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

阐述优秀游戏关卡设计的3大特性

发布时间:2011-07-26 14:08:37 Tags:,,,

作者:Mike Birkhead

优秀关卡包含众多要素,且具有同等重要性。视觉魅力、合理步调、有趣谜题和战斗都是制作优秀关卡的关键要素。但优秀关卡由3大重要特性决定:能见度、故事叙述和成就。

Half life 2 from gamespy.com

Half life 2 from gamespy.com

能见度

能见度指玩家能够清楚理解目标,朝目标不断前进,制定计划实现目标。

目标清晰

没有清晰目标,玩家就会迷失方向。失去玩家后,他们就会舍弃掌机,转投其他更具吸引力的内容。记住迷失方向与解开谜团不同。

谜团:“我要怎么到达壁架?”(有目标没有解决方案)

迷失方向:“我要朝哪里去?”(没有目标)

目标就是蓝图,计划就是实现目标的措施。在《半条命 2》的莱温霍姆中,玩家需从城市一侧移至另一侧。若你有清晰目标,你就知道你为何在那里,将朝哪里前进,只是不知道要怎么到达。不久你就会遇到牧师Grigori(游戏邦注:他将改变你的计划,但不会改变你的目标)。

half life 2 father grigori from flarkminator.com

half life 2 father grigori from flarkminator.com

Grigori教堂是你目标的视觉提醒。它会重复出现多次,提醒你游戏目标。它重复出现还有个同样重要的目的,那就是告知玩家目标前进情况。

进展状况

良好回馈对于优秀设计来说至关重要。玩家采取措施实现游戏目标,游戏需更新玩家进展状况。玩家进展状况可通过系列方式呈现:通过其他角色(莱温霍姆中的Grigori)、通过UI元素(《魔兽世界》中的关卡)、或者通过游戏世界的视觉指示(恢复Okami自然生态)。若你未给予反馈,玩家会认为他们的活动不起作用,或者甚至认为是错误之举。

假设玩家受困于充满骷髅的房间。游戏目标是玩家通过杀死3个骷髅,解锁房门,从中逃离。即使没有更新进展状态,诸如此类的简单设计也不会令玩家感到沮丧。但设置越复杂,反馈越必不可少。房间充满骷髅和狼人。只有杀死3个狼人才能解锁房门。若没有反馈,此设置也就缺乏可玩性。若玩家杀死1个狼人和20个骷髅?当玩家杀死狼人,房门就会给予其清楚指示,告知其行动正确与否。这不仅展示其目标进展状态,也强化其正确行为。若门上亮起3盏灯,说明狼人已被杀死,玩家就会明白杀死狼人是件好事,而且还要杀死3个。

制定计划

谜题最棘手的部分是给予玩家足够信息,这样其才能破解谜题,但不要让他觉得自己上当受骗(游戏邦注:玩家需获悉的是能借助的道具是什么,而非道具处在何方,该怎么操作,或者按什么顺利操作)。

* 错误设置:地砖每隔一块呈现相同图案,只要踩在上面,房门就会开启

* 正确设置:嵌有怪兽脸的房门与相同图案地砖相匹配。踩此地砖会房门就会开启。

* 更佳设置:房门设有怪兽、狮子和蛇图案。有3个地砖分别呈现此3种脸部图案,以正确顺序踩这些地砖,房门就会开启。

zack and wiki ice puzzle from flarkminator.com

zack and wiki ice puzzle from flarkminator.com

就以骷髅和狼人为例,若玩家需在某个特定地点杀死3个狼人,房间需清楚说明此地的特别之处,需指出此特殊地点同门存在关联性。切记需让玩家获悉任务内容。未能获悉谜题道具会让玩家讨厌你的游戏。呈现道具的方式越好,玩家解决谜题所获得的满足感就更多。

1. 简单装饰的房间地面上有个圆圈。当玩家在圆圈中杀死狼人,门上就会有一盏灯亮起。

房间清楚说明房内此地存在不同之处,但其他有关此设置的内容不尽合理。有些基本问题:圆圈同门没有联系,未清楚说明狼人组成要素,进展同行动没有存在必然联系。

2. 房间中间是嵌入地面的圆圈。凹槽从圆圈延伸至房门。门周围有3个石头狼人头像,其嘴分别夹住3个门闩,让门呈关闭状态。在圆圈内消灭狼人,其嘴便会张开,门闩便会滑落房门。

我们还能够完善设计。玩家能够发现房间中心的圆圈存在不同之处,延伸至房门的凹槽让玩家觉得二者存在联系。使用狼人头像锁住房门,促使玩家活动同结果具有关联性,但仍然没有明确说明为什么我只能杀死狼人,而非骷髅。

3. 房间中间是个浅浅的圆形血池。凹槽从水池延伸至房门。门边有3个石头狼人头像,其嘴分别夹住3个门闩,让门呈关闭状态。在水池中杀死狼人,血就会从凹槽流向房门。当血流到房门,狼人就会张嘴,血就会从其嘴中渗出,门闩就会从房门滑落。

由于骷髅缺乏血液,所以我们必须杀死狼人,而非骷髅。玩家现在握有所有制定计划,实现目标的要素。

故事叙述

游戏通过关卡叙述故事。在优秀游戏中,关卡有其故事。叙述故事的关卡设有角色及有趣相关情景,融入富有吸引力的游戏活动。来自原始《生化奇兵》的欢乐要塞是关卡叙述故事的典型例子。把桑德尔·科恩从此关卡中移除是游戏核心内容:

bioshock the masterpiece from flarkminator.com

bioshock the masterpiece from flarkminator.com

* 有桑德尔·科恩:这是个阻止你离开的疯狂艺术家。他会让你通过,但你首先得杀掉他的门徒,拍下他们的照片,放置于他们的杰作。

* 没有桑德尔·科恩:杀死3个家伙就能开启房门。

在上述两个例子中,玩家都在执行相同任务,杀死3个人物继续故事。但前者通过完美方式包装,能够增加玩家成就感。

我觉得想要获得实际成效,关卡叙述的故事需符合游戏主题和情节。若存在不协调或对立情况,你只会失去玩家。如何成为优秀作家和故事叙述者超出本文叙述范围,而且我自己也不具备此两项才能。重点是要了解故事叙述在关卡中的重要性,它是传递情景、谜题和战斗内容的重要途径(游戏邦注:否则这些内容将会显得生硬、乏味或缺少成就感)。

成就

我经过很长时间才明白设计关卡并不是要把关卡变得困难或强大,或过于夸张。而是要让玩家觉得富有成就感。成就以不同方式呈现:解决巨大谜题、击败强大对手,或打败可恨敌人。《战神》在创造成就感方面表现突出。大过真人的首领、壮阔景色、探索地点和互动/谜题都能够能够塑造和改变游戏世界,带给玩家成就感。注意:成就和坚持不懈不同,并不是让玩家同沮丧处境进行斗争。是的,战胜挑战是个美妙过程。杀死水螅、解决谜题、探索宝藏正是你所追求的感觉,但挑战性和挫败感之间存在不同之处。不要落入圈套,试图以“计谋”打败对手。

我们的主要任务不是向玩家证明我们有多聪明。

ghost of sparta scylla battle from flarkminator.com

ghost of sparta scylla battle from flarkminator.com

我们是希望玩家能够觉得自己很聪明。玩家需接受挑战,但绝不要让他们感到沮丧。我最喜欢询问设计师挑战性和挫败感之间的区别。我听过多种答案,但我的看法是:

* 挑战性:对自己不满

* 挫败感:对游戏不满

当游戏任务清楚呈现,但未以正确顺序,你就面临挑战。缺乏能见度,你会感到沮丧,你觉得自己迷失方向。记住我们不是为自己设计游戏,我们是为他人设计游戏。“什么!”你有所踌躇。“我玩过很多游戏。我很喜欢它们,我知道其中有趣之处。”其实你完全大错特错。

好友和我都有这样的看法。我们把它称作“关注焦点”。我们的目标是有天能够在游戏中融入新元素,然后通过修改把游戏变得无懈可击。我们有自己的关注焦点,我所认识的设计师似乎都缺乏这种概念(游戏邦注:把握关注焦点值是个优势)。所有调整都旨在让项目变得更好,总是关注终端用户体验。总是希望能够最大限度同伙伴分享设计,不惧怕设计是否会失败。这不是第一款作品,也不会是最后一款作品。返回游戏,重新修改,使其重获生气。试问自己各道具是否都处在适当位置。能见度是把沮丧情景转换成挑战局面的关键要素。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

The Separation Between Good and Great Levels

by Mike Birkhead

Good levels comprise numerous factors, all equally important. Visual appeal, good pacing, intriguing puzzles and interesting fights are all critical components in making good levels. Great levels, however, are defined by three important qualities: visibility, telling a story and accomplishment.

Visibility

Visibility refers to a player’s ability to clearly understand the goal, his ability to follow his progress towards that goal, and his ability to form the intentions needed to achieve the goal.

Clear Goals

Without a clear goal the player is lost. If you lose your player, he WILL put down the controller and quickly find something else to entice him. Note that being lost is different than having a mystery to solve.

Mystery: “Hmm, how do I get up to that ledge over there?” (Have a goal, but not the solution)

Lost: “Where the fuck am I supposed to go?” (No goal)

Goals are the big picture, intentions are the steps you must take to reach that goal. Ravenholm from Half Life 2 requires that the player get from one side of the city to the other. You have a clear goal. You know why you are there and where you going, just not how to get there. Soon you encounter Grigori the Priest, who changes your intention, but not your goal.

Grigori’s Church act as a visual reminder of your goal, and he reappears at various points to remind you of your goal. When he reappears he also serve a second, equally valuable purpose, which is to give the player his progress to his goal.

Progress

Good feedback is critical to good design. As the player takes steps to her goal, she must be updated about her progress. A player’s progress can be shown several ways: through other characters (Grigori in Ravenholm), through UI elements (quests in WoW), or through visual indications in the world (restoring nature in Okami). If you do not give feedback, the player may believe that her actions are ineffectual, or worse incorrect.

Imagine the player is trapped in a room with skeletons. Her goal is to escape through a door, unlocked by killing three skeletons. Even if given no update on her progress, a simple set up like this wouldn’t be too frustrating; however, the more complex the set up, the more feedback is required. Now that the room is filled with skeletons and werewolves. The door is unlocked by killing three werewolves. Without feedback this set up is unplayable. What if the player kills 1 Werewolf and 20 skeletons? When the player kills the werewolf, the door must give clear signs to her that her actions are correct. This not only shows her progress to her goal, but also acts as reinforcement of correct behavior. If there are three lights over the door which light up as werewolves are killed, the player will understand killing werewolves is good, more than this, it will show her that she only has to do it two more times.

Forming Intentions

The trickiest part about a puzzle is giving the player just enough information so he can solve it, but not so much he feels cheated. The player must always be able to understand what pieces he can work with, but not the where, how, or order he should use them.

* Wrong: A floor tile that looks like every other, when stepped on, opens a door

* Good: A door with the face of a gryphon matches a floor tile with the same symbol. Stepping on the tile opens the door.

* Better: A door has symbols for a gryphon, lion, and snake. There are three floor tiles with the same faces, and stepping on the tiles in the correct sequence opens the door.

Taking the example of skeletons and werewolves, if the player is required to kill three werewolves in a specific location, the room needs clear indicators of what makes this section of the room special and it needs to indicate that this special location is related to the door. Remember, the player MUST know the pieces. Not knowing the pieces of the puzzle makes the player hate your game (or worse themselves). The better you show the pieces, the more satisfied when they solve the puzzle.

There is a ring on the ground of an otherwise plain and unadorned room. When a werewolf is killed within the ring, a light above the door comes on.

The room clearly shows that there is something different about this spot in the room, but everything else about this set up is painfully wrong. Some basic problems: the ring has no connection to the door, the reason it needs to be werewolves is not clear, and the progress feels disconnected from your actions.

In the center of the room is a ring cut into the ground. A groove runs from the ring to a door. Around the door are three stone werewolf heads, their mouths clamped on three crossbars, keeping the door closed. When a werewolf is killed within the ring, a werewolf opens its mouth and one of the crossbars slides free of the door.

We can still improve the design. The player can see there is something different about this ring in the center of the room, and a groove running to the door gives him a sense they are connected. Using werewolf heads to block the door connects his actions to his result, but there still is no clear reason why we can only kill werewolves and not skeletons.

In the center of the room is a shallow, circular pool of blood. A groove runs from the pool to a door. Around the door are three stone werewolf heads, their mouths clamped on three crossbars, keeping the door closed. When a werewolf is killed within the pool, blood runs through the groove on the ground up to the door. When the blood reaches the door a werewolf opens its mouth, blood oozing from its open mouth, and one of the crossbars slides free of the door.

Since skeletons lack blood, this now gives us a reason we must kill the werewolves and not the skeletons. The player now has all of the pieces necessary to form the intentions needed to achieve his goal.

Telling a story

A game tells a story through its levels. In great games, levels tell their own stories. A level that tells a story has character, has interesting and relevant moment-to-moment scenarios, and has experiences that draw the player into the game. Fort Frolic from the original Bioshock is a wonderful, powerful example of a level telling its own story.To remove Sander Cohen from that level is to pull out the very essence:

* With Sander Cohen: A crazy artist prevents you from leaving. He will let you pass, but first you must murder his disciples, take a picture of their body, and place the picture of their murdered corpse into his greatest masterpiece.

* Without Sander Cohen: Kill three guys to unlock a door.

In both cases the player is performing the same task – kill three guys to progress the story. The former, however, is wrapped up in a brilliant package that increases the player’s feeling of accomplishment.

It should go without saying, I feel I must anyway, that in order for this to be effective, the story the level tells must fit within the mythos and major arc of the story your game is telling. If it is incongruous or antithetical, you will only pull the player out of the experience. How to be a competent writer and storyteller is beyond the scope of this piece, nor would I bother as I am neither. The point is to understand the power of storytelling within your own level as a means to give you access to scenarios, puzzles, and fights that would otherwise feel out of place, bland, or lack accomplishment.

Accomplishment

It took me a long time to realize that when designing a level it’s not about making it hard, or difficult, or mighty, or over the top. It’s about making the player feel like he has accomplished something. Accomplishment comes in many forms: solving a grand puzzle, defeating a large opponent, or overcoming a hated adversary. God of War excels in generating that feeling of accomplishment. Larger than life bosses, grand vistas and reveals of places you have come from, and interactions/puzzles that meaningfully shape and change the world enrapture the player with deep feelings of accomplishment. Note: it is important to understand that accomplishment is not the same as perseverance and it is not the player struggling against a frustrating situation. Yes, overcoming a challenge is wonderful. That feeling of killing that hydra, solving that puzzle, finding that buried treasure, that is what you are looking for; however, there is a stark difference between challenging and frustrating. Do not get caught in the trap of trying to “outsmart” your players.

Our job is not to prove to the player how fucking smart we are. Seriously.

We want players thinking how smart THEY are. The player can and should be challenged, but never frustrate them. One of my favorite questions to designers is to ask for the difference between challenging and frustrating. I have heard several different answers, but I like to break it down like this:

* Challenged: I am mad at myself

* Frustrated: I am mad at the game

You are challenged when the pieces are exposed (visibility!) but just lack the right sequence. Without visibility you are frustrated, you feel lost. Remember, we are not designing games for ourselves, we are designing them for other people. “What!” You baulk. “I’ve played tons of games. I love them, and I KNOW what’s fun and what isn’t.” Sorry, no. You really and truthfully couldn’t be more wrong.

My good friend and I, we have this saying. We call it, “Our One Thing”. It is our goal to one day design and put into the game something that remains untouched, unblemished by revision, for the entire project. We have yet to have our one thing, and I don’t know a single designer who has. This is a GOOD thing. Every change was always for the better, and always with the eye on the end user experience. Always try to share your designs with your peers as often as you can, and do not be afraid if your idea flops. It won’t be the first and it won’t be the last. Go back to it; rework it; enliven it. Ask yourself if all the pieces are where they should be. Visibility is key in transforming frustrating scenarios into challenging ones.(Source:flarkminator


上一篇:

下一篇: