作者：Bart Stewart

目前主流游戏设计工作室似乎开始移除游戏中的所有惊喜元素。

Easter Surprise from slotsskills.com

一方面，很多开发商似乎开始担心若游戏允许融入惊喜元素（游戏邦注：若游戏允许机制出现意外互动），有些玩家会有所迟疑，不知下步要采用什么行动。此时，玩家就会觉得“这非常无聊！”然后退出游戏，向所有朋友表示游戏非常失败。

所以这些开发商如今开始尽其所能确保所有潜在的机制互动都完全处于控制中。玩家所见事物或所进行的活动都处在开发商预料之中，即便这意味着游戏机制的数量和范围会大受限制，致使游戏变成无外乎以各种形式呈现的“行走”和“射击敌人”活动。

但这些开发商并不缺乏支持者，因为有些玩家也不喜欢惊喜。许多开发商认为这些玩家（而非其他玩家）应得到他们所预期的内容。所以开发商开始着迷于设计和玩法测试，关注团体玩法情节，确保只要玩家以“正确”顺序采用“正确”步骤，他们就能够取得胜利（通常以角色能力取代玩家技能，即便是在角色扮演游戏中）。制作这样的游戏并没有错，但为何停留于此？

我不满这些游戏排除惊喜元素的一点是，并非所有玩家都喜欢按部就班地进行所有潜在游戏活动。有些人喜欢收获惊喜！特别要说明的是，惊喜是模拟玩法的重要元素。若活动未能在各回合中发生变化，那玩家就无法通过做出有趣决定创造意料之外的满意结果。

为何唯独这些偏好具有获胜把握游戏玩法的玩家能够得到开发商的关注？

当然由于随机因素而失败并非什么有趣的事。但这和意外惊喜大不相同，这是我这里想要展开讨论的。惊喜无需产生直接玩法结果；间接影响就已非常足够。当然游戏需进行测试和修改，以防出现破坏游戏的惊喜，例如肆虐大火蔓延整个游戏空间。由于复杂机制中的无法测试互动内容，游戏会产生惊喜，这些无法测试的互动活动不会导致游戏受到破坏，相反这会以细微但富有意义的方式栩栩如生地呈现游戏世界。是什么原因阻碍开发商制作此类游戏？

我认为我们需阻止移除游戏惊喜元素的行为，防止游戏变成自娱自乐的老套消遣。程序式内容生成（游戏邦注：特别是在目标行为领域）或许是实现此目标的可行方式。

所以我强烈赞同Andrew Doull和Miguel Cepero之类的开发者坚持采用程序式内容生成方式。我希望他们的工作模式能够启发其他开发者，令他们相信在作品中适合融入些许惊喜元素有利无弊。

正如Wendy Carlos所言，“预期内容和惊喜元素的完美结合是优秀作品的核心。”

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

In Defense of Surprising Gameplay

by Bart Stewart

Major game design studios these days seem to be dedicated to the utter and absolute elimination of all surprise from games.

On the one hand, many developers apear to be terrified that if a game allows for surprise — if any unexpected emergent interactions between systems are permitted — that some player somewhere will wonder for a microsecond what he is supposed to do next. At that point (the thinking appears to be), the player will conclude “this is boring!”, quit playing the game, and insist to all his friends that the game is broken.

So these developers are now doing everything they can to make sure that every possible system interaction is 100 percent controlled. There must be no moment in which the player can see or do anything other than what the developer intended… even if that means limiting the number and span of gameplay systems to the point that games become nothing more than “walk” and “shoot enemy” with different textures.

But these developers aren’t alone. Some players don’t like surprises, either. And many (most?) developers have decided that these players — and no others — should be given what they want. So the developers obsessively design and playtest and focus group gameplay scenarios to insure that as long as players do the “right” steps in the “right” order (often substituting player skill for in-game character abilities, even in RPGs), they win. There’s nothing wrong with having games like that… but why stop there?

What bothers me about the games being made based on these rejections of surprise is that not all gamers appreciate having every possible in-game behavior locked down. Some of us enjoy being surprised! In particular, surprise is a critical element of simulation play. If events can never vary between runs, then there is no opportunity for players to make interesting choices as inputs to produce outputs that are enjoyable for being unanticipated.

So why is it that it’s almost exclusively the gamers who want gameplay they can be guaranteed of winning who get attention from developers?

Of course it’s not much fun to lose because of randomness. But that’s not the same thing as emergent surprise, which is what I’m really talking about here. Surprise doesn’t have to have direct gameplay consequences; indirect effects may be enough. And of course games should be tested and modified to prevent game-breaking surprises, such as fires that spread unchecked across the entire gameworld. There can be surprises due to untestable interactions between many complex systems that do not result in a broken game, but instead contribute toward the presentation of gameworlds that feel alive in many small but meaningful ways. What is preventing developers from making games like this?

I believe the trend toward eliminating surprise from games needs to be countered in order to prevent games from becoming utterly banal snoozefests that nearly play themselves. Procedural content generation — particularly in the area of object behavior — is one possible path toward achieving that goal.

So I strongly endorse what developers like Andrew Doull and Miguel Cepero are doing with procedural content generation. And I hope their work will inspire other developers to embrace the idea that a little more surprise in their games, where appropriate, can actually be a good thing.

”A nice blend of prediction and surprise seem to be at the heart of the best art.” –Wendy Carlos（Source：Gamasutra）