五步让你完全沉迷游戏【老，很老，超老……】

Dlpha

#5. Putting You in a Skinner Box
把你当小白鼠

If you've ever been addicted to a game or known someone who was, this article is really freaking disturbing.
如果你曾沉迷于某个游戏或者知道那么个人沉迷，那么你肯定觉的下面这篇文章很恶心。

It's written by a games researcher at Microsoft on how to make video games that hook players, whether they like it or not. He has a doctorate in behavioral and brain sciences.
这篇文章是一个在微软的游戏研究员写的，内容是说怎么让游戏钓住人，能不能让玩家喜欢。这个人比较厉害，有行为学和脑科学的博士学位。

quote
"Each contingency is an arrangement of time, activity, and reward, and there are an infinite number of ways these elements can be combined to produce the pattern of activity you want from your players."
书中说：游戏中每一个事件都是一个一个设计好的时间段，活动，奖励的集合。这有无数的方法让这些元素可以结合在一起构成各种各样的游戏事件的探索

Notice his article does not contain the words "fun" or "enjoyment." That's not his field. Instead it's "the pattern of activity you want."
注意到这个写的文章中没有任何一个“好玩","有意思"的字眼。因为那玩意跟他没有关系。反而写的是游戏事件的探索。

"...at this point, younger gamers will raise their arms above their head, leaving them vulnerable."
在某种意义上讲，年轻的玩家会举手庆祝胜利，贬低输者。

His theories are based around the work of BF Skinner, who discovered you could control behavior by training subjects with simple stimulus and reward.

他的理论基于B. F. Skinner。这个人发现，控制生物的行为只需要用简单的赏罚措施来训练目标。

He invented the "Skinner Box," a cage containing a small animal that, for instance, presses a lever to get food pellets.

他发明的Skinner box斯金纳箱 ，用来控制小动物，比如拉一个杆或者按按钮就可以得到食物

This sort of thing caused games researcher Nick Yee to once call Everquest a "Virtual Skinner Box."
这玩意的发明导致了游戏研究者 Nick Yee 把《无尽的任务》称为Skinner虚拟实验室。

So What's The Problem?
问题在哪？

Gaming has changed. It used to be that once they sold us a $50 game, they didn't particularly care how long we played.The big thing was making sure we liked it enough to buy the next one.
现在游戏的本质已经变了。曾经一个游戏要50块钱，厂商也不会特别关心我们究竟玩多久。游戏只要做的好玩以此来确保我们还买下一作。

But the industry is moving toward subscription-based games like MMO's that need the subject to keep playing--and paying--until the sun goes supernova.

但游戏的商业化逐步向前使基于用户群的游戏比如MMO大型多人在线，需要用户一直玩下去并且一直付钱直到地球爆炸，太阳毁灭，春哥去世。

Now, there's no way they can create enough exploration or story to keep you playing for thousands of hours, so they had to change the mechanics of the game, so players would instead keep doing the same actions over and over and over, whether they liked it or not. So game developers turned to Skinner's techniques.

不过他们没有办法创造一个足够大的探索的空间或者故事背景让你玩个好几百年，所以他们必须得改变游戏的机理，让这些玩家不管喜欢还是不喜欢，能坚持一直做重复无聊的事情。所以这些游戏设计师就用了Skinner方法

This is a big source of controversy in the world of game design right now. Braid creator Jonathan Blow said Skinnerian game mechanics are a form of "exploitation." It's not that these games can't be fun. But they're designed to keep gamers subscribing during the periods when it's not fun, locking them into a repetitive slog using Skinner's manipulative system of carefully scheduled rewards.

这个目前在游戏设计方面是一个很大的争论。《时空环境》的设计者 Jonathan Blow认为Skinner这种模式的游戏机理是一种剥削形式。它不是那种“好玩的游戏”，而是设计出来让玩家定期辛勤地劳作，通过Skinner用来控制生物的奖赏惩罚制度把他们牢牢的栓在电脑前不断的猛击鼠标键盘。

Why would this work, when the "rewards" are just digital objects that don't actually exist? Well...
你想问为什么这种方法会奏效，那些奖励都只是一些电子代码啊? 那么请看下面

#4. Creating Virtual Food Pellets For You To Eat

设计一些虚拟精神食粮供你吃

Most addiction-based game elements are based on this fact:

Your brain treats items and goods in the video game world as if they are real. Because they are.


大多数游戏成瘾都基于以下这个事实：


你的大脑把游戏物品当成真实存在的东西。事实上，游戏物品确实有价值。

People scoff at this idea all the time ("You spent all that time working for a sword that doesn't even exist?") and those people are stupid. If it takes time, effort and skill to obtain an item, that item has value, whether it's made of diamonds, binary code or beef jerky.

有人冷嘲热讽玩游戏的人：就为了一件虚拟的武器你能浪费你所有的人参？其实这些人想错了。如果某件东西需要花费很多时间精力和技术，那么不论这件物品是用钻石做的，还是二进制码构成的，还是牛肉做的，他都是有价值的。

I have easily 500 hours in Zelda bottles.
我不经意的就耗费500小时在《塞尔达》的瓶子上。

That's why the highest court in South Korea ruled that virtual goods are to be legally treated the same as real goods. And virtual goods are now a $5 billion industry worldwide.

这就是为什么韩国最高法院规定虚拟货币是可以合法跟金钱兑换的。现在全世界虚拟货币总额高达50亿美元。

There's nothing crazy about it. After all, people pay thousands of dollars for diamonds, even though diamonds do nothing but look pretty. A video game suit of armor looks pretty and protects you from video game orcs. In both cases you're paying for an idea.

这没有什么好值得争议的。毕竟人们还花很多钱去买钻石，尽管我们都知道钻石只是好看点而已。一套装备也很好看而且能保护你不受那些兽人的伤害。这样说来这两样东西都是一样的，你只是花钱买一个概念(idea)而已。

So What's The Problem?


Of course, virtually every game of the last 25 years has included items you can collect in the course of defeating the game--there's nothing new or evil about that. But because gamers regard in-game items as real and valuable on their own, addiction-based games send you running around endlessly collecting them even if they have nothing to do with the game's objective.

问题在哪？
当然了，事实上过去25年里在基本每个游戏都要你收集物品，以便通关。这也没什么特别的。不过由于玩家把游戏里的东西当成自己的财宝一样，所以那些故意让人上瘾的游戏让你无穷无尽的去收集东西，尤其某些东西甚至在游戏里没什么用。

It is very much intentional on the developers' part, an appeal to our natural hoarding and gathering instincts, collecting for the sake of collecting. It works, too, just ask the guy who kept collecting items even while naked boobies sat just feet away. Boobies.

游戏开发者明显故意利用我们贮藏和收集物品的动物本性，让我们永远刷怪刷怪刷怪。 这种方法很见效的，不信你看这儿就有一人，尽管边儿上坐着一个性感尤物却执着刷怪做任务。。 [ http://kotaku.com/5384643/i-kept ... my-gaming-addiction ]

As the article from the Microsoft guy proves, developers know they're using these objects as pellets in a Skinner box. At that point it's all about...

从那篇微软员工写的文章上来看，游戏开发者知道他们设计物品来对待玩家就好比在skinner实验箱给小白鼠奖励一样。这是为了……

playgame258

路过 顺便看下            

陌梦痕

太复杂懒得看。。。