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

游戏理念并非设计 执行细节才是关键

发布时间:2012-06-20 15:26:46 Tags:,,

作者:joshg

在今年GDC上的“实验性游戏玩法研讨会(EGW)”上有一款备受关注的游戏《迷失在寂静之中》,其游戏理念来自于独立开发者Squidi在一次创造性实践活动中所列出的3百个游戏理念。

在讨论中Squidi抱怨道,尽管采用其理念的游戏在GDC上获得了广泛的关注,但是当他建议大家讨论这3百个游戏理念时却遭到了拒绝。

花费两天时间去组合一款普通的平台游戏,这就是《迷失在寂静之中》超越最初理念的理由?难道这就是该游戏受到关注的原因?是因为代码还是奇思妙想?这款游戏代表的是汗水而不是才能。从中我们可以获得何种信息?

lost in the Static(from caiman.us)

lost in the Static(from caiman.us)

两名EGW组织者以及《迷失在寂静之中》开发者Sean Barrett回应了Squidi的抱怨。Sean表示认可Squidi的功劳,但也指出其理念对该游戏设计的贡献相对有限。

尽管讨论最后还是带有一点争论性,但是我们却从中学到了关于游戏设计的基本经验教训。Squidi好像并不理解这些教训,而其他参与讨论的资深开发者却都尽己所能地阐明了这一观点。我在过去几年便是基于以下观点去解释这些内容:

理念是廉价的。

我想我的这种定义,多少有点贬低了开发者(包括我自己)的创意过程。在过去我总是缺乏足够优秀的设计理念,所以在我致力于项目开发时不得不投入更多的努力去挖掘创造性。所以尽管理念很廉价,但却并非唾手可得。

理念并非设计。我在游戏设计,工程学领域,甚至开始在视觉设计中都发现了这种误解。我们有可能会想出一个新奇而富有变革性,甚至有望产生大笔收益的理念,而接下来要做的便是找到能够实践这些想法的人!

而问题就在于游戏设计与其它创作过程一样,是切切实实体现在细节中。根据最初的游戏理念,我们有可能创造出一款精致且有趣的游戏也有可能创造出糟糕无聊的游戏。与很多人一样我也曾经想过:“成为一个只要想出各种有趣理念并留给别人落实行动的人不是很棒吗?所以游戏设计师真的是一个很好的职业!”但是问题就在于,这并不是对于游戏设计师的真正描述(也许这只是在描述那些坚持在游戏中添加X功能的执行制作人或工作室的CEO,但是不管怎么样你都不可能因此成为“英雄”)。

很多时候我们会发现一些高层次理念写在纸上看似非常优秀,但是当真正落实行动时却会涌现出种种问题。这就是为何工程师会抵触那些“创造”出一种新能量储存机制的设计师,因为在之后的运算中他们便会发现这种机制的种种不合理性。这也意味着设计师想出的理念也有可能是“糟糕的理念”,但是这些理念也并非完全没有价值。我们还需要克服两大障碍。通常情况下你只有在执行理念细节或者拥有足够的经验才能判断一种理念的好坏。即使你面对的是一个还不错的理念,也必须经由真正优秀的设计才能将其从“有趣的”(可销售的)理念发展成“优秀的游戏设计。”

与其它设计形式一样,游戏设计也重视将细节塑造成一种真正连贯的体验。游戏理念是一个目标,我们眼前也存在着多条道路,但是并不是每一条道路都能带领我们通向这一目标。真正优秀的游戏设计需要处理许多不同的元素,如复杂性,易用性,美学观点,技术局限性等等,而我们要是不重视细节就无法解决这些问题。

游戏邦注:原文发表于2008年2月28日,所涉事件和数据均以当时为准。(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

Ideas vs Design

February 28, 2008

By joshg

Ascii Dreams draws attention to a comment thread discussion following coverage of the Experimental Gameplay Workshop at this year’s GDC. One of the games featured at the workshop, Lost in the Static, was based on an idea explicitly borrowed from a list of 300 game concepts released by indie developer writer Squidi as a creative exercise.

In the discussion, Squidi expresses frustration that a game based on his concept got attention at the GDC, while his proposal to discuss the 300 games list he created was rejected.

So, for example, by virtue of spending two days hacking together a generic platforming game, Lost in the Static is elevated above the original inspiration that spawned it? Is that why it is up there on the stage? Because of the code or because of the gimmick? It’s up there on behalf of sweat, not talent. What message does that send?

Two of the EGW organizers as well as Sean Barrett, the creator of Lost in the Static, respond to Squidi’s complaint. Sean gives very explicit credit to Squidi, as he did at the EGW, but he makes a good case against dismissing his contribution to the game’s design as trivial.

Despite the slightly flamewar-ish nature of the end of the thread, there’s a very foundational lesson to be learned here about game design. Squidi doesn’t seem to get it, but the other (very experienced) developers in discussion with him do their best to bring it to light. The way I’ve tried to explain it over the last few years goes something like this:

Ideas are cheap.

Now, I think I’ve probably undersold the creative process (including my own) by phrasing it that way; I’ve run short on brilliant design ideas in the past and it can take deliberate effort to push oneself creatively when working on a project. So sometimes ideas can be hard despite their cheapness.

But an idea is not a design. I’ve seen this misconception in game design, engineering, and I’m starting to see it in visual design as well. Someone (possibly myself) comes up with an idea which, in their mind, will be fantastic and revolutionize things and probably make them bucketloads of money. All they need is to find someone to implement the details, and success!

The problem is that in game design, as well as in almost any endeavor, the design is quite literally in the details. It’s possible to create both a well-designed fun game and a horribly boring game which both stay faithful to the same original concept. (Adding “It must be fun and awesome!” to the concept description is cheating, in the thought experiment as well as real life.) Like probably everyone else who’s ever played a game, I used to think, “Wouldn’t it be great to be the one who comes up with all the cool ideas, and everyone else can do the hard work? Being a game designer would be great!” The problem is, that doesn’t describe a game designer. (Maybe it describes the type of Executive Producer or Studio CEO who likes to drop by and periodically insist that Feature X be added to the game, but trust me, that doesn’t make you a hero.)

Now, many high-level concepts can sound great on paper but completely fall apart when you try to implement them. This is why engineers shake their heads when someone “invents” a revolutionary new energy storage mechanism which falls apart the moment you do any back-of-the-napkin calculations. Now, this does mean that there are “bad ideas”, so ideas aren’t completely without value. But there are two hurdles to overcome. You may not know an idea is bad until you look at the implementation details, or have enough experience to see them coming. Even if an idea isn’t bad at its core, it still requires good design work to take it from “interesting (or marketable) idea” to “great game design”.

Game design is, like any form of design work, about crafting the details into a coherent experience. The game concept or idea is a target, but there are many ways of getting there and not all of them will succeed. Good design work needs to address many different concerns such as complexity, accessibility, aesthetics, technical limitations, and more – and none of these concerns can be fully answered without specific, hard details.(source:joshg.’s notes)


上一篇:

下一篇: