作者：Mark

我目前正在制作一款简单的变种人/僵尸主题走廊射击游戏。游戏目前的名称是《Area51》，我希望它兼容50年代B级电影和《X档案》的整体风格。游戏视角定在枪械后方。所以稍微有点《毁灭战士》的味道，但我们的情境没有发生移动。

游戏的目标尚未最终确定，虽然我倾向继续采用“逃离将被攻下的实验综合楼”这一主题。只是这个主题显得有些刻板和乏味，所以我依然处在探索过程中。但文章的焦点不是游戏故事内容，而是设计背后的理念及设计出此“最终”成品的过程。更重要的是，我颠覆自己以往的游戏设计方式。

以前通常我都会仔细雕琢某游戏构思，直到将其变得自然而有趣，然后以此作为游戏的核心。我之前的游戏都是采用这种制作模式，最典型的代表要数《Galactians 2》，在这款游戏中我坚持要在触碰内容中融入外来声响“啪啦”。这是我的核心要素。其他游戏内容都会基于“射击&倒下”这一简单概念。在将此构思转变成游戏前，我仔细研究了好几天。

我希望自己的射击游戏能够呈现激烈的战争氛围。我喜欢看到大量子弹和炸弹瞄准敌人的画面。

area51 from spacemonsters.co.uk

所以在《Area51》这款游戏中，我希望找到基于我“核心”理念的设计目标。这款游戏的核心理念非常简单——瞄准走廊下方扫射前进的敌人，目睹他们变得局促不安，血溅四方，然后最终倒下。游戏会持续在房间中填充众多这类怪物，玩家需反复进行上述操作，直到所有怪物都被击败。我深深着迷于20年前的《毁灭战士》情境，我想要复制的就是这种卡通风格的喷溅画面。但二者存在细微差别，那就是游戏的控制方式。

Doom from yuraofthehairfan.deviantart.com

在《毁灭战士》中，你需要基于正确方向瞄准船舶，然后扣动扳机。而在我的游戏中， 你只需要将十字光标瞄准敌人，其余操作就会自动完成。在《毁灭战士》中，转变船舶瞄准方向需要运用技巧，因此只有花时间进行研究，玩家才能最终在游戏中获胜。而单纯在静态情境中移动十字光标则简单许多。所以虽然《毁灭战士》和我的游戏都基于类似的核心理念（游戏邦注：即射击敌人），但它们在体验上则相差十万八千里。

这里我所要做的就是找到射击刺激体验和挑战&技能曲线间的平衡点。

现代电子游戏之父诺兰·布什内尔多年曾表示，游戏应易于入门，难以精通。就目前来看，我的游戏容易入门，掌握也容易。若缺乏挑战元素，目睹怪物在弹林中毁灭只会令玩家着迷一小段时间。

所以我植入另一动态元素——弹药。玩家不再只是一味朝走廊扫射，相反我希望玩家形成保护弹药的意识。为了做到这点，我开始朝走廊投放一箱箱的日常用品。因此在射击敌人的过程中，玩家还可以一边点击积累生命值或收集弹药。我的游戏瞬间变成融入弹药保护元素的射击游戏。这点和《毁灭战士》非常相似。对此我非常高兴。但游戏依然有些过于简单，于是我再次深入分析《毁灭战士》。

《毁灭战士》的武器小到射豆枪，大到无所不能的枪支。游戏操作具有阶段性，所以玩家只有待到游戏结尾才有机会接触到大型F*枪支。在毫无意义的射豆枪及大型枪支之间，玩家会陆续接触到猎枪、机关枪、火箭发射器和离子步枪。游戏内容越来越危险，越来越刺激，玩家会越来越渴望获得宝贵的弹药。更厉害的是，若你在距离墙面或怪兽10英尺内发射火箭装置，效果将会更加显著。仔细查看《Area51》，我发现我有必要在游戏中融入类似的武器操作限制条件。

虽然我还尚未融入这些变化元素，但我觉得游戏的两个等离子武器若是在近距离范围内破坏性更大将会更有意义。也许这两个武器将无法在某些怪物身上产生作用，目前还不确定。

最后，《毁灭战士》中的敌人会给予反击。从火球到魔法，再到子弹，玩家需要快速躲避至角落。我得创造机会，让玩家能够保护自己免受攻击。也许是通过盾牌，或者是借助其他物理障碍。显然我不可以将视角直接切换至墙面之后或寻找庇护，所以我得更具创造性。

所以本文的焦点是，运用“有趣”机制充当游戏核心要素并不总是个好主意。至少在没有进行认真考虑的情况下我们不应该这么做。你的关注点应该集中在游戏的构思（游戏邦注：例如你最终希望玩家克服的挑战）。否则你的游戏最终将变成目标把握有误的作品。

未来我会继续坚持“在狭小空间中消灭怪物”的设计理念，但会把游戏变得更具挑战性，多半不会去除克服挑战所涉及的技能元素。这就是重点所在。除非游戏要求玩家通过学习技能克服其中挑战，否则内容将变得非常单调。（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）

Developing a new HTML5 game with a few lessons from Doom

By Mark

I’m currently working on a simple corridor shooter with a mutant / zombie theme. It’s called Area51 ( at the moment ) and as the title suggests I want it to feel like a cross between a 50′s B movie and an episode of X-Files. The perspective of the game is fixed to behind the gun. So a little bit like Doom in that sense but none of the scenery moves.

The goal of the game is not yet defined although I keep coming back to the idea of simply escaping from an over-run laboratory complex. It’s just that when I put it like that it sounds horribly cliched and a bit dull. So I’m still trying to figure that out. The point of this post though is not the game’s story as such more the thinking behind the design and the order of events if you like that I typically go through in arriving at a “final” game. More importantly I’m challenging the way I’ve always designed my games.

Ordinarily I like to take an idea and play with it until it feels so natural and fun that it quite clearly belongs at the centre of my game. I did this with every game so far and perhaps most notably with Galactians 2 in that I was determined to have the alien bugs “splat” on collision. This is my centrepiece. A core to the game if you like. Everything else in the game will be built around the simple concept of shoot & splat. I played with this idea for days before it actually became a game.

As with all my shooting games I like there to be an intense feeling about the combat. I like lots of bullets and a fair sprinkling of bombs and bad guys to aim at.

So here I am with Area51 and I’m trying to find a direction based around my “core” concept. The core concept in this case is quite simple – spray bullets down the corridor at the advancing bad guys and watch them squirm and spray blood until eventually they splat. Fill the room with such monsters and essentially repeat the above until all monsters are defeated. I was hopelessly in to Doom almost 20 years ago and it is this cartoon splatterthon style that I aim to replicate. But there is a subtle difference between the 2 experiences ( not including the obvious visual differences ) and that is in how the game is controlled.

In Doom you had to point the marine in the right direction then pull the trigger. In my game you simply aim a crosshair at the bad guy and the rest is done for you. Actually swinging the viewpoint of the marine around in Doom is quite a skill and therefore something to be learned before the game can be successfully beaten. Simply moving a crosshair across a static scene is not so hard. So although Doom and my game have a similar core concept – shoot the hell out of bad guys – they are in reality a million miles apart in terms of the experience.

What I need to do is find a balance between the thrill of shooting stuff to hell and applying some kind of a challenge and skill curve.

As the father of modern video gaming Nolan Bushnell put it all those years ago, games should be easy to learn and difficult to master. So far my game is simple to learn and simple to master. Watching monsters explode in a sea of bullets will only hold our interest for so long if there’s no challenge.

So I added another dynamic – ammo. Rather than just spraying endless rounds down the corridor I wanted the player to have the concept of ammo protection. To aid this I started hurling supplies in wooden crates down the corridor. When shot the player could tap health or one of the two ammo types to collect. My game suddenly became as much of an exercise in ammo conservation as it did a shooter. Much like Doom. I was happy. But still the game was a little too easy. So I looked again at Doom in more detail.

The weapons in Doom ranged from pea shooter to a rid-the-room-of-everything gun. The action was staged such that you didn’t get the Big F* Gun until later in the game. In between that and the poxy pea shooter you had such things as a shotgun ( never bettered ), chain gun, rocket launcher and plasma rifle. Progressively more deadly and intense and progressively more thirsty for your precious ammo. Better still if you let fly with a rocket within 10 feet of a wall or monster it tended to smart a little. Looking at Area51 I realised that I needed a similar constraint on weapon usage.

Although I’ve yet to implement the changes I suspect that the two weapons that I have that use Plasma might be benefit from being a little volatile at close range. Quite possibly useless against a certain monster as well. Not sure yet.

Finally, the bad guys in Doom shot back. From fireballs, to magic to just plain bullets you had to duck for cover around every corner. I need to find a way to force the player to protect himself against attacks. Perhaps using a shield or some such physical barrier. Clearly I can’t display the viewpoint changing to be behind a wall or ducking for cover so I need to be a little creative.

So the point of this rather hasty blog post is that it’s not always such a great idea to use a “fun” mechanic as the centrepiece of your game. At least not without giving it some serious consideration. The game’s design, i.e. the challenge that you ultimately want the player to overcome, should always be your main focus. Otherwise you wind up trying to squeeze a game in to something that you become quite unhealthily precious about.

Although I will keep the concept of blasting monsters in a cramped space I will adapt the game to be much more of a challenge. Hopefully without taking away any of the skills required to complete it. And that’s the point. Unless your game has skills to be learned in order to overcome your challenges your game is going to be pretty flat.（Source：spacemonsters）