作者：James Batchelor

策略游戏已经主导着手机平台一段时间了，但比起长期运行着的游戏，现在全新IP和独立游戏已经成为了手机平台上的先驱。

去年，微软发行了《帝国时代：围攻城堡》，试图将经典的策略游戏系列带到手机平台并吸纳全新用户。这是一款Smoking Gun Interactive所开发的游戏，它的诞生似乎是开发者为了延续《部落战争》的成功并进一步吸金，但该工作室告诉Develop这款游戏与《部落战争》及大量复制品具有一些关键的区别。

我们联系了该工作室的首席执行官John Johnson希望他能告诉我们他们团队是如何将大受欢迎的RTS游戏系列带到手机平台，为什么不能重新创造全新的PC游戏玩法，以及他们如何使用Smoking Gun自己的技术去呈现该类型游戏中最复杂的战斗。

你们是如何将《帝国时代》转变成手机友好型结构？你们是从哪里开始的？

我们的工作室非常重视将已建立的游戏带到手机平台的机遇。一开始我们先着眼于不同平台以及我们认为较容易适应手机的功能类型。

首先我们需要考虑一款手机游戏的基本框架：触屏控制，较小的屏幕，每个游戏回合的时间消费。显然手机游戏模式与之前的PC/主机游戏和同步游戏版本是不同的。

我们必须将一种异步战斗风格与手机游戏玩家的游戏方式结合在一起，并围绕着这一功能去创造具有深度的策略体验。对于那些不能轻松转换的功能，我们想办法去整合这些功能，从而避免《帝国时代》的一些关键元素在转换中消失不见。

因为我们自己也是《帝国时代》的粉丝，所以我们希望能够尽可能保留这款游戏大多数核心元素。包括文明选择，单位，以及不断发展的时代系统。此外，提供给玩家适当的历史研究也很重要，这能够确保游戏的准确性。

但是对于我们来说最重要的元素是，我们开发的是一款带有RTS战斗的核心元素的游戏。为了做到这点我们必须允许玩家始终都能控制所有单位，并提供给他们可控制的英雄。这些功能能够提供一定的策略深度，同时也能够带给玩家你在其它游戏类型中看不到的战术选择。

为什么不直接将现有的游戏玩法移植到手机上？

我们想要尽可能保持整个游戏系列的完整性，但是现有的游戏玩法却不适合手机平台。之前的游戏版本主要专注于同步多人游戏玩法，我们也知道这并不适合习惯随时随地玩游戏的手机玩家。

成功的战斗游戏需要优秀的对决设定，而同步游戏玩法则会限制这些对决设定选择。这时候将战斗变成异步是最有意义的。我们也想要接触更广泛的用户，即包括一些之前没玩过该系列游戏的全新玩家。为了做到这点，我们便不能只是将现有游戏玩法移植到手机上。

你们是如何将这款游戏与《部落战争》及其众多复制者区分开来？

我们始终专注于提供给玩家更深层次的策略体验，同时我们也希望这是一款玩家能够轻松在手机上体验的游戏。所以我们让玩家能够完全控制单位，我们也添加了各种带有强大特殊能力且能够扭转战斗局势的英雄。虽然这款游戏不如传统的PC上的RTS游戏复杂，但它也拥有其它同类型游戏不可匹敌的精致战术。

age of empires castle siege(from develop-online)

你们团队的经验带给这一项目怎样的帮助？在创造《围攻城堡》时，之前的哪一款游戏带给了你灵感？

过去，Smoking Gun Interactive的核心团队一直致力于开发RTS游戏。而在Relic Entertainment，开发团队则致力于《英雄连》，《战争黎明》，《家园》和《怪兽岛》等游戏的开发。

显然，团队的丰富开发经验具有很大的帮助，而作为一家工作室，我们已经着眼于手机策略游戏开发一段时间了。在过去我们曾尝试过一些不同的理念，这也是推动我们开发《帝国时代：围攻城堡》的有效经验。

这款游戏是完全基于你们自己的技术。为什么你们不选择使用其它可行的工具？这些技术具有哪些其它技术不具有的优势？

我们创建Smoking Gun Interactive的目标是创造能够对传统游戏发起挑战的创造性游戏。为了做到这点，我们需要完全掌控产品的运行。

而使用我们自己独创的技术让我们能够创造出像《围攻城堡》这样的游戏，即拥有能够在基于较少内存的较低端手机上同时运行的400个AI单位。我们的引擎是经过完整优化的C++，这让我们能够把握每一步运行。尽管手机平台充满挑战，我们还是能够提供给玩家让人印象深刻的游戏体验。

在《帝国时代：城堡围攻》中我们所尝试的一些内容是现有工具做不到的。而我们自己的技术为我们创造了强大的竞争优势，并让我们能够继续作为游戏领域的领头者。

你们正致力于哪些其它项目？

我们仍然专注于为《帝国时代：城堡围攻》提供支持，即确保游戏仍能吸引玩家的兴趣。我们也开发了另一款手机/PC策略游戏，即计划在2016年上半年发行这款游戏。这是我们内部集资的全新IP。在秋天或初冬的时候我们会公开更多有关这款游戏的消息。

age of empires castle siege(from develop-online)

致力于雇佣作品的优势和劣势各是什么？

如果选择了正确的合作伙伴，雇佣作品将会非常优秀，到目前为止我们已经在这一领域与许多不同发行商合作过了。有机会致力于《帝国时代：城堡围攻》是一件让我们非常骄傲的事，因为我们一直都是这款游戏的忠实粉丝。致力于雇佣作品让我们能够接触一些原本不会接触到东西。

从业务角度来看，致力于雇佣作品能够帮助你降低来自资金方面的风险，因为这通常是合作者所负责的事宜。通常情况下你还可以致力于那些小型独立工作室难以负担得起的更高预算的项目。而雇佣作品所创造的收益也让我们有钱去支持我们的内部产品和IP，并进一步构建我们的交叉平台引擎。

不过雇用作品也有自己的劣势，这些作品仍然具有一些风险。有时候，即使一个项目正常运转着，如果投资者出现了任何情况，局势便会出现让人不可预测的逆转。优先顺序的改变，团队或管理层的变更或者外部资金的中断都会影响雇佣作品的创造。很多工作室都因为投资者的衰败而未能挺过08/09年的经济衰退期。发行商的优先顺序快速从外部转向内部开发，在某些情况下所有开发资金也会因为这些合作者转向发行和分销领域而遭遇删减。

找到愿意投资全新IP的雇用作品合作者是非常困难的，因为许多投资者更愿意资助那些他们所拥有的现有作品。许多合作者已经拥有大量等待实现的理念/类型，所以他们并不想承担额外的风险去投资全新IP。

显然致力于自己的IP并投资自己的开发能够带来更高的版税和收益（游戏邦注：前提是游戏能够获得成功）。但是对于Smoking Gun Interactive来说，我们的业务模式让我们既能致力于雇佣项目，也能专注于内部投资的产品和全新IP。

未来你们是否会考虑致力于属于自己的全新IP？

当然。这也是我们工作室的主要目标。到目前为止我们已经创造了3个IP。创造属于自己的IP是我们过去，即在Smoking Gun诞生前一直在做的事，这一目标已经渗透到我们的血液中了。也就是说虽然我们非常热衷于与别人合作致力于现有的IP，但同时我们也不会改变原有的业务模式。

（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）

‘More tactical than Clash of Clans’: How Age of Empires fights back on mobile

By James Batchelor

Strategy games have been leading the charge on mobile for some time, but the pioneers have been new IP and indepedent games rather than the long-running franchises that have defined it.

Last year, Microsoft released Age of Empires: Castle Siege as an attempt to bring the classic strategy series to mobile platforms and the new audience they have gathered. Developed by Smoking Gun Interactive, it could be deemed as an attempt to cash in on Clash of Clans’ success, but the studio tells Develop there are key differences that set it apart from Clash and its army of copycats.

We caught up with CEO John Johnson (pictured) to find out how his team went about bringing a cherished RTS series to mobile, why it was impossible to recreate the original PC gameplay, and how using Smoking Gun’s own technology enabled the most intricate battles in the genre.

How did you translate Age of Empires to a mobile-friendly structure? Where did you start?

Our studio really enjoyed the opportunity to translate such an established franchise to a mobile platform. We started by looking at the platforms and what types of features we felt would easily translate to mobile.

To start, we had to consider the framework for a mobile game: touch controls, smaller screens and time spent in play sessions. It was clear to us that mobile play patterns were different from PC/Console and synchronous play, as seen in previous versions, just wouldn’t be an effective feature.

An asynchronous style of combat was essential to align with the play patterns of mobile gamers, and we developed a deep strategic experience around this feature. For the features that wouldn’t translate as easily, we looked at some way to bring cohesion to the features so the essence of the Age of Empires game wasn’t lost in the translation.

What did you want to keep the same from the previous entries in the series and what did you want to change?

As fans of Age of Empires ourselves, we wanted to keep as much of the core elements of the franchise as we could in the translation. This included the civilization choices, units, and age system of advancement for players. It was also important to us to provide the proper historical research, ensuring accuracy in the game.

However, the most important element for us to keep when developing the game was the core elements of RTS combat. In order to do this, it was important to allow for full control of all units at all times, and to provide controllable heroes. These features provide depth to the strategy necessary to do well in the game, and they give players an array of tactical choices you just don’t see in other games in the genre.

Why not port the existing gameplay to mobile?

We wanted to keep the integrity of the franchise as much as we could, but the existing gameplay was simply not mobile-friendly. The previous versions of the game were heavily focused on synchronous multiplayer gameplay, and we knew that would not work on the “pick up and play” style of the mobile gamer.

Successful combat games require good matchmaking, and synchronous gameplay limited these matchmaking options. Streamlining the combat towards asynchronous play made the most sense. We also wanted to reach a broader audience that included new comers to the franchise. In order to do this, we couldn’t just port the existing gameplay to mobile, we had to reimagine it.

How have you differentiated the game from Clash of Clans and its many copycats?

We’ve focused on giving the players a deeper tactical experience, while still making it accessible on a mobile device. We did this though allowing full unit control and adding numerous heroes with powerful special abilities that can turn the tide of the battle. While it isn’t as quite as complex as a traditional PC RTS, it has intricate tactics other games in the genre just don’t match yet.

How did the experience of the team help with this project? Which past titles did you draw from/learn from when building Castle Siege?

The core team at Smoking Gun interactive has worked on RTS games in the past. While at Relic Entertainment, the team worked on Company of Heroes, Dawn of War, Homeworld and Impossible Creatures.

The rich background the team has working on other strategy games together obviously helped, but as a studio we have been looking at developing strategy games on mobile for quite some time. We have experimented with several different ideas in the past, and this proved to be good experience for us as we looked into developing Age of Empires: Castle Siege.

The game is entirely built with your own technology. Why choose to focus on this rather than other tools already available? What does this enable you to do that established tech doesn’t?

Smoking Gun Interactive was founded with the goal to create innovative games that challenge the convention of traditional gaming. In order to do this, we need full control over the performance of the product.

Investing in our own innovative technology has allowed us to produce a game like Castle Siege, which can have more than 400 AI units moving through the environment in real-time on fairly low-end phones with limited memory. Our engine is fully optimized C++, and this allows us to squeeze out every last drop of performance available. We are able to give our players an impressive gaming experience despite the challenges of a mobile platform.

Some of the things we do in Age of Empires: Castle Siege just couldn’t be done with what was available. Our propriety technology has given us a strong competitive advantage over using off the shelf technology, and allowed us to continue be a leader in gaming.

What other projects are you working on?

We are still working on the live support for Age of Empires: Castle Siege, ensuring the game remains pertinent to our players. We have also been developing another mobile/PC strategy title that we are planning to ship in the first half of 2016. This title is internally funded, and is a new IP. We should be announcing more on this title later this fall or early in the winter.

What is are the advantages and disadvantages of working on a work-for-hire basis?

Work-for-hire can be great with the right partners, and so far we’ve had great experiences working in this area with many different publishers. It’s been an honor to have had the chance to work on Age of Empires: Castle Siege, as we’ve been long time fans of the franchise. A work-for-hire basis has given us the opportunity to branch out in ways that could never happen had we not taken on these projects.

From a business perspective with work-for-hire you’re obviously taking less risks on the funding side of these titles, as they are usually being covered by the partner. Often times you can work on projects that are quite a bit bigger in budget than a small indie studio could afford to fund on their own. The revenue work-for-hire brings in allows us to fund our own internal products and IP as well as build out our cross platform engine quite extensively.

There can be downsides to this, and there are still risks to this kind of work. Sometimes, even if a project is going really well, things can unexpectedly turn sideways if something happens with that funding partner. A shift in priorities, change in teams or management, or a collapse in external funding all together can affect the work-for-hire. Quite a few studios didn’t make it through the recession of 08 / 09 as funding partners fell through. Publisher’s priorities quickly shifted from external to internal development, and in some cases all development funding was cut as these partners turned towards publishing and distribution only.

It can also be challenging to find a work-for-hire partner that is willing to fund new IP’s, as many would rather make the bets off existing franchises they may own. Many partners have a slate of ideas/genres already put together that they need to fill, and simply don’t want to take the additional risks of funding new IP.

Obviously working on your own IP, and funding development yourself will yield much higher royalty rates and returns if the game is commercially successful. For Smoking Gun Interactive, our business model has allowed us to focus on both work for hire projects as well as internally funded products and new IP.

Would you consider working on your own IP in future?

Of course. That is a key goal for the studio. We have created three IP’s as a studio to date. Creating our own IP is something that we have done in the past, prior to Smoking Gun, and it’s something that is in our blood. That said, we really enjoy partnering with others to work on existing IP’s and have no plans to change this aspect of our business. （source：develop-online)