作者：Josh Bycer

《X-Com：未知敌人》发行前，我思考了该游戏的独特性以及出色元素。我在叙写《X-Com》前作的回顾文章时发现，《X-Com》中包含了较少游戏会尝试延用的元素：即将失败模式设计为游戏体验的一部分。

当你体验囊括生命系统或故事元素的电子游戏时，它们通常包含结束状态：即玩家必须重新开始，直到以正确玩法取胜。实际上，失败已变成玩家的通关门槛，他们必须找到继续游戏进程的方法。但《X-Com》中的失败并不意味着游戏结束，除非玩家在一些特定事件中丧生（游戏邦注：比如失去基地、在执行最后任务时失败）。

只有少数游戏会将失败定义为玩法的一部分，而失败元素常常会影响游戏的访问量，但大部分具备丰富玩法的佳作已经努力在游戏中实现这一元素。设计这类系统需要设计师理解一些特定重点。

1.累积难度

在设计一款能够吸引大量用户的游戏时，设计师们希望尽可能多的玩家可以参与其中，并爱上它。这意味着设计师必须做出一些妥协，更改游戏难度，提供玩家获胜机会……

这些游戏均拥护一个与众不同的宗旨：即玩家会面临多次失败，而他们更加喜爱这种效果。

其中一种最佳的改善方式便是呈现失败模式。如果你曾遭遇失败，那么该因素会促使你重新回到游戏进程，征服这些挑战。

《X-Com》中，玩家的胜算好比在拉斯维加斯老虎机中赢钱的概率。当你首次体验该作时，你会发现游戏中的敌人比你更具优势：他们配备更加精良的枪支，射击更具准确性、而且有时，它们的人数会超过玩家组建的小分队。

在头几回合的战斗中，玩家难以保证半数以上的队员能够存活下来。通常外星人的一次攻击就可以致使角色丧命。随后，游戏中会出现更加强大的敌人，这样，谁会忽略抵抗心灵攻击呢？

同时，围绕rogue-like机制设计的游戏也会令玩家陷入表面困境。《恶魔之魂》中，你的最初装备非常基础，而且你无法升级角色。《暗黑之魂》甚至更加完美诠释了盒子上的标语：“准备受死吧”。

Dark-Souls(from freshgamer.com)

现在，游戏一开始便让玩家陷入困境是件易事，但挑战型游戏与纯粹让玩家受挫的游戏之间还有诸多差异。

2.取得进展

为了确保不让玩家觉得失败是一种很糟糕的感觉，开发者们必须设计出可以让玩家多少获得一些进展的体验。比如，基本的做法是让玩家更加了解游戏，这是任何rougle-like风格的游戏所具备的主要元素。

一开始，玩家并不清楚游戏规则与潜在危险。随着进程启动，他们逐渐掌握对抗某些敌人、避免陷阱、寻找积极情境的方法。最终，玩家知道如何让游戏转向有利自己的方向。

另一方面，获得游戏进展其实是个更加复杂的设计。在《X-Com》中，尽管玩家失去一些重要队员，从研究的角度上看，他们却仍然取得了一定进展。解锁急救箱、动态感应器以及更加精良的装备这类实用道具意味着，即使玩家失败了，他们仍取得了一些进展。

《暗黑之魂》与《恶魔之魂》都包含了支持玩家提高角色灵魂等级，从而提高玩家数据的游戏进程。借此，玩家可以永久性地改善角色，避免它们丧生时从游戏中消失。

同时，玩家还可以在通过地下城时解锁捷径模式。虽然敌人会复活，但任何解锁的捷径与大门都会保持永久开放。比如：玩家在《恶魔之魂》的关卡5-2中必须勇敢地在充满毒气的沼泽地中艰难作战。如果他们可以通过这道关卡，他们可以开启捷径的开关，从而跳过该关卡中75%的挑战。

我个人钟爱《The Binding of Isaac》中游戏进程的设计方式。作为rogue-like风格的作品，当玩家消耗完生命值，游戏结束时，他们不得不重新回到关卡1继续作战。但随着他们再次进入游戏，游戏会解锁一些全新敌人、道具与关卡，它们会随机分配到游戏进程中。

the-binding-of-isaac(from gameguru.in)

（《The Binding of Isaac》支持玩家通过角色丧命解锁更多道具与敌人，从而取得进展）

在《Isaac》与《X-Com》中，玩家的失败仍会获得某些奖励，最终，解锁道具会扭转玩家的局面。

《Isaac》中的许多道具会竭尽全力帮助玩家消灭大部分的原先敌人，它们甚至有助于玩家获得解锁机会。

同时，由于具备更具优良数据的全新设备，《X-Com》中的更多队员可以幸免于难，而且，最终，玩家甚至会从军备竞赛中脱颖而出。

另外，我们还需提到《Shiren the Wanderer》系列。《Shiren》属于真正意义上的rogue-like游戏：它包括回合制玩法、丧命模式令玩家回到初始关卡，以及具有挑战性的敌人。《Shiren》中还设置收藏屋，玩家可以用其保存道具，以备接下来的战役。

也就是说，游戏的城镇中有个工匠，他可以在每个回合中通过收取玩家的一定费用完善某款装置。玩家可以在每个回合中携带某款武器，完善之后，储存起来，而后重复这个动作。最终，这款武器会变得十分强大，它的一次攻击便能消灭任何敌人。现在，这并非提供进展，平衡游戏的最佳渠道，它可能会影响用户基础。

游戏的动力是让玩家感受到自己时时刻刻都在进行自我完善，无论完善结果如何并不重要，只要玩家可以取得进展。如果游戏体验如同用自己的头去撞击一堵砖墙，直到把它撞碎，那么大部分玩家不会坚持玩这种游戏。

我甚至也是因为极端的难度而喜欢上《忍者龙剑传：黑之章》，这款游戏为玩家设置更多挑战难度。除了攻克困境，玩家仍无法在游戏中获得进展。为此，不少玩家会停止前进，最终放弃游戏进程。因为该作最初设计主要是由玩家的技能决定胜负。

有些游戏设计趋向一种极端模式：即玩家会解锁一些罕见事物，而其它时候却得不到任何东西。比如，最近发行的《超越光速》这款rogue-like游戏中：玩家可以通过完成任务或获取特定成就解锁一些新型战舰。

由于不同的设计与启动装备，每艘战舰会对游戏玩法产生巨大影响。但由于玩家只能以一些特定动作解锁它们，所以对某些玩家而言，这是一个长期的过程，在此之前，他们只能使用基础军舰，或者他们可以通过一次性获胜解锁这些军舰。

Faster Than Light(from gamasutra)

（同比《Isaac》，《超越光速》提供较少的前进机会，但每艘军舰可以从根本上改变作战策略。）

你可能会辩解道，《暗黑破坏神3》也是提供较少前进机会的例子，它降低了游戏的升级速度。63级道具可以极大提升玩家的统计数据，但这不仅只有一次机会，而且会降低职业的本质属性。

现在，我们已经了解游戏难度与前进概念，最后，我们应探讨取得进展的相反面。

3.避免失败循环

“富者愈富，穷者愈穷”一语便提到这个观点。由于大量游戏均围绕rogue-like机制中的重玩模式设计而成，设计师们必须注意一点，一个失败循环可能意味着角色丧生；因此，玩家无法恢复失去的东西，他们的生命值开始逐渐下降，最终丧命。

《X-Com》中，一到两次的作战失败并不会让玩家丧生，如果游戏中出现一些全新元素，那么玩家很容易陷入连续不断的惨败境地。最终他们无法负担能源补充的费用，维护基地，他们别无选择，只能重新开始游戏进程。

玩家在《Shiren the Wanderer》中一次性完成任务之后，该系列会解锁一些测试玩家技能的地牢模式。其中不少模式要求玩家在此之前需具备一些升级道具。

如果玩家丧命，失去所有东西，他们无法再次重玩地牢关卡。他们必须耗费数小时的时间重新收集道具，并希望自己这次可以通过。

虽然《超越光速》并不允许玩家在一场军舰战役失败后继续体验游戏进程，但游戏中的其它情境会迫使产生一个失败循环，从而防止玩家打败boss。比如无法找到武器或升级防御系统，或者无法凑足碎片升级战舰。同时，失去宝贵成员，或者微弱状态时遭遇攻击也不利于成员处境。

我们并不希望历经失败过程，但它是生活中的必要部分。将失败融入产品，并设计成富有趣有趣的作品似乎是个疯狂的设想，但如果游戏达到正确效果，那意味着你将获得一款惊人之作。如果玩家连续丧命10次，却仍然打算重返游戏，那就说明你的游戏确实摸着门道了。（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）

Making Failure Fun

by Josh Bycer

Rogue-like design has been becoming popular among mainstream design recently. Today’s post discusses the challenge of making the player fail, and have them come back for more.

Around the time before the release of X-Com Enemy Unknown, I started thinking about the original and what made it such a great game. While I was writing up a retrospective piece on the original X-Com I noticed one element that X-Com did that only a few games have managed to copied: it made failure part of the experience.

When you play a video game with a lives system or a story, there is usually a game over state: Where the player must restart until they get it right. Effectively, failure becomes a wall that the player must find a way around to continue making progress. But in X-Com, failure did not mean game over unless the player fails specific events (lost their bases, failed the final mission.)

Defining failure as part of the gameplay is something that not a lot of games can do and hurts the accessibility, but games that have managed to pull this off are some of the most gameplay rich titles around. The design of this kind of system requires the designer to understand some very specific points.

1. Stacking the Deck

When designing a game around appealing to a wide audience, the designer wants as many people to play and enjoy the game as possible. That means giving concessions, altering difficulty and giving everyone who plays the game a chance to beat it…

These games have a different philosophy: The player is going to lose… a lot and they better like it.

One of the best ways to show improvement is to show failure. If something before was kicking your ass, there is nothing like coming back to it and conquering the challenge.

In X-Com the odds against the player were stacked as trying to hit a slot machine in Vegas. When you first started playing, the enemies had almost every advantage over the player: better guns, more accurate and in some cases they could outnumber the player’s squad.

For the first few squad battles, having more than half your squad come back alive was considered a small miracle. One hit from an alien nine times out of ten, meant that person was going to die. Then the game added in stronger enemies and who can forget dealing with psychic attacks?

Games designed around Rogue like mechanics also put the player in the deep end in a matter of speaking. In Demon’s Souls you start out equipped with very basic gear and you don’t have the ability to level up your characters. Dark Souls drives the point home even more with the tagline on the box: “Prepare to Die.”

Now putting the player in the lion’s den from the start is easy, but what separates a challenging game from one that is just plain frustrating requires something more.

2. Making Progress:

In order for the player to not feel bad about failure, there must always be some kind of progress that the player can carry over. The basic example is simply knowledge about the game, which is a staple of any rogue-like.

At the start, the player has no knowledge of the rules of the world and the dangers awaiting them. As they play, they’ll learn how to deal with certain enemies, traps to avoid, and positive situations to look for. Eventually the player will learn how to sway the randomness of the game to their favor.

The other side of the equation is carrying over in game progression, which can be a lot trickier to design. In X-Com even if the player loses several squads worth of people, they’re still making progress on the research side of things. Unlocking useful items like the first aid kit, motion sensor and better armor. Meaning that even in failure, the player is still making progress.

Both Dark and Demons Souls has progression by allowing the player to raise their character’s soul level which in turn improves their stats. This allows them to make permanent improvements to their character that won’t disappear when they die.

There is also the act of unlocking shortcuts through the game’s dungeons. While enemies respawn, any shortcuts or doors unlocked become permanent. For instance: Demon’s Souls infamous stage 5-2, where the player must brave a poison swamp of difficult fights. If they can get past it, they can find a switch that opens a shortcut that takes the player past more than 75% of the level’s challenges.

My personal favorite game that has used in game progression would have to be The Binding of Isaac. As in a rogue-like, when the player runs out of health the game is over and they’ll have to start back at the first level. But as they play, the game will unlock new enemies, items and stages that will be factored into the randomization.

With both Isaac and X-Com, failure still rewards the player and eventually, the unlocked items will begin to turn the tide.

Many of the items in Isaac will flat out decimate the original lineup of enemies and even the odds against the unlocked ones.

While in X-Com, the more squaddies that survive thanks to your new gear mean better stats and allows the player to eventually go from being behind the arms race, to being even.

Another example that needs to be mentioned is from the Shiren the Wanderer series. Shiren is a rogue-like in the truest sense: turn based, death starts the player back at 0, and challenging enemies. The in game progression Shiren has is storage houses, where the player can preserve items for future play-throughs.

The trick is that the town of the game has a blacksmith that can improve one piece of gear per play through for a cost. What the player can do is take a weapon and on each play, improve it and then store it and repeat. Eventually that one weapon would become so powerful that it could kill any enemy in one hit. Now, this isn’t the most optimal way of providing progression and balancing your game around it can be frustrating to the player base.

The driving point is that the player should always feel that they are improving at the game, whether that can be measured in miles or centimeters doesn’t matter, as long as the player is making progress. If playing the game feels like slamming your head into a brick wall until it breaks, most people won’t stick around.

Even though I enjoyed Ninja Gaiden Black for its extreme difficulty, which was about stacking the deck against the player. The game had no other means to progress other then getting past whatever you were stuck at. For many people, they stopped making progress and eventually quit playing. As NGB was designed from the start to be all about the player’s skill determining victory and nothing else.

Some games design their progression around peaks and valleys: where the player will unlock something major rarely, and the rest of the time nothing. For instance the recently released rogue-like Faster Than Light: where new ships are unlocked via completing quests or earning specific achievements.

Each ship affects your play style dramatically, due to the different layouts and starting gear. But because only certain actions will unlock them, for some people it can be a long time before they’ll be able to use anything other than the basic ship, or the ship that unlocks by beating the game once.

You could argue that the end game of Diablo 3 is another example due to the rate of finding pure upgrades drop.A level 63 item can offer a massive boost to your stats, but the chance of not only having one drop, but one that has your classes’ attributes in mind is very low.

Now that we have the difficulty and the concept of moving forward gone over, our last point is about not making progress… in the opposite direction.

3. Avoid Lost Cycles:

The phrase: “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” comes to mind with this point. With games designed around the rogue-like mechanics of replaying sections, there is one thing the designer needs to watch out. A lost cycle is where by dying; the player has no way to recoup what was lost and begins a downward spiral until they eventually lose.

Going back to X-Com while losing a battle once or twice is not going to cost the player the game, if someone is brand new to the game, it can be easy to just continuously lose. Eventually they won’t have the money to restock and maintain their bases and have no choice but to start over.

In Shiren the Wanderer, after the player beats the main quest at least once, the series is known for having side dungeons unlock to test the player. Many of these dungeons absolutely demand that the player already has upgraded items before stepping in.

If the player dies and loses everything, they just can’t restart the dungeon again. They’ll have to spend hours gathering the equipment up again, and hope that they can do it this time.

While FTL doesn’t let the player continue after losing a ship battle, there are plenty of situations that can happen that can force a losing cycle and prevent the player from beating the boss. Such as not finding any weapon or defense upgrades and not getting enough scrap to upgrade their ship. One wrong event such as losing a prized crew member, or getting attacked in a weaken state can be it for your crew.

Failure is not something that we want to experience, but is still a necessary part of life. Making it part of a product that is designed around entertainment seems like a crazy notion, but when it’s done right, you can have one amazing game. If after ten deaths in a row, the player is still going back for more, you know that you did something right.(source:gamasutra)