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

关于游戏设计中的正面的错误选择

发布时间:2015-08-07 15:38:23 Tags:,,,,

作者:Josh Bycer

之前我曾着眼于游戏设计中的错误选择,我谈及了所有比你所使用的无意义选择更糟糕的选择。而在本文我想要进一步拓展之前的内容去谈论同一个问题,但却是从完全相反的角度进行分析,即关于太过优秀的选择。

Beyond-Earth(from gamasutra)

Beyond-Earth(from gamasutra)

正面的错误选择:

关于选择太过优秀这一理念听起来就像是一个古怪的抱怨,因为你总是希望玩家能够拥有优秀的选择。问题在于当选择非常优秀时,它便会因为其有用性而变得更必要。与我们上次谈论的内容一样,这些错误的选择会因为玩家未能选择它们而给予惩罚,就像之前的文章曾提到这些选择会因为玩家选择了它们而惩罚玩家。

为了明确两种类型的错误选择,我们将把正面的错误选择作为正例,并使用负面的错误选择作为反例。正面的错误选择通常出现在策略指南或最小最大建议中,即人们所说的这样的选择始终都是有用的,或者一组指令每次都是最有效的。

最后一行非常重要,因为它区分了玩家如何决定优秀的选择以及正面的错误选择—-如果一个选择始终都是优秀的选择,它便会被当成是一种正面的错误选择,因为你总是会想做出这样的选择。

以下是来自《Payday 2》的例子,在技能提升前,每种类别都能够获得奖励,即将X个点数添加到各自的技能树上。

技术员拥有的奖励是能够创造额外25%的攻击力。显然这在更高的难度水平上是非常有帮助的,并且会导致玩家一心只想选择这一类别。

正如你所看到的,这一选择之所以优秀是因为不管你处于怎样的架构中,不管你使用怎样的武器或者不管你如何游戏,它都是有用的。因为这种选择始终是优秀的,所以它便成为了正面的错误选择。开发者能够做的便是将其转移到全新创造的福利系统中,那么任何玩家便能够轻松获得奖励,而不管他们是基于怎样的游戏风格。

因为正面的错误选择与负面的错误选择是完全相反的,所以你可以在游戏过程中去识别它们。与所有玩家都想办法避开的负面的错误选择不同的是,正面的错误选择是关于所有玩家每次都会做出的选择,不管它是什么样的选择。如果你尝试着让玩家在两种选择中做出决定,那么这种选择肯定不会是最佳选择。明确正面的错误选择是很困难的,因为基于不同游戏玩法,游戏中总是会存在各种不同的选择类型。

必要vs随意的选择:

关于判断一个选择是否属于正面的错误选择是取决于游戏的设计方式,有些选择可能会因为游戏机制而变得更加必要。例如在《Payday 2》中,因为游戏是拥有潜行和公开两种关卡,所以存在一些对于有效潜行更必要的技能,如提高蹲伏速度和偷袭敌人。

在这种情况下,潜行技能便属于正面的错误选择,因为你需要它们去完成潜行任务。然而因为它们是潜行游戏玩法的基础,所以你需要为了利用特定技能而选择它们。当出现一些像这样的特定内容时,它便不再是一个正面的错误选择,因为玩家将为了利用它而将自己困在某些其它元素中。作为《Payday 2》中的一名潜行玩家,因为我选择了建造,所以我便不能快速修复钻头或获得最厉害的铠甲。

这么做意味着我的技能范围是基于不同情况从不错到优秀。而关于什么事都不做的例子,让我们看看《文明:太空》。

在游戏的零售版本中,你可以为了联系周边城市或车站而建立贸易仓库以获得补贴。做研究非常便宜,并且单位也不需要花费你太长时间进行建造。一旦创造了供应链,你便会不断从中获得补贴,并且在经过几个回合后你唯一需要做的事便是重启它。在这里,不管你面对怎样的情况,建立贸易仓库的选择始终都是有帮助的,它们所提供的利益总是多于研究和制作所花费的成本。

关于贸易仓库,我并未因为选择它而将自己困于某些区域中,所以这是一种双赢的选择,不存在任何缺点,因此这是一个正面的错误选择。

另外一个关于你拥有正面的错误选择的标志便是当你的玩家表示他们不会使用可能导致游戏变得更复杂的特定道具或选择时。如果你的游戏中的一个选择很有帮助,但是玩家却会因为一些不利因素而避开它,那么你便有麻烦了。

挑剔的选择:

优秀的游戏设计并不是关于提供给玩家正面的错误选择,而是让他们根据自己的感受决定最佳行动方案。一组优秀的选择是关于挑战玩家去适应游戏中的不同情况,并且不需要阅读任何指南或遵循检查列表。

通常情况下纠正正面的错误选择的方法与纠正负面的错误选择的方法一样—-即调整该选择或游戏中的其它选择。但是你需要谨慎地应对这一点,因为过多削弱选择可能会导致它变得过度情境化。如果某些内容的有效率只有1/10,即在大多数情况下都是无意义的,那就等同于你在创造另一个负面的错误选择。

多样性就像调味剂一样,但你也有可能遇到面对着太多没有真正价值的选择的情况。如果你的所有选择都是基于倍增或默默无闻的效果(游戏邦注:如+2攻击力或+1生命值),那么你的游戏便会缺少深度。这就像让玩家在更高的跳跃和更深的飞跃中做出选择一样。

优秀的选择设计是关于呈现给玩家均衡数量的选择,从而确保这些选择不仅具有多样性,同时还具有意义。任何选择都不应该太优秀或太糟糕,如果你可以有效地平衡它们,你便能够创造出一款真正有趣的游戏。

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

Discussing Positive False Choices in Game Design

by Josh Bycer

The last time I looked at false choices in game design, I talked about options that were across the board weaker than your other available options rendering the choice meaningless. For today’s post I want to expand on that discussion with a talk about the same problem but from the opposite end of the spectrum when a choice is too good.

Positive False Choices:

The idea that a choice could be too good sounds like a weird complaint as you want the player to have options that are great. The problem is when the choice is so good that it becomes required due to how useful it is. Similar to our talk last time, these false choices punish the player for not choosing them while the previous post talked about options that punish you for choosing them.

To help designate the two types of wrong choices, we’ll refer to the positive examples as positive false choices and the negative ones as negative false choices for this post. A positive false choice can typically be seen in strategy guides or min-max suggestions where the person says that one choice should always be used or one set of instructions that work the best every time.

That last line is very important as that is what separates having the player decide between good options and having something as a positive false choice — If the choice is always the superior option then it can be considered a positive false choice as you always want to take it.

Here’s an example of this from Payday 2, before the skill overhaul each of the classes had bonuses that unlocked for putting X amount of points into respective skill trees.

The technician class had a bonus where you could get 25% more headshot damage for going up it. Obviously this was very useful on the higher difficulties and became the go-to tree for players just for this one option.

As you can see, this choice was superior because it was useful no matter what build you were, what weapons you used or how you played the game. And because this was always good, it became a positive false choice. What the developers did to fix that was to move it to the newly created perk system and now any player can easily get access to the bonus no matter what their play style is.

Since positive false choices are complete opposites of negative false choices, so is the best way to spot them while play testing your title. Unlike a negative false choice where every player will avoid it, a positive false choice is when every player will choose the same option every time no matter what. If you’re trying to make the player decide between choices, one shouldn’t always be the superior option. But figuring out a positive false choice can be difficult as there is more than one kind of choice in games based on how the games are played.

Required vs. Optional Choices:

The problem with trying to determine if a choice is a positive false choice is that depending on how your game is designed, some choices may be required simply by the nature of the mechanics. For instance in Payday 2, because the game has both stealth and loud levels there are some skills that are just plain required for effective stealth such as increase crouch speed and quieter enemy take downs.

In this case the stealth skills appear to be positive false choices because you need them in order to stealth effectively. However because they are a foundation of the stealth gameplay, you’re going to have to take them in order to make use of that specific mechanic. When something is specialized like that, then it’s not a positive false choice as the player is limiting themselves in some other aspect in order to make use of it. As a stealth player in Payday 2, I can’t repair drills as quickly or get the best armor due to my choices with build selection.

By doing this, it means that my skills range from being okay to great depending on the situation, which is what you want your choices to do. For an example of what not to do, we turn to Civilization Beyond Earth.

In the retail version of the game, you could set up trade depots with nearby cities or stations for bonuses. The research was pretty cheap and the units didn’t take that long to build. Once a supply chain was established, you’d receive constant bonuses from it with the only thing to do was restart it after a certain amount of turns. Here, the option to set up trade depots is always good no matter what the situation is and the onetime cost to research and produce is outweighed by the benefits they provide.

With the trade depots, I’m not limiting myself in some area by taking it, so they’re a win-win with no downsides and therefore the use of trade depots is a positive false choice.

Another sure sign that you have a positive false choice is if your player base says that they will not use certain items or choices to make the game harder. If a choice in your game is one that is so instrumental to play that people avoid it for a handicap, then you have a problem.

Choosy Choices:

Good game design is not about giving the player positive false choices but having them decide on what they feel is the best course of action. A good set of choices is about challenging the player to adapt to the gamescape and situations, not reading a guide and following a check list.

Usually the ways to fix a positive false choice are the same as a negative — either tweak the choice or tweak the other choices in the game. But you need to be careful as weakening a choice too much may make it too situational. If something is only good 1 out of 10 times and the rest of the time worthless, then you’re just creating another negative false choice.

Variety may be the spice of life, but you can have a case where there are just too many choices without any real value to them. If all your choices are based on incremental or not noticeable effects like +2 attack or +1 health, then the game will lack depth. It’s like being asked to choose between a high jump and a tall leap.

Good choice design is presenting the player a balanced number of options, so that there is variety while making them viable as well . No one choice should be superior/the worse and if you can nail the balance right, you’ll have one very interesting game.(source:gamasutra)

 


上一篇:

下一篇: