作者：Graham McAllister

优秀的游戏是通过试玩创造出来的。这不是我的一面之词，而是著名游戏设计师Jesse Schell在他的绝妙书籍《The Art of Game Design》中提出来的。他甚至还进一步说明，试玩不仅对游戏有益，而且是制作优秀游戏的必要做法。

令我感到惊讶的是，有些游戏开发者只进行少量的游戏测试，甚至完全没有。他们的这种做法可以理解，毕竟，他们都是有着数年游戏设计和开发经验的电子游戏专业人士。普通用户能够在他们的游戏中发现哪些他们自己所不知道的东西呢？事实证明，这种东西的数量很多。

playtesting(from next-gen)

进行试玩的关键原因在于理解玩家的真实行为和游戏玩法体验（游戏邦注：不是为了探求他们的意见）。对于游戏的运行方式，每个玩家都有着自己的理解，这便是他们的心智模型，而且玩家的心智模型间可能存在很大的差别。即便玩家间有着相同的人口特征，他们对游戏的理解和体验也会有显著的差别。所以，即便设计师创造的游戏的目标受众是与其类似的玩家，也仍然会有误解情况的产生。理解他人的想法非常困难，从实践上来说，这可能根本无法实现，因为你的设计所针对的潜在玩家是多种多样的。

那么，既然知道试玩能够产生优秀游戏的道理，为何有些工作室不这么做呢？最普遍的原因便是时间和金钱。工作室通常会在游戏创作达到某个阶段时勉强进行测试。这种做法的危险在于，试玩进行的时间可能会太迟。而且，测试的费用由谁来出也存在分歧，是工作室还是发行商？

还有许多关于这种做法的传言，比如有人说游戏测试会摧毁设计的创意。在我们已经做过的所有试玩中，从未发生过这种事情。事实上，我们看到的情况正好相反。通过对玩家的行为进行分析，我们看到的是设计决定不断重复并完善。在这些情况中，很可能新颖游戏机制的潜在概念并不存在问题，只是当前的执行方式与玩家的期待或者理解并不相符。

测试压力

尽管Schell声称他是游戏试玩的狂热支持者，但是他也承认对这个过程很讨厌。他甚至尝试在试玩被规划在内时寻找理由来剔除。但是，他的理由与那些不做测试的工作室的理由并不相同，他只是害怕人们不喜欢他的游戏。

Schell表示，当设计师和开发者在查看游戏的测试过程时，他们通常会有如下两种反应。有些富有创意的人觉得用户的评论和反映特别刺耳，他们会迅速地拟定设计方案解决遇到的问题。但是对于另一类人，测试是种使人清醒的经历。这才是完全正常和理性的反应，设计和开发游戏是个巨大的承诺，不仅需要投入时间，还需要投入情感。短暂体验游戏的玩家因为感到困惑或者游戏的难度而抛弃游戏，这确实很难令人接受。

1969年，精神病专家Elisabeth Kübler-Ross提出了人们对付悲痛的5阶段模型。这可以为游戏设计师在游戏测试阶段所用：

否决：“没关系，这个用户很傻，其他人都可以领会。”

愤怒：“为什么他们要这么做？他们难道不理解基本的游戏概念吗？”

商讨：“如果下个用户能够领会的话，我承认自己会为游戏在Metacritic上获得60分感到高兴。”

沮丧：“我放弃，或许我并非如自己想象那样是个优秀的设计师。”

接受：“我知道他们为何会产生这种想法，我也有个可以改善设计的想法。”

事实上，每次设计师都会在测试中经历这5个阶段的过程，他们的游戏也会得到改善。

而且，你最终都会经历整个系列的情感变化。游戏发布之后，玩家迟早都会接触并对游戏发表观点。关键的是，作为游戏创造者，你可以控制的是这些情感会对你的游戏产生积极还是消极的影响，即是否会重视测试中获得的意见并改善游戏。

我近期询问了一位资深游戏设计师，问他是否认为测试是他作为游戏设计师的软肋。他立即就做出了回答：任何优秀的设计师都应该积极寻求玩家的反馈，让自己的游戏得到改善。

游戏邦注：本文发稿于2011年7月13日，所涉时间、事件和数据均以此为准。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Opinion: Better games through playtesting

Graham McAllister

Good games are created through playtesting. These are not my words but those of legendary game designer Jesse Schell, as stated in his excellent book, The Art of Game Design. He goes even further by saying that playtesting is not only good for a game, it’s necessary in order to make a good game.

It’s always surprising for me to discover that some game developers only conduct quite scant playtesting, or none at all. Perhaps this is understandable, after all – they’re video game professionals with years of experience in designing and developing games. What could an ordinary consumer possibly tell them about their game that they don’t already know? Quite a lot, it turns out.

The key reason why playtests are conducted is to understand players’ real behaviour and gameplay experience (note, not to get their opinions). Each player will have an internal understanding of how the game works – their mental model – and this is likely to vary widely between them. Even when we see a range of players who on paper share the same demographics, we observe a wide spectrum in how they understand and experience the game. So even in the best possible case, where the designer is creating games for players just like themselves, there is still massive scope for misunderstanding. It’s not just difficult to put yourself into the minds of others, it’s also practically impossible to do so for the potential range of gamers you are designing for.

So knowing that playtesting leads to good games, why wouldn’t some studios do it? The most common reasons stem from, unsurprisingly, time and money. Studios are often reluctant to test a game until it has reached a certain level of production. The danger here is that they leave it too late to playtest at all. There are also debates over where the budget should come from, the studio or the publisher?

There are also many myths out there, such as the one that says playtesting can quash creative design. In all the playtests we’ve run, we’ve never seen this happen. In fact we see quite the opposite. By presenting evidence from analysis of player behaviour, we have seen design decisions iterated and improved upon. In these cases, it’s most likely that the underlying concepts behind novel game mechanics are solid – it’s just the current implementations that don’t not mesh well with players’ expectations or understanding.

The stress of testing

Although Schell states that he is a huge advocate for playtesting, he also confesses that he hates it. He even tries to find reasons for not being present when the playtests are scheduled. Not that he shares the same fears as studios which don’t playtest. He’s simply afraid that people won’t like his game.

When designers and developers come in to watch the playtest sessions on their game, Schell says they typically follow one of two paths. There are those creatives whose skin is impenetrable to the harsh words and reactions of users and they’re immediately sketching out improved designs to problems encountered. But for those on the other path, playtest sessions can be a sobering experience. It’s a completely normal and rational reaction – designing and developing games is a massive commitment, not only in time but also in emotional energy. Having a player who has only briefly played your game dismiss it as confusing and difficult (or worse), can be difficult to accept.

In 1969, psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross proposed a five-stage model of how people cope with grief. In many ways this is comparable to what a game designer may go through when sitting in a playtest session:

Denial: “It’s OK, this user is stupid. Everyone else will get it.”

Anger: “Why on earth are they doing that? Don’t they understand basic game concepts?”

Bargaining: “If the next user gets it I promise I’ll be happy with a 60 per cent on Metacritic.”

Depression: “I give up, perhaps I’m not as good a designer as I thought I was.”

Acceptance: “OK, I can see how they might think that, I’ve an idea on how to improve my design.”

In effect, every time a designer experiences this five-stage process during a playtest, their game has just got better. It’s not often that one should ask for more anguish, but when there is a tangible reward associated, it may be worth it.

And besides, ultimately this series of emotions are not optional. Given the game will be released, sooner or later, people will play and express their opinions about it. The key thing is that as a game creator you do have control over whether these emotions have a positive impact on your game, because you experience them during a playtest and have a chance to correct the issues, or a negative one, because you experience them when reading a review and therefore never get to act on them.

I recently asked a leading game designer whether he perceives playtesting as a weakness in his ability as a designer. His reply was instant. He said that any good designer should not only want player feedback, but they should also be actively seeking it in order to make their game better. “Why wouldn’t they want a good game?” (Source: Edge)