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

游戏设计课程之游戏的正式元素(3)

发布时间:2011-10-31 14:54:51 Tags:,,,,,

作者:Ian Schreiber

我希望本课程能够解析以下问题:我们需要通过讨论游戏的组成部分和它们相互配合方式这种方法来解析游戏。这种方法在讨论其他人游戏的时候很有用(游戏邦注:比如,如果更多的游戏评论员可以正确地采用这种做法,会得到很棒的结果),但是在设计我们自己的游戏时这种方法同样有用。毕竟,如果你不知道这些不同的部分如何组合起来,你如何能够设计出一款游戏呢?(请点击此处阅读系列第1第2第4第5第6、第7、第8、第9第10第11第12第13第14第15、第16、第17第18课程内容

读物告示

本文要涉及到的读物是Doug Church的《Formal Abstract Design Tools》。我想提些有关这篇文章的东西。首先,他提到了游戏中的三个层面值得在设计中考虑:

1、玩家意图的定义是玩家规划和执行自己的计划及目标的能力。在本课程随后的内容中,我们还会阐述这方面的内容,但是现在要先让你明白,在许多游戏中这个层面很重要,可以让玩家形成行动计划。

2、可察觉后果在该文章中的定义是游戏对玩家行动的清晰回应。这里的“清晰”是很重要的,如果游戏做出了回应但是你不知道游戏的状态已经发生了何种改变,那么你可能很难将你的行动同这些行动的结果联系起来。我想指出的是,“可察觉后果”有个更常见的名称:反馈。

3、故事指的是游戏的叙事线路。应当注意的是,游戏可能包含两个不同类型的故事:内在故事(游戏邦注:由设计师创造)和表面故事(游戏邦注:由玩家创造)。比如,当你告诉好友近期玩的某款游戏以及在玩游戏过程中经历的事情:“我控制了整个非洲,但是还是无法将蓝方赶出扎伊尔。”,这时发生的便是表面故事。内在故事便是我们通常认为的游戏的“叙事”,比如“你扮演着某个勇敢的骑士,在邪恶巫师的城堡中探险。”。Doug的观点是,内在故事与意图和结果相对立,也就是说,游戏的内在故事越强,玩家对游戏结果的影响就越小。当Costikyan表示游戏并非故事时,我认为Doug更好地阐述了Costikyan的看法。

这里我将距离说明为何玩家意图和可察觉后果很重要。考虑以下情况:你正在玩一款第一人称射击游戏。你走向一面墙,上面有个开关。你拨弄开关。什么都没有发生。但是,事实上发生了某些事情,但是游戏没有给你提供任何发生某些事情的迹象。或许是关卡中某个地方的一扇门开启。或许你只是将大量的怪物释放到这片区域中,只要你离开目前所处的房间就会碰上它们。或许有一系列的开关,它们必须形成某种开启和关闭组合(游戏邦注:或者他们需要以正确的顺序来触发)才能够打开过关的路径。但是所有这些你都无从知晓,因而你会产生挫败感,现在你必须彻底搜索已经到过的所有地方,只是为了看看拨动开关是否产生了某种效果。

要如何解决这个问题呢?添加更好的反馈。一种方法是想玩家提供地图,当开关被拉动时在地图上向他们呈现发生变化的区域。或者,用简短的过场动画展示某个地方的门开启。我想你应当还能想出更多的其他方法。

Doug在文章末尾的有趣评注中还提到了另一个主题,那就是他对游戏测试的评价。这是该文章中有关迭代设计的部分,这正是我们所讨论的话题。

现在,我确信这个评注有点开玩笑的成分,但是我们可以发现其中潜藏的价值。这篇文章中有个小错误:你只有通读整篇文章时才能够看到评注,而这时再采取做法已经为时过晚。如果Doug想要重新规划自己的设计,你会给他提怎样的建议呢?

游戏质量

我曾在之前的文章中坚持认为关键词汇很重要,同时我又不断地声称完全定义“游戏”这个词是不可能的。让我们先解开这个貌似真实的矛盾。

如果快速浏览下我之前列举的那些定义,就可分离出可能适用于游戏每个定义的特性。我们可以在其中看到某些不断出现的要旨:游戏有规则、冲突、目标、决策和不确定的结果。游戏是活动,它们是人为的、安全的和外在的普通生活,它们是义务无偿的,它们包含伪装、呈现和模拟元素,它们的效率很低,它们是艺术,它们是封闭式的系统。花点时间想想,还有许多所有游戏共有的东西。这为我们认识各游戏机制提供了出发点。

我将这些元素称为“正式元素”,并不是因为它们同穿正装和打领带有什么联系,而是因为他们在数学和科学上显得“正式”,是些可以明确定义的东西。这些内容可以被视为“原子”,因为这些是游戏的最小组成部分,可以被分离出来独立研究。

什么是游戏的原子元素?

这取决于你询问何人。我见过许多种分类方案。就像“游戏”的定义一样,所有的方案都不完美,但是通过对这些内容的研究,我们可以发现某些新的要旨。如果我们有制作游戏的计划,这些新的结果就可以让我们这些游戏设计师需要创造的东西得到提升。

以下内容中有些属于游戏的部分内容,有些是设计师在研究这些原子时需要考虑的东西。

玩家

游戏支持多少个玩家?玩家的数量是固定的(比如是能有4个玩家),还是可变动的(比如玩家数可以是2到5个)?玩家能否在游戏过程中加入或离开?这会对游戏产生何种影响?

玩家间是什么关系,是团队合作还是独自作战?团队之间是否可能有差异?以下是某些玩家结构范例,但并非只有这些:

klondike-solitaire(from androidapproundup.com)

klondike-solitaire(from androidapproundup.com)

1、单人(1个玩家 VS 游戏系统)。范例包括纸牌游戏《Klondike》(游戏邦注:有时就称为“单人纸牌游戏”)和电子游戏《扫雷》。

2、单对单(1个玩家 VS 1个玩家)。象棋和《Go》是典型的范例。

3、PVE(多个玩家 VS 游戏系统)。这种形式在《魔兽世界》等MMO游戏中很常见。也有些纯合作桌游,比如Knizia的《指环王》、《魔镇惊魂》和《瘟疫危机》。

4、单对多(1个玩家 VS 多个玩家)。桌游《苏格兰场》便是此类结果的绝佳例证,单个玩家需要对付整个侦探团队。

5、自由混战(1个玩家 VS 1个玩家 VS 1个玩家VS…)。这可能是多人游戏采用的最普遍的玩家结果,到处都可以看到,从《大富翁》之类的桌游到多数第一人称射击电子游戏中的“多人死亡竞赛”。

6、独立个人对系统(1个玩家 VS 一系列其他玩家)。赌场游戏《黑杰克》便是例证,游戏中的“庄家”是个单独的玩家,对阵许多其他的玩家,但是他所对阵的玩家之间互不干涉且毫无联系。

7、团队竞赛(多个玩家 VS 多个玩家 VS 多个玩家 VS…)。这也是中常见的结构,使用于多数团队运动、桥牌和《黑桃王》等纸牌游戏、第一人称射击游戏中“夺取旗帜”模式等基于团队的在线游戏和许多其他游戏。

8、捕食者和猎物循环。玩家围成一个真实或虚拟的圈。每个人的目标都是攻击左边的玩家,防御来自右边玩家的攻击。游戏《暗杀》和卡片交易游戏《Vampire: the Eternal Struggle》使用的都是这种结构。

9、五角星。我首次看到这种结构是5人《万智牌》的变体。玩家的目标是消灭并非属于己方的两个玩家。

目标

游戏的目标是什么?玩家努力实现什么?在设计游戏时,如果你遇到麻烦不知道从何下手的话,这通常是你可以提出的首批问题之一。一旦你明确了目标,许多其他的正式元素似乎就会自然浮现眼前。以下是某些常见的目标(游戏邦注:同样,并非所有种类的游戏目标):

1、捕捉/摧毁。消灭游戏中对手的所有单位。象棋和军旗是为人所熟知的范例,你必须消灭所有敌方的棋子才能获得胜利。

2、领地控制。玩家的专注点不一定是摧毁对手,也可以是控制棋盘上的某些区域。《大战役》和《强权外交》便是范例。

3、收集。卡片游戏《Rummy》及其变体的胜利条件是收集套卡。《种豆子》中需要玩家收集各种豆子。许多平台游戏(游戏邦注:比如《Spyro》系列)包括某些玩家需要收集特定数量的分散物品才能通过的关卡。

4、解决问题。桌游《妙探寻凶》便是此类游戏的范例,游戏的目标是解决谜题。鲜为人知但更为有趣的范例包括《魔幻城堡》和《Sleuth》。

5、追捕/竞速/逃跑。通常来说,在此类游戏中你必须奔向或者逃开某些东西,比如娱乐场游戏《Tag》和电子游戏《超级马里奥兄弟》。

6、空间排布。许多游戏以元素布置为目标,包括非数字化游戏《Tic-Tac-Toe》和《Pente》以及电子游戏《俄罗斯方块》。

7、建设。“摧毁”的反方向,你的目标是将自己的角色提高或资源建设到某种程度。《模拟人生》采用的便是这种元素,桌游《卡坦岛》也是如此。

8、其他目标的反面。在某些游戏中,当一名玩家采取了游戏规则禁止的做法,游戏结束,这名玩家便是输家。范例包括肢体灵活游戏《Twister》和《层层叠》。

settlers-of-catan(from appadvice.com)

settlers-of-catan(from appadvice.com)

规则(机制)

我们曾经提到过,规则有三种不同的类别:设定(游戏开始之初就做完的事情)、游戏过程(游戏期间发生的事情)和决定(导致游戏结束的条件以及基于游戏状况决定结果的方法)。

有些规则是自动的,它们在游戏的某个时刻被触发,与玩家的选择或互动无关(游戏邦注:比如“在回合开始时抽取一张卡片”或“计时奖励分数每秒减少100点”)。其他的规则决定了玩家可以在游戏中做出的选择或采取的行动,以及这些行动对游戏状态的影响。

让我们再进一步挖掘。Salen和Zimmerman的《Rules of Play》将规则分为三种类型,包括操作规则、建构规则和暗示规则(游戏邦注:这些并非行业内的标准属于,因而在这里概念比术语更加重要)。为阐述其中的概念,我们以《Tic-Tac-Toe》的规则为例:

1、玩家:两名

2、设定:绘制3X3的格子。选择一名玩家先画X,他的对手画O。

3、游戏过程:到你的回合时,使用自己的标志来标记某个空白的地方。随后轮到对手采取同样的做法。

4、决定:如果你的3个标志连成一条线(游戏邦注:包括直线或对角线),你就获得了胜利。如果棋盘被填满而且无胜利者,这便是一场平局。

这些便是《Rules of Play》中所谓的“操作规则”。思考片刻,这些是游戏中仅有的规则吗?

乍看之下,似乎便是如此。但是假如我认识到自己即将失败,拒绝在自己的回合中展开行动,那又如何呢?规则中并没有明确的时间限制,所以我可以无限期地拖延以避免失败,此举并没有违反游戏的“规则”。但是,在现实的游戏中,会暗中规定合理的时间限制。这并非游戏的正式规则(即操作规则),但是仍属于《Rules of Play》中所述“暗示规则”的部分。这里的要点在于,玩家在玩游戏时会达成某些不成文的社交契约,这些内容尽管并未特别说明,但仍然可以为玩家双方所理解。

即便是游戏中的正是规则也包含两个层面。3X3棋盘和“X”及“O”标志是这款游戏的特别之处,但是你可以将它们抛弃。可以将棋盘重新构建成1到9的范围,将空间连线转变成其他的数学特性,你就可以获得《Three-to-Fifteen》。尽管《Tic-Tac-Toe》和《Three-to-Fifteen》有着不同的操作方式和外观,但是潜在的抽象规则是相同的。当我们提及“规则”时通常不会考虑到这些抽象术语,但是它们确实存在于游戏的外表之下。《Rules of Play》将这些称为“建构规则”。

区别这三种类型的规则有用吗?我觉得知道这些内容很重要,有两个原因:

“操作规则”和“建构规则”间的差异可以帮助我们理解为何某款游戏与其他游戏相比会显得有趣。经典街机游戏《Gauntlet》的游戏玩法同第一人称射击游戏《毁灭战士》极为相像,最大的差异就在于镜头位置的不同。对于那些玩现代桌游的人来说,《波多黎各》和《银河竞逐》也极为相似。这种相似度可能不会立即显现出来,因为游戏的外观看上去有很大差别,你需要考虑到游戏状况和规则才能够发现其中的相似之处。

许多第一人称射击游戏包含有一个规则,那就是当玩家被杀死之后,他们会在特定的已知地点重生。其他的玩家可以站在那个地点附近杀死任何重生的玩家,他们根本没有做出反应的机会。这便是所谓的“复活杀戮”,为众多玩家所诟病。复活杀戮是否属于游戏的一部分(因为这并没有触犯规则)?这是种优秀的战略还是作弊行为?这取决于你问的人,因为它属于游戏中的“暗示规则”。当两个玩家在不同的暗示规则下操作时,你会最终发现某个玩家控告另一个玩家作弊,而另一个玩家会狡辩称他们并没有触犯游戏规则,妨碍他们取得胜利的努力是不合理的行为。这里的经验就是,游戏设计师精确定义尽可能多的此类规则很重要,以避免游戏过程中的规则争辩。

资源和资源管理

“资源”是个广义的类别,我用他来指代所有处于玩家控制之下的东西。很显然这包括某些具体的资源(游戏邦注:《卡坦岛》中的树木和麦子,《魔兽世界》中的生命值、魔法值和货币),但是资源也包含其他处于玩家控制之下的东西:

1、《大战役》中的领土

2、《Twenty Questions》中的剩余问题数量

3、电子游戏中可以被拾取的物品(武器和升级道具)

4、时间(游戏时间或现实时间)

5、知晓的信息(《妙探追凶》中你已经排除的嫌疑犯数量)

玩家控制的是何种类型的资源?在游戏过程中如何对这些资源进行操作?这是游戏设计师必须清晰定义的东西。

游戏状态

Texas Hold'em(from itunes.apple.com)

Texas Hold'em(from itunes.apple.com)

某些“资源类”的东西并不属于单个玩家,但是仍然属于游戏的一部分,比如《大富翁》中的无主地产和《德克萨斯扑克》中的公牌。游戏中的所有东西,包括当前的玩家资源和所有其他的东西,这些东西所构成的游戏在某个时刻的状况就是所谓的游戏状况。

在桌游中,精确定义游戏状况不总是必要的,但是有时思考这个方面很有用。归根到底,规则的含义就是游戏从一种游戏状况过渡到另一种游戏状况所采用的方法。

在电子游戏中,必须有人定义游戏状况,因为它包括所有电脑必须追踪的数据。通常情况下,这个任务会落到程序员身上,但是如果游戏设计师能够清晰地定义整个游戏状况,可以很大地改善编程团队对游戏的理解。

信息

每个玩家可以看到多少游戏状况?改变玩家可以触及的信息数量会对游戏产生很大的影响,即便所有其他的正式元素都维持不变。以下是某些游戏中使用的信息结构:

1、有些游戏会提供全部信息,所有的玩家可以在任何时刻看到全部的游戏状况。经典桌游象棋和《Go》便是范例。

2、游戏包含某些每个玩家独有的信息。在扑克和其他卡片游戏中,每个玩家都有一手只有他们自己能够看到的牌。

3、一个玩家可以拥有自己的保密信息,但是其他玩家不能。这通常出现在一对多的玩家结构中,比如《苏格兰场》。

4、游戏本身包含某些所有玩家都无从知晓的信息。《妙探追凶》和《Sleuth》的胜利条件是玩家发现游戏中的隐藏信息。

5、这些方式的结合。许多即时战略电脑游戏设置有“战争迷雾”,向所有玩家隐藏地图上的某些地方,直到他们派某个单位到底视野范围才能看到。因而,有些信息是向所有玩家隐藏的。除此之外,玩家不能看其他人的屏幕,因而每个玩家都不会知道对手的信息,自己的信息也不会被对手所知晓。

顺序

玩家以何种顺序来采取行动?游戏如何从一个行动流向另一个行动?根据所使用的回合结构不同,游戏的运行方式也有所不同:

1、有些游戏是纯粹的回合制:在游戏中的任何时刻,只有1个玩家在自己的“回合”内采取行动。当他们结束之后,回合转向其他玩家。多数经典桌游和回合制战略游戏都采用这种方法。

2、有些游戏基于回合制,但是有同时进行的玩法(游戏邦注:每个人同时在回合内采取行动,通常是写下他们的行动或者将行动卡片面朝下盖着然后同时翻开)。桌游《强权外交》采用的就是这个机制。还有个有趣的象棋变体游戏,同时写下他们回合内的行动然后翻开,在同个回合进入相同格子的双方棋子都算死亡,这增添了游戏的紧张感。

强权外交(from rankopedia.com)

强权外交(from rankopedia.com)

3、有些游戏是即时性的,玩家以尽量快的速度开展行动。多数面向动作类的电子游戏都采用这种方法,但是某些非数字化游戏(游戏邦注:比如卡片游戏《Spit》和《Speed》)也采用这种方法。

4、其他变体。对于基于回合的游戏而言,玩家要以何种顺序来轮流行动呢?以顺时针方向轮流采取行动是普遍的做法。以顺时针顺序随后跳过首个采取行动的玩家以减少先手优势也是在许多现代桌游中采用的改良方法。我也见过某些随机决定回合顺序的游戏,或者玩家支付其他游戏中的资源来获得先手或最后行动的特权,或者根据玩家的地位来决定回合顺序(游戏邦注:比如目前胜利的玩家最先或最后行动)。

5、回合制游戏可以被进一步修正,比如加入明确的时间限制,或其他形式的时间压力。

玩家互动

游戏的这个层面经常被忽略,但是却是值得考虑的方面。玩家如何同其他人互动?他们如何影响其他人?以下是某些玩家互动的范例:

1、直接冲突(我攻击你)

2、谈判(如果你支持我进入黑海,下个回合我会帮你进入开罗)

3、交易(我用木材换取你的麦子)

4、信息共享(我上个回合看过那篇被覆盖的区域,如果你进入就会触发陷阱)

主题(或叙事、背景故事及场景)

对职业故事作者来说,以上术语的含义之间有明显的差别,但是对于我们而言,它们可以互换,都是指游戏中完全不直接影响游戏玩法的部分。

如果这些内容与游戏玩法无关,那么为何要设置这些内容呢?主要原因有两个。首先,场景提供了游戏的情感连接。我发现自己对象棋棋盘上卒的关注并不像自己对《龙与地下城》中的角色关注那样深。虽然这不一定能够让一款游戏比另一款游戏更好,但是确实可以更容易地让玩家在游戏中投入情感。

第二个原因是,精心选择的主题能够让游戏学习和玩起来更加容易,因为规则更易于理解。象棋中棋子的移动规则与主题毫无相关,因而学习象棋的玩家必须死记这些规则。相比之下,桌游《波多黎各》中的角色与他们的游戏功能都存在联系:建筑工人可以帮助你建造建筑物,市长可以招募新定居者等。游戏中多数的行动都很容易记住,因为它们同游戏的主题存在某些联系。

波多黎各-iOS(from boardgamegeek.com)

波多黎各-iOS(from boardgamegeek.com)

游戏系统

对于这些正是元素,我希望你能够注意两点。

第一,如果你改变任意一个正式元素,可能产生出差异极大的游戏。游戏中的每个正式元素都深层次地影响玩家体验。在设计游戏时,思考所有的这些元素,确保每个都做出慎重的选择。

第二,注意到这些元素是相互关联的,改变其中一个可能会影响其他元素。规则控制游戏状况的改变。信息有时会变成资源。顺序可能产生不同类型的玩家互动。改变玩家数量可能影响游戏的目标。

正因为这些部分之间相互关联的本质,你可以将任何游戏当成系统来构建。词典对词语“系统”的释义之一是:将事物各部分结合起来形成复杂的整体。

事实上,一款游戏可能包含多个系统。《魔兽世界》有战斗系统、任务系统、公会系统和聊天系统等。

系统的另一个特性是,很难仅仅通过定义来完全理解或预测它们,看到行动中的系统你可以获得更深层次的理解。以抛掷动作的肢体系统为例。我可以给你一个定义球体抛出路径的数学方程式,你可以由此预测到它之后的行为,但是如果你亲眼得见某人扔出球体,会更容易地理解整个过程。

游戏跟上述情况很像。你可以阅读规则和定义游戏中的所有正式元素,但是你需要体验游戏才能够真正理解游戏。这就是多数玩家在玩过《Tic-Tac-Toe》和《Three-to-Fifteen》后才明白二者间的相似性的缘由。

游戏的批判分析

何谓批判分析?我们为何需要批判分析?

批判分析不只是游戏评论。我们关心的不是得到了几颗星、游戏评分多少、游戏是否有趣、是否能说服用户购买游戏这些内容。

批判分析不只是列举出游戏中错误的做法。这种语境下,“批判”这个词的意思不是“挑错”,而是就游戏进行彻底及毫无偏见的审视。

批判分析在讨论或比较游戏时很有用。你可以说“我喜欢卡片游戏《Bang!》,因为它很有趣”,但是这并无法帮助我们这些设计师理解为何游戏很有趣。我们必须审视游戏中的各个部分以及它们互动的方式,才能够理解每个部分是如何与玩家体验产生联系的。

在游戏开发过程中检视我们的工作时,批判分析也很有用。对于一款你正在制作的游戏,你要如何知道要添加或移除哪些内容才能够提升游戏质量呢?

批判分析游戏的方法有许多种,在此我提供了一个三步骤过程:

1、描述游戏的正式元素。此刻无需进行解释,只要找出即可。

2、描述执行正式元素后的结果。不同的元素间如何互动?游戏的玩法是什么?是否有效?

3、努力去理解为何设计师选择这些元素而不是其他元素。为何要使用这种玩家结构?为何要使用这套资源?如果设计师做出不同的选择,会发生什么事情?

在批判分析各个阶段期间需要向自己提出的某些问题如下:

1、玩家面对何种挑战?玩家可以采取哪些行动来克服这些挑战?玩家之间如何互相影响?

2、玩家是否会认为游戏是公平的?(游戏邦注:游戏实际上可能公平也可能不公平,玩家对游戏公平程度的看法可能与现实有所差别。)

3、游戏是否具有再玩性?是否有多条通向胜利的途径、不同的起始点或者导致每次游戏体验有所不同的可选规则?

4、游戏的目标用户群是什么?游戏是否适合目标用户?

5、游戏的“核心”是什么,也就是你一遍遍做来呈现主要“趣味性”部分的事情是什么?

内容归纳

今天我们谈到了许多内容,主要可以归结如下:

1、游戏是系统。

2、玩游戏可以让你更容易地理解游戏。

3、分析游戏需要你审视所有游戏正在运行的部分,弄清楚他们如何配合并产生出玩法体验。

4、设计游戏需要创造出所有游戏的部分。如果你仍未以某种方式定义游戏的正式元素,那么你并非真正在制作游戏,你只是有个想法而已。这确实很不错,但是如果想要把它制成游戏,你就必须进行真正的设计。

设计实验

我希望你能够从接下来的设计实验中找到乐趣,但首先要根据你之前的游戏设计经验选择难度等级。

多数战争主题游戏的目标要么是领土控制要么是捕获/摧毁(游戏邦注:这两类在上文中描述过)。在这个挑战中,你将越过这些传统界限。你应当设计包含下述内容的非数字化游戏:

1、主题必须与第一次世界大战有关。玩家的主要目标不是领土控制或捕获/摧毁。

2、你不能使用领土控制或捕获/摧毁作为游戏动态。也就是说,你的游戏不能包含任何概念的领土或任何形式的死亡。

3、除了上述要求之外,玩家还不能有直接冲突,冲突只能是间接的。

有关研究的声明

你或许需要做某些研究才能够完成设计项目(游戏邦注:即便只是搜索维基百科来寻求灵感)。这是典型的游戏设计。许多人将游戏设计师想象成那种整天只是坐在桌旁思考的人,最后忽然站起来然后大吼:“我想到了某个绝妙的游戏想法!有忍者、激光恶化太空!程序员和美工们,马上行动将游戏构建起来!我会接着坐在这里构思另一个绝妙想法,同时还能够得到之前5个创意的版税。”但这与现实相差甚远。许多设计需要涉及到细节,不仅要定义规则,还要进行研究确保规则适合参数和项目。

IP法律声明

你要如何保证自己免受他人窃取基本创意的威胁呢?他们可能会将其转变成可运行和销售的游戏,而后你一无所获。

Dan Rosenthal是本课程的参与者之一,他写了篇文章细致分析了与游戏相关的知识产权法。文章确实是以美国为例,但是核心想法应当可以应用于其他国家:

记住,想法并不享有版权,它们不能被注册成商标,不能秘密交易,也很难申请成专利。你无法以某种方法来保护它们,你不应当在这方面费尽心机,你应当做的是尝试构思出新想法,开始就优秀的想法展开工作。不要因为在此课程中看到的内容而焦虑不安,“Ian说我应当将自己的作品提交到论坛上,但是我想到了某个很棒的想法,不希望它被他人窃取。”这种想法是毫无必要的。在游戏中,想法是种很普遍的东西,与执行想法的价值相比,想法本身根本毫无价值,你应当努力将想法开发成某些真正能让你赚到钱的东西。但是最为重要的是,我们的行业很紧密且极具协作性。你会发现人们在GDC上分享他们的想法,各工作室之间会协作开发项目,或者使用来自某款游戏的灵感来提升另一款游戏的质量。不要为此而争斗。这就是事态的运转方式,以宽广的胸怀包容这一切,你会获得更多的好处。

游戏邦注:本文发稿于2009年7月6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,拒绝任何不保留版权的转载,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

Level 3: Formal Elements of Games

Ian Schreiber

Today marks the last day that we continue in building a critical vocabulary from which to discuss games; this Thursday we will dive right in to the game design process. Today I want the last pieces to fall into place: we need a way to dissect and analyze a game by discussing its component parts and how they all fit together. This can be useful when discussing other people’s games (it would be nice if, for example, more professional game reviews could do this properly), but it is also useful in designing our own games. After all, how can you design a game if you don’t know how all the different parts fit together?

Course Announcements

As usual, there are a few things I’d like to announce and clarify:

I’m happy to announce that the course wiki is now open to the public (read-only access). This wiki is pretty much entirely run by the participants who registered for this course. Among other things, the blog posts here have already been translated into five different languages. I am impressed and humbled at the level of participation going on there, and encourage casual viewers to stop by and check it out.

I noticed some confusion on this so I would like to clarify: for readings in the Challenges text, you do not have to actually do all of the challenges at the end of the chapter. You certainly can if you want, but most chapters have five long challenges and ten short ones, and I would call that an extreme workload for a class of this pace. Repeat, you do not have to do all of the challenges (except where expressly noted on this blog).

A note on the reading for today

One of the readings for today was Doug Church’s Formal Abstract Design Tools. I want to mention a few things about this. First, he mentions three aspects of games that are worth putting in our design toolbox:

Player intention is defined as the ability of the player to devise and carry out their own plans and goals. We will come back to this later on in this course, but for now just realize that it can be important in many games to allow the player to form a plan of action.

Perceivable consequence is defined in the reading as a clear reaction of the game to the player’s actions. Clarity is important here: if the game reacts but you don’t know how the game state has changed, then you may have difficulty linking your actions to the consequences of those actions. I’ll point out that “perceivable consequence” is known by a more common name: feedback.

Story is the narrative thread of the game. Note that a game can contain two different types of story: the “embedded” story (created by the designer) and the “emergent” story (created by players). Emergent story happens, for example, when you tell your friends about a recent game you played and what happened to you during the play: “I had taken over all of Africa, but I just couldn’t keep the Blue player out of Zaire.” Embedded story is what we normally think of as the “narrative” of the game: “You are playing a brave knight venturing into the castle of an evil wizard.” Doug’s point is that embedded story competes with intention and consequence — that is, the more the game is “on rails”, the less the player can affect the outcome. When Costikyan said in “I Have No Words” that games are not stories, Doug provides what I think is a better way of saying what Costikyan meant.

Here is an example of why player intention and perceivable consequence are important. Consider this situation: you are playing a first-person shooter game. You walk up to a wall that has a switch on it. You flip the switch. Nothing happens. Well, actually something did happen, but the game gives you no indication of what happened. Maybe a door somewhere else in the level opened. Maybe you just unleashed a bunch of monsters into the area, and you’ll run into them as soon as you exit the current room. Maybe there are a series of switches, and they all have to be in exactly the right pattern of on and off (or they have to be triggered in the right order) in order to open up the path to the level exit. But you have no way of knowing, and so you feel frustrated that you must now do a thorough search of everywhere you’ve already been… just to see if the switch did anything.

How could you fix this? Add better feedback. One way would be to provide a map to the player, and show them a location on the map when the switch was pulled. Or, show a brief cut scene that shows a door opening somewhere. I’m sure you can think of other methods as well.

On another subject, Doug also included an interesting note at the end of the article about how he values beta testing, and half of his readers found the first two pages slow, so start at page 3 if you’re in that half. This would be an example of iteration in the design of this essay, of exactly the sort we talked about.

Now, I’m sure this note was partly in jest, but let’s take it at face value. There’s a slight problem with this fix: you don’t see the note until you’ve already read all of the way through the article, and it’s too late to do anything about it. If Doug were to iterate on his design a second time, what would you suggest he do? (I’ve heard many suggestions from my students in the past.)

Qualities of Games

It was rightly pointed out in the comments of this blog that on the first day of this course, I contradicted myself: I insisted that a critical vocabulary was important, and then I went on to say that completely defining the word “game” is impossible. Let’s reconcile this apparent paradox.

Take a quick look at the definitions listed on the first day. Separate out all of the qualities listed from each definition that may apply to games. We see some recurring themes: games have rules, conflict, goals, decision-making, and an uncertain outcome. Games are activities, they are artificial / safe / outside ordinary life, they are voluntary, they contain elements of make-believe / representation / simulation, they are inefficient, they are art, and they are closed systems. Think for a moment about what other things are common to all (or most) games. This provides a starting point for us to identify individual game elements.

I refer to these as “formal elements” again, not because they have anything to do with wearing a suit and tie, but because they are “formal” in the mathematical and scientific sense: something that can be explicitly defined. Challenges refers to them as “atoms” — in the sense that these are the smallest parts of a game that can be isolated and studied individually.

What are atomic elements of games?

This depends on who you ask. I have seen several schemes of classification. Like the definition of “game,” none is perfect, but by looking at all of them we can see some emerging themes that can shed light on the kinds of things that we need to create as game designers if we are to make games.

What follows are some parts of games, and some of the things designers may consider when looking at these atoms.

Players

How many players does the game support? Must it be an exact number (4 players only), or a variable number (2 to 5 players)? Can players enter or leave during play? How does this affect play?

What is the relationship between players: are there teams, or individuals? Can teams be uneven? Here are some example player structures; this is by no means a complete list:

Solitaire (1 player vs. the game system). Examples include the card game Klondike (sometimes just called “Solitaire”) and the video game Minesweeper.

Head-to-head (1 player vs. 1 player). Chess and Go are classic examples.

“PvE” (multiple players vs. the game system). This is common in MMOs like World of Warcraft. Some purely-cooperative board games exist too, such as Knizia’s Lord of the Rings, Arkham Horror, and Pandemic.

One-against-many (1 player vs. multiple players). The board game Scotland Yard is a great example of this; it pits a single player as Mr. X against a team of detectives.

Free-for-all (1 player vs. 1 player vs. 1 player vs. …). Perhaps the most common player structure for multi-player games, this can be found everywhere, from board games like Monopoly to “multiplayer deathmatch” play in most first-person shooter video games.

Separate individuals against the system (1 player vs. a series of other players). The casino game Blackjack is an example, where the “House” is playing as a single player against several other players, but those other players are not affecting each other much and do not really help or hinder or play against each other.

Team competition (multiple players vs. multiple players [vs. multiple players...]). This is also a common structure, finding its way into most team sports, card games like Bridge and Spades, team-based online games like “Capture the Flag” modes from first-person shooters, and numerous other games.

Predator-Prey. Players form a (real or virtual) circle. Everyone’s goal is to attack the player on their left, and defend themselves from the player on their right. The college game Assassination and the trading-card game Vampire: the Eternal Struggle both use this structure.

Five-pointed Star. I first saw this in a five-player Magic: the Gathering variant. The goal is to eliminate both of the players who are not on either side of you.

Objectives (goals)

What is the object of the game? What are the players trying to do? This is often one of the first things you can ask yourself when designing a game, if you’re stuck and don’t know where to begin. Once you know the objective, many of the other formal elements will seem to define themselves for you. Some common objectives (again, this is not a complete list):

Capture/destroy. Eliminate all of your opponent’s pieces from the game. Chess and Stratego are some well-known examples where you must eliminate the opposing forces to win.

Territorial control. The focus is not necessarily on destroying the opponent, but on controlling certain areas of the board. RISK and Diplomacy are examples.

Collection. The card game Rummy and its variants involve collecting sets of cards to win. Bohnanza involves collecting sets of beans. Many platformer video games (such as the Spyro series) included levels where you had to collect a certain number of objects scattered throughout the level.

Solve. The board game Clue (or Cluedo, depending on where you live) is an example of a game where the objective is to solve a puzzle. Lesser-known (but more interesting) examples are Castle of Magic and Sleuth.

Chase/race/escape. Generally, anything where you are running towards or away from something; the playground game Tag and the video game Super Mario Bros. are examples.

Spatial alignment. A number of games involve positioning of elements as an objective, including the non-digital games Tic-Tac-Toe and Pente and the video game Tetris.

Build. The opposite of “destroy” — your goal is to advance your character(s) or build your resources to a certain point. The Sims has strong elements of this; the board game Settlers of Catan is an example also.

Negation of another goal. Some games end when one player performs an act that is forbiden by the rules, and that player loses. Examples are the physical dexterity games Twister and Jenga.

Rules (mechanics)

As mentioned last week, there are three categories of rules: setup (things you do once at the beginning of the game), progression of play (what happens during the game), and resolution (what conditions cause the game to end, and how is an outcome determined based on the game state).

Some rules are automatic: they are triggered at a certain point in the game without player choices or interaction (“Draw a card at the start of your turn” or “The bonus timer decreases by 100 points every second”). Other rules define the choices or actions that the players can take in the game, and the effects of those actions on the game state.

Let’s dig deeper. Salen & Zimmerman’s Rules of Play classifies three types of rules, which they call operational, constituative, and implied (these are not standard terms in the industry, so the concepts are more important than the terminology in this case). To illustrate, let’s consider the rules of Tic-Tac-Toe:

Players: 2

Setup: Draw a 3×3 grid. Choose a player to go first as X. Their opponent is designated O.

Progression of play: On your turn, mark an empty square with your symbol. Play then passes to your opponent.

Resolution: If you get 3 of your symbol in a row (orthogonally or diagonally), you win. If the board is filled and there is no winner, it is a draw.

These are what Rules of Play calls the “operational” rules. Think for a moment: are these the only rules of the game?

At first glance, it seems so. But what if I’m losing and simply refuse to take another turn? The rules do not explicitly give a time limit, so I could “stall” indefinitely to avoid losing and still be operating within the “rules” as they are typically stated. However, in actual play, a reasonable time limit is implied. This is not part of the formal (operational) rules of the game, but it is still part of what Rules of Play calls the “implied” rules. The point here is that there is some kind of unwritten social contract that players make when playing a game, and these are understood even when not stated.

Even within the formal rules there are two layers. The 3×3 board and “X” and “O” symbols are specific to the “flavor” of this game, but you could strip them away. By reframing the squares as the numbers 1 through 9 and turning spatial alignment into a mathematical property, you can get Three-to-Fifteen. While Tic-Tac-Toe and Three-to-Fifteen have different implementations and appearances, the underlying abstract rules are the same. We do not normally think in these abstract terms when we think of “rules” but they are still there, under the surface. Rules of Play calls these “constituative” rules.

Is it useful to make the distinction between these three types of rules? I think it is important to be aware of them for two reasons:

The distinction between “operational” and “constituative” rules helps us understand why one game is fun in relation to other games. The classic arcade game Gauntlet has highly similar gameplay to the first-person shooter DOOM; the largest difference is the position of the camera. For those of you who play modern board games, a similar statement is that Puerto Rico is highly similar to Race for the Galaxy. The similarity may not be immediately apparent because the games look so different on the surface, unless you are thinking in terms of game states and rules.

Many first-person shooters contain a rule where, when a player is killed, they re-appear (“respawn”) in a specific known location. Another player can stand near that location and kill anyone that respawns before they have a chance to react. This is known as “spawn-camping” and can be rather annoying to someone on the receiving end of it. Is spawn-camping part of the game (since it is allowed by the rules)? Is it good strategy, or is it cheating? This depends on who you ask, as it is part of the “implied” rules of the game. When two players are operating under different implied rules, you will eventually get one player accusing the other of cheating (or just “being cheap”) while the other player will get defensive and say that they’re playing by the rules, and there’s no reason for them to handicap themselves when they are playing to win. The lesson here is that it is important for the game designer to define as many of these rules as possible, to avoid rules arguments during play.

Resources and resource management

“Resources” is a broad category, and I use it to mean everything that is under control of a single player. Obviously this includes explicit resources (Wood and Wheat in Settlers of Catan, health and mana and currency in World of Warcraft), but this can also include other things under player control:

Territory in RISK

Number of questions remaining in Twenty Questions

Objects that can be picked up in video games (weapons, powerups)

Time (either game time, or real time, or both)

Known information (as the suspects that you have eliminated in Clue)

What kinds of resources do the players control? How are these resources manipulated during play? This is something the game designer must define explicitly.

Game State

Some “resource-like” things are not owned by a single player, but are still part of the game: unowned properties in Monopoly, the common cards in Texas Hold ‘Em. Everything in the game together, including the current player resources and everything else that makes up a snapshot of the game at a single point in time is called the game state.

In board games, explicitly defining the game state is not always necessary, but it is sometimes useful to think about. After all, what are rules, but the means by which the game is transformed from one game state to another?

In video games, someone must define the game state, because it includes all of the data that the computer must keep track of. Normally this task falls to a programmer, but if the game designer can explicitly define the entire game state it can greatly aid in the understanding of the game by the programming team.

Information

How much of the game state is visible to each player? Changing the amount of information available to players has a drastic effect on the game, even if all other formal elements are the same. Some examples of information structures in games:

A few games offer total information, where all players see the complete game state at all times. Chess and Go are classic board game examples.

Games can include some information that is private to each individual. Think of Poker and other card games where each player has a hand of cards that only they can see.

One player can have their own privileged information, while other players do not. This is common in one-against-many player structures, like Scotland Yard.

The game itself can contain information that is hidden from all players. Games like Clue and Sleuth actually have the victory condition that a player discover this hidden information.

These can be combined. Many “real-time strategy” computer games use what is called “fog of war” where certain sections of the map are concealed to any player that does not have a unit in sight range. Some information is therefore hidden from all players. Beyond that, players cannot see each other’s screens, so each player is unaware of what information is and isn’t available to their opponents.

Sequencing

In what order do players take their actions? How does play flow from one action to another? Games can work differently depending on the turn structure that is used:

Some games are purely turn-based: at any given time it is a single player’s “turn” on which they may take action. When they are done, it becomes someone else’s turn. Most classic board games and turn-based strategy games work this way.

Other games are turn-based, but with simultaneous play (everyone takes their turn at the same time, often by writing down their actions or playing an action card face-down and then simultaneously revealing). The board game Diplomacy works like this. There is also an interesting Chess variant where players write down their turns simultaneously and then resolve (two pieces entering the same square on the same turn are both captured) that adds tension to the game.

Still other games are real-time, where actions are taken as fast as players can take them. Most action-oriented video games fall into this category, but even some non-digital games (such as the card games Spit or Speed) work this way.

There are additional variations. For a turn-based game, what order do players take their turns? Taking turns in clockwise order is common. Taking turns in clockwise order and then skipping the first player (to reduce the first-player advantage) is a modification found in many modern board games. I’ve also seen games where turn order is randomized for each round of turns, or where players pay other resources in the game for the privilege of going first (or last), or where turn order is determined by player standing (player who is currently winning goes first or last).

Turn-based games can be further modified by the addition of an explicit time limit, or other form of time pressure.

Player Interaction

This is an often-neglected but highly important aspect of games to consider. How do players interact with one another? How can they influence one another? Here are some examples of player interactions:

Direct conflict (“I attack you”)

Negotiation (“If you support me to enter the Black Sea, I’ll help you get into Cairo next turn”)

Trading (“I’ll give you a Wood in exchange for your Wheat”)

Information sharing (“I looked at that tile last turn and I’m telling you, if you enter it a trap will go off”)

Theme (or narrative, backstory, or setting)

These terms do have distinct meanings for people who are professional story writers, but for our purposes they are used interchangeably to mean the parts of the game that do not directly affect gameplay at all.

If it doesn’t matter in terms of gameplay, why bother with this at all? There are two main reasons. First, the setting provides an emotional connection to the game. I find it hard to really care about the pawns on my chessboard the way I care about my Dungeons & Dragons character. And while this doesn’t necessarily make one game “better” than another, it does make it easier for a player to become emotionally invested in the game.

The other reason is that a well-chosen theme can make a game easier to learn and easier to play, because the rules make sense. The piece movement rules in Chess have no relation to the theme and must therefore be memorized by someone learning the game. By contrast, the roles in the board game Puerto Rico have some relation to their game function: the builder lets you build buildings, the mayor recruits new colonists, the captain ships goods off to the Old World, and so on. It is easy to remember what most actions do in the game, because they have some relation to the theme of the game.

Games as Systems

I’d like to call two things about these formal elements to your attention.

First, if you change even one formal element, it can make for a very different game. Each formal element of a game contributes in a deep way to the player experience. When designing a game, give thought to each of these elements, and make sure that each is a deliberate choice.

Second, note that these elements are interrelated, and changing one can affect others. Rules govern changes in Game State. Information can sometimes become a Resource. Sequencing can lead to different kinds of Player Interaction. Changing the number of Players can affect what kinds of Objectives can be defined. And so on.

Because of the interrelated nature of these parts, you can frame any game as a system. (One dictionary definition of the word “system” is: a combination of things or parts that form a complex whole.)

In fact, a single game can contain several systems. World of Warcraft has a combat system, a quest system, a guild system, a chat system, and so on…

Another property of systems is that it is hard to fully understand or predict them just by defining them; you gain a far deeper understanding by seeing the system in action. Consider the physical system of projectile motion. I can give you a mathematical equation to define the path of a ball being thrown, and you could even predict its behavior… but the whole thing makes a lot more sense if you see someone actually throwing a ball.

Games are like this, too. You can read the rules and define all the formal elements of a game, but to truly understand a game you need to play it. This is why most people do not immediately see the parallel between Tic-Tac-Toe and Three-to-Fifteen until they have played them.

Critical Analysis of Games

What is a critical analysis, and why do we care?

Critical analysis is not just a game review. We are not concerned with how many out of five stars, or any numbers from 0 to 10, or whether or not a game is “fun” (whatever that means), or aiding in the consumer decision of whether or not to buy a game.

Critical analysis does not just mean a list of things that are wrong with the game. The word “critical” in this context does not mean “fault-finding” but rather a thorough and unbiased look at the game.

Critical analysis is useful when discussing or comparing games. You can say “I like the card game Bang! because it’s fun” but that does not help us as designers to learn why it is fun. We must look at the parts of games and how they interact in order to understand how each part relates to the play experience.

Critical analysis is also useful when examining our own works in progress. For a game that you’re working on, how do you know what to add or remove to make it better?

There are many ways to critically analyze a game, but I offer a three-step process:

Describe the game’s formal elements. Do not interpret at this point, simply state what is there.

Describe the results of the formal elements when put in motion. How do the different elements interact? What is the play of the game like? Is it effective?

Try to understand why the designer chose those elements and not others. Why this particular player structure, and why that set of resources? What would have happened if the designer had chosen differently?

Some questions to ask yourself during a critical analysis at various stages:

What challenges do the players face? What actions can players take to overcome those challenges?
How do players affect each other?

Is the game perceived by the players as fair? (Note that it may or may not actually be fair. Perception and reality often differ.)

Is the game replayable? Are there multiple paths to victory, varied start positions, or optional rules that cause the experience to be different each time?

What is the game’s intended audience? Is the game appropriate for that audience?

What is the “core” of the game — the one thing you do over and over that represents the main “fun” part?

Lessons Learned

We covered a lot of content today. The main takeaways I offer:

Games are systems.

Understanding a game is much easier if you have played it.

Analyzing a game requires looking at all of the game’s working parts, and figuring out how they fit together and how a play experience arises from them.

Designing a game requires the creation of all of the game’s parts. If you haven’t defined the formal elements of your game in some way, then you don’t really have a game… you just have the seed of an idea. This is fine, but to make it into a game you must actually design it.

Homeplay

It was brought to my attention that I have been using the word “homeplay” to refer to the reading, and that reading is not play no matter how I dress it up. This criticism is valid; normally in my classroom courses I use “homeplay” to refer to actual game design assignments and not readings, and I mixed the terms up here. I will make an attempt to avoid this confusion in the future, because I believe that trying to treat learning as an inherently Not-Fun activity (as evidenced by the need to use fancy fun-sounding words to describe it) is damaging to our collective long-term well being. As we will see when we get into flow theory, the reality is actually the opposite.

With that said, here is an activity that I hope you will find fun. It is based off of Challenge 2-5 in the Challenges text, with some minor changes just to keep you on your toes.

Here’s how it works. First, choose your difficulty level based on your previous experience with game design. Skiiers may find this familiar:

Here is your challenge:

Most war-themed games have an objective of either territorial control or capture/destroy (as described earlier). For this challenge, you’ll be pushing beyond these traditional boundaries. You should design a non-digital game that includes the following:

The theme must relate to World War I. The primary objective of players cannot be territorial control, or capture/destroy.

You cannot use territorial control or capture/destroy as game dynamics. That is, your game is not allowed to contain the concepts of territory or death in any form.

As above, and the players may not engage in direct conflict, only indirect.

I have created three new areas on the forums (one for each difficulty level). Post your game rules in the appropriate forum by Thursday, July 9, noon GMT. You are encouraged to post earlier if possible.

Then, after you have posted, read at least two other posts from your difficulty level and offer a constructive analysis and critique. If you are at blue-square or black-diamond difficulty, also read at least two other posts from the difficulty level immediately below yours and offer the benefit of your experience to those who you could mentor. Try to choose posts that have no responses already, so that everyone can get at least some feedback. Also complete this by Thursday, noon GMT.

A note about research…

Note that you may have to do some actual research to complete this project (even if only looking to Wikipedia for inspiration). This is typical of much game design in the field. Many laypersons imagine game designers as these people that just sit and think at their desk all day, then eventually stand up and proclaim, “I have this Great Idea for a game! Ninjas… and lasers… in space! Go forth and build it, my army of programmer and art lackeys. I shall sit here now until I come up with another Great Idea, while collecting royalties from my last five ideas.” This is not even close to reality. A great deal of design is the details: defining the rules, certainly, but also doing research to make sure that the rules fit the constraints and are appropriate for the project.

A note about IP law…

At this point, some of you may be thinking that by posting your game to the forum, you run the risk that someone will Steal Your Great Idea. How can you protect yourself from the threat of someone taking your basic idea, turning it into a working, sellable game, and leaving you with nothing?

One of the participants of this course, Dan Rosenthal, has kindly written an article that details the basics of IP (intellectual property) law as it pertains to games. The article admits to being US-centric, but the core idea (which is worth repeating here) should be sound no matter where you are:

Remember, ideas are not copyrightable, they’re not trademarkable, not trade secretable, and both difficult and prohibitively expensive to patent. You can’t protect them anyway, and you shouldn’t try — instead you should try to come up with new ones, and start working on the good ones.  Don’t freak out when you see things like Game Jams, or this course and think “Ian says I should post my work to the discussion forum, but I came up with a Great Idea(tm) and I don’t want other people to steal it.” Ideas are commonplace in games, and the value of your idea is nothing compared to the value of the implementation of that idea, your expertise and hard work in developing it into something that’s going to make you real money. But most importantly, our industry is very lateral, very tight-knit, very collaborative. You’ll find people sharing their ideas at GDC, doing collaborative projects between studios, or using inspiration from one game’s mechanics to improve another. Don’t fight it. That’s the way things work, and by embracing that open atmosphere, you’ll be far better off. (Source: Game Design Concept)


上一篇:

下一篇: