作者：Eric Schwarz

游戏邦注：本文发稿于2010年12月4日，所涉时间、事件和数据均以此为准。

近期我乐于思索一个问题，就是游戏开发商在平衡他们自身的需求和玩家需求时所面临的难题。简单地说，二者间的冲突在于游戏制作应该迎合目标受众的需求，还是应该有所创新，在市场上开辟出自己的领土和空间。尽管众人普遍持有的观点是“玩家是上帝”，听起来很像零售业所秉承的“顾客是上帝”，但我还是想花点时间来为设计方辩护，举例说明在任何时刻都盲目屈从行业流行趋势和玩家诉求可能让游戏处于弱势。

调查成功游戏的好处

围绕受众兴趣来设计游戏似乎是目前带动整个行业发展的模式，看看近期大量的“现代战争”类型第一人称射击游戏和舞蹈主题游戏便可知晓。总体而言，AAA游戏行业正逐渐迎合普通大众的需求。通过对这些同类题材游戏的调查，发现模仿式的游戏设计思路并未奏效，甚至并没有像多数发行商期待的那样带来大量销售额。尽管模仿《使命召唤》或《Just Dance》有一定的销售保障，但持续获得高销售额的显然不是那些仿品游戏，而是那些首先引领市场趋势的原作。《光晕》、《战地》、《使命召唤》、《劲爆美式橄榄球》、《GT赛车》、《超级马里奥》、《生化奇兵》、《口袋妖怪》等游戏之所以会成为行业领袖，不是因为它们满足此前由其他游戏培养出来的用户诉求，而是因为它们在各自零售领域中都是最具创意的题材。

call of duty(from loot-ninja.com)

有趣的是，手机业发展形势几乎与上述情况完全相同。当年iPhone、iPad和Android游戏市场好似未经开垦的西部荒野时，每个人都在尝试新想法，意图以最吸引人的价格铸就巨作。手机行业中所有顶级游戏之间几无雷同之处，《愤怒的小鸟》、《Flight Control》、《水果忍者》、《割绳子》等都是简单的游戏，但它们都有着与众不同的艺术效果、音效设计和玩法，使之能与其他上述游戏共享这片领地。手机游戏更具易变性，因为制作和发布游戏的周期很短（游戏邦注：而且造价低廉），但这些真正凌驾于其他作品之上的游戏销售量达到数十万份，盈利数百万美元。

通过上述两段简要分析可以得出以下结论：玩家很少对大预算控制器游戏和著名系列游戏的复制版感兴趣，他们更在意那些富有创意、新颖并容易理解的游戏。带动控制器游戏行业和手机行业向前发展的不是大预算射击游戏或移动控制休闲游戏，而是新颖的想法和体验。大型系列游戏之所以能够占领市场，因为它们占据发布先机而且在同类题材中做得最好。事实上，这些游戏的成功使得其他游戏只能另辟蹊径方能进驻市场。简要地说，审视此前获得成功的游戏只能帮助游戏制作者了解如何打破常规。

玩家想法与游戏设计的关系

据称每个玩家脑海中都有个理想游戏的模型，但多数毫无价值。事实在于，即便是资深游戏设计师的许多想法也并不好（游戏邦注：原因可能是想法难以施行，或很无趣，或目标受众过少），因而玩家未必知道是何种元素造就了最佳游戏。我们生活在相信专家的社会中，我们信赖那些有着丰富知识和能力的人，为我们做某些自己没有信心做到的事情。我们将信念寄托在医生、记者、厨师以及各种专业人士身上，希望他们来做那些我们知之甚少的事情。我不是外科医生，因而从未为他人动过手术，我也没打算跟某个真正的专家探讨如何做他/她的事情。游戏开发商会发现，他们所处的境地与上述情况相同。

需要提醒的是，这并非意味着所有来自非专业人士的想法都不好。事实上，那些想法可能激发和带动某个专业领域的人制作出绝妙的事物。二者间的不同之处在于，完成既定任务时在细节上的投入程度以及过程中能够用到的知识和能力。玩家可能会有大量的游戏经验，因此知道他们喜欢玩何种类型的游戏，但真正规划高质量游戏体验时常包含的是与玩家期待不同甚至相反的事物。

《上古卷轴4：湮灭》便是最佳例证。在这个深层次的大型角色扮演游戏中，玩家有机会探索梦幻般的广袤世界，游戏希望他们前往每个地方去做所有能做的事情。在这款游戏的开发过程中，Bethesda的粉丝呼吁游戏应该设计得更大更具开放性，地域要超过《上古卷轴3：晨风》。不幸的是，尽管《湮灭》获得了商业上的成功（游戏邦注：这主要是因为发布时它是Xbox 360上视觉效果最吸引人的游戏），但其游戏系统仍有不足之处。随处移动而且可以做任何事情听起来很像该系列粉丝眼中理想的角色扮演游戏，但最终游戏被严重批判的是在这个方向上操之过甚。为让玩家做所有他们想做的事情，这种意图提供沙盘式体验的想法破坏了游戏的故事条理性、技能系统和等级比例。游戏最大的卖点最终成为产生多数问题的根源。

我想再次重申，玩家确实对游戏设计有所帮助。游戏中有些最佳的想法出自由用户制作的增强程序，比如《军团要塞》和《反恐精英》。但是，开发商应该避免让关注游戏的测试群体和市场趋势来指导制作方向。不可让所有玩家都参与到游戏设计过程中，这如同你可能不会在向法院提交合法辩护时指定对门的邻居。这种做法的最好结果是产生复制品，顾客和评论员都会觉得作品缺乏抱负和原创性，最差结果是可能导致游戏最棒的特色遭到破坏。

游戏设计是关键

构建游戏是件难事，构建成功的游戏更是难上加难。行业内之所以存在专注于游戏设计的人，是因为将想法变成现实也是个很艰巨的任务。在为玩家制作高质量体验的过程中，游戏设计和编程、音效设计、动画等要素同等重要。不是每个游戏都能够获得成功，低估过分看重多数玩家意见带来的风险将使得制作出的游戏不仅缺乏创意，最终还会被那些已经获得特别用户群体青睐的大型专属游戏挤出市场。只有新想法才能保持行业不断发展，贪图安稳只会导致停滞不前和用户审美疲劳。

我认为，开发商能够采取适当措施将上述风险降到最低，这一点比模仿流行游戏主题、场景或题材要有效得多。比如，游戏优良的平衡性能够给玩家提供的意义远胜于过难或过易的游戏体验。独特的主题、艺术设计和个性会让玩家记住游戏并对其产生兴趣。毕竟，最好的游戏需要以创新为基础，而且会不断令人感到高兴和惊奇，模仿《光晕》等著名游戏的设计文件不会生成任何有价值的产品。最重要的可能是，对游戏有统一且条理清晰的想法，然后与开发团队和公众进行交流，这样方能吸引人们付费购买。这些都是游戏设计师的职责所在，遵从玩家需求和市场普遍趋势可以为游戏架构提供帮助，但盲目模仿对创新性、原创性和优良游戏设计无益。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Why the gamer isn’t always right

Eric Schwarz

One topic which I’ve been amused by recently is the difficulty game developers can have in figuring out how to balance their needs as creators with the needs of their players. In simple terms, this conflict can be expressed as creating a game to cater to a given audience, versus creating a game which stands on its own, something innovative and free from convention, able to carve out its own place in the market. While it’s a commonly held view that “the player is always right” in much the same way as “the customer is always right” at a retail store, I’d like to take some time to defend the design side and give some examples of how simply appealing to what’s popular in the industry and with players at any given moment can lead to a weaker game.

How should success inform design?

Choosing to fashion a game around what one’s audience is interested in seems to be the current model that’s driving the industry at the moment; one need but look at the recent cavalcade of “modern warfare” first-person shooters and dance-themed party games to see that, by and large, the “triple A” games industry is running on pandering to common tastes. In examining the vast majority of titles, however, it’s increasingly clear that this me-too attitude to game design doesn’t work out – heck, it doesn’t even lead to the huge sales numbers most publishers expect. While it’s true that fashioning your game after Call of Duty or Just Dance may help secure a certain level of safety, it’s clear that the titles that consistently sell the most aren’t the me-too games, but the originals which defined market trends in the first place. Halo, Battlefield, Call of Duty, Madden, Gran Turismo, Super Mario, BioShock, Pokemon, and so forth are the industry leaders not because they appeal to tastes that have been established by other games in the past, but because they have been the titles to innovate the most within their given retail spaces.

Interestingly, it’s worth noting that the mobile development scene backs this up almost entirely. iPhone, iPad and Android games are sort of a Wild West frontier at the moment, with everyone experimenting with new ideas and trying to put out the next big hit at the sweetest price point. The top games within the mobile sector all have very little in common with each other – Angry Birds, Flight Control, Fruit Ninja, Cut the Rope and so forth are all simple games, but they all have very distinct artwork, sound design and gameplay which make them stand out from one another. The mobile scene is obviously far more volatile in many ways, due to how quickly (and cheaply) one can create and release a game, but those titles that truly stand above the rest are selling hundreds of thousands of copies and making millions of dollars.

If anything, these two brief analyses point to one thing: players are less interested pared-down versions of big-budget console titles and well-known franchises, but rather, they’re concerned with things that are innovative, novel and easy to understand. What’s driving both the console game industry and the mobile industry isn’t the release of big-budget shooters or motion-controlled casual games, it’s fresh ideas and experiences. The big franchises exist precisely because they were the first and the best at what they did; so successful were they, in fact, that the only other space left in the market is for games that do something different. In short, looking to games that have been successful in the past is only going to help a game insofar as its creators can learn where to diverge from the beaten path.

Do players’ ideas make for good games?

It’s said that every gamer has an idea for an ideal game floating around in his or her head, but that most of them are worthless. The hard truth is that many of the ideas that even veteran game designers have are no good – whether because they are impossible to implement, aren’t any fun, or limit a game to a tiny audience – and it’s simply because players don’t necessarily know what makes the best game. We live in a society where we rely upon experts, those with knowledge and ability we trust in, to do things for us that we would never trust ourselves to do. We place our faith in doctors, journalists, chefs, and others of various professions to do things we know little about. I’m no surgeon, and it would never occur to me to perform even the tiniest of operations on another, nor would I purport to tell an actual professional how to do his or her job. Game developers find themselves in the same position.

Mind, this doesn’t at all mean that ideas which come from non-professional sources are bad; in fact, those ideas may inspire and drive someone in an expert position to produce something wonderful.

The difference comes in terms of the level of detail and care one is able to weave into a given task, and the amount of knowledge and ability one is able to bring to the process. Gamers may have lots of experience playing games, and consequently know what sorts of games they’d like to play, but actually crafting a quality gaming experience can often involve things that are divergent from or even contrary to what one would expect.

One of the best examples to come to mind is The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Billed as a deep, expansive role-playing game, it gave its players the opportunity to explore a rich fantasy world, begging them to “go anywhere, do anything”. During its development, fans of Bethesda cried out for a game bigger, more open-ended and expansive than even Morrowind. Unfortunately, while Oblivion was a commercial success, primarily as it was one of the most visually impressive games on the Xbox 360 upon its release and served as a good demo for the hardware, its game systems left a lot to be desired. The ability to go anywhere and do anything sounded like the ideal role-playing game to fans of the series, but the game ended up being heavily criticised precisely for moving too far in that direction. In attempting to allow players to do whatever they wished, its story coherence, skill system and level scaling were all severely damaged by this desire to provide a sandbox experience. What was one of the game’s biggest selling points ended up being the single source for the majority of its problems.

Again, I’d like to reiterate that players can absolutely have positive input on a game. Some of the best ideas in games have originally come from user-made modifications, as Team Fortress and Counter-Strike remind. Letting focus testing groups and market trends dictate the direction a game takes, however, is something that should be wholly avoided. Games should not be designed by a committee, just as you probably wouldn’t appoint your next-door neighbour with handling your legal defence in court. At best, it tends to lead to copycat efforts which both customers and critics will feel are lacking in ambition and originality, and at worst it can result in the unintentional sabotage of a game’s best features.

Design is the answer

Building a game is difficult; building a successful one is even more so. There are dedicated game designers in the industry precisely because the task of coming up with specific implementations for ideas is a monumental one, and just as important as programming, sound design, animation and so on in creating a quality experience for players. Not every game is going to be successful, and minimising risk by looking too closely at what the majority of players want will produce games that aren’t simply less creative, but end up being trampled by the big franchise names that already have a stranglehold on a particular demographic. New ideas are what keep the industry moving forward; stagnation and fatigue are the only things that can come of playing it safe.

There are things which can be done to minimise risk, which, in my humble opinion, are far more effective than picking a popular gameplay theme, setting or genre. Good game balance, for example, helps provide a more meaningful experience than what one gets in a game that’s too hard or too easy. A unique theme, aesthetic, and identity will keep a game in players’ heads and provoke interest; after all, the best games are built on novelty and will continually please and surprise people, and starting out with “like Halo, but…” as the design document will lead to nothing good. Perhaps most importantly, a consistent, coherent vision of what a game is, and communicating that vision to a development team and to the public, is what gets people to put down their money. These are all things which designers have reign over, and while listening to players and general market trends can help shape up a game, pandering will never compensate for innovation, originality and good design sense. (Source: Gamasutra)