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

游戏设计理念之最大限度简化操作系统

发布时间:2011-10-21 10:02:42 Tags:,,,

作者:Brice Morrison

爱因斯坦曾说过:“事情要尽可能简单,而不只是简单些。”虽然游戏和软件行业距爱因斯坦年代已有几十年之遥,但其理念依然适用于今天的游戏设计。

我对《Faraway》这款游戏很感兴趣。游戏出自Steph Thirion之手,所呈现的核心体验是在天空优雅飞翔。玩家在群星中飞翔,通过点击按键徘徊于最近的星星周遭,然后飞到自己想去的地方。玩家会不时停留于星群中,获得绘图的机会。通过连接圆点,绘制图形,玩家从中获得积分及更多时间。游戏非常简短,时间耗尽后便结束。

游戏的有趣之处在于其通过一个按键呈现体验内容。这不是什么新模式,但这不禁让人想起一个重要设计话题:游戏控制装置应多简单?

简单控制装置的效果

运用简单控制装置的游戏(游戏邦注:如《Faraway》)能让玩家锁定广泛内容,而从创造强有力的体验。由于玩家无需考虑各种控制装置、按键、目标及其他费神的事项,他们可以全心专注于某按键,单个操作。在《Faraway》中,玩家只专注于在空中行走,再无其他。

这并不是说融入很多按键或功能不好,但这会分散玩家的注意力。简短但强大的体验可通过有所侧重及有限选择实轻松现。

在许多人看来,这似乎有违直觉,尤其是对游戏工程师而言。若游戏能够进行A内容和B内容,那么同时包含C内容不是更好?表面看似乎如此,但带来更好效果的情况很少见。若你的游戏能够实现A、B和C内容,那么你就有可能流失那些只喜欢A内容的用户,他们会转投其他在A内容上表现更突出的作品。若你只有3周开发时间,你就无法将3周时间集中于制作A和B内容,进行合理优化,而得将3周时间分散于制作这3块内容。

这只能创造平凡内容。我并不是说所有游戏都应只设置一个按键,只有设置一个按键的游戏才能体现有所侧重的效用。但集中完善某内容、某控制机制能够让游戏表现突出。

Canabalt from thegameprodigy.com

Canabalt from thegameprodigy.com

《屋顶狂奔》是另一使用单个按键的游戏。单按键控制装置和单基础机制能让玩家瞄准单个操作:跳跃。角色自行奔跑,碰到障碍时会放慢速度,在空旷领域时会加速。玩家只需思考如何生存。

也是出于这个原因,《屋顶狂奔》才如此受欢迎。玩家不会受到控制装置的牵绊,也不会受到其他内容的干扰,因此能够完全沉浸游戏中。《Faraway》和《屋顶狂奔》都限制玩家的输入操作,令他们专注于游戏体验。《屋顶狂奔》的核心体验是惊心动魄的生存之战,《Faraway》的则是漫无目标的游荡。

简化非易事

制作简单体验的首个障碍是抑制添加更多内容的欲望。但即便已决定制作简单游戏,中间还是会出现许多阻碍。由于游戏及其机制越来越复杂,玩家越来越老练,保持界面简单性变得越发困难。当然制作《Faraway》这样控制装置有限,强化焦点的1分钟游戏不是难事。但对更大型的游戏设计机制来说,这个任务则是说起来容易做起来难。

任天堂传奇设计师宫本茂曾在评论Wii时表示,他们希望保持简单性,所以他们去掉传统掌机的许多按键。但简化按键带来许多设计挑战,特别是对《超级马里奥银河》和《萨尔达传说:黎明公主》这样复杂的游戏来说。有时他们会希望重新设回这些按键!

这个理念在游戏和软件开发领域并不陌生。随着游戏机制的日益复杂化,保持简化的任务就变得越发艰巨。早期电脑操作系统只有几千行代码。而如今的Mac OS编码则有上百万行,主要用于存储管理、数据检索及其他用户不关心的事项,所以系统便能向用户呈现简单内容。点击确认按键,内容便开始运作。但其内部机制要复杂许多(游戏邦注:谷歌呈现许多单一文本框和按键,但其内部系统非常庞大)。

Simplicity Effort from thegameprodigy.com

Simplicity Effort from thegameprodigy.com

这是否会令简化目标失去价值?当然不会;在如今干扰内容成千上万的世界中,玩家没有时间学习设计糟糕的机制。明智设计师深知通俗控制装置就像爱因斯坦说得那样,“要尽可能简单,而不只是简单些。”

开发者可通过系列方式将此理念运用至其作品中。首先若你决定制作包含众多组合、刻度和数值的大型或复杂游戏,需清楚简化游戏的难度很大。其次,若你打算制作简单而集中的游戏体验,那么1、2个按键就已足够。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,拒绝任何不保留版权的转载,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

Game Design IGF Nominee “Faraway” Shows Simpler is Better

by Brice Morrison

Albert Einstein is famously quoted as saying that “Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.”  While game and software industries were decades away by the time Einstein passed away, his words still ring true with today’s game titles.

The 13th Independent Game’s Festival finalists were announced today, and one of the titles, Faraway, caught my eye.  The game is a title from Steph Thirion and delivers the Core Experience of floating elegantly through the sky.  The player flies around the stars, using the button press to loop around the nearest star and thus direct where they want to go.  Every once in a while the player will land inside of a constellation and be given a chance to draw.  By connecting the dots and creating shapes and figures, the player earns points and more time.  The game is short, ending simply when time runs out.

The interesting thing about the game is that it uses only one button to effectively deliver its experience.  This isn’t by any means the first time this has been done, but it does bring up a great opportunity to talk about an important design topic: how simple should controls to a game be?

Effects of Extremely Simple Controls

Games that use extremely simple controls, such as Faraway, are able to help the player focus an incredible amount and thus are often able to deliver very potent experiences.  Since the player isn’t worrying about multiple controls, buttons, goals, or any other other things that can weigh a player’s mind down, they are concentrating entirely on their one button press, their one action.  In Faraway the player is focusing only on the elegance of moving around the sky, nothing more.

This isn’t to say that more buttons or more features is bad, but they do divide the player’s attention among different parts of the game.  Strong experiences, though short, are easier to attain with focus and limited choice.

This seems counterintuitive to many people, often especially game engineers (I have an engineering background, so I’ve been there).  If a game can do A and B, wouldn’t it be better to have it also do C?  It would seem so, however, having it actually be better is very rarely the case.  If your game does A, B, and C, you run the risk of players who are only interested in A leaving your game to play another game that does A better.  Or, if you only have three weeks of development time, you just lost your chance to spend three weeks on A and B to make them incredible, instead opting to split your development time between all three.

That’s a recipe for mediocrity.  I’m not saying all games should use only one button, only that using one button is a great illustration of the power of focus.  Focus on getting the one thing right, one control mechanism, and your game will soar.

Canabalt is another title that uses only one button.  Again here, the game controls of a single button, a single Base Mechanic, allowed players to focus on solely one action: jumping.  The character runs on their own, slows down when hitting blocks, and speeds up when given an open area.  All the player thinks about is surviving.

This is the same reason that Canabalt is so compelling.  By making it impossible for the player to trip up on the controls, and also making it impossible to get distracted by anything else, the player is sucked into the game.  Both Faraway and Canabalt limit the player’s input to focus the experience.  In Canabalt it’s heart-pounding survival, in Faraway it’s floating aimlessly.

Simple is, Ironically, Difficult

The first hurdle to making a delightfully simple experience is limiting the impulse to want to add more.  But even after deciding to make the game simpler, more obstacles stand in the way.  As games and systems grow more complex and players become more skilled, keeping the interface simple grows more difficulty.  Sure, it’s easy to make 1-minute games like Faraway that use limited controls, reaping the benefits of employing focus.  However for larger game design systems, the task is much easier said than done.

Shigeru Miyamoto, the legendary Nintendo Designer, has said in commenting on the Wii that they wanted it to be simple, so they took away a lot of the buttons that were on traditional game controller, such as their Gamecube controller.  However, making the buttons so few posed lots of design challenges, especially for more complex games like Super Mario Galaxy or Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess.  At times, they wishes that they could have the buttons back!

This is a concept familiar not just to games, but to software development in general.  As the complexity of systems grows, the complexity of the task of keeping it simple for the user also grows.  Early computer operating systems had only a few thousand lines of code.  Now today’s Mac OS has millions and millions of lines of code, all dedicated on focusing on memory management, data retrieval, and all these other things that people don’t care about so that it can present them with something that is simple.  Hit the go button and it goes.  But underneath, it is much more complicated.  Google provides the luxury of a single text box and button, but the system underneath is massive.

Does this make the goal of simplicity not worth it?  Certainly not; in today’s world of millions of distractions, players don’t have time to learn systems that are poorly designed.  Strong Game Designers understand the need for easily understandable presentation controls that are, as Einstein said, “As simple as possible, but no simpler.”

Developers can apply this concept to their own games in a few ways.  First, if you decide to make a large game or a complex game, with lots of combos, meters, and stats, realize that the challenge of making it simple to understand is going to be immense.  Second, if you realize that you want to hone your game in on a short, focused experience, then perhaps just one or two buttons will be all you need.(Source:thegameprodigy


上一篇:

下一篇: