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

《Steambirds》开发经验:取缔静态关卡内容

发布时间:2011-08-24 14:39:59 Tags:,,

作者:Danc.

《Steambirds: Survival》呈现不列颠之战一开始的萧瑟初秋清晨景象。英国军队遭到突袭,轴心国的飞机突然袭击这座注定遭劫的城市。人员和武器相差悬殊,你的英雄使命是拖延这些入侵者,帮助大批民众逃离敌人的毁灭性毒气袭击。你有一架飞机。你能维持多久?

Steambirds Survival from lostgarden.com

Steambirds Survival from lostgarden.com

今天我要分享下我们从《Steambirds: Survivial》开发中所收获的经验。

* 移除手动关卡,深化游戏乐趣

* 创造游戏模式,而非关卡

* 推论:静态关卡会降低游戏深度

通过移除关卡挖掘深层趣味

《Steambirds: Survival》从观察报告着手:军事飞机核心机制非常有趣,不受关卡设计支配。在最初制作的游戏,只要随意袭击敌军飞机,有趣战斗场景就会开始。我个人的设计过程非常有探索性:检查操作模型,把握蕴藏机会,然后尝试在下个更新内容中扩充可取环节。未融入关卡就带来这样的机会。

假若我们创建的《Steambirds》版本完全依赖随机生成的关卡,飞机呈递增趋势迎面袭来?这其实是《Steambirds》版《战争机器》中的“部落模式”。这个路线可以追溯到《行星游戏》、《太空入侵者》或其他传统街机游戏的逐步升级街机模式。

起初,我们随机生成飞机,静观游戏如何进行到底。然后我们开始优化游戏直至游戏始终保持有趣。我留意此设计过程的几个高级属性。

* 无优先视角:我们常被迫从各种视角体验游戏玩法。当创造静态关卡时,我会快速形成这样的习惯:朝1-2“正确”路线优化内容。若特定场景过于强大,我或许就简单调整单个敌人的能量,这样玩家面对的困难度就降低。结果是,局部完善形成肤浅玩法。而在随机关卡中,此调整程度并不可行。

Efficient Game Design(from lostgarden)

Efficient Game Design(from lostgarden)

* 系统-关卡更新:为完善体验,我们需从机制层面更新和完善内容(游戏邦注:而非内容层面)。多数调整都集中在飞机、道具和得分。这些是影响整个玩家体验的机制。最终,我们不得不完善更广阔的游戏空间。

Efficient Game Design 2(from lostgarden)

Efficient Game Design (from lostgarden)

* 通过新机制深化内容:当游戏缺乏粘性,我们就添加新机制,例如降低飞机空投道具。更传统的渠道就是手动创造更详细的惊喜转折场景:当你触碰预设板柄时,一排飞机会从隐藏云朵中突然显现。但通过关注新通用机制,我们创造一个具有无限战略机会的游戏世界。你是否瞄准治愈道具,或者你是否采取行动准备应对6点的突袭?这是机制推动的有意义决策,而非简单委派任务。

避免创造手动关卡形式呈现的静态内容,能够促使原始《Steambirds》更赏心悦目。个人来讲,我会继续坚持不在未来作品中融入静态关卡,我认为这存在以下优点:

* 更多游戏,更少付出:你可以心情愉悦连续体验《Steambirds: Survival》几小时。而且相比制作同量手动谜题关卡,这节省大把时间。

* 玩法更深入,掌握曲线更持久。我玩《Steambirds: Survival》很长时间,但我依然不断发现新技能,新诀窍,这促使我持续回访。从某层次来看,游戏已不再是短暂消遣,而成为一个长期爱好。我们的《Steambirds》还达不到爱好层次,但凭此设计过程,我们必然会上升至此高度。身为设计师,当我制作一次性游戏时,我觉得自己在浪费生命。当我制作吸引广大用户的持久内容时,我觉得自己是以富有意义的方式做出贡献。

创造游戏模式,而非关卡

作为设计师,我们能够比玩家更广泛地探索游戏空间(游戏邦注:这由游戏规则设定)。在开发过程中,我们常常进行疯狂实验:速度翻倍或能量消耗殆尽。多数此类衍生内容都缺乏可玩性,所以我们可以把它们从最终作品中移除。

但融入大量曲折内容能够增加游戏吸引力。我觉得这些区域就像行星中的宜居带。为让生命得以存在,行星需同太阳保持适当距离,既能保持暖和,又不会过热。这两个因素创造太阳周围的细长区域,其中宜居行星得以存在。游戏亦是如此。若你应对某可变因素的方式过于极端,游戏就会丧失趣味。但在某特定范围内,趣味依然可能存在。这个实验帮助我们定义某些机制的适当游戏空间。

在《Steambirds Survival》中,我们投入时间探索战斗机制的极限。我们花费数小时调整各种变量,测试趣味效果。目标是创建《Steambirds》多维地图,将趣味隐藏于机制中。最终,我们快速扫描24个初级状态的玩法变量,将内容调整成独特飞机。远距离射击Aught Nine的操作方式和突袭Chickadee-S518大不相同。结果是形成24个游戏模式,各个都具有无限可玩性。

关卡设计 Vs. 初始条件

* 和制作只能体验几次的内容不同,我们创建的游戏模式能够反复体验。

* 每个模式如何呈现主要由游戏机制决定(游戏邦注:而非系列既定活动)。因此游戏具有众多潜在场景,而非单一预设结果。

* 模式呈模块形式,稳定牢固,松散连接,所以调整临界值通常不会损及模式趣味。关卡设计非常脆弱,因为你总是试图从各狭窄空间中压榨趣味。只因某细微错误,游戏体验就遭到破坏。但若你具有广阔体验空间,玩家能够置身宽广宜居带,那你就有很多利用变量的空间,而不会伤害游戏丰富趣味。

绘制游戏空间

这是我绘制游戏空间,创建各种玩法模式的过程:

* 辨认:识别游戏变量。很多原始《Steambirds》的重要变量都隐藏在编码中。Andy把变量逐一呈现在XML文件,所以他们能够随意调整。

* 探索:有条不紊地探索空间。我创造呈矩阵排列的飞机,每个飞机都设有极端变量。接着我进行体验,发现多数都缺乏可玩性,我不确定是否是由单个变量促成。但通过测试具体变量,我获悉哪些行得通,哪些不切实际。我开始绘制宜居带。

* 建立理论:把握若干数据后,我开始给有趣飞机创建理论。“我觉得诱使敌人进入有毒区域的缓慢、近距离飞机会是个有趣策略。”

* 测试:我试着调整若干变量,然后进行试验。理论是否带来新玩法?

* 改善:此时我们已就飞机部分更很多次,目的是呈现完美感觉。

* 移除:我们制作许多飞机。有些飞机更胜一筹,所以优胜劣汰。这里是数量设计法则:若你持有众多优秀内容,可以选择只发布最佳内容。

静态关卡降低游戏深度

下面我们更深一步,从宏观角度探究此简单观察报告带给整个行业的意义。制作静态关卡内容存在机会成本。其实,这融合于Cerny开发模式划分的预制作和制作阶段。在预制作阶段,你测试和确定游戏机制。尽早确定游戏机制可以降低创建大量静态内容的制作风险。你不应改变主角跳跃距离(游戏邦注:假若你已基于此标准创建20个昂贵关卡)。

乍一看,这个阶段性方法似乎是个合理举措。其实其原本的目的是促使设计能够在越发严格的开发进程中得到调整更新。但这也要求你在进程某阶段限制内容更新。然而此设计模式同现实情况相左。

Efficient Game Design 3(from lostgarden)

Efficient Game Design (from lostgarden)

想想一般情形:设计师在体验游戏几个月后,最终深刻把握促使游戏更具沉浸性、更富趣味的机制。这时常发生……设计通常不会立即呈现真实本质。

Efficient Game Design 4(from lostgarden)

Efficient Game Design (from lostgarden)

在程序游戏中,新设计想法通常转换成测试此想法的快速实验。《Steambirds: Survival》的众多大型设计变更只耗费几分钟。最大的更新机制也只花费一周。在制作任务繁重的游戏中,新设计提议通常会立即被驳回。其他原则会遭受破坏,因为几乎所有制作过程的机制调整都会产生两大后续影响:

1. 制作过程的设计调整会损害多年成果。制作人的制作进度发生变化;关卡设计师的工作遭受影响;机制程序员的脚本受到破坏;故事设计师的情节线索发生改变;现代开发的实际情况是,制作过程中的任何设计调整都会产生巨大行政成本。

2. 若调整获得认同,就有大量内容需要落实。即便设计调整是出于玩家利益角度考虑,这从经济角度看通常不切实际。

因此,提高和完善游戏设计几乎算是贸然举措。这不是个随机选择,几乎所有设计师过后分析都希望他们拥有更长的预制作阶段。Cerny模式形成运筹局限,这会不知不觉损害团队制作和更新意义深远的深刻机制。

灵活方式允许团队模块化制作内容,具有一定作用,但这只是补丁,不是解决方案。根本来说,静态内容很难重构。调整内容的边际成本通常相当于原始制作成本。设计依赖结构分散内容(游戏邦注:如关卡和故事)是形成早熟设计的根本原因。

面对此情况多年后,现代AAA开发团队开始放弃富有意义的深层游戏机制。久而久之,经济学和制作运筹开始像洋流作用于海岸线那样塑造设计工作。若你观察《战神》或《Uncharted》之类的游戏,就会发现最终结果:安全、简单游戏通常都融入大量静态内容。这里没有富有意义的可学习机制,或者可供玩家选择的选项。相反,玩家会接触到大量画面,通过狂按按钮前行。通过迎合“唤起式”静态内容,多数AAA团队都着力压制推动游戏的体验空间。

作为寻求逃脱的电影背景用户,我能理解其中魅力。作为游戏设计师,我觉得此趋势令人厌恶。我们能够推动玩家深入、系统把握宇宙中的复杂模式。我们是时候该采用不同设计法则,将静态内容和关卡设计最小化,将游戏机制和有效系统产生的影响最大化。

在《Steambirds: Survival》中,我们在制作后期大幅调整玩法。仅存的静态内容高度模块化,较少依赖其他机制,因此其调整能够保持稳定态势。

我强烈建议你远离手动静态关卡。摆脱线性结构和内容依赖性。这些元素会阻碍你更新设计,限制你的作品发展视野。

结论

当我回头查看融入强大街机模式和程序关卡的原始电子游戏时,我发现些许精华元素。在沿途发展过程中,我们误入歧途,放弃有趣互动机制,转朝静态一次性内容方向发展。几十年来,我们在制作投入大量资金(游戏邦注:这降低互动机制的核心价值)。

我制作游戏的目标是把焦点重新转回玩法。放弃若干尚能吸引玩家进入游戏的情节和谜题。它们原先的妙处在于能够不时充当情感调味品。《Steambirds》包含这些元素,它们以模块化形式隐藏在其所属的背景中。但它们并不是体验的核心要素。

我之前主要偏向谈论设计游戏,属于高效设计派别。我至今谈论的观点可以概述为如下内容:

* 借助设计降低成本:通过高效设计,我们能够以低成本创造改变世界的游戏。扩大成本曲线是损害游戏的征兆。

* 永葆青春:更深刻、更富意义的系统能够形成终身爱好,而非一次性媒介。

* 新作品:通过更新和探索设计创造独特差异化作品。复制是糟糕设计师的行为。

* 小团队:发挥小团队联合创造者的创造性、灵活性和生产力。大型团队会损害效率。

* 稳固体验空间:创造能够承受玩家和设计师调整的广阔可能空间。避免融入脆弱结构。

* 精减内容:通过减少对谜题、关卡和其他静态内容的依赖提高更新设计的能力。

* 发挥玩家作用:我们的设计系统会形成促使玩家创造故事、社区和文化的价值结构。深刻剧情会浮现于玩家脑海(游戏邦注:而不是通过我们的费劲传递)。

存在游戏设计学派并不意味着所有游戏都要遵照这些限制条件和进程进行。我们需要的是丰富变化,而不是设计体制。设计学派是思索设计师的航标灯。回顾过去,我们有得有失。我们希望未来能够吸取经验创造更具体的艺术作品。

设计首先是个有意识行为,我们需富有远见、全面考虑我们所追求和摒弃的设计风格。《Steambirds: Survival》是款简单游戏,但游戏基于既有理想模式设计而成。基于习惯、潮流、直觉或谋求平凡报酬而设计游戏无异于浪费自己的生命,浪费玩家的时间。草率制作的的游戏通常只配获得草率对待。

游戏邦注:原文发布于2010年12月3日,文章叙述以当时为背景。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

Steambirds: Survival: Goodbye Handcrafted Levels

By Danc.

Steambirds: Survival, the sequel to our original steampunk airplane strategy game was just released today.   You can go play it right now at Steambirds.com.

Steambirds: Survival takes place on a grim fall morning at the start of the Battle of London.  The British forces are taken by surprise as thousands of Axis steam-planes descend upon the doomed city.  Outnumbered and outgunned, your heroic mission is to delay the invaders long enough that a handful of civilians might escape the genocidal gas attacks.  You have one plane.  How long can you last?

David has a great post about how we integrated microtransactions, but today I wanted to focus on a couple of design lessons that came up while building Steambirds: Survivial.

* Removing handcraft levels as a method of finding deeper fun

* Create game modes, not levels

* Corollary: Focusing on static levels decreases the depth of your game.

Find deeper fun by killing levels

Steambirds: Survival started with the observation that the core mechanic of maneuvering planes was fun independent of the level design.  When we were building the first game, we’d toss in enemy planes nearly at random and interesting combat scenarios would emerge.  My personal design process is highly exploratory:  I examine a working prototype, identify whiffs of an opportunity and then attempt to amplify those desirable moments in the next iteration. The lack of levels was one such opportunity.

What if we built a version of Steambirds that relied entirely on randomly generated levels where planes came at you in ever increasing waves?  In essence, create the Steambirds version of Gears of War ‘Horde mode’.  This path harkens back to the escalating arcade mode found in Asteroids, Space Invaders or most traditional arcade games.

At first, we randomly spawned planes and saw how the game played out.  Then we polished the systems until the game was fun to play every single time. I observed several higher level attributes of this design process.

* No preferred perspective: We were forced experience the gameplay from a variety of perspectives.   When I create static levels, it is  easy to quickly fall into a rut where I start polishing the experience for one or two ‘correct’ paths.  If a specific scenario is too powerful, I might simply adjust the health of an individual enemy instance so the player has less difficulty. The result is localized polish that translates into shallow gameplay. With random levels, this class of tweaking is impossible.

* System-level iteration: In order to polish the experience, we instead needed to iterate and polish at the system-level, not the content level.  Most changes occurred in the planes, powerups and scoring. These are systems that affected the entire player experience.  In the end, a much broader playspace ends up being polished.

* Depth through new systems:  When the game wasn’t engaging, we added new systems such as having downed planes drop powerups. A more traditional approach might be to manually create more detailed scenarios with surprise plot points where a pack of planes pop out of a hidden cloud when you collide with a pre-determined trigger.  However, by instead focusing on new general systems, we created an entire universe of fascinating tactical possibilities.  Do you head for the heal powerup or do you turn to face the Dart at 6 o’clock?  That’s a meaningful decision driven by systems, not a cheap authored thrill.

The self imposed constraint of avoiding the creation of static content in the form of hand crafted levels resulted in a game that is in my humble opinion, more enjoyable than the original Steambirds.  Personally, I’m going to continue using this philosophy of limiting static levels in future games because I see the following benefits

* More game for less overall effort:  You can play Steambirds: Survival for dozens (if not hundreds) of delightful hours.  Yet development time was considerably less than if we had handcrafted an equivalent number of puzzle levels.

* Deeper gameplay with a longer mastery curve.  I’ve played a lot of Steambirds: Survival and I still find new skills and tricks that keep me coming back.  At a certain level of depth, a game transcends being a disposible blip and turns into a life-long hobby.  We aren’t quite yet at a hobby-class activity with Steambirds, but this design process inevitably leads us there.  As a designer, I feel like I’m wasting my life when I create a disposable game. I feel like I’ve contributed in a meaningful way if I can create an evergreen activity that attracts a community that last far into the future.

Create game modes, not levels

As designers, we have access to a much broader exploration of the space created by a set of game rules than is available to the player.  During development, it is common to run crazy experiments where speed is doubled or health knocked down to nothing.  Most of these variations are unplayable, so we chop them from the final product.

Yet a handful of tweaks end up being fascinating.   I think of these areas much like the Goldilocks zone for planets.  In order for life to exist, a planet must be close enough to the sun to be warm and far enough away so that it isn’t boiled.   These two factors create a thin band around a sun in which a habitable planet may exist.  The same thing happens with games.  You push a particular variable too far and the game stops being enjoyable.  But within a certain range, the possibility for fun exists.  This experimentation helps use define the valid playspace for a particular set of mechanics.

For Steambirds Survival, we took some time to discover the limits of the combat system.  We spent hours tweaking various variables, and testing to see if they were fun.  The goals was to build a multi-dimensional map of where the fun lurked in the Steambirds mechanics.  In the end, we took snapshot of the various gameplay variables in 24 initial states and saved these out as unique planes that you can play.  The long range sniping Aught Nine plays quite differently from a delicately swooping Chickadee-S518  The result is really 24 game modes, each of which is infinitely playable.

Level design vs initial conditions

How is this different from level design?

* Instead of creating content that can be enjoyed only a handful of times, we are setting up game modes that can be played a very large number of times.

* How each mode unfolds is primarily determined by game mechanics, not a set of scripted events.  As a result there is a very wide range of possible scenarios, not a single predetermined outcome.

* Modes are modular, robust and loosely coupled so that tweaking critical values is rarely damaging to the mode’s fun.  Level design is fragile because you are trying to squeeze fun out of a very narrow playspace. One tiny mistake and the experience is broken. However, when you have a big broad playspace and you’ve plunked the player smack in the middle of a wide Goldilocks zone, you have a lot of room to push variables about without harming the rich pleasures of the game.

Mapping the playspace

Here’s the process I used to map the playspace and create the various play modes.

* Identify: Identify the variables.  Many of the important variables in the original Steambirds were hidden away in code.  Andy surfaced these in an XML file so they could be readily tweaked.

* Explore: Methodically explore the space.  I created a matrix of planes, each with one variable pushed to the extreme.  Then I played them.   The majority were unplayable and I’m not sure a single one made it into the final game.  However, through the process of testing concrete variations, I gained a sense for what worked and what didn’t.  I was mapping out the Goldilocks zone.

* Theorize:  Now that I had some data, I created theories for fun planes.  “I think that a slow, short range plane that needed to trap enemies in webs of poison trails would result in interesting tactics”

* Test:  Then I would change a few variables and try it out.  Did the theory yield a new way of playing the game?

* Refine: At this point, we’d iterate on the plane many, many times to get the feel just right.

* Cull: We made a lot of planes.  Some were more fun than others so those got chopped and the good ones stayed.   This follows the philosophy of designing from a position of plenty, where you are overflowing with good content and can choose to put forth only the best.

Static levels decreases the depth of your game

Let’s take a step back and look more broadly at what this simple observation means for the industry at large. There is a very real opportunity cost associated with creating static level content.  In fact, it is baked into the pre-production and production stages suggested by the popular Cerny method of game development.  During preproduction, you test and finalize your game mechanics.  By locking down your game systems early on, you reduce your production risk when building  large amounts of static content.  Heaven forbid you change the jump distance on your main character after you’ve built 20 expensive levels based off that value.

At first glance this staged approach seems like a sane and rational practice. In fact, it originally came about as a way of giving design a place to iterate within the increasingly rigid development schedule. However, it also requires that you limit your iteration upon your mechanics at some point in your schedule.   Yet such a design lock down conflicts with how design actually occurs in the real world.

Consider the common scenario: a designer, after playing the game for several months, finally groks a fundamental relationship in the system that will make the game immensely more enjoyable. This actually happens all the time…designs often need to sit for a while before they reveal their true nature.  We are closer to mathematicians exploring a new class of equations than we are authors banging out another variation of the Hero’s Journey.  And like mathematicians, insight rarely occurs on a predictable schedule.

In a procedural game, a new design insight translates into a quick experiment that tests the idea.  Many of our big design changes in Steambirds: Survival took minutes.  The largest, a new progression system, took a week.  In a game with a heavy production burden, a new design insight instead provokes immediate push back.  Almost all other disciplines have something to lose since almost any mechanics change occurring in the middle of production has two follow-on effects:

1. Design changes during production threaten to invalidate many man years of labor.  The producer sees a threatened schedule.  The level designers see destroyed levels.  The gameplay programmers see destroyed scripts.  The narrative designers see altered plot lines and discarded cinematics. The reality of modern development is that any design change in production has a large political cost.

2. If the change is accepted, large amounts of new content needs to be implemented.   Even if the design change is the right thing to do for the player, it is often economically not feasible.

As a result, polishing and improvement on the game design is almost always locked down prematurely.  It is not random chance that nearly every postmortem wishes they had a longer preproduction phase.  The entire Cerny method creates logistical constraints that unwittingly damage the team’s ability to build and iterate on deep and meaningful systems.

Agile methods help here by allowing teams to lock down content on a more modular level, but this is a patch,  not a solution.  Ultimately static content is inherently difficult to refactor.  The marginal cost to change content is often equal to original cost of creation.  The reliance of the design on structurally brittle content like levels and narrative lies at the root of the problem of premature design lock-down.

After many years of living this reality, modern AAA development teams have retreated from most meaningful exploration of deep game systems.  Over time, economics and production logistics shape design as surely as the currents in the ocean shape the rocky shoreline.  If you look at games like God of War or Uncharted, you see the end result:  Mechanically safe and simplistic games heavily larded up with a constant streams of static content.  There is no meaningful systems to learn nor choices for the player to make.  Instead, players submit themselves to a constant stream of pretty pictures whilst bashing buttons to advance.   By following the siren’s call of ‘evocative’ static content, most AAA teams have managed to suffocate the playspaces that make games great.

As a movie-trained consumer looking for mindless escape, I understand the appeal.  As a game designer, I find this direction repugnant.  We have a unique medium capable of immersing players in a rich systematic understanding of complex models of the universe.  It is time for a very different philosophy of design that minimizes static content and level design and maximizes the impact of game mechanics and meaningful systems.

With Steambirds: Survival, we were able to create relatively major changes to the gameplay late in development.  What little static content existed was highly modular, contained few dependencies on other systems and was therefore quite robust in the face of changes.

I highly recommend that you distance yourself from handcrafted static levels. Cull linear structures and content dependencies. Treat production as a form of waste that should be stripped from your development process.  These elements destroy your ability to iterate on your design and suck you into a mediocre and limited vision of what games can become.

Conclusion

When I look at back at the origins of electronic games with their infinite arcade modes and their procedural levels, I see the seed of something great. Somewhere along the way we took a wrong turn, away from interesting interactive systems and towards static disposable content.  For decades we’ve been investing outrageous sums of money in production activities that actively diminish the key value proposition of our interactive craft.

My goal with the games I work on is to shift the balance back toward gameplay.   Throwaway bits of plot and puzzle are still useful as training that gets players into the game. They are great as the occasional dash of spicy emotional seasoning.  We have such things in Steambirds, modularized and tucked in the background where they belong. But they are not, nor should they ever be, the meaty center of the experience.

What I’ve been describing with my last few posts is a philosophy of how I prefer to design games…a school of efficient game design, if you will.  The pillars I’ve discussed to far are simple stated:

* Use design to lower costs: By following efficient design practices, we can build world changing games at low cost.  Escalating cost curves are a symptom of broken design practices.

* Always evergreen: Deeper, more meaningful systems yield lifelong hobbies, not disposable media.

* New games: Design from the root using iterative, exploratory design to create unique, differentiated products.  Clones are projects for wage cogs and poor designers.

* Small teams: Leverage the immense creativity, flexibility and productivity of small teams of co-creators.  Large teams destroy efficiency.

* Robust play spaces: Create broad landscapes of possibility that can easily withstand both player and designer induced variation.  Avoid brittle structures.

* Lean Content: Unchain our ability to iterate on design by reducing our debilitating dependency on puzzles, levels and other static content.

* Leverage Players: Our designed systems seed value structures that empower players to create stories, community and culture.  The deepest dramas happen in the players’ heads, not in our labored delivery.

The existence of a school of game design does not mean that all games need to follow these constraints and processes.  If anything we need passionate variety more than we need a theocracy of design.  Instead, a school of design acts as one (hopefully of many) beacons for thinking designers.  We look to the past and call out our long history of mistakes and successes.  We look to the future by building concrete works of art that boldly promote the lessons learned.

Design is first and foremost a conscious act and we should take an educated and thoughtful stance on what styles of design we pursue and what ones we reject.  Steambirds: Survival is a simple game, but it is one that is designed based on a passionately held ideals. To make games due to habit, fads, instinct or pursuit of a mundane paycheck means that you are wasting not only your life but the lives of all your players. A thing blindly created is always a thing blindly consumed. What is your stated philosophy of game design?  What are the beliefs that drive your creation?

Give Steambirds: Survival a try.  There is still so much more work to do, but this should give a small taste of where we are heading.(Source:lostgarden


上一篇:

下一篇: