游戏化：是福还是祸？
圣战主义者利用游戏化鼓励暴力的护教运动。科学家利用游戏化鼓励玩家，以促进科学的发展和疾病的治疗。
那么，游戏化是福还是祸？都不是。游戏化是中性的。它是一项利用精神学习法来鼓励人们执行活动的技术。它是什么不重要，重要的是什么被游戏化了。如，科学的好、宗教的恶都被游戏化了。
电子游戏又游戏化了什么呢？
游戏化游戏
电子游戏严重依赖游戏化。事实上，电子游戏算得上是技术的先锋，其本身也等同于一项技术。但如果游戏化是对行为的一种中性激励法，当下的电子游戏又鼓励什么行为呢？在电子游戏中，游戏化又充当了什么角色？
Bejeweled(from bbs.kmwyj.cn)
为了体现被游戏化夺走的内容和行动，我列出以下一些流行游戏中的例子：
老虎机：拉动把手获得奖励。
《宝石迷阵》：图案匹配和移动有色宝石。
《超级马里奥兄弟》：一个在跳跃和火球术方面技术纯熟的水管工，并借此一路狂奔到屏幕右边。
《光晕》：在一个正统的科幻故事背景下击杀大量外星人。实际上，据《光晕：洪水》这本书显示了如果没游戏化，《光晕：最后一战》将会变成什么样——一本相当肤浅的小说，充斥着枪战，最多也就是一本供消遣的小说罢了。
《使命召唤：现代战争》和《使命召唤：现代战争2》：在荒谬的间谍惊险小说背景下，击杀一帮坏蛋。有趣的是，该系列居然有两道关卡没有运用游戏化，这两道关卡也是最为人们所津津乐道的。在关卡余波（Aftermath）中，没有致胜办法，没有得分，甚至也用不着击杀任何人。玩家只要操作一个经历了核爆炸的角色。角色缓慢地爬过废墟残骸，最终悲惨地死去。在关卡机场大屠杀，玩家还是不用开枪，反正没有得分和输赢的区别。玩家要做的就是体验居民被射杀至死的惨状。加不加入恐怖分子的屠杀行列取决于玩家。没有什么游戏机制鼓励玩家加入，玩家可以随时选择退出任务而不会损失成绩。
《旺达与巨像》：找到16个别巨像、爬上去刺死他们，从而复活死去的恋人。失去和缓和的主题贯穿在暴力之中，非常吸引人，但杀死巨像的动作缺乏变化，多少显得有点重复。
《Fa?ade》：以晚宴客人的身分与一对关系不和的夫妻聊天。煽动他们离婚或和好或放任不管。该游戏几乎完全没有去游戏化，除了让玩家体验，没有输赢的情境、得分、竞争，甚至也没有鼓励玩家继续。
这些例子表现的是游戏中的各种不同深度的体验——一些游戏很少或完全没有游戏化之外的深度或趣味，而其他游戏则具有强大的主题、游戏感和理念。
在游戏中，游戏化的作用到底是什么？答案是：A）什么也没有；B）对遗失的深思；C）一些游戏根本就不存在游戏化。
虽然游戏化本来就是中性的，但利用起来还是存在一定的风险和挑战。
游戏化游戏的益处
游戏化能让玩家产生一种愉悦感，乐观的心理学家认为这对玩家来说不无益处。
有些技术和行为虽然实用或有益，但看似很无聊，但游戏化可以用于教授这些技术或鼓践行。例如，把《the Dead》的内容打出来，可以帮助玩家学习打字。《蛋白质折叠（Fold-It ）》这类游戏可以促进玩家对蛋白质设计科学的学习。
一旦游戏化系统完善，它可以很廉价，可以重复利用，可以长期吸引玩家的注意力。
游戏化的受众范围广，可谓雅俗共赏、老少皆宜、人畜通用。大多动物都进化出深厚的精神学习法，所以游戏化能对其产生作用。也就是说，在商场，频繁而恰当地利用游戏化游戏也可以取得不错的效果，虽然实际上它们什么也没做。
游戏化游戏的成本
游戏化的风险之一是它可能把游戏的信息覆盖掉。例如，在《生化奇兵》中，玩家可能不会选择收服Little Sisters，不是出于道德或剧情的原因，纯粹就是因为他们知道在游戏的最后会获得超级武器。这样，他们的选择并没有被任何意图所驱使，而是出于对大奖励的渴望。
另一个风险是人们普遍鄙视游戏化技术。确实，这是Roger Ebert(颇有名望的美国影评人）反对游戏是艺术的核心论题，也是法官Limbaugh判定游戏不是言论的理由。他们二人都认为奖励做出某些举动的玩家的方法本身没有意义。必定是游戏本身而不是游戏化使奖励方法变成巧妙而有意义的言论。
即使玩一款游戏本身已无乐趣可言，游戏化还是可以让玩家继续玩下去。玩家多久会抱怨一次RPG让人受不了？或者看看那些沉迷于老虎机的人吧，他们知道自己的行为本身没有什么意义了，但就是无法控制。也就是，游戏化可以让玩家误以为自己的所作所为是有意义的。
结论
游戏化是一个伟大的电子游戏创新，其生命线源源不断。然而，只有在我们的游戏技术已经应用于宗教暴徒、航空里程俱乐部、信用卡公司、耐克鞋和科学项目后，我们才开始意识到游戏化只是一项技术、一种行为激励法。意识到这一点，如果我们想的话，我们可以将我们自己从过分关注游戏化的误区中解放出来，而将注意力转向更深刻的玩家交互活动。也就是，我们可以选择不游戏化任何东西或游戏化有意义的事物。只有我们克服了空洞的游戏化，我们才能将游戏艺术的潜能充分地释放出来。
挑战：
1.能否将游戏化运用于实用技巧的教学或鼓励有益的行为？
2.能否在一整款游戏或部分游戏中深入挖掘游戏化技术？在不设定点数、得分、胜负、奖励、阻碍升级等等情况下，能否做出一款优秀的游戏？
3.扪心自问，“为什么我还在玩这款游戏？”如果答案是以“为了解开……”或“为了打败……”或“为了获得高分……”开头，那你玩的游戏可能过度游戏化了。你要如何调整，才能使游戏化游戏保持原有的地位？（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，作者：Alexander Jhin）
De-Gamify Games
by Alexander Jhin
Gamification: Good or Evil?
Jihadists use gamification to encourage violent jihad. Scientists use gamification to encourage players to advance science and possibly cure diseases.
So is gamification good or evil? Neither. Gamification is neutral. It is a technique that uses basic psychological learning principles to encourage people to perform actions. What matters is what is being gamified: science good, jihad bad.
What do video games gamify?
Gamified Games
Video games rely heavily on gamification. In fact, they are the pioneers and namesake of the technique. But if gamification is a neutral encouragement to action, what actions do current video games encourage? In video games, what is gamification in service of?
Here are some examples of popular games where I’ve tried to express their content and actions stripped of gamification:
Slot Machine. Pull a handle to get lucky.
Bejeweled. Pattern match and move colored gems.
Super Mario Brothers. As a plumber, perfect and master the timing of jumps and fireballs to make it to the right of the screen.
Halo. Shoot a lot of aliens in the context of a decent sci-fi story. Actually, the book Halo: The Flood shows what Halo: Combat Evolved would be without gamification. It’s a pretty shallow novel with way too many gun fights and only marginally interesting story.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare/Modern Warfare 2. Again, shoot a lot of bad guys in the context of a nonsensical espionage thriller. Interestingly, there are two levels in the series that do not use gamification and they are the most talked about levels in the series: In the level Aftermath, there is no way to win, score points, or even shoot anyone. You simply play a character in the aftermath of a nuclear explosion. As you crawl slowly through the debris, you have no chance to survive and finally succumb and die. And, in the airport massacre level, again, there is nothing that drives you to shoot – no points, no win or lose. You simply experience the horror of gunning down civilians. It’s your choice whether you join in or not. There’s no game mechanic encouraging you to or not to and you can complete the level either way.
Shadows of the Colossus. Murder 16 Colossi in an attempt to resurrect your dead lover, by finding them, climbing them and stabbing them. The overarching theme of loss and appeasement through violence is fascinating but the action of killing the colossi is a little repetitive.
Fa?ade. As a dinner guest, chat with a couple suffering relationship problems. Goad them into breaking up, staying together, or just try to stay out of it. This game is almost completely de-gamified already with no win/loss scenarios, points, competition, or even encouragement to continue other than the experience itself.
These examples show the variety of depth of experience present in games – some games have little or no depth or interest beyond gamification while others possess powerful themes, experiences and ideas.
In games, what is gamification in service of? The answer ranges from A) Nothing to B) deep meditations on loss to C) some games don’t use gamification.
While gamification is inherently neutral, there are some risks and advantages to using its techniques.
The Benefits of Gamified Games
Gamification encourages a feeling of blissful productivity which positive psychologists consider good for players.
Gamification can be used to teach useful skills or encourage useful actions that might otherwise be boring. For example, Typing of the Dead encourages players to learn how to type. And games like Fold-It advance the state of protein folding science.
A gamification system, once perfected, can be cheap, reused, and hold the attention of the player for very long periods of time.
Gamification appeals to very wide audiences from rats to PhDs. Gamification works because of ingrained psychological learning principles evolved into most animals, which means heavily and correctly gamified games will generally do well in the marketplace, even if they are in service of nothing.
The Costs of Gamified Games
One danger of gamification is that it can override a game’s message. For example, in BioShock, players may choose not to harvest Little Sisters, not for moral or story reasons, but simply because they know they will receive a super weapon at the end of the game. Thus, their choice is driven not by any meaning, but rather out of desired to receive a larger reward.
Another danger is that the world at large disdains gamification techniques. Indeed, this is the heart of Roger Ebert’s argument against games as art and the reason that Judge Limbaugh ruled that games are not speech. They both feel the technique of rewarding a player for doing actions is not itself inherently meaningful. There must be more to a game than gamification to make it truly artful or meaningful speech.
Gamification can keep people playing games even if the play itself is uninteresting or boring. How often do players complain about “grinding” in RPGs? Or look at people who are addicted to slot machines – they know their actions are inherently meaningless, but they can’t stop playing. That is, gamification can fool us and our players into thinking they are doing something meaningful.
Conclusion
Gamification is a great video game innovation and it has long been its lifeblood. Yet, it is only after our game techniques have been applied to violent jihadists, airline mileage clubs, credit card companies, Nike shoes and science endeavors that we begin to realize that gamification is only a technique, an encouragement to act. Realizing this, we can, if we choose to, free ourselves from over-focusing on gamification and instead focus on deeper player interactions. That is, we can choose to gamify nothingness or we can choose to gamify something meaningful. Only once we get past hollow gamification will our artform reach its fullest potential.
Challenges
1. Can you use gamification to teach useful skills or encourage helpful actions?
2. Can you ditch gamification techniques for an entire game or part of a game? Can you make a good game without points, scores, win/loss, rewards, blocked advancement, etc?
3. Ask yourself, “Why am I playing this game?” If the answer starts with “To unlock an…” or “To beat …” or “To get a high score…” than you may be playing an overly gamified game. How would you change it to make it able to stand on its own? （source:gamasutra）
