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

解析“阶段”在游戏中的存在原因及重要性

发布时间:2012-06-27 15:13:06 Tags:,,,,

作者:Lewis Pulsipher

阶段在游戏设计中真的非常重要。这是我们在游戏过程中所经历的各种不同时刻。这些阶段能够帮助我们更好地认知变化,发展与教训,同时也能够帮助我们察觉到游戏中所存在的更多变量。我们可以根据游戏所经历的阶段(而非所投入的时间)去判断一款游戏的长短;而一些较短的游戏便通常只具有一个阶段。

eight life stages man (from sitwatwb.blogspot.com)

eight life stages of man (from sitwatwb.blogspot.com)

生活中的其它娱乐活动也具有自己的阶段。就像赛马拥有自己的阶段,而电影也总是拥有3幕(或4个、9个)结构能够改变电影进程的不同侧重点。生活本身也有自己的不同阶段,如童年时期,青春期以及退休/老年时期。从这个意义上看来,人们自然也会期待着能够在娱乐活动中看到不同的阶段。

如何才能区分不同阶段呢?我想我们很难去定义这一点。当一款游戏在经历了不同阶段变化时,同一玩家的想法也会有所不同,就像他们后来所做出的决定可能也与之前阶段所想的不一样。而适应这种变化的最佳方法便是在玩家的短期目标发生变化时立刻改变阶段。我将列举出一些相关例子。

越长的游戏便拥有越多阶段。毕竟游戏阶段存在的主要目的便是避免千篇一律,随着游戏逐渐变长玩家对于游戏的需求也就越加强烈。

一些简单的“三局两胜”游戏总是只有一个阶段,例如“剪刀石头布”。“一字棋”也属于这类型游戏,即允许“X”玩家最多只能移动5步——这又有何阶段可言?还有其它简单的游戏,如《Candyland》和《Chutes and Ladders》也只带有一个阶段。虽然我们将较短的游戏形容为“只带有一个阶段的游戏”,但是我们也发现过一些拥有多个阶段的短游戏。

chute ladders(from myprettypennies.com)

chute ladders(from myprettypennies.com)

而与之相反的象棋便算得上是一款较长的游戏——玩家甚至可以为了40步移动而投入2个多小时的游戏时间,所以自然这类型游戏便需要经历更多阶段。这些阶段通常都分为开始,中间和结尾。开始阶段主要是关于游戏一开始所存在的种种局限因素,明确标准设置,并判断使用哪个棋子去打开局面,并控制整个棋牌的中心。

《Risk》便与之相反。在游戏的开始阶段,玩家需要在冲突发生前设置好绝对的位置,并且当玩家每一次经历游戏时这种设置也会发生变化。如果你使用的是法国设置时,你便能够随机抽取卡片或占据领地,但是你在每一次游戏过程中将拥有不同的设置。

这款游戏与其它野战游戏的不同之处便在于它拥有标准的设置,而玩家在每一回合中也可以移动自己的任意一个组件。结果便是,游戏将快速超越标准设置,而这与象棋更是截然不同,即当玩家每次移动一个组件时也就意味着他们在开始阶段需要移动10至20步。

而这更是与那些玩家未拥有任何单位或调遣权利(游戏邦注:即在这类游戏中地理定位并不重要)的游戏截然不同。通常情况下,相对于野战游戏而言这些游戏显得更加对称。虽然它们也拥有开始阶段,但是这一阶段却与单位的调遣毫无关系。

除了非常有限的组件初始定位,象棋中存在阶段的另一个原因是,随着组件数量的逐渐减少,行动区域仍将保持相同的规模,所以我们有必要延长游戏长度和可能性。还有第三个原因的存在,即每个玩家的组件混合将不再具有对称性和一致性,如玩家用“骑士”换得“主教”。当玩家获得一些物质优势后他们的力量也将失去平衡,如率先出棋。象棋的中间阶段也会发生变化,因为那时候的玩家因为拥有了位置或物质上的优势而将不再遵循开始阶段的标准。

在游戏结尾处,组件的数量也将大大减少。所以这时候玩家便拥有更多调遣空间。除此之外,此时玩家的目标也变成是杀死对手的国王,而不再只是获得物质或位置优势。不过这时候的玩家仍然能够利用自己所获得的位置或物质优势而赢得游戏。

每一款象棋游戏都拥有开始和中间阶段,而结尾处可能因为玩家快速获取胜利而被大大缩短了。除了玩家在想办法获取位置或物质优势的同时遭到围攻外,游戏也总是存在着结尾,也就是当玩家开始专注于展开进攻的阶段。

其它游戏又是怎样的情况呢?就像在一款简单的益智游戏中,如早前的《俄罗斯方块》也存在着变化(即钻块将会越来越快速地掉落)。有时候钻块的掉落速度并不存在明显的提升,而玩家也将适应于如此反复的游戏过程中,而直到他/她自己犯了错误。所以我们可以说在这类型游戏中,一开始存在着上升阶段,然后会出现“最大下滑”阶段——而这也是只有有经验的玩家才能够到达的阶段。

角色扮演游戏和第一人称射击游戏中的阶段将伴随着玩家角色挑战更高级别,获得更强大的能力和更多战利品(特别是指一些更加厉害的武器)而变化。怪物将越来越可怕,boss将越来越强大,所以玩家自然也需要拥有更多不同的选择。实际上,在角色扮演游戏中,游戏规则总是会随着玩家所获得的战利品和新能力而有所改变。如果游戏故事紧系着游戏的发展,那么游戏中的短期目标也会发生改变。

设置

设置是否也是一个阶段?如果玩家所作出的决定将影响着最终结果的话(如《Risk》中的美国设置),它便属于一个阶段;而如果是在象棋或西洋棋中,它便算不上是一个阶段。一些电子游戏将围绕着某一阶段而展开,即玩家可以在此定制他们自己的角色,而如果这种定制将影响着不同的游戏结果,那它便算得上是一个游戏阶段。

很多游戏并未拥有设置阶段。每个玩家都是对称地开始游戏(游戏邦注:即所有玩家都是面对相同的情境和资产),如果此时玩家能够调遣自己的资产,他们也不会将其放置在一些重要的位置上。纸牌游戏便属于这类型游戏,象棋游戏与大多数传统棋牌游戏亦然。基于回合制以及即时策略电子游戏也都是相互对称的,即每个玩家一开始只拥有一个单位(不管他们是从哪里获得这一单位)——尽管因为拥有的单位不同,玩家双方是相互不对称的。所以大多数电子游戏都是非对称的,但却拥有一个默认设置。

历史战争游戏总被称为“模拟实战”,换句话说也就是拥有非对称(玩家面对的是不同的情境和资产)设置,但是有时候玩家却也能够选择他们自己的设置。模拟历史战争的游戏总是具有非对称性,并且有时候游戏将主导着设置,而其它时候玩家将根据自己的想法去设置组件。而更加抽象(也就是非模拟)的战争游戏则会出现相反的情况。例如西洋陆军棋便具有对称性,并且玩家也可以在此随意分配他们的组件,所以设置便成为了游戏的首要决策阶段。另一方面,《Diplomacy》虽然具有非对称性,但是游戏却掌握着其最初设置。

电子游戏的角色总是具有非对称性,即一个角色将面临许多敌人。所以设计师便选择在这类型游戏中添加角色定制机会,而让玩家能够创造出上千种设置。

阶段和规则变化

理想上来看,阶段并不包含规则上的改变,但是如果规则在一开始无关紧要(而在之后才真正发挥功效),或者设计师是伴随着玩家获得战利品,卡片,奖励或级别而添加规则的话,情况也就不一样了。举个例子来说吧,某种规则将限制玩家所拥有的组件数,而以此反应供应或维护限制——在游戏开始阶段这一规则并不重要,但是随着玩家力量的壮大它的作用也将越来越强大。

Britannia(from armchairgeneral.com)

Britannia(from armchairgeneral.com)

理想情况下游戏规则应该贯穿于游戏始终,并随着情境的变化而引起阶段的变化。但是有时候游戏故事或历史却会要求规则的变化。在我的游戏《Britannia》(体现1千多年的英国历史)中,虽然规则贯穿于游戏始末,但是进攻国家和防御国家的同一性却会随着他们的入侵和撤回时间而改变。游戏一开始的罗马帝国阶段的规则是不同于最后王国冲突阶段所存在的规则。在这个4至5个小时的游戏中共包含了4个阶段,分别是在罗马征服阶段中,英国因为投降而得以幸存(尽管罗马的街道,堡垒和军队都具有特殊的力量);随着盎格鲁撒克逊人的入侵并获得统治权,罗马人统治阶段便结束了;后又出现了维京人统治时代(游戏邦注:盎格鲁撒克逊人从进攻者变成了防御者)以及王国间的冲突(即我们将获得额外的能量和骑兵)。

著名的棋牌游戏《Power Grid》拥有三个“步骤”能够明确地定义游戏规则,例如第二个步骤便是基于玩家的行动而出现(有时候玩家会拖延进入第二个步骤的时间)。虽然规则会出现轻微的改变,但是更大的变化还是在于每个步骤的游戏玩法中。

在传统的《Risk》中,阶段便是基于玩家在收到领土卡片集时提高了军队数目所决定。如果你曾经在《Risk》中遇到过只拥有少数军队的卡片集,如4-6-8-4-6-8,你便会发现游戏在很长一段时间都只停留在一个阶段上。而这就缺少了随机性,将会导致玩家失去了完成游戏的动力。在标准规则(2008版本)中玩家将能够通过获得卡片集而不断提升军队的人数,虽然这也需要花费玩家一定的时间。在2008年,设计师便重新设计了《Risk》——即添加了任务卡片,从而让玩家能够因为完成任务而更有动力。但是我却不清楚新版本的游戏是否拥有更多阶段。

尽管一些设计糟糕的游戏,如《大富翁》也拥有阶段。游戏的最初阶段是指收购速度较为缓慢(甚至当玩家不愿意按照目录价格进行拍卖时的规则也相对缓慢)。而当玩家获得垄断权时他们便开始进入下一个阶段,即创建房屋和酒店。而最后阶段则是通过掷骰子决定谁能够无需承担后果而拥有建筑物的所有权。

farmville(from farmvillefreak.com)

farmville(from farmvillefreak.com)

Facebook上的社交游戏也拥有阶段,事实上阶段能够帮助这些游戏避免极端乏味的重复任务。就像玩家在《FarmVille》中前进时,他们也将不断扩展自己的农场,装饰它,并在遇到新产物时改变原先的庄稼(动物或水果)。这便让玩家能够在复杂规则的限制下感受到游戏的移动和发展。

章节游戏

一些游戏虽然未拥有阶段,但是却拥有章节。即玩家可以在游戏中多次进行挑战,有时候是以“三局两胜”决定胜负,而有时候则是基于谁拥有更高的分数做决定。格斗类电子游戏便属于这类型游戏,但是更经典的还要数传统的52-card游戏。

按照传统意义上来看,这些纸牌游戏都不具有阶段。玩家尝试并完成一轮游戏,如此反复,并且每次游戏时玩家都将面临完全不同的初始情境(除了分数)。在某些游戏中玩家将能够连续累积分数(或者在扑克游戏中,玩家间可能会拥有不同数量的筹码)。有些情况下,玩家之前的游戏结果并不会影响到其之后的游戏,但是也有例外,如在桥牌或扑克中,玩家之前的游戏都会影响到他之后每一回合的游戏(不论是因为分数或烂牌,还是基于玩家在扑克游戏中所收集到的筹码/赌金)。当然了,在这类型游戏中玩家也可以学习到其他人是如何玩游戏,并在之后影响着自己的实际操作。

心流和学习

Mihaly Csikszentmikalyi的“心流”的理念已经获得了许多设计师(如Raph Koster)的认可并将其作为自己的游戏模型。

Koster将游戏当成是一个安全的环境下学习的过程。阶段则意味着游戏存在更多值得我们学习的内容。如果阶段并不包含规则的改变,那么这种学习便是关于如何更好地玩游戏,而不是关于如何处理游戏中的新机制。游戏拥有阶段并不意味着游戏越来越难战胜,只能说这种阶段能够进一步推动游戏的“心流”。

重复

事实上所有游戏都具有重复的内容,不论是回合的重复还是其它元素。而这里所存在的问题便是,我们是否能够在不同情境——也就是不同阶段中主导这些重复内容。就像我们可以基于相同规则而玩两轮游戏,但是第一轮的结果却意味着玩家在第二轮游戏的想法会有所不同。我们总是能在拥有有限回合但却包含了多种情况的欧式棋牌游戏中看到这一点。

如果游戏只拥有一个回合(基于规则来看),但却因为情境的变化而导致玩家感受的不同,你便需要有效地提高游戏的多样性了。特别是对于21世纪玩家来说,多样性就像是“生活中的调味品”一样重要。

我们再一次发现了玩家对于不同阶段的认知,并且我们也还是难以定义这种不同。但是这通常也意味着玩家的短期目标将随着不同阶段的变化而变化。

其它存在理由

游戏设计中存在阶段的另外一个原因便是能够以此缓和难以赶超的强手玩家问题。如果在游戏进行了一半之后,主导游戏发展的玩家总是能够获取压倒性胜利,那么其他玩家便不会想着继续挑战剩下的游戏吧?而如果在游戏中,不同阶段带有不同游戏玩法,那么其他玩家便有可能赶超之前的强者。

阶段存在的最后,也是最重要的原因是设计师面临着一个非常窘迫的局面,即有些玩家看待游戏的方式与篮球迷看待篮球比赛的方式是一样的。这些篮球迷们只关心篮球比赛的结果——因为他们认为之前的过程对于结果来说并不重要。他们未能意识到篮球比赛中与结果同样有趣的阶段与变化。也就是他们只对目的感兴趣而毫不关心整个行程。而那些寻找作弊码,只愿意玩游戏结尾并最终自豪地认为自己“战胜了游戏”的玩家便是这些篮球迷的同类。而在游戏中添加阶段则能让游戏过程变得更加有趣,让玩家更愿意去体验这些过程。

对于游戏设计师来说,他们必须想办法去改变自己的游戏,以便玩家能够真正感知到游戏中的不同阶段与重大变化。这么做也将让你的游戏变得更加吸引人,且拥有更长的寿命。如果你正在设计一款能够持续半个小时以上的游戏,便可想法让它自然地分解成多个阶段。(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

Phases in Games

by Lewis Pulsipher

Phases (sometimes called stages) in a game design are important.  These are distinctly different periods of play through the course of a game.  They provide at least a perception, if not an actuality, of change, growth, and learning.  Phases help the feeling that there’s more variety in the game, as well.   They help avoid a perception of “sameness” in the gameplay.  A game that is “too long” may feel too long because there are not enough phases, not because any specific amount of time has passed.  In contrast, many short games have only one phase.

Other entertainments and activities in life have phases.  A horse race has phases, movies have the three (or five, or nine) act structure that changes the focus as the movie progresses.  Life itself has phases such as early childhood, adolescence, and retirement/old age.  In that sense people expect phases in their entertainment and their activities.

What differentiates one phase from another?  I don’t think we can closely define that.  Much of it must occur in the minds of the player(s).  When a game changes from one phase to another the player is thinking about different things, as he or she decides what to do, than he thought about in the preceding phase.  Probably the best way to put it is, the phase changes when the immediate (short-term) objective(s) of the players change.   I’ll give some examples in a moment.

The longer the game is, the more phases it should have.  After all, if a major purpose of phases is to avoid sameness, then the need becomes greater as the game becomes longer.

Some single-episode games that are easily played “best two out of three” have one phase, for example rock-paper-scissors (RPS).  Tic-Tac-Toe is another such game, with a maximum of five moves for the “X” player I don’t know how sensible it would be to talk about phases.  Other very simple games like Candyland and Chutes and Ladders often have one phase.  We might be able to characterize short games as “one phase games”, although I think we could find fairly short games of more than one phase.

In contrast, Chess can be quite a long game–players are allowed two hours each for 40 moves–so it stands to reason that it needs to have more than one phase.  These phases are normally called the opening, the mid-game, and the end-game.  The opening phase is a consequence of the severe constraints on movement of pieces at the start of the game, given the standard set up, and of the centuries of study of the best moves to bring pieces into the open and control the center of the board.

Contrast this with Risk, where the opening phase is the placement of armies before the conflict begins, and that placement can vary greatly from one game to another.  Even if you use the French setup where the cards are dealt and territories are occupied randomly, you have a setup that varies greatly from one game to another.

Contrast that with many wargames where there is a standard setup, but a player can move every one of his pieces in one turn.  As a result the game moves beyond the standard setup very rapidly, as opposed to chess when moving one piece at a time means the opening phase takes 10-20 moves by each player.

And contrast those with games where you have no units, or no maneuver (where geographical location of assets does not matter).   Often these games are symmetrical rather than the asymmetricality common in wargames. There can still be an opening phase, but it is not related to maneuver of units.

A second reason for the existence of phases in chess, other than the very constrained initial position of pieces, is that the number of pieces gradually decreases while the area of action remains the same size, thus opening up longer lines of play and new possibilities.  There’s a third reason, the piece mix for each player may deviate from the symmetric, from being identical, for example after an exchange of a Knight for a Bishop.  Forces can also become imbalanced when one player gains a material advantage, e.g. being a pawn ahead.  The mid-game in chess is also a change because players are no longer following the standard openings, but have an immediate objective of gaining positional or (more likely?) material advantage.

The end-game occurs as the number of pieces is much reduced.  There is more room to maneuver.  Further, the immediate objective becomes checkmate of the opponent’s king, rather than material or positional advantage.  Players now try to use a material or positional advantage, if they’ve gained one, to end the game.

Every chess game has an opening and a mid-game, though the latter can be cut short by a quick win.  Except when a player stumbles onto a checkmate while still trying to gain positional or material advantage, there will always be an end-game, that is, a phase when players are focusing on checkmate.

What about other games?  Play changes in a simple puzzle-game like old PCTetris because the pieces fall faster.   At some point there is no further increase in falling speed, and a good player can settle into a cathartic repetition until he or she tires and makes mistakes.  We can say there’s the ramping-up phase and then the “maximum fall” phase, a phase only experienced players reach.

Play in RPGs and FPSs changes as player avatars acquire more levels, perks, and loot (especially more and better weapons).  The monsters are tougher, the bosses are tougher, the player(s) have many more options.  In effect, the rules are modified by the loot, by perks, and by new capabilities gained by leveling up in RPGs.  There may also be changes in immediate objective as the story associated with the game develops.

Setups

Is the setup a phase?  Yes, if players make decisions that affect the outcome, as in American (not French setup) Risk.  No, if they don’t, as in chess or checkers.  Some video games start with a phase during which players customize their characters, and if that customization makes a significant difference in the outcome of play, then it’s a phase of the game.

Many games have no setup phase.  Every player begins symmetrically (all players with identical situations and assets), and if he has assets that can be maneuvered, they have not yet been maneuvered into significant positions.  Card games are almost always of this type.  Chess and most traditional boardgames are also.  Turn-based and real-time-strategy video games are symmetrical insofar as each player begins with one unit “somewhere”, though the sides are not symmetrical owing to unit differentiation.  Most video games are asymmetrical but have a mandated setup.

Historical wargames that might be called “simulations”, on the other hand, are almost always asymmetrical (differing situations and assets) in the setup, but sometimes allow players to choose their setup.  Games that simulate historical battles are always asymmetrical, but sometimes the setup is mandated by the game, while other times the players can set up pieces as they like.   More abstract (non-simulation) wargames are often the opposite.  For example Stratego is symmetrical but players can set up their pieces as they like, so the setup becomes the first decision phase of the game. American Risk is the same.  On the other hand, Diplomacy is asymmetrical but the initial setup is mandated by the game.

Video games involving an avatar are severely asymmetrical, with one character facing numerous opponents.  Add the avatar customization opportunities that are so popular in these games and you have thousands if not millions of possible setups.

Phases and rule changes

Phases ideally should not include changes in the rules but may include cases where rules that did not matter earlier in the game come to matter later, or where rules are added through acquisition of loot, or cards, or perks, or levels.  For example, there may be a rule that limits the number of pieces a player can have, perhaps reflecting supply or maintenance restrictions.  This rule may not matter at the beginning of the game but will as players build up their forces.

Ideally the same rules should apply throughout the game, with changes in circumstances leading to changes in phase.  Yet sometimes the story or history of the game demands changes in rules.  In my game Britannia, which represents 1000 years of British history, the rules are generally the same throughout, but the identity of the offensive nations and defensive nations changes over time owing to invasions and withdrawals.  However, the rules are quite different for the Romans at the beginning of the game, and slightly different for the clash of Kings at the end of the game.  We have the phase of Roman conquest where submission rules enable British nations to survive the conquest despite the unique power of Roman roads, forts, and legionnaires.  This is followed after Roman withdrawal by the phase of Anglo-Saxon invasion and domination, followed by the phase of Viking raids and conquest (the Anglo-Saxons become defenders rather than attackers), followed by the clash of Kings where we have additional reinforcements and cavalry, four phases for a 4 to 5 hour game.

The well-known boardgame Power Grid has three “steps” explicitly defined by the rules, though exactly when step 2 begins, for example, depends on player actions (and sometimes players try to “stall” the move to step 2).  The rules change slightly, but with big differences in gameplay, in each step.

In traditional Risk phasing is provided by the increase in the number of armies received for turn-in of territory card sets.  If you ever play Risk with a low repeating number of armies for card sets, such as 4-6-8-4-6-8, you’ll find that it stays in one phase for a very long time.  There is less randomness this way, but there is little momentum toward completion.  The ever-increasing number of armies received for card sets in the standard (pre-2008) rules provides the momentum to complete the game, although it can still take quite a while.  In the 2008 redesign of Risk using mission cards, completion of missions provides the momentum toward completion.  I don’t know whether the new style game has many phases or not.

Even a game as poorly-designed as Monopoly has phases.  The initial phase is the slow acquisition of properties (slow even when the correct rules, auction when a player chooses not to buy at list price, are used).  When players begin to get monopolies they move into the next phase, building houses and ultimately hotels.  The last phase is a lot of dice rolling to see who lands on whose built-up properties without being able to pay the piper.

The bottom-of-the-game-design-barrel social network games on Facebook can have phases, in fact phases are important to avoid the extremes of tedious repetition.  As players progress in Farmville they can expand their farm, automate it, change their principle crops (or animals, or orchards) as new ones are “unlocked”, and so forth.  This provides a feeling of movement and progress in what is essentially a mass-market “game”, working within the rules complexity limits of mass-market games.

Episodic games

Some games don’t have phases, but are episodic.  You play several times rather than just once, sometimes with “best two out of three” determining the winner, sometimes with more complex scoring.  Video fighting games tend to be of this type, but many traditional 52-card games are the most obvious example.

Typically, these card games do not have phases.  You play a hand, the hand is completed, you play another hand, that hand is completed, and so forth, with the game reset to its beginning situation each time, except for the score.  In some cases you maintain an accumulating score (or as in poker an amount of chips that varies from player to player).  In many cases what happens in previous hands does not affect what happens in later hands.  In other cases such as Bridge and poker what has gone before affects each hand, whether through the points and vulnerabilities of Bridge or through the amount of chips/money each player has accumulated (or lost) in poker. Of course, in all of these games players can learn about how others play, and that can affect their own play as time passes.

Flow and learning

Mihaly Csikszentmikalyi’s concept of “the Flow” has been adopted by many (e.g. Raph Koster) as a model for games.  (See my explanation in “Why We Play” http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/625/why_we_.php .).   Ideally, a game should become more difficult as players become better at it.

Koster talks about games as learning in a safe environment.  Phases mean there’s more to learn in the game.  If the phases don’t involve rules changes, all the better, the learning is about how to play well, not about how to deal with new mechanisms of the game.  Phases don’t necessarily mean the game becomes harder to play well, but they may still contribute to “the Flow”.

Repetition

Virtually all games involve repetition, whether it’s repetition of turns or something else.  The question is whether this repetition can be conducted in varying circumstances which amount to different phases.  You can play two rounds with exactly the same rules, yet the results from the first round mean that what goes on in the minds of the players in the second round is rather different.  This is most likely to be seen in Eurostyle boardgames with a limited number of rounds in which a lot can happen.

If one round can be, in terms of rules, just like the preceding one, but owing to changes in circumstances it feels different to the players, you’ve effectively increased the variety of the game.  And for 21st century gamers, variety is very much “the spice of life.”

Once again, the phase difference is in the mind of the player, and as such it is not something that we can define rigidly.  But it usually means that the short-term objective(s) of the players have changed from one phase to the next.

Other reasons for phases

Another reason to have phases in a game design is to mitigate the uncatchable-leader problem.  If, after half a game, the player who leads will almost always win, why play the rest of the game?  If the game has distinct phases with different gameplay, that can help other players overtake the leader.

Here’s a final, subtle, reason why phases are important.  Designers are in some danger of having game fans treat games the way some basketball “fans” treat basketball.  These fans only watch the end of a basketball game because they feel that what goes before doesn’t matter to the outcome.  They don’t recognize that there are phases and variations in basketball that are as interesting as the results.  They’re only interested in the destination, not in the journey.  We see this in video game players who find cheat codes, play only the end of a game, and then say they “beat the game”.  Phases help make the journey more interesting, for those willing to experience it.

The point, for game designers, is to find ways to vary their games so that phases, significant changes in what happens in the minds of the player(s), occur.  This is likely to make the game more appealing, and more long-lasting.  Fortunately, if you’re designing a game that lasts more than half an hour or so, it may naturally fall into phases as you work on its other aspects.(source:GAMASUTRA)


上一篇:

下一篇: