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

探索电子游戏设计的七大常量(一)

发布时间:2014-08-06 16:55:48 Tags:,,,

作者:Tadhg Kelly

这世上有无限多的画作,但人们对于杰作与庸常之作的定义却更为有限。游戏亦同此理,电子游戏的无限空间已经被限定了,其无限性也可能具有局限性。总之,游戏设计似乎具有一定规则。(请点击此处阅读本文第二部分第三部分

“创意常量”是我用于描述这些规则的术语。它们是我们设计师所遇到的一些基本、定型的实用主义现实。我将其称为常量而非限制是因为,限制听起来更像是可以被打破的任意规则。不要误解我的意思:可分解为原子的电子游戏当然存在许多任意规则,尤其是题材惯例。但常量是不同的。

常量是一个总是存在的因素,在某些方面是一种界线,但也是一种支柱。例如,光的最大速度(C)就是一个常量,它的影响遍及整个宇宙。c意味着到达其他星球远比建设一艘宇宙飞船更困难,但它在将质量转变为能量、相对交互等方面也发挥着重要。我们对c的了解促进了最为现代技术的发展。

我们无法直接影响常量,所以只有我们的造物主知道如何使用它们。在游戏领域,看似最为明显的一个常量就是“平台”。平台局限性通常主导着任何游戏开发过程中的考虑因素(游戏邦注:如控制范例,支持的商业模式,用户群体等),但它们也是可变化的。今天令我们止步的东西也许明天就不再是个障碍(反之亦然),所以平台是一个不断移动的目标。因此它们并不是常量。

与之相似,人们也很容易将“玩家”视为一种常量,因为游戏就是用来给人玩的,所以我们必须时时考虑到玩家。这一点不假,但并不明确。多数游戏设计常量与玩游戏的心理活动有关,如玩家怎么想和看待游戏,但它们必须分别来讨论才有意义。“受众”、“市场”或“规则”也同此理。这些都是制作游戏中的一个环节,但也都太容易变化或者普遍了。

简而言之,我认为游戏设计有7大不可避免,但却可以帮助创造强大玩法的常量。

1.迷人

我曾将这个理念称为“趣味”,将其视为第一个常量,但趣味是许多人所分析的一个热词,对于新一代游戏设计师来说它是一种呆板的限制。体验《dys4ia》这种游戏并没有太大趣味,但仍然有一定意义。我后来才发现我真正想表达的是“迷人”。

dys4ia(from guim)

dys4ia(from guim)

我经常遇到一些想避开系统的游戏设计师。摇骰子、规则和数字看起来都太乏味了,对于想创造情感、故事和意义的设计师来说它们都太机械化和数学化了。所以他们可能会创造出充满交互而没有系统的体验型游戏,或者是较少交互性并且鲜有人问津的游戏。玩家可能会问“到处走走的感觉不错,但玩法在哪?”

游戏玩家的观点不无道理。缺乏有趣的逻辑、机制、数据、操纵等因素可能会让游戏折寿。他们可能有兴趣玩一两个小时,但不会持续太久。在一个重要社区也许这并不会是什么扫兴之事,但在这个群体之外就会令游戏陷入困境了。

游戏应该具有迷人的特点。它必须拥有相互作用的活跃和经济机制,以便创造一个动态问题的幻象。无论是《模拟城市》中的大型复杂模拟,体育运运中的规则,或是冒险游戏中的解谜行为,迷人的系统通常就是令玩家深陷其中的一个关键矢量。当你吸引住他们的时候,就可以带入情感。但它并不能独立存在。

2.不完善

imperfection(from urbanshakemagazine)

imperfection(from urbanshakemagazine)

完善与不完善游戏之间的区别就在于玩家所知信息的质量。例如,西洋棋就是一款完善的游戏,因为它所有的棋子都在棋盘上了,玩家知道所有的规则,并可能因此了解可行的移动。而扑克牌就是一款不完善的游戏。玩家了解规则,但却不知道对方会在哪个时刻抛出哪张牌。他们只能靠猜。

所有电子游戏都是不完善的,即使是那些看起来相反的游戏(如电脑版本的西洋棋)。这是因为玩家只是在捣鼓与一个代码黑匣子,但却无从知晓后者的真正规则和操纵方式。游戏会根据自己所隐藏的结构来执行规则,通常不会告诉玩家它的运行原理。所以玩家只能边玩游戏边掌握其中规则,由游戏来要求玩家采取行动。这具有令玩家产生好奇心的副作用。

玩家会对玩法的公平性变得非常敏感。在体育运动中,玩家之间常会产生公平问题(例如在足球中的低级作弊行为在该项运动中被视为合理的),但在电子游戏中玩家通常得自己控制系统。例如,他们认为游戏对自己并不公平,而开发者则不然。他们要想象其中存在问题,甚至为了玩家而考虑进行一些打破平衡的修改(游戏邦注:例如增加战利品的掉落率)以此来修复“破坏”的玩法。

另一个就是对游戏背后世界的感觉。电子游戏令人如此着迷的部分原因就在于,对某些人来说故事性的体验就是它所隐藏层次的感觉。玩家通常会赋予NPC(有时候甚至是物体)一些实际上并不存在于游戏的人格和性格。他们相似《Hyrule》远比自己所想象的更大,并且坊间神话流传着一些可以解开其隐藏秘密的方法。他们看到《传送门》一面墙上的“这块蛋糕是个谎言”的涂鸦,并想象出一个与游戏设计师的意图毫不相干的故事。

不完善的信息是一个很棒的常量。电子游戏可以让人信赖,也可以是恐怖的,惊人或者不可思议的,因为我们永远不知道它们表面之下在发生着什么情况。作为设计师你得拥有让玩家因此而大开眼界的能力。

3.紧迫感

urgent(from ronkarr.com)

urgent(from ronkarr.com)

从窗外车水马龙的声音,到我们所观看电影的音乐,与同事的交谈,或者我们所啜饮的啤酒,人类每天都要处理成千上万的感官输入。在这些信息中,有些是会对我们的生存构成威胁,唤起紧迫感或关注的内容,有些是无需记住那些低端的信息,以及具有极高重要性的其他数据。

我们所发展出的重要技能之一就是积极过滤输入信息,这样我们才能关注那些最为紧迫的事情。用电脑来打个比方,你的多核大脑可能在处理多个问题,考虑关系或无意义的白日梦,但至少你的一个核心总在发挥过滤器的作用。你不会死于十字路口,因为你的过虑器时刻关注着往来不绝的车辆并打断你的其他想法,让你知道“嘿,当心点”。尽管我们不喜欢被这种突发事件所打断的感觉,但它毕竟救了我们的命。

游戏在那些积极吸引我们的媒体当中是独特的。我们与之交互并为其所迷。我们还会带着一种赌徒心态来玩游戏。我们在游戏中可以丧命、失败、面临可怕而无法克服的挑战,所有的一切都是可生存的情况。无论是在《Destiny》中完成任务来推动冒险进程,还是体验玩老虎机时只剩下一枚硬币的时刻,游戏与紧迫感总有千丝万缕的联系。

我们预料甚至也需要这一点。没有紧迫感的游戏总是难免平庸,而那些采用了紧迫感的游戏通常最具吸引力和最富情感。但紧迫感的一个副作用就在于游戏越显得紧迫,我们就越难以关注其中的精妙细节。我们总是以实用性而非重要性的标准来评估情况,而对于富有创意性的游戏来说这就是个问题。在极富戏剧性的情境中,也许有人会注意到契诃夫的枪,但在《毁灭战士》中,枪只是其中的一件工具而已。

紧迫感是电影式可叙事方式并不像看起来那样适合电子游戏情境的主要原因。因为玩家太忙碌了无暇顾及故事,或者太投入了不想被故事片段所打断。所以故事与玩家之间总存在不太和谐的关系。另一方面,那些可利用紧迫感而无需诉诸电影手段来传达情境的游戏通常很成功。无论是《Papers Please》中的慢热形式,还是《求生之路》中的混乱场景,游戏中出色叙事的关键就在于松开“讲述”形式,而要用提示、直觉等隐晦手段,让玩家自己查明真相。(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

The Seven Constants Of Game Design, Part One

by Tadhg Kelly

Editor’s note: Tadhg Kelly writes a regular column about all things video game for TechCrunch. He is a games industry consultant, freelance designer and the creator of leading design blog What Games Are. You can follow him on Twitter here.

There are infinite paintings, but also a more finite sense of what is a great painting versus not. Similarly there are infinite games, but also a sense of what works and what doesn’t. The boundless space of video games is bounded and their limitless possibilities have limits. There are, it seems, rules to game design.

“Creative constant” is a term that I use to describe those rules. They are the foundational, shape-describing pragmatic realities that we designers run into. I call them constants rather than limits because limits sound like arbitrary rules meant to be broken. Don’t get me wrong: there certainly are many arbitrary rules around video games waiting to be smashed into atoms, especially the conventions of genre. However constants are different.

A constant is an always-present factor, a boundary in some respects but also a pillar. The maximum speed of light (c) is a constant, for example, whose affects are felt throughout the universe. c seems to imply that travel to other stars is going to be more difficult than simply building a faster spaceship, but it also plays a role in the translation of mass into energy, relativistic interactions and whatnot. Our knowledge of c has helped in the development of most modern technology.

Constants exist outside our ability to directly affect them, so it’s up to us makers to figure out how to use them. In the gaming sphere it may seem that the first and most obvious constant is “platform”. Platform constraints are often overriding considerations in the development of any game (from the control paradigm through to the supported business models and demographics of users) but they are also mutable. What holds us back today does not do so tomorrow (and vice versa) and so platforms are always moving targets. Therefore they’re not constant.

Similarly it’s tempting to identify “the player” as a constant, because of course games are always played and therefore we must always think of the player. This is true, but not specific. Most game design constants are to do with the psychology of play, how players think and see, but they need to be separated out to be discussed meaningfully. Ditto ideas to do with “the audience”, “the market” or “rules”. These are all part of the landscape of making games, but fall into being too mutable or general.

Having mulled on it a while, I think there are seven constants of game design that can’t be escaped, but can be toyed with to create powerful play.

1. Fascination

In an older version of this idea I used to say that “fun” was the first constant, but fun is a fuzzy word for many people to parse, and for new wave game designers it’s a dumb limit. To play a game like dys4ia is not to have fun as such, but it still has a certain something. I later realized that what I really meant was “fascination”.

I often encounter game designers who want to avoid systems. Dice rolls, rules and numbers all seem so dull, so mechanical and math-y when what the designer wants to create is emotion, story and meaning. So she charges off and makes experience-driven games full of interaction without system or light on interaction (such as not-doing games) and receives a cold reception. “It’s all well and good to walk around,” the gamers say, “but where’s the gameplay?”

The gamers have a point. The lack of interesting logic, gears and levers, numbers, operations and mechanics gives games a short half life. They might be interesting to play around with for an hour or two, but they don’t sustain. Within the critical community that might not necessarily be a deal-breaker (it’s often looking at games as part of an arts conversation) but outside that group it quickly runs into difficulty.

A game needs to be fascinating. It needs active and economic mechanics that bounce off one another to create the illusion of a dynamic problem. Whether that means a massively complex simulation as you would find in Sim City 5, the elegant rules of a sport or the rudimentary lock-key puzzle solving of adventure games, fascinating systems are one of the key vectors that pulls players in and keep them engaged. Then when you have them engaged you can bring the emotion. But it doesn’t survive well on its own.

2. Imperfection

The difference between a perfect and an imperfect game is the quality of information that players know. Chess, for example, is a perfect game because all of its pieces are out on the board, players know all of the rules, and therefore all possible moves. Poker, on the other hand, is an imperfect game. Players know the rules but they do not know who has what cards at any given moment. They have to guess.

All video games are imperfect, even the ones that appear otherwise (such as computerized versions of Chess). This is because in all cases the player is toying with a black box of code whose exact rules and operations are unknowable. The game enforces rules according to its own hidden structure, usually without telling the player how it works. So the player is as much playing the game to find out what it does as to master the doing, while the game is asking the player for trust. This has many curious side effects.

One is that players become very sensitive to fair play. In sports issues of fairness often arise between players (such as the low-level cheating in soccer that’s considered a legitimate part of the game), but in video games players often have a gripe with the system itself. They believe that a game is being unfair to them, for example, when the developers know that it’s not. They perceive imagined slights where none exist and even consider balance-breaking corrections in favor of them (such as increasing loot dropping rates) as fixing “broken” gameplay.

Another is the sense of a world behind the game. Part of why video games feel so compelling as story-ish experiences to some people is the sense that it has hidden layers. Players often ascribe character and personality to non-player characters (and sometimes even objects) that are not actually in the game because of their interpretations of imperfect information. They come to believe that the world of Hyrule is bigger than they think and urban myths spread about ways to unlock their hidden secrets. They see the scrawl of “The Cake Is A Lie” on the wall in Portal and imagine a whole story behind it independent of what the game designers intended.

Imperfect information is a wonderful constant. Video games can play with trust, they can be scary, wondrous or magical precisely because we never know what’s really going on under their surface. As a designer you always have the power to blow players’ minds because of this.

3. Urgency

Every day we humans deal with tens of thousands of sensory inputs, from the sound of the traffic outside our windows to the music in the movies we watch, the conversations we have with our colleagues or the flavor of the beer we enjoy. Within all that information there are threats to our survival, degrees of urgency and attention, lower order information that doesn’t need to be remembered and other data that is of high importance.

As such one of the crucial skills that we develop is aggressive filtering of inputs so that we can focus on the most urgent. To use a computer analogy, your multi-core brain may be working on problems, thinking about relationships or idly dreaming, but at least one of your cores is always acting as your filter. You don’t get killed at crosswalks because your filter is paying attention to oncoming traffic and interrupts your other thoughts to say “Hey, watch out!”. Even though we don’t like the sensation of distraction that urgency brings, it saves our lives.

Games are unique among media in that they engage us actively. We interact with and are fascinated by them. We also often play them with a sense of stake. We can lose lives, fail, face daunting challenges and be unable to overcome, all of which are survival situations. Whether in the frantic pell mell of Destiny, the need to complete tasks to progress an adventure forward or the one-coin-left moment playing a slots machine, games have a powerful relationship with urgency.

We expect, and even need, it. Games without some sense of urgency feel oddly flat, whereas those that deploy it are often most engaging and most emotional at the same time. But one of the side effects of urgency is that the more urgent the game becomes, the less we have attention for subtleties. We evaluate purely on the criteria of utility than significance, and that can be problematic for games with creative ambitions. Chekhov’s Gun may work in a dramatic context, but in Doom a gun is just a tool.

Urgency is the main reason why cinematic storytelling doesn’t work as well as it seems it should in the video game context. Either the player is too busy to pay attention, or is too engaged with playing to be interrupted by sections of narrative. So story finds itself in a dissonant relationship with the player. On the other hand games that can play into that sense of urgency and use it to convey situation without resorting to cinema often succeed. Whether in the slow-boil form of Papers Please or the rough-and-tumble of Left 4 Dead, often the key to great storytelling in games is to lose the “telling”, and instead to hint, intuit, lay seeds and let the player discover for herself.(source:techcrunch


上一篇:

下一篇: