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

阐述间歇系统在游戏设计中的诸多弊端

发布时间:2012-05-07 13:54:54 Tags:,,,,

作者:Eric Schwarz

如果要说有种出现在几乎每款现代游戏(游戏邦注:尤其是现代RPG游戏)中的传统设计元素,那就是间歇期(冷却时间)。从概念上来说,间歇期听起来确实很棒,它们使用时间这种第二元游戏资源来轻松控制玩家的能力。间歇期在各种类型的游戏中都存在,包括即时制和回合制游戏,或许你对此并不感到惊奇。事实上,它已成了平衡游戏和设计战斗互动的标准。

我想先提出自己的观点:我认为多数游戏所采纳的间歇期是一种不良的设计。尽管它们确实对游戏有些许好处,至少能够使游戏平衡更易于实现,但是它也有很多弊端,往往影响到与它们互动的其他游戏机制。在此我将要讨论的是间歇期并非绝妙游戏机制,以及它们在多数游戏中是多余元素的原因。

理解间歇期

间歇系统很容易理解,指主动技能或游戏功能激活后的时间限制,防止玩家“过于频繁”地使用特定能力。在多数情况下,间歇期主要用于实现游戏平衡,如果一种能力特别强大,那么可以毫无限制地反复使用这种能力便会使游戏遭到破坏。很显然,如果你可以不断按动按键来施放毁灭性的厄运诅咒,那势必会带来很大的问题!

但是,为何间歇期能够发挥作用呢?这个问题的答案几乎可以归结为风险与奖励的对比。如果要让玩家衡量使用特殊能力的时机,那么就需要添加某些风险元素,从而确保玩家不会总是使用这种能力。如果我可以根据自己的需要随时让所有的西洋棋子都成国王,那么棋子的移动方向就毫无风险可言。将棋子安全地移动到棋盘另一侧有着极大的风险,但伴随着这种风险的是多数玩家认同的诱人奖励。游戏机制所依赖的特殊能力在游戏中处于默认状态,如果玩家能够毫无风险地打破默认状态,那么许多游戏挑战将变得毫无意义。

Super-Shield-Pack(from gamaustra)

Super-Shield-Pack(from gamaustra)

(《虚幻竞技场》中拾取能力提升道具需要花费一定的时间,因此很容易受到敌人炮火的攻击,如此形成的风险和奖励动态呈现了游戏中紧张的战斗。)

在多数游戏中,风险以某些资源限制的形式来呈现。在西洋棋中,风险是你可以移动棋子的次数与棋子被对手捕获回合数的对比。在《超级马里奥兄弟》中,有许多限制性的资源同风险相关,比如掉进深坑会让游戏中有限的奖命蘑菇变得毫无意义。在《虚幻竞技场》中,前往拾取能力提升道具会让你在一段时间内暴露在对手的枪口下。在《博德之门》中,如果法术失败后,只能过段时间才能再次使用。

以上这些都是限制性因素,让你在做事的时候深思熟虑。如果游戏取得绝妙的平衡,那么在整个游戏过程中通常都会有吸引玩家的选择。事实上,许多游戏通过风险管理来呈现其趣味性。多数战略游戏并非鼓励玩家构建庞大的军队,而是让玩家防备那些意料之外的突发事件和袭击。趣味性不再以“做X”为载体,而是通过“当X失败后做Y”来呈现,游戏会设置具有针对性的场景,强迫玩家处理限制因素,最优化地利用他们拥有的资源,知道他们在为结果1做准备的同时,便有可能面临结果2的风险。

从根本上来说,间歇期与其他类型的资源管理无异,时间是你无法令其加速的因素,所以你必须考虑在何时何地使用何种能力。如果选择了错误的时机,那么可能就会浪费强大的特殊攻击力,而且你会在一段时间内处于劣势。但是,面向时间的资源管理往往需要在短期内运转,比如能力的“恢复”需要特定的时间,而间歇期需要的时间往往很长,比如“你需要过60秒时间才能再次使用箭雨”。魔法恢复之类的东西与间歇期并无差异,只是呈现形式有所不同而已。

间歇期并不有趣

明白上述内容之后,让我们来讨论我对间歇期最大的怨言。简单地说,它是种很糟糕的机制。它并不含有内在“趣味性”,因为如果它脱离更大的游戏系统就会显得毫无价值,好像根本没有整合到游戏中的必要。而多数游戏机制在脱离游戏背景后却仍然显得有趣,只是其趣味性有所降低,但是等待间歇期结束从任何层面上来说都毫无趣味性可言。

cooldowns(from gamasutra)

cooldowns(from gamasutra)

(等待两分钟时间?看看那时钟倒计时的样子!我永远都不想再看到这种画面!)

我主要关注的是,间歇期完全不具有互动性,在几乎所有情况中,玩家不能通过任何行为来影响间歇期。敲打快捷键不会让技能加快结束间歇期。把游戏技能更高超也不能加快结束间歇期。我曾经见过的最贴近于“互动间歇期”的是一款设计有削减间歇时间的能力的游戏。这款游戏表明,如果将间歇期视为一种游戏机制,那么该机制最有趣的互动方式就是你可以将其去除。

事实上,有许多游戏机制比间歇期更具互动性也更有趣,但是它们却受到玩家和设计师的攻击。比如快速反应事件(简称QTE),极少的按键输入就能够看到与标准游戏玩法不甚相关的系列事件,在许多情况下都可以被描述为“互动过场动画”。虽然这种机制含有许多糟糕的成分,比如双向的成功和失败、潜在的不可预测性(游戏邦注:按键组合或出现时间都是随机的)和针对几乎无足轻重的任务提供强大的视觉奖励等。然而,尽管间歇期拥有的不良内容要比快速反应事件少得多,但吸引力却明显不足。

间歇期只是权宜之计

你或许会认为,虽然间歇期不是个富有吸引力的机制,但是它们对整个大型游戏系统来说确实很重要。毕竟,间歇期的存在确实有一定意义,如果你可以在魔法耗光时随时饮用药水,那么游戏也会显得很无趣。确实,几乎每款游戏都依靠某些非互动性有限资源,比如有限的体力或完成任务时间限制等。管理这些资源产生的吸引力不是因为资源内在的趣味性,而是因为玩家的游戏过程必须借助这些资源。游戏的真正有趣之处并不在于获得胜利,而是在一定压力下获得胜利,无论这种压力是真实的还是玩家感知到的。

然而,就多数游戏中执行的间歇期而言,即便考虑到上述这些因素,间歇期依然不是十分有趣。因为间歇期并没有被视为使用特殊能力的唯一限制性资源,它们是游戏中的次级甚至三级资源。许多游戏在限制魔法数量的同时添加了间歇时间,尤其是角色扮演游戏。这两者的功能是相同的,就是限制玩家使用特殊能力的次数,但是一个问题也随之产生:如果使用单种限制因素便足够的话,为何还要使用两种?

Diablo III (from gamasutra)

Diablo III (from gamasutra)

(无论是魔法、怒气或能量,它们都只是能力限制因素。尽管角色构建时已经融入了这些资源管理元素,但《暗黑破坏神3》依然采用了间歇系统,我无法理解他们的做法。)

毕竟,我们在每款游戏中都添加了能力限制因素。在《使命召唤》中,你需要击杀排成一列的特定数量的玩家才能够获得连杀奖励。在《奥秘》中,你必须确保自己不会因施放法术或攻击敌人而过于疲劳,否则你会陷入迷糊状态,从而容易受到攻击。《堡垒》通过消耗Black Tonic来限制玩家的特殊攻击。

这些系统不含有间歇期,因为它们已经取得了平衡。《使命召唤》让你可以使用强大的连杀迅速完成游戏,在竞争性环境中,最能利用连杀的人也最容易登上榜首。《奥秘》中的魔法和疲劳系统鼓励玩家将强大的法术用在恰当的情况下,同时对角色进行睿智的构建。《堡垒》允许你一次性使用所有的特殊能力,但这几乎算不上是个良好的计划。这些游戏中的现有机制都足以让使用能力的决定充满乐趣,即便是精通于计划的玩家,也需要在游戏中权衡是否要使用特殊能力,这让探索不同战略的过程变得极为有趣。

每当我在游戏中看到间歇期时,就感觉是开发团队在说:“我们不知道要如何实现这些能力和资源间的相对平衡,所以引进了独立于其他资源并且可让我们直接掌控的新资源。”尽管这种方法对某些游戏来说可能有效,但这确实不算是良好的解决方案,这些问题本可以通过改善系统设计得到解决。在多数情况下,求助于间歇期只是解决问题的权宜之计。

间歇期降低了深度

在实际情况中,我对面向间歇期设计的最大怨言是,它会减少各种情况下的战术深度。作为“解决”不良游戏平衡的强迫性应急措施和其他机制中问题的补偿方案,许多此类游戏功能不是极为强大就是数量特多。这往往会产生一个问题:如果我的能力这么强大,为何不能总是使用这些能力呢?

比如,在《龙腾世纪2》这样的游戏中,可以看到玩家在单次战斗过程中激活多达10种不同的能力。如果战斗时间足够长,甚至会出现相同能力被多次使用的情况。事实上,深思熟虑要怎么使用这些技能不但毫无必要,而且还会成为一种负担。《龙腾世纪2》中的多数能力可以即时使用,而且普遍带有击晕或其他伤害效果,所以它们很快就会出现难分彼此情况。难度较高的敌人可能抵抗或其产生免疫力,这意味着选择合适的时机使用这些技能并非相当有效的设计。

Dragon Age II(from gamaustra)

龙腾世纪2(from gamaustra)

(《龙腾世纪2》的精通程度并非体现在精妙地使用各种能力,而是尽量快速按动控制键。)

《龙腾世纪2》确实有魔法和体力这些额外的限制资源,但是它们的重要性远不及间歇期。游戏中饮用药水是很常见的情况,而且药水量充足且相当廉价,所以多数玩家都能够获得用不完的药水。当然,游戏中甚至连药水都含有间歇期,以防玩家过于频繁地使用。同样,由此便产生了一个问题:如果药水已经强大到需要间歇期,那么为何不把它们的价格设计得更为昂贵,或者为何不使用另一个游戏机制来管理药水的使用?

比如,《巫师》的毒性机制防止玩家频繁地饮用药水,这种机制不仅实现了游戏的平衡,而且还符合游戏的背景。《龙腾世纪2》中并没有类似的机制,游戏不是通过精妙的游戏机制,而是使用间歇来实现平衡。

巫师2(from gamasutra)

巫师2(from gamasutra)

(《巫师2》使用毒性条来限制玩家可饮用药水的数量,在该游戏首作中,如果玩家使过量使用药水就会身中致命之毒,因而每场战斗玩家只能选择饮用一次。)

间歇期还减少了玩家长期计划的价值。正如上文所谈论的那样,许多游戏都要求玩家权衡在哪些情况下使用相应技能。虽然间歇期可以保留其计划的部分价值(游戏邦注:比如,某些高级MMO玩法取决于对伤害输入、输出和治疗比率的计算),但这些动态并非只能通过间歇期来实现,你可以用魔法条、能力的限制性使用或误用能力带来的风险以呈现相同的效果。

这种强硬限制性带来的最终结果是,系统不仅僵硬且充满限制性,控制感和玩家拥有的互动行为减弱,并且还会使战斗缺失策略成分:玩家只需要在间歇时间结束后按下按键即可。最糟糕的情况是,这可能会产生一种“虚假互动行为”的感觉,玩家并非是在规则限制下做出精妙的决定。玩家思考的问题不再是“我应该在何时使用何种能力?”,而是“尽快地摁下按键”。

总结

不幸的是,以间歇期为中心的设计已经变得如此流行,我觉得这是以牺牲游戏系统深度的方法来实现游戏平衡。有许多方法都可以有效地在游戏系统中构建限制因素,鼓励玩家试验和采用睿智的战术,甚至在犯错误中寻找解决方案,而不是诉诸于这种强硬的限制方法。想象一下,如果在《塞尔达》系列游戏中,你可以每隔20秒抛掷一次炸弹,那么许多玩家就不会将精力用于探索和发现上,只需要等足20秒用炸弹轰开墙壁和岩石即可。

我想要澄清的是,间歇本质上并非不良创意。在魔法或仓库道具等限制性资源的使用不甚恰当的游戏中,使用间歇系统确实是种有用的方法。比如,使用某种特殊攻击可能会让玩家的角色疲劳,需要休息一段时间。《阿瓦登:黑暗城堡》在回合制背景下合理地执行了这种方法,某些类型的能力有不同的间歇期,魔法从短期资源转变成长期资源,使玩家在使用能力时必须考虑到长期的疲劳问题。这并非我最喜欢的方法,但看起来确实还不错。

我确信,这种趋势的流行应该归咎于《魔兽世界》等MMO游戏的成功。我对《魔兽世界》并不熟悉,因为我玩的时间不长,但是适用于一款游戏中的元素并不一定适用于其他游戏。从某种程度上来说,游戏可以出于展示和美学因素而采用《魔兽争霸》(游戏邦注:这样便可以吸引熟悉间歇型游戏的玩家)的一些惯例,比如经验值和关卡系统,而非更加古老的视频游戏进程系统,但这在我看来就是一种为不良设计辩护的拙劣借口。(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

Why I Hate Cooldowns

Eric Schwarz

If there is one design convention that you can count on being included in almost every modern game (and especially modern RPGs), it’s the cooldown. Conceptually, cooldowns sound great – they allow for easy regulation of a player’s abilities through the use of a second meta-game resource, time. Perhaps it’s no surprise that cooldowns have summarily been worked into just about every single type of game out there, both real-time and turn-based. In fact, cooldowns have become pretty much the de-facto standard for balancing games and designing combat interactions.

I have to be up-front about this: I think cooldowns are, as they are implemented in most titles, bad design. While they allow for a few upsides, not the least of which is quick and relatively easy balancing, they also have some major drawbacks, often which end up hurting the rest of the game mechanics they interact with. In this article, I’ll be discussing why I think cooldowns aren’t compelling as a mechanic, and why they are in most cases simply unnecessary in the first place.

Understanding Cooldowns

Cooldowns are pretty simple to understand – they’re effectively a time limit on an activated ability or game function that prevent the player from using a given ability “too often.” Almost always, cooldowns are used to preserve game balance, as, if an ability is particularly powerful, being able to use it over and over again with few to no limits can be game-breaking. It’s pretty clear that being able to use the Spell of Ultimate Doom as fast as you could hit the button would be a problem!

But why, exactly, do cooldowns work? The simple answer mostly boils down to risk versus reward. In order for the player to use a special ability of some sort, there needs to be some sort of risk factor involved, largely to ensure the player doesn’t use that ability all the time. If I could turn all my checker pieces into kings whenever I wanted, there would be no risk in placing checkers – but getting a checker piece to the other side of the board safely, that represents a significant risk with what most players would consider a very compelling reward. The integrity of a special ability as a game mechanic relies upon there being a default state in the game; if a player can surpass that default state without issue, much of the game’s challenge is rendered moot.

(The time it takes to collect a power-up in Unreal Tournament versus the greater exposure to enemy fire forms a risk-reward dynamic that fuels some of the game’s most intense fights.)

In most games, risk is expressed in terms of some sort of limited resource. In checkers, it’s the number of times you can move a piece, versus the number of turns until a piece is captured by the opponent. In Super Mario Bros., there are many limited resources which tie into most risks, such as a bottomless pit which will deplete you one of your limited 1-ups should you fall in. In Unreal Tournament, running for a power-up will usually expose you to attack for a period of time. In Baldur’s Gate, it’s the prospect of your spell failing and not being usable until you rest and restore it.

All of these are limiting factors that make you think twice about doing something; if a game is well-balanced, these will usually be compelling choices all the way throughout the game. In fact, many games actually get their fun from risk management – most strategy games are less about building big armies and more about compensating for the inevitable hitches and snags in your master plan, which are often difficult or impossible to prepare for. The question of fun doesn’t hinge so much on “doing X” as it does on “doing Y when X fails” and entire games set up scenarios specifically to force players to deal with limits and make the best use of what they have, knowing full well that in preparing for outcome 1, they sacrifice preparedness for outcome 2.

Cooldowns aren’t really fundamentally different than any other type of resource management – time is something that you can’t usually speed up, so you have to consider when and where to use an ability. Pick the wrong time, and that powerful special attack might well go to waste, and you’ll be at a disadvantage for a set period. Whereas time-oriented resource management often operates in the short term – say, the amount of time an ability takes to “charge up” – cooldowns usually operate in the long term, i.e. “60 seconds until you can use Rain of Arrows again.” Something like mana regeneration isn’t all that different from a cooldown, aside from presentation.

Cooldowns Aren’t Fun

With that out of the way, let’s get to the number one complaint I have with cooldowns – put simply, they are a bad mechanic. There is nothing inherently “fun” about cooldowns, because they are almost bankrupt of any value when disconnected from a larger game system, to the point where a cooldown has almost no resemblance to a game at all. Whereas most game mechanics can be separated from context and still be enjoyable, albeit often on a smaller scale, waiting for cooldowns isn’t in any way compelling.

(Two minutes of waiting? Wow, look at that clock count down! I’ll never need to bother watching paint dry again!)

Of particular concern is that cooldowns are entirely non-interactive – in almost every case, there is nothing the player can do to influence a cooldown. Mashing the hotkey won’t make it recharge faster. Playing the game better won’t make it recharge faster. The closest I’ve ever seen to a game having “interactive cooldowns” is on other abilities that cut cooldown times. What does it say about cooldowns as a mechanic that the most fun thing about them is that you can get rid of them?

In fact, there are many game mechanics that are significantly more interactive and interesting than cooldowns, yet they still come under constant attack from gamers and designers alike. Consider quick time events – minimal button input in order to witness a sequence that is disconnected from standard gameplay, and which in many cases can effectively be described as an “interactive cutscene.” All the workings of a bad mechanic are there – binary pass/fail, potentially unpredictable (random button combinations or timing), huge visual rewards for an almost inconsequential task, etc. Yet cooldowns, cooldowns get off the hook despite having much less to them.

Cooldowns Are a Band-Aid

You might be thinking, “so what, cooldowns aren’t a compelling mechanic, but it’s how they tie into a larger game system that matters.” After all, that makes sense – managing a mana bar, drinking potions when you run out isn’t particularly fun either. And it’s certainly true that almost every game relies on some sort of non-interactive finite resource – limited stamina, a completion timer, and so on. These sorts of resources are often compelling to manage not because of any inherently fun qualities, but because they’re things that players have to work within. The fun of a game isn’t just winning, it’s winning under pressure, either real or perceived.

At the same time, cooldowns, as implemented in the majority of games, aren’t very interesting even taking all this into account. This is usually because rather than being included as the sole limiting resource in using special abilities, they’re actually a secondary or even tertiary resource. Many titles, especially role-playing games, couple cooldowns with a limited pool of mana. Both of them serve effectively the same function – only allow the player to use abilities at certain intervals, which may or may not be open to influence (i.e. drinking potions) – but this only begs the question, “why have both when one would suffice?”

(Whether called mana, fury, hatred, or something else, it’s there to limit ability-spam. Despite having characters built around managing these resources, Diablo III still employs cooldowns – why, I can’t fathom.)

After all, we already have limits on abilities in just about every game. In Call of Duty, you need to kill a certain number of players in a row in order to receive a killstreak reward. In Arcanum you have to make sure you don’t exhaust yourself casting spells or attacking enemies, or else you’ll fall unconscious and become easy pickings. Bastion tempers the player’s special attacks by having each one consume a Black Tonic.

These systems do not have cooldowns because they are already balanced. Call of Duty can let you run away with the game by using powerful killstreaks quickly, but in a competitive environment usually the best should be able to rise to the top. Arcanum’s mana and fatigue encourages the player to save powerful spells for the right situations, as well as smart character building. Bastion lets you blow all your special abilities at once, but that is almost never a good plan. The existing mechanics in these games are enough to make the decision to use an ability compelling, and even for the master planner, there’s usually still going to be that lingering thought of “maybe I should have saved that for later” that makes exploring alternate strategies so much fun.

Every time I see a cooldown in a game, it feels like shorthand for “we couldn’t really figure out how to make these abilities balanced relative to each other and the resources governing them, so we introduced another resource that we can tweak to our heart’s content independent of the others.” While it might work for some games, it’s a brute-force solution to a problem that can usually be fixed with improved systems design. Resorting to cooldowns is, in most cases, the easy way out.

Cooldowns Reduce Depth

In practice, my biggest complaint against cooldown-oriented design is that it tends to take a way a lot of the tactical depth in a situation. As a brute-force stopgap to “solve” poor game balance and make up for problems in other mechanics, many such games feature abilities that are extremely powerful unless mediated, and often in very large quantities. This usually raises the question: “if my abilities are all so powerful, why am I not just using them all the time?”

A game like Dragon Age II, for example, can see the player activating upwards of ten different abilities throughout the course of a single battle, and even the same ones multiple times over if the fight goes on long enough. Actually using them thoughtfully isn’t just completely unnecessary, it can actually be a liability. As most of the abilities in Dragon Age II are instant-use and either have some sort of stun or damaging effect, they quickly become near-indistinguishable from each other; what’s more, the tougher enemies can be heavily resistant or immune to the effects of these abilities, meaning that using them in a way that the situation might call for them simply isn’t very effective.

(Mastery over Dragon Age II’s combat doesn’t depend on smart use of abilities so much as it does on pressing hotkeys as quickly as the game allows.)

Dragon Age II does have mana and stamina as additional limiting resources, but they are far less important than the cooldowns themselves. Quaffing potions is usually more than enough to get through, and potions are both plentiful and fairly cheap, so most players will never run out of them. Of course, even the potions have cooldowns on them, to prevent them from being used over and over. Once again, the question comes up: “if potions are so powerful as to require cooldowns, why aren’t they made more expensive, or why can’t there be another game mechanic governing their use?”

The Witcher’s toxicity mechanic prevented the player from drinking potion after potion, for instance; not only did it work well to balance them, it also fit the game’s lore like a glove. Dragon Age II has none of this tact or finesse – rather than turning weaknesses into strengths through smart game mechanics, it slaps more timers on the player until the exploits disappear.

(The Witcher 2 uses a toxicity meter to limit how many potions the player can drink; the first game made drinking an excess of potions lethal, making the choice to down one in combat compelling.)

Cooldowns also reduce the value of long-term planning. As discussed above, many games are built around the question of using abilities at the right times, and as contingencies for failures. While cooldowns can retain some of the value in planning (for instance, some high-level MMO play relies on calculating perfect ratios of damage input/output/healing), these dynamics are not intrinsic to cooldowns – you can do the exact same thing with a mana bar, or with limited uses of abilities, or providing harsher risks for misusing abilities.

The end result of all this hard limiting is a system that isn’t just rigid and limiting, reducing the sense of control and interactivity the player has, it also ends up largely reducing combat from making smart and tactically valuable choices to a series of quick time events: press the hotkeys as they light up to win. At absolute worst, this can create a feeling of “false interactivity”, where the player isn’t so much making smart decisions within the rules as he/she is playing a pattern-matching game. Instead of “what abilities should I use, and when?” the questions posed to the player are “press all your buttons as soon as you can.” The resemblance to quick time events, and their pattern-matching mechanics quickly becomes apparent.

Closing Thoughts

It’s unfortunate that cooldown-centric design has become so prominent, because I think the sacrifices that come to the overall depth of a game’s systems are not worth the trade-offs of easy game balance. There are so many ways to effectively build soft limits into game systems that encourage players to experiment and play smart, and even make mistakes, that resorting to the hardest of limits can actually discourage effective design in other parts of the game. Imagine a Zelda game where you could only throw bombs once every twenty seconds – it would discourage much of the discovery and exploration that comes from blowing up walls, rocks and so on.

I do want to clarify that cooldowns are not inherently bad ideas. In games where a limiting resource like mana or inventory items might not be appropriate, expressing things in terms of cooldowns can actually make sense. For instance, perhaps using a special attack tires out the player’s character and requires a resting period. This is implemented in a reasonably effective way by Avadon: The Black Fortress in a turn-based context, where certain types of abilities have different cooldowns, and the role of mana switches from a short-term resource to a long-term one that encourages players to think about the long haul when using an ability. It’s not my favorite way to do things, but it can certainly be done well enough.

I’m sure much of this trend can be blamed on the success of MMOs like World of Warcraft, and that’s a real shame. I can’t actually say I’m overly familiar with World of Warcraft as I never played it for too long, but what works for one game, especially an MMO, isn’t necessarily suited for other games. To a degree, adopting the conventions of Warcraft is important for presentation and aesthetic reasons (it might attract players who are familiar with cooldown-oriented games), similar to the proliferation of XP and leveling systems instead of more traditional videogame progression systems, but that’s a weak argument for poor design in my opinion. (Source: Gamasutra)


上一篇:

下一篇: