作者： Adam Rebika

我打算为自己买台3DS！天啊，再次体验《塞尔达传说：时之笛》确实带回了许多美好的回忆。而且我幸运地找到了《火炎之纹章：暗黑龙》的副本（第一代《火炎之纹章》的重制版本）。

虽然《火炎之纹章》是我最喜欢的任天堂IP，但当时它在法国并不怎么受欢迎，而且游戏发行后花三个多月时间找副本实在不可能。

然而当我兴致冲冲地告诉朋友们我所购买的游戏时，他们的回答却是他们讨厌这款游戏。为什么？因为游戏中只有消灭同盟者才可以获得一些角色或者几个奖励关卡。

对于不熟悉这款游戏的你们，我需要在本文开始前普及一些知识。每款游戏中，你需要为军队征募40-50个单位。每个单位都是独一无二且有着自己的个性（渡邦注：每款新《火炎之纹章》都会引入下载全新的有魅力、迷人且难忘的角色）。大多数这些角色都拥有特殊的作战技能，这需要玩家注意许多具体细节——比如，如果你知道角色正在找寻他/她失散的哥哥/姐姐，你就需要找到有点像这个角色的敌方单位，然后你可以将其送到那，开启一个对话框，那样就可以雇佣他们的哥哥/姐姐了。除了这些单位，每场战役中你只能投入15-20个单位。但是大多数《火炎之纹章》的玩家担心他们雇佣的每个加成单位以及它们的存活度（如果其中一个单位丧生，那你就再也看不到它了）。实际上，如果玩家不得到每个单位及每个奖励关卡，他们不会认为自己完成了游戏。

choice(from krishnapendyala.wordpress.com)

当游戏要求玩家只能在所有角色及所有奖励关卡之间做选择时，你就看出了问题。你不能二者兼得，你必须放弃其中一者才可以获得另一个。

我不得不说，这是我所遇到的电子游戏中最有意义的选择。我更在意的是5-10分钟做出的选择的结果。但有时候，我不得不承认我讨厌游戏强加的这类选择。

然后我开始思考：同大多数的玩家一样，我也希望电子游戏可以进化到为玩家提供更多的自由空间，尤其是通过故事情节的分支。我总是希望选择带有真实的结局，较不明显的结果……但关键还是在于要有所选择。可为何这时我还要纠结于选择呢？

通常，电子游戏中的选择分为两大类：

1.选择玩法，即你选择玩游戏的方式。即使是线性游戏也多会提供玩法选择的形式（例如，我是狙击了这个家伙还是向他扔个手榴弹？），但是一些游戏会尝试让选项进一步发展，特别是角色扮演游戏中，你需要挑选自己的类别、技能等等。一些游戏会基于你的选择提供不同的玩法，然而，大多数的选项只是在摁压按钮后提供不同的兴奋感或者是给角色换上不同肤色。

2.选择故事情节，理论上指你的动作决定了故事情节的发展。实际上，大多数时候，这类选择要么不会影响故事本身，要么局限于你面对最后一个boss时弹出的简单的选择，最糟的情况是，这些选择中只有一个是正确的。

大多数玩家认为，选择质量的降低是由游戏开发者的懒惰造成的。然而当一款游戏试图提供更具体的选择时，比如《辐射：新维加斯》及其中的四个阵营，我才意识到其实我并不在乎它们。无论我处在哪个阵营，我都能赢。当然，故事的明智之处在于，每个结局都不一样，我们甚至可以认为整个国家的命运陷入危险中，但是到了最后，我总会是这场战争中的胜者。我看过关于《荒原之战》中哪个阵营为最佳的详细争辩，然而这只是来自《辐射》粉丝中的一小部分的辩解，而大多数的玩家则会与他们认为的厉害家伙为伍，或者以他们第一个碰到的家伙为伍。

如果游戏中的所有选择并非都是好的，那会怎么样？在游戏中认错组织就会失败，而站对阵营就会成功？游戏中并非所有选择都是好的？这样不是很爽吗？不。

真实世界总是充满了类似的选择。人们整天、甚至每天都在考虑如何选择。而且没有任何选项是清晰的或者合理的。我是找比较有趣但工资偏低的工作呢？还是找工资高但是相对枯燥的职业呢？这场战役我要支持哪个朋友呢？我是要道出事实还是对他/她保密呢？如同《火炎之纹章》里的选择：你从未得到任何东西，你从未真正赢过。如果你想得到某物，那么你就必须牺牲其它东西。你的一生都在寻找保持所有选择的平衡点。

大多数玩家接触电子游戏都是为了从一天劳累的工作中得到释放。你不想在游戏进程中碰到任何选择，你只想挑选你看好的选项。如果游戏过程是轻松的，那是因为你知道每一步选择都会引导你获胜，一犯错误就会马上提醒你的失误，而不是在十个小时后才通知你。当然，游戏中的结局有好有坏，但是只是成功的形式不同（获胜可以是你完成了游戏，通过每道关卡，获得所有需要的物品），有时坏结局未必那么糟。

总结如下，当涉及选择故事情节时，你应该确定每个选项都能取胜。玩家不应该为了得到其它事物而放弃一些事物，因为这是他们整天都在做的事。玩家只想挑选获胜的最佳渠道，因为没有比失败更令人沮丧的事情了。当然，你应当使不同选项更加清晰，环境更具有反应性……这才是游戏的重点。

许多游戏并未让玩家从衍生的故事情节中获得什么。无论我何时玩《塞尔达传说》，我想摆脱Ganon的废话，选择不与他为伍。不带选项的线性故事有许多优势，比如更好的角色发展，更好地控制节奏等。我们也别忘了，制作衍生故事情节的费用很高。

如今，线性游戏中有趣的地方在于主角在最后都会失败。这时候，玩家仍觉得自己赢了，因为他已经完成了整个游戏进程，你可以试着创作一个关于他如何输掉的感人故事。然而，你需再次确定游戏遵循更加传统的方案，有高潮结局，玩家可以打赢最终boss或者最后一场战役。比如，《光晕：致远星》围绕着玩家角色拼命挣扎着保护Reach免受Covenants的伤害。故事一开始，你就知道结果必输。确实，展开英雄行为后，主角总会在最后一个关卡牺牲。而意外的是他仍然以帮助Cortana逃出Covenants的掌控而获胜。

one chance(from direcritic.com)

游戏可以挖掘失败元素吗？对此，我只想到了一个例子，我也无法判断这是否算是一款游戏。它叫做《One Chance》。基本上你只有六天的存活时间，你要选择如何打发这段日子。当然这是一项互动式的电子体验，然而无任何乐趣及挑战。我仍会建议你做下尝试，因为它的情节确实动人且易于理解（如果你想了解的话，可以点击这个链接，只需五分钟且内容完全免费：http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/555181）。一款真实且有趣的电子游戏可以围绕选择和失败而设计吗？我表示怀疑，但它仍值得一试。

对玩法选择也是一样的。虽然允许玩家专门化自己的角色是许多游戏中的一个卖点，但是情况往往不是这样，尤其是你需要牺牲许多资源去创造平衡的选项以及关卡，让游戏更具多样性且更有趣。如果小偷游戏只是要求你穿过城堡然后消灭里面的每个守卫者，那么它就毫无乐趣可言。

所以，我的结论是，即使为玩家提供多种选择，也未必能够优化游戏，特别是当玩家不愿意过多考虑选择结果好坏的时候。（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）

Players don’t want to choose, they want to pick – and only sometimes

by Adam Rebika

So, I have finally gotten around buying myself a 3DS! God, playing Zelda: Ocarina Of Time again sure brings back a lot of memories. And I was lucky enough to find a copy of Fire Emblem – Shadow Dragon (remake of the first fire Emblem).

Now, even though it is my favorite Nintendo IP, Fire Emblem games are not very popular in France, and finding copies more than three months after the release of the game is pretty much impossible.

But when I happily told the few of my friends about my purchase, most of them answered me that they hated this game. Why? Because the only way to get some characters or bonus levels was to kill some of your party members.

For those of you unfamiliar with these games, there are a few things that you should know before I move on with this article. During each game, you get to recruit 40 – 50 units for your army. Each of these units is unique, with its own and unique personnality (Each new Fire Emblem game brings a whole new load of charismatic, appealing and unforgettable characters (Canas, you remain my all-time favorite). Most of these characters have to be hired through very specific actions, that require the player to pay attention to a lot of small details – for example, if you know one of your characters is looking for his / her long time lost brother / sister, and you run into an ennemy unit that looks a bit like this character, then you have to send him there to unlock a dialog allowing you to hire said brother / sister. Out of these units, you’ll only really use 15 – 20 of them during each playthrough, and the other ones will be unused.

BUT most Fire Emblem players are very serious about hiring every bonus unit AND making sure they all survive (if one of your units dies, then it’s over, you never see it again). Actually, they won’t reckon having finished the game if they don’t have every unit and every bonus level.

Now, you see where the problem is when the game requires that his players choose between having all the characters OR having all the bonus levels. You can’t have both, you must give up one of these to get the other.

And I have to say, this has to be the most meaningful choice a videogame has ever faced me with. I cared enough about the outcome of this choice that it actually took me 5 – 10 minutes to decide myself. And I have to admit, for a little while, I hated this game for imposing me this choice.

Then I started thinking: I, like most gamers, would like to see videogames evolve towards more freedom for the player, especially through branching storylines. I have always wished for choices with real consequences, with less obvious outcomes… Choices that mattered. Then, why was I upset about having to choose this time?

Usually, choices in video games fall into two categories:

Gameplay choices, where you choose how you play the game. Even the most linear games offer a form of gameplay choice (do I snipe this guy or do I throw a grenade at him?), but some do try to make them more developped, especially RPGs where you get to pick your class, your skills etc. Some games offer very different gameplays depending on your choices, but for most of them, it’s just a different animation when you smash the hit button and a different skin for your character.

Story choices, where your actions determine the story… In theory. Indeed, most of the time, either the choices are very manichean and have little to no influence on the game itself (Fallout 3 and Fable, I’m looking at you) OR are limited to a simple choice right before the final boss, with, in the worst cases, only one of these options considered as canon.

Most gamers consider that the little quality of choices offered are a consequence of the lazyness of game developpers. But even when a game tries to offer a more elaborate choice, such as Fallout: New Vegas and its four factions, I realized that I did not care so much about that choice. No matter which faction I side with, it will win and I will win. Of course, story-wise, each ending is very different, and we can even think that the fate of the whole country (or what’s left of it, anyway) is at stake but at the end of the day, I will always be the clear winner of that war. I have seen very vivid debates about which faction was the best for the Wastelands, but they were only coming from a small minority of Fallout fans, while most other players just sided with this guy because he looked cool, or that guy because he was the first one they stumbled upon.

Now, what about a game where not all choices are good? A game where siding with one faction would lead to to defeat while the other faction would lead you to victory? A game where your choices are not always good? Wouldn’t it be awesome? No.

Real life is filled with this kind of choices. People have to choose all day, every day. And none of these choices are clear or manichean. Do I go for the low paying but exciting job or the boring but high paying one? With which friend do I side with in this fight? Should I be honnest or protect her / him from the hurtful truth? These are Fire Emblem like choices: you never get everything, you never really win. If you want something, you must sacrifice something else. And your whole life is devoted to finding a right balance between all these choices.

People mostly play video games to rest from how tiring and stressful life is. When playing, you don’t want to choose, you want to pick your favorite option. And if games are so relaxing, it’s because you know that every choice will lead you to success, and failure comes immediately after a mistake, not ten hours later. Of course, you have some games with bad and good endings, but they only are different kinds of success (the success being the fact that you finished the game, played through every level and got pretty much everything that was to be gotten), and the bad endings are rarely that bad.

To conclude on this point, I would say that obviously, when it comes to storyline choices, you should always make sure that every option leads to success. The player should not give up something to get something else, since it’s what they do all day long. The player only wants to pick his favorite way to victory, as nothing is more frustrating than failure. Of course, you can and should make the different options less manichean and the environment more reactive… Only if, of course, this serves the point of the game.

There are many games that would gain next to nothing from branching storylines. Whenever I play Zelda, I want to beat the crap out of Ganon(dorf), not to have the option to side with him.

There are many advantages to having a linear story with no choices, such as better character development, more controlled rythm etc. And let’s not forget that making a branching storyline can be very expensive.

Now what would be interesting would be a linear game where the main character loses in the end. This time, the player still feels he has succeeded, since he has finished the game, and you can try to create a moving story about how he indeed fails. But then again, you should make sure the game follows a more traditional scheme, with a climactic ending, a final boss or a final fight that the player wins. One good example is Halo: Reach, which is centered around the desperate struggle to defend Reach from the Covenants. From the beginning of the game, you know you will lose in the end. And indeed, the main character dies in the last level, after an heroic fact. But here, the exception is that he still succeeded somehow, by allowing Cortana to escape from the hands (?) of the Covenants.

Can a game explore failure? Well, only one example comes to my mind, and I wouldn’t really tell it’s a game. It is called : One Chance. Basically, you have six days left to live, and you get to choose how you send them. Of course this is an interactive digital experience, but it isn’t fun nor challenging. I would still recommend that you try it, as it is pretty moving and well realized (here’s the link if you want, it only takes five minutes and is completely free: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/555181).
Now could a real, fun video game be centered about choices and failure? I doubt it, but it is still worth trying.

Same goes for gameplay choices.  While allowing your player to specialize his character can be a selling point in many games, it is not always the case, especially since you will have to devote a lot of resources creating balanced options and levels that make all of them viable and fun to play. Thief games would be much less fun if you just had the option to storm through the castle and kill every guard inside.

So, my conclusion would be that, even though offering various options to your player can do your game some good, it’s not always the case, especially when you consider the fact that gamers usually don’t want to care too much about said choices.（source:gamasutra）