电子游戏的复合时代始于1985年的《超级玛丽兄弟》。《超级玛丽兄弟》是所谓的复合游戏的第一个适当例子。简单地说，复合游戏就是指玩家能够使用一种类型的机制去解决另一种类型挑战的游戏。在《超级玛丽兄弟》中，玩家便是使用平台游戏机制（可控制的跳跃）去解决行动游戏问题（防御敌人）。（请点击此处阅读本文第1篇）

当然了，这种类型的复合游戏是基于两种方式；有时候游戏会提供给玩家关于平台游戏问题的行动游戏解决方法。上图便是有效的例子：使用火球去妨碍敌人从而让 玩家能够更轻松地瞄准平台目标并跃到上方。大多数情况下，《超级玛丽兄弟》的每一个关卡都为玩家设置了行动挑战和平台挑战，尽管每个关卡倾向于支持其中的 一种类型。

super mario brothers（from thegamedesignforum）

复合设计元素深深地根植于街机时代主要的设计开发中。障碍轴和能力轴仍然是存在的；实际上它们是不断进化着的，并且其意义也比在街机游戏中更加深刻。举个例子来说吧，街机游戏只有一个障碍轴，但是复合游戏却具有两个以上。因为在不同的贡献类型中将有两个以上的技能群组，你可以基于你通常所处的轴面去测量每个技能组。

从某种挑战过度到不同的挑战，我们所看到的难度曲线基本上与街机时代一样，除了在两种类型间跳跃着。复合游戏将通过避免过度消耗单一技能群组而保持游戏玩法足够有趣。也就是说，玩家从未长久地使用一套技能直至感到厌烦。例如《超级玛丽兄弟》中的世界1-2突出了超过20个敌人以及6次死亡平台跳跃（游戏邦注：如果玩家未能成功着陆，那么死亡便是结果）。

super mario brothers（from thegamedesignforum）

较低的天花板和大量的敌人意味着阶段的终点在于获取并使用火花。这是沿着能力轴的改变（即通过升级道具）如何强调游戏行动元素的一个例子。另一方面，世界1-3突出了不到10个敌人以及16次死亡平台跳跃；这显然是一个平台导向型阶段。大多数敌人被放置在高于玩家的平台，所以火花并没有多大用处。这是沿着强调硬核平台游戏技能的能力轴的横向移动。这两个阶段都是由混合平台游戏和行动游戏挑战所组成的，但是设计的专注点却在不同关卡中发生着变化。

通过在玩家感到厌烦前于不同技能组合中进行转变，复合游戏能够更轻松地诱导玩家的流状态。被称为流的心理状态是一种玩家在真正沉浸于游戏中时会体验到的清楚的兴奋感。大多数电子游戏玩法将在完全热衷于游戏时回想起曾经有过的体验。并不只是玩家会有这样的体验；奔跑者，编织者，音乐家以及许多其他人在沉浸于各自的任务时也会有同样的体验。流是一种积极专注的状态，可以拥有许多不同的原因。复合游戏能够将玩家置于一种我所谓复合流的心理状态，这并不是同一种事物，但却非常接近于普通的心理流。这些游戏可以使用下方这样的结构做到这点。

axis of abilities（from thegamedesignforum）

这里存在的区别在于流并不是通过让玩家专注于一个任务而实现的，而是通过在准确的事件改变玩家的注意力实现的。一款精心设计的复合游戏将在玩家开始不再热衷于游戏并失去流时于技能组合间发生改变，并保持愉快的注意力长久地持续下去。

两种复合游戏类型

在《超级玛丽兄弟》诞生后的下一年，复合游戏开始大受玩家与设计师的欢迎。对于那些能够聪明地选择自己的组件的后80年代设计师来说，他们可以撇开街机时代的理念而创造许多全新的游戏。因为《超级玛丽兄弟》的影响，许多经典的授权游戏都包含了平台元素。就像《洛克人》，《魂斗罗》和《银河战士》都将平台元素与射击元素整合在一起去创造经典的游戏。

sonic（from thegamedesignforum）

在这些游戏中，每一款都有一种独特感，单从基本层面来看它们却没有什么差别。这类型游戏是基于控制保护所建立起来的复合游戏。换句话说，设计师很容易结合2D平台游戏和射击游戏，因为它们具有许多同样的控制；设计师无需做过多额外的添加。在我上述列出的所有游戏中存在一种相同的控制方案：使用方向键进行移动，按压按键进行射击而其它按键进行跳跃。即使平台游戏和射击游戏元素发生了很大的变化，控制也可以非常直观地进行结合并提供深度的体验。这意味着玩家并不会被困于学习机制中，而是能够专注于更大的关卡设计功能。另一方面，我们所面对的都是那些控制具有笨拙功能的游戏，这是违反直觉的。或者考虑只用许多按键的PC游戏，我们是不可能记住所有功能的。这通常都是类型不能一起运行的复合游戏的结果。但这并不意味着这些游戏并不有趣，因为有些带有100万个按键的游戏也很有趣。在线时代的竞争多人游戏要求有许多额外的按键，因为竞争玩家将为了获得竞争优势而竭尽全力去掌握复杂的控制方案。这意味着存在使用组合控制的优秀竞争游戏，就像经典的打斗游戏。但在单人玩家游戏领域中，找到一种方法直观地结合控制是设计师需要掌握的最重要的任务之一。而有些类型的结合也比其它类型来得突出。

直观混合控制并不是一款优秀复合游戏的关键元素。即使缺少足够的游戏设计大脑元素，我们也能够创造出一款复合游戏。游戏设计师经常基于认知共性去创造他们的复合游戏。这意味着尽管控制并非混合了不同类型，但是包含于玩游戏过程中的心理机能也包含了类型混合。这听起来有点含糊，因为这指代的是一个大范围的游戏。在早前的复合时期便存在一些出色的例子。最佳例子便是《塞尔达传说》，这是一款结合了行动，冒险和RPG元素的复合游戏。为了推动结合，玩家必须在菜单上花大量时间并手动完成控制任务。（同一年出现的《恶魔城》也尝试了同样的复合元素，尽管面对了不同的结果）。所以尽管比起讲究，控制显得更加实际，但是我们可以将它们之间更加清楚的共同基础想像为带有三个中心的维恩图解。

recognizing memorizing（from thegamedesignforum）

这三款游戏的共同之处在于认知技能：基于熟悉的线索快速识别并预测模式。在行动游戏中，为了避开攻击并挖掘出敌人，特别是boss的弱点，识别他们的模式就特别重要。在冒险游戏中，玩家必须识别出地牢提供给他们去解决谜题的线索：例如，如果存在带有目标但却不可触及的平台，你可能需要使用或找到一些射弹。在RPG中，为了利用敌人的主要/武器劣势，我们必须注意到他们身上的图案线索，并意识到该线索标志着存在一个包含强大的新道具或红心容器的密门或秘密金库。那些额外的红心将帮助玩家打开boss，并解决形同游戏问题。在《塞尔达传说》中，这并不是源自每种单独类型的唯一技能，但它们缺少三种贡献技能组间的共同基础，并确保游戏足够连贯且具有吸引力。

复合设计的扩散

不管他们正在使用控制复合元素或者认知复合元素，来自80年代末期和90年代初期的设计师都在复合设计技巧上取得了很大的进步。例如《刺猬索尼克》选择了行动/平台复合元素并添加了另外一种类型进行混合：赛车游戏。只要玩家使用明确的赛车类反应去避开像陷阱和钉鞋等障碍，索尼克便可以获得像赛车那般势头，在坡道中加速前进，并在一个经过装饰的平台上跃向高空。这用于解决平台游戏问题，突然地，飙升的刺猬将接近那些触及不到的平台。

或者考虑《马里奥赛车》是如何通过提供给玩家许多不同的射击升级道具而让玩家解决赛车问题。游戏中那些红色的贝壳是免费的！有许多游戏设计例子使用了复合技巧，但是将其一一罗列出来太占空间了。

关于这一电子游戏设计历史的明显异议在于它扼杀了游戏设计的创造性。如果设计师只是沉浸于研究如何创造出色的街机游戏，结合它们并将其作为独创产品而发行，那么设计师并没有理由想出任何真正新奇的理念。复合游戏很出色，但最终未经实验的复合游戏数量将日趋减少，市场也将消沉下去。这是一个合理的异议，所以接下来我们将着眼于复合游戏最近的开发情况。特别是我们将着眼于早期的第一人称射击游戏和实时策略游戏是如何在创造经过时间考验的独创类型时使用复合设计。

（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）

Part 2: The Composite Era

The composite era of videogames began with Super Mario Bros in 1985. Super Mario Brothers was the first proper example of what we can call a composite game. To put it simply, a composite game is a game in which a player can use the mechanics from one genre to solve the challenges from another genre. In Super Mario Bros, this generally manifests as players using platformer mechanics (controlled jumping) to solve action game problems (defeating enemies).

(Note that I use images from the SNES ports of the Mario games because that is what I own; the graphical changes don抰 affect the design features I wish to illustrate.)

This genre composite goes two ways of course; sometimes the game offers the player action game solutions to platformer problems. A good example is the case above and right: using fireballs to take out obstructing enemies makes the platform target a lot easier to jump on, unimpeded. For the most part, every level in Super Mario Bros has both action and platform challenges for the players to tackle throughout, although each level tends to favor one of those genres more than the other.

The elements of composite design are firmly rooted in the major design developments of the arcade era. The axis of obstacles and the axis of abilities are still present; in fact they are evolved and mean far more than they did in arcade games. For example, arcade games mostly only have one axis of obstacles, but composite games can be seen as having two or more. Because there are two or more groups of skills from different contributing genres, you can measure each group of skills on an axis as you would normally.

From challenge to challenge, the difficulty curve we see is basically the same as the one from the arcade era, except that itis bouncing between genres. Composite games tend to keep their gameplay interesting by avoiding the over-taxing of a single group of skills. That is to say, the player is never using one set of skills for long enough that he or she becomes bored with it. For example, World 1-2 in Super Mario Bros features more than twenty enemies and six deadly platform jumps (for which death is definitely the outcome if the player misses the landing).

The low ceilings and masses of enemies mean that the stage抯 emphasis is on acquiring and using the fire flower. This is an example of how a change along the axis of abilities (via a power-up) can emphasize the game抯 action elements. World 1-3, on the other hand (above, right), features less than ten enemies and sixteen deadly platform jumps; this is obviously a platform-oriented stage. Most of the enemies are located on (or drop from) platforms high above the player, so the fire flower isn’t as useful. This is a lateral movement along the axis of abilities that emphasizes the core platformer skills. Both stages are composed of mixed platformer and action challenges, but the focus of the design changes from level to level.

By shifting between skillsets just before players get bored, composite games are able to more easily induce a flow state in their players. The psychological state called flow is a kind of clear-minded euphoria that players experience when they’re totally locked into a game. Most players of videogames will recall having experienced times when they’re completely engrossed in play, and minutes or even hours disappear. It is not just gamers that experience this; runners, knitters, musicians and plenty of other people can all experience the same thing when they’re locked into their respective tasks. Flow is a state of positive focus, and can have a wide variety of causes. Composite games are able to put players into a psychological state I call composite flow, which isn抰 exactly the same thing, but is very close to ordinary psychological flow. These games can do it by using a structure like the one visualized here.

The difference here is that the flow is achieved not by getting the player to focus on one task, but by changing the player抯 focus at exactly the right times. A well-designed composite game will shift between skillsets before a player starts to burn out and lose their flow, keeping the euphoric focus going for a very long time.

Two Types of Composite Game

In the next few years after Super Mario Bros, composite games exploded in popularity, both among players and among designers. It was clear to designers of the late 80s that by choosing their components wisely, they could build a huge variety of new games out of arcade-era ideas. Because of the influence of SMB, many of the classic franchises included platformer elements. Mega-Man, Contra and Metroid all combined platformer and shooter elements to create classic games.

Each of those games had a unique feel, but they were essentially the same kind of game at a fundamental level. This kind of game is a composite built on the conservation of controls. In other words, it’s relatively easy for designers to combine 2D platformers and shooters because they share many of the same controls inherently; the designers don’t have to add too much. In all of the games I listed above there抯 a similar control scheme: d-pad to move, one button shoots and the other button jumps. Even if the platformer and shooter elements vary greatly, the controls can combine very intuitively and offer a deep. This means that the player isn’t bogged down in learning mechanics, but rather can focus on the larger features of the level design. On the other hand, we’re all played games in which the controls had clunky features which were so counterintuitive as to be unusable. Or consider PC games that use dozens of buttons, for which it is impossible to remember all of the functions. This is often a result of a composite whose genres didn’t work together. This isn’t to say that those games can’t be fun, because there are some games that have a million buttons and are terrific. Competitive multiplayer in the online era necessitates having lots of extra buttons, because competitive players are willing to go to great lengths to master convoluted control schemes in order to gain a competitive advantage. This doesn’t meant that there aren’t great competitive games that use elegantly combined controls, though梛ust look at classic fighting games. But in the realm of single player games, finding a way to combine controls intuitively is one of the most important tasks a game designer can take on. Some genres combine better than others.

Intuitive hybrid controls aren’t a necessity for a good composite game. It’s also possible for a game to make a composite out of the more cerebral elements of game design. Game designers often build their composite games upon cognitive commonalities. This means that although the controls aren’t necessarily a mix of different genres, the mental skills involved in playing the game do involve a genre mix. This sounds vague because it refers to a huge range of games. There are some great examples from the early composite period that make the meaning clear, however. The best example is The Legend of Zelda; it’s a composite of action, adventure and RPG elements. In order to facilitate that combination, the player has to spend a lot of time in the menu and fiddle with the control assignments manually. (Castlevania, which came out in the same year, tried almost the same composite, although with very different results.) So while the controls are practical more than elegant, we can visualize the more cerebral common ground between them as being a Venn Diagram with three centers.

What the three games have in common is a cognitive skill: quickly recognizing and predicting patterns based on familiar cues. In action games, it’s important to recognize the patterns of enemies,specially bosses in order to avoid their attacks and exploit their weak points. In adventure games, the player has to recognize the cues a dungeon provides for solving puzzles: for example, if there’s an unreachable platform with a target on it, you probably either need to use or find some kind of projectile. In RPGs, it’s necessary to notice patterned cues in enemies in order to exploit their elemental/weapon weaknesses, and necessary to recognize the cue that signals that there抯 a secret door or hidden chest that could contain a powerful new item or heart container. Those extra hearts can really help players survive bosses梐.k.a. solve action game problems. These aren’t the only skills from each of the respective genres in Zelda, but they are the common ground between the three contributing skillsets, and they make the game coherent and engaging.

The Proliferation of Composite Design

Whether they were using control composites or cognitive composites, designers from the late 80s and early 90s got a lot of mileage out of composite design techniques. Sonic the Hedgehog, for example, took the action/platform composite and added another genre to the mix: racing games. As long as the player uses precise racing-style reflexes to avoid obstacles like pitfalls and spikes, Sonic can gain momentum like a racecar, and launch off of large ramps in the terrain, soaring into the sky in a greatly embellished platform jump. This is used to solve platformer problems, as suddenly those out-of-reach platforms become accessible to the soaring hedgehog.

Or consider how Mario Kart so obviously lets players solve racing problems (trying to get to first place) by giving them lots of different shooter power-ups. Those red shells aren’t in the game for nothing! There are literally hundreds more examples of game designs that employ composite techniques, but listing them would take up too much space for this article梐lthough we抣l see a few more examples shortly.

The obvious objection to this view of videogame design history is that it stifles creativity in game design. If designers are just dipping into the well of arcade games, combining them and releasing them as original products, there is no reason for designers to ever come up with something truly novel. Composite games are great, but eventually the number of untried combinations is going to dwindle, and the market will become dull. This is a fair objection, and so next we’ll take a look at the later developments in composite games. Specifically we’ll look at how the early first person shooter and real time strategy titles used composite designs when inventing original genres that have stood the test of time.(source:thegamedesignforum)