作者：Jon Shafer

所有游戏都运用了抽象概念。但游戏不但不可能完美地模拟现实，更不应该将其作为目标。交互环境允许玩家做出有意义的决定、测试玩家的技能或让玩家沉浸于一个独特的世界，由此与现实分离。游戏如果将模拟现实作为首要目标，就无法达到这些目标。

抽象对游戏意味着什么？如何利用抽象？设计师要考虑到什么？这就是我们接下来要探讨的问题。

我们将以《文明》系列为例，因为它是一个很好的研究案例，通过对它的分析，我们可以学习抽象如何提升游戏，以及为什么让玩家感到失真。

文明4(from impulsedriven)

什么是抽象？

无论是在游戏、图形设计还是纯美术中，运用抽象的目标都是一样的：在更大更复杂的图景中突出某些重要的元素。

抽象并不是黑白分明的，你不可能绝对抽象也不可能完全写实。抽象是一条由强到弱频谱，从军事模拟游戏到围棋，前者试图模拟战争中的所有元素，后者则将战争简化到只剩黑白两种棋子和一张方格棋盘。

游戏的抽象程度是决定它能吸引哪类玩家的关键之一。所以，那些稍微关心销量的开发者都知道应该更加关注游戏应该达到的抽象程度。尽管除了销量，事实上要考虑的东西是方方面面的——这是设计师应该觉得兴奋和棘手的地方。

既然我们已经知道抽象意味着什么了，接下来就可以看看几个运用抽象的例子。

有效的抽象运用

当对付精细复杂的东西时，抽象是最好的解决办法。许多游戏都以某些形式体现了经济，这就是绝佳的例子。非抽象的经济是不存在的——在这个世界上没有人能完全理解经济的运作方式。经济影响世界上的每个人，甚至经济学家使用的模型也是对现实的极度简化，更不必说，我们既没有计算现实经济的脑力也没有计算现实经济的电脑技术。

因为经济是这样一个庞大又复杂的东西，设计师只能抽出一些方面加以强调。健康的经济的关键是什么？——人口多？工业发达？贸易活跃？买卖获利大？这些概念只是经济的冰山一角。

在《文明》系列中，经济成功的组成部分总是包括：理想的地理位置、先进的技术和“人多力量大”。这很大程度上是对《文明》的首要主题的拓展——不断向前发展的人类历史。甚至这也是一种抽象概念，毕竟在各个时期时，有“不断向前发展”的王国，也有不断衰弱的王国。除了这个事实，文明的整个过程也是指向发展的，这是Sid Meier在第一款《文明》中强调的感觉。大多数人觉得在玩游戏时，不停地搞建设比处理民众造反问题来得有趣。《文明》本可以同样突出这内讧和饥荒的内容，但设计师就是不想突出这些元素。

战斗是另一个经过过滤才进入游戏的现实概念。准确模拟各场战斗的细微差别远远超出大部分游戏的水平，那些展示完全战役的游戏别无选择了，只能抽象——这是唯一的解决办法。至于经济，细节的抽象主要取决于开发团队的偏好。战斗胜利主要是因为天时？地利？人和？包含所有这些元素是不可能的，但设计师可能有一些自己认为特别有趣或相关性大的想法。

在《文明》中，战争取胜的一般方法是组建最多最先进的军队。战略也有关系，但没有那么大。这种抽象不是偶然，因为《文明》本质上是一款经济游戏。模拟战争策略的细微繁杂之处不是容易的事，而“四舍五入”就简单多了，准确地说，在军队攻占对方领地以前，战争的成败早就决定了。

双刃剑

像所有强大的工具，抽象能带来的坏处与好处一样大。比如说，抽象化的图标很难识别；抽象艺术在这个世界上只有少部分人能欣赏。游戏中抽象成份太多可能导致最终产品与原型相差太多。利用松散联系的主题设计出来的抽象游戏可能会有趣，但创造这么一款游戏意味着设计师面临着更大的挑战。

在游戏设计中，太多抽象的负作用是，玩家不买你的账。《文明》系列就提供了一个著名的例子，即坦克和枪兵之间的永恒斗争。对于不熟悉这个“谜题”的人来说，在一场战斗中，那么高级的坦克是不可能输掉战斗的。归根结底，这是这个游戏系列采用的战斗的抽象形式导致的。某些人会认为这没什么，当作搞笑好了；对于另一些人来说，这是不可原谅的错误。

我当然不是这个“特点”的最大批评者之一，但我确实觉得在游戏中发生这种现象有些不合适，毕竟这是一款模拟世界历史的游戏。后来，我在《文明5》中调整了战斗，所以战役的可能结果就不会那么随意了。

我在《文明5》中做的另一个设计调整是，抽象化军队的海上运输。游戏不再要求军队必须到达船只附近才能上船，而是一旦你的文明程度到达能够建造海上运输工具时，只要你的军队进入水域，就“能使用”运输船了。这使穿洋越海更加方便了，所以许多玩家都更喜欢这种模式。但是并非所有人都喜欢这样。有些人认为这种设计太抽象了，一队枪兵居然能“神奇地运输到”船上，这太荒唐了。

尽管制造抽象概念几乎是我们的第二天性，但我们从现实生活中提取概念，再抽象成游戏中的非常基本的概念“回合”，这种转变也是相当不自然的。除了人为制造的概念，游戏世界中有多少情况可以认为是“回合制”的？回合是许多游戏的重要组成部分，它们有助于集中玩家的注意力，这是许多即时游戏努力达到却很难达到的目标。与类似题材的即时游戏如《帝国时代》相比，《文明》的回合“冻结”时间的方式使玩家更有机会认真规划短期和长期策略。

帝国时代3(from vins.co.il)

《文明》还运用了另一个与回合有关的抽象概念。为了让玩家产生一种历史进步感，游戏回合都被打上确切的时间标签，如公元前3950年或公元1492年等。极少人对此有意见，但总是有些人不喜欢这么不现实的概念——毕竟，从纽约走到波士顿居然要花50年时间，无论走得多慢都不可能。

现实主义的拥护者

虽然大多数人都认可游戏中的抽象带来的益处，但有些人就是不那么接受。考虑到所有游戏都是娱乐媒体，所以客观上不存在“好”或“坏”，即使反对者的数量极少，但他们的观点确实是合理的。

但是，甚至是现实主义的忠实拥护者，也寻找某些形式的抽象。那些要求更多现实主义的《文明》的玩家只是想略过一些抽象频谱上的一些缺口——他们其实并不想扮演列表上的历史领袖。甚至运动模拟游戏也不是完全复制现实的，只不过是因为你通过控制器或鼠标发送指令。我不能想象有人真的想体验在零下几度的天气里指挥不听话的运动员！如果有谁对这种体验感兴趣的话，这一定程度上相当于训练足球。

唯一一次我看到将完美模拟现实作为目标的是，目标玩家由缺乏在游戏中执行表现现实活动的人组成。这种类型的游戏是极其罕见的。

在我文章的前面提过，抽象只是设计师的工具之一。虽然模拟现实从来不是目标，但几乎所有人都至少期待他们玩的游戏是可信的。只要游戏与它自身以及它的主题保持一致性，设计师的工作就算完成了。（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）

Abstraction & Civilization

by Jon Shafer

The following blog was, unless otherwise noted, independently written by a member of Gamasutra’s game development community. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Gamasutra or its parent company.

Want to write your own blog post on Gamasutra? It’s easy! Click here to get started. Your post could be featured on Gamasutra’s home page, right alongside our award-winning articles and news stories.

You can read more of Jon’s thoughts on design and project management at his website. You can also find him on Twitter.

Abstraction is utilized by every game ever made. Not only is perfectly mimicking reality impossible – it shouldn’t even be the goal. Interactive entertainment sets itself apart by offering players interesting decisions, testing their skills or immersing them in a unique world. Games fail to achieve these goals when they prioritize realism above all else.

What does abstraction do for a game? How can it be used for both good and ill? What does a designer need to consider? We’ll examine these topics and more!

Along the way we’ll also look at some features of the Civilization series, as it presents an excellent case study for how abstraction not only improves a game but can also frustrate a subset of players.

What is Abstraction?

Whether in games, graphic design or fine art, the use of abstraction is always a means to the same goal: emphasizing a few important elements over the larger, more complex picture.

As with most design knobs, abstraction isn’t black-and-white, where you either have it or you don’t. The spectrum ranges from offerings which try to model every factor, such as military sims (the “game” status of which is debatable) to the venerable Go, where the incredibly nuanced concept of warfare is simplified all the way down to two types of stones on a grid.

The amount of abstraction a game embraces is one of the key elements in determining what type of audience it will appeal to. As such, developers concerned even a little bit about sales numbers are wise to give more than just a passing thought to the degree of abstraction utilized in their products. Sales figures aside though, virtually everything is on the table – an opportunity which designers should find both exciting and daunting.

Now that we know what abstraction does, let’s look at some concrete examples of how it can actually be applied.

Abstraction in Action

The best opportunity to utilize abstraction is when dealing with detailed subject matter. Economics, present in some form in a large number of games, is a great example. Notabstracting economics isn’t really an option – hell, not a single person alive has a complete understanding of how it works. Even the models professional economists use are heavily simplified from reality. Needless to say, we have neither the brains nor the computing power to properly simulate the economic impact of every human alive.

Because economics is such a vast and detailed subject matter, designers can pull out any number of facets to emphasize. What is the key to a robust economy – having the most people? An advanced industry? A large trade network? Buying and selling at the most profitable opportunities? These concepts are just the tip of the iceberg.

In the Civ series, the ingredients for economic success always include one part good geography, one part technological advancement and a pinch of “population is power.” This approach is very much an extension of the overarching theme of Civ – human history as the story of continual upward progress. Even this is an abstraction, as countless kingdoms have not just risen but also fallen throughout the ages. Despite this fact, over the course of civilization the needle has generally points upwards and this was the feel Sid Meier was trying to emphasize in the first Civ. Most folks find it more fun to play a game where you’re building ever upward, rather than dealing with the risk of being toppled by your own people. It would have been equally valid for Civ to prominently feature internal strife and famine, but these were elements the designer simply didn’t care to represent.

Combat is another real-world concept that goes through a bit of a filter before showing up in games. Accurately simulating the nuances of single combat is far beyond what most titles want to offer, and those which present full-scale battles have no choice butabstraction – the only question is what form it should take. As with economics, the specifics mainly come down to the team’s preferences. Is success in battle primarily based on good timing? Proper positioning? Wielding the best weapons? It’s possible to incorporate all of these elements, but odds are the developers have a few pet ideas which they believe are especially interesting or pertinent.

Winning wars in Civ usually just comes down to bringing the biggest, most advanced army to the party. Tactics also factor in, but to a much lesser extent. This abstraction was no accident, and applied largely because Civ is an economic game at its core. Modeling the intricacies of battlefield strategy is no small challenge, and it’s very easy to simply “round down” and accurately claim that wars are typically won long before soldiers take to the field.

A Double-Edged Sword

Like all powerful tools, abstraction has the capacity to do as much damage as it does good. An abstracted icon can be hard to identify. Abstract art is only understood by a dozen people worldwide. Maybe. Too much abstraction in a game can cause the final product to bear very little resemblance to the source material. Abstract games that draw on topics only loosely can certainly be fun, but creating one means the designers are inviting a much greater challenge upon themselves.

In game design, the downside of too much abstraction is the potential for players to refuse to buy what you’re trying to sell. One famous (or infamous) example from the Civ series is the eternal struggle between tank and spearman. For those of unfamiliar with this “meme,” in the combat system there are rare times when a vastly superior unit can get extremely unlucky and lose a fight. Ultimately this is a consequence of abstracted form combat assumes in the series. For some people this is nothing more than a humorous quirk but for others it’s an unforgivable sin.

While I certainly wasn’t one of this “feature’s” largest detractors, I did find such occurrences to be a little out of place in a game that, while not a simulation by any means, at least tries to tie itself to world history. As a result, I modified the combat resolution model in Civ 5 so that the possible outcomes for a battle live inside a much narrower band.

One of the other design changes I made in Civ 5 was to abstract naval transport. Instead of needing to ferry armies around on actual boat units, the idea was that once your civilization is capable of launching seaworthy vessels, transport ships are simply “available” for your forces as soon as they enter the water. This made crossing the seas much less of a hassle, and as a result there are many players which vastly prefer this model. But it wasn’t universally beloved. A number of other people found this design tooabstract, believing it ridiculous that a group of spearmen could “magically transform” into a boat.

Although it’s second-nature for many of us at this point, even the basic abstraction of “turns” (when some agents can act and others cannot) out of our real-time experience of living is a fairly unnatural translation. Outside of artificially-created constructs, how much of the world could really be considered “turn-based?” Turns are a crucial component of many games, and they help focus attention in ways real-time titles struggle to or simply cannot offer. The way turns “freeze” time in Civ opens up a better opportunity to craft both short-term and long-term strategies compared with a real-time cousin with similar subject matter, such as Age of Empires.

Civ also applies another abstraction relating to turns. In order to inject a sense of progressing through history the turns are labeled with very specific dates, such as 3950 BC or 1492 AD. Few people have taken issue with this, but there are those who dislike the unrealistic holes this opens up – after all, there’s no way it would take 50 years to get from New York to Boston no matter how slow you walked.

Fans of Realism

While most people are fine with a fair helping of abstraction in the games they play, some are not quite as forgiving. Given that all games are entertainment, there’s no objective “good” or “bad,” and as such their opinions are just as valid, even if their numbers are few.

But even hardcore realism fans are looking for some form of abstraction. Civ players who ask for more realism simply want to slide over a few notches on the abstraction spectrum – they don’t actually want to live out the life of a historical leader with all that entails. Even sports sims aren’t perfect replications, if only because you’re giving commands through a controller or mouse. I can’t imagine anyone really wanting their gaming experience to include bundling up to ward of sub-freezing temperatures while dealing with insubordinate players who refuse to follow through on the play you called! Anyone interested in this would actually, you know, coach football in some capacity.

The only time I can see the goal including a perfect duplication of reality is when the target audience is comprised of individuals who simply lacks the capacity to perform the represented activities outside of a game. Projects of this type are part of a very rare breed.

As I noted earlier in this article, abstraction is simply one part of the designer’s toolbox. While true realism is never the objective, nearly everyone at least expects the games they play to be believable. As long as a title is consistent with itself and its subject matter then you as a designer have done your job.(source:gamasutra)