作者：Pete Garcin

通常，我们在设计游戏时的很多决策都是下意识或凭直觉进行，这有时会正中要点，也许会导致体验缺乏平衡性，受突发奇想左右，或缺乏连贯性。

把握设计决策的整体运作方式是否能够促使我们设计出更富意义的游戏体验？

假设我们将游戏视作沟通媒介，那么若我们希望制作出富有意义的体验，沟通就需要清晰且具有连贯性。

我们在设计游戏过程中所做的决策不局限于它们是否具有“趣味性”。这听起来平淡无奇，但设计决策背后的逻辑常被忽略，鲜少被认真看待。

在音乐中，我们能够凭直觉知晓小调代表“悲伤”，大调传递“高兴”，表达欢乐或充满希望的情感。

keys from t-x-2.com

和音乐一样，游戏也存在系列传达理念和情感的潜在规则，其中有些源自其他媒介。辨别、学习和操作这些规则能够促使我们设计出更富意义的体验。

幸运的是，如今我们能够通过若干工具发现和应用这些规则。在学术领域，符号学是学习意义系统的学科。 符号学者可以选择学习游戏中的意义系统。

下文主要涉及我们如何基于符号学原理进行游戏设计，同时还包括游戏通过符号和风格原理创造富有意义的连贯体验的若干方式。

色调和风格

就游戏呈现元素来看，我们也许会觉得：“这看起来很棒！”当然也许这款游戏看起来真的很不错。但图像和声音决策远比“呈现外观”的美学理论更深入。

例如，追溯到所有游戏都是2D模式的时代。是的，很多玩家定都还记得这些2D游戏，他们会将这些游戏的所有知识都带入当前游戏中。

所以假设2011年你决定制作采用2D而非3D模式的游戏，游戏不仅会看起来“很棒”，而且会唤起玩家关于这些传统游戏的记忆和情感。这是否就是我们期望从作品中得到的？

我们是否希望玩家将我们的游戏同传统作品相比较？我们是否希望他们记住初次体验这些游戏的感觉？或者我们只是想要搭载更适合2D内容的平台？

游戏设计和我们所做出的美学决策具有完整的“意义”，这有时全凭直觉——慢慢意识到这些意义也可以是强大工具。

规则和机制

游戏和传统媒介的一大区别在于支配玩家游戏互动的规则。这些规则支配游戏空间，赋予操作相应含义。

游戏中，你能够彻底改变物理学原理，支配玩家生死的情境，设计整个经济体系，呈现前所未有的体验。

值得注意的是，所有围绕游戏机制的决策都具有相应含义，它们同其他游戏元素相互配合（游戏邦注：包括声音、画面和输入内容），期望以微妙方式创造游戏体验。

设计规则和机制主要基于内容是否有趣，但其中的各元素也会赋予游戏一定意义。例如，需玩家依靠策略手段取胜的游戏会创造不同的“世界观”，区别于通过武力获胜的模式。换而言之，这不仅是个体验规则，其还通过呈现特定世界观赋予内容一定意义。

整体配合

从所有这些设计内容中，我们能够逐渐看到各要素间存在的微妙联系，以及它们如何相互配合创造游戏世界。

回到小调和大调的例子，我们会发现通过花时间思考和研究设计决策，我们会逐渐发现游戏存在的相似规则。

和其他媒介一样，创建游戏意味着需要进行众多艰难抉择。我们应该深入挖掘这些决策的影响，清楚保留及去除内容会如何影响游戏功能及体验“意义”。

这里我想要表达的是，通过将游戏分解成若干构建模块，把握它们的运作方式，我们能够系统地进行游戏设计，这样游戏元素就能够相互配合，向玩家呈现连贯、有意义且富有趣味的游戏体验。（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）

Opinion: Designing Meaning in Games

by Pete Garcin

Often, many of the choices we make when designing games can be made unconsciously or based on intuition – which might be on the mark, but also might result in experiences that are uneven, subject to whim, or non-cohesive.

Can identifying how design choices function together as a system help us to design more meaningful game experiences?

If we consider that games are actually a communication medium, then if we want to make meaningful experiences, that communication needs to be clear and cohesive.

The choices that we make when designing games matter in ways that go beyond whether or not they are purely ‘fun’. It sounds obvious, but the reasoning behind design choices is all-too-often overlooked and not scrutinized.

In music, everyone intuitively understands that minor keys are ‘sad’ and major keys are ‘happy’ (broadly speaking) – and that if I want to write an uplifting song – to communicate the emotion of joy or hope, that I’m not going to choose a minor-key (and if I did, that is a very meaningful choice – because I am obviously breaking the ‘rules’).

Like music, games also have a set of underlying rules that communicate ideas and emotions, some of which they have inherited from other media. Identifying, learning, and manipulating those rules is one of the ways that we can move towards designing more meaningful experiences in games.

Luckily for us, there is already a set of tools to help us discover and harness these rules. In the academic world, Semiotics is the study of systems of meaning. Someone who studies Semiotics, a semiotician, could decide to study the systems of meaning in games (and people do!).

I’m not going to provide the kind of lengthy and in-depth analysis here that an actual semiotician would (and I’ll spare you the jargon too!), but here are a few early ideas on how we could use some of the principles of semiotics to approach game design, taking into account a few of the ways that a game can use symbols and style (its ‘semiotic building blocks’ so to speak), to create a meaningful and cohesive experience for players.

Tone and Style

When we take a look at the presentation elements of a game, we may think “Hey, that looks cool!” And certainly it may very well look cool. However, graphic and audio choices are deeper than just aesthetics or ‘how they look.’

For example, think back to when all games featured 2D graphics. Well, many of your players will also remember all of those 2D games, and they bring all the knowledge of those games to any current games they may play.

So say if, in the year 2011, you decide to create a game using 2D instead of 3D, the game may not only ‘look cool’ but it will also trigger the memories and emotions that players have regarding those old games. Is that something we want in our game?

Do we want the player to compare our game to those classic games? Do we want them to remember what it was like to play one of those games for the first time? Are we simply on a platform that is better suited to 2D?

There’s an entire level of ‘meaning’ embedded in the design and aesthetic choices we make, sometimes entirely on instinct – and learning to be conscious of those meanings can be a powerful tool.

Rules and Mechanics

One of the biggest differences between games and traditional media are the rules that govern your interactions with the game. These rules govern the world in a way that imparts meaning to every action.

In a game you have the ability to drastically alter the laws of physics, dictate the situations in which players live or die, design entire economic systems, and craft experiences that were never before possible.

It is worth considering then, that all of these choices that surround the mechanics of a game have meaning, and that they work together with all the other elements – audio, visual, input – in order to create the experience in subtle ways.

Designing rules and mechanics largely centers on whether or not it’s fun, but each one also brings a level of meaning to the game. For example, a game in which you can win by diplomatic means creates a very different ‘worldview’ for the player than one in which you can win only by physically conquering the opponent. In other words, it is not simply a rule of play but also is imparting meaning by suggesting a particular view of the world for the player.

Tying it All Together

What we gain from thinking about these aspects of our designs is the ability to start to see the subtle interconnections between all the various parts, and how they work together as a system to create worlds.

If we think back to the example about major and minor keys, we can now hopefully see how that by spending some time reflecting and studying our design choices, we can begin to understand similar rules at work within games.

Creating games, like all other media, means making a lot of hard choices. It makes sense to delve into the impact of those choices, and to understand how both the things we choose to leave in, and leave out, impact not just the functionality, but the ‘meaning’ of a gaming experience.

The important point I hope I’ve conveyed here is that by breaking games down into their fundamental building blocks, and understanding how they function, we can learn to systematically approach game design so that game elements work together, creating a cohesive, meaningful, and fun experience for players.（Source：gamasutra）