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

解析决策制定因素对游戏设计的影响

发布时间:2011-10-08 21:39:11 Tags:,,,

作者:Shay Pierce

今天我阅读了一篇发人深思的博文,作者是我很欣赏的一位游戏设计师Chris DeLeon,但是他在文中的一些观点却是我不能苟同的,即他在文中驳回了关于《大蜜蜂》这类型游戏是基于一些有趣的决策而创造出来的论断。(这个论断曾经出现在他早前博文“很多游戏并不只是选择”的回复中。)

我想要果断地回答这个论断:《大蜜蜂》确实是一款基于有趣决策的游戏,而任何包含有“挑战”因素的游戏设置都可以说是基于有趣的决策而制作出来的游戏。我主张采用Sid Meier的说法,即“一款好的游戏就是一系列有趣的决策组合”(而Chris则认为这一说法只适用于特定游戏类型而不予以考虑),并采用一种有别于传统的方法(游戏邦注:即更深层次且更整体化),如此才能帮我们更好地看清楚游戏设计中一些最重要且最基本的法则。

这么看来我们将再次思考关于“决策”的定义了。但是我认为我们这么想的话至少能够看清楚游戏设计的基本真理,而摆脱那些拿着经验说事的游戏设计者的束缚。

大蜜蜂(from graphicsdb.com)

大蜜蜂(from graphicsdb.com)

自学开发游戏

在继续阐述之前我想要提供一些背景内容。在正规教育中我学的并非游戏设计,而是软件工程。但是我却非常喜欢游戏设计,所以在几年前我便开始系统地自学这门专业。但是很大程度上,我经常因为缺少足够严谨的学术材料而烦躁不已,因为我来自计算机科学这种高分析性的领域,所以总是认为在像“游戏设计101”这种学习资料背后必定也隐藏着一些深刻的观点,能够帮助我真正理解什么是游戏设计,然而我却往往把握不了它们。总之,我关于游戏设计的教育基本上来说都是自学的,我也几乎找不到一个关于“优秀游戏设计的普遍理论”,所以我便自己下了这个定义。

(要注意还有许多“外粗内秀”的理论,特别是Marc LeBlanc所提出的;还有很多来自于纽约大学游戏中心的书籍,特别是 Eric Zimmerman和Katie Salen共同编著的《Rules of Play》是我现在正在阅读并且非常喜欢的一本书。)

科学家一直在研究爱因斯坦所编写的统一理论文件,但是最终却发现它们只是《Rolling Stone》这首歌的一些和铉。

《吉他英雄》和统一理论

我自己所定义的“有趣游戏设置的统一理论”是在几年前才慢慢形成的。在那之前,我关于“有趣的游戏设置”和“优秀的游戏设计”等理解都非常模糊且很笼统:在我的脑子中形成了各种理论和定义,但是关于这些理论和定义间的联系我却始终没有头绪(我现在也意识到这种状况就像当前游戏设计理论的现状。)这些定义中有的是来自Sid Meier的“有趣的决策”举证,而我也只是通过直觉认定它的重要性,并说不上是为什么。

随后我阅读了Chris Bateman的一篇博文,这篇博文正面挑战了Meier的举证,并列举《吉他英雄》作为反面论据:

“…这款节奏动作类游戏并未依赖于一系列有趣的决策,极大程度上来看,它并未依赖于任何决策。”

我认为这个问题非常重要:是否有趣的决策便是优秀游戏设计的基本因素?我们应该选择它还是抛弃它?

我仔细思考了这个问题,并最终认为应该选择它,即所有优秀的的游戏设置都是由一些有趣的决策所组成,但是前提是我们必须理解这个“决策”的真正定义。一旦我去深入了解这个定义,我将会找到一直困扰我的“优秀游戏设计的统一理论”。

在这些类型的游戏中决策制定是否失效了?如果Princess Peach与Kerrigan打起来了会变成怎样?

吉他英雄(from geek.com)

吉他英雄(from geek.com)

与玩其它游戏一样,我也很着迷于《吉他英雄》:一直努力地去闯关,尝试着去完成关卡,如果失败了我也会再次挑战直到最后取得成功,而这时我便会开始挑战下一个关卡。我发现这与我在玩《Advance Wars: Dual Strike》时所体验的游戏模式相同。尽管这两款游戏存在很明显的差别,但是也同样存在着一些基本上的相似点。《Advance Wars》(一款回合制战略游戏)很明显是一款关于制定有趣策略的游戏。但是《吉他英雄》却不是。对吧?

研究以下的一些游戏类型,并说出它们在什么时候开始脱离“有趣的决策”:

回合制战略游戏(例如《Advance Wars》)

动作缓慢的即时战略游戏(例如《Kohan》,《Neptune’s Pride》)

动作迅速的即时战略游戏(例如《星际争霸》)

“动作类”战略游戏(例如《魔兽争霸》)

纯动作类游戏(例如《超级马里奥》,《大蜜蜂》)

节奏动作类游戏(例如《吉他英雄》)

在这些游戏中,它们是从哪里开始脱离“有趣的决策”?

我的答案是:它们都未脱离有趣的决策。每一款游戏都在不同时刻里渗透着决策制定。可以说每一款游戏都有决策制定机制,它们只是一些不同的决策,且出现在人类不同的大脑层面罢了。

在这些范围的最底端,决策便不再是我们传统意义上所说的“决策”了。换句话说:在《吉他英雄》中你用手指去按压按钮准备进入下一个音符也是一种做决策的表现。

但是,这也不是我们平常所说的“决策”,我们可以将其称之为“选择”或者“行动”。不过基本上来说,它们指的都是相同的东西。

这些游戏都需要你通过不同的大脑层面进行思考。它们都很难,甚至需要你较劲脑子去思考对策。

决策之间的差异

关于我在《吉他英雄》中的短短几毫秒里决定手指要如何变化,以及在《Advance Wars》中的决定坦克要如何转向这两种选择是否存在着不同点?这是当然的:在《Advance Wars》中,我的意识心态将着重考虑战场这个大环境,并相对地做出明智的决策;但是在《吉他英雄》中,我却不需要意识心态,反而需要的是身体本能,肌肉记忆以及直觉性,以此决定我的手指应该落在哪里以及如何移动。

尽管它们依赖于不同层次的意识水平,但是从根本上说它们都是相同的东西。既然我们已经掌握了它们的不同之处,现在我们就来说说它们的共同点:

每一个动作都是我由我自发定义的。我将采取何种行动,以及这个行动包含些什么等完全都是我自己决定的。如果缺少自我决策,我的手指将不可能控制《吉他英雄》,也只有我自己才能决定我的手指该如何移动。

这两种选择都将“优于”或“劣于”我所做出的其它决策。我的坦克可能位于最佳的防御战线;我的手指准备可能正位于最合适的下落位置。

在进一步学习后,我的决策制定有了改善。因为记住了游戏关卡,所以我在《吉他英雄》中表现得更好了:我的手指能够更灵活地移动并在键盘上挥洒自如了。随着时间的推移,我的技巧慢慢提高了,而我也能够面对一些新的且更棒的挑战。

我承认,玩家在时间压力下所做出的决策以及在拥有充足时间的情况下而做出的决策存在着明显的不同。玩我的益智游戏《Connectrode》(没有时间压力)便与玩《Dr. Mario》(有时间压力)存在着差异,尽管这两款游戏在机制上存在着相同点。但是这两种类型的决策也仍然属于决策,并不能因为其中一方受到时间限制而否定它。它们只是两种不同类型的决策。

反语义学

本质上来看,我在此扩展“决策”的定义将涵括人类意识的各个层面。如在《反恐精英》中,玩家必须在玩了一圈下来制定出“战略”决策(游戏邦注:例如玩家及玩家的队伍应该怎么做,什么时候能够发动最大攻击);“战术”决策(使用何种载体或者如何选择最适当的躲避场所);以及最小的“行动”决策(为了通过鼠标去打击敌人,你是否需要用手臂上的所有肌肉进行移动,还是巧妙地运用关节肌肉进行移动)。我认为我们应该在游戏过程中全面思考这些决策,而这些决策只是来自于人类大脑的不同层面。

现在,我不得不承认当我开始讨论《吉他英雄》中手指在虚拟吉他上移动并将其称之为“决策”确实有够愚蠢(或者至少是错误的)。在正规语言中没有人会把你在《吉他英雄》的行动称之为“制定决策”。如果我能换个表达方式,也许你们将更容易理解我的说法,即《吉他英雄》能够测试你的技巧,并测试人类心理(以及物理)性能的不同领域。但是我相信,所有的技巧都拥有相同的“结构”,它们终将能够构成一种行动。

最后,所有基于挑战因素的游戏都能用测试并挑战一种以上的技巧而做定义(如果你认为你的挑战游戏并未基于对玩家技巧的测试,那么你有可能做错了,未深入研究玩家的技巧……亦或者你是对的,但是你的游戏既未拥有挑战性也不存在趣味性。)。所有技巧的层次都是由你所做的决策以及这些决策的质量而定义。你在玩游戏的时候也能学到更多东西,而借此能够提高你制作决策的能力,其实这也就等同于“提供你的游戏技巧”。

《大蜜蜂》和Garrison Keillor

当我在玩《大蜜蜂》的时候,我以60秒的速度做出决策:是否要按照同一个方向摆放飞船,或者是否要按压发火按钮等等,我所采取的行动(或者不行动)都属于我所做出的决策。但是大部分的选择都是由我的“非理性大脑”或者“肌肉记忆”或者“直觉”所决定;而且我认为如果在游戏设计中能够按照不同类型的决策区分它们,便能够明确其角色和重要性,并让我们更好地理解并比较游戏设计了。

《大蜜蜂》中的何种决策能让我安置飞船,并在后来能力提高后再次收回它们?显然,这是一种高层次且特别的“策略决策”,可以用其压制住游戏设置中通常包含的低层次“行动决策”。许多优秀的游戏都包含了多层次的决策制定过程,并且经常同时发生–这便是一大典例。

最后,《大蜜蜂》中的一个决策比起许多小型的“关节决策”更加容易被察觉到,因为它总是出现在我们意识中的较高层次。但是真正有远见的游戏设计者都愿意承认所有不同类型决策的重要性,而这些类型将会包含各种心理及物理技巧。Garrison Keillor(游戏邦注:美国作家,讲故事,幽默,专栏作家,音乐家)说道:“人类的一切都值得作家去关注。”相同地,人类的一切决策制定能力都应该受到游戏设计者的关注,包括领导一个文明或者按压正确的按钮等。我们需要记住,如果没有决策制定,也就无所谓游戏设计了。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

All Games Are About Choices

by Shay Pierce

Today I read a very thoughtful blog post by a game designer who I greatly admire, but with whom I absolutely disagree: Chris DeLeon wrote a scathing dismissal of the argument that games like Galaga are based on interesting decisions. (That argument was itself presented in response to Chris’ previous blog post, titled “Many Games Are Not About Choices.”)

I’d like to respond with an assertion: that Galaga really is a game based on interesting decisions; and that, in any game which includes anything that could possibly described as “challenge” (in other words, virtually all games), the gameplay is in fact entirely based around interesting decisions. My argument is that we should take Sid Meier’s definition that “a good game is a series of interesting decisions” (which Chris dismisses as only applicable to certain types of games) and apply it in a deeper and more holistic way than it’s typically applied; and that doing so will show how it is possibly the most important, fundamental law in the field of game design. Recognizing this may involve rethinking one’s definition of the term “decision”; but I believe that thinking this way reveals certain fundamental truths about game design which seem to elude even many experienced game designers.

Mario’s resume, like mine, is varied – though none of my jobs’ descriptions have been “killing baby monkeys.” Yet.

Learning the Ropes

I should provide a little background before I continue. My formal education isn’t in game design, it’s in software engineering; however, I’ve always had a great passion for game design, and several years ago I set about methodically self-educating myself in it that discipline. But for the most part, I was disappointed in the lack of rigorous academic material available – coming from a highly analytical and well-defined field like computer science, I kept feeling that there must be some hidden cache of “Game Design 101″ educational materials that really explained what game design was about, but eluded me. To make a long story short, my education in game design has almost literally been a self-education – I was basically unable to ever find a “universal theory of good game design” which I found satisfactory… so I set about defining my own.

(Note that there are diamonds in the rough… in particular: virtually everything ever written by Marc LeBlanc; and most of the teaching coming from NYU’s Game Center, especially the book Rules of Play by Eric Zimmerman and Katie Salen, which I’m currently reading and loving.)

Scientists spent years trying to decipher Einstein’s coded Unified Theory documents before realizing they were actually chords for Rolling Stone songs.

Guitar Heroes and Unified Theories

My personal “unified theory of fun gameplay” didn’t begin to crystallize until a couple of years ago. Until then, my definitions of “fun gameplay” and “good game design” were rather fuzzy and non-rigorous: various theories and definitions floated about in my head, but it was unclear how they related to one another. (I now recognize that this is pretty much the current state of game design theory in general.) One of these definitions was Sid Meier’s “interesting decisions” quote, which I intuitively felt to be extremely important, though it was hard to explain why.

Then I read a blog post by Chris Bateman which directly challenged the Meier quote, holding up Guitar Hero as the ultimate proof against it:

“…these rhythm action games do not rely upon a series of interesting decisions, for the most part they have no decisions of any kind!”

I realized this was an important question: was the idea of Interesting Decisions fundamental to good game design, or was it optional and disposable?

I thought about it extensively and realized that it was the former: all good gameplay is comprised of interesting decisions … but only if one expands one’s definition (and understanding) of what a “decision” is. And once I expanded this definition, I finally found the “uniform theory of good game design” that I had sought all along.

Does decision-making break down somewhere between these genres? Also, what would happen if Princess Peach fought Kerrigan? That would be so sweet. Sorry, what was I talking about?

Who Turned Off the Choices?

I played Guitar Hero obsessively, and much like I played any other game: I’d go to a level that I hadn’t completed yet, attempt to complete it, and fail. I would then try again and again until I succeeded, at which point I would move on to the next challenge. I noted that this was exactly the same pattern that I applied to a game like Advance Wars: Dual Strike. And though those two games clearly had huge differences, it was clear that there was some kind of fundamental similarity between them as well. Advance Wars (a turn-based strategy game) was clearly about making interesting decisions. But Guitar Hero wasn’t… right?

But consider the following genres of game, and tell me when they stop being about “interesting decisions”:

Turn-based strategy [Advance Wars]

Slow-moving real-time strategy [Kohan, Neptune's Pride]

Fast-moving real-time strategy [Starcraft]

Tactical “action” games [Defense of the Ancients]

Pure action games [Super Mario Bros, Galaga]

Rhythm action games [Guitar Hero]

At what point in this spectrum does the gameplay stop being about “interesting decisions”?

My answer: they don’t stop being about interesting decisions. Each genre is fundamentally about making decisions during every moment of gameplay. There are decisions being made in every one of these games; they’re just extremely different decisions, which occur in different layers of the brain.

At the bottom of the spectrum, the decisions are so minute that they’re no longer what we would call “decisions” in a normal definition. In other words: the exact way you configure your fingers across the buttons to prepare for the next set of notes coming towards you in Guitar Hero is a decision that you make.

Again, this is not what we’d typically call a “decision” in day-to-day language – we might normally call it a “choice” or even just an “action.” But fundamentally, they’re all the same thing.

These games each use different parts of your brain. They’re also both so hard that they make you want to lobotomize yourself… but each in a different part of your brain.

Fretting Over Tanks

Is there a difference between choosing what configuration my fingers are going to be in during a given millisecond-long period of Guitar Hero, and choosing what configuration my tanks are going to be in during a given turn of Advance Wars? Of course there are differences: in Advance Wars, my conscious mind is rationally considering the battlefield and making an intellectual decision; in Guitar Hero, my unconscious mind, my physical instinct, my muscle memory, and my intuition are deciding where my fingers need to be this instant, and moving them there as best they can.

But though they’re happening on different levels of consciousness, they are still fundamentally the same thing. Now that we’ve acknowledged the differences, consider the commonalities:

Each are actions defined solely by my own initiative. What actions I take, and what exactly the action is comprised of, are defined entirely by myself. I never move my hand on a Guitar Hero controller without it being my decision to move it; and no one but me is deciding where my fingers are going and how they’re getting there.

Both are always decisions which may be either “better” or “worse” than other decisions I might have made. My line of tanks could be more or less optimal for defense; the arrangement of my fingers could be more or less optimal for allowing me to hit the notes currently moving down the screen.

My decision-making improves as I learn. I don’t just get better at Guitar Hero because I’m memorizing the level: my hand is also constantly learning better ways to move and arrange my fingers on the keys. With time, my skill increases and allows me to take on new and greater challenges.

I admit that there’s a big difference between decisions that a player must make under time pressure, and decisions that the player has infinite time to make. Playing my puzzle game Connectrode (which has no time pressure) is very different from playing Dr. Mario (which does), though the games have mechanical similarities. But both types of decisions are still decisions: just because a decision has to be made within a time limit doesn’t mean that it stops being a decision. They’re just different flavors of decisions.

Boom, headshot. No more decisions for you.

Counter-Semantics

Essentially I’m expanding the definition of “decision” here to encompass something that happens on all levels of human consciousness. Consider a game like Counter-Strike, where within one round the player must make “strategic” decisions (what configuration he and his squad should take and what points of the level to assault with what strength); “tactical” decisions (what vectors to approach from, what hiding places to choose); and minute “action” decisions (whether to use gross-movement muscles of the arm, or fine-movement muscles of the wrist, in order to maneuver the mouse so as to place the crosshair over an enemy player’s head onscreen). I think it’s best to holistically view all of these as “decisions” which are made during gameplay, but which simply exist in different layers of the operations of the human brain. (For a more detailed analysis of the varied decision-making in a Counter-Strike game, read Tynan Sylvester’s excellent Gamasutra feature Decision-Based Gameplay Design.)

Now, I’ll admit that calling these things “decisions” does seem silly (or at least inaccurate) once we start talking about minute movements of fingers on the buttons on a plastic guitar! In regular language, no one calls what you’re doing in Guitar Hero “decision-making.” I would probably be better understood if I said instead: Guitar Hero tests a skill, and so does Advance Wars; and though these are very different skills, they’re still both clearly skills, testing different areas of human mental (and physical) performance. But I believe that all “skills” have, fundamentally, the same “structure” – they’re composed of actions.

In the end, all games that are based on an element of challenge are by definition based on testing and challenging one or more skill. (If you think that your challenge-based game isn’t based on testing any player skills, then either you’re wrong and you’re not looking hard enough for the skill… or else you’re right and your game is neither challenging nor fun.) And all skill levels are essentially defined by what decisions you’re making and the quality of those decisions. As you play the game, you learn more, thereby improving your decision-making capacity – which is the same thing as saying “improving your skills”.

Letting your ship get captured: The classic risk vs. reward decision. Thing is, it represents about 1% of the decisions you make in this game.

Galaga and Garrison Keillor

While playing Galaga, I definitely make decisions, at a rate of about 60 per second: I’m either pointing my ship in a direction or not, hitting the Fire button or not… every moment of action (or inaction) is my own decision. But a large number of those minute choices are made by my “lizard brain”… or my “muscle memory”, or my “instincts”, whatever you prefer to call it. For some reason we don’t usually call such choices “decisions”; but I believe that classifying them holistically with other types of decisions clarifies their role, and their importance, in game design, and allows us to better understand and compare game designs.

And what of the decision in Galaga to allow my ship to be taken away, so that I might recover it later as a power-up? Clearly this is a higher-level, “strategic decision”, and it’s actually unusual and is used to break up the constant low-level “action decisions” that the gameplay is mostly comprised of. Many great games have multiple layers of decision-making, often taking place at the same time – this is an example of that.

Ultimately, that one decision in Galaga is the one that’s easier to talk about (and recognize) than the many tiny “wrist decisions”, because it’s the one occurring at the higher level of our

consciousness. But a truly far-seeing game designer is willing to acknowledge the importance of all types of decisions, which may compose all types of mental and physical skills. Garrison Keillor said “Nothing human is beneath a writer’s attention.” Similarly, no human capability for decision-making should be beneath a game designer’s attention… from leading a civilization, to moving a finger over the correct button – and remember, the former is never possible without the latter.(source:gamasutra


上一篇:

下一篇: