作者：Dan Felder

今天我们将谈论游戏设计中最具争议的话题之一：复杂性。很久前，关于这一话题的讨论便曾风行于涉及团队和游戏社区。

people_listen_to_dame_jane_goodall_s_lecture(from gamasutra)

删除复杂性是否会“降低”游戏的难度？什么时候的复杂性是有利的，什么时候又是不利的？为什么有这么多游戏设计师认为复杂性是应该被消灭的恶魔，但是却有许多玩家喜欢这一恶魔？让我们开始进行讨论。

什么是复杂性

伴随着许多持续讨论，这一争论是源自人们的误解。就像英文中的许多单词那样，人们总是会使用“复杂性”这一词去指代一些不同的事物。作为游戏设计师，我们需要重视三种不同类型。它们分别是综合复杂性，追踪复杂性和深度

为什么是这三种类型？因为它们都能够创造出不同的玩家体验。

综合复杂性—-不好的那种

综合复杂性指代的是对于玩家来说理解设计师所传达的内容的难度。这可能是指理解规则，单位能力，任务目标，界面等内容的难度。

花些时间尝试着去识别某种形式真正传达的内容。这需要你开动脑筋。你可能会发现自己反复地阅读并尝试去区分一些特定部分，并觉得自己好像从心理上在解开某些问题。

你需要投入许多心理能量去创造所谓的“失败”感。如果我们投入更多心理能量去识别游戏设计师尝试着告诉我们的内容，我们为了享受游戏而投入的一切便会更少（游戏邦注：特别是当你所面对的是拥有许多策略决定的游戏）。

尽管连载漫画是一个较为极端的例子，但是有许多游戏其实也是类似的。许多游戏带有费解的说明，反直觉性规则以及多个步骤的互动过程。通常情况下这些内容虽然不如漫画《Dilbert》苛刻，但是递减的消极体验也仍然是消极体验。在玩家的水中倒一勺盐也许不像倒满盐那般严重，但这也是一种令人不快的体验。

追踪复杂性—-其它不好的那种

追踪复杂性指的是从心理上保持同时追踪多个事物的任务。让我们做个试验。我将列出10个名字，我希望你能在阅读剩下部分的同时记住所有的这些名字。它们是“Alex，Jason，Kate，Michael，Wendy，Charlotte，Wan，Steve，Elizabeth，Jordan”。记住了吗？

尝试着记住所有这些名字的过程可能会导致你心理紧张。当你在阅读文章时你更难集中注意力。当我要求你在阅读文章的同时记住所有这些名字时，我便是在削减你的体验。你是否会回头去检查自己漏掉了哪个名字？如果你这么做，这便算打乱了你的进程。

你是否会决定放弃挑战而继续阅读文章？这意味着你的大脑已经超负荷了，这是作为本文作者的我的错误。因为你通过心理追踪所有这些名字的压力吞噬了你前来这里阅读文章的乐趣，所以你选择了退出。你是否会在阅读之前花几分钟时间去记这些名字？如果你这么做，你可能属于极少数的人群并且你在阅读整篇文章的速度便会被打乱。所有的这些内容都会对读者的阅读体验造成消极影响。

好吧，那让我们停止费力地记这些名字。除非你是一个喜欢记忆游戏的人，否则这个过程将会让你感到心里紧张。除非我的设计目标是创造这样的游戏体验，否则让玩家不断使用脑子做多件事将会阻碍我的设计目标。

在大多数项目中，你总是想要避免强迫玩家从心理上去追踪多件事物。每次当你添加像“不管何时当一种生物出现在河边，你便能够获得一条命”的效果时，游戏玩法会变得更有趣，但这却需要以追踪复杂性为代价。你的每个机制可能值得你投入追踪复杂性，但是从整体来看它们会导致玩家的大脑严重超负荷。

深度—-好的那种

综合复杂性代表理解所有一切的运行的难度。追踪复杂性代表追踪真正进展的难度。一旦你做到了这些，深度便是代表判断所有最有可能的发展的难度。

我们经常在策略游戏中看到有关深度的讨论，但其实只要玩家需要基于该做什么而做出决定，深度便是存在的。这适用于RPG中关于角色创造的选择，FPS的地图控制，MMO的突袭，MOBA的道具创造等。

现在让我们来说说策略游戏—-因为它们就像房间里的大象般的存在（游戏邦注：即表示明明存在问题却遭到人们的刻意回避）。设计师可能愿意接受《Flower and Dance Dance Revolution》不需要太多深度，所以他们便限制了整体的复杂性。另一方面，策略游戏的生死取决于它们的决策的吸引力。难道删除策略游戏中的复杂性是件好事吗？

这是我们的定义能够发挥作用的地方。一旦你清楚决策中所包含的元素是什么（追踪复杂性）并清楚你的选择（综合复杂性），你便能够开始评估这些元素并决定适当的游戏方式，这也是游戏有趣的地方。

以下是争议的来源。那些主张更多复杂性且反对“降低游戏难度”的人总是在捍卫深度。而与之相反的人则总是尝试着削减综合复杂性和追踪复杂性。其实这里不存在真正的矛盾。

不幸的是许多人将所有的这三个方面当成是唯一的“削减复杂性”概念。那些看重深度的玩家并不希望看到它被削减。那些看重复杂性和追踪复杂性的人也不希望看到这些内容被删除。

那么我们该如何解决这一问题呢？

关键

综合复杂性和追踪复杂性通常都是不好的。它们会给玩家创造出消极体验，从而将他们阻隔在游戏的乐趣之外。不幸的是我们并不能完全摆脱它们。就像象棋需要规则（综合复杂性），而棋子则需要在棋盘上对其它领域造成威胁（追踪复杂性）。所以我们必须在游戏中包含所有的这些消极元素。

复杂性就像游戏设计预算一样。你总是想要削减不必要的成本并寻找方法让自己能够更有效地得到相同结果。一款理想的游戏总是能够既满足设计目标同时也具备适当的综合复杂性和追踪复杂性。

设计工具

这将我引向了一种很有用的工具。上次我们讨论到清楚的设计目标能够帮助你决定怎样的设计选择更适合你的游戏。然而有时候你将会遇到不清楚怎样的选择才能更有效地支持自己的目标的情况。当我遇到这种情况时，我便会使用如下方法。

首先问自己：“这些选择中的哪些能够为玩家创造较少的综合/追踪复杂性？”因为你并不确定怎样的选择能够更好地支持你的设计目标，所以你可以选择那些你知道能够创造出较少副作用的内容。

其次，如果两种选择对于玩家来说同样简单，那就问自己：“哪个选择对于开发者来说更容易？”并着眼于那些对你来说比较省事的选择。你可以基于其它方式投入额外的时间和精力去完善游戏。

你可能会遇到不确定添加某些内容到游戏中是否能够支持综合复杂性和追踪复杂性。在这种情况下，我们应该始终选择较简单的内容。

这里存在一些原因。

尽管我们很容易误解某些事物的乐趣，但是我们总是清楚较低的复杂性是件好事这一事实。

比起之后再删除，在需要的时候再添加复杂性总是更简单。

尝试创造具有较简单的选择的游戏并判断它是否还能够满足你的设计目标。一旦你习惯于较复杂的选择，你便很难去想象较简单的版本。

你知道你的游戏非常棒。如果你认为它具有适当的难度级别，有可能对于玩家来说它可能过于复杂了。

你可能会对保持游戏理念存在偏见。人类天生就讨厌遭遇损失，所以削减自己的理念是件非常困难的使。如果你并非100%确定某一功能值得添加复杂性，那么这样的偏见会让你认为它是不值得的。

你可能会非常担心游戏如果缺少复杂性便不能满足你的设计目标。这是合理的。然而每次当我有这样的担心时，我最终都会尝试较不复杂的版本；结果是游戏仍会拥有足够的深度去匹配其设计目标。所以我从未在之后回头去添加复杂性。

包装

如果将游戏玩法比作一根巧克力棒，那么综合复杂性和追踪复杂性便是包装纸一样的存在。巧克力棒总是需要包装纸的。如果没有了包装纸，我们便会觉得不卫生。而我们又希望这些包装纸够轻巧且不会太夸张，如此便能够确保里面的巧克力棒够讨喜。想象一下我们将巧克力棒装在一张非常坚实牢固的包装之内会是怎样的情况！

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转发，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Design 101: Complexity vs. Depth

by Dan Felder

Welcome back to Design 101. If you missed the first installment, you can check it out here. Today we’re going to talk about one of the most controversial topics in game design: Complexity. Since time immemorial, arguments about this subject have raged through design teams and gamer communities alike.

Does removing complexity “dumb down” your game? When is complexity a good thing, when is it bad? Why do so many game designers treat complexity like a boogeyman to be killed, when a lot of players love it? There’s a lot to get into, so let’s get started.

What is Complexity?

As with many ongoing arguments, the controversy arises from a misunderstanding. Like many words in the English language, people use the word “complexity” to refer to several different things at once. As game designers there are three distinct types we care about. They are Comprehension Complexity, Tracking Complexity and Depth.

Why three types? Because each creates a very different player experience.

Comprehension Complexity – The Bad Kind

Comprehension Complexity refers to how difficult it is for the player to understand what the designer is communicating. This might be how difficult it is to understand a rule, a unit’s abilities, a mission objective, an interface or any number of other things. Here’s an example:

Take a moment and try to figure out what that form is actually saying. It takes some mental gymnastics. You probably find yourself re-reading it multiple times, trying to isolate certain fragments and generally feel like you’re mentally “untangling” something.

This takes a significant chunk of mental energy and can create a sense of feeling “lost”. The more mental energy we spend on figuring out what the game designer is trying to tell us, the less we have to spend on enjoying the game (especially if your game involves a lot of strategic decisions).

While the comic strip contains an extreme example, it’s not too far off from what a lot of games do. Many games are full of impenetrable instructions, counter-intuitive rules and multi-step interactions. Usually these aren’t as severe as the Dilbert example, but a reduced negative experience is still a negative experience. Dumping a spoonful of salt in your players’ water might not be as bad as filling the glass, but it’s still a distasteful experience.

Tracking Complexity – The Other Bad Kind

Tracking Complexity refers to the task of mentally keeping track of multiple things at once. Let’s do an experiment. I’m going to list 10 names, and I want you to remember all of them while reading the rest of this section. Here goes, “Alex, Jason, Kate, Michael, Wendy, Charlotte, Wan, Steve, Elizabeth, Jordan.” Got them all?

The process of trying to keep all those names in your head is probably causing you some mental strain right now. It’s probably making it harder to focus on this text as you’re reading it, and this text is the fun part. We’re talking about game design! I’m reducing your experience by asking you to remember all those names while reading this. Are you jumping back to keep checking them all? If you are, that’s breaking your flow.

Have you just given up and decided to keep reading? That means your brain has been overloaded, which is my fault as the writer of this article. You’ve decided to quit the task because the strain of mentally tracking all those names is sapping your enjoyment of what you actually came here for. Did you spend several minutes committing those names to memory before reading? If so, you’re probably in the minority and doing so messed with the overall pace of the article. All these things are negative effects on the reader’s experience.

Alright, stop trying to keep those names in your head if you haven’t stopped already. Unless you’re a person that enjoys memory games, that process probably felt like a mental strain. Unless my design goal is specifically to create that experience in the player, adding the mental strain of asking players to keep track of multiple things in their heads at once isn’t helping my design goal.

For most projects, you’re going to want to avoid forcing your players to mentally track things whenever possible. Every time you include an effect like, “Whenever a creature is played next to a lake, gain 1 life” in your game, the gameplay might be great but there’s a cost in tracking complexity. Each of your mechanics might be worth their tracking complexity on their own, but taken together they might overload your players’ brains.

—————–

Depth – The Good Kind (Mostly)

Comprehension Complexity represents how hard it is to understand how everything works.Tracking Complexity represents how hard it is to keep track of what’s actually going on. Once you’ve got all that, Depth represents how difficult it is to figure out the best possible move.

We hear Depth talked about most often in strategy games, but it exists whenever players have to make a decision based about what to do. This applies to options for character-building in an RPG, map control in an FPS, raids in an MMO, item building in a MOBA and much more.

Let’s talk about strategy games for now, because they’re the elephant in the room. Designers might be willing to accept that Flower and Dance Dance Revolution don’t need much depth, and so they’re fine with limiting complexity overall. On the other hand, Strategy games live and die on how engaging their decisions are. Isn’t removing complexity from a strategy game a bad thing?

This is where our definitions come in handy. Once you know what the factors involved in a decision are (Tracking Complexity) and understand your options (Comprehension Complexity), you finally get to start evaluating those factors and determining the correct play. This is the fun part of the game.

Here’s where the controversy comes from. People that claim to want more complexity. and are against, “dumbing down the game”, are usually defending Depth. People railing against it are usually trying to cut Comprehension Complexity and Tracking Complexity. There really isn’t a disagreement here.

Unfortunately many people perceive all three aspects as a single concept “Reducing Complexity”. Players thinking about Depth naturally don’t want to see it reduced. People thinking about Comprehension and Tracking complexity naturally want to cut it down.

How do we resolve this?

The Crucial Point

Comprehension Complexity and Tracking Complexity are almost always bad. They produce negative experiences for the player that push them away from the fun parts of the game. Unfortunately, it’s not possible to get rid of them entirely. Chess needs to have rules (Comprehension Complexity), and its pieces need to threaten other spaces on the board (Tracking Complexity). You’re going to have to include some of these negative aspects in your game.

Complexity is like a budget for your game design. You always want to cut unnecessary expenses and find ways to get the same result more efficiently. An ideal game meets its design goal while creating as little Comprehension Complexity and Tracking Complexity as possible.

Design Tool – A Tie-Breaker

This leads me to a useful tool. Last time we talked about how a clearly articulated design goal can help you decide which design choices are better for your game. However, sometimes you’re going to run into situations where you aren’t sure which choice is truly better at supporting your goal. When I run into these situations, I use the following tie-breakers.

First ask yourself, “Which of these options creates less Comprehension and/or Tracking Complexity for the player?” Since you aren’t sure which option is going to better support your design goal, go with the option that you know will create fewer harmful side-effects.

Second, if both options are equally simple for the player, ask yourself, “Which of these options is easier for the developer?” All else being equal, pursue the option that will be less work for you. You can spend that extra time and energy improving the game in other ways.

You might also run into situations where you aren’t sure whether adding something to the game is going to justify the Comprehension or Tracking Complexity that comes with it. In this situation, always go with the less complex option.

There are several reasons for this.

While it’s easy to be wrong about how enjoyable something will be, you know for sure that lower complexity is a good thing.

It’s much easier to add complexity if needed than it is to remove it later.

It’s better to try the game with the less complex option and see if it still meets your design goal. It’s very difficult to imagine the less complex version in action once you’re used to the complex one.

You know your game pretty darn well. If you think it’s the right level of complexity, it’s probably going to be a lot more complex for the player. The Tappers and Listeners experiment shows how hard it is to tune out your background knowledge.

You’re going to be biased to keeping your ideas in your game. Humans are naturally loss-averse, and it’s very hard to cut your own cool ideas. If you’re not 100% sure that the feature is worth the complexity, this bias ensures that it almost certainly isn’t.

You might be seriously worried that the game simply won’t be deep enough to meet your design goals without the added complexity. That’s a valid concern. And yet every single time I’ve been worried about this and ended up trying the less complex version; the game has still had more than enough depth for its design goals. Not once have I ended up adding the complexity back in.

Wrapping Up

If your gameplay is a candy bar, then Comprehension Complexity and Tracking Complexity are the wrapper. Candy bars need wrappers. If they didn’t have them they’d be pretty darn unsanitary. However, you want your wrappers to be light and unobtrusive, ensuring the candy itself is easily accessible. Imagine if they put candy bars in the kind of nigh-indestructible plastic packaging they trap electronics in.

Don’t do that to your game. You’re better than that.

See you next time.(source:gamasutra)