篇目1，Dan Chao推崇基于商业视角的游戏设计理念

下文是Funzio首席设计师Dan Chao的访谈节选内容。Dan涉足各游戏设计领域，作品遍布硬核、休闲、社交和手机平台。Dan曾担任Xbox游戏《New Legends》的玩法机制工程师，休闲游戏《Wandering Willows》的首席设计师，及最近刚推出的社交/手机游戏《Crime City》和《Kingdom Age》的首席设计师。

首先能否谈谈什么是游戏设计？

游戏设计包括很多版块。我觉得这归根到底就是具体类型的游戏设计师。有人擅长创作故事及塑造人物角色，有人喜欢和数字、调节及经济学原理打交道。

然后就出现机制关卡设计；游戏的具体运作模式。“定义核心循环机制”已变成大家惯用的说法。

但在我看来，这里的关键是如何将所有机制组合起来，构成连贯、清晰的设计。

听起来你好像更注重机制设计，这是否是你比较感兴趣的版块？

这无疑是最令我着迷的内容。我倾向让设计配合公司的局限条件（游戏邦注：编程或美工元素过多过少之类的资源局限）。正如大家所说的，这些人才有点像是公司的DNA。

目前社交领域最令我欣赏的一点是，游戏不仅仅是围绕趣味性。你需要基于其他的参数数据完善游戏，而这在有些人看来，显得有些不妥。但事实情况是，这促使游戏获得丰厚营收，得到病毒式传播。再来就是留存率，我觉得这和趣味性一样重要。

传统游戏的商业模式是，你购买一个60美元的盒装产品，然后它就会体现在你的Metacritic评分中，是吧？。若你的Metacritic评分很高，意味着游戏颇具趣味，或者你掏钱请知名评论者当托儿，是吧？也就是说游戏所维系的是评论分数。所以游戏最好是颇具趣味。

只要你购买产品，就万事大吉，是吧？他们已经向你付费。

他们也许会讨厌游戏，也许会在玩过半小时之后，将其退还给GameStop，从中换得35美元。

是的，但若游戏足够杰出和有趣，那么就会形成口碑传播，评论分数就会变高。

在社交游戏领域，情况就有些不同。因为你拥有众多免费玩家。你会促使某些玩家掏钱买东西。游戏包含众多元素， 因此我们很难下定论说在此成瘾性多过趣味性，但我觉得MMO游戏也是如此。其中有些内容也许不那么有趣，但其极富沉浸性。

这些内容在游戏创收方面发挥重要作用。如今在游戏设计中融入大量商业构思变得越发重要。这回到我在行业的最初经历（《New Legends》）。

的确。

《New Legends》这款游戏最终以失败告终。我发誓绝不让同样的情况再次发生。所以我觉得你需要考虑方方面面，但在我看来，游戏设计的本质就是机制关卡设计。

关于参数，我最近刚完成一款免费游戏，如果你去参加GDC，定会听到很多人谈论此话题，称此做法有些不当。你显然将参数看作是“如今的游戏设计世界”。在我看来，以60美元出售游戏作品也好不到哪里去。最终带来这样的商业模式：以60美元出售游戏作品，然后将数百万美元投入营销活动中。但你已习惯于满足营销部门或预算控制人员的合理要求，“牺牲”作品的“艺术美感”。

现在这一对象变成玩家。你的倾听对象是真正体验你游戏的玩家，从中获悉他们的真正所想，真正表现情况。

其中确有存在些许不当之处。我觉得和其他活动一样，其中都涉及一定的成瘾性和操控性。但我觉得这体现在各类型的游戏中。没有人会抱怨《魔兽世界》，但这款游戏也植入相同的机制。

显然这一领域还存在其他有趣的玩法机制。我觉得社交游戏正在逐步朝此靠拢。我们努力将某些内容变得饶有趣味。但另一方面，要求玩家每日返回游戏的约定机制仍旧存在。

听起来你似乎基于务实角度着手游戏设计，注重把握合作人员、团队和预算的局限性，且真正靠此激发设计灵感。

能否列举具体事例，说明你如何发现团队或公司的局限性所在，以及过去你是如何提高设计的质量？

《Kingdom Age》就是个很好的例子，游戏目前搭载Google+，即将在Facebook推出。我觉得其中的局限性在于，当时我们刚着手《Crime City》引擎。我们不敢过多偏离《Crime City》设计。

植入游戏的很多功能都是基于《Crime City》内容做出进一步完善。但对于工程师来说，落实这些内容轻而易举：不一定简单，但要避免出现重复。

《Kingdom Age》颇令我满意的一点内容是，你现在可以训练自己的单位。但之前在《Modern War》/《Crime City》中，玩家直接购买这些元素，能够立即获得。这更多像是RTS机制，所以我们在此融入训练时间。

虽然这会令玩家觉得颇为不同，但最终内容获得简化，编程方面不再显得那么令人抓狂。“我们已获得这一道具，我们需要在此道具中添加时间元素。”我们还添加许多其他元素。但游戏范围有其局限性。

我清楚我们需要尽快解决这一问题。

在制作游戏的过程中，工程师经验在游戏设计方面起到多大作用？之前担任过工程师能够起到什么促进作用？是不是体现在同工程师的沟通方面？还是能够在机制方面达成折中方案？

是的，我设计的机制执行起来很方便。所以如今我开始考虑既定功能的数据库模式。我探索出能够轻松控制内容的方式。

因此我发现，单通过添加乘数和若干沉浸性元素就能够改变游戏内容。而且工程师执行起来也不困难。

这就是许多RPG游戏的运作模式。这里仅围绕若干庞大的电子表格，我觉得若你能够在电子表格中新增一栏，情况可能就不会这么糟糕。并非所有内容都基于这一模式。但我会计算功能所需的成本，主要基于执行过程所耗时长及其中涉及人员。想想这将带来的回馈。

在外界看来，那些尚未开发过游戏的人士多半不会考虑内容的执行难度。你通常只是希望获得出色的内容。就你看来，提议开发新功能时，考虑其成本为何如此重要？

在我看来，这归根结底就是个商业决策，根本来说，就是你的投资回报。若你所开发的内容无论如何也无法收回成本，那么这就不值得你进行投资，你就需要寻找更好的解决方案，或是不同的赚钱方式。

把握开发过程所需耗费的时间，不是所有人都懂得如何进行计算。最终，你需要和工程师、美工进行沟通。但了解项目的各个方面非常重要。不仅是编程成本，甚至包括资产成本。你需要生成多少美术资产，方能促使这一功能得以形成，且带来收益？

我觉得这点对社交游戏更加重要，在此你可以直接在已推出的游戏作品中发布新功能，然后查看其创收情况。

是的，就经验来看，这就是项目各工程师、美工投入整整一个月时间制作某功能，然后将其推出，玩家在此体验一个星期后完事。你可以计算自己投入多少资金，玩家在此体验多长时间。然后你就会说：“噢，我的天啊”。这是个惨痛的教训；经历1-2次挫折后，你就会说：“我再也不要开发耗时超过1周的内容。”

就这种情况来看，尤其是在社交游戏领域，客户端功能是最佳选择。它们无需用户进行安装，你只需要对数据稍加调整。

关于游戏设计方面，什么最令你感到沮丧？

我觉得是各种决策。有时这也许是关于你是否要呈现故事内容更丰富的游戏作品，但这意味着玩家将享有较少的选择性。有时这意味着你需要在此突出虚拟交易，但你会因此无法强化游戏的真实趣味或选择性。

我觉得主要体现在决策方面。我不确定这是否一定会令人感到沮丧，但无疑是最艰难的部分。

能否列举一个当时你觉得异常艰难的决策，但现在回过头来看，“你觉得自己的决定是正确的，游戏因此活得完善。”

笑。

或者现在你回过头来看，颇为懊悔？

（笑）其中无疑存在许多遗憾。这里我举个反面例子。（笑）我觉得社交游戏的棘手部分在于病毒式传播或创收之类的内容方面，设计师很难做出着眼于这些目标的决策。和添加更多材料，建造建筑一样，你必须寻求好友的援助。显然，这其实是令人生厌的内容，你要求他们在自己的公告栏发布消息或是发出请求。这将延缓他们获得材料的时间。

但最终，这将带来更好的病毒式传播。我觉得现代游戏的另一特点是，倾向在游戏表面加载众多精彩内容，这样用户就会看到所有这些元素。就像《龙腾世纪2》，是吧？在初始的指导教程中，你会看到许多精彩内容。

是的，你变成Super Hawke。

然后你将逐步丧失这些元素。同样的情况也出现在休闲可下载内容领域。这一领域由一小时的试验内容主导，所以你必须在这一小时里植入尽可能多的杰出内容。

但这意味着你的递进设计将完全一团糟。这就像是“现在我要如何继续从此逐步前进？”，这在社交游戏领域也是如此。“他们现在接触的是指南教程。他们从中看到精彩内容。”其中包含从天而降的龙或精彩的坦克射击。

随后你开始围绕小小的粘连铁块。或者也许你向他们提供一把很棒的宝剑。但你要如何在此继续推进游戏？你如何呈现更精彩的内容？这无疑有些令人沮丧。我是从商业视角出发。这80、90年代的游戏无疑不是这个样子。

开发《New Legends》期间，《绝地武士》就已问世，它是否始终是PC玩家的游戏首选？

差不多。

《绝地武士》的设计者是Justin Chin？

是的，是Justin Chin。

当时他是全球顶级的游戏设计师。我仔细阅读其中所有期刊；在我看来，它们就像是设计宝典。配备曾经创造出杰出游戏作品的精英团队，投入如此多的时间开发《New Legends》，此后我们再没有遇到过这种情况。

你清楚没有基于商业角度考虑业务发展将发生什么情况，这是否能够让你更简单地做出病毒式传播或创收决策？因为你清楚发生什么情况？

是的（笑）。我曾接触过很多在项目结束后就关闭的工作室，例如，掌机项目结束后，你没有从中得到版税。然后你就争取下笔交易，四处给各发行商打电话。

没有人想要陷入这种境地，没有人想要失去自己的薪资。我显然想过这点，这令事情变得更简单。

篇目2，前Zynga设计总监Soren Johnson谈“何为游戏设计”

作者：Ethan Levy

（Soren Johnson曾是Zynga设计总监，此前还是《文明3》联合设计师，《文明4》主设计师，《孢子》设计师/程序员，《龙腾世纪传奇》主设计师。）

首先，让我们先说说什么是游戏设计？

Soren Johnson：这是一个宏观的问题，所以你将获得一个宏观的答案。而最简单的回答便是，游戏设计是关于你如何挖掘一个项目的乐趣。

这的确是在管理着玩家和机器间的循环，在此你将呈现给他们某些决定；他们将做决定，然后你提供相关反馈，从而让他们知道自己的行动的结果，从而才能做出其它决定。

设计师的角色是为了确保每个循环步骤能够发挥作用，因为游戏会因为很多情况遭遇失败。游戏可以拥有非常有趣的决策，但是它却不能基于玩家的行动给予他们合理的反馈。从而导致玩家会觉得自己像在黑暗中前进似得。

或者一款游戏能够提供给你有效的反馈，但是决策本身却只具有微小的变化，并不存在任何真正的区别。或者只有一个决策能够完全主导策略，从而导致游戏并不具有真正的乐趣。

你是否遇到过一些真正让自己敬佩的例子，即提供了非常有益的反馈？

Soren Johnson：《幻幻球》便是一款时常浮现在我的脑海中的游戏，但是我却不确定这是不是一种讽刺的说法。这款游戏因为某些内容设置太过火而备受瞩目。你将从最突出的箱子中拿到球，这时候游戏便会使用慢动作进行放大。接着彩虹和星星便会跳出来布满整个屏幕。有人会说：“如果背景音乐还播放着《欢乐颂》的话，这难道不会太多了吗？”他们便会说：“不，怎么会多呢。”

这点很重要，因为这就像是一条鼓励性反馈。《幻幻球》中有许多我所喜欢的内容，我不知道自己是否把这当成一回事。游戏是否会因此而嘲笑我？我并不清楚。但显然，它在反馈方面做得很出色。的确，PopCap在自己的游戏中都很重视反馈这一元素。

我的意思是，这是一种半讽刺的做法，就像《Spinal Tap》的创造者并不是真的在讽刺重金属摇滚乐。相反地，他们热爱重金属摇滚乐，但是他们也享受着它的荒谬性。我认为这正是《幻幻球》的创造者想要表达的。他们喜欢休闲游戏，但同时他们也想要调侃自己的呈现方式的荒谬性。

游戏设计师扮演着怎样的角色？

Soren Johnson：如果你是从职业角度来看的话，我认为存在不同类型的设计师。既有项目领导型设计师，即必须牵挂一切工作。如游戏是如何出现在玩家面前？像广告图像等内容是如何呈现出来的，箱子的外观怎样？我们该如何告诉人们这款游戏是关于什么？我们该如何推动合适的人去购买游戏，而不是任何人都去购买游戏。游戏系统该如何维系在一起而有效运行？对于《Legends》来说，这就像是城堡与战斗间的调和，并伴随着消费品循环。这便是最顶级的设计师的任务。

在首席设计师之下还有所谓的系统设计师和内容设计师。就像我便属于系统设计师。这些角色的作用便是创造桌面游戏（游戏邦注：如果没有计算机的话）。

系统设计师会想出规则，系统和循环。如果他们能够想出有趣的决策循环，有趣且具有吸引力的主题，那么他们便算出色地完成了任务。

随后还有一些内容设计（这是我不擅长的），你需要在此将游戏与机制有效地整合在一起。他们可以采取一种机制系统，然后想出怪物的进程，任务的进程或引导人们前往某处的故事。

并不是每一款游戏都需要这些内容，我认为游戏也有自己的范围。我想说的是这里主要存在三种主要元素。游戏是策略集中型？还是更加专注于转变？或者它是基于故事展开？而有些游戏也同时具有这些元素。

就像《神秘海域》便拥有出色的故事设置，适度的转变元素，但却没有策略内容。《文明》则具有非常强大的策略机制，并拥有少量的故事元素，而没有转变元素。我认为每一款元素都会有自己关于这些元素的比例。实际上，我认为透镜便是着眼于授权和续集的有效方法。因为当授权和续集陷入麻烦时，那便是它们未能有效处理策略，转变和故事元素的整合。

如果游戏突然变成一个全新版本，即全部关于故事内容，这便会导致玩家难以接受。或者设计师将大量转变元素塞进一款策略游戏，这也不是玩家愿意看到的。

你可以做出许多改变，但是却必须保持恒定的比例。

作为项目领导者，你是怎样做到尽早做出重要决定？

Soren Johnson：在某种意义上，你只有在真正创造出一款游戏后才可能得出该问题的答案。我始终都强调设计师需要尽早创造出游戏的可游戏版本。不要让任何人阻碍你。

关于《文明4》，我们在开发后的几个月内便创造了一个可游戏版本。不过当你着眼于该版本时，会发现它还很糟糕。我们的单位是基于2D图像的小小看板，即会出现在不同层面间。这并不是动画，这里也不存在地形系统，反倒只有一些模糊但却不能真正发挥作用的内容，但至少你可以看到单位在不同层面间的移动。这是围绕着多人游戏所创造的。我们是为了创造游戏而创造了这一系统，但至少它是有效的。我们需要担心的事物还在后头。

你必须想出哪些事物会阻止你的游戏获取成功。在项目早期，很多团队都会专注于各种技术问题。怎样才能让动画系统发挥作用？我们是否需要串通各种事物？

我们是否拥有实时服务器或无状态服务器？

Soren Johnson：有的。多人游戏该如何运行？玩家该如何相互连接？我们该在图像中使用怎样的格式？这些都是你在发行游戏前需要回答的问题。

但这也是你能够想出的内容。项目并不会因为你答不出这些问题而遭遇失败。所以你必须专注于那些未拥有明显答案，或者至少有一个你想不出答案的问题。

就像是我们在某一时刻将拥有一个动画系统。但我们并不是在说：“你知道什么？我不认为我们可以解决这一动画问题。许多其它游戏已经做到这点了，我们只是在空白内容上进行绘制。”

这是静态精灵。

Soren Johnson：是的，这是静态精灵。不要为此担心。《文明4》所存在的问题是，我们正在尝试着创造许多全新且随机的内容。我们正在尝试一个关于伟大的人类和宗教的理念，以及如何将多人游戏功能整合到游戏中。比起从技术角度出发，你应该基于游戏玩法去测试这些功能。我们便是如此创造出基于团队的系统。如果你是与团队一起游戏的话便能感受到《文明》的多人游戏乐趣。你能够在此分享技术，分享奇观。你可以让所有人都朝着同样的方向前进。

像我们想要尝试的公民系统，一个新的推广系统，以及一个完全不同的战斗模式才是真正的问题所在。所以不要让任何事物阻挡了你去测试这些内容。

你能否将自己所知道的问题推向一边。

Soren Johnson：当然。

关于共事的设计师在看待游戏设计的角度是否与你相同这点重要吗？

Soren Johnson：我想这是我所面对的最大挑战。通常如果我与共事的程序员或美术人员不熟的话，我也能够有效地与之相处，因为我们拥有着共同的目标。尽管我们拥有不同的技能组合，但是我们却始终尝试着去解决同样的问题。

而当面对的是不熟悉的设计师时，这将更具有挑战性，特别是当我们可以基于同样的主题分别创造出一款优秀的游戏时。你总是希望首席设计师能够尽可能遵循一个特定的方向，而不是周旋于两者之间。

所以当与我共事的设计师对于我们要创造的游戏类型具有不同见解时，我便会很沮丧。适合一款游戏框架的不同优秀理念间总是有所区别的。如果双方设计师都具有自身优秀的理念，但是这些理念却必须呈现在不同产品上时，他们便会因此而受挫。

这便回到了之前我们关于定义可能性空间的谈话中。

Soren Johnson：你肯定需要删除某些内容。我在《文明4》中经常使用的一个短语便是：“看，创造一款有关世界历史的游戏存在数千种方法。我们正在创造其中的一个世界。所以我们需要找到一个最好的方法去做到这点。”

我们并不是在尝试着解决所有问题或者提出所有优秀的理念。我们只是想要找到该问题的一个合理答案。

当你致力于像《文明》和《孢子》这样需要历经多年的大型项目中时，最终产品中还会保留多少你们的最初理念？

Soren Johnson：《文明4》便非常接近我们的最初理念。我们知道自己想要涉及的领域。我们并不需要清楚它们是如何发挥作用。在项目早期，我们想要涉及宗教内容。我们想要射击伟大的人类.我们想要涉及多人游戏元素。我们希望游戏是克星的。我们想要创造出面向单位的RPG推动系统。

所有这些都配合得很好。但是不同游戏间还具有巨大的区别，就像在授权游戏中便不存在这些悬而未决的问题，而在《孢子》这样的游戏中则会出现“我们正在探索一个全新的境界。我们正在探索这个完全空旷的领域。”你也许可以在那里发现金子，也许又不能。

我的意思是，这主要取决于你所创造的游戏环境。这也是为什么会出现各种续集内容，以及这些续集不像电影或书籍那样糟糕的主要原因。

我认为游戏在传达具有吸引力的续集内容方面具有独特的能力。通常情况下，只要续集能够越做越出色，我便很乐意去接受它们。

Soren Johnson：没错。就拿系列书籍来说吧，尽管它们的内容仍保持着同样的乐趣，但是它们却不能真正完善读者阅读书籍的方式。如《哈利波特7》便未包含一些全新的阅读技巧。

即使加个分号也无济于事（笑）。

Soren Johnson：说得好。这也是游戏所迎来的巨大机遇。

篇目3，Sojo Studios创意总监Andrew Mayer谈游戏设计

作者：Ethan Levy

照例，首先我也要问你什么是游戏设计？

Andrew Mayer：好的。你总共有多少问题？因为……（笑）

有8个左右吧。

Andrew Mayer：好的。对于我来说，我总是会用“巧妙的挫折”这一短语进行描述。游戏设计是关于适当拉开你和用户间的距离。

所以当你与那些非传统意义上的游戏人合作时，他们总是想要坚持用户和游戏间的关系。并简化内容。这是一个合理的本能，但是最终如果将其简化到玩家能够随时获得自己想要的一切内容时，这便不是游戏了。

游戏设计也是如此。我所说的巧妙的挫折是指你希望游戏足够有趣，并且不会让玩家因为感到挫折而不再玩游戏。这是一个良好的标准。

我们还可以谈论更多细节内容。但是我认为如果你正在寻找适合每一款游戏的万能“药水”，那这便是你要找的。你可以创造任何可以轻松体验的游戏，或者你可以让玩家轻松地战胜游戏。计算机便可以做到这两点。

所以你需要平衡这两个内容，并创造出可以放置其它行为的平台，我认为这便是一种有效的方式。

你似乎一直坚持着呈献给玩家具有合理复杂度的挑战，而合理的复杂度便是我们所谓的有趣的情感。

Andrew Mayer：也就是挑战和机遇。你不能只是呈献给玩家挑战。回顾《马里奥2》和《Yoshi’s Island 3D》那个时代，你便会发现宫本茂先生便在这方面做得很好。他总是能够有效地平衡这两个元素，就像“这真的很困难。的确这非常疯狂。但是我将会经历这一过程，并且当我到达另一边之时一定会发现其中的价值所在。”

他真的很擅长做到这点。他知道提供浏览路径记录去告诉玩家，如果他们能够继续前进便会发现一些真正有价值的内容。

所以将挑战和机遇捆绑在一起？

Andrew Mayer：或者假装挑战后面就藏着机遇。我认为我们可以采用无数种方法做到这点。但是我们也必须想办法让玩家清楚这么做的原因，或者他们付出努力后能够换来哪些价值。

所以游戏设计师扮演着怎样的角色？

Andrew Mayer：最近吗？那就是遵循着一些指标去创造出更出色的游戏。

这主要包含两个阶段。首先便是游戏开发阶段，即创造一个平台去管理用户，并让他们开始理解游戏模式。

其次，当他们进入游戏中时，设计师的工作便是着眼于各种参数并想办法根据这些参数进行优化。我的意思是，可能因为游戏听起来并不吸引人，从而导致玩家并不愿意尝试它。但是我认为对于游戏设计师来说，这便是我一直在寻找的做法。基于社交上。

通常这也是玩家所提倡的。我认为我们在这点上便做得很好，不管他们是否能够意识到。但是我认为随着受参数驱动的社交游戏的出现，这变成一份更加机械化的工作。需要更多定义。

并不是说他们的重要性不值得进行衡量，事实恰恰想法。但是在某种程度上你却不能像美术人员那样说着“我是硬核游戏玩家的拥护者”这样的话。就像John Romero（游戏邦注：电子游戏领域著名的制作人，和卡马克在1991年共同创立了idSoftware）或Cliffy B便可能会说道：“我代表着这些人，这是我的部落，如果我能做到这点，他们便会拥戴我。”

我认为这等于剥去了这份工作所具有的浪漫主义。

Andrew Mayer：这是一些实用的知识。

我认为比起其它元素，游戏产业在这个产业中具有更多浪漫主义。

Andrew Mayer：并且比起其它产业来说，更多人在这里产生了幻灭感。

成为一名游戏设计师需要经历两个阶段。首先他们需要非常想要做这件事。然后当你已经开始落实行动时也必须愿意继续做下去。

这是两件完全不同的事。起初你想到的是自己想要做一件很棒的事。然后当你了解这件事时，你便会想：“我是否真的想要这么做？我能从中获得什么？”

是否存在某一特定时刻会让你对自己的职业产生这样的想法？就像“现在我知道游戏设计是……”

Andrew Mayer：我仍然会时不时敲敲自己的脑袋。

不过这对我来说还太早了。在创造《Twin Dolphin》时，我是作为联合制作人进入该团队，这也是我所参与创造的第一款游戏。很快地，我便发现项目制作人会一整天将自己关在办公室里玩电子游戏，从而导致工程师们不断开始反感。

而我的工作便是创造一张地图，我需要在一张万×1万的方形地图上铺设砖块。如此算来我便需要铺设1亿个砖块。

即使我每天每秒都在做着这份工作，即每秒铺设一个砖块，并假设不会出现任何差错，我也不可能在游戏发行前完成这项工作。但是当我找到制作人并告诉他这件事时，他却只让我闭嘴。

我便因此大开眼界了。我想这便是每个人离开自己第一份工作的理由吧？不管你的第一份工作是什么，你都会出现自己真正想要的什么，以及自己这么做是为了什么等想法。然后当你尝试着去找寻答案时，你会意识到这一点用处都没有。

然后当你开始寻找自己的第二份工作时，你便会带着完全不同的态度。你可能会说，我不会再做这样的事了。我将寻找份能够让自己的辛苦付出有所回报的工作。

这是否有意义？这听起来是否真实？

这听起来很有道理。

Andrew Mayer：我们都有点天真不是吗？我们都因为最初的尝试而伤痕累累，之后我们便会基于此去做出其它决定。

作为创意总监你所面临的最大挑战是什么？

Andrew Mayer：对于现在的我来说，面对一个我并不熟悉，或者不是很喜欢的类型便是一个巨大的挑战。我一直在想办法喜欢它。并明确如何划分游戏动态。

我将告诉你这是什么。我们必须质疑每一个假设。在过去你可以做出某些可靠的假设，但是现在，基于某些参数，你也需要对每个假设提出疑问。就像是你脚下的土地一直在发生着改变似得。这可能会让你感到不安。因为只要任何一点内容出现差错，所有的一切便会都错掉。

对于我们这些长期致力于这项工作的人来说，在过去，我们总是会获得相关信息，并能够尝试着分析这些信息而明确发生了什么情况。

而今天，如果你看到一个数字，你便会说：“噢，如果我这么做，我便会多获得5%的用户。”

5%算是一个很大的数目了。

Andrew Mayer：是的。你并不需要去分析这些假设，你只需要不断进行尝试，直到它不再发挥作用，然而再执行其它假设。

这便是现在与过去的区别。当你正在创造一个更大的图像时，你便不需要再创造更大的图像了。

作为游戏设计师与作为创意总监有何区别？他们分别扮演着怎样不同的角色？

Andrew Mayer：因为我需要负责项目的整体方向和愿景，以及一些更大的图像。所以从我的经验来看，创意总监便是负责前提和愿景。我们正在创造什么，它将如何发展，为什么我们要超该目标前进等等？同样的我还必须回答“我们该如何实现那一目标？”特别是关于一些全新的理念。

而游戏设计师的工作便是进行分解并创造游戏体验。这给如何运行？我的工作更倾向于我们将做些什么？为什么？而设计师的工作则是我们该如何做到这点？

在谈论等式中的不同元素时，你已经提到大量投资者，首席执行官，工程师，参数，市场营销和用户。

Andrew Mayer：还有美术人员。

对，甚至还有QA。需要如何定义愿景才算是创造一个愿景？需要与其他人一起付出多少努力才能实现该愿景？

Andrew Mayer：前阶段付出10%，后阶段付出90%。这是一种通力合作。并不存在捷径。我在早期所学到的便是，对于每一款游戏你必须先想出一个有效的理念，不管你是一名设计师还是创意总监，或者其他角色。

然后你的目标便是尽力去发展该理念，尝试着将优秀的理念整合在一起，直到游戏最终发行。你拥有一个优秀的理念，随后一切内容都会围绕着该理念发生改变。如果该理念能够存活下来，你便完成了自己的工作。

这便是关于“游戏的前提是什么？我们在创造什么？”所有的事物都将围绕着这些内容发展并改变。并且即使是在游戏发行后也会出现相关改变。

作为创意总监，最让你兴奋的事是什么？

Andrew Mayer：对于我来说，将现实世界与数字世界整合在一起便是件很棒的事。我们现在所做的便是如此。所以我认为我们其实也正在吸取着各种秘方。并且做着其他人未曾做过的事。

这点对我来说真的很有吸引力。现实世界和虚拟世界之间的墙壁开始倒塌。当你看到iPad和其它触屏设备这类型事物时，我们其实正在一个数字领域中重新绘制着现实世界。我认为这对于我们的游戏方式将产生巨大的影响。虽然我仍然很担心计算机会变成平板电脑。不过我想我们将很快便会超越这一水平，即到达一个设备和计算机之间不存在实际差别的领域。

我们将基于一种基本方式用数字技术去感染世界。就像将电力和自来水结构等通过电缆等介质整合到我们的生活中。我们将推动这个世界的数字化。

相反地，作为创意总监有什么是让你沮丧的？

Andrew Mayer：我认为这只是一种纯粹的妥协。所有的内容都需要通过参数进行过滤。并不存在正确的标准，并且实验也是非常有限的。我只能基于某种方式进行实验，即将目标作为一种参数。这便是让我很沮丧的情况。在这里根本说不了大话。我们不可能像Don Draper那样大声说出：“我做这些事已经20年了，所以我知道自己在做些什么。”

在你做各种尝试前，你都需要好好检查自己的数字及其准确性。

我想随着你的事业的发展，你会发现坚持正确变得不再重要。或者说，如果你可以放掉这种坚持，你便可以进行一些更公开的对话。

Andrew Mayer：我同意这一说法。如果这能发挥作用的话真的很棒。但问题就在于……

我们很难做到这点。

Andrew Mayer：我们不仅很难做到足够开放，同时也很难保持耐性。因为有时候你只是希望做好某些事。

篇目4，Paul Barnett谈游戏设计及设计师角色

下文节选自Paul Barnett的访谈内容，Paul Barnett是BioWare/Mythic高级创意总监，目前负责监管BioWare家族的若干项目，其中包括《Warhammer: Wrath of Heroes》和《BioWare Social》。

首先先来谈谈什么是游戏设计？

如果我知道的话，那我就是百万富翁了。我赞成史蒂芬·金的看法，这多半是心电感应。我觉得关于什么是故事创作，心电感应是最佳答案就。游戏设计也许也属于心电感应。

在现代社会中，大家多半都有自己的想法，他们基本分为两派。那些竭尽全力试图创造简单构思的人士终于在经过长期努力后创造出《星球大战：旧共和国武士》之类的作品。构思简单。可以说是大型多人“星球大战”撞上“旧共和国武士”。但这需要众多人员、时间和资金，而且落实过程也非常困难。

另一极端例子是在家里编写代码，这种图队也许只有1、2或3位人员。你有具体的目标，期望有所成就。然后你开始埋头苦干。

我刚从史密森尼的“Art of Computer Gaming”展会回来。在此我被问到同样的问题，我借用詹姆斯·卡梅隆的话来阐述：“游戏设计师就是投身游戏设计的人士，无论他制作何种游戏类型，他人说些什么，游戏质量如何，谁想要试图阻止他。他们以自己的方式呈现作品，他们毫不在乎他人是否喜欢自己的作品，无论这是否能够给他们带来收益。他们只是投入制作当中，然后将其发行。”

从这个角度来看，他们就是游戏设计师。从那以后，他们生活中的其他事情都围绕范围、预算和构思。

所以就是纯粹的制作游戏，进行最后润色，然后将其呈现给他人。

是的，完全正确。进投入其中之后，所有焦点都围绕你是否擅长设计，是否发挥重要作用，是否从中创收。你是否表现突出？是否富有创造性？是否能够同他人合作？是否瞄准特定平台或构思？这些都是进一步延伸的问题。

设计就是创造性活动。提出构思，将其落到实处。其他一切都只是纸上谈兵。我有位朋友是作家，他也发表同样的观点，“大家手中都有一本书。只是我不太确定这些书籍是否是值得阅读。”但幸运的是，鲜少有人基于此撰写自己的书籍。因此我们得以免受煎熬。“

游戏设计师扮演什么角色？

这个问题习空见惯。在我看来：若你投身游戏创作，那你就是游戏设计师。你是负责音效、用户界面，还是加载页面完全无关紧要。这些都属于设计范畴。每个参与至游戏项目中的人员都是在进行设计工作。编写存储用户数据代码的人员也是在进行设计工作，无论你是否赞同这点。因为组合数据，存储数据，保持画面简洁性及简单性都属于游戏设计范围。

设计限制条件通常会在游戏其他部分变成强制决策。

所以大家都是游戏设计师。这一可怜家伙通常经受最多磨难。因为他们处在最不公正的地位，他们所有的工作通常都遭遇反对、妥协、轻视、误解，并常眼睁睁地看着自己的作品被判死刑（并且通常是由他们亲手取消这些项目）。

所以痛苦是游戏设计师的一大要素？他们通常经受大量困难。他们就像是好莱坞的编剧家，就如威廉·戈登书中所述。他述说那些关于你闻所未闻的编剧家的故事，他们从未赢得过什么，他们从来没有出现在谈话节目中，他们从未得到过赞美。若你询问他人：“列举10位杰出剧作家”，大家能想到的多半不会超过4位。

但若是要他们列举导演，他们通常能够脱口而出。而列举10位演员，则“完全没有问题。”但若是真正创作故事的人员，“从没听说过他们。”

我喜欢设计。我喜欢和其他人一起设计内容。我喜欢帮助他人完成设计工作，这意味着需要承受许多痛苦。你也经受很多苦难。

是的。

痛苦，我喜欢这个答案。

是的，游戏设计是个痛苦过程。从某种意义上说，团队所有人员都是设计师。但主要的是真正构想出游戏的人员。

对此你怎么看？

在我看来，游戏设计师工作的最简单定义是，他们负责创造供用户欣赏、触碰及感觉的内容。因此他们承受最多磨难，因为我们很难就其他内容发表评论。我们很难就代码进行评论。在很多情况下，我们也无法就美工元素发表评论（游戏邦注：虽然有时候要评论这一内容非常简单）。

但在我看来，游戏设计师在组合内容，将其呈现给用户方面扮演着主要角色， 他们需要确保内容富有趣味。因此，这是大家能够轻松进行查看和评论的内容。优秀的内容能够让游戏或设计免受批评，这是最终面向用户的内容，是吧？所以越快越好。

在最近的Art of Computer Games座谈会上，我被问及一个有关游戏设计的问题。当时我给出的答案是游戏涉及3个要素。它是个双向沟通，同时体现卡尔·马克思的观点和Monty Python的看法，我觉得他们都触及游戏设计的根本之处。卡尔·马克思主要围绕疏远话题，他认为要避免出现疏远情况。我觉得游戏设计师的首要职责是让尽可能多的人员参与到项目中，了解即将制作的作品及其重要性所在。这样他们就不会被疏远。

他们需要受控于自己的信念。Monty Python主要给出如下建议：写下构思，然后将其传递给不了解情况或存在误解的团队成员，让他们写下自己对此的看法。然后这就会变得杰出的游戏构思。这有点像听不见的意外事件和乐趣。

概括首席设计师的词汇除痛苦外，还有爱和关心。每位杰出设计师都会倾注满满的关心。每位杰出设计师都深爱着游戏设计。将此比作爱情故事意味着你有时会显得有些无能为力。你有时会受到伤害。你有时会非常痛苦。你有时会欣喜若狂。你有时是能够摧毁众天神的挑衅之龙，而有时则受到孤立，处于不公平地位。

倍受尊敬的游戏设计师通常都是如此，他们不畏惧失败。我遇见过的优秀设计师总是持续设计内容。数量是他们的一个工作特性。他们不仅仅设计一款游戏。

我觉得人人都可以出色完成一项工作。杰出设计师的特点是，他们存在弱点，经历失败，但依然继续前进。优秀设计的最佳典范是温斯顿·丘吉尔，他屡遭失败， 但热情丝毫未受打击。

这非常有趣。

丘吉尔是个了不起的人物。看看他的遭遇，他屡遭失败，但热情却丝毫没有因此受挫。他后来拯救了整个西方世界。

这使我想到两个问题。1）为什么设计师会经常遭遇失败？2）为什么热情是成功的关键。

我们穷困潦倒。我们是唯一没有收入的人员。想想你碰到过几个富有的设计师，“几乎没有”，出于某种原因，公司所有者、财务人员或营销人员似乎都持有众多资金。我很难理解这点。我们并不是靠这些回馈驱动的。我们的刺激因素在于期望通过游戏设计进行沟通，表达自我。我们会因强烈坚持这些（游戏邦注：将此置于原则之上）而被炒鱿鱼。我们都是极端分子。我们发现要说服自己不关心游戏很难。我们在毫无疑义的疯狂事情上坚持不懈。这股热情源自渴望做某事的沸腾热血。我们为设计元素而奋斗，因为我们心里知道一切值得。

我还发现：出于预算和限制条件而进行某项目（他们觉得这是唯一出路）的设计师最终都会深陷遗憾之中。或在悲伤和遗憾之中离开项目，或最终退出项目，然后说道：“你知道吗？我最终有将项目推出，但我其实不该这么做。”

这非常有趣。我们就是这样。美工若被告知“画这一内容”，他们就会进行绘制，若代码员被告知“学习这种语言”，他们就会照此进行编辑。AQ会检验规定之中的各项内容，因为这就是他们的做事方式。但设计师每次只要偏离正确道路，进行我们并不相信的工作，我们就会将自己置于毁灭境地。诗人，我们是数字领域的诗人。

我们已经谈论很多有关游戏设计的挑战。在你看来，投身游戏设计的最大挑战是什么？

体现在功能、动作、资源和时间方面。功能、资源和时间就好比是三角形的三个顶点，动作置于三角形之中。作为设计师，你需要确定游戏功能，争取资源和时间，同时持续调整动作内容。

完全正确。

我在这些重要元素中投入众多时间，时时刻刻都没有松懈。

我觉得，当你进入社会，或者开始成长时，你通常会觉得这是个理想职业，充满激情，依靠纯粹的创造性。这些的确是重要元素。但是就如你所说的，没有人会给你一张空白支票，50位工程师及20位美工，然后说：“做你想做的事。我们相信你。这里有1亿美元。”

最奇怪的是，若出现这种情况，这最终也会变成一场灾难。

的确如此。

如果有人给你一张空白支票，建议你卷款走人，因为你最终多半会陷入困境。

篇目5，Ray Mazza谈对“何为游戏设计”的理解

作者：Ethan Levy

本文摘自与Ray Mazza的一次谈话。Ray Mazza是Playfish公司的首席游戏设计师，代表作包括《模拟人生2》、《模拟人生3》、《模拟人生社交版》以及该系列的所有拓展包。

FamousAspect（以下简称F）：首先，什么是游戏设计？

Ray Mazza（以下简称R）：什么是游戏设计？就是想出什么是乐趣。就是理解乐趣的概念，然后把它转化为有意思的体验。我认为这就是游戏设计。还有很多不同的说法。

F：在你的职业生涯中，有那么一段时期，你确定了一些你认为有趣的东西，无论是交互作用还是机制；然后你想，“如果X有趣，那么我心里就明白。”最后你把X变成游戏，看看它是成功还是失败？

R：呃，是个好问题。我的回答是“是”。设计师一直在寻找乐趣，所以通常必须反复设计许多次，直到找到乐趣。我举个例子吧。有那么一段时间，我们正在制作《模拟人生3》的多个原型。我认为有趣的原型之一是组合东西，也就是做一些有关基因的游戏结构，让玩家自己组合东西再看结果。

那时，我使用的是抽象的形状，程序性图形。我把那些放在画布，发现不是那么有趣。因为没有任何玩法。它至多是一种令人讨厌的、计算机科学的“这是一个有趣的东西”的方法。但你心里认为有趣的东西不一定做出来也是有趣的。

那时我还是一个菜鸟设计师。我还在学习乐趣很大程度上是关于反馈、你给玩家反馈的方式、使你碰到的所有东西都让你产生满足感。那正是当时我不足的地方。

F：游戏设计师在团队中的角色是什么？我们谈论的游戏设计是，作为乐趣的学者，把乐趣变成现实。游戏设计师的工作是什么？

R：理解乐趣及其含义，使用所有乐趣的元素来制作吸引人的体验。但不同设计师有不同的目标。

有些设计师希望叙述故事或传达信息。有些设计师更倾向于用游戏如《Carmen Sandiego》或<Number Cruncher》教育玩家。有些设计师只想制作使人上瘾、欲罢不能的机制。如Spry Fox的《Triple Town》一类的游戏。当然还有其他很多类型的游戏也是这样的。

我认为，作为游戏设计师，必须明确你的目标是什么，然后朝着目标努力。这并不意味着你不能做其他许多事，但这个目标应该主导你的设计。

F：你自己属于哪一类设计师呢？

R：（大笑）我把自己归类为体验设计师。我的游戏设计过程是从思考“我想为玩家提供什么体验，如何实现？”开始的，然后围绕这个问题展开设计，而不是另取其他角度。如果我想设计一款关于X的游戏，那么我设计出来的游戏就要让玩家觉得像X或者让他们按玩X的方式玩我的游戏。

我的设计思路就是故事与机制设计相给合。

F：作为游戏设计师，你遇到的最大挑战是什么？

R：老实说，是找时间玩游戏。有时候玩游戏其实让我觉得像工作。游戏设计的一部分工作是让你自己了解其他的兴趣领域。因为游戏设计师要利用许多不同的学科：建筑学、政治、数学、社会学、心理学，等等。

学习这些东西是很有用的。多年以前，我开始写作，决定写一本小说。所以我花了很多时间，写作对我的游戏设计是有用的，因为我可以写出更好的文本和创作出更好的故事。

但在我学习写作的时候，我是不玩游戏的。或者说，我不能像其他人那样玩那么多游戏。我身边一直围绕着玩游戏的朋友们，他们谈论最近在玩的游戏、LOL比赛、《荒野大镖客》和其他新发布的游戏。

我的书架上积压着许多我必须玩的游戏。对我来说真是艰难的挑战，因为我觉得我没有像游戏设计师那样工作。

F：设计师要玩的游戏太多了……

R：很棘手，因为你觉得你必须玩这些游戏。你应该想玩游戏。而且我确实想玩。一个弥补的方法是，我玩很多游戏，但每次只玩很短的时间。我通常一款游戏我只玩一个回合。我就是感受一下。如果不是好游戏，我就永远不会再玩它了。60美元就这样没了。

F：这对我来说也是很熟悉的事。以《变形金刚：塞伯坦的战争》为例。这款游戏的评价很高，听说很有趣。我喜欢变形金钢，于是玩了一个小时。然后我就知道我在这款游戏中学不到什么对我的工作是必须的东西。

作为专业游戏设计师必须知道的关于变形金钢的知识，我就是在这个小时里学到的，我不需要再玩9个小时。

R：多少是破坏体验了，对吧？我玩过《天际》，那是一款可能让人玩很久的游戏，也是少数我不只是感觉一下的游戏之一，我玩了25个小时。我认为我没学到什么其他东西。玩它也许只是浪费了我本可以用来做其他事的时间。但《天际》就是一款好游戏啊！

然后我告诉我自己：“好吧，也许再多玩一下可以让我对它更难以忘怀，我从它当中获得的灵感比在其他游戏中更多一些。”

F：我可以想象，阅读IGN和GameSpot、购买大量游戏、总是关注最热新游戏的玩家可能没有料到《模拟人生》的设计师是这样工作的。

我见过许多设计师也是像你一样，比如《死亡空间》的设计师们。

R：我不认为我们就是玩家们想象中的样子。我认为一般玩家会认为我们的工作日复一日就是那样。

但我们确实要从许多这些硬核游戏中汲取灵感。再说《模拟人生3》，老实说，我们借鉴了许多《魔兽世界》的东西，比如升级系统、技能系统等。我们还创造了一个“情绪点”的概念，其实就是状态。这些设定可以让你随时了解你的角色。

我们没有照搬那个系统。我们按《模拟人生》的需要调整了它。我们的玩家很喜欢它，因为可以看到什么在影响他们的角色以及为什么、如何影响。

所以，我们就这样的人。

F：再回到我们的谈话的开头，如果你确定某些东西是有趣的，只要你根据玩家的需要调整它，玩家们就会觉得它有趣。

R：是的。是个好做法。

F：当你自己不是主要受众时，你觉得制作那种游戏会有什么挑战？

R：事实上，我喜欢《模拟人生》。在我参与开发这款游戏以前，我就已经是《模拟人生》的资深玩家了。我对它的喜爱仅次于《暗黑2》。我在《模拟人生》中花了N个小时。但我仍然不是主要受众，即使我喜欢它。因为我不属于核心玩家群体。

所以，困难就是真正理解核心受众的期待是什么，而不是根据我自己的要求设计游戏。因为我可以设计出我自己觉得非常棒的《模拟人生》，但那并不表示这个系列的百万玩家也会喜欢它。

为了理解核心受众的需求，我们花了很多时间逛论坛。我们有一个非常好的《模拟人生》玩家社区，他们都很喜欢表达自己的想法。真是慷慨的人们。主要是通过他们了解他们的游戏方式。玩家的类型是很多种的，比如成就者、经营者、建筑师、故事家，等等。

关于社区和玩家期待以及如何调整你的观点，这里有一件非常有趣的事。

有一个《模拟人生》的拓展包——《深夜》，是关于城市夜生活的拓展包。当我们在论坛上寻找建议时，我们发现最热门的一条建议是“我们希望我们的角色的胸部再丰满一点。”

因为这就是最大的趋势，所以你要好好考虑它。在《模拟人生3》时，你已经控制角色的许多特点了：头发颜色、体重、眼珠颜色、面容特征等。当然还有服装。但我们不允许你调整角色的胸部大小。

看到这条建议，我们意识到许多玩家都希望能实现这一点。所以，这成了一个必须认真考试的东西。但我们很犹豫，因为我们知道这是一个敏感的问题了。我们不想因为这款游戏把女性角色的胸部变大，而让别人认为我们的游戏在刻意体现女性特征。

但是，随着我们更加深入地分析这个倾向，我们发现了另一个有意思的分支——女性玩家也提出同样的要求。因为她们希望塑造自己，而胸部是身体的一个典型特征。

最后，我们意识到应该满足他们的要求，这样他们才能塑造想要的虚拟角色。所以我们就满足他们了。玩家也很高兴。这是件冒险的事，但正是他们想要的。

F：所以，反思你遇到的这个敏感话题，你的玩家说的东西其实比“我们想要大胸”更微妙。因为他们真正的意思是“我们想要更有表现力的身体类型，这样我们才能在游戏中塑造自己。”

R：确实。当你已经给他们那么多角色的自定义选项时，却不允许“大胸”，那才是让人难以接受的。某些游戏只允许玩家选择基本面容加上胸部大小，这才是对女性的“物化”。

F：《模拟人生3》大概开发了多久？

R：我们在2004年9月发布了《模拟人生2》，启动《模似人生3》项目是在2005年初，发布是在2009年6月，也就是说开发了4年多。

F：所以，对于这么一个开发了多年、大投入、大团队的项目，很多时候是在削减设计。有多少设计是没有放进游戏中的？又有多少是放进游戏中又因为玩家反馈而被削减掉的？

R：真是好问题。我们大概削减了70%的初始设计。

然后我们又重制游戏，到了生产阶段，我们对游戏有了更好的理解，大概又削减了50%。在项目接近完工时，因为有些东西不符合计划或不太有趣，所以又削减了5%到10%吧。

所以，我们削减了不少内容。部分是因为我们的目标太高了，像我们对许多项目的期望一样。如果我们保持原来的程度，我们可能现在还在做基础的东西。在成为资深设计师的过程中，我学习到的重要一课就是，必须开始得简单；否则你一开始就会浪费大量时间。

头脑风暴是个好开头。但之后要缩小范围，留下核心和最有趣的想法，而不是照单全收。因为在开发过程中，你必然会添加更多东西进来——削减掉一些东西才能为更适合处于开发后期的游戏的新东西腾出空间。

F：所以，四年后，再看最终成果，大概只保留了最初想法的10%。但是，那是最精华的10%。

R：是的。但我得强调一下，那是因为我们当是还是新人，对项目规模把握得不好——不是时间或资源不够。《模拟人生3》其实比《模拟人生2》大很多，因为它有无缝连接的街区、更丰富的技能、更华丽的房子和更多的角色自定义选项，等等。

然而，设计师永远无法摆脱的就是，我们往往有非常多的想法，但其中99.99%是永远不会见天日的。这是比较困难的地方，既是诅咒又是福音。因为你虽然有大量好创意，但同时知道这些好想法只能存在于头脑中，除非我们有了某种神奇的工具能把它们变成现实。真是令人沮丧。

F：是的，当你说90%的东西被削减掉了，就是说只有10%的东西是一致通过的。所以10%不等于存在于脑海中的大量想法，后者也许是前者的10倍之多。

R：是啊。你必须做出游戏，而且是在确定的预算范围内。你必须在许多限制条件下工作。否则你的工作就完了，因为你做不出游戏。

但是有时候当你看到论坛上有人说：“我希望游戏中有这个设定。”，你会想到“我早就设计出来了！”我们只是为了控制规模罢了。

F：有点像维基百科啊（笑）。

R：然后你会想，也许应该在设计中加入那个东西而不是其他东西。但这个说不准。最终，一切都为下一次积累教训，你要在限定的时间内做出最好的游戏。我的最终目标是让玩家开心。如果他们开心了，那我也就开心了。

篇目1，篇目2，篇目3，篇目4，篇目5（本文由游戏邦编译，转载请注明来源，或咨询微信zhengjintiao）

篇目1，“What is Game Design” with Ray Mazza

by FamousAspect

The following are excerpts from a conversation with Ray Mazza, Lead Designer Worldwide for Playfish. Ray’s titles include The Sims 2, The Sims 3, The Sims Social, and a whole host of Sims expansion packs.

To start with, what is game design?

Ray Mazza: What is game design? It’s figuring out what is fun. It’s trying to understand the concept of fun and then turning that into a meaningful experience. I think that’s what game design
is. There are many different ways to do that.

Has there been a time in your career where you’ve identified something that you know to be fun, whether it’s an interaction or a mechanic. You think, “X is fun, I know it in my heart.” And then you tried to turn it into a game and watched it sputter, just die on the canvas?

Ray Mazza: Oh, jeez. That’s a good question. I feel like the answer is “yes.” It happens to designers all the time, and it’s why you often need to iterate on designs many times until they’re
fun. I’ll try and think of an example… there was a time when we were doing a lot of prototypes for The Sims 3. One of the things that I thought was fun was combining things genetically, making
some game structures that have genetics, and then letting the player see what they like about them and having them combine those things and see results.

I was using abstract shapes at the time, procedural shapes. And, the way I put that on the canvas, it was not fun. Because I didn’t have any gameplay around it. It was more of a geeky, computer science-y “this is a fun thing” approach. But what you think of as fun in your mind isn’t necessarily fun on the canvas.

That was when I was a fresh designer. I was in the midst of learning that a lot of fun is about feedback, the way you give feedback to players, making everything you touch very satisfying. And that was some of what I lacked back then.

What is the role of a game designer on a team? We talked about how game design is about being almost a scholar of fun, trying to bring fun to life. What does a game designer do?

Ray Mazza: It is understanding fun and what fun means, and to use all those elements of fun to make compelling experiences. But every designer tends to have different goals.

Some designers want to tell a story or communicate a message. Other designers are more about educating their players, with games like Carmen Sandiego or Number Cruncher.

Some designers just want to make a compelling mechanic that is addictive and you can’t stop touching it. That’s more of Spry Fox’s Triple Town sort of game. There are plenty of paths.

I think, as a designer, you have to figure out what your goal is and work towards that. It doesn’t mean you can’t do many of those things. But that will drive the way you approach design.

What sort of designer are you?

Ray Mazza: [laughs]. I categorize myself as an experience designer, which is approaching it from like, “What experience do I want a player to have? How do I want them to feel?” And then designing around that, rather than approaching it from the other angle, where I want to design a game about “x.” So I want to design a game that makes a player feel like “x” or makes them play in such a way.

It’s a combination of storytelling and mechanic-centric design.

What is the biggest challenge you face as a game designer?

Ray Mazza: So, honestly, it’s finding the time to play games. Sometimes that actually feels like work. Boo-hoo, I know, right? But part of game design is immersing yourself in other areas of
interest. Because game designers can draw on so many different disciplines: architecture, politics, mathematics, sociology, phsychology, etc.

It helps to go and learn these things. A number of years ago, I got into writing and decided I wanted to write a novel. So I spent a lot of time on that and that helps me in game design, because I
can write text a lot better and craft more compelling stories.

But all the time I was learning about writing, I wasn’t playing games. Or I wasn’t able to play as many games as other people. And I’m constantly surrounded by friends who are talking about all
these games they’re playing, and all these LoL matches they’re having. Playing Red Dead Redemption and every other new game that comes out.

I have a long backlog of games I need to play sitting on my shelf. That for me is really challenging because I feel like I’m not doing my job as a game designer.

And there’s just this avalanche of hundred-hour experiences…

Ray Mazza: It’s rough, because you feel like you need to go and play these games. It shouldn’t feel like that. You should want to play. And I do want to play them. One way of helping make up for that is I play a lot of games, but for a very short amount of time. Often I will spend only one session playing a game. I’ll sit down, I’ll play it, get the feel for it. And if it’s not an
awesome game, I will probably never play it again. And that’s $60 bucks right there.

That’s pretty familiar to me, too. A good example is I picked up Transformers: War for Cybertron. Strong reviews, sounds like fun. I love Transformers. Played for an hour. And I know that there’s nothing else in this game that I’ll necessarily learn for my craft.

Like, everything I need to know about Transformers as a professional game designer, I’ve learned in this hour and I don’t need to see the other nine hours.

Ray Mazza: That partly ruins the experience, right? I was playing Skyrim and that’s one of those games that can suck you in for a long time. It’s one of those games that I’ve played for more
than a sitting and, 25 hours in, I don’t think I’m going to learn anything else. And playing it is probably wasting my time that I could spend doing something else. But it’s such a good game!

And then I tell myself, “Well, maybe the experience of playing it more will make it even more memorable and I’ll be able to use that inspiration a little more strongly in other games.”

I would imagine that the typical gamer who reads IGN and GameSpot, buys a bunch of games and is always on the hottest releases, might not expect the pedigree of designers in Sims.

I know from meeting a couple of you that the same type of game designers that work on Dead Space work on The Sims.

Ray Mazza: I don’t think we are who they think we are. I feel like the typical gamer thinks we’re just doing a day job.

But we do take inspirations from a lot of these hardcore games. Back on The Sims 3, we took a lot of inspiration from World of Warcraft, honestly. It shows up in a lot of the progression systems, like skills. We also have this concept called moodlets, which are really just buffs. They let you see how your Sim is feeling at any point in time.

We didn’t copy that system. We made it applicable to the Sims and our players actually love it; being able to see what’s affecting their Sims and why and how they’re feeling.

So, we are those guys.

So, to bring it back all the way to the start of the conversation, if you identify something that’s fun, it’s probably fun for everyone, so long as you adapt it to their needs.

Ray Mazza: Yes. That’s a good way of putting it.

What are the challenges you face making a game for which you’re not the primary audience?

Ray Mazza: Well, the thing is, I love The Sims. Before I started working here, I probably played The Sims for a really long time. Right next to Diablo 2. Many, many, many hours sunk into the The Sims. But I’m still not the primary audience, even though I love it. Because I’m not in the core demographic.

So the difficulty is really understanding what they’re looking for and not just designing a game for myself. Because I could design an awesome Sims game for myself that wouldn’t necessarily appeal to the millions of players that love the franchise.

To help us do that, we spend a lot of time on forums. We have a great Sims community and they love to tell us their thoughts. Very generously. And it’s about understanding the ways they play. And,

there’s a split in different types of players. Achievers, doll-housers, builders, storytellers.

Here’s an interesting thing that happened, regarding the community and what players are looking for and how you need to adapt your views.

On one of the Sims expansion packs – Late Night, which was a city, nightlife, sexy expansion pack – there was a point on that project when we were looking at the forums and one of the hottest
trending threads was, “we want our Sims to have bigger boobs.”

And when it’s one of the hottest trending threads, you want to give it consideration. At that time in The Sims 3, you had control over a lot of the aspects of your Sim: hair color, body weight,
eye color, different facial features. All the clothing. But we didn’t give you control over their chest size.

And, looking into this thread, we saw that many tens of thousands of people had requested this. And it had hundreds of thousands of views. So that became something to seriously consider. But we were hesitant, because we knew that there was a lot of sensitivity around this sort of issue. We didn’t want to be viewed as a game that lets people objectify women by giving them big chests.

But, as we explored the thread more and more, we found that there was an interesting divide where, it was the females that were requesting this. Because they just wanted to make themselves, and they use that as a defining characteristic of their bodies.

In the end, we realized that it’s control players should have so they could create the Sims they want to create. So we ended up giving that to them. And they love it. It was a risky thing, but it’s what they wanted.

So, once you actually look past the sensationalism of the topic, what your players were saying was more nuanced than “We want bigger boobs.” It was “We want more expressive body types, so we can create ourselves in the game.”

Ray Mazza: Exactly. And when you give them so many ways to customize their characters already, but you’re holding that back, it’s almost oppressive. As opposed to other games, where they only let you choose your basic look plus your boob size. That’s more objectification.

How long of a project was the The Sims 3, roughly?

Ray Mazza: We launched The Sims 2 in September, 2004, and started working on The Sims 3 in early 2005. Then we launched The Sims 3 in June, 2009. So it was in development just over 4 years.

So, on a big, multi-year, expansive, big team project like that, a lot of the process of design can be about cutting. How much design do you think was done that never made its way into the game? Or made its way into the game and then got cut due to user feedback?

How big is the piece of marble that you’re carving away at?

Ray Mazza: That’s a really good question. In the first scoping process, from all the designs that we had written and all the designs that we had planned to write, we probably cut 70% of that away.

And then we did another iteration later on, once we were in production and had a better understanding of our velocity, and probably cut another 50%. And then, closer to the end of the project, when some things weren’t going as planned or just not turning out to be fun, then it’s maybe another 5 to 10%.

So you end up cutting a lot. Part of that, though, is because our sights were too high, like they tend to be with a lot of projects. If we’d kept the original scope, we’d still be working on the
base game right now. One of the things I’ve learned becoming a seasoned designer is that you need to start simple. Otherwise you’re going to be wasting a lot of time upfront.

It’s good to do expansive brainstorms. But to then go and scope right from there down to the core and the most interesting ideas, rather than planning to do it all. Because you will inevitably add more as you go, anyway – some of the cuts later on are to make room for new features that suddenly make sense as the rest of your game falls into place.

So, four years, all the resources in the world. End game is maybe 10% of what you imagined in the beginning. But it’s the best 10%.

Ray Mazza: Yeah. But I’ll stress that it’s because we were fresh designers without a feel for scope – not a lack of time or resources. The Sims 3 was actually a much larger game than The Sims 2,
with a seamless neighborhood, richer skills, incredible house and Sim customization, and so on.

Yet one thing that designers can never get away from is that we tend to have thousands of ideas and 99.99% of them will never see the light of day. That’s the hard part. It’s a curse and a
blessing. Because you need a huge pool of ideas to pull from, but knowing that there are all these cool things that could exist if only we had some kind of magical tool that would just instantiate
them. That’s frustrating.

Yeah, when you say something like 90% of the scope gets cut. That was just the agreed-upon scope. So that’s not even the pool of ideas that exist, which was probably ten times larger than the

agreed-upon scope.

Ray Mazza: Yeah. You need to get the game out there and it has to be a certain budget.You need to work within a lot of restrictions. Otherwise you wouldn’t have a job because you’d never release the game.

But then sometimes you see stuff on forums that are like, “Well, I wish the game did this.” And you’re like, “I had that in a design!” But we scoped it.

It’s somewhere on a wiki somewhere [laughs].

Ray Mazza: And then you think, maybe I should’ve included that instead of some other part of the design. But you never know. In the end, everything is a lesson for next time, and you try to make the best game you can with the time that you have. Ultimately, the goal is to make your players happy. If they’re happy, then I’m happy too.

篇目2，“What is Game Design?” with Soren Johnson

Post on 22/03/12

To start with, what is game design?

Soren Johnson: Well, it’s a broad question so you’re going to get a broad answer. The simplest way of putting it is, game design is how you find the fun of a project.

But, it really is managing that loop between the player and the machine, where you’re presenting them with decisions; they make a decision and then you give them relevant feedback, so they know the results of their action and then they make another decision.

The role of the designer is to make sure every step of that loop works out, because there are lots of ways a game can fail. A game can have really interesting decisions, but it doesn’t give the player good feedback on the results of their actions. So then they feel like they’re just playing in the dark.

Or, a game can give you really good feedback, but the actual decisions themselves are all very tiny variations of each other and there really isn’t any distinction. Or, there’s just this one completely dominant strategy, so the game is not particularly interesting.

Are there any examples of something you’ve worked on or played that you’ve admired, where feedback trumped mechanics that you as a designer would spend a lot of time on?

Soren Johnson: One thing that always pops into my mind, and I’m never sure how much of their game was satire or not, is Peggle. Because that was a game that was infamous for going way over the top whenever you do something right. You get the ball in the best bin and it’s going to zoom in with slow-mo. There’s going to be rainbows and stars popping out all over the screen. Someone’s like, “would it be too much if we also played Ode to Joy in the background?” They’re like, “no, it’s not too much.” You know?

So that’s important, that sort of feedback as encouragement. Peggle treads so much where I was like well, I don’t know whether I can take this seriously. Are they making fun of me for enjoying this or not? I’m not really sure. But obviously they did a really good job with feedback. And PopCap generally does a good job with feedback in their games.

I mean, I think it’s sort of half-satire in the same way that the people who made Spinal Tap, they’re not actually cynical about heavy metal, right? They love heavy metal, but they also enjoy the absurdity of it. I think that’s kind of what’s going on with Peggle. They love casual games but they also enjoy poking fun at the absurdity of how they’re presented.

What is the role of the game designer?

Soren Johnson: Well, I think if you’re asking from an occupational point of view, I think there’s different types of designers. There’s the project lead/lead designer type role, which is where you have to be concerned about everything. How the game presents itself to the player. How even just stuff like what’s the banner art going to look like and what’s the box going to look like? How are we telling people what this game is going to be about? How do we get the right people to buy the game, as opposed to just anyone to buy the game? How the systems work together at a meta level? For Legends, that’s like thinking about how the castle interweaves with the combat, with the consumable loop. So there’s that level.

Below lead designers, there are what I would call system designers and content designers. My natural aptitude is as a system designer. These are the type of people who, if there weren’t computers, would be making board games.

System designers come up with rules and systems and loops. If you come up with interesting, loops of interesting decisions that are also fun thematically, engaging thematically, then these people are doing a good job.

Then there’s content design – which is not something I’m super good at – where you figure out how to interweave narrative with game mechanics. They can take a mechanical system and then come up with a progression of monsters or a progression of quests or a story that leads people someplace.

Not every game needs that and I think games have a spectrum. I’d say there’s three major elements. Is a game more strategy focused? Is it more twitch focused? Or is it more narrative focused? And I think some games have a variety of all those things.

Uncharted has high narrative, medium twitch and no strategy. Civ is very, very high strategy, no twitch and a little bit of narrative. I think every game has some ratio of that. In fact, I think that lens is a good way to look at franchises and sequels. Because I think when franchises and sequels get in trouble, it’s when they screw with that mix of strategy, twitch and narrative.

They move forward to a new version that suddenly became all about story, when that’s not what people are interested in. Or they threw a bunch of twitch into some of the strategy game, and that’s not really what players wanted.

You can change a lot, but keep that ratio constant.

As a project leader, how do you approach deciding what’s important early on?

Soren Johnson: Well, in some sense, you don’t know the answer to that question until you make the game. If there’s one thing that I emphasize a lot, and I’m not the only person to emphasize this, but try to get a playable version of the game going as soon as possible. And don’t let anything hold you back from that.

With Civ 4, we had a playable version of the game within a few months of starting. And if you look at what it looked like, it’s kind of horrifying. Our units were little billboards of 2d art that popped around from tile to tile. There wasn’t animation, there wasn’t a terrain system, there was just some kind of vague, heightmap thing that didn’t really work all that well to begin with, but you can see units move from tile and tile. It was built as a multiplayer game immediately. There was no lobby. We had this crazy system for hosting a game, but it worked. That stuff we’ll worry about later.

You have to figure out what are the things that are going to keep your game from succeeding. Early on in the project, a lot of teams get very focused on a lot of tech questions. How is the animation system going to work? Are we going to be streaming stuff?

Do we have real-time servers or stateless servers?

Soren Johnson: Right. How is the multiplayer going to work? How people are going to be connected? What kind of format are we going to use for the art? Just all of the stuff that has to get answered before you ship the game.

But these things are things you can figure out. The project is not going to fail because you were never able to answer these questions. So you have to focus on the questions that do not have an obvious answer, or, at least an answer you can’t just brute force your way to.

Like, we will have animation system at some point. It’s not like we’re going to say “You know what? I don’t think we can figure out this animation issue. Hundreds of other games have done it, but somehow we’re just drawing blanks.”

Static sprites it is…

Soren Johnson: Yes, static sprites it is. Just don’t worry about that. The questions for Civ 4 was, okay, we’re trying a bunch of new random things. We’re trying an idea of great people and religion and how should multiplayer function within the game. Testing those features out, not from a technology point of view, but simply from a gameplay point of view. That’s what led us to the team-based system. Civ is actually fun to multiplayer if you’re playing with teams. And you share technologies and you share wonders and line of sight. You get everyone pointed in the same direction.

The civic system that we wanted to try out with, a new promotion system, a totally different combat model, those are the real issues. So, don’t let anything stand in the way of trying to test those out.

The problems that you know can be solved, shove them to the side.

Soren Johnson: Right. Yeah.

Is it important that other designers you work with view game design from the same frame as you?

Soren Johnson: That’s probably my biggest challenge I think. Usually I’m able, if I’m not familiar with what a programmer or artist is capable of, I can still work well with that person because we’re kind of orthogonal to each other. We have different skill sets but we’re both trying to attack the same problem.

It’s more challenging with designers, especially when we could both make a great game on the same topic. I feel like you want the lead designer to really follow a specific path as far as possible, instead of some average between the two.

So if I work with a designer who has a very different philosophy about what type of game to make, it can be frustrating. There’s the difference between a good idea and a good idea that fits the frame of this game. It’s frustrating for them too, if they have a bunch of good ideas, but the ideas need to be in a different product.

That goes back an earlier conversation we had about strong decision making at the outset to define the possibility space.

Soren Johnson: You definitely have to cut certain things off. One of the phrases I used a lot during Civ 4 is “look, there’s a thousand ways to make a game about the history of the world. We’re making one of those. We need to find one good way to do that. That’s it.”

We’re not trying to solve all the problems or put in all the good ideas. We’re just trying to find one cohesive answer to that problem. There’ll be other ones.

When you’re working on big multi-year projects, like Civ and Spore, how much of the initial vision ends up in the final product?

Soren Johnson: Civ 4, it was pretty close. We knew the areas we wanted to tackle. We didn’t necessarily know how they would play out. Early on in the project, I was like, we want to tackle religion. We want to tackle great people. We want to tackle multiplayer. We want a game that is accessible. We want an RPG promotion system for units.

So that fit pretty well. But, there’s a huge difference between games that are in a franchise where there aren’t these big unanswered questions and games like Spore, where it’s just like “Okay, we’re plowing into a new frontier. We’re going to go explore this totally empty area.” You might find gold there and you might not.

I’d say, it largely depends upon the context of the game that you’re trying to make. That’s why there’s a lot of sequels. It’s also why sequels aren’t necessarily that bad of a thing in the games industry, unlike movies or books.

I feel like games are unique in their ability to deliver sequels that are compelling. Oftentimes, I find myself more and more excited about each sequel as long as they keep getting better.

Soren Johnson: Right, right. Like a book, a series of books, the content might keep being enjoyable, but they’re not actually going to also improve the method by which you read a book. Like, Harry Potter 7 didn’t have some radically new reading technology involved.

Semi-colons never get better. [laughs]

Soren Johnson: Right, right. So, which is kind of a neat opportunity for games.

篇目3，“What is Game Design?” with Andrew Mayer

So the question I start everybody out with is, what is game design?

Andrew Mayer: Okay. How many more questions do you have? Because, uh, [laughs]

There are eight more.

Andrew Mayer: All right. All right. I think for me, the phrase I always use is “artful frustration.” Game design is about properly placing distance between yourself and the audience.

So, when you work with people who aren’t game people traditionally, they want to start pushing back this relationship between the audience and the game. And simplifying stuff. That’s a good instinct but, ultimately, if you simplify it to where the player can get everything they want whenever they want, there isn’t a game there.

And that’s what game design is really. Artful frustration, by which I mean, you want to make it so that it’s fun and it’s pleasant but not so frustrating that players don’t play the game anymore. And that’s always a good rule of thumb.

For me, I think there are more specifics we can talk about. But I think if you’re looking for the universal solvent of every game, this is it. You can make every game impossibly difficult to play or you can make games like pathetically easy to win. The computer can do either.

So, balancing those two things out and creating a platform on which other behaviors can be layered, that to me is the way I think it works.

Riding that fine line where you’re presenting players challenges that are the right level of complexity, the right level of difficulty to be this emotion that we call fun.

Andrew Mayer: Challenges and opportunities, right? The thing is you can’t just present people with challenges. I think this is what Miyamoto did so well if you look back at the heyday of the Mario 2, the Yoshi’s Island/Mario 3D days. What he got there perfectly was this balance of, “Okay, this is really hard. Yes, this is crazy. But I’m going to get through it and there’s going to be something worthwhile when I get to the other side.”

He was really good at that. He was really good at leaving out the breadcrumb trail to show you that there was something worthwhile that was going to be happening as you were going along.

So, bundling a challenge with an opportunity?

Andrew Mayer: Or holding out the promise of an opportunity beyond the challenge. I think there’s almost an infinite number of ways to do it. But, to let the player know that there is a reason to do this and that it’s worth the effort.

So, what is the role of a game designer?

Andrew Mayer: These days? Follow the metrics. Make the game better.

There’s two phases. There’s the game development phase, which is to create a platform for onboarding users and beginning to understand their play patterns.

Then, once they’re in there the designer’s job is to look at the metrics and figure out a way to optimize those metrics. I mean, that’s probably not what anybody wants to hear because it doesn’t sound very glamorous. But I think for the game design position, that’s a lot of what we’re looking at right. In social.

Classically, it was to be a player advocate. I think we did it well, whether they realized it or not. But I think with the advent of the metric-driven social, it’s become a much more mechanistic job than it used to be. Much more defined.

Not that they’re not worth their weight in gold, because they are. But you can’t be the artist to the degree that you can go in and go, “I’m an advocate for the hardcore gamer.” Like John Romero or Cliffy B, where it’s like, “I am the representative of these people and this is my tribe, and if I do it, they will love me.”

I think that’s a very accurate take at stripping away the romanticism of the job.

Andrew Mayer: Hard won knowledge.

And I do think with game design, there’s more romanticism than any other function within the industry.

Andrew Mayer: And more disillusionment from anybody who gets into it than any other industry in the world.

There’s two phases to being a game designer. There’s really, really wanting to do it. And then there’s wanting to do it after you’ve done it for a while.

Those are two very different things. Because you come into it with this idea that it’s going to be this amazing thing. And then when you find out what it really is, you think “Do I still really want to do it? What am I getting out of it?”

Was there a specific moment where you had that point of reflection in your own career? Where you felt like, “I know what game design is now…

Andrew Mayer: And I’m still going to hit myself in the head with a hammer.”

Yeah, it was early for me. At Twin Dolphin games, I came in as an Associate Producer for the very first game I’m going to work on. And it quickly became apparent that the Producer of the project was locked up in his office playing videogames all day and the engineers were basically on the verge of revolt.

And my job was to do a map, I was supposed to laying tiles on a map that’s ten thousand by ten thousand squares. Well, if you do the math on that’s it’s one hundred million.

I don’t think there’s actually one hundred million seconds in a year. So, even if I was working every second of every day, and laying one per second, assuming that nothing went wrong, it would still have been impossible for the game to ship. And when I went to the producer and told him that, he told me to shut up, basically.

So that was an eye-opener. I think for everybody it’s when you leave the first job, right? Because I think whatever your first job is, you come in with a sense of what you want and what you’re working for. And then you try to achieve that and you realize that it didn’t actually help.

And then you start to have a very different attitude when you go to your second job. And you say, okay, well, I’m not going to do that again. I’m going to advocate for something I believe in within the context of the company that I’m working for.

Does that make sense? Does that sound true to you?

It makes perfect sense.

Andrew Mayer: We all come in a little na?ve, right? We all come out of that first gig a little scarred, and then we make some decisions based on that.

What is the biggest challenge you face as a Creative Director?

Andrew Mayer: I think, for me right now, it’s working in genres that I’m not either familiar with or excited about. And trying to figure out how to generate excitement. And also figuring out how to layer game dynamics.

And I’ll tell you what it is. It’s every assumption must be questioned. It used to be that you could make some solid assumptions and now, with the metrics, every assumption must be questioned. So it feels a little bit like the ground is shifting underneath your feet all the time. And that can be disconcerting. Anything can go wrong. It may all go wrong.

The other thing I would say that is disconcerting for someone like me who’s been doing it for a long time, is it used to be that you would get information and you would try to deconstruct that information and figure out why something was happening.

These days, if you see a figure, “Oh, if I do this, I’ll get five percent more users.” Or one percent more users, two percent more users, right?

Yeah, five percent would be gang busters.

Andrew Mayer: Right. So, it’s like, “Okay why is that working? Doesn’t matter. Just do more of it.” You don’t need to deconstruct the assumption necessarily, you just work it until it stops working and then you go work something else.

So that’s a little different than where it used to be that you needed to understand why. When there was this bigger picture that you were building. You don’t always get to build the bigger picture.

Right. What is different between being a game designer than being a creative director? How are the two roles different?

Andrew Mayer: Because I’m responsible for the vision and the overall direction of the project, and for that bigger picture. So the creative director, at least in my experience, is responsible for the premise and the vision. What are we making and where is it going and why are we going there? And also asking “How are we going to get there?” Especially for new ideas.

The game designer’s job is to actually break it down and make the experience. How is this going to work? I’d say my job is more, what are we going to do? And why? And the designer’s job is more, how are we going to do it?

Talking about all the different factors in the equation, you’ve mentioned investors, CEO, engineers, metrics, marketing, audience.

Andrew Mayer: Artists.

Artists, right? And even QA. How much of the job of defining the vision is creating a vision? And how much of it is working with other people to get buy in on a vision.

Andrew Mayer: Ten percent the former and 90 percent of the latter. It’s collaborative. There’s no way around it. What I learned early on is you get to have one good idea per game, whether you’re a designer or a creative director or whatever.

And then the goal is to shepherd that one good idea as far as you can, and try to keep that good idea held together for as long as you can until the game ships. You have one good idea and then everything else is going to change around that good idea. And if that good idea survives, you’ve done your job.

I think with social, it’s just “What is the premise of the game? What are we making? What is the thing?” Everything else swims around that and changes. And changes after launch now, too, which is amazing.

When you look at your role what excites you most about being a creative director?

Andrew Mayer: To me, it’s the integration of the real world and the digital world. So what we’re doing with the real world integration for the game that we’re working on now [at Sojo Studios] is we have these real world causes and integrating real cause into the game is really, really exciting. So, there’s a lot of secret sauce there that I think that we’re learning about. And things that we’re doing that nobody else is doing.

So that’s really exciting to me; the walls between the real world and the virtual world are starting to crumble. And, when you see with the iPad and touch devices, these kind of things… we’re repainting the world in a digital palate. And I think that’s going to have major impact on the way that we play. I was a little worried that computers were going to become pads. But I think that we’re going to go beyond that so quickly, to where there’s going to be no effective difference between the device and the computer.

We’re about to infect the world with digital technology in a really fundamental way. Just like we wove the structure of electricity and running water, and all that stuff into our lives through the wires and stuff we put everywhere. We’re about to digitize the world.

On the converse side, what frustrates you about most about being a creative director?

Andrew Mayer: I think a lot of it is just the purity of the compromise, right? It’s that everything has to be filtered through metrics. There’s no being right, and the experiments are limited. I’m only allowed to experiment to the degree that I can express it as a sense of metrics. So that’s frustrating. Especially because it’s harder to bullshit. It’s harder to be like Don Draper “I’ve been doing this for 20 years, I know what I’m doing.”

You can get away with some of that. But you damn well better have checked your numbers and be right before you try and do it.

Yeah. I think as you career goes on, you learn being right isn’t important. Or, if you can let go of being right as being important and instead be someone who fosters open conversation.

Andrew Mayer: I totally agree with that. And it is good when it works. The problem is. . .

It’s very hard.

Andrew Mayer: It’s very, very hard to be that open all the time. And it’s very hard to be that patient all the time. Because sometimes you just want things to get done.

篇目4，“What is Game Design?” with Paul Barnett

The following are excerpts from a conversation with Paul Barnett, Senior Creative Director at BioWare/Mythic. Paul currently oversees a number of projects in the BioWare family, including Warhammer: Wrath of Heroes and BioWare Social.

To start with, what is game design?

Paul Barnett: Oh, dear, crikey. If I knew that, then I’d be rich. I’m with Stephen King. It’s probably telepathy. I thought that was the greatest answer to what is story writing is telepathy. Game design is probably telepathy.

People have ideas in the modern era they’re basically two groups. Lots of people trying desperately to get a straightforward idea made over a long period of time, for something like Star Wars TOR. Simple idea. Massively multiplayer Star Wars meets Knights of the Old Republic. But it requires hundreds of people, years, millions of dollars and it’s supremely difficult.

The other extreme is bedroom coding, where you just get one, two, three people maybe. You have a vision and generally just a desire to get something out to the industry. And you just do stuff.

I just came from the Art of Computer Gaming show at the Smithsonian. I was asked this exact question and I stole James Cameron’s quote, which is “A game designer is someone who goes out and makes games, any type of game, regardless of what anyone says, regardless of the quality, regardless of who tries to stop them. They make it available any way they can and they don’t give a damn whether anyone likes it, whether it actually made any money. They just make it and release it.”

And in that point, they’re a games designer. From then on, everything else in their life is merely about scope, budget and ideas.

So the sheer act of making game, finishing it, and putting it in front of another person.

Paul Barnett: Yes. Absolutely. Once you’re into that, then it’s all the arguments about, are you good at it, big at it, commercial at it. Are you smart at it? Are you innovative? Are you capable of working with other people? Do you work from certain platforms or certain ideas? They’re all just subquestions.

Design is nothing more than the sheer act of creativity. Taking an idea and making it available. Everything else is just talk. My friend’s an author and he says the same thing, “Everyone’s got a book in them. I’m just not too sure they’re books worth reading. Thankfully though, very few people have it within them to actually write their book. So we’re saved from torment.”

What is the role of the game designer?

Paul Barnett: It’s a title thrown around all over. I would say the following: if you are involved in the creation of a game, you are a game designer. It doesn’t matter if you’re doing audio, doing user interface, whether you’re doing the loading screen. It doesn’t matter. It’s all in the design. Every single person involved in the game is designing. A guy writing the code that is going to store the player data is designing. Whether they like it or not. Because how they put that data together, how it’s stored, how compact it is, how easy it is for us to see it is game design.

And what its limitations are often force decisions in other parts of the game.

Paul Barnett: So, everyone’s a game designer. The poor sod who actually has the title is generally the person who is the highest position of pain all the time. Because they are the person in rawest place because everything they do is thwarted, compromised, belittled, misunderstood and butchered, in front of their eyes, often by themselves.

So pain would probably be my number one thing of what is game designer? Someone who is in a lot of pain. They are the screenwriters of Hollywood, again, like in William Goldman’s book. He tells this great tale about all the screenwriters that you’ve never heard of, who’ve never won anything, they’re not on talk shows and they’re not lauded as greatness. If you pull someone aside and say, “Name me ten great screenwriters,” a lot of people struggle to get beyond four.

Whereas you ask them to name directors, oh, they’ll nail it. And ten actors, oh, “I’ve got that, no problem.” But the people who actually create the story, “No, never heard of them.”

I love designing. I love designing with other people. I love helping people to design and it means that I have had a lot of pain. You’ve had a lot of pain.

Yes

Paul Barnett: Pain, I like that answer.

Right. Game design is pain. It’s everyone on the game team is a designer in some sense. But then the person who actually gets the title…

Paul Barnett: What do you think?

I think that, to me, the easiest way to explain what a game designer does is that, they are the person responsible for what the user sees, touches, feels. And because of that, they are the person who’s in the most pain, because everything else is very difficult to comment on. The code is difficult to comment on. And a lot of times, much of the art is difficult to comment on, although sometimes it’s fairly easy.

But the game designer, I always feel like, is important for wrapping things up and putting it in front of a player and they’re responsible for making it fun. And so, it’s the easiest thing for anybody to look at and criticize. Which is good, because ultimately shielding a game from criticism or a design from criticism, well, it’s going to meet people eventually, right? So the sooner, the better.

Paul Barnett: I was asked a question recently at Art of Computer Games, I was on a panel with Ken Levine and some guy brought it up. I thought that game design was three things at that point. It was communication, both ways, and then it’s a point from Karl Marx and something Monty Python said, which I think sort of captures game design. Karl Marx was all about alienation, how you shouldn’t have alienation. And I think a designer’s number one job is to ensure as many people as possible are engaged in the project, understand what the hell we’re trying to make and why it’s important. So that they can stay away from alienation.

They’ve got to be vested in their belief. And then Monty Python, which was all about, you write down an idea, then it gets communicated to your colleagues, who miss-hear it, misunderstand it, write down what they think you said, and that becomes the great idea. And it’s sort of like that inaudible accidental happenstance and joy.

Words that would sum up lead designers or main designers, apart from pain… love, care. Every great designer gave a damn like you wouldn’t believe. Every great designer is in an eternal love affair with design. And accepts that it’s a love affair, which means, you’re at times powerless. You’re at times destroyed. You’re at times miserable. You’re at times elated and ecstatic. You’re at times challenging dragons, bringing down heavens and, at other times, are the most isolated and raw you can ever be.

The great ones, the ones that are really deeply admired generally do that, and they’re fearless of failure. The best designers I ever met, they design all the time. Quantity has a quality about what they do. They don’t just design one game.

I think anyone can pull off one thing and it can be cool. A great designer is defined by the weaknesses they have and the failures they have and the fact they carried on going. Great design is Winston Churchill, it’s going from failure to failure with no lack of enthusiasm.

That’s funny

Paul Barnett: That’s Churchill. He’s an amazing man. You look at his life and it is failure to failure with no lack of enthusiasm. Then he saves the Western World.

That actually even leads me to two questions. One is, why do we designers fail so frequently? And two, why is that enthusiasm the key to ultimate success?

Paul Barnett: Because we’re all broke. That’s easy. We’re the only people who don’t get a payout. When you think about how many designers you meet who are rich, the answer is “hardly any.” They’re all people who owned companies and finance people, marketing people for some reason seem to have a lot of money. I never really understand that. And we’re not driven by those rewards. We’re driven by the desire to communicate, express ourselves through game design. We will get fired from projects because we believe in them so strongly, over a matter of principle. We’re lunatics. We find it very hard to design games we don’t care about. We fight for the craziest things that make no sense whatsoever. That enthusiasm comes from that boiling blood desire to do something. We’ll fight for design elements because we know in our heart they’re right.

I also know this: every designer I’ve ever met who has agreed to do something because of budget and restrictions because they thought it was the only way of getting it done, has ended up in deep regret. And has ended up either leaving a project through sadness and deep regret or bringing a project out and going, “you know what? I did get out over the line, but by hell, I probably shouldn’t have.”

It’s a funny thing. We’re the only people like that. Artists, if they’re told “draw this,” they’ll draw it and if a coder’s told “learn this language” they’ll code it. QA’ll QA anything that they’re told to do because QA are good like that. But designers, every time we go off the true path, every time we bother to do something that we didn’t believe in, we throw ourselves on the rocks of ruin. Poets. We’re digital poets.

So, we’ve talked a lot actually about already the challenges of game design. What do you think is the biggest challenge of being a game designer?

Paul Barnett: FART. Features, action, resource, time. So, features and resource and time being the three points of the triangle, action being in the middle of the triangle. Spells fart. The big fart is the single biggest thing a designer has to wrap their heads around. Because farts smell, no one wants to take the blame, no one wants to point at another person and suggest it’s happened. And, as a designer, that’s it. Deciding on your features, fighting for your resources, desperately trying to get the time. All the while, altering your actions.

And so if there’s anything that we do, farting would be top of the list. And it sounds sort… it’s cheeky. But, when I look back, I so very rarely got given a pen and told, “Okay, Paul. Off you go. Let’s go! What do you?”

Right

Paul Barnett: I’ve spent all my time dealing with the big fart. It happens minute to minute, day to day, week to week. So, if you do one thing, dealing with farts would probably be the big thing.

Yeah. I think when you’re on the outside, or when you’re growing up, it’s easy to think this is a dream job and a passion and it is pure creativity. And it is all those things. But, like you said, nobody ever gives you a blank check and 50 engineers and 20 artists and says, “Do anything you want. We believe in you. Here’s $100 million.” [laughs]

Paul Barnett: What’s weird is, I think if they did, it’d be a disaster.

Oh, absolutely.

Paul Barnett: Yes, if ever you get given an open checkbook, run, because you’re going to crash.

篇目5，“What is Game Design” with Ray Mazza

by FamousAspect

The following are excerpts from a conversation with Ray Mazza, Lead Designer Worldwide for Playfish. Ray’s titles include The Sims 2, The Sims 3, The Sims Social, and a whole host of Sims expansion packs.

To start with, what is game design?

Ray Mazza: What is game design? It’s figuring out what is fun. It’s trying to understand the concept of fun and then turning that into a meaningful experience. I think that’s what game design
is. There are many different ways to do that.

Has there been a time in your career where you’ve identified something that you know to be fun, whether it’s an interaction or a mechanic. You think, “X is fun, I know it in my heart.” And then you tried to turn it into a game and watched it sputter, just die on the canvas?

Ray Mazza: Oh, jeez. That’s a good question. I feel like the answer is “yes.” It happens to designers all the time, and it’s why you often need to iterate on designs many times until they’re
fun. I’ll try and think of an example… there was a time when we were doing a lot of prototypes for The Sims 3. One of the things that I thought was fun was combining things genetically, making
some game structures that have genetics, and then letting the player see what they like about them and having them combine those things and see results.

I was using abstract shapes at the time, procedural shapes. And, the way I put that on the canvas, it was not fun. Because I didn’t have any gameplay around it. It was more of a geeky, computer science-y “this is a fun thing” approach. But what you think of as fun in your mind isn’t necessarily fun on the canvas.

That was when I was a fresh designer. I was in the midst of learning that a lot of fun is about feedback, the way you give feedback to players, making everything you touch very satisfying. And that was some of what I lacked back then.

What is the role of a game designer on a team? We talked about how game design is about being almost a scholar of fun, trying to bring fun to life. What does a game designer do?

Ray Mazza: It is understanding fun and what fun means, and to use all those elements of fun to make compelling experiences. But every designer tends to have different goals.

Some designers want to tell a story or communicate a message. Other designers are more about educating their players, with games like Carmen Sandiego or Number Cruncher.

Some designers just want to make a compelling mechanic that is addictive and you can’t stop touching it. That’s more of Spry Fox’s Triple Town sort of game. There are plenty of paths.

I think, as a designer, you have to figure out what your goal is and work towards that. It doesn’t mean you can’t do many of those things. But that will drive the way you approach design.

What sort of designer are you?

Ray Mazza: [laughs]. I categorize myself as an experience designer, which is approaching it from like, “What experience do I want a player to have? How do I want them to feel?” And then designing around that, rather than approaching it from the other angle, where I want to design a game about “x.” So I want to design a game that makes a player feel like “x” or makes them play in such a way.

It’s a combination of storytelling and mechanic-centric design.

What is the biggest challenge you face as a game designer?

Ray Mazza: So, honestly, it’s finding the time to play games. Sometimes that actually feels like work. Boo-hoo, I know, right? But part of game design is immersing yourself in other areas of
interest. Because game designers can draw on so many different disciplines: architecture, politics, mathematics, sociology, phsychology, etc.

It helps to go and learn these things. A number of years ago, I got into writing and decided I wanted to write a novel. So I spent a lot of time on that and that helps me in game design, because I
can write text a lot better and craft more compelling stories.

But all the time I was learning about writing, I wasn’t playing games. Or I wasn’t able to play as many games as other people. And I’m constantly surrounded by friends who are talking about all
these games they’re playing, and all these LoL matches they’re having. Playing Red Dead Redemption and every other new game that comes out.

I have a long backlog of games I need to play sitting on my shelf. That for me is really challenging because I feel like I’m not doing my job as a game designer.

And there’s just this avalanche of hundred-hour experiences…

Ray Mazza: It’s rough, because you feel like you need to go and play these games. It shouldn’t feel like that. You should want to play. And I do want to play them. One way of helping make up for that is I play a lot of games, but for a very short amount of time. Often I will spend only one session playing a game. I’ll sit down, I’ll play it, get the feel for it. And if it’s not an
awesome game, I will probably never play it again. And that’s $60 bucks right there.

That’s pretty familiar to me, too. A good example is I picked up Transformers: War for Cybertron. Strong reviews, sounds like fun. I love Transformers. Played for an hour. And I know that there’s nothing else in this game that I’ll necessarily learn for my craft.

Like, everything I need to know about Transformers as a professional game designer, I’ve learned in this hour and I don’t need to see the other nine hours.

Ray Mazza: That partly ruins the experience, right? I was playing Skyrim and that’s one of those games that can suck you in for a long time. It’s one of those games that I’ve played for more
than a sitting and, 25 hours in, I don’t think I’m going to learn anything else. And playing it is probably wasting my time that I could spend doing something else. But it’s such a good game!

And then I tell myself, “Well, maybe the experience of playing it more will make it even more memorable and I’ll be able to use that inspiration a little more strongly in other games.”

I would imagine that the typical gamer who reads IGN and GameSpot, buys a bunch of games and is always on the hottest releases, might not expect the pedigree of designers in Sims.

I know from meeting a couple of you that the same type of game designers that work on Dead Space work on The Sims.

Ray Mazza: I don’t think we are who they think we are. I feel like the typical gamer thinks we’re just doing a day job.

But we do take inspirations from a lot of these hardcore games. Back on The Sims 3, we took a lot of inspiration from World of Warcraft, honestly. It shows up in a lot of the progression systems, like skills. We also have this concept called moodlets, which are really just buffs. They let you see how your Sim is feeling at any point in time.

We didn’t copy that system. We made it applicable to the Sims and our players actually love it; being able to see what’s affecting their Sims and why and how they’re feeling.

So, we are those guys.

So, to bring it back all the way to the start of the conversation, if you identify something that’s fun, it’s probably fun for everyone, so long as you adapt it to their needs.

Ray Mazza: Yes. That’s a good way of putting it.

What are the challenges you face making a game for which you’re not the primary audience?

Ray Mazza: Well, the thing is, I love The Sims. Before I started working here, I probably played The Sims for a really long time. Right next to Diablo 2. Many, many, many hours sunk into the The Sims. But I’m still not the primary audience, even though I love it. Because I’m not in the core demographic.

So the difficulty is really understanding what they’re looking for and not just designing a game for myself. Because I could design an awesome Sims game for myself that wouldn’t necessarily appeal to the millions of players that love the franchise.

To help us do that, we spend a lot of time on forums. We have a great Sims community and they love to tell us their thoughts. Very generously. And it’s about understanding the ways they play. And,

there’s a split in different types of players. Achievers, doll-housers, builders, storytellers.

Here’s an interesting thing that happened, regarding the community and what players are looking for and how you need to adapt your views.

On one of the Sims expansion packs – Late Night, which was a city, nightlife, sexy expansion pack – there was a point on that project when we were looking at the forums and one of the hottest
trending threads was, “we want our Sims to have bigger boobs.”

And when it’s one of the hottest trending threads, you want to give it consideration. At that time in The Sims 3, you had control over a lot of the aspects of your Sim: hair color, body weight,
eye color, different facial features. All the clothing. But we didn’t give you control over their chest size.

And, looking into this thread, we saw that many tens of thousands of people had requested this. And it had hundreds of thousands of views. So that became something to seriously consider. But we were hesitant, because we knew that there was a lot of sensitivity around this sort of issue. We didn’t want to be viewed as a game that lets people objectify women by giving them big chests.

But, as we explored the thread more and more, we found that there was an interesting divide where, it was the females that were requesting this. Because they just wanted to make themselves, and they use that as a defining characteristic of their bodies.

In the end, we realized that it’s control players should have so they could create the Sims they want to create. So we ended up giving that to them. And they love it. It was a risky thing, but it’s what they wanted.

So, once you actually look past the sensationalism of the topic, what your players were saying was more nuanced than “We want bigger boobs.” It was “We want more expressive body types, so we can create ourselves in the game.”

Ray Mazza: Exactly. And when you give them so many ways to customize their characters already, but you’re holding that back, it’s almost oppressive. As opposed to other games, where they only let you choose your basic look plus your boob size. That’s more objectification.

How long of a project was the The Sims 3, roughly?

Ray Mazza: We launched The Sims 2 in September, 2004, and started working on The Sims 3 in early 2005. Then we launched The Sims 3 in June, 2009. So it was in development just over 4 years.

So, on a big, multi-year, expansive, big team project like that, a lot of the process of design can be about cutting. How much design do you think was done that never made its way into the game? Or made its way into the game and then got cut due to user feedback?

How big is the piece of marble that you’re carving away at?

Ray Mazza: That’s a really good question. In the first scoping process, from all the designs that we had written and all the designs that we had planned to write, we probably cut 70% of that away.

And then we did another iteration later on, once we were in production and had a better understanding of our velocity, and probably cut another 50%. And then, closer to the end of the project, when some things weren’t going as planned or just not turning out to be fun, then it’s maybe another 5 to 10%.

So you end up cutting a lot. Part of that, though, is because our sights were too high, like they tend to be with a lot of projects. If we’d kept the original scope, we’d still be working on the
base game right now. One of the things I’ve learned becoming a seasoned designer is that you need to start simple. Otherwise you’re going to be wasting a lot of time upfront.

It’s good to do expansive brainstorms. But to then go and scope right from there down to the core and the most interesting ideas, rather than planning to do it all. Because you will inevitably add more as you go, anyway – some of the cuts later on are to make room for new features that suddenly make sense as the rest of your game falls into place.

So, four years, all the resources in the world. End game is maybe 10% of what you imagined in the beginning. But it’s the best 10%.

Ray Mazza: Yeah. But I’ll stress that it’s because we were fresh designers without a feel for scope – not a lack of time or resources. The Sims 3 was actually a much larger game than The Sims 2,
with a seamless neighborhood, richer skills, incredible house and Sim customization, and so on.

Yet one thing that designers can never get away from is that we tend to have thousands of ideas and 99.99% of them will never see the light of day. That’s the hard part. It’s a curse and a
blessing. Because you need a huge pool of ideas to pull from, but knowing that there are all these cool things that could exist if only we had some kind of magical tool that would just instantiate
them. That’s frustrating.

Yeah, when you say something like 90% of the scope gets cut. That was just the agreed-upon scope. So that’s not even the pool of ideas that exist, which was probably ten times larger than the

agreed-upon scope.

Ray Mazza: Yeah. You need to get the game out there and it has to be a certain budget.You need to work within a lot of restrictions. Otherwise you wouldn’t have a job because you’d never release the game.

But then sometimes you see stuff on forums that are like, “Well, I wish the game did this.” And you’re like, “I had that in a design!” But we scoped it.

It’s somewhere on a wiki somewhere [laughs].

Ray Mazza: And then you think, maybe I should’ve included that instead of some other part of the design. But you never know. In the end, everything is a lesson for next time, and you try to make the best game you can with the time that you have. Ultimately, the goal is to make your players happy. If they’re happy, then I’m happy too.