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

游戏设计师Lars Doucet细致剖析RPG游戏的开发难点

发布时间:2011-04-16 17:51:58 Tags:,,

“这款游戏真差!”这句话不仅表达出“我讨厌这款游戏。”的想法,还有更深层次的内涵。情况通常是这样的:首先,你对某种类型的游戏充满激情(如黑色电影和第一人称射击);因此,你对某款此类型的游戏期待已久(如《Casablanca》和《使命召唤》);随后发现,游戏达不到你的期望值,于是你就会骂道“这款游戏真差!”

根据上述过程可以得出推论。首先,对于那些不关心的作品,你通常不会觉得它“真差”。如果你看到他人在论坛上抱怨《使命召唤》或《龙腾世纪》新作有多糟糕,是因为这些人深入研究了相同题材的游戏。虽然新款《Barbie Horse Adventures》游戏也很糟糕,但是你听不到丝毫怨言。正如古话所说,爱的对立面不是恨,而是漠然。其次,你对这些游戏越上心,当你失望时你会觉得它越差。而且,你的感情投入和期待给失望抹上了些许背弃的色彩。你不仅觉得游戏体验不好,如果游戏本应该或承诺会很优秀的话,你会讨厌整个游戏。

龙腾世纪2

这不是什么新鲜的理论,但如果游戏设计师希望控制或缓和此类情况,就必须理解受众可能产生的反应。设计满是期待和炽热激情冲突题材的游戏颇为棘手,我说的自然是角色扮演游戏(RPG)。

设计任何成熟题材的游戏都很困难,因为这些类型的游戏有着观点各异的热情粉丝。然而,由于具有某些独特的性质,RPG的挑战甚于其他游戏。RPG特性:容易引发争论;缺乏清晰定义的核心机制;分成多种子题材;通常将自己标榜为“史诗之作”;设计复杂。接下来我们将逐个探讨这些要点,这会教会我们玩家期待的相关事宜。

1、RPG容易引发争论

对我而言,RPG粉丝对该题材游戏的情感投入程度独一无二。我们都在积极保护该题材游戏,甚至某款游戏能否算作RPG都可以引发长期的讨论。

这篇文章关注的并非谁对谁错,每个人都有不同的品味和期待,这不是什么问题。但每个粉丝都是潜在的客户,因而让他们相信我们的游戏不差与对其期待的处理有很大关联。某个他们给予极高期望值且本可能喜欢的游戏会因架构的错误而失败,如果你的游戏被认定是很差的游戏,那就再难以翻身。

我认为我们如此较真RPG游戏的原因可能与在“艺术”问题上起争执的理由相同,我们对词语本身含义的理解都不尽相同。

暗影狂奔

2、RPG缺乏清晰定义的核心机制

对RPG游戏中何物将其铸造成RPG,每个人的想法各不相同,普遍认可的元素包括升级、故事、角色扮演和探索。尽管如此,每当有人提到“RPG是包含X元素的游戏”,就无可避免有人提出“你看看Y,它里面并没有X,难道不能算作RPG吗?”这样的反驳言论。

第一,RPG游戏中有经验点数和等级。但这个不能作为定义性的特征,某些RPG游戏中并没有此类内容,《暗影狂奔》和《网络创世纪》就是绝好的例证。说故事是其定义性特征也不恰当,《龙与地下城》只需战斗和探索的战役机制便可成形,像《Nethack》之类的程序性游戏也没有作者强加的故事。

那么,可以认为“角色扮演”是RPG游戏的定义吗?首先,我们需要理解何谓“角色扮演”。如果我们将《超级马里奥兄弟》中“控制角色马里奥”之类的特性排除,那么“角色扮演”就几乎等同于“角色表演”。但如果用“角色表演”定义RPG,那么许多RPG就不再属于此类型游戏,包括玩家控制角色与地下城BOSS战斗的游戏《龙与地下城》。

最后,我们讨论下探索。尽管多数RPG游戏以探索为特性,但《最终幻想战略版》和《圣龙战记》等策略类RPG却并非如此,而且某些游戏并没有把探索列入其核心内容。

那么,RPG游戏存在共同点吗?看看下面这份图表:

RPG游戏机制

(游戏邦注:这份图标较为简单,没有列入所有的RPG游戏,但足以提供参考意见。)

这份列表上的所有游戏共同的特征只有一个,那就是战利品,比如装备和道具等。可以用战利品来定义RPG吗?当然不行,因为许多被我们认定为非RPG的游戏里也有道具、刀剑和盔甲。

现在,让我们看看这份第一人称射击游戏(FPS)的图表:

FPS游戏机制

FPS有清晰的定义——第一人称视角和射击,其定义与其他加入或舍弃的要素毫无相干。即便是《入口》也可清晰定义为第一人称射击游戏,虽然玩家手中的枪支只是用于空间的穿越而非实施该类游戏中常见的暴力行为。

RPG无法像大部分视频游戏题材(游戏邦注:如即时战略、密室逃脱、塔防和4X战略)那样用核心机制来定义。RPG成了拥有某些机制和主题组合的模糊术语,没有严格的定义性准则。

这绝不是什么坏事,也不会使“RPG”这个术语完全主观化。这意味着每个玩家对“RPG”有各自的理解和想法,期待点也有所差异,从而将这个题材分成许多子题材。

3、RPG划分成各种有精确定义的子题材

或许是因为母术语“RPG”的定义模糊不清,该题材游戏划分成清晰定义的子题材,每种都有着各自的惯例和做法。JRPG通常以精彩的叙事、丰富的角色和回合制战斗为特色,西方的CRPG一般有更多的分支情节并且紧密关注代表玩家的主角,策略RPG游戏的特征是大型集团军、策略战斗系统和任务间穿插的故事。

母题材本身的松弛和子题材的严格间的差异使得发布新型RPG变得较为困难,因为游戏可能被归到某种子题材中并以其标准和用户期待来评判好坏,而忽略了游戏本身的长处。

最终幻想7

4、RPG通常将自己标榜为“史诗之作”

如果想同时得到高关注度和激烈的评述,那么除了将你自己的游戏称为“史诗之作”外别无他法,1997年《最终幻想7》的商业运营就是最好的例证。因而,即便那些未将自己称为“史诗之作”的游戏也可能被人以“史诗之作”的标准来衡量,这是很正常的事。

这引起了很荒诞的问题,在60多个小时的RPG游戏体验中,大部分时间没有多大意义,许多粉丝渴望有机会摆脱这种困境。但是,如果设计师取消这些令人花费大量时间的内容,在“史诗之作”的用户期待下,游戏可能又会被认为“太短”。(游戏邦注:很多玩家认为“史诗之作”就应该有足够长的游戏体验时间。)

5、RPG设计复杂

游戏越简单,就越难将其称之为RPG游戏。尽管RPG没有普遍的游戏机制,但却有着普遍采用的结构。游戏中必须将许多系统连接起来,这些系统的性质和深度在各游戏间存在差异。这导致RPG有大量的“核心”机制,而且在RPG游戏中加入诸如小游戏和飞行系统等额外系统已成为趋势,为游戏增添筹码。随着系统数目逐渐增加,设计也变得更为困难。不仅由于设计师因此而分心,各系统间的互动成倍增长也是重要原因。

RPG与FPS的对比

如果有人抱怨做出好RPG游戏很难,我想说的是设计好RPG游戏比开发好的其他题材游戏更难。当然,这也就意味着会有许多价值不高的RPG游戏面世。

总结

新RPG会经受高期望、热情的粉丝和不同评判标准的考验,某些人可能会把这些当成完全避开RPG的理由,但我认为这是个机会。因为不存在所有RPG游戏必须恪守的单一标准,这个题材才不会停滞不前,也为有趣想法成长和繁荣提供了良机,正是这种特质才令我相信这个题材不会消亡。

与此趋势背道而驰的是标准严格的子题材的建立。当然,没有人告诉我们正这么做。子题材是自然产生的,这个判断应该没错。子题材诞生带来的危险是这些规范会限制玩家和设计师的想法,导致新想法无从在规范之外的肥沃土壤上繁荣发展。因而,我们作为游戏设计师,应该制作出打破限制开拓新领域的游戏。

幸运的是,情况有所好转。数字销售的出现,游戏价格多样性的繁荣和独立游戏的发展让我们有新的途径处理玩家对RPG游戏的期待。现在的游戏界与以往不同,RPG游戏不再全部定价60美元,不再只能在游戏商店中看到,不再只由BioWare、Square和其他大公司设计。

《Recettear》、《Desktop Dungeons》、《字谜探险》和《火炬之光》等游戏的出现向我们表明RPG仍是肥沃的土地,如果设计师在价格、平台、市场、设计和其他内容上满足客户的期待,我们或许可以设计出不让玩家感到“很差”的游戏。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,转载请注明来源:游戏邦)

RPGs and Suckage

When you say “This SUCKS!” you’re usually not saying “I hate this.” There’s a little more to it than that. Here’s how it usually goes down: You are passionate about a type of thing (film noir, first-person-shooters); You have expectations of a particular thing of that type (Casablanca, Call of Duty); That thing fails to meet your expectations; That thing SUCKS.

There’s a few corollaries to the above. First of all, terrible things that you don’t care about generally don’t “SUCK.” When you see people on forums ranting and raving about how awful the latest Call of Duty or Dragon Age game is, it’s because they’re deeply invested in those games in particular and the genres they belong to in general. You won’t see them complaining about, say, the new Barbie Horse Adventures game, even if it’s awful. As the old saying goes, “The opposite of love is not hate, it’s apathy.”

Secondly, the more you care about something, the more it sucks when it disappoints you. Furthermore, your emotional investment and expectations give the letdown a tinge of betrayal. You don’t just feel like the experience was bad – it was bad when it should have been and promised to be good.

This isn’t a particularly new theory. The game designer, however, must understand this reaction in his audience if he hopes to control or mitigate it. The tricky part comes when you design for a genre that is a minefield of conflicting expectations and red-hot passion. I am, of course, talking about RPG’s.

Designing for any mature genre is difficult, as they all have passionate fans with conflicting opinions. RPG’s present a specific challenge, however, due to a few unique properties. RPG’s: touch a raw nerve; lack a centrally defining mechanic; are divided into strong sub-genres; traditionally bill themselves as “EPIC”; are complex by design. Let’s see what each of these points can teach us about player expectations.

1. RPG’s touch a raw nerve

The degree of emotional investment RPG fans exhibit strikes me as unique. We are very protective of our genre and hold lengthy discussions of whether or not a certain game even “counts” as an RPG.

This article’s point isn’t to decide who’s right and who’s wrong – everyone has different taste and expectations, and that’s okay. But every fan is a potential customer, and convincing them that our game doesn’t suck has a lot to do with managing their expectations. A game they might have otherwise liked will be dismissed ifs framed in the wrong way, and given the heated passions of RPG fans, if your game is deemed to suck it will suck hard.

I think there’s a reason that we argue about RPG’s so much – it’s the same reason we argue about “art” – we all disagree about what the word even means.

2. RPG’s lack a centrally defining mechanic

Everyone has a different idea about what makes an RPG an RPG. Common things include leveling up, story, “role-playing”, and exploration. However, every time someone offers up “RPG’s are all about X” someone inevitably answers with, “Are you saying Y, which lacks X, isn’t an RPG?”

First, there’s experience points and levels. This can’t be the defining characteristic, as plenty of RPG’s do without them – Shadowrun and Ultima Online being great examples. As for story, Dungons & Dragons can be run as a mechanics-only hack n’ slash campaign, and procedural games like Nethack have little to no author-imposed narrative whatsoever.

Surely, role-playing defines “Role-Playing Games,” right? First we have to decide what we mean by “role-playing”. Let’s limit the term to exclude things like “playing the role of Mario” in Super Mario Bros. In this case “role playing” becomes nearly synonymous with “acting in character.” But if acting in character defines “role playing games”, then most RPGs are excluded, including D&D campaigns with laid-back Dungeon Masters.

Finally, let’s consider exploration. Almost all RPG’s feature exploration in some sense of the word, but tactical RPG’s like Final Fantasy Tactics and Bahamat Lagoon certainly don’t, and exploration isn’t always front and center in the games that include it – it’s often a side dish.

So what, if anything, do all RPG’s have in common? Take a look at this chart:

This chart is incomplete, simplified, and probably leaves out all your favorite games.

There’s only one feature that all the games on my list have in common – loot. Equipment. Stuff. But does this define RPG’s? Surely not – plenty of other games that we don’t consider to be “RPGs” have stuff – even swords and armor.

Now, let’s compare that to this chart for First-Person-Shooters:

FPS’s are clearly defined by a first-person view and shooting. It doesn’t really matter what else you tack on or what conventions you leave out. Even Portal can be clearly defined as a first-person shooter, even though your gun is (usually) non-violent and mostly just used for traversing space.

RPG’s are not defined by a few central mechanics, whereas most other video game genres are: (Real Time Strategy, Point-and-click Adventure, Tower Defense, 4X Strategy). Instead, “RPG” has become a vague term that surrounds certain groupings of mechanics and themes, but without a strictly definable formula.

This is by no means a bad thing, nor does it make the term “RPG” entirely subjective. It does mean, however, that each player walks around with their own personal definition of what defines an “RPG,” making it interesting to manage expectations, and dividing the genre into several factions.

3. RPG’s are divided into clearly defined sub-genres

Perhaps because the mother term “RPG” is so vague, the genre has split into clearly defined sub-groups, each with their own conventions. JRPG’s usually feature strongly authored narratives with parties of colorful characters and turn-based battles. Western CRPG’s generally offer more branching narratives and a tighter focus on the main character who represents “you.” Tactical RPG’s feature large parties, tactical battle systems, and narrative interspersed between missions.

A tension arises between the looseness of the genre itself and the tightness of its sub-genres. It’s difficult to release a new kind of RPG because the game could be pigeon-holed as a member of one of the sub-genres and judged by those standards and expectations, rather than on its own merits.

4. RPG’s traditionally bill themselves as “EPIC”

Nothing invites both high expectations and harsh criticism like calling your game an “epic experience.” The 1997 commercial for Final Fantasy VII is a pretty good example of this kind of marketing. This is so common that even RPG’s that don’t bill themselves as “epic” risk being judged by “epic” standards.

This leads to a weird problem. Most of the time spent in 60+ hour RPG’s is filler, and plenty of fans will welcome the opportunity to ditch this crap. However, if the designer dispenses with all the crap, the game might be considered “too short” since the expectation for an “epic” (ie, long) experience still lingers.

5. RPG’s are complex by design

The simpler a game is, the harder it is to call it an RPG. Although there is no common set of mechanics to all RPG’s, there is a common structure – and that’s several systems linked together by a meta-game. The nature and depth of these systems varies from title to title. This results in RPG’s having a large number of “core” mechanics. Furthermore, RPG’s have a tendency to add on extra “bonus” systems such as mini-games, crafting systems, etc, to add more “meat” to the game. Design becomes more difficult as systems increase in number, not only because the designer’s attention is divided, but because the number of interactions between systems grows exponentially.

It’s just plain hard to make a good RPG. I would argue that it’s harder to make a good RPG than it is to make a good game of most other genres. This means, of course, that there’s a lot crappy RPG’s out there.

Summing up

New RPG’s are met with high expectations, passionate fans, and diverse standards of judgment. Some would look on this as a reason to avoid the genre entirely, but I see it as an opportunity. The lack of a single standard dictating what all RPG’s must be keeps the genre from stagnating and provides opportunities for interesting ideas to grow and flourish. This quality is what I believe will save the genre from stagnation and decline.

Working against this trend is the establishment of hard sub-genres. Of course, nobody handed these delineations to us from on high. They arise naturally, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The risk is only of these boxes becoming so tightly bound in players’ and designers’ minds that it keeps new ideas from flourishing in the fertile fields outside of them. It’s up to us, therefore, as designers, to make games that push these boundaries and explore new areas.

Fortunately, things are looking up. The advent of digital distribution, an explosion of diversity in price points, and the growth of the indie movement gives us a new set of tools to manage what players expect our games to deliver. The world looks different now that every RPG no longer costs $60 dollars, can only be found in stores, and was designed by either BioWare, Square, or a few others.

Games like Recettear, Desktop Dungeons, Puzzle Quest, Avernum, and Torchlight show us that RPG’s are still a fertile field. If we designers can send the right signals about what to expect through pricing, platform, marketing, design, and more, then maybe we can design RPG’s that won’t “suck” so bad in the minds of our players. (Source: Gamasutra)


上一篇:

下一篇: