作者：Lewis Pulsipher

近期我受邀同Ryan Sturm和Geoff Englestein一起参加播客“Ludology”，这是个主题与桌游有关的播客。该播客每期内容会专注于某个话题，主持人与受邀嘉宾一起讨论这个话题。近期一期节目的话题是创新，这让我对某个自认为对游戏设计无关紧要的话题展开思考。

what-is-innovation(from whatisaninnovation.com)

定义很重要，因为当人们看到“创新”及类似词语时，对它们的见解似乎并不相同。

Dictionary.com的解释如下：

创新 名词

1、某些新的或与众不同的东西：高中课程的创新。

2、创新行为；引进新事物或方法。

维基百科的解释如下：

“创新指能被市场、政府和社会所接受的更好或更高效率产品、过程、技术或想法的创造。创新不同于发明，创新指的是对新想法或方法的运用，而发明更侧重于想法或方法本身的创造过程。”

这两个定义有所不同，维基百科更强调创新的使用，而不是创新的过程，用“发明”来指代某些人理解中的“创新”。事实上，dictionary.com中的第1项定义了何谓“一项创新”，而维基百科定义了创新是什么（游戏邦注：dictionary.com第2条定义也是如此）。

无论你如何理解这个词语，为何“创新”对于游戏设计无关紧要呢？首先，如果创新指在游戏中运用全新的机制，那么这样的创新极为罕见。“日光之下无新事”，这句话很适合用来描述游戏行业。今日那些卓著的想法都往往是之前用过的。举个典型的例子：

我很经常体验以下情形。某一刻，我认为自己完全就是个天才，想出了其他人从未有过的想法。随后，经过调查发现，在20世纪80年代的时候就已经有数百款想法与我相同的游戏。随后你细心研究，以那些想法为基础获得更多的想法。你获得某个很棒的想法组合，而这个组合介于发明和借鉴之间。——Tim Sweeney（游戏邦注：Epic Games创始人，公司发行过《虚幻竞技场》系列和《战争机器》系列游戏）在2009年Gamasutra的采访中如是说道。

其次，某些东西是否算是创新，几乎完全取决于人们自己的知识。对于只熟悉《大富翁》、《Sorry》和《Risk》之类游戏的人来说，《卡坦岛》似乎是极具创新性的产品，但是对其他游戏玩家来说后者或许是老游戏。换句话说，创新完全是相对的。

所以，问题在于何谓“新东西”？普通游戏玩家认为新鲜的事物，有着资深桌游经验的玩家或许并不这么认为。而对桌游经验丰富的玩家来说很新奇的东西，或许数个月之后也就失去其新鲜感。

因此，对于“创新”这个方面，设计师需要认识到，虽然某个新奇的元素可能会引起玩家的注意，但从长期来看还是游戏玩法更为重要，而不是游戏中是否含有“新东西”。

当播客主持人询问玩家《Stratego》是否算是创新游戏时，玩家以自己熟悉的事物为基础做出了肯定的回答。但是，他们对《Stratego》的历史并不了解。《Stratego》中事实上并无创新，因为它几乎可以算是《L’Attaque》的后二战时代版本，后者发行于1909年。1976-1979年我在英国居住时，这款游戏的续作仍在发行中。无论从上述哪个定义来看，《Stratego》都不具创新性。但是，对那些不知道这些老游戏的玩家来说，《Stratego》的方法似乎很“新奇”。

游戏的“创新性”会提升其体验价值，这个想法困扰了我许久。这看起来似乎是对新事物的过分狂热崇拜。而另一方面，正如宫本茂说过的，游戏设计师就是表演艺人，努力让玩家感到惊奇。而新机制便是种让玩家产生惊奇感的形式。

我的观点是，重点在于游戏中的各项机制如何相辅相成，整体更重要而不是个别机制。对我来说，专注于机制上的创新会转移游戏设计新手的注意力，让他们更侧重于去寻找“伟大想法”。我和许多其他设计师都已经多次阐述和解释过，游戏想法并没有多大价值。真正重要的是想法的执行，如何将想法变成现实。换句话说，专注于前人从未使用过的创新机制偏离了游戏和游戏设计的正轨。对我来说，游戏包含10%的灵感和90%的汗水。而专注于创新便暗示着这两个比例对调，预示想法比执行要重要得多。我不这么认为。游戏设计的关键在于，游戏能够为目标市场和用户带来欢乐，而不是仅仅追求设计出“新颖”的游戏。

正如我在上文中已经提到的那样，显然也存在十分看重“新颖”的游戏玩家。游戏设计师或许偶尔也会对可整合至游戏中的新机制的出现感到兴奋。

我认为，如果现代玩家的习惯是玩某款游戏数次后便转向下款游戏，探索某些更新奇的东西，那么从本质上可以视为是在追寻那些玩过数次之后依然不会感到厌烦的游戏。如果我们知道许多当代桌游和卡牌游戏所含有的谜题数要大大超过单人电子游戏，那么我们就可以理解为何玩家在玩后者数次后就失去兴趣，因为他们已经“解决了所有谜题”。

另外我失望地发现，设计师更关注游戏设计的部分感而不是整体感。这种想法将游戏视为机制合集，表明游戏是机制化和科学产品，而不是艺术品。诚然，游戏中含有机制层面，但是对我来说游戏不仅仅是各个部分的组合，重要的是整体效果而不是各个独立的机制。当然，我还将游戏视为现实化的模型。你可以对模型的个别部分进行评价，但是对模型进行评价时需要从整体出发。

此“模型看法”的例外便是全抽象游戏。全抽象游戏必定是机制的合集，但是对我来说机制数量应当少而精。那么，根据欧洲风格游戏的普遍做法，如果将游戏视为待解的谜题，那么复杂性可以让谜题更难以解决。我认为多数游戏都涉及到玩家与玩家间的经济，我不希望玩家间的互动被过多的机制所妨碍。在典型的欧洲风格游戏中，玩家间的互动趋向于最小化，这样竞争便趋向于最小化，我们得到的产品就更类似于普通的谜题。当然，还有某些欧洲风格游戏不落俗套，而这些往往成为了能够长期流行的游戏。

那么，如果你玩游戏的原因只是因为它们拥有某些新奇独特的元素，而不是因为你感兴趣于胜利、精通、模型或其他人感兴趣的东西，那么我猜测感知创新是对你是最重要的。

我还必须提出以下问题：如果你玩游戏单纯是出于其创新性，那么是否意味着你会在玩过一两次后就对其失去兴趣，因为它对你来说已经不算是新事物了？

我还见过有些人提出：创新等同于优秀。但是，如果你带有的是这种想法的话，那么多数“创新”游戏的质量反倒可能便差。为什么呢？当你以创新为目标去创新时，就会忽略某些对游戏更为重要的东西，比如游戏的体验和玩家是否喜欢。如果你刻意在游戏中添加创新元素，那么这种创新很可能并不适合游戏。

电子游戏

通常情况下，原创游戏会失败或者影响力很弱，而随后的游戏反倒能取得更大的成功。多年前的电子游戏《Little Computer People》便是这种情况。也即是说，《模拟人生》的创新性并不像众人认为的那么高，但是依然成为当时最畅销的PC游戏。

对AAA电子游戏来说，花费大成本来创新是很危险的做法。现代电子游戏中确实有创新，但这些创新都来自于独立开发者。对大型游戏来说，发行续作是最经常采用的方法。近期《PC Gamer》杂志中列出的13款“最受读者期待”的游戏全是续作。

AAA游戏还受到题材的限制。玩家期望游戏能够与其他同题材游戏有相同的表现，同时略微有些许提升。《魔兽世界》不算创新游戏，《使命召唤》也不是，但它们仍然可以获得巨额盈利。

社交游戏似乎极度缺乏创新性，从Zynga发布的Facebook游戏便可以看出这点，许多人都表示该公司模仿了其他游戏。Zynga的著名游戏依然可以获得巨额盈利。Zynga已经成为了大公司，通过标准化游戏赚到了许多金钱，他们已经无法做到冒险将大量精力投放在研发全新类型的游戏上。

在电子游戏世界中，创新对成功来说并不重要。对旧方法做出些许新颖的改变便足够了，以上提及的13款续作便是如此。《愤怒的小鸟》完全不算是创新游戏，甚至称不上对旧方法进行些许新颖改变，但是依然成功地发展成全球共知的品牌。当然，也有电子游戏通过创新获得成功，比如《Minecraft》。

其他定义

创新似乎还有另一个定义，那就是“这款游戏产生出的游戏数量”。从这个定义上来看，《Dominion》极具创新性，因为它是所有标准电子游戏题材的基础来源。从这个定义上来看，《Britannia》极具创新性。事实上，《Britannia》中的主要元素，也就是每个玩家控制多个国家而且每个国家有不同的目标，这最早出现于《Ancient Conquest I》中。

我同意Geoff和Ryan的观点，当代两狂最具创新性的桌游是《龙与地下城》和《万智牌：旅法师对决》，这两款游戏都产生出全新的优秀类型和题材（游戏邦注：包括桌游和电子游戏）。而这两款游戏真正的重点在于，它们都有着出众的玩法体验。

游戏邦注：本文发稿于2011年12月12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）

Innovation in Game Design

Lewis Pulsipher

I rarely listen to podcasts, I suppose because I think writing provides a more concentrated form of information. (I don’t read blogs much, either, preferring more formal articles.) It takes more effort to read something than to listen, but in a given amount of time I think reading something that has been carefully written about a topic is more effective than listening to a podcast, which by its nature can be diffuse rather than focused.

Recently I was asked to participate in a podcast, “Ludology,” with Ryan Sturm and Geoff Englestein, “a podcast about the why of gaming” (in their case, tabletop gaming). So I listened to some episodes before agreeing (it will be recorded in January). The podcast is quite focused, the hosts have a topic in mind, may have a guest, and they talk about that topic. There are no feedback segments or other distractions, just discussion of the topic and related topics.

A recent episode is about innovation and this set me to thinking about a topic that I think Does Not Matter in game design. Most game players Don’t Care either, but clearly some people do.

Definitions are important, as people seem to have different things in mind when they see the word “innovation” and its variations.

Dictionary.com: “in•no•va•tion noun

1. something new or different introduced: numerous innovations in the high-school curriculum.

2. the act of innovating; introduction of new things or methods. ”

Wikipedia:

“Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, technologies, or ideas that are accepted by markets, governments, and society. Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a new idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself.”

These definitions are different as Wikipedia emphasizes the use of innovations rather than the creation of innovations, and uses “invention” for the creation of what others might call innovations. In effect dictionary.com in #1 is defining what “an innovation” is while Wikipedia is defining what innovation itself is (dictionary.com’s #2).

However you look at it, why doesn’t “innovation” matter in game design? First, true innovation in the sense of an entirely new mechanic in games is quite unusual. “There is nothing new under the sun” applies to games more often than most might think. Those brilliant ideas of today have often been used in the past. This is typical:

That’s kind of a common pattern in everything I do. One minute I’m completely on my own and I think, “Wow, I’m a genius, I can’t believe this idea nobody else had!” And then you look at the references on it, and it turns out that a hundred other people have done the same things in the 1980s. And then you look, and you get your additional ideas from those. Between invention and stealing, you come up with a really good combination of ideas. –Tim Sweeney (founder of Epic Games, publishers of Unreal Tournament series, Gears of War series, in Gamasutra interview 2009).

Second, whether something is innovative depends almost entirely upon one’s knowledge of previous usage. To someone who is only accustomed to games like Monopoly and Sorry and Risk, Settlers of Catan may appear to be highly innovative, though to most hobby gamers it’s old hat. In other words, innovation is entirely relative.

Once again, the question is what is “new”? What’s new to a typical game player may not be new to a veteran gamer of broad experience. And what is new to veteran gamer of broad experience today will not be new a few months from now.

Being concerned about Innovation (with a capital “I”) reminds me of people who need to know sports scores NOW, even though the score will be just the same if they don’t find out until tomorrow. That is, what’s innovative now, isn’t later. While an element new to a player may be a form of surprise, what counts in the long run is how the game plays, not whether any element of it is “new.”

The relativistic view that it all depends on what the players are familiar with, was brought home when the hosts of the podcast asked themselves whether Stratego was an innovative game. However, they were unaware of the history of Stratego. There is no innovation in Stratego because it’s an almost exact (and entirely legal) post-World War II copy of L’Attaque, a game originally patented and published in 1909 and still in print along with a group of spinoff games when I lived in Britain in ‘76-‘79. By any definition, there is no innovation in Stratego. But to most people who are unaware of those older games it is “new” in its methods.

The idea that a game is more desirable to play because it is “innovative” puzzles me immensely. This appears to be part of the “Cult of the New”. On the other hand, as Shigeru Miyamoto has said, game designers are entertainers and are trying to surprise people. Mechanics that are new to a player are a form of surprise.

My view is that what’s important in games is how the mechanics work together, the whole not the parts. A focus on innovative mechanics strikes me as one step removed from the focus that novice game designers have on “great ideas.” As I and many other designers have explained many times, ideas for games are virtually worthless. It’s the execution of the ideas, how the ideas are carried out, that matters. In other words a focus on innovative mechanics, mechanics that have not been used before, misses the point of games and game design. To me games are 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. A focus on innovation implies the reverse of those percentages, and implies that ideas are much more important than execution. I don’t think so. The point is to have a game that’s enjoyable for a target market to play, not to have a game that is in some way “new”.

Having said that, obviously there are game players who value “new”. Game designers may be occasionally excited by the appearance of a new mechanic that they can then incorporate into their games. And there is certainly that the cited reaction to an innovative game (as opposed to innovative mechanic) such as Dominion: we now have dozens of deck building games.

I wonder if the modern habit of playing a game only a few times, then moving on to the next one, is in part a quest for “something new”, fundamentally a hunt for games that aren’t kind of boring after the first few plays. On the other hand, keeping in mind that many contemporary board and card games are much more puzzles than games, just as most single player video games or puzzles, we can understand why people lose interest after playing a few times and “figuring out the puzzle”.

A focus on game mechanics also strikes me as reflecting a “component” notion of game design rather than a holistic notion. It views games as collections of mechanics. This implies that games are mechanical/scientific rather than artistic. Yes, there are certainly mechanical aspects, but to me a game is greater than the sum of its parts, it’s the combination that matters, not the individual mechanics. Of course, I also view games as models of some reality (it can be a fictional reality). You may evaluate the individual parts of a model but you mainly evaluate the model as a whole.

The exception to that “model view” is wholly abstract games. An entirely abstract game is necessarily a collection the mechanics, but to me it needs to be very few mechanics: there is no reason to obscure what’s going on by throwing lots of mechanics or other information into the mix. Now if a game is a puzzle to be solved, which seems to be a common view in the Eurostyle, then complexity helps make the puzzle harder to solve. I view most games as competitions, player versus player, and I don’t want too many mechanics to get in the way of the interaction of the players. In the typical Eurostyle the interaction of the players tends to be minimized, just as competition tends to be minimized, and we have something more akin to puzzles. There are of course Eurostyle games that are not typical, and these are often the ones that become popular over the long term.

Now if you play games because they have new/”unique” elements, not because you’re interested in winning or mastery or a model or any of the other things people are usually interested in, then I guess perceived innovation (not encountered before by the player) makes a difference.

I must also ask, if you play a game because it’s innovative (as far as you know), does that mean you lose interest after playing once (or twice) because it’s no longer an innovation to you?

I also see an assumption in some quarters that “innovative equals good.” But if you think about it, most “innovative” games are likely to be weak if not junk. Thankfully most of them aren’t published. Why is it likely? When you innovate for the sake of innovation, as I’m sure many try to do, then you’re ignoring what’s more important about the game, how it plays and whether players enjoy it. If you deliberately include innovative elements, more often than not your innovation will at least be unsuitable for the situation, if not out-and-out junk in and of itself.

Video Games

Often the originally innovative game fails/has little impact, and a follow-up becomes much more well-known. The Sims video game was thought of as a highly innovative game. Many years before there was a video game called Little Computer People that did much the same thing but got little attention. In other words The Sims was not nearly as innovative as most people thought it was. But (in all its incarnations) it’s the best-selling PC game of all time.

AAA video games cost so much to produce that innovation is very risky. There’s innovation in video games nowadays, but only from the indie publishers. Big games are dominated by sequels. All 13 games listed in a recent PC Gamer magazine as “most anticipated” by readers are sequels. All of them.

AAA games are also straightjacketed by genres. Players expect games to behave in the way other games of a genre behave, but slightly better. World of Warcraft isn’t innovative, nor is Call of Duty, but they dominate revenues.

Social network games seem to be dominated by a lack of innovation, at least if we judge Zynga’s Facebook games, which are said in some cases to be shameless copies of other games. Zynga’s well-known games are repeats of a formula. Zynga has become such a big company and makes so much money off their standard games that they can’t risk devoting a lot of effort to a entirely different sort of game.

Innovation in the sense of new methods is not important to success in the video game world. It’s enough to use old methods in a slightly new way, much as all those 13 sequels are likely to do. Angry Birds is absolutely not an innovative game, not even in the limited sense of using old methods in a slightly new way, but it has parlayed its atmosphere–it’s not a theme because it doesn’t modify how the game is played– into a branding empire. (There are certainly successful video games that are innovative, such as Minecraft.)

Another Definition

There seems to be another definition of innovation which amounts to “how many games did this game spawn.” By that definition Dominion is very innovative, as are the founding games of each of the standard video game genres. By that definition Britannia was pretty innovative. Brit was innovative for a number of reasons, but not the most obvious one. One of the major elements of Britannia, each player controlling more than one nation and each nation having different point objectives, was actually used first in Ancient Conquest I. Almost everything else about the two games is different, even the sequence of play, as a player’s nations in Ancient Conquest all play at the same time and can cooperate closely.

I agree with Geoff and Ryan that the two most innovative tabletop games of our time are Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: the Gathering, both of which spawned entirely new categories/genres of games (both tabletop and video). Still, what’s really important about those games to game players is that they were outstanding play experiences, not that they were innovations. (I might note that an obscure World War II role-playing game preceded Dungeons & Dragons. . .)

I suspect that you’re as likely to be innovative in a game design, if you’re not trying to be, as those who are trying to be. (Source: Pulsipher Game Design)