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

探讨现代单人游戏缺乏挑战性的原因

发布时间:2012-02-21 14:28:49 Tags:,,

作者:Simon Hill

过去数年间,制作每个玩家都可以很容易完成的游戏似乎成了逐渐流行的趋势。在许多方面,这有一定积极的意义,反映了行业的成熟和频繁玩游戏的玩家的主流化。它还反映出发行商有开辟大众市场的意愿,通过易用性较强的产品来实现最大化盈利。

但是,今天我要提出的问题是:单人游戏是否变得过于容易?

difficulty curve(from 64digits.com)

difficulty curve(from 64digits.com)

相比现在的游戏来说,早期的游戏更具挑战性,最初主要是因为游戏缺乏保存选项。你必须一次性打通游戏,如果你将角色的生命数耗光,你就必须重新开始。在早期的横版射击游戏中,你玩了20次的前3个关卡,只是为了寻找通过某个导弹的技巧。不要误解我的想法,我并非怀念和喜欢这种感觉。然而,当你在1个月的时间里通过多次的存盘和读档而完成游戏,这会减少成就感和沉浸感。在完成现代游戏时,我很少感受到当初打通《双截龙》或《怒》时的自豪感。

“多数游戏将难度等级削减到不可能出现失败情况的地步。”

随后的游戏引进了关卡末端保存点机制和选择关卡的作弊码,但是即便拥有此类系统,许多老式游戏仍然相当难。在《超魔界村》中,你花了数个小时披荆斩棘,在最后的平台上因判断失误跳落于木筏上,随之沉入水底。这确实让人倍感失望,但正是因为如此困难,才使得你在最终通关时感受到巨大的成就感。

之前的问题依然存在,如果你在关卡末端失败,那么你就必须重新经历整个关卡才能获得进展。

对开发商来说,实现随时随地保存游戏是个巨大的飞跃。它使人们可以只重新玩被卡住的难题,但是这仍然未能解决真正的问题,也就是那些令人挫败的高难度跳跃、无法击败的BOSS或无法解决的困难谜题。

如果花辛苦钱购买的游戏只能提供数个小时的乐趣,如果只能享受早期的关卡,这会让玩家感觉自己是白花冤枉钱。从开发商的角度来看,发现多数玩家只能看到游戏早期部分,根本无法看到精心设计的电影般结束动画,无法体验到最终引人入胜的BOSS战斗,这也是很令人失望的事情。

那么,你要如何根除这种难以逾越的情况呢?

对于上述问题的答案,我的想法是将游戏设计得更好,避免出现玩家必须经历多次失败才知道如何应对的挑战,但是做起来要显得难得多。多数游戏似乎选择的是另一种方法:它们将难度等级削减到不可能出现失败情况的地步。

要使挑战变得有意义,必须存在失败的可能性。因为如果挑战简单到所有人都能够解决,那么成就感从何而来?

挑战和学习是优秀游戏的必要元素,正是它们让你不断回到游戏中。当然,挑战必须进行细致的平衡,但是游戏中一定要有难度和技巧才能够吸引玩家吗?玩家必须找到问题,在不受挫的情况下学习解决问题的方法,然后正确地运用他们的解决方案以获得奖励。

毫无疑问,这种减少难度的主流趋势对所有人来说都是件好事,除了硬核玩家,但现在的危险在于该做法已经偏离正轨,出现过犹不及的情况。所有的东西都变成可让玩家简单地应对,游戏取消了所有的挑战性。

最棒的游戏允许玩家面对问题提出不同的解决方案,鼓励你选择正确的方向,同时让你产生以自己的技能选择了正确路径的幻觉。

《半条命2》便是绝妙的例证,游戏中的挑战有多种解决方案。尽管它本质上是款极为线性化的游戏,但是你并不会感觉到自己被迫选择某个特别路径。不幸的是,类似《半条命2》的游戏并不多。

确实,没有人希望回到那些需要一次性完成游戏的年代。在现代社会中,时间是很宝贵的,几乎没有人能够持续花很长的时间来玩游戏。《原罪前传》尝试了一种有趣的方法,根据玩家的表现来改变游戏,确保需要4个小时才能够完成游戏。游戏难度的升降取决于失手、爆头、步速和弹药的数量。

现在许多单人游戏过于简单,缺乏吸引我回到游戏中的挑战。许多硬核玩家转向多人游戏,并从中找到了适合自己的乐趣,因为其他玩家的智慧能够给他们带来快乐的挑战。多人游戏也产生了一些额外的满足感——玩家知道你刚刚击败的是真实存在的另一个玩家,而被击败的玩家也会产生挫败感。但是,这两种感觉对创造出色的游戏体验来说都是不可或缺的元素。

游戏邦注:本文发稿于2008年1月15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

Climbing The Difficulty Curve

Simon Hill

There has been a growing trend over the last few years to make games that are easy enough for every player to finish them. In many ways this is a positive development which reflects the maturity of the industry and the mainstream nature of the audience who regularly play games. It also reflects publisher desires to create mass market, accessible products which can generate maximum profit for them.

However today I’m posing the question “Have singleplayer games become too easy?”

Early games were far more challenging than they are now and initially this was largely due to the lack of a save option. You had to play the thing all the way through in one sitting, when you ran out of lives you had to start again from the start. Now don’t get me wrong I don’t miss replaying the first three levels of a scrolling shooter twenty times just to progress past that tricky missile but the sense of achievement and immersion is reduced when you complete a game in half hour chunks over a month. Upon completing modern games I rarely feel the same rush of pride that I did from reaching the end of Double Dragon or Ikari Warriors.

“Most games just decrease the difficulty level to the point where failure becomes virtually impossible.”

Games later introduced save points at the end of a level or cheat codes to level select, but even with that system in place many older games remained fiendishly difficult. Hours spent fighting your way through Super Ghouls and Ghosts often ended with a fatal splash as you misjudged the final platform jump onto the raft and disappeared into the choppy water. It was hugely frustrating and yet because it was so tough when you finally made it to the end the sense of achievement was massive.

Still the problem remained, if you failed right at the end of a level you’d have to play all the way through it again in order to progress.

The ability to save the game whenever and wherever you liked was a huge step forward for developers. It allowed people to just replay the difficult bit they were stuck on but still it didn’t solve the real problem – that frustratingly hard jump, that boss you can’t slay or that obscure puzzle you can’t solve.

Now to spend a fair bit of hard earned cash on a product offering hours of entertainment and only be able to enjoy the early stages makes the player feel stupid and that they have wasted their money. From the developers point of view it’s also hugely disappointing to realise that most gamers are only seeing the early part of your game and will never reach your cinematic end scene or battle that spectacular final boss.

So, how do you eradicate that brick wall scenario?

“Most games seem to opt for another approach; they just decrease the difficulty level to the point where failure becomes virtually impossible”

Well the answer I’d like to argue for is to design your games better, to avoid challenges which have to be failed multiple times before the player can learn how to succeed – but that’s easier said than done. Most games now seem to opt for another approach; they just decrease the difficulty level to the point where failure becomes virtually impossible.

Some possibility of failure is required to make a challenge meaningful because if something is so easy that everyone can do it then where does your sense of achievement come from?

Challenge and learning are essential to a good game and they are the things that keep you coming back for more. Granted, the challenge must be carefully balanced – but surely there has to be some difficulty to overcome, some skill to master before you really get hooked? Players must find a problem, learn to overcome it without becoming frustrated and then apply their solution correctly to obtain a reward.

There’s no doubt this general trend towards clarity and reduced difficulty is a good thing for all except the most hardcore of gamers, but there is a risk now that things have gone too far. Everything has to be signposted, everything has to be to be made explicit to the player in the same way that Hollywood movies will just awkwardly repeat a line of dialogue from earlier in the action to re-enforce the point they want to make. Games now hold your hand through every challenge.

“It’s also hugely disappointing to realise that most gamers are only seeing the early part of your game and will never reach your cinematic end scene”

This can also completely ruin your sense of immersion, when you are cajoled along a route connecting the dots via a series of bright neon signposts your sense of the world and ability to come up with your own solutions to problems is often lost – but that doesn’t need to be the case. The best games allow players to come up with different solutions to problems and encourage you in the right direction while retaining the illusion that you chose the right route through your own skill.

Half Life 2 is a very good example of this (And Deus Ex! –Ed), there are challenges with multiple solutions and although it is essentially a very linear game you don’t feel overly forced down a specific route. Unfortunately, HL2 is a rare gem.

Truthfully, nobody wants a return to the days of gruelling games that had to be completed in a single sitting. Time is at a premium in the modern world, so who can afford to spend that much time playing a game (apart from WoW addicts)? Sin: Episodes tried an interesting approach and tailored the game to react to player performance, ensuring it would take four hours to complete. Difficulty was ramped up and down based on the number of misses, headshots, paces and ammo.

To finish this column off I’ll answer my own question – yes, many single player games nowadays are too easy and the lack of a challenge fails to engage or keep me coming back for more. Hardcore gamers now find their thrills in multiplayer games where the intelligence of other players makes for an ever-changing and enjoyable challenge. Multiplayer games also bring the added satisfaction of knowing the person you just beat was another person – and conversely the frustration of knowing someone is laughing at your corpse after humiliating you but that’s the thing, you can’t have the one without the other. (Source: bit-tech)


上一篇:

下一篇: