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

阐述环境设置对游戏玩法设计的重要性

发布时间:2012-08-07 23:01:06 Tags:,,,,

作者:Eric Schwarz

你是否玩过像《侠盗猎车手IV》这样的开放世界游戏,并对游戏中自然且不做作的世界感到惊讶?无意中撞到某人,他们也许只会耸耸肩便走开,也许会朝你大吼,也许会与你扭打起来,甚至他们还会把抢指向你,并在极端愤怒时开枪!你又有多少次在游戏中执行了一些貌似可行的行动,如驾驶汽车穿越自由岛公园并驶向大海,但却发现周围无人对此有反应?越来越多游戏能够透过玩家自然的行动而创造出一些可行且有趣的机制,所以我们很难再看到一款游戏只是耸耸肩道:“这里什么都没有,继续前进吧。”

一般来说,当我们在讨论电子游戏中的环境时,我们总需要牵扯到讲故事,并且在某种程度上也会涉及市场营销;也就是一个特定的环境会提供怎样的情节和角色,或该环境多有趣,或比起其它环境它有何特别之处?我们很少会停下来思考,然而关于环境将如何影响游戏机制,包括会创造何种新的可能性或掩盖那些可能引起其它环境问题的缺陷。尽管开发者无法完全掌控游戏环境,但是它却能够帮助开发者创造出可行,且能让玩家感觉自然的游戏玩法,并告知玩家游戏将提供何种可能性。

世界设计

游戏开发者,或者是美术人员总会在创造游戏环境中采取各种可行的方法。第一种方法便是自下而上的世界建造法:玩家在最低关卡便掌握了游戏世界或社会中的基本原理,并随着游戏的发展而更加深入进行了解。

自下而上进行建造中将会出现像“这个星球的地形条件是怎样的?”等问题,而每个新的“层面”的问题则能够回答之前的问题。这在科幻小说中非常常见,但是在电子游戏中却较为陌生,因为在这里游戏玩法总比环境更加重要。

第二种方法便是自上而下的世界建造,这种方法在电子游戏中更常见,因为在这类型游戏中玩法最为重要,它决定着游戏的营销对象—–不管游戏是否最终完成了。自上而下的游戏建造执行的是完全相反的方向:开发者将首先明确游戏玩法再创造游戏环境和主题。如果一款游戏是第一人称射击游戏,那么游戏便可以设置为战争环境,因为处在这种环境下玩家便能够更加自然地射击任何事物和任何人。

毁灭公爵(from gamasutra)

毁灭公爵(from gamasutra)

(即使是《毁灭公爵》也拥有一个让人信赖的世界——因为它那种廉价电影主题很符合廉价电影中所呈现的暴力感。)

Gas Powered Games最初开发的《围攻》系列便体现出了自上而下的游戏世界设计。第一款《地牢围攻》的背景便设置在一个传统的幻想环境中,之后的续集更是扩展了这一环境,即创造了一个更大且更多层面的世界。当来到第三部,也就是Obsidian Entertainment所开发的《地牢围攻3》便比前两部呈现出了更多蒸汽朋克元素。原班人马共同创造的《太空围攻》则是围绕着“太空”展开的游戏,虽然保留了许多相同的游戏主题,但却将它们置于一个全新的环境中。尽管环境发生了改变,《地牢围攻》的游戏玩法也仍然保持不变。这一系列游戏的目标是呈现出“剧烈的角色扮演游戏的乐趣”,而不是让玩家沉浸在Ehb世界中。

我所阐述的这些内容只是为了传达电子游戏中的环境通常都是一种偶然事件。尽管环境的主要功能是推销游戏,并且通常也会起到连接玩家的作用—–如果《辐射》未设定具有吸引力的后原子能环境,玩家便不可能坚持玩这款游戏——当开发者在创造游戏时他们总是把环境当成次要考虑元素,并且只会在完成了游戏玩法设置后才去落实它。我的目的并不是提倡相应的解决方法,而是希望通过列举一些案例解释为何环境会和游戏玩法发生冲突。

增加可信度

《侠盗猎车手》中玩家多次驾驶车辆碾过行人的身体且路人对此漠不关心,《天际》中玩家公然在商店里并偷走店主的所有库存,或者你的角色用机关枪扫射了上百名敌人但却在之后的一个过场动画中投降等等情景都会让玩家感受到各种矛盾,并极力希望能够推翻这“第四堵墙”(游戏邦注:在镜框舞台上,一般写实的室内景只有三面墙,沿台口的一面不存在的墙,被视为“第四堵墙”)。我们对此形成了一定的容忍度,并学着去接受不能完全回应自己想法的游戏,但是最终还是绕回了最简单的理由:我只是在玩一款电子游戏。

环境便是一种能够减少或根除这些问题的有效方法。环境是游戏中玩家所经历的一种有效的情境,它能以一种最基本的方法告知玩家所有可能出现的游戏玩法。如果游戏能够创造出符合其环境的游戏玩法,或者能够创建一个有效回应游戏玩法的环境,它便能够呈现给玩家极其真实的游戏——无主题矛盾便能够创造出真正可被信赖的内容。相反地,如果游戏打破了自身的规则,这便会大大影响玩家的游戏体验;而如果游戏常常违背这些规则,玩家便会认为游戏世界根本就不存在规则,从而不会再认真对待游戏内容——最终,开发者投入于创造故事,角色等元素的努力都将白费,因为游戏显示了自身的无意义性。

我并不是在为这些想法进行辩解,甚至可以说在我出生前它们就已经存在了,但我却无法忍受非常重视环境设置可却让玩家产生失真感的游戏,因为它们常会打破自身规则。

《天际》虽然提供给玩家大量的机遇去实践并体验游戏玩法,但是它却很容易在一些小环节中出现问题。尝试着创造一个模拟人类(或近似人类)的角色,此时游戏中所有的细节都暴露在大众眼皮底下,而开发者却无法发现所有的问题。甚至在《Morrowind》中也存在这种问题——设置了许多文本内容以解释游戏环境;但是它却并未包含任何模拟物理元素,玩家只能够用锅敲击AI的头部才能击败它们。

同样的,在《Oblivion》中许多玩家肯定对Imperial City满大街的腐烂尸体记忆犹新吧,开发者可以通过创造更多特殊的AI对游戏进行完善,但是这却会造成一种恶性循环,或者可以说这是游戏环境中的某一组成部分。相比王国中心的合法城市,开发者可以通过改变游戏环境而完善《Oblivion》中的游戏玩法局限;例如住着非人类的Argonian种族,且未经开发的Black Marsh是一个较为原始的部落,所以这里更容易出现各种AI缺陷。

环境传达游戏玩法

环境不仅能够隐藏现有游戏玩法的缺陷,同时在环境设置中所形成的挑战还能够创造出新的且有趣的游戏动态。如果采取了错误的方法,《上古卷轴》系列中的世界便有可能遭遇瓦解,并且许多游戏机制都是源于环境设置。《天际》的内战背景便为玩家在游戏世界中创造了可征服或战败战斗机制,而如果游戏故事或环境透露了相关信息便不可能出现这种结果。龙的呼啸是游戏背景中额外的添加物,能够让游戏环境更有意义。

环境总是能够激发有趣的游戏理念——就像《天际》中冰封的荒原便是幸存技能的最佳表现场所,不管是包裹得严严实实还是建造冰屋,这都是玩家努力占上风的方式。

我们还有许多例子可以借鉴,举个例子来说吧,就像策略游戏主要是基于《命令与征服》(以下简称C&C)模式,在这里个人单位将通过打败别人而进入下一个关卡,成功是一种经济效率问题而非战术,并且比起武装力量规模单位的位置显得更加微不足道。但是这种缺少“现实性”的C&C模式却很少会惹怒玩家,因为环境本身就是虚构且做作的。

命令与征服(from gamasutra)

命令与征服(from gamasutra)

(在每次迭代中C&C都是以相同模式而出现。甚至第三个版本推出的外星人也没有什么不同,同样与人类极为相似。)

Relic Entertainment的《英雄连》便使用了更多关于战争的真实描述,如玩家能够在建筑中设防,或使用遮蔽物躲开敌人的炮弹,或鼓舞士气是军队效能的核心等等,而所有的这些描述也让这款即时策略游戏区别于其它游戏。如果开发者决定创造出更具现实性的环境,那么这种创造性的游戏玩法便可能永远都不会出现(在战术导向型的《Dawn of War II》中表现得更加明显)。

当然了,我最喜欢的《骇客任务》便使用了这种创新。尽管从表面看来只是一个射击手面对着一个直接的目标,但是因为游戏环境是设置在未来45年后的世界中,所以这对于射击手的发展具有很大的影响。游戏是面向不远的未来而展开,所以玩家便更容易相信这个世界和其中的角色,并且额外的网络朋克元素,如机器人学和控制论也变得更加可行,因为我们可以在此预见我们的世界在今后的模样。而游戏升推系统(游戏邦注:是一种标准的升级系统)则意味着各种特殊的力量,如超级能量或对于毒药和辐射的免疫等都将得到证实。

现在让我们假设《骇客任务》是发生在现实中的第二次世界大战期间。那么机器人的存在就没有任何意义了,所以游戏便不得不删除更多这类形象的敌人。除此之外开发者还不得不花更多精力去解释魔法能量或突变,而游戏也很难去传达关于经历了技术开发的后人文主义这一主题,游戏的环境设置将遭到严重的质疑。武器将受到各种限制——不能再出现等离子枪等高科技产物。以第二次世界大战为背景的游戏将不能再以《骇客任务》的模式体现出来,它不仅会缺少更多与游戏主题达成共鸣的元素,同时开发者还不得不删除更多特定的游戏元素和机制。

结论

我希望在今后,开发者能够更多地考虑环境是如何影响自己的游戏,而不只是围绕着玩家所喜欢的科幻世界展开创造。因为了解了环境的特殊性开发者才能创造出更加可信的游戏,并以此创造出更多新机制而提高游戏的深度和游戏主题的意义。不过这也不是说每一款游戏都必须拥有一个严肃,一致且精心雕琢的环境,但是我们却必须清楚,这是当前游戏产业所追捧的现实主义中的重要组成部分,并且这一元素的作用也在逐渐强大起来。(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 Importance of Setting (With Respect to Gameplay)

by Eric Schwarz

Have you ever been playing an open-world title like Grand Theft Auto IV, and been amazed about how natural and reactive much of the world is?  Bump into someone the wrong way, and they might do anything from shrug it off, to yell at you, to start a fistfight… they might even pull a gun on you and start shooting if they’re high-strung enough.  Yet how many times have you also performed an equally plausible action, like driving a car across Liberty Island’s parks, before flinging that car into the ocean, only to see absolutely no reaction from anyone around you?  As much as some titles are able to create plausible and interesting mechanics out of natural player actions, it’s just as, if not more common to see a game simply shrug its shoulders and say, “nope, got nothing, move along.”

Generally speaking, when discussing settings in videogames, we tend to think of it in terms of storytelling, and, to a degree, marketing; namely, what does a given setting offer plot- and character-wise, or how cool is it, or how many people does it appeal to compared with another setting?  We rarely stop to think, however, about how setting can actively influence the game mechanics of a title, either opening up new possibilities, or covering up flaws that would otherwise cause problems in another setting.  While setting often isn’t something that developers are always fully in control of, it is an exceptionally valuable tool in creating gameplay that is plausible and feels natural to players, and informs the possibilities games have to offer.

World Design

Game developers, and for that matter, just about all artists, tend to take a couple of approaches when it comes to building settings.  The first of these methods is bottom-up world-building: where the fundamentals of a given game world, or society, are understood from the lowest possible level and worked up.  Taken to extremes, building from the bottom-up includes questions like “what are the geographic conditions of this planet?”, and each new “tier” of questions is an answer to the previous one.  This is common in science fiction and fantasy outside of gaming, but not so common in videogames because often the gameplay comes before the setting.

The second method of world-building, top-down, is far more common in videogames because gameplay and genre are usually the most important parts of a title and what determine everything from who a game is marketed to, to whether it even gets made or not.  Top-down world-building simply goes in the opposite direction: setting and theme are created with the gameplay goals in mind.  If a title is a first-person shooter, a wartime setting makes a lot of sense because the violence of that kind of world allows us to be comfortable with shooting other things, or people.

Even Duke Nukem has a surprisingly believable world because its cheesy B-movie themes match the B-movie violence on display.

Top-down world design is exemplified by the Siege series, originally developed by Gas Powered Games.  The first Dungeon Siege was set in a typical fantasy environment, while the sequel expanded the setting considerably and included a much larger and more layered world.  The third, developed by Obsidian Entertainment, took on a more steampunk flair than the previous two titles, and Space Siege, a literal “in space!” spin-off, kept many of the same gameplay themes but put them in a new context.  Despite the significant changes in setting, Dungeon Siege’s gameplay has remained very constant.  The goal of the series is “hack and slash RPG fun”, and not “immersing the player in the world of Ehb.”

I’m running through all this mostly just to demonstrate that setting in videogames is usually, to a degree, incidental.  While settings are used to sell games and are often what players connect to when playing them – I suspect Fallout wouldn’t be nearly as well-remembered if it hadn’t had such a compelling post-nuclear setting – they’re generally a secondary concern when creating a game, and only fleshed out once the gameplay itself is defined.  My goal isn’t to advocate one approach or the other, only to provide some context for why settings can clash with gameplay.

Suspension of Disbelief

That scenario in Grand Theft Auto where you run your car over a pedestrian’s body multiple times and nobody seems to care, or that moment in Skyrim where you steal a shopkeeper’s entire inventory while standing right in the middle of her store, or when your character mows down hundreds upon hundreds of enemies with a machine gun but then surrenders during a cutscene – all of these situations are jarring enough for players that they often border in breaking the fourth wall.  We build up a tolerance for them, we learn to accept that games can’t be wholly reactive to everything that we do, but ultimately it comes back to that simple justification: I’m playing a videogame.

Setting is one of the primary ways to reduce or eliminate these problems.  As setting is effectively the context of the gameplay that players partake in, it informs the possibilities of gameplay in a very fundamental way.  If a game is able to either create gameplay scenarios that fit its setting effectively, or alternately builds a setting that reflects the gameplay itself, the result is verisimilitude – the lack of thematic conflict produces a work that is wholly believable within its own context.  Conversely, when a game breaks its own rules, it sucks players out of the experience; when the rules are broken often enough, the logical conclusion players reach is that the world has no rules, and therefore shouldn’t be taken seriously at all – thus all effort put into creating stories, characters, and so on is wasted, because the game itself has stated they are meaningless.

I certainly don’t lay claim to these thoughts, as they’re much older than I am, but it can be quite jarring just how often games which take their settings very seriously and demand suspension of disbelief, will nevertheless bend and break their own rules time and time again.

Contrary to popular belief, placing buckets on one’s head is not a sacred Nord ritual to purge the body of all impure thoughts.  I know, I was surprised too. Skyrim, for instance, offers up players a massive world of opportunity for experimentation and free-form gameplay, yet it’s also liable to crash and burn over some of the smallest things.

In trying to craft a fully simulated world populated by human (or near-human) characters, suddenly every detail is open to scrutiny, and the developers can’t possibly account for all this.

This is an issue which existed even in Morrowind, which had reams and reams of more text to explain its settings; however, as it didn’t include, say, simulated physics, there was no way to break the game’s AI by putting pots on heads.

Similarly, the classic case of bodies rotting in the streets of the Imperial City, a common sight in Oblivion for many players, could be improved through coding more and more reactive and specific AI, which shortly becomes a bottomless downward spiral… or, it can be explained as part of the setting.  Instead of a lawful city at the heart of the empire, Oblivion’s limitations in gameplay could have been radically improved through a change in setting; for instance, perhaps the largely unexplored, foreign Black Marsh, populated by the decidedly non-human Argonian race, and organized in a more primitive, tribal manner, would have made many of the AI’s flaws much easier to swallow.

Setting Informing Gameplay

Setting isn’t just a tool for hiding the flaws in existing gameplay, of course – often, the challenges posed by a setting can create interesting new gameplay dynamics.  The Elder Scrolls series, as much as it’s likely to fall apart if prodded and poked just the wrong way, also has lots of game mechanics which stem organically from the setting.  The civil war backdrop for Skyrim allowed for an interesting, if ultimately somewhat under-developed faction combat mechanic where players can conquer and lose forts across the game world, for instance – something which really wouldn’t be possible if the story and setting said otherwise.  Dragon shouts are an entertaining addition that make sense in the context of the lore.  And the setting certainly inspires interesting gameplay ideas – Skyrim’s harsh frozen wastes could have been the perfect place to make survival-oriented skills relevant, everything from dressing warmly to building igloos to keep the weather out.

There are plenty of other examples one could turn to, however.  Strategy games, for instance, have long been built in the mold of Command & Conquer, where individual units move across a level fighting others, where success is usually a matter of economic efficiency rather than tactics, and where things like unit positioning are less important than sheer quantity of forces.

This lack of “realism” in C&C never really bothered anyone because the setting itself was fictitious and campy.

Command & Conquer plays almost identically in every iteration.  Even the aliens introduced in the third installment aren’t that different, almost all of them having direct human analogues.

When it came time for Relic Entertainment’s Company of Heroes to adopt a more genuine depiction of warfare, simple things like being able to garrison units in buildings, or using cover to dodge enemy fire, or having morale be a central part of squad effectiveness, suddenly made a real-time strategy game unlike any other.  These innovations in gameplay, which later informed the even more tactics-oriented Dawn of War II, may never have happened if the decision to go for a more realistic setting hadn’t occurred.

Of course, my favourite game of all time, Deus Ex, is also no stranger to this.  Despite being, on the surface, a pretty simple shooter with fairly straightforward goals, there is a huge impact to it being set 45 years in the future from when it was released.  The near-future setting was familiar enough to allow players to believe the world and the characters, and the addition of cyberpunk staples like robotics and cybernetics were all the more plausible because we could see our own world looking like that in the future.  The game’s augmentation system,though effectively just a standard power-up delivery vessel, meant that many special powers, like super strength or immunity to poison or radiation, could be justified.

Now consider how Deus Ex would look if it took place in the popular realistic World War II setting that was so common at the time thanks to Medal of Honor.  Robots wouldn’t make sense, so some of the game’s more iconic enemies would be out.  Augmentations could at best be explained as magic powers, or mutations, so a core theme of the game, post-humanism through technological development, would be difficult to explore, and the seriousness of the game’s setting and social commentary would be called into question.  Weaponry would be more limited – no plasma guns for you.  It’s not that a game couldn’t be built in the Deus Ex mold, using World War II as a backdrop – but it would lack so much of the game’s thematic resonance and would rule out certain gameplay elements and mechanics.

Closing Thoughts

In the future, I’d like to see developers consider more closely how setting affects their titles – not just because everyone likes a cool fictional world, but because being sensitive to the particulars of setting helps create more believable games, and in the best cases, leads to new mechanics that add layers of gameplay depth and thematic meaning to the experience.  That’s not to say that every game needs to have a serious, consistent, well-considered setting, but as it’s one of the key factors in the current industry’s obsession with detail and quote-unquote realism, it’s also something that only becomes more and more apparent with every year.(source:GAMASUTRA)


上一篇:

下一篇: