原文作者：James Margaris  译者：Megan Shieh

部分开发者在制作续作的时候，会在原作的基础上对设计作出一些“改进”，但是这些“改进”在实践中通常都只能产生微不足道的作用，甚至有时会带来负面的影响。

我们将会聊到三种“改进”：

1. 真正的改进，通过谨慎的迭代作出的设计决策，足以带来微小的积极作用。

2. 客观的改进，从表面上看是有利的，但并不能使核心体验变得更好。

3. 教科书式的改进，借鉴教科书式的理论在原作的基础上进行修改，反而降低了游戏体验的质量。

（一）更好但是没好多少

我最近开始在玩《超级马里奥银河2（Super Mario Galaxy 2）》，这种直截了当的续作在任天堂的作品簿里还蛮罕见的，因为任天堂一直都提倡“更大、更好、更牛逼”的做法，换句话说就是“通过谨慎的迭代来作出改进”。也许有人认为《银河2》比《银河1》好玩，如果我是跟这些人一起玩的，或者先玩了2再玩1的话，可能会同意他们的观点。但我是根据发布顺序玩的游戏，虽然《超级马里奥银河2》也挺有趣的，但是它的存在似乎没什么意义，估计是该系列中最不值得玩的游戏了。

大家应该都很了解“续作”和“体裁疲劳（genre fatigue）”的概念，在这里我就不细说了。关键是，无论你的“小改进”做得有多好都还是无法抵消“下行压力”的影响——玩家对题材太过熟悉，觉得没有新鲜感，从而感到无聊。随着越来越多续作的出现，许多人的思维方式不再是“续作比原作好玩吗？”，而是“它好到足以抵消疲劳吗？”

（二）意义不大的改进

案例一：《交叉领域计划2（Project X-Zone 2）》

《交叉领域计划》是我最喜欢的3DS游戏之一，其登场人物云集卡普空、世嘉以及万代南梦宫三大游戏公司旗下众多代表性游戏角色。虽说是“策略角色扮演游戏（SRPG）”，但是原作对“策略”却没有什么实质性的需求。在一般的SRPG中，玩家往往会用一些生命值较强的炮弹进攻单位作为前锋，从而起到防御的作用。但是在这款游戏中，策略不重要、攻击队形不重要、攻击范围也不重要，游戏中的各个单位没有什么明显区别，大致相同。

《交叉领域计划》的设计缺陷之一是“必杀技”和“特殊招式”的使用。这两种技能消耗的是己方全员共用的一条XP槽。“必杀技”需消耗100%的XP值（峰值是150%，不要问我为啥…），可以增加一倍多的伤害值；“特殊招式”需消耗30%的XP值，造成额外15%的伤害。但是“特殊招式”的性价比那么低，你还会使用它吗？答案是：不会。这样的话，游戏中90%的“特殊招式”就都变得毫无用处。

当我读到了《交叉领域计划2》在原作的基础上做出的变更时，激动极了。制作团队表达了他们对玩家烦恼的理解，而且也有在全方位地关注游戏中出现的各种问题。原作中出现的，策略层面的问题在续作中都得到了解决，而且还得到了一些巧妙的优化。

关于攻击系统，本作加入了“侧袭”和“背袭”的概念，游戏角色从侧面或背部攻击时会造成额外的伤害——终于可以用上策略啦！“特殊招式”现在消耗的是个人的血槽，而不是全员共用的XP槽，这就意味着玩家无需在“必杀技”和“特殊招式”中强制二选一。续作还引入了一个新的养成系统，玩家可以强化单独的招式。此外还有一个角色个性化系统，玩家可以自由选择被动或主动技能。与原作相比，续作提供更多的选项、策略、个性化和“奖励回路”，甚至有“取消技”和“轮盘取消”！

《交叉领域计划2》修复了原作中出现的所有机制问题，感觉他们像是我肚子里的蛔虫，解决了我所有的烦恼。

兴奋过后，我玩了几把游戏，发现这些变更并没有给游戏体验带来什么巨大的提升。

《交叉领域计划2》最大的问题是，虽然提高了策略上限，但是也降低了难度。游戏变得很容易（至少对我来说很容易，我在这类游戏中算中等玩家…），无论使用哪种策略都能赢。你可以采用侧袭和背袭的方式来造成额外伤害，使用“特殊招式”来拓展招式选项，然后使用“取消技”来组成一个既冗长伤害值又极大的连击组合——但是即使不用策略，你也可以轻松过关。

值得注意的是，ING评测完全没有提到有关系统的任何改进。木有！尽管游戏机制经过了彻底的改革，但是ING评测的结语是“在玩之前，做好心理准备。游戏深度并没有得到提升，更新的地方不是很多，跟前作没有太大差别。”虽然这么说有点坑爹了，但是也有点儿那个意思——做出了重大的更新，然而更新的都是些与核心体验无关的东西。人们会去买《交叉领域计划2》，不是因为它的机制有多好，而是因为你可以将许多经典游戏中的人物叫到一起打群架。游戏难度的降低致使某些精心设计的机制显得有些多余，这是最大的问题。但是即使游戏难度允许玩家适当地使用机制，游戏体验也不见得会变好。

原作引入了《领土扩展（Gain Ground）》中的一个关卡，这是我最喜欢的部分，关卡中包含了游戏中独特的“角色收集系统”。我个人超级喜欢《领土扩展》，它的引入让我感到非常高兴，因为这让我知道了，还有人记得它的存在。同样，在续作中，我最喜欢的时刻是Ken和Ryu对战M.Bison的时候（游戏邦注：三者均为《街头霸王》人物），运用了日版《街头霸王II（Street Fighter II）》电影中的一系列招式和音轨（原声带）。这些都是纯粹的粉丝向时刻，注重的是粉丝，而不是游戏元素。但是这款游戏的优势（核心）本就是“粉丝向”。将难度提高意味着玩家将会重复刷关卡，虽然这种玩法还是蛮有趣的，但是只有在类似《火焰纹章（Fire Emblem）》这种更注重策略的SRPG中才会奏效，在《交叉领域计划2》中就会显得有些不和谐了。

要想把它变成一款充满挑战、机制好玩的游戏，需要投入很多的努力，即便开发团队在续作的制作中投入了大量的工作，但是它仍然需要一个彻头彻尾的改变。《交叉领域计划2》并没有从本质意义上变得更好，因为尽管开发团队在策略元素上投入了大量的努力，但它仍然不是一款以策略为中心的游戏。

案例二：《塔科马Tacoma》

另外一个例子是《塔科马》。我敢肯定从来没有人做过这种特殊的比较，但请继续阅读！(我知道《塔科马》是一款衍生作品，不是续作，但是我觉得八九不离十——如果你还是不买账的话，可以把《塔科马》的女主角幻想成《到家（Gone Home）》里面的女主。)

SteamSpy发布的数据显示《到家》拥有70万的安装量，而《塔科马》只有2.6万。《到家》多年来一直是人们谈论的话题，而《塔科马》的风头却只有几天。这样看来，《塔科马》在某些方面的表现似乎出现了失误。

开发者表示，《塔科马》不只是把《到家》搬到了太空站上。他们的表达方式也是很有趣，在解释《到家》和《塔科马》的区别时，唯独谈到了机制方面的提升。《交叉领域计划2》的主要问题就是，该作在原作的基础上进行了大量的机制改进，可它不是一款以机制为中心的游戏，我觉得这理论也可以带用到《塔科马》身上。

我对《到家》的理解是，该作的吸引力是题材、氛围和乡愁，其主要机制是《生化危机1（Resident Evil 1 ）》风格的“拾起并旋转物品”。每当热情洋溢的评论家们写到《到家》的机制时，他们通常会着重赞赏游戏机制的缺乏，就像下面这段节选所阐述的那样：

“传统的思维方式是，为了使游戏故事更可信、更触动人心，自然就需要带入更为复杂的各种系统、更高的图像质量、真人演员的参与，或大量的选项和奖励。《到家》感觉有点像是个实验，以全新的方式直面攻击了这一传统思维。”

而对《塔科马》的赞扬则是：它在机制方面更有趣，填补了《到家》所缺乏的东西。但是，如果只是单纯地加入更多的机制就能让叙事游戏变得更好玩，那…《生化奇兵（Bioshock）》不就天下无敌了？

在《塔科马》中，玩家可以倒退或快进对话，从而创造一种交互式的、审查风格的对话重现。开发者认为“反复查看对话的玩家，在情绪方面似乎也越投入”，不过这个推断似乎不是很合理。我倒是认为，使用工具来探索会话内容反而会使体验变得更加不真实，更会让玩家置身事外，鼓励玩家更理智地去思考。

那么《塔科马》和《交叉领域计划2》有什么共同之处？两款游戏的变更都与原作的核心体验没什么关系，反而着重改进了一些次要的东西。虽然比起《到家》，《塔科马》在机制方面更胜一筹，但是人们却对此不以为意，因为“机制复杂性”从来都不是它的核心。而且虽然在机制上做出了改进，但这些机制还是较为简单。

其他例子

我们之前曾经把一款游戏送去做模拟评价/分析，从中获得了一张“建议改进”的列表，接着我们根据这张列表中的信息对游戏内容进行了一一改进，再次送去做模拟评价/分析的时候，我们得到的回应是“你改进了我们建议的所有东西，但是最终，游戏的整体体验并没有变得更好。”尽管我们觉得有些失望，但这也是意料之中，毕竟如果他们知道具体该改些什么的话，估计现在已经是游戏设计师了。

综上所述，某些改进无可否认地会改善游戏中的某个方面，但却不能提高核心体验。

（三）“改进”反而降低了体验的质量

案例一：《寂静岭：归乡（Silent Hill Homecoming）》

现在进入最有趣的类别：直接伤害游戏的“改进”。

几乎每一个变更都是基于传统思维方式中的“好设计”，这些概念频繁地出现在媒体文章、展会演讲和Youtube视频中——“技能点”能够创造更多的长期目标和另外一个奖励/激励回路；多给几条命会提高游戏的“可访问性”；“特殊招式”可以带来多样性和更多的策略选项。上述的几个概念听起来好像是史上最完美的游戏设计建议，但在实践中，这些变更是不好滴，要是不经思考就把它们胡乱加到一起，你的游戏基本上就毁了。

下面让我们来详细看看《寂静岭：归乡》。

因为都是带有糟糕操作系统和基本战斗系统的恐怖类游戏，所以人们经常会把《寂静岭》系列与《生化危机》混为一谈，虽然只有第一部《寂静岭》采用了《生化危机》风格的差劲控制系统。《寂静岭：归乡》的公关稿子着重描述了战斗系统的改善。这款游戏是由西方开发者开发的，因为在那个时期，类似《剑勇传奇：忍者龙剑传Z（Yaiba: Ninja Gaiden Z and Lost Planet 3）》的游戏差评如潮，大家都歇斯底里地喊着“日本游戏烂爆了”。

以下是维基百科对《寂静岭：归乡》战斗系统改进的描述：

“与以往的游戏相比，《归乡》中的战斗系统考虑到了主人公Alex作为一名士兵曾经受过的训练。玩家能够执行轻/重攻击，或者将它们混合，组成动作组合，还可以执行各种必杀招数，以确保怪物真的死翘翘了。攻击敌人时，敌人身上也会留下与Alex在实施攻击时的动作相匹配的伤口。”

“在控制Alex方面，玩家还可以执行新的战术，比如在攻击敌人之前瞄准敌人，躲避敌人的攻击，然后进行反击。除了近战武器之外，手枪、步枪和猎枪也可以作为武器使用，在游玩的后期可以升级到更强大的版本：枪械处理也是以更现实的方式进行的，Alex必须扛着长枪，并且感受像“后坐力”之类的射击效果。”

从表面上看，这听起来确实是“更好的战斗系统”。为了突出《归乡》的好，开发者甚至声称以前的《寂静岭》战斗系统都“很烂”。(游戏邦注作为接管了一个受人喜爱的IP的开发商，这么做不怕惹恼粉丝吗…？)

剧情大反转：《寂静岭：归乡》被普遍认为是该系列游戏中最烂的一款游戏，而它“改善后的战斗系统”恰恰就是其主要原因。

战斗系统变更对故事的影响

在《归乡》中，你扮演的是Alex，大概是因为开发者需要解释为什么主角的这么能打，所以Alex是一名退伍军人。许多人本就认为《寂静岭》和恐怖片《异世浮生（Jacob’s Ladder）》还有美国短篇小说《枭河桥记事（An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge）》很像，把主角设置成军人以后，它们的相似性就更加明显了。（游戏邦注：《异世浮生》和《枭河桥记事》都是从军人的角度出发。）即使是没看过这两部作品的玩家，也肯定对游戏中采用的叙事手法不陌生。因此在玩《归乡》的时候，我自然而然地假设《归乡》的结局会与《异世浮生》的结局相似，可能是变体也有可能是逆转，但是不管结局如何，这款游戏都感觉像是部衍生作品。

在游戏的最后(PS. 以下内容包含剧透)，我们发现Alex从来都不曾当过兵。让玩家认为Alex是一名退伍军人，对故事并没有什么巨大的影响，但是如果你来个大转折，说他从来都没有当过兵的话，就得回答这个问题：为什么他那么能打？这整个情节线的存在似乎仅仅是因为在会议上有人问“我们该如何为Alex的强大战斗力做解释？”做得很好的话，这将会是一个“游戏故事完美衬托机制”的例子。但是像《归乡》这样，做得差的话，给人感觉就是一个巨大的败笔，通过添加多余的衍生情节元素，战斗系统的“改进”反而对游戏中的其余部分也产生了负面影响。

战斗系统变更对游玩的影响

《归乡》中有一个场景：一大堆长着鲨鱼头的怪物袭击了一座建筑物，我和它们展开搏斗，死了。然后我一而再再而三地展开战斗，接着就一而再再而三地战死。脑子里有个声音告诉我，我应该赶快逃走，而不是和它们展开搏斗。有个NPC也是这样跟我说的，但是这种重要的提示应该交给一个重要的角色来讲，而不是NPC，否则会容易让人觉得他只是随便说说而已。然后我就想，是不是只有我一个人这么想？结果我在Youtube上找到了一个试玩视频，视频的上传者和我一样，卡在了这个地方，一次又一次地和“鲨鱼怪”展开搏斗，然后一次又一次地死掉。此外，我还在论坛上看到了类似的抱怨。所以这不只是我一个人在叽叽歪歪。这么多人被困在同一个场景，你可能会觉得这只是一个糟糕的设计失误，开发者本该通过测试来找出并解决这一问题。但这表明了一个更大的问题：《寂静岭：归乡》已经变成了另外一种游戏，玩家的第一本能就是战斗。

当我在《黑暗之魂》中与Orenstein和Smough作战时，在没有召唤其他玩家或NPC的情况下，我打赢了。可能花了30次才打败他们，但我还是打赢了。对许多玩家来说，战斗驱动的游戏重点就是克服挑战——敌人或怪兽不是你应该逃避的东西，而是对你勇气的考验。如果动作游戏《战神》中的Kratos走进了充斥着30个敌人的房间，他不会转身逃跑，反之，他会准备大战一场。

在其他《寂静岭》系列游戏中，我对“看到敌人转头就跑”这件事一点都不排斥，因为在这些游戏中，战斗是实在没办法才会采取的手段，比如说你就快到目标地点了，可是前面有敌人，这时你就必须硬着头皮上。但是在《归家》中，不打不行。《寂静岭：归乡》提前发布的公关文稿着重讲述了战斗系统的趣味性和提升，玩家拥有酷炫的技能和必杀技。当你砍到敌人的时候，它会在你的刀刃上留下切口——如果你不应该用刀砍人，那他们为什么要费这么多心思？战斗是游戏中的首要系统，这个系统使得《寂静岭：归乡》与《寂静岭》系列中的其他游戏不同——对战斗系统的强调使玩家感觉自己必须使用它。所以当玩家遇到敌人的时候，他们不会下意识觉得自己必须跑路，他们会觉得这是一款动作游戏，自己必须展开战斗。

“强调”是设计师表达意图的一种方式。如果《生化危机》中有一个简单的造物系统，玩家会认为它只是一个次要系统。如果一款游戏中有一个开发完善的造物系统，并且被摆在十分显眼的位置，就像《我的世界（Minecraft ）》或者其他生存类游戏中那样，那么玩家就会认为这个造物系统是游戏中不可或缺的一部分。拿《量子破碎（Quantum Break ）》来说，人们抱怨得最多的是，它把自己标榜为一款标准的第三人称动作射击游戏，但是它的第三人称射击（TPS）机制却很薄弱，从而影响到了其更独特的游戏元素。开发者对此的反驳是“你的打开方式不对”——你不应该躲在掩护之下，而是应该在使用技能的同时奔跑和射击。那为什么这款游戏有那么多高墙、一个正式的掩护系统，而且还可以补血？关卡和系统设计师显然在你本应该忽略的事情上下了很多功夫，这些东西暗示着你去“找掩护躲起来”，而不是直面冲突。
同样，《寂静岭：归乡》给人一种“动作游戏”的感觉，玩家是应该逃开那些比你强大很多的怪物，因为你战胜的几率本来就很小，但是《归乡》中到处都是这种强大的怪物，你想躲也躲不了。

战斗系统变更对主题和恐怖气氛的影响

在其他的《寂静岭》游戏中，玩家是猎物——一个闯进了不该去的地方的猎物。在《归乡》中你是个历经训练的军人（但是后来又说你从来都没当过兵？？？），随时随地都能展开战斗。看到敌人的时候，你脑子里想的是“我觉得我能把它给杀死”，而不是“这东西可能会把我大卸八块”。在《生化危机4》中，玩家也会产生一样的想法，但是《生化危机4》本就是一款动作游戏。虽说游戏中也含有某些恐怖元素，但是玩家不应该害怕游戏中的各种敌人。《寂静岭：归乡》始终想要当“恐怖冒险游戏”，可却没想到它在不知不觉中已经变成了一款“恐怖动作游戏”。对战斗系统和玩家能力的强调，把游戏变得一点都不吓人，但是改进后的战斗系统又没有牛逼到能够让《归乡》成为一款一流的动作游戏。

我在《归乡》论坛上看到的主要抱怨是，游戏中有太多的打斗场景；打斗场景的增加远远超过了打斗乐趣的增加。部分原因是因为打斗比较耗时。敌人的花样颇多，你自己也有许多不同的防御选项，结果一场打斗就变得没完没了。问题不只是前面提到的打斗太频繁，另外一个问题是，游戏激励玩家去搏斗，而不是逃跑，而且“改进后”的战斗系统还延长了每次打斗的时间。结果就是，恐怖游戏变得不那么恐怖，探索和各种七七八八的主题最终都以斗殴结尾。

强制带入

在游戏设计领域，信息分享的方式非常流行，各种媒体上有许多人都在分享“制作游戏的最佳方式”。这些看法有时是错误的，即便它是正确的，还是得根据项目的自身情况来衡量。“一款好的游戏是一系列有趣的决定”这是一个很好的观点，但是对于《吉他英雄》或者大多数的步行模拟类游戏来说，不适用也不实用。在游戏中加入“环境叙事”，音频日志和模糊的威胁性涂鸦(用血写的，好吓人喔~~~)可以帮你…额…说实话，这种手法早就过时了。

在另一篇关于《黑暗之魂》的文章中我写到：我不相信上下文无关的“好设计”是真的好设计。

连贯的设计很重要——某些设计决策会不会和其他设计决策产生冲突？游戏设计必须和主题相匹配——游戏设计在多大程度上衬托了主题和内容？我甚至认为在游戏制作中，设计和内容是不可分割的——设计不仅仅是传达内容的工具，它也是内容。

这与本次议题息息相关。在《交叉领域计划2》中，开发者深化了策略机制，但是这一设计决策却降低了游戏难度。在《塔科马》中，游戏故事本该挑动观众的情绪，结果却以一种机械化的形式展现了出来，玩家的角色变成了警匪电视剧中的侦探，以一个局外人的身份在玩这个游戏，丝毫没有投入情绪。在《寂静岭：归乡》中，主题和氛围暗示着恐怖和恐惧，而游戏机制则暗示着战斗和对峙。

本文由游戏邦编译，转载请注明来源，或咨询微信zhengjintiao

Ostensible Improvements: When Better Isn’t

Today I’m looking at sequels with design changes that are ostensibly improvements but in practice have negligible or even negative impact. This is the intellectual cousin of my blog on incoherent game systemsbut with a key difference: in that piece the design decisions looked dubious even in theory when closely examined, whereas these sequel changes appear to be slam dunks on paper.

This piece will examine three types of dubious improvements:

Genuine improvements that are conservatively iterative enough to be more than cancelled out by the passage of time

Improvements that are in some sense objectively better but don’t make the game as a whole appreciably better

Improvements motivated by textbook good design that result in a worse game

Better But Not Better Enough

I recently began playing Super Mario Galaxy 2. It’s the rare straightforward Mario sequel from a company that normally eschews the standard “bigger, better and more badass” (AKA “conservative iterative improvement”) approach. There are probably arguments to be made that Galaxy 2 is better than 1, and had I played them side by side or in reverse order I might agree. But playing them in release order Galaxy 2feels fun but inessential — probably the most skippable game in the series.

Everyone is familiar with the concept of sequel and genre fatigue so I don’t need to elaborate. The point being that minor design changes, even when inarguable improvements, often can’t counteract the downward pressure of boredom with familiarity. As the number of “bigger, better more badass” franchise entries increases the less “is this game better than the last?” is a relevant question; the pertinent question becomes “is it better enough to outpace fatigue?”

Better in Ways that Don’t Matter

Project X-Zone 2

One of my favorite 3DS games is Project X-Zone, a Namco / Sega / Capcom crossover “strategy RPG” that takes no real strategy of any kind. Unit formation doesn’t matter, range doesn’t matter. There’s little unit differentiation — in most SRPGs you’d have a tanky low-damage front line protecting glass-cannon offensive units — in PxZ the units all feel roughly equivalent.

One of the weakest elements of PxZ design is the use of super and special moves. Both moves draw from the same globally shared resource bar. A super move takes 100% (out of 150% max…don’t ask me!) and can more than double the damage you do; a special move can take 30% of that same bar and do an extra 15% damage. Why would you ever use the latter given how XP inefficient it is? Answer: you wouldn’t, rendering 90% of the special abilities in the game useless.

I was very excited when I read about Project X Zone 2‘s changes. It struck me as similar in spirit to the detailed document the Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn team put out, illustrating that they understood the concerns of the player base and had an eyes-wide-open view of the problems with the game. Almost every issue with the strategy layer of PXZ1 was being fixed in 2, bolstered by some nifty additions. Characters do extra damage when attacking from the side or back — positioning now matters! Special moves now use a unit-specific resource rather than drawing from the same global super move resource, meaning special abilities and super moves no longer compete against each.

The sequel introduces a leveling system that lets you power up individual moves and a character customization system that lets you choose passive and active abilities. More player choice, strategy, personalization and “reward loops” huzzah! The game even has Roman Cancels and Force Roman Cancels — google it!

Project X Zone 2 fixes every mechanical problem with the original. It’s like they read my mind when planning the sequel.

But then I played the game and those changes make almost no difference.

The big problem with PxZ2 is that while the strategy ceiling has been raised the difficulty has been lowered. The game is so easy (at least to me, being decent at these types of games) that any application of strategy is purely optional. You can attack from the back for extra damage, use special moves to increase movement options, use Force Roman Cancels to develop long and damaging custom combos — but you can easily beat levels purely by bumbling through them.

Tellingly the IGN review makes no mention of any of the system improvements at all. None! Despite the mechanics of the game being radically overhauled the review signs off with “Don’t come expecting deep gameplay or even inventive updates to distinguish it from the previous game.” While that’s not exactly right it’s right enough in spirit — the game is significantly updated, but along an axis irrelevant to overall enjoyment.

Low difficulty rendering the advanced mechanics superfluous seems to be the biggest issue with the game, but I’m not convinced that making the game hard enough to require the proper use of mechanics would make the game better. My favorite moment in part 1 is the introduction of a Gain Ground level that includes that game’s unique character collecting system. The reason I love this moment is that I @$*!ing love Gain Ground (the secret best Sega game) and it makes me happy that someone somewhere remembered it exists. Similarly my favorite moment in part 2 is when Ken and Ryu fight against M. Bison, using the sequence of moves and the soundtrack from Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie. (Snob voice: the Japanese version)

These are pure fan service moments, not gameplay elements. But the strength of the game — the entire point of the game — is fan service. A harder game with a realistic possibility of losing would mean repeating levels, and while that can be fun in a more strategy-oriented SRPG like Fire Emblem it would be jarring in such lighter fare. Turning the game into a challenging, mechanically satisfying one would take a lot of work, even on top of the substantial amount of work put into the sequel. It would require a radical transformation. The sequel improvements fail to make the game meaningfully better because while much work was put into strategy elements ultimately it’s still not a strategy-centric game.

Tacoma

Along the lines of Project X Zone 2 is Tacoma. I’m fairly certain nobody has made this particular comparison before, but read on! (I realize Tacoma is a follow-up, not a sequel, but it’s close enough — if it makes you feel better imagine the main character in Tacoma is the girl from Gone Home grown up.)

According to SteamSpy Gone Home has 700k owners. Tacoma has 26k. Gone Home was a subject of conversation for years, Tacoma for days. It’s not my place to say that the game was a disappointment commercially or critically — I haven’t played it nor do I know what the budget or sales expectation was. But it feels safe to say that it underperformed in some sense.

Revamping Tacoma to be more than ‘Gone Home on a space station’, in which the creators explain the differences and improvements from Gone Home to Tacoma is an interesting read in that the focus is squarely on mechanical improvements. The problem with Project X Zone 2 is that the improvements were mostly mechanical to a game that was not mechanics-driven, and I suspect that is even more true ofTacoma. (Normally I’m loathe to talk about games I haven’t played, but this section is based on critical and audience reception, not my personal opinion)
My understanding of Gone Home is that the appeal is the subject matter, the atmosphere and the nostalgia. The mechanics are Resident Evil 1 style “pick up and rotate objects.” Often when effusive critics write about the mechanics of the game what they praise is the lack of mechanics, as in this Atlantic piece:

Gone Home also feels a bit like an experiment. It’s a new, effective attack on the convention that in order to be plausible and poignant, game stories necessarily need more complicated systems, higher-resolution graphics, the participation of real-world actors, and heaps of choices and rewards

The pitch for Tacoma is that it’s more mechanically interesting, an embrace of the convention that the previous game rejected. If adding more mechanics makes a narrative game better isn’t the endpoint just…Bioshock? (I would note that my favorite narrative game, Kamaitachi no Yoru AKA Night of the Sickel Weasel AKA Banshee’s Last Cry, has no mechanics at all!) In Tacoma you can rewind and fast forward conversations to create interactive CSI-style re-enactments. When the devs speak of “active” vs “passive” observers the distinction is not emotional engagement or attentiveness, it’s APM. The idea seems to be one follows from the other — that players who are more mechanically involved will also be more emotionally involved, but that may be a plausible-sounding non-sequitur, especially considering the success of the first game. If anything I suspect that using tech tools to explore conversations makes an experience less emotional and more clinical, encouraging left-brain thinking. I’ve seen “Sleep No More” (an inspiration for the game) effusively praised but never has that praise been that it’s emotionally engaging. Instead it’s wonkish appreciation for the elaborate construction.

So how is Tacoma like Project X Zone 2? Both games improved upon largely irrelevant aspects of the first game, while doing little to improve (or even taking a step back from) the core appealing elements of the original. Tacoma may be more mechanically advanced than its predecessor but those advances were met with a collective shrug because mechanical complexity was never the point of the game. And while the systems may be more advanced they’re still relatively simple; in neither game did the systems improvements pass a relevancy threshold.

Other

I once worked on a game that was sent out for a mock review / analysis. It came back with a list of suggested improvements, and when we made all the improvements and resubmitted it the response was “you did everything we wanted but ultimately the game isn’t any better.” Which was disappointing but unsurprising — if mock reviewers knew which specific changes to make to improve a game they’d probably be game designers.

When I first played Earth Defense Force I made fun of how bad the upper body animation was, but better upper body animation wouldn’t make EDF appreciably better. (I’ve since repented and now recognize the majesty of EDF) Earth Defense Force: Insect Armageddon contains the most “objective” improvements in the series but is the red-headed stepchild of the franchise.

Counter-intuitive as it may be it’s possible to undeniably improve an aspect of a game without improving it as a whole.

When Better is Worse — Silent Hill Homecoming

Now onto the most interesting category of changes: on-paper improvements that directly hurt a game.

I covered the Tactics Ogre PSP remake in my blog on incoherent design, but I’ll mention it again to make one point: almost every individual change sounds like the sort of “good design” conventional wisdom you see repeated in medium posts, conference keynotes and youtube videos. Ability points add more long-term goals and another reward / compulsion loop. Redundant death failsafes make the game “more accessible.” Special moves allow for more strategy and variety. The changes in the remake read like a greatest hits of game design wisdom, the sort of pro tips you’d see in a “can’t miss” tweetstorm. But in practice these changes are bad, and together they are multiplicatively bad.

The Main Course

The game I want to talk about in detail here is Silent Hill: Homecoming.

The Silent Hill series was often lumped in with Resident Evil under the umbrella of horror games with clunky controls and rudimentary combat, despite that only the first game uses classic RE style tank controls. The PR for Silent Hill: Homecoming focused heavily on better combat and the game was made by a western developer during the height of the “Japanese games just suck” hysteria that brought us games like Yaiba: Ninja Gaiden Z and Lost Planet 3.

Here’s a wiki description of Homecoming’s combat improvements:

In contrast to the more naïve everyman protagonists of previous games, combat in Homecomingtakes into account Alex’s training as a soldier. The player is able to perform light and heavy attacks, or mix them to perform combinations, and may also perform a variety of finishing moves to ensure that the monsters are dead. Attacking enemies also leaves wounds in them that match the motion carried out by Alex in inflicting the attack.
In terms of controlling Alex, the player may also perform new maneuvers such as targeting the enemy before attacking them, dodging enemy attacks, and performing counter-attacks. As well as melee weapons, pistols, rifles and shotguns are available as firearms, which can be upgraded to stronger versions later in the game: firearm handling is also rendered in a more realistic manner, with Alex having to shoulder long guns and suffering aim effects like recoil.

On paper this certainly sounds like “better combat.” The developers of the game went as far as to claim that previous Silent Hill games had “shitty” combat by comparison. (Side note: as a developer taking over a beloved franchise this is probably not the best way to endear yourself to fans)

Plot twist: Silent Hill: Homecoming is generally regarded as one of the worst games in the series and the combat is a main reason why.

Combat’s Impact on Story

In Homecoming you play as Alex, an army vet, presumably because the developers needed to justify your character’s combat prowess. Silent Hill has often hewed close to Jacob’s Ladder and An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, and by making the protagonist a solder the similarity is even more obvious. Even players unfamiliar with those specific stories are almost certainly familiar with the storytelling twist they employ. While playing Homecoming I fully expected the ending to exist relative to Jacob’s Ladder, either as a variation on or reversal of it, which makes the game feel derivative regardless of how it plays out.

At the end of the game (ps: this blog contains spoilers) it’s revealed that Alex was never an army vet. That Alex was supposedly a veteran adds little to the story and reversing it is twist that lands with a thud, and raises the question Alex as a veteran was supposed to answer: why is Alex so good at combat?

This entire plot line feels like it exists only because someone in a meeting asked “how can we narratively justify the increased combat emphasis?” Done well this would be an example of form and function working together with the story supporting the mechanics. But done poorly, as it’s done in Homecoming, it feels like a cascade failure, with the combat changes negatively affecting even parts of the game that aren’t combat related by adding superfluous and derivative plot elements.

Combat’s Impact on Play

In Homecoming there’s a part where an overwhelming number of bipedal hammerhead sharks storm a building. I fought them and died. Then I continued, fought them again and died again. Over and over.

A voice in the back of my head told me I was supposed to run instead of fight. An NPC tells you as much, though arguably that NPC could be written in character rather than as a cypher for the designers. Wondering if this was just a me problem I found a Let’s Play video on Youtube and the player got stuck at exactly the same place I did, fighting and dying to the sharks over and over. I also found complaints about this exact sequence on forums. So it’s not just a me thing.

That so many people get stuck on the same part might lead one to think that it’s just a case of bad encounter design, something that should have been smoothed out by playtesting. But it’s indicative of a larger problem: that Homecoming has shifted to a game in which the player’s first instinct is to fight.

When I fought Orenstein and Smough in Dark Souls I did it without summoning another player or an NPC. It probably took me 30 tries to beat them but beat them I did. For many players the point of action-oriented games is overcoming challenge — a flood of monsters isn’t something you run from, it’s a test of mettle. If Kratos walks into a room with 30 enemies he doesn’t turn tail and run, he cracks his knuckles.

I have no problem running from enemies in older Silent Hill games because in those games combat is a last resort, something you use when an enemy is between you and the destination. But in Homecoming combat isn’t a last resort. Pre-release PR focused on how combat was fun and expanded. You have cool abilities and finishing moves. When you slash enemies it leaves gashes in the path your knife took — why would they put that in the game if you aren’t supposed to knife enemies a bunch? Combat is a tier-1 system, the system that differentiates Homecoming from previous Silent Hills — presumably you’re supposed to use it. So when the game introduces a combat encounter with many enemies the player doesn’t interpret that as a sign to run. It’s a combat game, you fight.

Emphasis is a way for designers to signal intent. If a game has a simple crafting system a la Resident Evilthe signal is that that’s a tertiary element of the game. If a game has a well-developed crafting system put front and center, a la Minecraft or the various early access Steam survival games, the signal is that crafting is an integral part of the game.

One of the main complaints about Quantum Break was that it was a standard third person cover game with weak TPS mechanics that overshadowed the more unique gameplay elements . The rebuttal to that was “you’re playing it wrong” — you aren’t supposed to hide behind cover, you’re supposed to run and gun while using your powers. But then why does the game have familiar chest-high walls, a formal cover system and regenerating health? The level and system designers sure put a lot of work into things you’re supposed to ignore, things that indicate “stop and pop” rather than “run and gun” gameplay.

Similarly Silent Hill: Homecoming signals that it’s an action-oriented game. Including a set-piece where the player is supposed to run from uneven odds makes no sense in a genre where uneven odds are the norm.

Combat’s Impact on Theme and Horror

In previous Silent Hill games the player is prey — a normal human in way over their heads. In Homecomingyou’re a trained soldier (or are you????) with a fancy combat system at your disposal. When you see an enemy you think “I bet I can kill that thing”, not “I bet that thing can kill me.”

Resident Evil 4 represents a similar shift, but Resident Evil 4 is a great action game that knows what it is. While there are still some horror elements much of it is tongue in cheek — you’re not supposed to be deathly afraid of Wizard of Oz Munchkin reject Salazar. Silent Hill: Homecoming still plays it straight and tries to be horror, seemingly unaware that it’s now in the action-horror genre. The emphasis on action and player capability makes it not scary, but the improved action doesn’t rise to the level of an A-rate action game. The main complaint I see on forums is that the game has too much combat; the increased amount of combat outpaces the increased fun of combat. Part of that is due to combat being more time consuming. Enemies have less simplistic patterns, you have defensive options, and combat becomes a more elaborate dance. Whereas in previous Silent Hills you run up to a dog, bash at it with a pipe and one of you dies. (Or you just run away) It’s not just that the number of combat encounters is too high, it’s that players are encouraged to fight rather than run and that the improved combat systems dictate longer fights. The end result is that the dial is turned away from atmosphere, exploration and themes and towards brawling.

Obligatory Wrap Up

Game design is very fad-driven with many, many people constantly sharing the best way to make games. This conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong, but even when it’s correct in the abstract it’s rarely tailored to individual projects. “A [good] game is a series of interesting decisions” is a nice rule of thumb but doesn’t apply to Guitar Hero or most walking sims. “Juicing” a game via bouncy animation curves, icons that grow and bop around on hover, motion trails, etc, can be fine but would be wholly inappropriate for a game likeDark Souls with its stark gothic aesthetic. Adding “environmental storytelling” to games via audio logs and vaguely menacing graffiti (written in bloooooooodddd so spoooooooooky!) may work well for — eh, let’s be honest, it doesn’t work well for much these days.

In my blog on Dark Souls I wrote the following:

I don’t believe that context-free “good design” is a real thing.
Coherent design is important – how well do design decisions work in the context of other design decisions? Form matching theme is important – how much does the design support the theme and content? I would go as far as to say that form and content are inseparable in gaming – form isn’t just a vehicle to convey content, it is content.

I still very much believe this and find it pertinent here. In Project X Zone 2 the design decision to deepen strategy mechanics doesn’t play well with the decision to lower difficulty such that strategy is irrelevant. InTacoma the story is supposed to be emotionally engaging, but the form it’s presented in is clinically antiseptic, and your story as the player is that of a dispassionate investigator in a CBS police procedural, not of an emotionally-involved participant. In Homecoming the themes and ambience suggest horror and fear but the mechanics suggest action and confrontation. In all of these cases there’s increased mechanical complexity and decision-making. Tacoma presents an entire system of making “interesting decisions” absent from Gone Home and that’s better, right? Gone Home is the novel and Tacoma the far superior Choose Your Own Adventure book. （Source： gamasutra.com  ）