作者：Nils Pettersson

确定这么一个难以捉摸的概念不是一件简单的事，特别是如果我们还希望创造一个无所不包、适用于所有情况所有人的定义。我认为我已经找到一个对我的设计工作帮助极大的定义。所以我将在本文中带领读者探索我提出的游戏定义。

所有动物在幼年时期都会玩，通过简单的观察就能得出这个结论。所以我们的问题是：

cartoon-kids(from virtualnews)

为什么我们要玩？玩的目的是什么？

为了定义游戏，我们必须解答这两个问题。我认识的大多数设计师都渴望创造出最吸引人、最有趣的游戏。一款游戏会因为它的精致卓越而被玩家铭记一生。以创造这样的游戏为目标当然是非常有雄心的。但如果我们不能首先回答上述两个问题，那么我们的雄心就是盲目的。

大多数人都认为，我们玩游戏是因为游戏有趣。但为什么游戏有趣？毕竟有趣只是我们对自己正在做的事情产生的一种情绪反应。它是大脑为了让我们对活动产生积极反应而释放的不同化学物质的混合物。

我是Raph Koster的超级粉丝，尤其喜欢他写的书《A Theory of Fun》。如果你还没读过这本书，我强烈建议你马上读一读。我认为它值得所有游戏设计师一读。Koster提出：

“乐趣来自精通；乐趣来自理解。乐趣是解决使游戏有趣的谜题的行为。学习是游戏的解药。”—-Raph Koster

这绝不是Koster一个人的新解释，有几位了不起的思想家也得出了相同的结论：

“最有效的一种教育是让孩子在有趣的活动中玩耍。”——柏拉图

“游戏是孩子为将来做准备的最实用的工具。”——Bruno Bettelheim

“游戏是研究的最高级形式。”——爱因斯坦

我们的大脑是天生的学习机器，所以我们才会忍不住学习。学习是我们克服生活中不可避免的挑战的工具。克服挑战给我们带来成就感和自我认同感，进而产生快乐的心情。好游戏能够不断挑战玩家，迫使玩家不断学习。

play-learn(from bouncingballnurseryschool)

因此，我们对游戏的定义必定包含这一点：学习是我们之所以玩游戏的中心原因。

但只是解答我们为什么玩游戏是不够的。如果玩家没有受到游戏的引导，他必然会选择阻力最小的方式，因为这就是人类的天性。作为设计师的我们如何避免玩家越过我们设计的挑战，甚至抛弃整个作为游戏核心的学习过程？如果我们允许玩家无视挑战，他就不会学到任何东西，那么他就不会感到游戏的乐趣。

为了防止这种事情发生，我们必须控制挑战的表现形式和克服挑战的可行办法。为此，我们必须制定规则。因为我本人的学术背景，所以我习惯在讨论游戏时引用一些我认为非常实用的术语。

这些术语的使用很普遍，但我是在Roger Caillois的书《Man，Play and Games》中第一次看到它们。这本书我也强烈推荐。我要说的术语就是：

Paidia：无组织的和自发的活动

Ludus：有组织的活动和明确的规则

我们很容易就能看出这两个术语分别适用于什么情况。Paidia与儿童的游戏和玩耍有关；它是即兴的、创造性的玩耍，其中的隐含规则随着游戏的进展而快速变化。

Ludus大约与运动的关系更密切，但任何有组织的游戏都属于这一类。Ludus是在明确的规则的约束下玩游戏，并达到某个明确的目标。它的优点在于，游戏创造者可以轻易地控制游戏体验，因为所有玩家都必须遵守相同的规则。

又因为以下三个事实：

1、我们玩游戏是为了学习

2、选择阻力最小的方式是人类的天性

3、明确的规则是Ludus的核心

我们可以得出结论，为了在游戏中引导玩家，确保玩家遭遇我们安排的所有挑战而不是简单地跳过挑战，我们必须坚持让游戏保持Ludus的属性。我们的游戏必须有足够的规则来限制玩家的活动，同时仍然允许玩家持续学习过程。同样地，我们不可能随便地创造一套太过严格的规则，迫使玩家始终以完全相同的方式玩游戏。规则必须允许犯错和进步。

作为我们的结论的有力支持，儿童心理学家Bruno Bettelheim明确提出玩耍与游戏之间的区别：

玩耍：“自由，但受到内在规则的约束，无目的。”

游戏：“受到外在规则的约束，有目的。”

既然我们定义的是游戏而不是玩耍（paidia），那么游戏的定义必定在某种程度上包含ludus的属性。

在定义时经常犯的错误是，从纯技术角度出发，只强调规范某物的确切参数。这完全无视了所有事物都存在一个大环境中，我认为这个大环境必须由这个定义决定。游戏是一种活动，不是人工制品。游戏除非被玩，否则是没有意义的。当游戏被玩时，才能作为玩家学习的媒介。游戏的行为和学习的行为就是活动。所以我说游戏是一种活动而不是一种人工制品。

既然我们有了技术参数、大环境和目的，那么我们对游戏的定义也就明确了：

游戏具有明确的规则和目的，玩游戏的主要目标是学习。

这个定义概括了游戏的属性和玩游戏的目的。为了检验这个定义的实用性，我们必须将它置于现存的游戏中；毕竟定义必须在真实的环境中才能体现实用性。

我们以Bethesda开发的《天际》为例。这款游戏谈广受好评，因为它给予玩家大量自由，允许玩家的创造性探索和活动。

*在《天际》的游戏世界中，只要玩家还呆在已建立的区域内，他就可以随心所欲地漫游。——这明确规定了玩家进行游戏活动的区域。

*玩家可以用各种各样的方法培养和改进角色，以适应挑战和自定义游戏方式的要求。——这给了玩家应对挑战的选择，同时又不破坏规则的约束。

*玩家在规则的约束内享有自由，可以通过创造性思维、实验和犯错找到克服挑战的办法。

《天际》使玩家产生一种“自己有选择”的幻觉，所以玩家在发挥创意的同时仍然在规则的引导下体验游戏。这种选择的幻觉一定程度上就是游戏设计师的圣杯，也是极其难以确定下来的东西。游戏中的所有事物都受到明确规则的约束，而因为游戏是一个数字世界（电脑无法独立思考），所以这些规则又是不能破坏的。

我们可以发现，我们的定义完全适用于《天际》。如果你再用其他游戏测试我们的定义，你会发现你所认为的游戏往往能满足这个定义，而其他更倾向于paidia的活动则不太符合。

如果说在这篇相当抽象的文章里我能给读者提供什么实用的建议的话，那就是：如果你想让玩家沉醉在你创造的游戏世界中，如果你想让玩家一直流连于你的游戏世界，你必须：

*向玩家提出要求他学习才能克服的挑战。

*制定足够明确的规则，以避免玩家简单地跳过难题。（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）

What is a game and why do we play?

by Nils Pettersson

Starting by nailing down such an elusive concept as what a game is can be a daunting project, especially if you aim at creating an all-encompassing definition fit for all situations and people. I believe that I have found a definition that helps me immensely during my design sessions. So bear with me as I attempt to explain this definition.

All creatures play when they are young, this much is apparent through simple observation. The question then becomes:

Why do we play and what purpose does it fill?

We need to figure out the answer to these questions in order to define what a game is. Most if not all designers I know are driven towards creating the most immersive, fun and interesting game possible. A game that will be remembered for years and years for its brilliance. This is certainly very ambitious but if we do not have the answers to the above questions we are just swinging blindly.

Most people can agree that we play because it is fun. But why is it fun? Fun is, after all, just an emotional response to something we are doing. It is a combination of different chemicals released in our brains in order to promote positive activities.

I am a great fan of Raph Koster and especially his book A Theory of Fun. If you haven’t read it yet I highly suggest you do it now. It is, in my mind, essential reading for any game designer. Koster argues that:

“Fun arises out of mastery. It arises out of comprehension. It is the act of solving puzzles that make games fun. With games, learning is the drug.” – Raph Koster

Mastering a skill might take a lifetime but it is time well spent.

This is by no means a new idea, and we are supported by several other great thinkers who have reached the same conclusion:

“The most effective kind of education is that a child should play amongst lovely things” – Plato

“Play is the child’s most useful tool for preparing for the future and its tasks” – Bruno Bettelheim

“Play is the highest form of research” – Albert Einstein

Our brains are hardwired learning machines, this is what drives us into playing. Learning gives us the tools we need in order to overcome the challenges that are inevitably part of life. Overcoming challenges gives us a sense of achievement and makes us feel good about ourselves, which creates the feeling of fun. A good game is a game that constantly challenges the player and forces her to learn.

Our definition of a game must therefore include, in some manner, that learning is at the core of why we play.

But just figuring out why we play games is not enough. If a player is not guided by the game it is inevitable that she takes the path of least resistance since that is human nature. How can we as designers prevent the players from bypassing the challenges we create and in doing so bypass the entire learning process that is central to playing? If we let the player ignore the challenges she will not learn anything and the game will not be considered fun.

In order safeguard against this it is important to be able to control what challenges are presented and what methods are available to overcome them. To achieve this we need to consider rules. Since I come from an academic background this is the time to use a couple of terms that I find incredibly useful when discussing games.

These terms are widely used but my first acquaintance with them came from the book Man, Play and Games written by Roger Caillois. This is another book I cannot recommend highly enough. These terms are:

Paidia – Unstructured and spontanteous activites

Ludus – Structured activity and explicit rules

It is easy to see where these two terms fit into our society at large. Paidia is what we associate with childrens’ games and playing. It is about improvised, creative playing were rules are implicit and changes rapidly as the game progresses.

Ludus on the other hand is perhaps most associated with sports, but all organised games fall into this category. Ludus is about playing within explicit rules towards a clear goal. It has the advantage that the creator can quite easily control the play experience since all players must abide by the same rules.

Based on the facts that:

We play games to learn

It is human nature to take the path of least resistance

Ludus has explicit rules at its core

We can draw the conclusion that in order to guide the player within the game, to make sure that she encounters the challenges we present and does not simply bypass them, we need to stick with ludus. Our game must have enough rules to limit the player’s actions while still allowing for a learning process. As such we cannot simple create rules that are so strict that the player will always act in the exact same manner. There must be room for error and improvement.

Sports is a typically associated with ludus.

We are supported in this conclusion by child psychologist Bruno Bettelheim who clearly states the difference between play and games:

Play – “Freedom from all but personally imposed rules, no goals.”

Games – “Externally imposed rules, goals.”

Our definition must include ludus in some way since we are defining game and not play (which would be paidia).

A regular mistake when creating a definition is to focus solely on a factual specification of what something is from a purely techincal standpoint. This completely ignores that all things exist in a context, and in my opinion that context must be addressed by the definition. In my opinion a game is not so much an artifact as it is an activity. A game has no meaning until it is played. When it is played it serves as a medium for the player to learn. The act of playing and learning is an activity. This is what I mean with a game being an activity rather than an artifact.

Now that we have the technical specification, the context and the purpose we can create our definition. I suggest the following:

A game has explicit rules and goals, and is played with the primary purpose of learning.

This definition neatly ties together what we have discovered about games and the purpose behind playing. In order to test this definition to see if it actually works on a real example we need to look at an existing game. A definition must be useful in a practical context after all.

Let us look at Skyrim developed by Bethesda. A game widely praised for the amount of freedom granted to the player to creatively explore and generally do as she wishes.

Skyrim is set in a huge world where the player is free to wander as she wishes as long as she stays inside established boundaries. – This explicitly states the arena of the play area.
Characters can be developed and improved in a variety of ways in order to meet challenges and customise the way the player plays the game. – This gives the player choices about how to tackle said challenges while still staying within the confines of the rules.
The player has freedom within the rules to seek out and overcome challenges via creative thinking and trial and error.

The illusion of freedom.

Skyrim gives the player the illusion of choice that feeds her creativity while still guiding her along the intended experience. This illusion of choice is somewhat of a holy grail to game designers and something that is increadibly hard to nail down in a game. Everything in the game is controlled by explicit rules that cannot be broken since it is a digital game (computers are notoriously bad at independent thinking after all).

We can see that Skyrim fits into our definition neatly. If you choose to test the definition on other games you will find that what you typically refer to as games fits into the definition while other activities leaning more towards paidia do not.

If I were to give any practical advice from this largely abstract discussion it would be that if you wish to trap a player inside the game you create, if you wish to keep them playing, you must:

Present her with a problem that require her to learn in order to overcome a challenge.

Create rules that are explicit enough that she is unable to simply bypass the problem. (source:gamasutra)