作者：Rob Lockhart

首先我要承认这是一个错误的问题。更好的说法应该是：“我该如何决定我的游戏应该拥有多少游戏机制呢？本文便是我对于这一问题的看法。

但这只是我认为的“游戏机制”的定义。这有点难以形容，因为游戏系统通常都带有分形特性，所以你可以去研究细节内容并考虑游戏机制的功能。虽然这会让事情变得复杂，但是我们却必须经历这一切。

依我个人浅见，对于“我的游戏该拥有多少游戏机制”这一问题的回答通常都是“比你现在所想的数量的一半还少。”

人们之所以会认为游戏应该拥有比他们所创造的还多的机制存在很多原因。首先便是烦人的现实世界。人类可以做的事情有许多并且这一数量还会不断增加。如果玩家角色也是人类，你便会认为这可能打破玩家想要约束这些角色的期待。你可能会对自己说：“如果玩家看到一个苹果但是他们却不能捡起它并吃掉它，他们的沉浸感便会被破坏！”而事实是玩家将从探索角色的能力局限性开始，并且不管他们是什么都会表现出与现实世界的不同。如果一款游戏能够长时间吸引玩家的注意，玩家便会逐渐适应虚拟世界的传统，他们的沉浸感也不会轻易被破坏了。

第二个原因便是AAA级游戏拥有许多游戏机制。我刚刚玩了《杀出重围：人类分裂》，这款游戏包含了潜行，带有掩蔽物的射击，巨大的技术树，锻造，分支对话，叙述选择，金钱，机制，探索以及其它我暂时未能想起来的巨大系统。

而这些游戏该如何才能摆脱如此多的机制呢？首先，我敢保证他们不会这么做。我发现AAA级游戏都有点傲慢。当然了撇开这点也还存在其它原因。首先它们都非常长。游戏必须分别教授给玩家每一个优秀的游戏机制，然后让他们精通这些内容，并将其与其它机制结合起来。所有的这一切都需要花费小型游戏所不需要的时间。而40多个小时足以让玩家去了解更多机制并探索其中的一些结果了。

其次便是他们的用户已经非常熟悉这类游戏中的许多内容。为了玩这些游戏，你必须真正投入于游戏中，所以最好的情况便是你之前曾经玩过同类型的其它游戏。通过创造玩家曾经看过的游戏机制，设计师便可以略掉重新教授玩家的过程。

让我们着眼于一款完全不同的游戏，《超级玛丽兄弟》。这是一款有关跳跃的游戏。玩家可以在游戏中奔跑，但是跳跃才是主要行动。玩家可以通过跳跃去度过缺口，躲避敌人，踩死敌人，摧毁砖块，获得升级等等。这款游戏真正探索了跳跃的结果，并且就像Steve Swink所指出的那样，他们让人觉得跳跃真的很棒。除此之外这里还有什么机制呢？这里有蘑菇能让马里奥变大并提供给他额外的生命。蘑菇和跳跃都拥有多种功能，但是在特定情况下却是不受欢迎的。玩家还可以在跳跃的同时使用火焰花。你们可以在前两款马里奥游戏中看到所有的这些内容。而这也足以证明添加更多机制并不是增加游戏深度和复杂性的最佳方法。

那么拥有如此少的游戏机制他们又是如何获得成功的呢？答案便是多样性。基于不同环境，每个机制都应该拥有多种功能，并且它们之间结合在一起将创造出一些有趣的效果。通过为不同机制基于不同顺序的结合去创造环境，你便可以创造出各种有趣的条件。而这里最棘手的地方便是创造那些面向多种多样组合的机制。

所以我认为唯一的方法便是继续创造机制。修剪机制是不可能的了，特别是当我们认为当前的机制的存在并无问题。所以我们最好从一个核心机制开始去创造机制。

对于游戏来说，机制和感觉是必然要素。这也是关于“玩家应该做什么？”以及“当他们在做这些时应该有何感受？”的答案。如果游戏机制是新的，那就够了。如果感觉是与众不同的，那也够了。如果游戏时间或开发时间存在现实条件，那可能也够了。当你在创造一组机制并觉得够了的话，你就应该止步于那里。

如果游戏的主要机制是那些玩家看过的内容，或者是游戏时间所允许的条件下，你便可以考虑添加其它支持机制。你也可以添加一些组合内容。而你所添加的第二种机制必须能够符合你想要呈现的游戏感觉。并且它的存在目的不应该只有一个。它还应该能够以一种有趣的方式和最初的机制结合起来。如果可能的话，你可以通过设置让玩家可以同时执行这两种机制，或者至少在其它机制失去用途前能够激发其中的一种机制。

我们总是很难去概括这样的内容，所以让我们讨论一个更具体的例子。我最喜欢的一款手机游戏《疯狂喷气机》是一款一键式无限卷轴免费游戏。这款游戏包含了一些专门为支持免费游戏所设计的机制，不过我现在只想去谈论起核心游戏玩法。

他们最初的机制是使用控制方案去避免障碍并收集货币。因为这款游戏的名字叫做“疯狂喷气机”，所以我们可以假设设计师将尝试着去创造让人兴奋且有趣的感觉。

有时候玩家可能会遭遇砖块并给予他们随机的汽车升级道具。就像马里奥风格的升级道具将提供给玩家额外的生命；而当汽车被摧毁时玩家也将重新回到喷气机中。升级道具的放置将会创造出风险/奖励情况，例如砖块可能太接近一个障碍或者会让玩家未能注意到即将到来的导弹。而一旦玩家碰到了砖块，他们将基于随机选择的汽车去获取全新的控制方案。所以升级道具拥有三种额外功能：额外生命，风险/奖励，创新的控制方案。

在大多数游戏中，我认为成就系统对于主要游戏体验来说都是多余的，但是在《疯狂喷气机》中，成就系统却是有意义的。游戏中早前的成就系统便是作为教程，能够帮助玩家在某种程度上精通游戏。在那之后成就系统将创造全新游戏模式，推动玩家去执行像飞向导弹等危险行为或通过告诉玩家故意死在特定范围而改变游戏目标。参考之前所创造的每个机制的成就系统能够提供给玩家额外的动机。

虽然关于《疯狂喷气机》我还有很多可以分析的内容，但是你们应该已经看到这些机制是如何表现出多种功能并基于一些有趣的方式结合在一起了吧。

jetpack-joyride(from appszoom)

通过分离每种机制的功能，设计师很容易不能有效利用这些机制的内在作用。例如有些机制可能能够提供给玩家额外的生命。设计师同样也有可能不能在机制中创造有效的组合效果，如创造只和距离或货币收集有关的成就而不是使用它们去改变游戏玩法或支持升级道具的使用。

希望我所说的这些能够帮到你们。首先也是最重要的：如果你的游戏并不有趣，那么添加更多游戏机制就不是你的答案。其次，关于如何添加游戏机制存在确切的答案。先从一个机制开始（游戏邦注：你最好能够在设计更多内容前真正去执行并尝试这一机制）并逐步增加，同时也要牢记一些要点：1.你尝试去创造的游戏感觉。2.新机制如何去呈现不同功能。3.新机制该如何与之前的机制结合在一起去创造一些有趣的结果。4.你是否真正需要额外的机制？这一方法论不仅能够帮助你创造更棒且更可靠的游戏，同时也能够让作为开发者的你更有效去控制这些范围。

（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）

How Many Mechanics Should a Game Have?

by Rob Lockhart

First off, I acknowledge that this is the wrong question to ask. The better question is: “How can I determine how many mechanics my game should have?” This essay gives my own opinion on that question.

However, just so we’re all on the same page, this is the definition of “game mechanic” I’m thinking of. It’s a little bit ineffable, as game systems often have a fractal quality about them — you can go up or down in level of detail and think of features at that scale as game mechanics also. That complicates things a bit, but we’ll have to muddle through.

In my humble opinion, the answer to “how many mechanics should my game have?” is usually “less than half of the number you’re imagining right now.”

I think there are a lot of reasons people assume games need to have way more mechanics than they really do. The first is the pesky real world. IRL is awash with verbs and their consequences. The number of things a human being can do is enormous and keeps growing. If the player’s avatar is a human being, you might think that it will break player expectations to limit them too much. “If players see an apple and they can’t pick it up and eat it, it will break their immersion!” you might say to yourself. The truth is that players will start by exploring the limits of their capabilities, exposing those differences from the real world no matter what they are. (Also, at that point you might think about just removing the apple). If the game holds their attention long enough, the players will grow accustomed to the conventions of this virtual world, and immersion won’t truly be broken unless those conventions are.

The second reason people think they need a lot of game mechanics is because AAA games have tons of game mechanics. I just played “Deus Ex: Mankind Divided,” and that game included stealth, cover-based shooting, a huge tech tree, crafting, branching dialogue and narrative choices, money and merchants, exploration, and probably a few more huge systems I’m failing to recall.

How can these games get away with having SO MANY mechanics? First of all, I’m not sure they do. I tend to find AAA games a bit bloated. That aside, there are a few reasons. First, they’re super long. Every good game mechanic must be taught to the player in isolation, then mastered, then used in combinations with the others, etc. All of that takes time that smaller games don’t have. But 40+ hours is a lot of time to get the player up to speed with a gaggle of mechanics and let them explore some of the consequences of them.

The second way they get away with having so much stuff is that so many things are already so familiar to their audience. To play these games at all, you have to have made a sizable investment in gaming, and thus have most likely played other games before. By making mechanics that are similar to ones players have already seen, designers can skip a certain level of player reeducation.

Let’s look at a game on the opposite end of the spectrum. Super Mario Brothers. The game is about Jumping. You can run, but jumping is what gets things done. You use it to get over gaps, to avoid enemies, to stomp enemies, to break blocks, to get power-ups…The game really explores the consequences of jumping, and as Steve Swink has often pointed out, they made jumping feel really good. What other mechanics are there? There’s mushrooms, which make Mario bigger and essentially give him an extra life. Mushrooms and Jumping both have multiple functions, and can even be undesirable in certain circumstances. And there’s the fire flower (which you can use while jumping). That’s all there is for the first two entire amazing Mario games. This should be proof enough that adding more mechanics is not the best way to add depth and complexity to your game.

How can they get away with having so few mechanics? The answer is dynamics. Each mechanic serves several functions depending on the circumstance, and all of them combine with one another for interesting effects. By crafting circumstances that call for different combinations of mechanics in different sequences, there is effectively no limit to the number of interesting situations you can create. The tricky part is creating mechanics that are open to that kind of combinatorial richness.

It’s my opinion that, process-wise, really the only way to proceed is to build up mechanics. It’s borderline impossible to pare away mechanics and rest assured that the ones that remain are the right ones. It’s better at that point to start from a single core mechanic and work back up from there. So, how to build up mechanics?

An idea for a game, at minimum, is a mechanic and a feeling. It’s an answer to the questions “What should the player do?” and “How should they feel while they’re doing it?” If the mechanic is new, that might be enough. If the feeling is unique, that might be enough. If there are constraints on the playtime and/or your development time, that might be enough. If, at any point in building a set of mechanics, you feel like it might be enough, stop there.

If the main mechanic is something the player might have seen before, or the playtime allows it, you could consider adding another supporting mechanic. This is your opportunity to add some combinatorial richness. The second mechanic you add should be consistent with the feeling you’re trying to create. It should serve more than one purpose. It should also combine with the first mechanic in an interesting way. If possible, set it up so the player can do both simultaneously, or at least trigger one before the effects of the other have worn off.

It’s difficult to speak in generalities like this, so let’s talk about a concrete example. One of my favorite mobile games, “Jetpack Joyride.” It’s a free-to-play one-button infinite scrolling game. The game includes some mechanics designed explicitly to support the free-to-play-ness, but I’ll just talk about the core gameplay for now.

Their first mechanic is to use the control scheme (hold the screen to generate a steady upward acceleration) to avoid obstacles and collect coins (two goals that are often at odds). The title of the game is “Jetpack Joyride,” so we can assume the designers were trying to achieve a feeling of exhilaration and fun (with a bit of transgression thrown in).

Periodically, the player encounters tiles which grant the player a random vehicle power-up. The power-ups, in Mario style, also afford the player an extra life; when the vehicle is destroyed, the player goes back to the jetpack. The placement of the powerups in the environment creates a risk/reward scenario — the tile might be too close to an obstacle, or it might distract the player from an incoming missile. Once captured, the powerup gives the player a new control scheme depending on which vehicle was chosen at random. For example, the Dragon reverses the control scheme entirely — now you must press and hold to accelerate downwards. So, powerups serve three additional functions: Extra Life, Risk/Reward, and Control Scheme Novelty.

To this they added an achievement system. In most games I think of achievement systems as very superfluous to the main experience, but in Jetpack Joyride the achievements add another dimension. Early achievements act almost as tutorial — coaxing the player to a certain level of mastery. After a certain point, the achievements create new modes of play, prompting the player to perform dangerous maneuvers like flying close to missiles, or totally reversing the goal of the game by telling the player to intentionally die at a particular distance. The achievements refer back to every mechanic that was previously established (Avoiding Obstacles, Collecting Coins, Getting Vehicles) supporting and giving them extra motivation.

There’s a lot more I could say about “Jetpack Joyride” but you can already see how these mechanics each serve several functions on their own, and all combine together in interesting ways.

The designers could easily have failed to take advantage of the inherent opportunities of their mechanics by separating out the functions of each. For instance, they could have had hearts in the level which gave the player an extra life, and removed that functionality from the Vehicle powerups, but it was far more elegant and more intuitive to combine them. They also could have failed to create the combinatorial effects amongst mechanics, for instance by making the achievements relate only to distance or coins gathered, rather than using them to alter gameplay or to explicitly support the use of powerups.

I hope I’ve convinced you of a few things. First, and most important: If your game isn’t fun yet, adding more game mechanics is not the answer. Second, there is a definite method to how one adds game mechanics. Start from one (ideally you should actually implement and play it before designing any more) and work up, always keeping in mind a few things: 1. The feeling you’re trying to create. 2. How the new mechanic can serve several functions 3. How this new mechanic combines with the previous ones to create interesting consequences, and 4. Do you really need to add another mechanic at all? Not only does this methodology produce better, more coherent games, it also allows you as a developer to tightly control the scope.

The only resistance to following this advice might come from people in marketing. They might argue that a few interesting mechanics does not make for as many bullet points on the box as a lot of uninteresting ones. It’s hard to say they’re wrong, given Will Wright’s assertion that the game experience really begins when they see or hear about the game and start imagining in their mind what it will be like to play. Perhaps it’s a matter of better communicating dynamics. This is something I don’t yet have a good answer for, and would love to hear your opinion in the comments.(source:gamasutra)