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

线性游戏设计未必是种糟糕选择

发布时间:2013-02-03 08:58:09 Tags:,,,

作者:Johnny B

这似乎已经成为游戏中不成文的诫律:不要限制玩家选择,应根据他们意愿呈现大量选项,赋予其更丰富的体验。问题是,在非线性游戏中提供些许选项是个不错主意,提供更多选项则更棒——但事实果真如此吗?

非线性设计与选项总会破坏游戏体验,当然,这并不是因为它们本质糟糕,而是因为我们会过多使用这些元素。玩家们会不断炮轰提供选项的游戏。而有关联盟、作战风格、难度、主要武器、次要武器、汽车类型、刀剑型号的选择常常出现在关卡1前。

设计师可能会提早呈现选项,因为他们认为如果玩家花10分钟挑选装备类型,那他们将会在游戏开始前佩戴完整,那他们更有可能沉浸在游戏体验中。然而事物都具有两面性;如果玩家沉浸其中,且喜爱这种模式,那就达成设计师的想法;如果玩家因某个原因感到厌倦,但可能会因为付费继续体验,结果只会引来他们的更多责骂,而不是悄然退出。他可能并不知道自己厌恶该作的真正原因,但引诱他们进行选择可能是其中一点。总之,如果选项运用不当,玩家就会陷入困境。

设想下,在8个关卡游戏中,玩家可以选择游戏顺序。设计师的任务是提高新玩家(游戏邦注:刚开始进程的玩家)访问关卡的便捷性,同时仍以骨灰级玩家(即已经完成7道关卡的玩家)为主。创意设计师可能会赋予各道关卡不同主题、玩法与优先顺序,但在构建技能或难度上则不大擅长,他必须不断改变事物,保持游戏新鲜感。他无法着重某个特殊技能组合,也无法注重深度体验。

因此设计师制作出8道非线性关卡,等待瓶颈期与Wily城堡的出现,借此深入探索游戏玩法。可惜,其玩家只接触表面不同元素,他并不擅长某个特殊技能组合。因此如果此时询问该玩家游戏还需哪些完善则显得不大公平。这也是8个Robot Masters相当有趣,而Wily Castle总被遗忘的原因。后者设置并不糟糕,只是不及非线性部分出色。

Megaman-bosses(from destructoid)

Megaman-bosses(from destructoid)

经典《洛克人》的设计方案之所以有效,是因为其中设置8个Robot Masters,而且游戏结局较为复杂,关键是,它并不适合设置80个Robot Masters。《洛克人》中设有一定底线。当然其它作品中必然有所局限;设计师应避免将玩家放置在无法构造技能的处境中。带着“能在游戏中设置多少选项与性能”的心态设计游戏只会显示出非线性设计糟糕的一面。

那么线性游戏具有哪些优势?通常它会加紧设计师与玩家的关系;他清楚玩家的想法。他会在关卡1中提出理念,在创建关卡2时强调,而后逐层递增。每当尝试新做法时,他不必思考实现的可能性与结果。同时,他所处的位置更适合冒险、试验与探索。

此外,你与玩家会更精通游戏。如果该作的重点是管理库存,组装道具,那你将清楚玩家库存中的物品。如果关卡3为间谍任务,那你会在一开始交给玩家一个消声器,他也会迅速理解用意,将其安装在枪支上,成功前进。如果你什么也没提供,那他将会思考利用库存道具可采取哪些行动。作为设计师,你应清楚了解玩家的想法,与其进行直接交流,而不是利用一系列规则或条件作为媒介。

当然,线性游戏也存在劣势,主要是“障碍墙”。如果玩家未获得成功,且游戏中别无选择,那他将举步维艰,设计师也是如此。此时,他们会滋生出挫败感,咒骂游戏,而后离开。这对所有设计师而言都是场噩梦。然而,如果他们能勇敢承担该风险,意识到总有些玩家会放弃游戏,那么他们将会尽其所能缩减挫败感,这种举措也会令其获得丰厚回报。事实上,让玩家遭遇多次失败,在此过程中磨练技能,最后收获胜利的做法更棒。因为他们知道除此以外,别无选择,他们会着重那些失败任务,而不是先挑战其它,留到最后解决。如果玩家总在头脑中预想执行其它任务,在某种程度上,他们可能会分心手头任务,破坏游戏中所有的伟大设计。

线性游戏设计只是风险较高;它可能会挫败玩家,但据我们所知,高风险能换取丰厚回报。设计线性游戏会让你逐渐掌握该方面技能,如果设计师总是恐惧于碰到障碍墙,那他将永远无法提升自己在此领域的设计技能。非线性设计师也会误以为只要围绕问题创建途径即可,无需解决,因为线性设计并非其擅长领域。他们极易采用非线性设计掩埋问题,尤其是玩家以巨大优势回归进程时。

我并不是抨击非线性设计,只是认为纯粹线性游戏具有更多可行性,而且还能运用于非线性领域。同时,我们应采取某些方式限制非线性设计,付出更多努力,有意义且恰当地使用它。

这里存在一个反论,赋予玩家更少选择实则是给予更多选择,试想在所有游戏都包含大量选择的情况下,“选项较少的游戏”就越发与众不同,反而为玩家提供了更多选择的余地。(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

Linearity is Okay in Games

by Johnny B

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.

It seems almost dogmatic; don’t limit the players choices, present him with a wealth of options at his disposal to give him a richer experience. The issue with non-linearity is that if a little is good, then more is better… right?

Non-linearity and choices are damaging to a game not because they’re inherently bad, but we simply have too much of it. Players are bombarded with games offering them choices. Choices on alignment, fighting style, difficulty,  primary weapon, secondary weapon, the type of car, the type of sword, all before level 1.

Designers might present choices early because they think that if the player spends 10 minutes selecting the type of sneakers the player will be wearing before playing, that he’s going to be more invested in the game once he starts. There are two sides to this coin however; if the player is invested in the game and he likes what he’s playing, it’s a slam dunk. If the player grows weary of the game for whatever reason, he may continue to play since he feels so invested, which will ultimately result in much scorn instead of just quietly exiting the game without incident. He may not know exactly why he hates your game, but seducing him with choice is what got them there. Choices can get players into trouble if not handled properly.

Imagine 8 levels where the player can choose the order in which they’re played.  The designer is pitted with quite a task; make each level accessible to new players (players that just started the game), while still being engaging for advanced players (players that have completed the other 7 levels). A creative designer can give the levels different themes, different gameplay aspects, and different priorities, but he can’t do much in regards to skill building or difficulty, he must keep changing things to keep it fresh for both types of players. He’s unable to focus on a particular skill set, not in an in-depth way at least.

So the designer makes 8 non-linear levels, waiting for that bottle neck to occur, for that Wily castle, so that he can dig deeper into the gameplay that he wants to explore. Unfortunately the designer has a player that has only scratched the surface on a variety of things, not a player that has specialized a particular skill set. So it’s unfair to ask the player to specialize, its contrary to everything else in the game. This is why the 8 Robot Masters are fun, but the Wily Castle will always be more forgettable. The Wily Castle isn’t bad, it just isn’t as good as the non-linear section of the game because there isn’t enough to build on, there’s no way there could be.

The reason the classic Megaman formula works is because there’s 8 Robot Masters, sure the end is always going to be tricky to design, but the point is that it wouldn’t work with 80 Robot Masters. There’s a limit, a threshold, for Megaman its 8. For other games there surely must be a limit; one that designers have to be mindful of to avoid putting themselves into a position where they can’t build skills within the player. Going into a game with a mindset of “how many options, features, and choices can I stuff into this game?” brings out the worst in non-linear design.

So what’s so great about linear games? The linear game offers the designer a far more intimate relationship with the player; he knows what the player knows. He can present ideas in level 1, and can sculpt level 2 to reinforce  those ideas and build on them even further. He’s doesn’t have to consider a spreadsheet of possibilities and outcomes every time he wants to try something new. He is also in a far better position to take risks, experiment, and explore.

You and the player can specialize. If the focus of the game is say, managing an inventory and combining items, you will know (for the most part) what the player has in that inventory. If level 3 is about espionage, you can give him a silencer at the beginning of the level and he’ll immediately understand its purpose, combine it with the gun, and advance with success. If you give him nothing, that will make him think about his existing inventory and what he can do with it. As a designer you have a fair idea of what’s going through the player’s head, and can speak more directly to him without using a large set of rules or conditions as a medium.

Of course linearity has its pitfalls, the main one being the “brick wall”. If the player isn’t experiencing success, and there’s no other choices, he’s backed up a against the wall and so is the designer. Frustration sets in, the player curses the game and quits. Every designers nightmare. If the designer can brave that risk however, and understand that there will always be those few players that quit, and of course do what he can to minimize frustration, then the rewards can be great. Nothing feels better for players than failing a number of times, honing their skill, and then emerging victorious. Since they’re aware that there aren’t any other choices, they can focus on the task that vexes them, not just work around it by traveling to some other section and leaving it for later. When the player always has the prospect of doing something else in the back of his mind, then on some level he’s distracted from the task at hand, undermining all that great design work that’s been poured into the game.

Linearity is simply more high-stakes; it’s risky, it can frustrate the player, things can go wrong, but as we all know big risks is where the big payoffs are.  Designing linear games makes you better at… designing linear games, if a designer always fear the brick wall, that designer will never develop any skills to deal linearity in any capacity. The non-linear designer can fall into the trap of just creating a path around a problem instead of addressing the issue, because linear design is not in his repertoire. It’s dangerously easy to bury problems with non-linearity, particularly when the player can travel back later with some huge advantage.

I by no means intend to bash non-linear design, but to advance the notion that purely linear games are a viable pursuit in their own right, and that linear design should be utilized within a non-linear space. Also that non-linearity needs to be limited in some way, there needs to be a very deliberate effort to keep it meaningful to leverage it properly.

I’ll leave you with a paradox; by giving the player less choices you’re actually giving him more choices. When every game has a ton of choices “a game with less choices” is actually a new choice.(source:gamasutra)


上一篇:

下一篇: