游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

探讨动机心理学与游戏设计的关系

发布时间:2013-10-05 08:30:21 Tags:,,,,,,

作者:Jason VandenBerghe

在过去20个月里,我一直在研究五大动机因素和游戏设计元素之间的相关性。为此,我采访了许多乐意接受游戏行为测试的玩家。事实上,我希望把动机心理学家的工作成果转化到游戏设计中。比我预料的时间更快,我确实得出了一些结论。

开源心理学

在我们深入课题以前,我想先谈谈为什么五大动机系统不同于其他系统。

首先,五大动机系统不是一个人的研究成果——它是世界上许多研究者的合作成果。不是保留这些研究的版权,或防止用其他系统进行相关性研究,五大系统背后的数据经受了各种你能想象得到的分析——仍然在进行,并且在可见的未来里仍将进行下去。虽然研究的贡献者本可能占用这些发现并要求他人付费使用,但他们决定把所有成果公开。换句话说,这个五大系统就是动机心理学中的Linux。

psychology and games(from joramwolters.com)

psychology and games(from joramwolters.com)

钟形曲线

当你进行五大系统测试时,你会得到一个报告,告之你属于五种人格领域中的哪一种以及组成这些领域的特征方面。各个领域都有标准的分布(即钟形曲线)。低分各高分意味着在这个方面,你的动机很少,中等得分意味着在那个方面,你的动机与大多数人一样。

这意味着我们有一个可以进行任何分析的统计基线,把这个系统运用于游戏开发尤其实用,因为我们再也不必给出含糊的结论如“大多数开发者喜欢X”,而可以说“有一半人倾向于X,另一半倾向于Y。”甚至更好地,我们可以准确地测量不同玩家群体。你是否疑问过,从数字上看,“硬核”游戏玩家的偏好与其他玩家有多大程度的不同?现在,我们有的是一份详细的研究结果而不是一个答案。

动机的两端

每一个领域或者“因素”都形成一个向两端延伸的频谱带,每一端都有积极动机。

乍一看,这似乎是显而易见的:例如有些人易于接受新事物,而有些人则不。把它与游戏行业普遍接受的两端结构中的成就型玩家相比,成就型玩家的积极相反面是什么?

我共事过的开发者往往是这么说成就者的:如果你的游戏满足成就者,你的游戏就会吸引他们来玩;否则,你的游戏就不能吸引他们,即意味着你要少挣钱。

我把这种判断玩家的方法叫作动机的“温度计模型”——你在游戏中放一个温度计,用它测量游戏的“成就程度”。高就是好,低就是差。但根据我目前研究的结果看,这个观点是完全错误的。

“成就型玩家”的相反面是“满足型玩家”:那些自愿忽略你的目标,难度挑战和奖励,只想随便玩玩的玩家。这类玩家满足于现状,购买允许自己这样玩的游戏。

还记得刚才所说的钟型曲线吗?我们说50%的人处于曲线的“满足型”一端。在大多数设计会议的讨论上,很多处于这一端的玩家都被忽略了,这是因为对玩家原型的小误解。

O.C.E.A.N.

我们直奔正题吧。五大动机系统包含:

开放性(Openness to Experience)

责任心(Conscientiousness)

外向性(Extraversion)

亲和力(Agreeableness)

神经质(Neuroticism)

good-grief(from jamesckaufman)

good-grief(from jamesckaufman)

开放性:这是有创意、聪明的人与现实、求真务实的人的区别所在。在这方面得分高的是《爱丽丝梦游奇境记》中的Alice,她乐于品尝她遇到的任何东西、跟着兔子进入未知的世界。Alice认为仙境是令人愉快的。低分的是山姆詹吉,他只想回家,过稳妥的日子,不想被巫师这么频繁地打扰。

责任心:这是与我们控制冲动和按照需要改造世界的能力有关的个性。得高分的是《哈里波特》中的赫敏,她在各方面都是班上的尖子生,当你遇到困难时你总是想找这种人求助。低分的是电影《谋杀绿脚趾》中的“督爷”杰夫,他的主要生活目标就是玩保龄球,他是一个能把小事搞成大灾难的人。

外向性:这是我们对外界刺激的渴望。高分的是《王牌大贱谍》中的Austin Powers,他随时准备参加聚会,比起独处更愿意有人陪伴,是小团队的领袖。低分的是《剪刀手爱德华》中的Edward,他愿意为你做任何事,只是求你别把他一个人留在黑暗中。

亲和力:这是与合作和社交和谐有关的个性。高分的是《X战警》中的Charles Xavier,他无私为人、相信人性本善、善解人意。低分的是Snake Plissken,如果你希望他像总统一样关心别人,你必须在他的脖子里注射炸药,否则他是不会妥协的。

神经质:这反映了一个人对消极(且只有消极)情绪的反应有多强烈。高分的是Woody Allen,对他而言,世界是一个充满恐惧、焦虑、愤怒和沮丧的外壳。低分的是《星球大战》的Obi-Wan Kenobi,对他而言,恐惧、愤怒和嫉妒是黑暗力量的源泉。

因素中的方面

在五大系统中,你在各个领域中的得分相当于在6个“方面”中的得分的加权平均数;这些面描述了那个领域的倾向。例如,开放性是由想象力、艺术兴趣、情绪性、冒险性、智力和自由组成的;责任心包括自我效能、组织、义务、寻找成就、自控和谨慎。我不想把几个面的所有特性罗列出来,留给你们自己测试吧。

如你所见,有许多这些方面描述了游戏设计师已经在使用的极性。这些方面正是与游戏设计产生交集的地方。

游戏的五个领域

描述完上述心理学后,我们可以继续寻找能满足这些动机的游戏元素。为此,我邀请了若干玩家进行五大动机因素的测试。我的假设是,在某个方面具有相近得分的玩家,理论上应该喜欢类似的游戏或游戏元素(如PVP、成就、组队,等等)。

我的数据并不全面,但我已经发现有力的证据表时五大动机方面和游戏元素之间具有许多直接的关联。明显的例外是神经质,到目前为止还没有产生可预测的相关性。也就是说,根据目前收集到的数据,我们发现可以把五大动机方面转化为游戏元素的五个领域:新颖性、挑战性、刺激性、和谐性和威胁性。

新颖性(对应开放性)是指游戏中具有或缺少新的、有趣的、引人注目的或漂亮的东西。高新颖性的游戏如《我的世界》,低新颖性的游戏如《飞行模拟器》。

挑战性(对应责任心)是游戏要求玩家自律的部分,如克服障碍、工作、躲避危险和(字面上的)收集成就。高挑战性的游戏如《分裂细胞》,低挑战性的游戏如《乐高积木星球大战》。

刺激性(对应外向性)是游戏通过直接刺激或社交互动等让玩家兴奋的部分。高刺激性的游戏如《舞力全开》,底刺激性的游戏如《Flower》。

和谐性(对应亲和力)是使玩家在游戏以特定的行为方式对待其他玩家或角色的部分。你是否朝他们开枪?帮助他们?高和谐性的游戏如《Little Big Planet》,低和谐性的游戏如《街头霸王》。

威胁性(对应神经质)是游戏使玩家产生消极情绪(如上瘾、焦虑、愤怒或悲伤)的消极基调。如我刚才说的,目前我这在个方面还无法预测玩家的倾向,所以我将保留这部分的讨论直到我收集到可靠的数据。

映射方面到游戏设计

现在我们可以把各个五大动机方面分别对应游戏满足不同类型玩家的偏好的能力。记住,上面我们评估的是玩家,而这里我们评估的是游戏。我的设想是,通过把游戏倾向和游戏元素关联起来,我们可以预测某类型的玩家会喜欢玩、购买具有对应元素的游戏。

我们以开放性因素的一个方面,也就是我们描述为新颖性为例。在五大动机因素中,“想象力”反映一个人在幻想世界和“真实世界”之间的倾向。我发现(到目前为止),玩家的想象力得分通常直接反映了他们对幻想/想象题材(如《天际》或《质量效应》)的兴趣比对现实题材(如《使命召唤》或《疯狂橄榄球》)的来得大。所以,我把这个游戏的方面叫作“世界”,并把它描述为给游戏“提供幻想或现实的背景”。

“世界”是新颖性的六个方面中的第一个。其他五个方面分别是可预测性(提供探索和发现机制,而不是重复的或“基了建设”的游戏机制)、情节(提供能唤起情绪的故事)、艺术(提供吸引人的视觉/声音效果)、谜题(提供解决问题的玩法)和信息(提供社交主题)。

责任心因素在游戏术语中被陈述为挑战性。我们的游戏方面是困难(提供难以达成的目标)、成就(提供认可,如成就系统)、顺序(提供固定完成的机制以及基于网格的玩法,而不是自由玩法)、义务(提供公会和其他社交责任组织)、工作(提供劳动力密集型的任务或“刷任务”)和谨慎(提供严格的、有计划的玩法)。

五大动机领域的第三个是外向性,在游戏中我们称之为刺激性。游戏方面包括表达(提供积极的社交机会——聊天、表情等)、组队(提供组队游戏的玩法)、角色(提供领导角色和随从角色)、节奏(提供大量活动)、激动(提供高强度/兴奋的行动)和欢乐(使玩家产生强烈的积极情绪——比如,快乐和高兴)。

五大动机因素中的亲和力对应游戏的和谐性。游戏方面有信任(提供包含或不包含被背叛,特别是让人觉得“超过规则”的背叛的能力)、正直(提供或缺少背叛其他玩家的能力)、帮助(提供辅助角色)、合作(提供与其他玩家的直接对抗——注意纯PVP是低合作性的,而团队型PVP是高合作性的)、胜利(提供公开可见的勋章、得分、角色自定义设置,等等)和同情(提供能够触发和/或要求情绪理解的情境)。

神经质是最后一个领域,我把它移为游戏中的威胁性,二者间的关系比较不明显。目前,我发现的游戏方面有:紧张(使玩家害怕的能力)、激怒(使玩家愤怒的能力)、绝望(使玩家感到“没有希望”的情境)、耻辱(使玩家觉得惭愧的能力)、强迫(存在“致瘾”的游戏机制)和愤怒(伤害玩家感情的能力)。我遇到的问题是,到目前为止这些方面中没有一个能证实其是可预测的——我遇到这样的案例:具有非常高和非常低焦虑得分(对应紧张)的玩家都把《生化危机4》列为自己最喜欢的游戏之一。目前,威胁性的研究仍然处于“实验”阶段。

注意:在采访时,我学习到重点强调我们正在尝试把游戏倾向映射到能满足这种倾向游戏元素—-不是玩家喜欢的元素。所谓的“喜欢”某种游戏元素包括玩家对大量非游戏物品的看法(他们每天玩多少时间的游戏,独立游戏还是AAA游戏,等等)——这些是五大动机模型无法预测到的东西。

如何运用

游戏的领域有助于得出以下结论:你的游戏对玩家来说满意程度是多少、游戏不满足什么动机、什么类型的玩家喜欢你的游戏、以及如果作出特定修改哪类玩家可能喜欢你的游戏。

想象一下,对于各个动机方面,所有游戏都有一个它提供的方面的长短板。例如,《天际》提供高级到中级的幻想方面,意味着在想象力得分高的玩家会对《天际》比较满意。想象力得分低的玩家会觉得它的背景太怪异,不符合自己的品味(特别是,存在和使用魔法)。借助这个思路,我们可以知道我们的游戏在五大动机因素中的“覆盖范围”。

在游戏开发过程中,我经常听到这种说法:“玩家想要X”,这里的X是说话者认为所有人都想要的东西。我们凭直觉就知道这通常是不准确的论断,但我们如何回答?

现在,我可以这么回答:“确实!有半数的人想要X。另外半数的人想要Y。”这里的Y是说话者所指的方面的相反面动机。这样的解释已经改变了我们团队的设计方式。如果这个五大动机系统只能给我带来这个好处,那对我来说也足够了。但按照我的研究,它的意义还不止于此。(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

Mapping the lessons of psychology to game design

By Jason VandenBerghe

Over the last twenty months, I’ve been trying to draw correlations between the Big 5 motivational factors and game design elements that cater to those factors by interviewing any game player willing to take a test about their play behavior. In essence, I wanted to translate the work of motivation psychologists into game design — and I managed to draw a few correlations sooner than I had expected.

Open Source Psychology

Before we get our hands dirty, I want to mention a few things about why the Big 5 system is different from other systems.

For starters, the Big 5 system doesn’t come from a single person — it is an international collaboration between dozens (hundreds?) of researchers. Instead of keeping the data driving the discoveries copyrighted and secret, or preventing correlative studies with other systems, the data behind the Big 5 system was subjected to every imaginable cross-analysis– which is ongoing, and will be into the foreseeable future. And while the contributors could have owned the discoveries and charged for their use, they decided to release the entire thing into the public domain. In other words, the Big 5 system is the Linux of motivation psychology.

Bells and Curves

When you take the Big 5 test (the best free one I’ve found), you get a report that shows where you fall in five personality “domains,” as well as in the individual character “facets” that make up those domains. Each of these domains is defined as having a standard distribution (read: bell-shaped curve) when applied across humanity. A low score or a high score means that for that particular facet your motivation is a rarity, and a score in the middle means that for that facet your motivation is similar to a majority of the population.

This means we have a statistical baseline for any analysis we’d like to do, which is a Very Good Thing–as we apply this system to game development, we can swap out vague assertions like “most gamers want X” for factual statements like “half the human population has a preference for X, and the other half for Y.” Even better, we can begin to accurately measure different player populations. Have you ever wondered whether the “core gaming” population is statistically different in it’s preferences than the rest of the world? Well, now we’re one detailed study of players away from having an answer.

Two Sides to Every Story

Each domain, or “factor,” is a two-sided spectrum with a positive motivation on each end.

This may seem obvious at first: Some people are open to new experiences, and others less so, for example. Well, compare that two-sided structure to the commonly-held-in-the-game-biz archetype of the Achievement Player. What is the positive opposite of an Achievement Player?

The developers I have worked with tend to talk about Achievers like this: If your game satisfies Achievers, you’ll probably get those players to play your game. If your game doesn’t satisfy Achievers, you’ll fail to attract those players, and by implication you make less money.

I have started calling this way of looking at players as the “thermometer model” of motivation–you stick a thermometer in the game and you measure its “Achievement-ness.” High is good, low is bad.

But from what I have learned so far, that view is completely wrong.

The opposite of an “Achievement player” is a “contentment player:” someone who is perfectly happy to ignore your target goals, difficulty challenges, and medals, and just hang out. Someone who is motivated to be content with their current state and who will buy games that let them act on that motivation.

Remember the bell-shaped curve discussion above? We’re talking about 50 percent of humanity being on the “contentment” side of the curve. That’s an awful lot of players who are not being discussed in most design meetings, thanks to a simple misunderstanding of how player archetypes work.

Swimming in the O.C.E.A.N.

Let’s get down to business. The Big 5 are:

Openness to Experience

Conscientiousness

Extraversion

Agreeableness

Neuroticism

– “O.C.E.A.N.”

Openness to Experience distinguishes creative, intellectual folk from down-to-earth, pragmatic ones. A high scorer would be Alice In Wonderland, who is happy to drink whatever she comes across and follow rabbits into the unknown. Alice finds Wonderland a delight. A low scorer would be Samwise Gamgee, who just wants to go home, have a predictable life, and not bother about with wizards quite so much.

Conscientiousness deals with our ability to control our impulses and order our world the way we want it. A high scorer would be Hermione Granger, who is the best in her class at almost everything, and who is the one you go to when you need to get something difficult accomplished. A low scorer would be Jeff “The Dude” Lebowski, whose primary ambition in life is to bowl, and who can turn nearly any simple outing into a near-complete disaster.

Extraversion deals with the desire for external stimulation, both social and otherwise. A high scorer would be Austin Powers, who is always ready to party, much prefers the company of others to solitude, and is the leader of the pack. A low scorer would be Edward Scissorhands, who is happy to do whatever you want, please, just leave him alone, in the dark.

Agreeableness deals with cooperation and social harmony. A high scorer would be Charles Xavier, who puts the needs of others ahead of his own, believes in the good in people, and who understands how you’re feeling better than you do. A low scorer would be Snake Plissken, who, if you want him to care about another human being (like the president), you have to inject explosives into his neck that will detonate if that person dies.

Neuroticism reflects how strongly one experiences negative (and only negative) emotions. A high scorer in Neuroticism would be Woody Allen (the character, not the man), for whom the world is a panoply of fears, anxieties, angers, and frustrations. A low scorer would be Obi-Wan Kenobi, for whom fear, anger, and jealousy lead to the dark side of the Force, and who met his death with a polite salute.

Facets Within Factors

Your score in each domain in the Big 5 is actually something like a weighted average of your score in six “facets” that describe specific preferences within that domain. For example, Openness to Experience is composed of Imagination, Artistic Interest, Emotionality, Adventurousness, Intellect, and Liberalism; Conscientiousness includes Self-Efficacy, Organization, Dutifulness, Achievement-Seeking, Self-Control, and Cautiousness; and so on. I won’t list them all exhaustively–take the test yourself, read the Wikipedia page, or just Google “Big 5 facets” to see them all.

As you will see, many of these facets describe polarities that game designers already use. These facets are where the proverbial rubber meets the road for game design.|

The Five Domains of Play

With the psychology described, we can go looking for game elements that will satisfy these motivations. In order to do this, I have been interviewing gamer players after they take the Big 5 test, with the idea that people with a similar score in specific facets should theoretically prefer similar games or game elements (such as PvP, achievements, grouping, and so on).

My database isn’t complete, but I have uncovered strong evidence for many direct associations between the Big 5 facets and game elements. The notable exception is Neuroticism, which refuses to produce predictable correlations so far. That said, based on the data so far, translating the Big 5 into game elements gives us these five domains of play: Novelty, Challenge, Stimulation, Harmony, and Threat.

Novelty (which maps to Openness to Experience) is the presence or lack of new, interesting, dramatic, or beautiful things in the game. A high Novelty game would be Minecraft, and a low Novelty game would be Flight Simulator.

Challenge (which maps to Conscientiousness) is the part of the game that requires the player to use self-discipline: overcoming obstacles, work, avoiding danger, and (literally) collecting achievements. A high Challenge game would be Splinter Cell, and a low Challenge game would be Lego Star Wars.

Stimulation (which maps to Extraversion) is the part of the game that excites, be that through direct thrill-rides or through social interactions. A high Stimulation game would be Just Dance, and a low Stimulation game would be Flower.

Harmony (which maps to Agreeableness) is the part of the game where the player behaves in a particular way toward other people or characters. Do you shoot them? Or help them? A high Harmony game would be Little Big Planet, and a low Harmony game would be Street Fighter.

Threat (which maps to Neuroticism) is the negative tone of the game that can evoke negative emotions in the player, such as addiction, anxiety, anger, or sadness. As I mentioned, Threat is the domain that has so far resisted my efforts to find games that I can predict players will like, so I will save further discussion for when solid data exists for this domain.

Mapping Facets to Game Design

Now we’re ready to correlate the individual facets in the Big 5 factors to a game’s capability to satisfy different types of player preferences. Remember; above we’re measuring the player, but here we are measuring the game. The idea is that by correlating play preferences to game elements, we can predict what kind of player will enjoy, play, and buy games with those elements.

Let’s start with a simple example: just one facet of the Openness to Experience factor, which we’ve described in game terms as Novelty. In the Big 5, the facet of “Imagination” reflects a person’s preference for their inner, imaginative world over the “real world.” I find (so far) that a player’s Imagination score often directly maps to their interest in fantastic/ imaginative settings (such as Skyrim or Mass Effect) over realistic ones (such as Call of Duty or Madden). So, I call this facet of a game “World,” and describe it as the game’s “offer of fantastic or realistic settings.”

World is the first of six facets in Novelty. The other five are Predictability (offer of exploration and discovery mechanics over repetitive or “base-building” game mechanics), Melodrama (offer of emotionally evocative narratives), Artistry (offer of compelling visuals/audio), Puzzle (offer of puzzle-solving play), and Message (offer of socially progressive themes).

The Conscientiousness factor is described in game terms as Challenge. Our game facets are Difficulty (offer of difficult-to-accomplish goals), Achievement (offer of accomplishment recognition, such as Achievements), Order (offer of set-completion mechanics, as well as grid-based play over free-board-play), Obligation (offer of guilds and other social obligation structures), Work (offer of labor-intensive tasks or “grinding”), and Cautiousness (offer of– precise, calculated play over run-and-gun–said another way, the silenced pistol over the rocket launcher).

The third Big 5 domain is Extraversion, which for games we map to Stimulation. The game facets are Expression (offer of positive socialization opportunities — chat, emotes, and so on), Crowd (offer of play with large groups of people), Role (offer of leadership roles versus follower roles), Pace (offer of a high volume of activities), Thrill (offer of high-intensity/exciting action), and Joy (offer of strong positive emotions in the player — happiness and delight, for example).

Agreeableness is the fourth domain of the FFM, mapped to Harmony for a game. The game facets are Trust (offer of play that includes or does not include the capacity to be betrayed, especially in a way that feels “outside the rules”), Integrity (offer of, or the lack of, the ability to do the above to other players), Help (offer of support roles), Cooperativeness (offer of direct

confrontation with other players–note that while pure PvP is a low Cooperativeness score, team-based PvP is a high one), Glory (offer of publicly viewable medals, scores, character customizations, etc.), and Compassion (offer of contexts that trigger and/or require an emotional comprehension of characters).

Neuroticism is the last domain, and while I call this domain of play Threat, the correlations are less clear. Currently, the facets I have are these: Tension (the capacity to instill fear in the player), Provocation (the capacity to make a player angry), Despair (the presence of “hopeless” in-game contexts), Humiliation (the capacity to make the player feel self-conscious), Compulsion (the presence of “addictive” game mechanics), and Danger (the capacity to hurt the player’s feelings). The issue here is that so far none of these facets have proven to be predictive — I have examples of players with very high and very low Anxiety scores (which maps to Tension, above) who both list Resident Evil 4 among their favorite games of all time. For now, Threat is still in “preproduction.” Now for some homework. If you have read this far, you’re clearly interested. Point your browser to here and take the 300-question version of the Big 5 test. Then, with the mappings above, use those results to deconstruct what your motivations of play might be.

A note of caution: In giving the interviews, I have learned to strongly emphasize that we are trying to map preferences of play to game elements that are satisfying–not which elements players like. The idea of “liking” a game element includes the player’s opinion on a lot of nongame things (how much time in the day they have for play, indie vs. triple-A, and so on) — and those are things that models like the Big 5 cannot predict.

How You Can Use This

The domains of play are a map to conclusions about how satisfying our games are, what motivations our games are not satisfying, what kinds of players are enjoying our games, and what kind’s of players could be enjoying our games if we were to make specific changes.

Imagine that for each motivation facet, every game has a “band” of that facet that it “offers.” For example, Skyrim will offer a high-to-medium Fantasy facet, which means that players with a high, average-to-high, or average score in Imagination will find Skyrim satisfying. Players with a low Imagination score will find the setting too exotic for their tastes (specifically, the existence and use of magic, in my experience). With this approach, we can map out how much “coverage” our games have for all of the motivations in the Big 5.

During game development, I am often confronted with this statement: “Players want (x),” where (x) is the speaker’s opinion on what everyone wants. These are usually inaccurate statements, and we often intuitively know this. But how do you respond?

Now, I can answer in this way: “True! Half of them do. The other half want (y),” where (y) is the motivation on the other side of whatever facet the speaker has referred to. That has changed my approach to many of my team’s design efforts. If the Big 5 system gave me only that, it would be worth it to me. But from what I can tell, that’s just the beginning.(source:gamasutra)


上一篇:

下一篇: