作者：Richard Terrell

我开始探究连击和连锁，因为我想要知道这么多玩家如此喜欢连击的原因。用“炫酷”来描述连击是不够的。经过一段时间的调查后，现在我们拥有了所有理解连锁和连击设计所需的东西。

“如果你只是不断按动相同的按键，这不算是连击。”——Tak Fuji

首先，阐述些清晰的定义。我调查了“连击”和“连锁”这两个属于在游戏行业中的使用情况，找到的例子都不是很有帮助。这两个术语似乎是相同的。“连击”一词的本质来源于将独立动作组合为单个动作的想法。“连锁”的本质是以特定的方法连接一系列动作。你能看出这两个属于之间的差别吗？

Street-Fighter-X(from daily-portal.com)

《街头霸王》和许多战斗游戏以连击著称，连击一旦开始，对手便无法防御或逃离，直到连击结束。在这些连击中，有些很短（游戏邦注：只有2次攻击），有些相当长。关键在于，多次攻击被组合成一次攻击，因为目标对象无法做出任何动作来挽救局面。但是，当你查看这个过程时会发现，这样的战斗连击也可以称为连锁，因为玩家并没有同时施放所有的攻击，攻击是一个接着一个展开的。

那么，目前连击和连锁这两个词语在使用上的最大差别是否在于玩家对游戏施加的控制多寡？我觉得并非如此。事实上，两者间的差别是极为主观的。以《Tetris Attack》或《星球谜题联盟》为例。如果你实现同时配对3个或更多的方块，你获得的是连击。但是，如果你成功在方块下落时就完成配对，那么游戏将这样的结果称为连锁。这种连锁与《街头霸王》中的连击有何不同呢？在这两款游戏中，玩家在连击和连锁中都有许多种可行的动作选择。而且，在这两款游戏的多人模式中，对手无法做任何事情来打断连击和连锁。

tetris-attack(from jaffray.org)

通常情况下，我们认为含有连击或连锁的游戏都是即时的。但是，在回合制游戏中，你在自己回合所做的所有事情都像是连击或连锁，因为对手无法做任何事情，直到你的回合结束。但是，如果你认为连击和连锁的主要差别在于玩家拥有的用来组合或连接动作的时间，那么《街头霸王》中的眩晕就可以算是反例。在这个战斗游戏中，当你足够快速地向对手发动特定的系列攻击时，会令他们眩晕。对手重新站起后会处在眩晕状态，这时发动攻击的玩家就会有一小段时间调整姿态，发动新的攻击循环。对手可以摇动操纵杆来缩短角色眩晕的时间，但是在眩晕状态时他们依然无法防御任何攻击。在这种情况下，只要攻击者不断发动攻击，同时保证对手的眩晕状态，那么连击数就会不断增加。那么，在上述情况下，攻击者有比以往更多的时间来筹划攻击，对手也有改变态势的方法，但是我们仍然都把这种情境视为连击。

定义

所以，我们应当根据玩家在游戏玩法机制下控制对手的数量来定义连击和连锁。让定义集中于机制能够保持分析专注于游戏玩法和相互作用，而不用担心游戏时间和现实时间交叉之类的复杂概念。

连击：指一系列玩家动作，一旦首个动作成功命中，就能够确保连击中的其他动作获得成功，除非玩家自身执行错误和受连击者及目标之外其他因素的影响。同时，连击包括成功在同一时间执行多个动作。

连锁：指一系列全部成功的玩家动作。成功必须准确地用游戏术语来定义。比如，全部攻击都击中目标。

注：如果游戏本身已经定义了连击、连锁或采用其他术语，那么以游戏使用的说法和术语为准。

力量的吸引力

根据我的个人经验，连击对玩家的吸引力要大于连锁，其中的缘由颇为复杂。正如上文所定义的那样，“连击”之所以有如此称谓，在于玩家能够掌控对目标的控制次数，大量的控制或许会让游戏完全失去了两个玩家相互作用的元素。当连击持续发生时，目标可能会失去所有的控制和可行动作方案。对于那些熟悉各种战斗游戏的人来说，我们都知道他们可以发动连击直到回合结束，只要连击开始而且攻击者不放弃，事实上对目标来说游戏已经结束。

从本质上来说，连击能将非常复杂和深层次的游戏玩法挑战转变成单向事件。对许多玩家来说，它的有趣之处在于激发我们施展控制的本能欲望。通常情况下，当游戏中的机制有助于我们实现目标时，尽管在实现过程中会遇到各种障碍和反面元素，我们仍会觉得有趣。通过研究连击，我们知道当游戏机制出于一定的考虑去除这些障碍时，仍然可以保持游戏的趣味性。

平衡和玩家注意力

根据Chen的《Flow in Games》文章所述，在困难和容易间取得平衡的游戏是玩家最喜欢的。通过风险和奖励平衡的可变且玩家可控游戏玩法选项，玩家能够更好地找到和维持其“心流”区域。但是在现实情况中，并没有存在完美的平衡点，只有在难易两端特定空间内来回摆动的区域。只要游戏的连击设计通过重置和其他衰弱性功能（防止产生严重的滑坡效应）来平衡，玩家执行连击所产生的支配力量转移就不会令其因游戏难度过大而脱离心流区域。

重点在于，停留在心流区域内并不只是与相互作用和交互性有关。对于带有控制性连击的游戏来说，尽管相互作用或许会缓解某一玩家获得所有控制权的情况，但是这并不会降低挑战和参与度。事实上，它们可能还会增强！

对于许多精妙平衡的游戏来说，连击难以执行，连击维持的时间越长，只会让游戏变得更加困难。这种平衡类型是基本的风险奖励类型。对于许多战斗游戏玩家来说，游戏中存在各种不同的连击，需要更为精确地把握时机、专门化的知识和灵巧的控制才能成功执行。有时，中止连击不只意味着他们失去对敌对玩家的控制，还意味着玩家处在可能被对方连击的情形中。这正是许多即时多人游戏设计连击的原因，即便你没有在于游戏互动，留心事态的发展也是非常重要的。如果对手的执行中出现失误，只要你做好准备，你可以马上反过来控制他。因而，尽管连击是种支配性的控制，但连击的执行依然可以让游戏玩法保持对目标和攻击方玩家的吸引力。

在多数游戏中，竞争是中极具压力的体验。保持留心并及时根据对手的每个动作做出反应，这需要集中大量注意力。所以，使用连击来获得小型单向机会是丰富玩家参与类型的方法之一。连击能够提供玩家喘息的机会。当你用连击对目标展开控制时，整个游戏都属于你。你会冒怎样的风险？你能够从连击中获得多大优势？你不仅需要回答这些问题，而且还可以向对手和旁观者展示你的技能。正是由于这些原因，连击成为照亮舞台上玩家的聚光灯。这种清晰的个人控制、执行和表达在没有连击的即时游戏中很难呈现。

反馈和计算

连击和连锁如此受玩家喜爱的另一个原因在于，它们激发我们计算、识别类型和将信息压缩或规范成更容易理解的形式的基本能力。正如我之前说过的那样，反馈对电子游戏来说很重要，因为它对互动行为和学习很重要。清晰并及时地呈现玩家动作反馈是非常重要的。我们的想法是有限的，我们的短期记忆也会迅速消逝。所以，除非我们能够在想法消失前获得适当的反馈，我们会很容易遗忘识别重要游戏玩法所需的信息。想个极端的例子，如果你用控制器输入后，游戏过1周后才呈现反馈，可以想象这样的游戏学习起来有多困难。

当我们在玩即时电子游戏时，我们被锁定在相当持续性的互动体验中。对于许多游戏，我们不断地操控按键、鼠标、操纵杆或其他输入设备。通常情况下，我们的输入会产生不同的游戏玩法动作，最终产生各种不同的游戏玩法互动。这种紧急性的游戏玩法节奏很快，没有人能够跟得上。幸运的是，我们无需跟踪所有的信息。要在游戏中取得进展，我们只需要专注于自己正在做的事情、自己需要做什么来获得胜利以及拿些内容会妨碍我们获得胜利。

计算是我们识别价值、样式和对称的方法。同样，计算也是进行评估的基本内容，尤其是在电子游戏这样面向数量化目标的系统中。动作、期望、反应和确认这一连串学习循环是相当基础的内容，我们不应该低估它们在设计中的作用。连击和连锁能够帮助玩家从即时电子游戏所能够创造出的大量参与和互动行为中组织和认知他们的动作。知道需要进行多少次攻击才能保持连锁持续下去，这是个至关重要的反馈。我们使用这种反馈来迅速让游戏中发生的事情变得有意义。这种反馈帮助我们改善技能并简化游戏玩法，这样我们就能更容易地理解。因为，除非我们付出大量的精力来探索，否则缺乏反馈会让我们完全无法认知游戏。电子游戏是个复杂的产品，我们可以使用所有能够获得的帮助。

最后的思考

在许多方面，连击和连锁都是极为相似的。它们也都能够出现在各种游戏玩法中，无论游戏是否已清晰的反馈承认其存在。连击产生的统治性控制确实让游戏有所不同。玩家喜欢连击的最大原因可能是因为其简单性。连击有着如此多的控制而需要考虑的变量却相当少，使得玩家能够以简单的方法高效体验游戏。对许多游戏来说，玩家可以在练习模式中训练自己如何施展连击，记忆所需的按键和动作。

通常情况下，从战略中削减相互作用（游戏邦注：或目标影响或阻止你的能力）能够让游戏更加容易。有些人喜欢这样的连击，但我更偏爱不包含强势连击设计的游戏。在所有内容都是平衡的游戏设计中，连击会受到特别的关注，因为这种游戏玩法很显眼。让攻击玩家控制目标玩家的时间过长，由此产生的负面效果也是显而易见的。疯狂的连击会将深层次游戏转变成线性、重复性和半互动性的体验。

Super Smash Bros.Brawl(from megatonnews.com)

下列战斗游戏以绝对控制到毫无控制来排序。在这些战斗游戏中，连击能力和控制主要是攻击和移动取消能力的产物。我偏爱的连击控制和相互作用平衡点位于《Smash Brothers Melee》和《Super Smash Brothers Brawl》之间。相比这条平衡线以上的作品，我更喜欢这条线以下的游戏。

《街头霸王》系列、《Marvel Vs Capcom》系列。

《Super Smash Brothers》、《剑魂3》。

《罪恶装备XX》、《苍翼默示录》系列、《火影忍者：忍者冲击》系列、《真人快打》2011版。

《Super Smash Brothers Melee》

《Super Smash Brothers Brawl》

《Wii Sports Boxing》

《超级猴子球2：猴子战斗2》。

（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）

The Design of Combos and Chains

Richard Terrell

I originally started investigating combos and chains because I wanted to understand why many gamers love combos so much. It’s not enough to say that combos are cool. After all, what good is having a critical language if I don’t use it to explain things I don’t understand? After writing recently on decay and entropy, we now have everything we need to understand the design of chains and combos.

“If you just continue to press the same button like… X X X and Y Y Y and X X and Y Y Y … you will be sucked” Tak Fuji

First, some clear definitions. I’ve looked into how the terms “combo” and “chains” are used within the gaming industry, and the examples I found weren’t helpful. It seems that both terms are used somewhat interchangeably. The essence of the word “combo” comes from the idea of creating a combination or fusing independent actions into one. The essence of the word “chain” comes from linking together a series of actions in a specific way. Can you see how these terms are different yet can be applied to the same scenario?

Street Fighter and many other fighting games feature combos where once started, the opponent cannot do anything to defend or escape until the combo is over. Some of these combos are very short (2 hits) and some are infinitely long. The point is, multiple attacks are functionally combined into one attack because the target cannot do anything to influence the situation at all. But when you think about it, fighter combos like this can also be called a chains because the player is not unleashing all of the attacks simultaneously, rather one after another.

Is the biggest difference in how combos and chains are currently used a matter of how much control the player exerts over the game? I say no. The truth is the exact difference is quite arbitrary. Take Tetris Attack or Planet Puzzle League for example. If you manage to simultaneously match 3 or more blocks, you earn a combo (see example here). But if you manage to form matches out of the blocks as they fall you will string together what the game calls a chain (see video above). How is this chaining any different from the combos in Street Fighter? In both games the player has multiple options that are possible within the combo/chain; options that typically decay as moves are linked. And in the multiplayer of both games, the opponent cannot do anything to interrupt the combo/chaining.

We typically don’t think of games having combos or chains that are not real-time. In a turn-based game, everything you do on your turn is like a combo or a chain because the opponent can’t do anything until your turn is over. But if you think the main difference between a combo and a chain is the amount of time the player has to combine or link their actions, it’s easy enough to point out cases like dizzy in Street Fighter. In this fighter, when you attack your opponent rapidly enough with the right series of attacks, they can become dizzy. After the opponent falls over and stands back up in a dazed state there’s a small period of time where the attacking player can reposition and initiate a new attack string. The opponent can shorten the time they spend dazed by wiggling the control stick, but all the while they’re highly susceptible to any attack. For these cases, the combo count continues to tick upward as long as the attacker continues attacking before the opponent fully wakes up from the dizzy. So in this case the attacker has much more time than usual and the opponent has some control, and yet we all still count this scenario as a combo.

Definitions

For our purposes, it would do us good to define what combos and chains are by looking at the amount of player control a player has through gameplay mechanics over the target’s ability to counter. Keeping the definitions focused on mechanics keeps the analysis focused on gameplay and interplay rather than worrying about trickier concepts like the intersection of game-time and real-time.

Combo: A group or series of player actions that once the first one is successful, the rest of the actions in the combo are guaranteed or nearly guaranteed, to be successful barring player execution errors and the influence of factors outside of the comboer and the target. Also includes successfully executing multiple actions simultaneously.

Chain: A series of player actions that are all successful. Success must be defined explicitly in game terms. For example, hit targets without missing a shot. Also called streaks.

Note: If a game defines combos, chains, or other terms, use their terms.

The Appeal of Power

In my experience combos are more attractive to gamers than chains, and explaining why gets a bit complicated. A key part of what makes a combo a combo, as defined above, is a dominating amount of control over the target; so much control that the game can cease to have any interplay at all. The target may lost all control and possible interactivity while the combo continues. For those who are familiar with various fighting games, we know that at some point towards the end of a round, once a combo starts it’s practically game over for the target as long as the attacker doesn’t mess up.

Essentially, combos can turn a very complex and deep gameplay challenge into an extremely one sided event. This very idea is fun to many gamers because it appeals to our intrinsic desire to exert control or power. In general, it’s fun when the mechanics in a game help us reach the goal despite the obstacles and contrary elements that are set in our way. By studying combos we know that games are still fun when mechanics practically eliminate those obstacles from consideration; at least in the short term.

Balance and Player Spotlights

According to Chen’s “Flow in Games” article, the sweet spot between too difficult and too easy is a wonderful place to be for a gamer. Through variable, player-controlled gameplay options designed in a risk-reward balance, players are better able to find and maintain their flow zone. But in actuality, there is no sweet “spot” but rather a zone with some wiggle room on both the hard and easy ends. As long as the combo design of a game is balanced with resets and other decay features that prevent severe slippery slopes from emerging, the dominating power shift that players exert when they combo isn’t enough to significantly push players out of their flow zone in terms of gameplay difficulty.

It’s important to note that staying in one’s flow zone isn’t all about interplay and interactivity. For games with dominating combos, though the interplay may cease giving all the control over to one player, the challenge and the engagement doesn’t necessarily drop. In fact, they may go up!

For many well balanced games, combos are hard to execute and they only get harder the longer the combo is maintained. This type of balance is the basic risk-reward type. For many fighters, there are variations to combos that require more exact timing, specific knowledge, and refined dexterity to pull off successfully. Sometimes messing up or dropping a combo doesn’t just end the one sided run of the offensive player, but it puts that player in a situation where they can be comboed right back. This is why for many real-time multiplayer games that feature combos, it’s very important to remain alert even though you may not be able to interact with the game. You have to be ready to take control back if there is even a frame sized gap in your opponent’s execution. So despite the dominating control of combos, as the combo is executed gameplay can still maintain a high level of engagement for both the target and the offensive player.

Competing in most games is a very stressful experience. Staying alert and reacting to every move your opponent makes takes lots of focus. So, earning small one-sided opportunities by using combos is a one way to vary the type of player engagement in a gameplay experience. Combos can provided a breath of fresh air like spectator sport moments in games. When you have control over a target with your combo, the entire game is all about you. How much will you risk? How much can you pull off? You not only look inward to answer these questions, but you also show your opponent and any onlookers just what you’re capable of. For these reasons, combos can be like a functional spotlight highlighting a player in center stage. These moments of such clear individual control, execution, and expression are hard to come by in real-time games that don’t feature combos.

Feedback and Counting

Another reason why combos and chains are so loved by gamers is that they appeal to our basic ability to count, recognize patterns, and compress or chunk information into more comprehensible forms. As I’ve explained in my series The Coefficient of Clean and The Zero-Sum Funomaly, feedback is very important to video games because it’s very important to interactivity and learning. Clear and timely feedback for player actions is important. Our minds are limited and our short-term memories quickly fade. So unless we get some good feedback before our minds are flushed, we probably won’t remember enough of what we did to recognize critical action-reaction pairs of gameplay. Just think how hard it would be to learn to play a game if you submitted a bunch of inputs with the controller and got the feedback a week later (a.k.a. high school).

When we play many real-time video games, we’re locked into a fairly continuous interactive experience. For many games we constantly manipulate the buttons, mouse, analog sticks, or other input devices even when the inputs aren’t necessarily registered by the game system (read more on controller design here). Often our inputs result in different gameplay actions which in turn result in many gameplay interactions. Emergent gameplay of this sort is so overwhelming that no one can keep track of it all. Fortunately we don’t need to. To play more effectively we focus on what we’re doing, what we need to win, and what’s trying to stop us.

The simple act of counting is a part of how we recognize values, patterns, and symmetry. Likewise counting is a fundamental part of making evaluations especially in the quantified-goal-oriented systems that are video games. The learning loop of action-expectation-reaction-confirmation is so fundamental and engaging that we should never underestimate its effectiveness in design. Both combos and chains help players organize and recognize their actions from the ocean of engagement and interactivity that real-time video games can create. Knowing how many hits you’ve delivered or how much progress you’ve made keeping a chain going is crucial feedback. We use this feedback to quickly make sense of what happened in the game. Such feedback helps us develop skills and simplify gameplay so that we can understand it more easily. Because, let’s face it, unless we gave it serious effort we would probably be completely lost without this feedback. Just try understanding the flow of the battle in this no-HUD Street Fighter 4 match. And knowing that video games are complicated, we could use all the help we can get.

Final Thoughts

In many ways combos and chains are very similar. They are also possible in gameplay whether the game acknowledges it with clear feedback or not. The dominating control of combos really does make a big difference. Perhaps the biggest reason why gamers love combos is because they’re simple. With so much control and comparably few variables to consider, combos give players an opportunity to play very effectively in a simple way. For many games, players can simply go into a training mode and practice combos by commiting the sequences to muscle memory.

Naturally, eliminating interplay (or the target’s ability to influence or stop you) from one’s strategy makes playing a game much easier. Some love how combos do this, but I prefer games that don’t have a strong combo design. When designing a game everything is a balancing act, but combos get special attention because they easily have the power to take the game (interplay) out of the gameplay. Give the offensive player too much control for too long and the negative effects are apparent. Crazy combos can change a deep game (interplay filled/back and forth counters) into a very linear, repetitive, half-interactive experience.

Take note of the list below of fighting games arranged in order of absolute control to no control. With these fighting games, the combo-ability and control is mainly a product of attack hit-stun and move cancel-ability. My preference in the balance between combo-control and interplay falls somewhere between Smash Brothers Melee and Brawl. Anything below this line I tend to like more than games above it.

Street Fighter series. Marvel Vs Capcom series

Super Smash Brothers. Soul Calibur 3.

Guilty Gear XX. Blaz Blue series. Naruto: Clash of Ninja series. Mortal Kombat (2011).

Super Smash Brothers Melee

Super Smash Brothers Brawl

Wii Sports Boxing

Super Monkey Ball 2: Monkey Fight 2. (Source: Gamasutra)