游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

从匹配用户的行为状态谈游戏的设计模式

发布时间:2018-05-04 09:25:54 Tags:,

从匹配用户的行为状态谈游戏的设计模式

原作者:Isaac Shalev 译者:Willow Wu

每个游戏都应该以这样或那样的方式来测试玩家的技能,这样你才有出发点,不会做出无意义的决策。游戏中经常考验的技能包括预估可能性、计算区间值、转换游戏中的货币(比如金钱、商品和胜利点数)以及在各种不同的场景中运用空间推理。

我感觉如今的设计模式有些不同以往了,有些游戏是围绕着另一个领域的知识而设计。讲一下题外话:有种模型被称为ASK模型,意在尝试改变一个人的工作行为,它的核心思维是行为可以被态度(Attitude)、技能(Skill)以及知识(Knowledge)所控制。要改变人的行为,你至少要针对其中的一个方面进行改造,但通常是三个方面都要抓。我提到这个是想更清楚地表达技能和知识的不同。有一种说法是技能是准确执行任务的能力,而知识告诉你是哪个任务是应该去执行的,但我认为这样会变得太过依赖于知识,把知识当策略使,而不是信息素材,我聚焦的是后者。

Minercraft pocket edition(from paulor.net)

Minercraft pocket edition(from paulor.net)

在很多游戏中,知识只占了少部分。游戏中大概会有卡片、特殊事件这些受欢迎的元素,从本质上来说,玩家所需具备知识就是游戏规则。如果你懂规则的话,那就能顺利玩起来了,接下来就是看谁玩得最好。然而,还有很多游戏的设计理念是游戏之外的知识可以帮助你赢得胜利。

知识问答类游戏就是完全依照这种模式设计的,就比如Timeline和Trivial Pursuit。还有更巧妙的游戏比如说Codenames、Taboo和Dixit,它们要求玩家对游戏中没有的东西进行联想。虽说在不学习、不拓展知识面的情况下你很难提高纯知识问答类游戏的技能,但是联想类游戏不一样,随着玩家之间建立越来越多的共同联想和通用语言,玩家的进步空间会变得更大。

Scrabble还有其它拼字游戏也采用了这种设计模式。词汇量大的玩家能在Wordsy and Boggle中获得高分,熟悉字母频率的玩家能在Paperback中玩得得心应手。

有些历史类游戏和IP游戏也采取了这种侧重于考验知识储备的设计模式,比如说,1960:The Making of the President,不熟悉南方战略的玩家可能会高估肯尼迪在南方的势力,按照自己的意愿分配资源,但是游戏本身是倾向于复制历史,因此这类玩家可能会玩的比较辛苦。类似地,如果玩家了解《沙丘》的故事,那么他们在一开始就能有效地利用派系和权力。

这种设计模式对游戏团队来说是一个非常艰巨的挑战。玩家可能会因为游戏过于依赖知识储备而感到失望。玩家一般不会排斥游戏本身的挑战性,他们可以接受不同的技术水平会对游戏的结局产生不一样的影响,但涉及到单纯的知识面差距就会打击玩游戏的欲望了。

也许这就能在一定程度上解释为什么教育类、历史类游戏很难成为受玩家欢迎的好游戏,它们的设计难度太大了。如果你已经确切知道了怎么做才能赢,那么从设计的角度上来说,这游戏其实是有问题的。因为它只是跟玩家解释了为什么“这个”策略可以赢,却没有给玩家探索策略或比拼技能的机会。历史战争类游戏,还有其它以战争为主题的游戏就会经常遇到这样的问题。模拟类游戏通常都会把注意力放在那些势均力敌的战斗上,这样他们会有更多精力提高游戏的拟真度,游戏的竞争机制也不会让玩家觉得无趣。战争类游戏的自由度会更高一点,举个例子:在Memoir ’44中,军队计划要从诺曼底向柏林出发,但在军队的部署上玩家还是有一定的自由。

除此之外,设计师们在设计IP类游戏时也要格外注意。对于那些熟悉原著的铁杆粉丝来说,如果原著中应用的策略在游戏中得不到成效,或者是关键角色没有突出特点/能力一般,那么这个游戏不会得到他们的好评。从另一方面来说,也就是那些不怎么熟悉原著的玩家,如果原著中那些费解的策略在他们看很牵强,然而它们却在游戏中变得很有效,那么这些玩家就会觉得设计师偷懒,游戏让人失望。最好的做法是把IP游戏打造成一个相当完整、逼真的世界,而不是一板一眼照着原著做游戏。

我认为,我们可以从像Candyland这样的游戏中学习到很重要的东西,因为这些游戏教会了我核心玩法的重要性,以及如何通过核心玩法来将玩家带入游戏文化中。最终,我们不能做出一款让玩家处处受限的游戏。游戏也是我们文化的组成部分,这是我们应该承认的,也是设计时应该多加注意的。

本文由游戏邦编译,转载请注明来源,或咨询微信zhengjintiao

Every game should tests players’ skills in one way or another, or else it doesn’t have meaningful decisions baked into it. Skills that are common to many games include being able to gauge probabilities and calculate expected values, to be able to convert in-game currencies like money, goods and victory points, and to be able to use spatial reasoning in a variety of settings.

All of this feels somehow different to me from today’s design pattern, which is the idea that the game is actually built on knowledge from a different domain. A brief digression. One model for trying to change a person’s behavior at their job is the ASK model: behavior is controlled by Attitude, Skills, and Knowledge. To change how people act, you need to move the needle on at least one, and often all three of these things. I bring this up to sharpen the distinction between skills and knowledge. One way to think of it is that skill is the ability to accurately execute that task which knowledge told you is the right one to execute, but I think that approach focuses too much on knowledge as strategy, rather than knowledge as information, and it’s really the latter that I’m focused on.

In many games there isn’t much role for knowledge. There may be some cards, or special events that are good to know, but in essence, knowledge is the rules. If you know the rules, you can play. The question now is who can operate the machinery best, who is most skilled at driving the game engine. Yet, there are a number of games that insist that knowledge from outside the game will help you win the game.

The entire genre of trivia games is born out of this design pattern. Games like Timeline and Trivial pursuit fall squarely in this category. More subtly, games like Codenames, Taboo and Dixit, which call upon players to make associations to things not in the game, also feature this design pattern. While straight trivia games are difficult to improve at without actually studying and learning more facts, association games tend to offer more room for improvement as players construct more shared associations and common languages.

Scrabble and other language games are another place to find this design pattern. Having a rich vocabulary will help you score well in Wordsy and Boggle, and knowing about letter frequencies helps in Paperback.

The design pattern of privileging outside knowledge within a game can also be found in historical games or games based on other intellectual property. For example, in 1960: The Making of the President, players who are unaware of the Southern Strategy may overestimate Kennedy’s ability to carry southern states, and may allocate resources poorly relative to the game’s preference for historically plausible outcomes that more closely model the actual election. Similarly, knowing the story of Dune will lead players to use their factions and their powers more effectively from the outset.

Using this design patterns presents significant challenges for a designer. Lean on it too much outside of the trivia genre and players may be dismayed that outside knowledge has too great an influence on the game. Players like to believe that games present a roughly even challenge, and while varying skill levels are considered acceptable variables to impact on the outcome, differences in knowledge are simply not as welcome.

Maybe this is part of why educational and historical games are so hard to design as good games. When a game lesson is actually a dominant strategy, the game is, from a design perspective, broken. It is simply a demonstration of why one particular strategy is effective, rather than an exploration of strategies or a contest of skills. Historical war game and war-themed games have to face this challenge constantly. Simluation-based games tend to focus on battles that were seen as very close affairs so that they can focus on realism without losing the competitive balance required for enjoyable gameplay. War-themed games have a bit more leeway. Memoir ’44, for example, presents a balanced set of scenarios representing the drive from Normandy to Berlin, and takes some liberty with troop dispositions and positioning.

Another area where designers have to be especially mindful of the information players bring to the game is when designing license and IP games. For players who are deeply familiar with the source material, the game will not be satisfying if strategies employed in the source are ineffective in the game, or if key characters are presented in an undifferentiated or not especially powerful way. On the other hand, for players who are less familiar with the source, it can be quite frustrating if obscure strategies from the source are effective despite seeming weak or far-fetched. At their best, IP-based games feel like alternate realities, not a replay of the original narrative.

Stretched to its utmost, one could argue that this design pattern is present in every design. The background information about what a game is, how to take turns, and the social conventions surrounding a game could all ostensibly qualify here – and I’m not going to draw a hard line either. To my mind, games like Candyland are critical parts of our game curriculum because they teach those aspects of core gameplay and initiate players into gaming culture. In the end, we can’t make games that are fully bounded by their own four corners. Games are part of our culture, and that’s something to acknowledge and design with more intentionally.(source: kind fortress


上一篇:

下一篇: