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

游戏设计师必须尽量多玩游戏吗?

发布时间:2013-12-18 14:17:44 Tags:,,,,

作者:Lewis Pulsipher

“尽可能地玩更多游戏?”也许不是。

“如果你想要停止玩RPG,那就开始设计这类型游戏。”

有时候我会看到或听到游戏设计师提供这样的建议。对此我并不认同。我觉得游戏设计师应该像任何人那样,有效地使用自己的时间。玩游戏(与为了进行游戏测试不同)并不是非常有效,当然也不是设计师应该做的最重要的事。因为玩游戏与设计游戏是非常不同的!

这一建议的背后理念在于,游戏设计师需要更多地了解游戏。这是一个非常合理的观点。但是玩游戏并非学习的最佳方法:

Game-Designg(from-careerfocuscafe.com)

Game-Designg(from-careerfocuscafe.com)

1)对于某些人而言,玩游戏并不是了解它们的最佳方法。

2)当你到达某一体验水平时,比起所花费的时间,你其实学不到多少有关游戏的内容。

3)对于大多数人而言,玩游戏而不去做自己该做的事(如设计,测试和完成游戏)是非常简单的。

现在让我们删除一个不玩游戏的假定原因。Eric Hanuise(来自Flatlined Games)说过:“我常常会遇到一些游戏设计师表示,为了不让其它游戏影响到自己的设计,他们从不会去玩其他人的游戏或一些已发行的游戏。”但这纯粹是扯谈。除了担心自己的设计会受到其它游戏的影响外,你还需要知道其它游戏身上发生了些什么。就像我就从来都不担心受到其它设计的影响,因为我认为借鉴是游戏设计的地方病,并且到目前为止我都是将游戏当成一种模式,而不是自己不可能借鉴的机制集合体。但对于缺乏足够经验的人来说却不是如此。

现在让我们详细分析我之前所陈述的三个原因。

关于新游戏有许多学习的方法,而玩游戏却并非总是最有效的方法。实际上,这通常都是无效的。如果你只依赖于玩游戏,你就需要玩好几遍才能真正理解发生了什么。(游戏邦注:这也是为何专业游戏评论者需要玩好几遍游戏才能写下评论。)有些人(也包括我自己)可以通过阅读游戏和游戏规格,观看别人玩游戏,并与多次玩游戏的人进行交谈而更有效地了解游戏。也就是,并不是所有人都必须通过玩游戏进行了解。

另一方面,我也看过一些人在玩了一次游戏后就对游戏有了彻底的了解。

我们常常会以为了解一款游戏的唯一方法便是去尝试它,但这却是无知且以自我为中心的想法。这取决于不同的人,甚至还取决于不同游戏。也有些人认为,如果你不多玩几款游戏,你就不能真正了解游戏,而这当然也是不准确的。

某段时间,我几乎从未玩过任何一款已发行的游戏(包括自己的)。通过观看别人玩游戏并与之进行交谈,我可以判断出哪些是自己不喜欢的游戏(我是非常挑剔的)。我从未有过玩一款自己觉得不可能喜欢但最后却发现很喜欢的游戏的体验。也许这是取决于年龄的变化。比起25岁的年轻人,老年人总是拥有更多的游戏经验,所以他们可以无需尝试便很好地了解一款游戏。

当我花更多时间去玩别人的游戏时,我便缺少更多时间去致力于自己的创造。甚至在我自己的游戏发行时我也未曾去尝试它们。另一方面,单单今年我就玩过20多次各种版本的《Britannia》,并且这能够帮助我更好地创造并测试自己的新版本游戏规则。

显然我并不是想要与Reiner Knizia进行比较,但是如果有些人认为我没有玩足够多不同游戏,所以我的观点便是无用的,我便会说Reiner Knizia也未玩别人的游戏。我还想说说自己与Reiner的一些其它相似之处。

也许面向其它领域的比较会更有帮助。许多人喜欢历史,但却是基于不同的方式去学习。我是作为专业的历史学家接受教育,如果我想要学习历史,我便会阅读一本书。有些人是通过观看“历史频道”去学习历史,我却很少会去看这类节目。一方面是因为没有这一习惯,另一方面则是因为历史频道对于历史的描述总是会太过浮夸,让你很难判断什么是真什么是假。更确切地说,这应该算是“好莱坞历史”。还有些人喜欢通过玩历史类游戏学习历史。现在我喜欢通过游戏去教授历史,但是我却不会基于这一方法去学习历史,因为对于我自身而言这是没有效率的。通过阅读书籍我可以在更短时间内学到更多内容。

我绝对不会告诉所有人,如果不阅读历史书他们就不会懂得什么是历史,不过我会告诉某些人,如果他们一点都不玩游戏,他们可能便不会了解游戏。对于不同人来说存在不同的学习方法以及不同的效能。

让我再说一遍,我并不是说你不需要知道更多游戏,我只是说你不需要玩太多游戏。因为在游戏产业中,生产力面前摆着的最大障碍之一便是玩游戏。如果你想要成为一名高产的设计师,你就不能玩太多游戏,因为这样你将没有足够的时间去设计自己的游戏。玩游戏不是很有效率,或者就像我所说的,当你在玩其它游戏时,边际收益递减规律便会开始生效,你需要致力于自己的游戏而不是玩更多别人的游戏。我便有个朋友自己设计并发行了一些游戏,但是如果他并未沉迷于玩别人的游戏,我想他肯定能够发行更多游戏。

在与一些相关的产业进行比较时,你将会发现许多全职小说家都没有足够的时间去阅读小说,因为他们都在忙着写自己的小说。

The Phantom Menace(from cinematerror)

The Phantom Menace(from cinematerror)

同样地,当你在理解游戏设计方面到达了一定的阶段(游戏邦注:对于小说家来说也就是小说创作),这时候当你去玩游戏或阅读一本小说,你便能看出它的结构,并因此感受不到它所传递的一些好奇感或乐趣。就像Keira Knightly在12岁左右的时候操控了《The Phantom Menace》中Queen Amidala的侍女,这便会抹去她对于《星球大战》的好奇感。

作为专业的游戏设计师,你并不是在为自己设计游戏——除非你知道目标用户的特点,你不能设计出只是与其它游戏类似的游戏。有时候设计师特别喜欢一款游戏,所以他便会想要设计出与之类似的游戏。另一方面,在过去40年间我有一些非常喜欢的游戏,最大型的便是《龙与地下城》(第一个版本)。我从未设计出一款能够取代《龙与地下城》的角色扮演游戏,相反地,我为这款游戏设计了附加内容。换句话说,我从未为自己设计一款RPG,我只是会去修改自己喜欢的游戏。

的确,游戏公司总是会收到许多与现有的游戏非常相似的游戏,通常情况下这些游戏都不会走得太远,尽管也存在例外(通常是那些独立发行的)。在这种情况下,设计师总是会下意识地模仿其它游戏。设计师们也有可能设计出与独立游戏非常相似的游戏—-Knizia也曾这么做过,尽管这看起来不大可能。

不管怎样,我都不是在阻止你玩游戏,只要你喜欢,并且这么做不会影响到你设计自己的游戏,你就可以尽管去玩。(如果你只设计过一款游戏,那么你离那些每年设计了许多游戏的专业设计师来说还有很远的距离)。如果你想要玩许多已发行的游戏,那就玩吧。但你必须清楚你这样做将不能有效地利用时间,也许还会不知觉地避开那些本应该做的事(如果你真的想要成为游戏设计师的话)。你真正需要做的只是设计并完成游戏,而不是沉迷于玩游戏中。

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

Pulsipher Game Design

Dr. Lewis Pulsipher

“Play as many games as you can?” Maybe not.

“If you want to quit playing RPGs, start designing them.”
(quote from a GenCon 2012 panelist)

I sometimes see or hear game designers give the advice that is quoted in the title of this piece.  I have to disagree.  Game designers need to spend their time efficiently, just like anyone else.  And playing games (other than their own for testing) is not very efficient, certainly not the most important thing game designers should be doing.  Because playing games is *very* different from designing them.

The idea behind the advice is that game designers need to know lots of games.  That’s a reasonable point of view.  But playing a game is not necessarily the best way to learn about games:

1) Playing games is not, *for some people*, the most efficient way to learn about them.

2) When you reach a certain experience level, you’re not going to learn a lot playing games, *compared to the time it takes*.

3) For most people it’s too easy to play games and not do what you should really be doing, which is designing, testing, and completing games.

Let’s eliminate right now a supposed reason not to play games.  Eric Hanuise (Flatlined Games) says “Every now and then I meet a game designer wannabee that proudly states he will not play other games or look at what’s published, in order not to be influenced in his design.”   That’s *nuts*.  You need to know what is happening with other games more than you need to worry about being influenced by other games.  I would never worry about being influenced by other designs because borrowing is endemic in game design, yet insofar as I make games as models rather than collections of mechanics I’m unlikely to borrow as much as mechanics-constructors might be.  But that might not be true for someone with a lot less experience.

Now let’s go through the three reasons I’ve stated above, in greater detail.

There are many ways to learn about new games, and playing games is not always the most efficient way.  In fact it’s often quite inefficient.  If you rely only on playing the game you need to play several times to really understand what’s going on.  (This is why writers of formal detailed game reviews should have played the game several times.)  Some people (myself included) can learn more efficiently by reading about games, reading game rules, watching people play games, and *talking with people who have played the game several times*.  That is, not everyone has to actually play a game to understand it.

On the other hand, I’ve seen many people play a game once and thoroughly misunderstand it.

The oft-expressed presumption that the only way, and presumably the most effective way, to learn about a game is to play it, is simply ignorant or self-centered (take your pick).  It depends on the person, on the situation, perhaps even on the game.  There also tends to be a presumption in some people that if you don’t play a lot of games, you’re not learning anything about games, which is clearly NOT true.

I almost never play a published game (including mine), period.   Also, by watching and talking with players I can learn about a game that I would obviously dislike strongly (and I am *very* picky).   I cannot recall ever having the experience of playing a board game that I was pretty sure I would dislike, only to find out I liked it.  Maybe that’s something that comes with age.  A senior citizen (me) has a lot more experience playing games than a 25-year-old, and so may be able to understand a game better without playing it.

The more time I spend playing someone else’s games, the less time I have to devote to my own (which must be played solo several times, if nothing else).  I don’t even play my own published games *as they were published*.  On the other hand I’ve played Britannia in several versions more than twenty times solo this year, but that is in aid of making and testing rules for the new editions.

I don’t mean to compare myself with him, obviously, but when some presumptuous dude decides that my views must be useless because I don’t actually play a lot of different games, I point out that Reiner Knizia doesn’t play other people’s games.  (If you’re interested in tabletop games and don’t know who Reiner (as he likes to be called) is, you need to read more and get out more.)  I hasten to add that there are few other resemblances between me and Reiner.

Perhaps a comparison to another field will help.  Many people like history but learn in different ways.  I was educated as a professional historian, and if I want to learn history I’ll read a book (or, these days, something shorter depending on the level of detail I need).  Some people learn history by watching the History Channel, which I very rarely watch.  That’s partly just how habits have been established and partly because the History Channel can go overboard in dramatizing history to the point that you don’t know what’s true and what’s not.  It’s “Hollywood history.”  Some people like to learn history by playing historical games.  Now I like to teach history through games, but I certainly don’t learn history that way, for me it’s not efficient.  I can learn a lot more in less time by reading a book.

But I don’t tell everyone that if they don’t read history books they can’t know anything about history, no more than I would tell someone if they don’t play lots of games they can’t know anything about games.  There are different ways to learn, of different efficiency for different people.

Let me repeat, I’m *not* saying you don’t need to *know* a lot of games, I’m saying you don’t necessarily need to *play* a lot of games.  Because *one of the biggest barriers to productivity in the game industry is game playing.*  If you want to be *productive* as a designer you can’t play too many games, because you won’t have time to do the design.  (Caveat: if you’re playing your own game prototypes then that’s another thing entirely, because that ought to be productive.) Playing games is not very productive, or perhaps I should say, the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns kicks in when you play other’s games, and you need to work on your own games rather than play more of others.  I have a friend who has designed quite a few published games, but he would have published a lot more if he didn’t enjoy playing games so much.

To make a comparison with a related industry, I think you’d find that many full-time novelists don’t have much time to read novels, because they’re writing novels.

Also, when you get to a certain stage in understanding game design (or, for those novelists, fiction writing), when you play a game or read a novel you see how it’s constructed, and it takes away some of the sense of wonder and the enjoyment that brings.  Kind of like when Keira Knightly at age 12 or so played Queen Amidala’s handmaid in The Phantom Menace: being part of the production took away her sense of wonder of Star Wars.

Just as a professional game designer shouldn’t be designing games for himself – unless he *knows* he is typical of his target audience – he shouldn’t be designing games that are just like some other game.  The two sometimes go together, the designer likes a particular game so much that he tends to design games just like it.  On the other hand, I have had several favorite games over the course of the past 40 years, the biggest one Dungeons & Dragons (first edition).  I have never designed a role-playing game that would take the place of Dungeons & Dragons, instead I design additions and modifications to D&D.  In other words, I haven’t tried to design an RPG for me, I’ve modified my favorite game instead.

Yes, an awful lot of games submitted to game companies are very, very much like existing games, and those aren’t likely to get very far, although there are exceptions (usually self-published).  But in those cases the designer has consciously modeled his game on another one.  It is also possible to design a game that turns out to be much like a game designed independently by someone else – this has even happened to Knizia – though it’s not likely.

I’m not discouraging you from playing games, as long as you enjoy it, *unless* it is a detriment to, an excuse not to work on, designing your own games. (If you’re only designing one game, you’re far out of step with most professional designers, who work on many games each year.)  If you like to play lots of published games, go ahead.  But recognize that you’re not using your time efficiently, and may be unconsciously avoiding what you ought to be doing, if you want to be a game designer.  What you need to be doing is *designing and completing games*, not playing published games.(source:blogspot)


上一篇:

下一篇: