知名开发公司设计师谈多人游戏的四种合作模式

原作者：Thierry Lauret 译者：Willow Wu

Thierry Lauret是育碧魁北克公司的关卡设计师。

游戏设计一直都是一份高难度系数的工作。在机制和/或关卡设计方面，知道玩家想要什么，玩家要做什么以及玩家能够做什么是一件非常考验人的事。再想象一下如果你考虑的不只是一个玩家呢？两个、三个甚至更多？

几年前，我对多人合作游戏有做过研究，找到了两篇非常值得一读的文章：

1.《多人合作游戏设计的五个问题以及尝试性解决方案》[5 problems with co-op game design (and possible solutions)]，作者Tanya Short

2.《对合作游戏玩家进行分类讨论》（Different player types for coop games），作者Asher Einhorn

Tanya Short和Asher Einhorn聚焦的是玩家，而我决定从设计角度切入。或许我们不能改变人与人之间的互动方式，但我们也许可以用游戏来改变玩家的行为。

我把玩家的合作行为简化分成了四类，分别代表了合作游戏中的一种特定玩法。

注意，本文只关注PvE游戏。

1.The Gate

示例：《细胞分裂6：黑名单》（Splinter Cell Blacklist）

在《细胞分裂6：黑名单》的合作模式中，Sam Fisher和Isaac Briggs要一同协作完成他们的共同目标：保护寡妇和孤儿。但是，战场上会出现一个特工进行清场工作，而另一个特工从一开始就在旁边待命的情况。

在Gate合作设计中，除非有要求两个人都达到某个条件，否则一方不能继续的情况，不然玩家是可以选择各自行动的。这种设计是很经典的，游戏依靠的是团队的良好沟通，知道谁要在什么时候干什么。即使是这样，玩家在绝大多数时间还是可以按自己的方式单干。所以游戏好不好玩这个问题在很大程度上是取决于玩家的，有的人会玩出很多花样，有的人只会觉得乏味。

如何识别这类游戏：如果一个玩家就能够替整个团队完成任务，但是到某一时刻所有人必须达到游戏所要求的状态才能继续游戏（比如在某个地方集合、要按“A”键准备，等等），那这就是Gate合作设计。

The Comfort

示例: 《求生之路》（Left for Dead）

在这个类型的游戏中，玩家组成了一个团队，但理论来上说一个技术高超的玩家还是可以代替团队完成任务。

这就是最广泛应用的的合作游戏设计——系统给出一个非常难的挑战任务，要多人合作才能攻克。MMO游戏中的团队副本一般都是为有准备充分的活跃团队设计的，但是总有玩家能够一个人破五关斩六将。这种情况很罕见，但并不是不可能。这种设计的关键点在于难度平衡的把握，在攻克挑战时要给予玩家充分的合作自由。

《求生之路》在这方面就非常值得借鉴，游戏内置人工智能导演系统（AI Director）会根据用户的玩法风格调整难度。合作不是强制的，团队成员交流也不是强制的，玩家只需要跟着领队的alpha就好了。

如何识别这类游戏：选出对那个最困扰玩家的挑战，然后剔除掉。这其中可能包括限时挑战、全面防御、一击致命。如果玩家单枪匹马就能拿下你设计的挑战，那么你的游戏应该就是Comfort合作游戏了。

The Class

示例: 《没人会被炸掉》（Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes）

在这个游戏中专家们要使用手册来协助拆弹者阻止爆炸的发生。他们必须通过交流来破解谜题。拆弹者和专家各有不一样的任务，在其中一方完成之前都不能交换工作。

在Class合作设计中，每个玩家都有单独的任务安排，可能是考验技巧或是解决环境问题又或者是克服障碍。要实现成功，每个玩家都要完成自己的任务。在多数情况下，交流是很关键的，尤其是各方处于不一样的环境中。在《雷曼：传奇》中，两个玩家一下就能明白对方的需求，及时采取行动。

如何识别这类游戏：要识别Class合作游戏有点复杂。并不是说你有一个战士，有一个游骑兵，有一个巫师就意味着你的游戏是Class合作游戏。角色的能力必须与关卡设计中的挑战相匹配：比如，只有盗贼才能来这个关卡，打开那扇门；玩家们要穿过熔岩地面时，战士可以背起巫师跳跃，而巫师则负责治愈。

The Job

示例: 《传送门2》（portal 2）

我们经常会把Class和Job这两种设计混淆是因为它们都是利用了角色的能力专长。我的意思是如果一个骑士有那么厚的血量和那么高的防御能力，他应该就是肉盾，对吧？确实如此，然而这并不是因为骑士就是肉盾的专属角色，只是刚好对上了属性以及专长。

Portal_2_Tractor_Beam(from gamedev)

说到Job合作设计模式时，我认为角色专长是能为游戏增色的，但绝对不是必要的。在《传送门2》中，机器人Atlas和P-body的技能是完全一样的。这样玩家就可以根据自己的技术水平和偏好去选择谁、做什么。拥有同样的能力并不是这类游戏的鉴别要素，而是玩家互相帮助的这种必要需求。为了完成这个关卡，一个机器人必须为另一个创造道路。没有谁可以依靠自己的能力达到下一扇门。

交流至关重要。玩家必须灵活执行计划，也许是因为其中一人在某个特定挑战中比较得心应手，或者知道某个谜题的解决方法。

你要确保玩家必须相互合作才能继续游戏。这通常就意味着如果其中一个玩家被限制住了，无法前进，那么就要由另一个玩家来解除困境。风险在于这种关卡设计可能会让玩家觉得合作起来没什么意思。因此，你必须确保玩家可以随时交换位置。当某个玩家无法执行任务时，这样做能唤起同理心，促使两个玩家合作更加顺利。让一个玩家去帮助另一个玩家总是会有收获的。在《传送门2》里，这样做能让整个团队受益。

如何识别这类游戏：可以说，如果你的游戏不符合其它三个设计模式的话，那应该就是Job合作游戏了。玩家应该能随时交换任务，帮对方解决难题，一同前进。所以设计师应该记住两件重要的事：

1.玩家所具备的基础技能应该足以应付各种任务。

2.一个玩家无法在同一时间完成所有任务。

让我们套用一个简单的场景来解释这些设计模式，任务是玩家们要把坏掉的车搬进车库：

·Gate：车库的门需要两个玩家合力才能抬起来，之后他们还需要一起把车推进去。

·Comfort：光凭一个玩家就能打开车库，把汽车推进去。

·Class：车库门只能由开锁匠打开，汽车只能由专业驾驶员导入车库。

·Job：一个玩家控制车库门，不让它关闭，另一个玩家推车进去。

总结

为什么这很重要？理解这些分类能够帮助你在设计中找到焦点，更容易地找到目标用户。

但这并不是万能公式，你不必只选择一个设计模式，大多数游戏都是混合了上述的四种模式。在某个阶段，某个合作模式会成为游戏体验的核心，而其它模式则成为辅助。

比如说，桌游Zombicide，根据玩家所处的关卡不同，游戏会在comfort、class和gate三者之间切换。这是我最喜欢的合作游戏之一，因为游戏过程是在层层递进的。每个关卡都具有独创性，建立在坚固的游戏基石之上。在某个地图中，玩家们必须分为两组去打开不同的门，然后消灭房间里的所有僵尸，最后大家要在出口集合一起离开。

在同一个游戏中，甚至是同一关卡中你可以将四种合作模式混合在一起，当然前提是懂得如何使用。我坚信游戏体验越专注就越有趣，开发者们也会得到更多收获。

本文由游戏邦编译，转载请注明来源，或咨询微信zhengjintiao

Thierry Lauret is a level designer chez Ubisoft Quebec

Designing a game is always hard. Knowing what the player wants, what the player does and what the player is able to do is always a challenge, in terms of mechanics and/or level design. So imagine when you have to take into account not one but two, three or more players!

A few years ago, I did some research on coop games and I found two articles that were really inspiring:

5 problems with co-op game design (and possible solutions) from Tanya Short
Different player types for coop games by Asher Einhorn

While Tanya Short and Asher Einhorn focused on the player, I decided to investigate the design of the games. After all, if we cannot change the way humans interact with each other, maybe we will have to use the game to modify a player’s behavior.

I did this by reducing the co-op behavior to its simplest expression, splitting it apart into four different atoms, each one representing one specific way to play in a coop game.

This article only concerns a Players Versus Environment-type of game.

THE GATE

Example: Splinter Cell Blacklist

In the co-op campaign of Splinter Cell Blacklist, Sam Fisher and Isaac Briggs are working together to complete their objectives of protecting widows and orphans. However, in the field, one agent can clear the zone while the other waits at the beginning of the mission.

In a Gate co-op design, the players don’t have to collaborate with each other until a gate blocks both of them. It’s a pretty classic design. It relies on good communication with the team to know who is going to do what and when. Even so, players can still go their own ways, with minimal interaction. The burden to make the experience fun is on the players, making the experience either awesome or bland.

How to identify this type: If one player can complete the challenge for the other team members but is blocked until everyone is ready to continue (moving to a specific location, pressing the “A” button, etc…), you have a Gate co-op design.

THE COMFORT

Example: Left for Dead

In this type of game, even though the players are a team, one super player can theoretically do the job.

This is the most used co-op design: it relies on having a challenge mechanic so incredibly hard that having more than one player is a necessity. Raids in MMOs are most of the time designed for a well-prepared team, but there are always players that find a way to solo them. Obviously, that’s rare, but it is possible. To work, this kind of design needs to be associated with a good difficulty balance, allowing the players the freedom to collaborate as they want to complete the challenge.

Left for Dead is particularly brilliant in its design, having a director feature that dynamically adapts to the difficulty of the players’ style. Still, co-operation is not mandatory. Communication is not mandatory either. Players just have to follow the alpha.

How to identify this type: You have to select the main challenge mechanics of your players and remove it. Those mechanics can be timed challenge, invulnerability or a homing one shot kill. If a single player can finish your challenge, you’re probably designing a Comfort co-op experience.

THE CLASS

Example: Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes

In this game, a defuser is alone with a bomb while the expert has the manual to crack the bomb. To defuse the bomb, the team needs to communicate about the puzzle they are facing. The defuser and the expert each have a unique task to do and they cannot switch until the party ends.

In a Class co-op design, each player has a unique setup whether that be skills, environment or handicap. To succeed, each player needs to complete their task. Most of the time, communication is essential, especially when they don’t share the same environment. In a game like Rayman Legends, the two players can easily see each other’s needs and promptly interact with the level in order to progress.

How to identify this type: It can be tricky to identify if you’re designing a Class co-op game. It’s not because you have a warrior, a ranger and a wizard (yes, I’m looking at you, Gauntlet) that means the game is Class co-op. The mechanics in your abilities must match the challenge in the level design: Only the thief can reach this level to open the door? You have it. The wizard can heal and jump on the back of the warrior while they cross a lava floor? Now we’re talking.

THE JOB

Example: Portal 2

Most of the time, we mistake Class and Job because of their specializations. I mean, if a paladin has so much HP and so much armor, it should tank, right? Yes indeed. However, it’s not because the paladin is the class for that. It just happens that it is its specialization.

When I talk about a Job co-op design, specialization is nice-to-have but it’s far from mandatory. In Portal 2, the robots Atlas and P-body have the exact same skill sets. That allows the players to choose who is going to do what, depending on their own skills or on their preferences. Having the same abilities don’t define this genre. It’s the need for the player to unlock each other. To be able to complete the level, a robot needs to create a path for the other and vice-versa. No one can reach the next door by themselves.

Communication is essential in this design. Players must be able to change their plan, maybe because they had better skills in a specific challenge (timed platforms for example) or they saw a puzzle they know they can solve.

You need to make sure that the players have to help each other. That often means that a gate will block one player only to be unlocked by the other player. The danger here is to design levels in silos, making the collaboration dull. To correct that, you have to make sure that the players can trade places at any time. This will improve empathy when a player is not able to perform a task. Empowering one player to help another is always rewarding. In this case, it’s also helpful for the entire team.

How to detect this type: Basically, if you’re not designing one of the other atoms, you’re in a Job co-op design. The players must be able to switch their tasks anytime to unlock their progression. That means 2 fundamental things:

Players’ basic abilities is enough to complete any task.
One player cannot complete all the tasks at the same time.

Designing for the 4 Atoms

Let’s take a simple situation and adapt the design for each atom: The players have to bring a broken car into a closed garage.

Designing for the Gate: The garage door only opens if 2 players lift the door. Once done, they have to push the car together.
Designing for the Comfort: The garage door can be opened by one player and the car can be pushed by one player.
Designing for the Class: The garage door can only be opened by a locksmith and the car can only be driven by a pilot.
Designing for the Job: The garage door will close if a player doesn’t keep it open and any player can push the car.

In conclusion

Why is this important? Knowing theses categories will help to bring focus on a design and to target your audience more easily.

It’s not a magic formula though. You don’t have to choose one category and stick with it. Most of games do a mix between these categories. There’s always an atom that is core to the experience at some point but the other ones are often revolving around it.

For instance, Zombicide, a board game, switches between comfort, role and gate, depending on the level you’re playing. And it’s one of my favorite co-op games because it’s evolving. Each level has its own specificity, always based on a solid ground. You can play a map where you must separate in two groups at first to open different doors, then kill every zombies in a room, to end by getting everyone to the exit.

Within the same game, even in the same level, you can design a four atoms experience, as long as you understand how to use it. I truly believe the more focus your experience is, the more fun and rewarding your game will be.（source:gamasutra.com ）