作者：Brice Morrison

游戏设计需要有扎实的基础，如果缺少情境，那再多的讨论也是没有意义的。

想象一下，你正与一位运动员交谈，他告诉你“在运动中你可以做的一件事便是从左到右快速移动，”你是如何看待这个问题？

好吧，你也许会点头应道：“恩，这听起来不错”。但是请等一下，这个建议并不完全可行。先想想你们在讨论的是哪种运动，棒球还是足球，或者是曲棍球？不仅如此，你还要想想你应该在什么时候进行这个所谓的快速移动？什么时候做热身运动？什么时候去争夺目标？什么时候去防御对手？也就是说如果不了解整体情境，那一切也都是无用功。

或者在另外一个场景中：你正与一位艺术家进行交谈，突然他跟你说：“很多时候使用各种各样的颜色真的很有帮助。”

这里也存在相同的问题。你要什么时候使用这些颜色？是在连环漫画册上还是横幅广告中？是悲剧电影中的情节串连图版还是游戏中的雕塑还是服装？这些信息都很重要。但是因为艺术这门学科的范围实在太过广泛，所以只能提供一些较为模糊的建议。虽然这些建议听起来很有趣，但是却没有可行性。

游戏设计也经常存在这种问题。我认为游戏设计是21世纪最先进的一种艺术形式。与用油漆或粘土去创造艺术不同，游戏设计者是在用人类的经验去创造游戏。不再局限于画布或者电脑屏幕，如今的游戏设计者可以利用电脑，控制器，桥牌，卡片，物理移动以及真实的世界去帮助他们完成工作。

但是与上述两个例子相同，如果游戏设计忽略了情境，那么再优秀的设计也没有了意义。所以情境不只会影响一种学科，它对所有学科的发展都会产生影响。唯一不同之处便在于，游戏设计是一个新学科，很多人都还在考量它的可行性而非乐趣。很多时候，游戏设计总被与一些学术，理论性术语联系在一起。在这里，虽然人们总有一肚子的观点想要表达，但却总找不到最适合的方式去描述。

有时候我会对此感到愧疚不已。如今已是游戏产业成熟发展的第三十个年头，而游戏设计已然成为一门让人们能够关注并深刻理解的学科了。所以设计者和设计爱好者是时候去摆脱那些听起来有趣但却没有实践价值的设计论述了。他们应该改变这些论述并完善游戏设计的相关教育。

解决方法是什么？我们要如何判断设计讨论是否可行有效而非只是纯粹的理论意义？

与其它学科的解决方法一样：提供情境。在游戏中有两种定义情境的方法：平台和体验。

Game experience on Android platform(from neotablets.com)

平台

如果脱离了平台，游戏便只能存在于我们的想象中。所以只要游戏锁定了玩家为目标，那么它便需要一个安置平台。

平台可以多种多样。我首先想到的便是掌机（游戏邦注：如Wii，Xbox 360，Playstation 3），Facebook游戏，PC/Mac，iPad或iPhone。除此之外还有许多平台可以被加以利用：

桌面游戏可以使用卡片，骰子，桥牌以及折叠牌。一些桌面游戏如《Scene-It》便包含了真实的桥牌，卡片以及电视，以此扩展了游戏平台

实境拟真游戏是我最喜欢的一种游戏类型，因为它们总是能最大限度地利用平台。它们不仅使用了涂鸦，网站，电子邮件，还使用了真实世界中的信号和编码。

Game Shows就是一个游戏平台，它不仅拥有很多竞争者，同时也拥有越来越多的用户，让用户能够通过手机为自己喜欢的游戏投票。

还有就是现实生活中的运动

针对于这些不同的平台进行游戏设计也应该趋于多样化，就像我们在前文中提到的运动，知道我们所讨论的东西是属于哪个平台是必须的且有意义的。“玩家喜欢与好友一起游戏。”这虽然适用于社交游戏，但却不适用于PS3单人游戏。“你必须确保玩家能够不断得到赞扬”这点也许对于Wii的休闲游戏来说是合理的，但是对于电脑上的硬核独立游戏（即玩家通过不断应对挑战而发展）却没有太大意义。

所有的这些例子，甚至是那些不依赖于平台的案例也可以被当成是游戏，能够提供给玩家交互式体验的游戏，我们也可以利用它们来讨论游戏设计的相关问题。但是只有明确了它们所属的平台，这种讨论才具有意义。你可以做个比较，“虽然一款PS3游戏也可以具有社交性，”但是为什么我们要在游戏中安插心理问题而让玩家感受到一种情景变迁呢？只要我们能够明确定义我所讨论的平台，我们便可以利用一些有用的技巧而创造出一个特殊的界限。

平台是推动合理设计讨论的第一部分。如果再加上第二部分，任何无意义的设计讨论都将焕然一新了。

体验

关于情境的第二部分便是游戏力图去创造的体验。游戏有目标，而且它们也一直在努力实现这些目标。横向卷轴游戏设计试图让玩家能够按压按钮并从始至终享受游戏体验。Facebook社交游戏希望玩家能够每天登录游戏并邀请好友一起游戏。桌面游戏则希望玩家能在游戏中竞争，大笑并为了胜利而努力。

如果缺少了对于这些体验的定义，那么再去说游戏中何为有意义何为无意义又有何用？例如，一款子弹射击游戏可以通过添加一些厉害的敌人，而加深游戏的难度，让玩家对游戏更加充满乐趣。对于有些游戏来说这么做是适合的。但是对于那些用来舒缓玩家压力的游戏，如《flOw》，这些建议是否同样适用？可以说同样一个设计建议并不能同样适用于不同的游戏体验。

体验有多种多样，很多游戏开始慢慢把握它们了：

“持久性”，你与机器的对抗（《Bullet Hell》，《Side Scrollers》）

竞争（《星际争霸》）

认真思考问题并想出解决方法（《Lolo》，《Panda Poet》）

体验经典的爱情故事（《Love Plus》）

进行动作冒险（《神秘海域》）

建立并创造（《我的世界》）

描述虚拟人物的虚拟故事（《模拟人生》）

说了这么多，可以看出体验是推动游戏设计的重要因素。任何游戏决策都是基于玩家对游戏体验的评价。这么做是否有效？那是当然了！

理解了游戏所追求的体验，便能够帮助我们更好地评估游戏中所使用的技巧以及该技巧在其它游戏中的表现。否则，你根本不可能去判断什么有用或者什么更有趣。

推动有益的讨论

“在游戏中添加更多复杂的组合而让游戏更具有深度。”你这是想表达什么？这一点都不适合我的iPhone横向卷轴游戏！哦，原来你指的是掌机上的打斗类硬核游戏！那这个建议真不错！

“平衡同样模式的几何学和独特模式能够让整个世界看起来更加广阔、自由。”这意味着什么？啊，这是针对电脑上的探索类游戏而言。也不适用于我所制作的游戏，但是它听起来却蛮有意义。

如果缺少了对于体验和平台的理解，我们根本谈不上设计了。当然了，你有可能认为这样做也很有趣，但是这却没有一点儿意义。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Game Design’s Prerequisites: Platform and Experience

by Brice Morrison

Game Design needs stakes in the ground.  Without context, discussion is meaningless.

Imagine the following: you’re talking to someone who is an athlete, and they say to you, “One thing you can do in sports is to make quick steps from left to right.”  What do you get out of this?

Well, you would probably think to yourself, “Hmm, that sounds like a good idea,” and nod.  But hold on a minute.  This advice isn’t applicable at all.  What sport are you talking about?  Baseball?  Football?  Hockey?  And not only that, when do you perform these so-called quick steps?  When you’re warming up?  When you’re going in for a goal?  When you’re on defense?  Without knowing the context specifically, it’s useless.

Or imagine another scenario: You’re talking to an artist, and out of the blue they tell you, “A lot of times it can really help to use a wide variety of colors.”

This has the same problem.  When do you want to use a wide variety of colors?  In a comic book?  On a banner ad?  How about a storyboard for a film noir?  What about a sculpture or a costume in a play?  This information is critical.  The discipline of art is too broad to give out vague advice.  While it sounds interesting, it isn’t applicable.

Game design often has this problem.  I believe that Game Design is the most advanced art form there is, the art form of the 21st century.  Instead of creating with paint or clay, game designers create with human experiences.  Instead of being constrained to a canvas or a computer screen, game designers perform their work on PC’s, controllers, boards and cards, physical movements, and the real world.

But in the same way as the examples above, game design is useless without any context.  This isn’t some shortcoming of the discipline; it’s a fact of any discipline.  The only difference is that game design is so new that many people haven’t outgrown the tendency to discuss for fun instead of discussing for practicality.  Many times game design is described in these floaty, academic, theoretical terms.  People have interesting things to say, but they are often struggling to find applicable things to say.

I’m guilty of this sometimes too.  But the time has come.  The game industry has matured for 30 years, and game design as a discipline is at a point where people should be able to latch on to ideas and understand them completely.  Gone are the days when designers and design enthusiasts should be able to get away with design discussions that sound “interesting” but can’t be applied.  The discourse should be changed and the education improved.

What is the solution to this?  How can we make sure that design discussions are practical and useful, instead of lofty and theoretical?

In the same way that other disciplines and subjects do: provide context.  And in games, there are two main ways to define context: The Platform and The Experience.

The Platform

The only place that games exist without a platform is in our minds when it’s being imagined.  But once a game is to be played by others, it requires a platform.

A platform can be almost anything.  The first ones that come to mind are ones like consoles (Wii, Xbox 360, Playstation 3), Facebook games, PC/Mac, iPad or iPhone.  But there are endless other platforms out there:

Board games use cards, dice, board pieces and fold out boards.  Some board games like Scene-It incorporate both a physical board, cards, and television, expanding the platform

Alternate Reality Games are a particular favorite of mine because they know no bounds in their use of their platform.  They’ll use graffiti, websites, emails, real-world signals and codes

Game Shows are game platforms that obviously involve their contestants, but are also increasingly including the audience, allowing them to vote for winners by phone

And of course, real-world sports

Designs for these different platforms vary wildly, and just like the sport that’s being played in the beginning example, knowing what platform the discussion is about is necessary to being able to say anything meaningful.  ”Players like to play along with their friends.”  This may be true for a social game, but not necessarily for a single-player PS3 game where players are having a solo experience.  ”You want to make sure players are being fed praise constantly”.  This may be true for a Wii casual title, but probably not for a PC hardcore indie title, where players thrive on challenge.

All of these examples, even the ones that aren’t on platforms normally thought of as games, are providing an interactive experience for players.  They are worthy of discussion and discourse of game design.  But only after defining the platform can the discussion be valuable.  Sure, you can make some comparisons, “Well a PS3 game can be social too,” but why go through to mental trouble to make that leap?  By defining what platform we’re talking about, you create boundaries for useful techniques to be made and compared.

Platform is the first part of being able to have a decent design discussion.  When paired with its second counterpart, useless design discussions are stopped in their tracks.

The Experience

The second part of the context is the experience that the game is trying to create.  Games have a goal, something that they are trying to make happen.  A side scroller is trying to get players to press buttons and enjoy themselves all the way to the end.  A Facebook social title is trying to get players to enjoy logging in every day and inviting their friends.  A board game is trying to get players to compete, laugh, and enjoy themselves as they fight for the win.

Without defining the experience the game is trying to make, it’s of no use to say what did or didn’t work in any given game.  For example, a bullet-hell shooter game can say that it was able to keep players happy for longer by adding super-forms to the bosses, which doubles the difficulty.  And this may be true for some of those games.  But do you think that advice is going to be helpful to a game like flOw, which seeks to give a soothing experience to players?  That design advice would be counter productive because the intended experience is completely different.

There are many different kinds of experiences, many of which games as a medium are just beginning to scratch the surface of:

“Endurance”; you versus the machine (Bullet Hell, Side Scrollers)

Competition (Starcraft)

Think hard about a puzzle, and then come up with the solution (Lolo, Panda Poet)

Experience a classic love story (Love Plus)

Go on an action packed adventure (Uncharted)

Build and create (Minecraft)

Tell stories of virtual people (Sims)

As we’ve discussed in length on the site, the Experience is what drives the game design.  Any game decision that is made is measured against the Experience it is trying to evoke in the player.  Does it do it effectively?  If not, then why is it there?

By understanding the experience that a particular game is shooting for, it makes it possible to evaluate techniques used in the game for other uses in other games.  Otherwise, there is no way to tell what is useful and what just sounds interesting.

Drive Towards Useful Discussion

“Adding hundreds of complex combos to a game allows for great depth.”  What are you talking about?  That wouldn’t work for my whimsical iPhone side-scroller at all!  Oh, you’re talking about hardcore fighting games on a console.  Great advice!

“Making a good balance of cookie-cutter level geometry and unique models makes the world feel huge and free.”  What’s that for?  Ah, an exploration game for the PC.  Doesn’t apply to what I’m working on but it makes sense.

Design should never be discussed without understanding the Experience and the Platform.  Sure, it will be interesting, but it won’t be applicable.（source:thegameprodigy）