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

分享游戏结果的定义及设计方法(一)

发布时间:2013-12-05 09:23:44 Tags:,,,,

作者:Jon Shafer

创造一款有趣的游戏是每个开发团队最初也是最后的目标。而这种飘渺的乐趣程度主要是取决于玩家决定的结果。游戏多复杂将决定着它能吸引什么类型的用户,或者更重要的是将不能吸引什么类型的用户。

结果的角色和影响是现代游戏设计中最重要的一大主题。然而它所获得的关注却出人意料的少。因为我真的有很多内容想要与你们分享,所以我将把它们分成三部分。

像往常一样我们首先会确保每个人都能理解这一主题,以及为什么它值得被重视。而在第二部分中我们将分析游戏的死亡结果,第三部分将检查它们在特定类型中的位置,并加上一些设计师的想法。

什么是结果?

从技术上来看,生活中的每个单一决定都带有某种类型的结果,所以如果我们希望该术语能够发挥用处,我们就需要进行更深入的探析。在游戏设计环境中,我为“结果”使用的定义如下:

“用玩家在游戏内部中的行动或决定所引起的难忘结果。”

基于不同人,事件的难忘程度也会有所不同,但是但是比起面对一个非常模糊的术语,如“有趣”,你能从“难忘”中获得更多认同。你很难说服我“在20次尝试后杀死一个很难的boss”或“在10个小时的游戏中的关键战斗中输得一败涂地”是没有价值的标签。

当我们说到结果时,我们通常不是指任何难忘的结果——我们几乎总是在讨论一个难忘但却糟糕的结果。如果你迟到了,你便会遭受处罚之类,这听起来一点都不酷。如果你偷了好友的钱并被抓了,你也许需要去寻找新朋友了。

与生活中的情况一样,在游戏设计中我们也将担心负面结果。尽管我们能够宣称“做出一个明智的决定并因此获得奖励”是一个难忘且正面的结果,但你可能只是在说这是“一个很棒的游戏设计。”至少,因为一些明智的行动或克服困难而奖励玩家并不是需要长篇大论的改革性理念。同样地,不管何时“结果”这一词出现在这一网站上,你都可能将其当成是“糟糕的结果”。

我们必须注意的是,结果是双面的——不管是尽全力还是完全不存在的。在像任天堂的《马里奥》等平台游戏中,掉进坑里并需要往回走15秒可能是跳跃并错失目标的结果——但同时玩家也有可能掉进一个充满钉子的坑里,立即死亡并需要从头开始游戏。从现在开始我们将把前个结果称为“轻量级”,后一个结果成为“重量级”。

几乎没有一款游戏完全没有结果——甚至是最休闲的游戏也具有一些轻量级结果。我们很难去明确定义什么是勉强难忘与完全忘记的边缘。举个例子来说吧,如果(在此插入RPG选择)要求你为角色配备15个独立的道具插槽,那么几率便会非常低,因为我认为该放什么到每个插槽中的决定是具有结果的(游戏邦注:尽管我知道有些人不会同意我的看法,特别是那些比起游戏玩法更喜欢定制内容的人)。

XCOM Enemy Unknown(from vr-zone)

XCOM Enemy Unknown(from vr-zone)

相反地,我们拥有最近发行的《幽浮:未知敌人》,它只允许玩家为自己的每个士兵配备一个武器,而当你的选择结果是在一个重量级结果中,你便拥有绝对的时间。并未伴随着医疗包?就像陆军上校这次不会让它再回来!

还有许多有关行动在某一情境下创造出重量级结果的例子。也许你在《幽浮》中非常幸运,没人受到伤害,渲染该决定并不会带来任何医疗包。同样地,你跳到一个平台上也会引起截然不同的结果。通常情况下,在带有结果的决策比例中,重量级结果通常出现在策略游戏中,而轻量级则出现在行动游戏中。

公平和目标用户

结果和公平是非常相近的理念。如果我及时发动侵略或努力实现一次非常困难的组合,我是否应该获得奖励。但是如果我很鲁莽或草率,我便会承认自己所承担的风险和可能出现的结果。然而公平结果与不公平结果之间的界线却非常模糊。如果有些玩家只是没有很好会怎样?他们不断游戏,但却从未变得更好。作为设计师的你是否会因此去惩罚他们?如果带有特定的设计功能会怎样——没有不公平元素的永久死亡或只是游戏魅力的一部分?怎样的结果是合理的?怎样的又太过?

就像你可能猜到的那样,这只是取决于你想要创造什么类型的游戏。这样的两难局面与为什么游戏设计更偏向艺术性而不是科学系一样。尽管一款优秀的游戏能够整合任何分量的结果,但确保它们保持一致仍很重要。玩家需要知道有什么可期待的,如果你的结果经常在重量级与轻量级间转变,它将会让所有人受挫—-那些想要看到轻量级结果的玩家将因为沮丧而快速退出游戏,而那些期待看到重量级结果的玩家也会因为厌倦选择退出。

在这个时代中,设计师会采取两种常规方法中的一种:一种是兼容性,目标是尽可能为更多人创造有趣的游戏。另一种是专一性,即目标并不是面向所有人创造游戏,团队只选择瞄准特定的“硬核”玩家。这两个极端之间存在着一定的空间,但设计师必须决定哪个才是最适合自己的。如果团队不能专注于自己真心想要完成的目标,游戏便有可能彻底迷失方向。

在接下来的第二部分中,我们将在死亡环境下检查结果——不同的游戏类型将如何处理玩家或角色的死亡,以及我希望游戏开发者在未来能够整合的方法。

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

Consequences – Part 1 – Introduction

By Jon Shafer

Making a game that’s fun is the first and last goal of every development team (or it should be, anyways!). This ethereal funness is largely crafted by the consequences that result from player decisions. How punishing or difficult a game is can be the determining factor in what kind of audience it will – or more importantly, won’t – appeal to.

The role and impact of consequences is one of the most important topics in modern game design. And yet, it surprisingly receives very little attention. I actually have so much to talk about regarding this subject that I decided to split this article into three parts. All of them will be up within a week, so don’t fret if you’re just itching for more!

As usual, we’ll kick things off by making sure everyone has a base understanding of our subject and why it’s even worth caring about. The second article in the series will analyze the consequences of death in games, and the third will examine their place in certain unique genres, plus some parting thoughts for designers. Without further ado, let’s get to it!

So What Are Consequences, Anyways?

Technically, every single decision in life has ‘consequences’ of some kind, so we obviously have to drill down a bit deeper if we want the term to be at all useful. In the context of game design the definition I use for a “consequence” is as follows:

A memorable result brought about by a player’s in-game actions or decisions.

An event will be more or less memorable depending on the person, but you’ll find much more agreement as to what’s “memorable” than you would with an extremely vague a term like “fun.” You’d be hard-pressed to convince me that either ‘killing a difficult boss after twenty tries’, or ‘suffering a crushing defeat in the pivotal battle of a ten-hour game’ are unworthy of the label.

When we talk about consequences we’re usually not referring to just any ol’ memorable result though – we’re nearly always talking about a bad memorable result. If you get to class late you’ll get detention… not cool. If you steal money from a friend and get caught… well, it might be time to find a new friend.

Just like life, in game design we’ll be worrying primarily about consequences from the negative angle. While it would certainly be valid to claim that ‘making a smart decision and getting a bonus because of it’ is a good memorable result and by extension a consequence – you’re probably just better off calling that ‘good game design’. At the very least, rewarding a player for doing something smart or difficult isn’t exactly a revolutionary concept that needs to be dissected in a lengthy article. As such, whenever the term “consequence” is used on this website you should read that as “bad consequence.”

It’s important to note that consequences aren’t binary – either in full-force or completely nonexistent. In platformers like Nintendo’s Mario games, falling into a pit and having to make a 15 second backtrack could be the consequence for jumping and missing one’s target – but so too could be falling into a different pit filled with spikes, dying instantly and needing to start from the very beginning of the game. From now on we’ll refer to the former type of consequences as “light” the latter as “heavy.”

Almost no game is completely devoid of consequences – even the most casual are typically filled with light ones. It’s impossible to firmly define the edge between what is barely memorable and completely forgettable, but I would argue that anything less memorable than a 15-second journey back to where you just were probably lies beyond the end of the scale. To provide another example: if [insert RPG of choice here] requires you to outfit your character with 15 individual item slots, the odds are extremely low that I’d consider the decision of what to put in each to truly be of consequence (although I know some people would disagree with me, particularly those who enjoy customization far more than gameplay).

In contrast we have the recent release of XCOM: Enemy Unknown, which allows players to outfit each of their soldiers with only a single item, and there are absolutely times when your selection results in very heavy consequences. Oh, didn’t go with that medkit after all? Woops – looks like the colonel won’t be making it back this time!

There are often cases when an action can have heavy consequences in one situation, but none in another. Maybe you get (really!) lucky in an XCOM battle and no one is injured, rendering that decision to not bring any medkits moot. Similarly, when and where you jump in a platformer can lead to dramatically different consequences. In general,  the proportion of decisions that have consequences to ones that don’t is higher in (“heavier”) strategy games, and lower in (“lighter”) action games.

Fairness and Target Audience

Consequences and fairness are closely-related concepts. If I launch a well-timed invasion or pull off an immensely-difficult combo then I should be rewarded. But if I’m reckless or sloppy then I acknowledge the risk I’m taking and the possible consequences. However, the line for what are and are not fair consequences is fuzzy. What if some players are, you know, just not very good? They play and play, but never get any better. As a designer, do you punish them for that? What about with certain design features – is permanent death with no reloading unfair, or is it simply part of a game’s charm? What consequences are appropriate, and which ones are too heavy?

As you’ve probably guessed, it really just depends on what kind of game you want to make. Dilemmas like this are why game design is more art than science. While a great game can incorporate consequences of any weight, it’s important that they remain consistent. Players need to know what to expect, and if your consequences frequently alternate between heavy and light it will frustrate nearly everyone – those wanting a lighter experience will soon quit in frustration while those expecting a heavier one will quit out of boredom.

In this era designers nearly always take one of two general approaches: One is inclusive, where the objective is to make the game fun for as many people as possible. The other is exclusive, where the goal is very much not A Game For Everyone? and the team unapologetically targets only certain ‘hardcore’ players. There’s certainly plenty of room in between the extremes, but a designer must decide which of the two is the priority, as there will be times when a game cannot do both, and must go one way or the other. A game can be completely derailed if the team lacks focus in what they are trying to accomplish.

Continue to part 2, where we examine consequences within the context of dying – how different genres and types of games handle player or character death (particularly permadeath) and approaches I hope game developers will embrace in the future.(source:jonshaferondesign)


上一篇:

下一篇: