, everybody knows bad things are happening in the world and they should help. However, most often, they don’t.

Who is to blame here? Undoubtedly we as consumers are in part at fault. However, maybe it’s not entirely our fault that we suck so much!

Due to poor design, many of the very institutions that are trying to be a force for good end up reinforcing behaviors that are just the opposite! Most often we end up blaming ourselves “I just don’t know where to start… Eating healthy seems so hard… Which of the 5 recycling bins does this go in again… I can’t do enough to make a difference so why bother… etc.”

Whatever the excuse, due to poor design, avoiding what we should be doing becomes a learned behavior. After all, it’s just easier to avoid it than take the chance that you are doing it wrong. This leads to a pattern of apathy and ignoring the issues all together out of guilt. We’ve all walked past those guys who sit outside of Target asking for donations, pretending to ignore them or suddenly getting very interested in our phones.

“It’s not you, it’s me. I’m sorry.”

We all know the saying “Designing something is easy. Designing something easy is hard.” But perhaps we should also add this: “Designing something poorly is dangerous.”

Games can have a powerful influence on players and their habits. We see the power social games have to create addictive behaviors, to change people’s priorities, and to change how users spend their time.

More people than ever before are playing games thanks to apps, Facebook, and smart phones. What this means is that now more than ever before, as game designers, we can have a powerful effect on the world through our games!

It is possible to design games that change these learned behaviors of apathy. It is possible to design games that help people see how easy and fun it can be to improve their lives and the lives of others. However, here is an area where poor design can be dangerous…

Designing games focused on educating users about global human rights issues, teaching kids to eat their vegetables, and the importance of recycling is admirable, but it doesn’t address the issue of the general ‘learned apathy’ of gamers. The average gamer will avoid these types of games like the plague. Give a kid the choice of a cheese burger and an apple, and every time he will pick the cheeseburger.

A gamer knows bad things are happening, wishes they could do something about it, but feels guilty because they’d rather have fun. They see a game about sweat shops, human rights issues, eating healthy and, frankly, it doesn’t sound fun! So they don’t play it (play is about escapism first after all). They feel guilty about it, but throwing birds at pigs is just so much more accessible. Running from angry monkeys is just so much simpler. Shooting bad guys is just so much more gratifying. This becomes a learned behavior and players can start avoiding anything with a “social good” theme completely. Not because they want to, but because it is inaccessible, less fun, and complicated.

Even the best intentioned games, if poorly designed, can be dangerous and reinforce negative behaviors.

However, good game design that incorporates socially positive elements into fun games that the average gamer already wants to play can have a powerful influence! The key, I believe, is showing immediate results for minimal efforts.

You can’t design games that beat gamers over the heads with socially conscious issues and expect an overwhelmingly positive response. Remember, we are trying to deprogram learned behaviors here… to quote Yoda “You must unlearn what you have learned.” Fossilized patterns of thought aren’t easily broken through.

By making a game that the user already wants to play and gently, gradually, even sneakily incorporating ways they can improve their own and other’s lives, this shifts their perceptions and teaches them new behaviors. It is our job to show how easy it can be, even how much fun it can be, to make a difference. If we can do this it will spur further interest in our players to seek out more ways they can help out.

Striiv is a good example of a company who is doing this. They use the addictive nature of Farmville style games to reward you for walking, and the more you walk the more virtual currency you rack up that can then be spent in the game and to donate to charities in easy to comprehend ways. Plant a tree, provide an inoculation, give a child clean water for the day. Small things that make a big difference.

There is an enormous market for this to be further explored in the mobile, social, and casual game niches. Socially conscious social game design is a virtually unexplored field. As game designers, we have an opportunity to design for good. Through good game design we can lead a whole generation to realize that they can change the world, that they can make a difference, and that it is both easy and fun to do so.

It’s not going to be easy though. And poor design will only further fossilize bad perceptions and bad behaviors. Publishers are afraid of the model, it is unproven, and few have the guts to try it out. When you approach investors or publishers with this concept their first response is “I can’t think of any company that has tried this and succeeded.” I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a challenge to me!

At Bravado Waffle Games, we’re trying to raise funding to prove that this model works and is profitable. We want to provide a roadmap for other developers to follow in. We are starting a movement that will change the world.

What do you think?（Source：gamasutra）