作者：Kacper Kwiatkowski  译者：ciel chen

过去两年的时间里，我的生活都和《我的战争》这个伟大项目融为了一体。我从一开始就以游戏设计师为主作家为辅的身份参与到项目的开发当中了。而今我与11bit工作室在《我的战争》开发项目的冒险之旅结束了，我让自己跳脱出来以旁观者的视角来回顾这个游戏的制作设计。我会尽我最大所能来分析这些对游戏最有益处的关键设计特点。这些特点我要牢记在心以备未来项目可用。

我很高兴我的脸和身体能成为游戏中一个人物的模板

要勇于创新

从最开始我们就清楚地知道——我们要做的游戏跟其他所有游戏都不一样。就我们目前所知，它是第一个关于战区国民的游戏，也就是说我们所采用的设计方法是不同寻常的。而且也不存在这类游戏项目的游戏设计测试公式，因为这类的游戏之前从没有过。因此，我们要以一种令人尊敬且信服的方式来反映这类事件的真实问题，将其以游戏机制的形式呈现，并且尽可能地避免这类事件被“游戏主义化”。

让我在游戏发行之前猜测这款游戏的创新性将如何影响它的受欢迎程度的话，那我可能会大错特错。因为《我的战争》无论是在主题方面还是游戏玩法方面，都非常与众不同，所以我个人认为它会成为一个小众游戏，一个符合小部分有品位的玩家口味的游戏。感谢老天，我猜错了。

……或许我猜对了有品味这个部分，但是我低估了玩家受众的群体规模。我错误的猜测让我意识到，玩家还是希望游戏能带来惊喜的——他们不止渴望另一款高清大型动作游戏，他们也欣赏新的游戏概念。为什么我们不满足他们呢？

This War of Mine（from gamasutra.com）

……如果你的团队规模较小，那创新就是你唯一的出路

面对这个事实把，你的小团队做不了比《使命召唤》更好的《使命召唤》。但是也许你可以试着做出一个比《这是我的战争》更好的《这是我的战争》；或者是做出一款目标类型中最好的游戏。在我看来，你模仿别人游戏的内容越多，竞争就越大，因此你在这个行业中出人头地的机会就越小。

《请出示护照》就是其所属类型中最好的游戏，它由一人单独开发并且取得了巨大的成功

当然了，《这是我的战争》就是个常见的例子——无论设计有多么的新颖都无法保证你能取得成功。然而，我还是认为，游戏越小，你越要寻找创新点，《这是我的战争》让我更加确信这一点。过去的几年里，相对小型游戏的成功似乎都支持了这个观点。像很大地启发了《这是我的战争》的《请出示护照》；或者像《消失的伊森卡特（Vanishing of Ethan Carter）》、《FTL》、《Gone Home》还有《Thomas Was Alone》等等。

我觉得小型游戏的开发者要拼过游戏巨作的方法只有一个——不走寻常路。

别忘了你的项目本质是电子游戏（并且使之成为你的优势）

在游戏发行后，在玩家开始讲述他们的游戏过程的时候，我才开始真正理解和欣赏《这是我的战争》中是有一点特别之处的——那就是我意识到该游戏所运用最强大的故事叙事方式就是，一种身为电子游戏的自我认同意识。但作为电子游戏，不仅要做到让游戏机制与故事叙述不起冲突，还要让它们成为叙述的基础。

我不认为游戏为了成为更强大的叙事媒介就要否定自身，吸收更多其他的媒体形式（比如电影）。在我看来这是本末倒置——我觉着游戏应该要去拥抱接收自己本身擅长的方面，并明智地利用这些优势来创作出在其他媒体上看不到的故事。简言之，就是要确保玩家做出的抉择（还有他们进行选择后产生的结果）既要能融入游戏机制本身，而且要存在叙述意义。这些游戏是有关抉择的游戏，而不只是把《巫师》或者《行尸走肉》的故事情节发展拿来过一遍而已。无论你是跳起还是落下、挥砍还是被防、射中还是射偏、直行或者转弯——所有这些构成了游戏玩法的短暂片刻都可能融入到有趣的剧情中。更甚至——它们塑造出整个剧情，其强大影响力是电影和文学作品都无法企及的。

然而其作用体现不一定很明显。当我玩《Uncharted》的时候，我控制这个智慧幽默的冒险家去拿着机械枪杀死编号4859的敌人，而我并没有感觉到这是这个游戏故事的一部分。我的天哪，刚刚他还在一个华美的过场动画中亲吻了一个女孩，然后现在我控制的这个疯子是谁请问？对我来说，当我玩过了《请出示文件》后，我发现这件事是可以做的与众不同的——它真的是个“别有一番风味的游戏”，并且还有着非常明显的核心循环内容。你所做的任何决定都是这个单调无聊主角生活的一部分，而且这些决定的影响是一下子就能显现的，并且它们构成了游戏主角的整个故事——同样也是你的故事。

失败也是一种乐趣

当然我说的不是你作为游戏设计者在设计游戏上的失败，而是你作为游戏角色在游戏故事里的那个失败。我必须承认，《这是我的战争》有一个独有特点是受到其他游戏设计的影响而不是计划内的。我注意到这个特点的时候是当我在Twitch上看Indie游戏直播时（Dan Long,http://www.twitch.tv/Indie）——整个游戏流程看上去就是很稀松平常的游戏，这让Indie有时间和观众说笑。直到发生了件糟糕的事——一个人物挂了，然后又挂了一个，最后这支支离破碎的队伍这剩下——孤单的BRUNO。当Bruno自杀后，游戏结束。看到Indie的反应我意识到，他游戏的失败在整个游戏过程中才是最有趣的事的。

如果你回想一下你最喜欢的故事，比如电影或者文学作品，他们的主题都不会总围绕这成功——里面的人物也会受伤，也会受挫；另外，你通常也不会因为最后主人公死了而去要求退款。与此同时，游戏还让我们习惯了把失败看做故事的“现实”部分（除非这个游戏是个文本化、情节驱动的败笔）。然后回想刚才的游戏主人公Nathan Drake（没有针对性，我还是很爱这些游戏的）——如果他突然被编号#4860的敌人撂倒了，你可能会咒骂然后载入存档重新开始，当做什么都没发生一样。因为如果真的被敌人打死的话，那这对一个英雄故事主角来说这种结束生命的方式真的很耻辱。

如果我们假设，就像我之前说过的那样——玩家的游戏决定和相应产生的结果被当做是叙事解构的一部分，那么玩家的失败也应该被等同对待——它们应该被给予足够的重视和承认，从而成为整个故事的一部分。而且最好是有趣的一部分。

游戏原型。

我在11bit工作室（3年）学到最重要的事情之一就是学会如何构建游戏原型。至少在项目开发的开始阶段，你不会抛去游戏原型设计。

关于游戏原型有很多种说法，如果你还没做过游戏原型的话，我当然建议你查查怎么做，但基本上这里只涉及一件事：那就是让你的设计能行得通并且在它落实为真正的游戏之前测试它的可行性。我最大的错误就是过度的自信觉得一切都会顺利的因为“从纸上”看来设计如此之棒。事实上，有时最简单的游戏原型就足以发现问题所在了。至于所谓的“最简单的”就是说我们根本不需要构建成一个真正的游戏——它可以是画出来的模型、简易桌游、用乐高做的关卡、一份电子数据表、一个用BASIC语言写的几分钟简易游戏…总之就是要用最快的方法来测试你的现有问题。

当我们开始致力于开发《这是我的战争》之时，我们做了几个关键系统的游戏原型，每个都迭代了几次。比如说，我们最初把人物的需求系统用一系列电子表格完成、而战斗和手工制作则由设计者在C#中做成小型应用加以测试。只有在我们在保证基础都万无一失了之后，我们才开始构建更大的，将所有内容结合起来，看上去有大概游戏样子的游戏原型。

还有，这里我是从设计的角度来阐述的，但是相似的原理可以应用在游戏的其他方面，比如技术或者美工决策。让最简单的版本先来检测下你的“理论”是否可行，迭代到它能行得通为之。

保证游戏是好游戏

亲自去试玩游戏原型是个好主意，不过如果能把它给别人玩会更好些——这同样也适用与游戏中其他更大型、更高级的部分——甚至适用于整个游戏。从某种程度上来说，最好能组织正式的、有结构的游戏测试来评估玩家在游戏中的游戏体验。幸运的是，这种做法正是11bit工作室的主张。并且在开发《这是我的战争》过程中，这种做法已经被有意识地施行了。通过测试得到的反馈，了解能有了多少改进，我很确定如果没有这么做，我们做不到这么好。

至于要如何做到这一点，那至少得单独再写一篇文章来说了。在我看来就是能早做就早做（可以把第一个游戏模型给你的家人和朋友去玩），以及频率越高越好，要确保你每次做出重大的改动后仍然保持在正轨上前行。然而，也不能过了头——这里最大的陷阱就是不带思辨性地去看待玩家反馈。这仍然还是你的游戏，不要把决定权都交给别人。我个人更喜欢那种医生式的方法：询问的是他们的感受，而不是他们想要的治疗方法。

在设计游戏时候把YouTube和Twitch考虑在内

这款游戏的市场营销并没有什么诀窍，但现在联系那些可以在YouTube和Twitch上直播的人无疑是值得考虑的事情。我们在《这是我的战争》就这样做了，并且事情进展的很顺利，这产生了很多很棒的视频，吸引了很多观众让他们对这款游戏产生了兴趣。

但是我担心的是这个方法可能不适用于所有游戏。有些游戏是会被视频或者直播的“开始游戏”毁了的，尤其是那些主要有线性情节组成的游戏。（观众看完就不会再玩了）《这是我的战争》似乎不太一样——人们在观看过后仍然想玩一玩。这个属性我们并没有纳入设计的计划当中，但是从时候来看，我大概可以推测出是哪里哪方面在发挥作用。我认为这是因为这是因为每个人对屏幕里的发生的事件都有个人的不同偏好，并且玩家可以根据自己不同的选择玩出属于自己的游戏情节。所以无论你看过多少这个游戏的直播视频，都不会游戏的全部内容，因为没有切实去玩玩你就不知道自己的选择会让游戏情节走向什么方向。

所以我想提出一个大胆的试验——也许有天我会这样试试——来设计一个一开始就有着Youtube和Twitch平台考虑的游戏。如果这种游戏的营销方式如此强大，那么尝试去适应这种形式也许是个好主意。所以让我们来创造一个对Youtuber和主播们来说值得播的，而对于其余人来说值得玩的游戏吧。

虽然当我处在开发《这是我的战争》项目当中时，我就知道这会是一部特别的游戏，但是最后的我们收到的市场反应还是出乎了我的意料，并且可能让我们公司的所有人都很惊讶。我很高兴我能在这个游戏项目里贡献出自己的力量，但我想它也能将以另外的方式继续发挥作用——我作为这个了不起的团队中的一份子跟大家一起做出了这样一个了不起的游戏项目，这将在很长一段时间内都激励鼓舞着我。

本文由游戏邦编译，转载请注明来源，或咨询微信zhengjintiao

I spent the last two years of my life as a part of the great project which has been This War of Mine. I’ve been involved since the very beginning, mostly as a game designer and partially as a writer. Now, that my adventure with both This War of Mine and 11 bit studios is over, I let myself look on a game from a distance. I’ll do my best to analyze those key design features that I think did the most for its benefit. These are the things that I will remember for my future projects.

I had a pleasure to have my face and body used for one of the characters.

(Mind that the article is not an official statement of the company, it’s my own opinion, a view on the game seen from one of the designers’ seat.)

You can be innovatory

It was clear since the beginning that we’re going to make a game that is unlike any other. It was meant to be, as far as we knew, the first game about the civilians in the warzone, which demanded a different than usual approach to its design. There just wasn’t a tested game design formula for this kind of project, because this kind of game never existed. So the key was to find the ways to symbolize the real problems of such events as a game mechanics in respectful and credible way, avoiding “gamisms” as much as we could.

If I was to guess, before the release, how the game’s innovation will affect its popularity, it would be a huge miss. Because of how different TWoM is, both in terms of the theme and the gameplay, personally I was seeing it as a niche game, that will be appreciated only among a small crowd with discerning taste. Thankfully I was wrong.

… Or perhaps I was right about the discerning taste, but I underappreciated the size of the audience. This mistake taught me that the players still like to be surprised. That they don’t solely crave another Spectacular Action Game 6 HD, but will also appreciate new ideas. Why won’t we give them a fix?

… and if you’re small, innovation may be the only way

Let’s face it, you can’t make better Call of Duty than Call of Duty. But perhaps you can afford to try making better This War of Mine than This War of Mine. Or a one-of-its-kind game that will automatically become… well, the best of its kind. What I mean is that the more derivative your design is, the bigger the competition and thus the harder it is to stand out.

Papers, Please is a one-of-its-kind game done by one man and a great success.

Of course This War of Mine is an usual example and no matter how innovative is the design, it won’t GUARANTEE you such a success. Still, my take is that the smaller the game, the more it should look for an innovation (or a niche) and TWoM reassured me about this. The last years were rich in successes of relatively small games that seem to support this idea. Like Papers, Please, which was a great inspiration for TWoM. Or like Vanishing of Ethan Carter, FTL, Gone Home and Thomas Was Alone, to name a few.

I think that the only way for a small developer to fight a blockbuster is to compete in a different category.

Don’t forget you’re making a video game (and use it to your advantage)

There’s one particular ingredient of This War of Mine that I started to really understand and appreciate when the game was already released and the players started to tell the stories of how they playthrough looked like. Then I realized that the strongest storytelling device the game utilized was… well, it’s awareness of being a videogame. But a videogame, where game mechanics not only don’t conflict with the narrative, but they’re used as its fundaments.
Steam reviewers often tell parts of their playthorughs as stories.
(http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197993844742/recommended/282070 )

I don’t think that games, in order to become stronger as narrative medium, need to reject what they are and try to incorporate more from other media, such as cinema. In my opinion it’s the opposite – I think they need to embrace what they’re good at and use it wisely to create stories that couldn’t exist elsewhere. In short, it’s about making sure that decisions the player makes as a part of the game (and their consequences) are meaningful for the narrative. The games were about making decisions long before branching storylines of The Witcher or The Walking Dead. Whether you jump or fall, slash or block, shoot or miss, drive straight or turn – all those little moments that make up the gameplay may become a part of an interesting narrative. More – they can SHAPE the narrative, and that’s an unbelievably powerful feat, that film nor literature cannot do.

It’s not necessarily obvious. When I play Uncharted, I don’t feel that killing an enemy number #4859 with my machinegun is a part of the story where I’m animating this witty adventurer. My goodness, he’d just kissed a girl in this brilliantly crafted cut-scene, and now he’s some kind of psycho?! For me the revelation that the things can be done differently came when I encountered Papers, Please. It’s really a “gamey game”, with very visible core loop. But the decisions you make are part of the monotonous protagonist’s life and they visibly affect it. They tell his story. Your story.

Failure can be interesting

Of course not your failure as a game designer, but the player’s, as a character in the story. There’s a particular characteristic of This War of Mine that, I must admit, wasn’t intentionally planned, but emerged from other game design decisions. I noticed it when I was watching Indie (Dan Long, http://www.twitch.tv/Indie) streaming a preview version of the game on Twitch. The playthrough was fairly typical, giving Indie enough space to joke around with his audience. Until the things got bad. A character died, than another, ultimately leaving the remaining member – Bruno – of the group lonely and broken. The game ended when Bruno committed suicide. Seeing Indie’s reaction I realized that his failure was the most interesting thing in this playthrough.

If you consider your favorite stories, for example in film or literature, they don’t always revolve around success. The character may become hurt or defeated, also you usually don’t ask a refund for a book just because the main hero dies at the end. Meanwhile the games accustomed us not to treat the failure as a “real” part of the story (unless it’s a scripted, plot-driven failure). Back to the old Nathan Drake (nothing personal, I still love those games) – if he’s suddenly taken down by the enemy #4860, you probably curse and reload the checkpoint like it never happened. Because if it did, it’d be a really shameful way for a hero of a good story to end his life.

If we assume, like I previously argued, that the player’s gameplay decisions and their consequences may be treated as a fabric for the narrative, so should be with his failures. They should be given enough weight and acknowledgement to become a real part of the story. And preferably an interesting one.

Prototype, period.

One of the most important things I’ve learnt during my whole time at 11 bit studios (3 years) is how to prototype. And that you won’t get away without doing prototypes, at least at the beginning of the project.

There’s much that has been said about prototyping games, and I certainly recommend to look it up if you haven’t done any prototype yet, but basically it comes to one thing: making your design work and test it BEFORE it lands in the game. My biggest mistakes came from being overconfident and assuming that things will work just because they looked good “on paper”. In reality, sometimes the simplest prototype is enough to discover the problems. And by “the simplest” I mean that it doesn’t even have to resemble the real game – it can be a mockup in Paint, simple board game, a level built in Lego, a spreadsheet, a simple mingame written in Basic… Just use the fastest method to test your current problem.

When we started to work on TWoM, we made a several prototypes for the crucial systems, each with a few iterations. For example the characters’ needs system was first done as a series of spreadsheets, while combat and crafting were tested as small applications done in C# by the designers. Only after we got the fundaments right, we build a bigger prototype combining all of it in something that looked like a very rough version of the game.

One more thing. I’m speaking from a design standpoint, but similar principles can be applied to other aspects of the game as well, like technical or artistic decisions. Make the simplest version first to check whether it works. Iterate till it does.

Make sure the game is good

Trying out the prototype by yourself is a good idea, but it’s better to give it to someone else. The same applies to bigger and more advanced chunks of your game, ultimately even the whole game. And at some point it might be the best to organize formal, structured playtests to assess the players’ experience from the game. Fortunately this was always a part of 11 bit studios’ ethos and had been done consciously throughout the development of This War of Mine. Knowing how much was improved using the feedback from the tests, I’m quite sure that otherwise the game wouldn’t be nearly as good.

How to do it is a topic for at least a separate article. My take is to do it as early as possible (starting from showing the first prototypes at least to your family and friends) and as often as possible, making sure you’re still on track after every major change in the game. However it doesn’t mean it cannot be overdone – the biggest trap is being uncritical about the players’ feedback. Don’t let them decide, it’s still your game. I personally prefer a doctor’s approach: ask how they feel, but not what remedy they’d like to take.

Consider YouTube and Twitch when designing the game

There’s no one recipe for the game’s marketing, but nowadays contacting people that can show it on YouTube and Twitch is without doubt worth considering. It’s been done with TWoM and went really well, resulting with many great videos that attracted many viewers interested in the game.

But I’m afraid it won’t work for any game. Some can be spoiled by “let’s play” video or a stream, especially those that rely on a linear plot. This War of Mine seems to be different – people, after watching, still want to play. This property wasn’t planned in the game’s design, but from hindsight I can speculate what aspects of it worked here. I think it’s because of the importance of the personal attachment to the events on screen and the ability to build the story on individual decisions – no matter how many playthroughs you see, you won’t see everything. Because you won’t see YOUR playthrough.

A Polish YouTuber Remigiusz “Rock” Maciaszek was scanned and had a cameo in the game (https://www.youtube.com/user/RockAlone2k)

So I’d like to propose a bold experiment, which I may also try one day. Let’s design a game having YouTube and Twitch in mind from the very beginning. If this way of promotion is indeed so powerful, trying to adapt may be a good idea. So let’s create a game that gives the YouTubers and streamers something worthy of SHOWING, but also has something for the rest, worthy of PLAYING.（source：gamasutra.com ）