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

开发者分享制作模拟游戏注意事项(1)

发布时间:2013-08-27 16:20:28 Tags:,,,

作者:Borut Pfeifer

在所有关于游戏开发经验总结和制作方法的文章中,没有一者真正触及以合理方式创建一款模拟类游戏的问题。

鉴于我的《Scarface》、LMNO、游戏AI,以及我开始制作的一个与群体仿真有关的支项目经验,我希望同各位分享我在制作模似驱动型游戏过程中的想法。

我的初衷是以一种能够快速让你找到游戏吸引力(游戏邦注:例如吸引玩家体验,也可用于项目提案和推广)的方法,解答关于如何更好地解决创新和制作挑战等问题。

X-阶段

最为杰出的游戏正式制作流程是Cerny方法。它需要实践中的一切东西,首个可玩版本、垂直切片,但它主要包括(在游戏其余内容完成之前)创建2-3分钟包含玩法、美术、声音等元素的完善游戏体验。这可以减少其他设定变化时开发者需要完全重制的内容量。虽然你无法完全摆脱这种情况,但这一方法确实很有帮助。

在EA这一方法还将进一步分解——在最初概念阶段之后,还有X-Slice,接着是X-Level阶段。X-Level代表10-15分钟的玩法,但会额外要求所有工具和其他管道都完全可行。这种关注工具的额外时间有助于确保所需内容可以在整个制作过程中快速而尽量轻松地添加到游戏中。

内容最关键

你将注意到以上描述内容中重要使用了“内容”及其同义词。这一方法最适用(可能也只能运用)于基于一系列极具重复性的机制和系统的游戏,即传说中的“30秒乐趣”。这种游戏之后会调整关卡、角色、其他美术等元素,对系统进行微调整,以便协调整款游戏的节奏。

在最初的垂直切面阶段完成后,你通常就可以开始评估游戏玩法了,确定需要添加哪些内容,创造游戏资产需要多少时间等。不过,如果你制作的是模拟游戏,你还无法做到这一点。

眼见为实

那么哪种游戏可以称为模拟导向型游戏呢?这并不总是逃避基于关卡/内容的游戏进程。《The Thief》系列就是一款基于关卡的游戏,但其玩法却来自一系列相互连接的系统。游戏玩法所发生的空间就是这些系统之一。

the sims 2(from crunchbase.com)

the sims 2(from crunchbase.com)

我们可以举一些简单的例子——《模拟人生》玩法完全是由不同系统间的交互而驱动,这些系统包括模拟角色、他们的目标、他们可使用的物品,以及充满角色可互动的物品的建筑。

《Skulls of the Shogun》这款战略游戏也不乏一些可圈可点的系统。但它并非模拟驱动的游戏,其区别在于它的模拟玩法产生于系统之间的二级或更高级的交互。在这款游戏中,不同系统交互给予玩家许多战略可能性,但我们要尽量让结果更明确以便让战略游戏更具通俗性(更高级的结果适用于更高级的玩家,它们并非基础玩法)。

当玩家在一个系统中的动作对另一个系统产生影响时,就会产生二级或更高级的结果。而这些结果又可能对其他系统产生影响。玩法就是来源于玩家处理这些二级结果的过程——可能是回应这些结果(例如《The Thief》,也可能是进行管理(例如《模拟人生》),或者两者兼有(例如《侠盗猎车手》这种开放游戏)。

许多游戏含有模拟元素——例如赛车游戏或《愤怒的小鸟》背后的物理机制,但那些更高级的结果必须是游戏玩法体验的关键环节。此时模拟元素及其所有系统不但会影响,而且还会完全定义玩家的游戏体验。

着眼于全局情况

要创建一款模拟驱动的游戏,你不能用2-3分钟的玩法来判断玩家体验。因为这2-3分钟仅涉及20%的游戏系统。尽管添加美术和声音资产仍然很费时间,其体验却是由复杂、叠层、系统加互而驱动的。

你可以先从向这些系统添加装载内容入手,但不需要草拟剩余系统,因为现成系统一定会发生变化。这些资产需要支持玩家所需的系统反馈,所以如果系统的结合尚未证实可行性,在游戏中引进高保真度的美术资产也就没有意义了。只要这些系统中的一者发生变化,这些资产就可能沦为无用之物。

最大化系统连接性

从这一点上讲,在模拟之前完成的任何工作都是无用功,下如在Cerny方法之前创建额外关卡一样不值得提倡。但此时你需要的是最大化系统之间的连接性。

这意味着每个系统可能并不会执行其所有的机制(可能只能执行一部分),只要连接到其他系统的所有规则执行即可。这包括任何创建这些连接的必要低级机制。

总结

本系列文章其余内容将深入探讨特定里程碑以及它们如何在开发过程中发挥作用。在下一部分内容中,我将阐述创建模拟游戏的概念阶段所需的内容。(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

Building Simulations, Part 1

by Borut Pfeifer

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.

The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

In all the post-mortems and production methodologies for game development, none really address the difficult problems of building a simulation-heavy game in a non-insane way.

With my experience working on Scarface, LMNO, game AI in general, and a side project I’m starting that delves heavily into crowd simulation, I wanted to formalize my thoughts on production processes for simulation driven games.

I mean to answer the question of how best to tackle creative and production challenges, in a way that will most quickly get you to a point where the game is compelling to play (and therefore also viable to pitch and market before being complete).

X is for Overused

The most predominantly official production process for games is the Cerny method. It’s called all manner of things in practice, first playable, vertical slice, but it primarily invoved building 2-3 minutes of polished experience including gameplay, art, sound, etc. before the rest of bulk of the game’s content. That reduces the amount of content that has to be completely remade as other assumptions change. While you never completely escape that, this method certainly helps.

At EA it was broken down even further – after an initial concept phase, there was the X-Slice (same as above), followed by the X-Level. The X-Level represented 10-15 minutes of gameplay, but additionally required all tools and other pipelines to be fully working. This extra time to focus on tools helped to make sure that content could be added to the game as quickly and as easily as possible during full production.

Content Is Killer

You’ll note the repeated use of the word content or synonyms for it in the above description. This methodology best (perhaps only) applies to games built on a small set of very repeatable mechanics and systems – the fabled “30 seconds of fun”. The game then staggers levels, characters, other art, with minor changes in systems for pacing across the entirety of the game.

After the initial vertical slice is complete, you generally feel confident in judging the gameplay, understanding what needs to be added, and how long it will take to create assets for the game.

You are completely unable to do this if your game is a simulation, though.

You Know It When You See It

So what defines a game as simulation-driven? It’s not always a strict avoidance of a level/content based progression in the game. The Thief series is level-based, but its gameplay comes from a series of connected systems. The space in which the gameplay takes place is one of those systems.

Some examples are easy to spot – The Sims’ gameplay is driven purely through the interactions of the various systems, the Sims, their goals, the objects they can use, and building houses full of those objects for your Sims to interact with.

Skulls of the Shogun, as a strategy game, features quite a few systems. But it’s not simulation driven, although many strategy games may sit on that fence. The distinction is that gameplay in a simulation stems from second or higher order interactions between systems. In Skulls, the various systems interact to give you lots of strategic possibilities, but we tried to make the consequences as clear as possible to make the strategy more accessible. (The higher order consequences are more for advanced players to explore and not part of the base gameplay).

Second or higher consequences occur when a player’s action in a system has an impact in another system. That may impact another system, and so on. The gameplay stems from dealing with those the second order consequences – either reacting to (in the case of a stealth game like Thief), managing (in the Sims), or a mix of both (in an open city game like GTA).

Lots of game feature simulations – the physics behind a racing game or Angry Birds, but those higher order consequences have to be a key part of the gameplay experience. That’s when the simulation & all its systems not just affect, but completely define the player’s experience with the game.

A Field Full of Broken Dreams

Building a simulation driven game, you can’t judge the player’s experience with 2-3 minutes of gameplay. Those 2-3 minutes might only involve 20% of the game’s systems. And while adding art and sound assets is still time consuming, the experience is driven by complex, layered, system interactions.

You could start adding shipping content to those systems, but without the remaining systems roughed out, the systems you do have will surely change. Those assets need to support the system feedback the player needs, so if the combination of systems are not proven, pushing a high fidelity art asset into the game is useless. As soon as one of those systems, even if it’s a different one, changes, that asset might not even be needed.

In my 13+ years making games professionally, I’ve seen or heard of the Cerny method applied to simulation driven games many, many times. In no case has it ever gone even passably alright, causing heavy delays and more often than not, tanking the project completely.

M-M-M-MAXIMUM…

In that sense any work done before the simulation is refined is wasted effort, just like building extra levels was wasted effort before the Cerny method. But what you need in this case is maximum connectivity between systems.

What that means is that each system may not have all of its mechanics implemented (ideally has as few as possible), as long as all of the rules that connect to other systems are implemented. That includes any lower-level mechanics that are necesaary to build those connections.

Coming Soon…

The rest of the series will delve into specific milestones and how they are necessary for development to reasonably progress. In my next part, I’ll look at what’s uniquely required out of the concept phase for a simulation based game.(source:gamasutra


上一篇:

下一篇: