Josh Bycer从难度历史和特征谈如何设计游戏难度

原作者：Josh Bycer 译者：Willow Wu

电子游戏难度设计一直以来都是个意见两极分化的话题——无论你说的是“生——死——重来”的roguelikes游戏还是技能门槛较高的Soulslikes游戏，还是定位为休闲/剧情为主的游戏。无论你对游戏难度的立场如何，有一点是十分明确的：围绕难度的核心设计理念已经发生了变化，如今在思考游戏设计时，认识到这一点很重要。

难度的起源

电子游戏是从街机发展而来的——意识到这一点很关键，因为影响街机游戏设计的是某些特定因素。还有，由于最早期的游戏都是存在于街机环境中的，因此很多年来街机游戏对后代游戏设计的影响还是深远的。影响街机游戏设计的最主要因素就是收益——怎么才能让消费者掏出更多钱？这在街机游戏中一般就表现为增加难度——如果玩家不断地死亡或输掉，他们可能就会掏出更多钱继续挑战。

主机游戏问世后，这种设计也并没有真正地消失。但是开发者们确实找到了其它能够延长游戏生命周期的方法。就比如说额外的复杂性——有时或许还要攻略引导——也就是说玩家或许需要更长时间才能完成游戏。尽管如此，街机风格的理念依然是很明显的——例如《忍者龙剑传》臭名昭著的最后一章，如果玩家在boss战的最后一场失败，他们的进度就全部丢失了，这很让人气恼。

不管这些游戏在难度方面具体采用了什么方法，我希望你已经注意到一个共同的问题：每个系统都会主动惩罚技能水准相对较低或者萌新玩家。如果你看过这些游戏的速通或者是高难度模式演示，你就会发现这些游戏中的障碍对这些玩家丝毫没有影响。当你能够完全驾驭一个游戏时，任何惩罚系统对你来说都是摆设——但它们绝对会影响新手玩家。更糟糕的是，大部分惩罚系统都没有丰富游戏体验的作用，也就是说，他们对特定玩家来说只是徒增负面影响。虽然许多玩家会把挑战难度看作是一种荣誉勋章，但开发者应该避免利用难度系统隐晦地针对新玩家，如今这么设计游戏是行不通的。

MinoMosters-screen-shot

对难度的不同偏好

每个玩家的游戏经历都是不同的，自然也会产生不一样的想法。有些人想要接受试炼，面对一场艰苦的战斗。而有些人只是想要体验下游戏的机制，或者看剧情。鉴于这些不同的动机，还有玩家的经历和技能水准，有越来越多的开发者接受可控式的难度设定。我们在这种背景下讨论难度系统，并不是单单在讲把游戏做得简单些，还有就是如何能在避免不必要挫折感的情况下提升游戏难度。

那么，开发者具体要怎么做？首先，可能也是最为熟知的做法就是提供明确的难度设置。如今很多游戏都有多个难度模式，从毫无挑战性一直到虐得体无完肤。在我看来，这些明确的难度设置仍然是一种补缀式的修复——因为有些开发者将它视为了一种万用法则。通常就是对各种数据进行调整，由此来提高或降低标准。这种方法是可行的，但它并不能帮助开发者去关注游戏本身，去理解游戏的主要痛点在哪里。

难度设定中包含着更多微妙的变化。有些游戏允许玩家调整非常具体的部分。或许你并不是特别擅长潜行，但对格斗十分拿手，那你就可以把潜行部分调整得简单一些，把格斗部分的难度提高。像《最后生还者2》、Way of the Passive Fist这样的游戏就是如此，玩家可以把具体某一部分调到自己想要的难度。这种方法更接近我所说的由玩家控制的难度。我认为，这是提高电子游戏易上手性的必备要素之一。这样做也能帮助开发者了解他们设计的哪一部分可能会让玩家产生挫败感，在之后他们可以继续优化调整。

除了这种个性化的设置之外，还有许多其它的组合方式。就比如《黑帝斯》，游戏有个“上帝模式”，这是专门为新手玩家或者说技能水平较差的玩家所打造的，尽管他们的反应速度、技能都不是很好，但同样也能享受游戏的乐趣、看到后续的剧情。如果你开启了这个模式，你每次死亡都会得到永久性的buff加成。这就确保了你的游戏体验会随着时间的推移变得越来越轻松。

《怪物猎人：世界》也是一个很典型的例子，它使用的是一种比较含蓄的方式来降低游戏的难度，对新玩家更加友好。我在以前的文章中详细分析过，《怪物猎人：世界》十几年来所打出的特色招牌就是晦涩难懂且具有挑战性的玩法。但是在最近的迭代中，开发者们重新设计了初始的上手体验，提供了更简单的组队方式，而且没有牺牲系列粉丝们所期盼的深度和挑战性。当然，如果玩家想要独自上阵也是可以的。但是他们随时都可以选择加入队伍。

让玩家掌控难度，有些开发者会提供非常极端的选项。比如让玩家接触到作弊菜单，让他们随意使用。还有《蔚蓝》可以开启无敌、无限跳，当玩家遇到难过关卡时还有另外一些选项可以调整。如果你想把游戏打完，这就是一种非常保险的做法。

目前为止我已经讨论了好几种降低游戏难度的方法。尽管还有更好/更糟糕的方法，但对于开发者来说，他们所面临的更艰巨的挑战就是在避免增加挫败感的情况下提升挑战性。

渐进式难度

让我们从一个简单但是非常关键的观点说起：学会玩游戏应该是一件容易的事。有一些开发者制作了糟糕的新手教程，或者故意让游戏变得很难，以此来增加挑战性。在我看来这就是一种游戏设计之罪——你的焦点不应该在这。教程和上手本身就是一个涉及面很广的话题。我并不打算在这篇文章中讲更多细节，但你可以看我之前的文章“Video Game Onboarding”。

什么算是优秀的挑战？从根本上来说的话，就是为那些跃跃欲试的人提高风险、增加奖励。还记得我先前说过的不同的玩家有不同的动机吗？有人想要的是噩梦般的挑战。有人想要的是看剧情、享受跟游戏互动的乐趣。我知道无论何时提到这个话题，总会有一些人下意识地反驳说开发者不应该“简化”游戏体验——这意味着任何为了易上手性而做的尝试都会被视为一种妥协或让步。但这是对我所讨论的设计理念的一种误解。用举例来解释一下吧，现在很多开发者都采用了任天堂多年来一直沿用的设计策略：为大家提供一种基准体验，然后为那些想要挑战的人提高难度。

我把这种方法称为渐进式难度。我们如今所看到的roguelikes游戏应用的就是这种方法。这种设计能通过一种更有意思的方式提高游戏难度。玩家可以在不影响其他人的情况下自行定制游戏体验，不管他们的技能水平如何。开发者可以在更具挑战性的模式中提供专属奖励，但也要确保玩普通模式的玩家能看到完整的故事。

为难而难，如今这已经不是游戏的卖点了。如果你尝试寻找的话，你会发现这些硬核玩家是一个非常小的群体。

公平但是艰难

在讨论电子游戏的难度设定时，魂系列（Soulslike）游戏是绝对不能被忽略的。所谓魂系列游戏就是隶属于《黑暗之魂》/《恶魔之魂》/《血源诅咒》家族的游戏——包括From Software那些基于子类创造的作品。它们表明了这种让人想砸手柄的难度还是可以应用在主流游戏中的。但事情并没有就此终结，正如你想象的那样。问题变成了“我怎么才能制作出一个不失趣味的高难度游戏？”很多独立开发者都尝试借鉴《黑暗之魂》或者《空洞骑士》的精髓——或者任何热门的高难度游戏。最终它们大部分的销量跟被借鉴的游戏比起来基本上可以算是九牛一毛，但或许还是能收获一批狂热的粉丝。

就比如说《拉穆拉纳秘宝2》这个游戏。我称之为一个“优秀的烂游戏”。它是近年来最有深度、最具有挑战性的游戏之一。

但游戏在不少方面都存在瑕疵：新手教程、易上手度、即时的游戏体验等等。让玩家彻底迷失方向、在引入谜题时并没有游戏内提示，让玩家摸不着头脑，《拉穆拉纳秘宝》系列就是对这样的特质引以为傲。大多数成功都通关的玩家都需要攻略指引。这个系列没有任何地方是让人感觉到易上手的，试图给它增加主流吸引力往往会遭到粉丝们的抵制。然而《拉穆拉纳秘宝》并不是例外，很多游戏具备优秀的原创玩法，但它们并没有在主流市场获得成功。

不管游戏玩法有多优秀，如果玩家在体验过程中屡屡遭受挫败，这个游戏对他们来说就是一种折磨。很多人都知道“艰难，但是公平”（tough, but fair）这个短语——但是我认为，在游戏设计领域应该是“公平，但是艰难”。在设计玩法时，有太多开发者都把难度当作是一个拐杖在依赖。有时，糟糕的设计决策会以“本来就应该是这样的”这样的解释来搪塞过去——仿佛这样就能神奇地解决挫折感，或者让人接受。

总而言之，一个让人充满挫败感的游戏并不能算是一个好游戏。正如我上面所说的例子所表明的，原本优秀的游戏也会因为依靠制造挫折感而搞砸一手的好牌。现实是，比起设计一个真正平衡的游戏体验，设计令人沮丧的游戏体验是容易得多的。

新的难度模式

最后，让我们来总结一下如今的游戏难度具体是指什么。无论你的目标用户是哪些人，玩家都期盼游戏设计是公平、平衡的。这就意味着你的游戏体验要迎合尽可能广泛的市场——从第一次接触这个类型的新手到专家级别的玩家。

但你要记住，这篇文章探讨的不是游戏玩法本身，而是技能水平。在之前的文章中，提到易上手性的时候我已经说过“有人不喜欢特定类型的游戏”和“有人不喜欢你这个类型版本的游戏”，这二者之间是有很大区别的。

认真分析下游戏的易上手性，促使更多喜欢这类游戏的人会对你的游戏感兴趣，这能够让你项目有更大的机会在市场上获得成功。受益的不仅是玩家，作为开发者，你的技能会得到磨练，理解能力也会提高，能够更精准的确定、解决痛点。如今很多热门畅销的游戏都比之前更加重视友好性、易上手性。

请记住，做一个高难度游戏并没有什么错。但是如果你打算这么做的话，你应该仔细考虑你要采取的方法，不要一刀切式分难度。你可以选择渐进式难度——先是很容易上手的基准体验，然后依据玩家的偏好逐渐提高难度。或者你可以效仿《黑帝斯》的做法，虽然技能门槛较高，但游戏中也有为新手或技能较差的玩家所打造的系统，也就是“上帝模式”，玩家仍会觉得自己在接受考验，但他们能以一种更加轻松的方式享受剧情。

需要指出的是，你可以在不失去吸引力的前提下制作出更友好、更易上手的游戏——特别是如果你想要制作出更具挑战性的体验。迎合新手、技能不那么好的玩家并不会损害你的游戏，不要把这看作是一种妥协。

提到游戏难度设计，其实有这么一种准则：你应该让玩家觉得失败是自己的错，而不是因为游戏的设计。游戏测试是依然是关键的，明确公平和挫败之间的界线能够促使你创造出优秀的游戏——也就是能够基于玩家的意愿让游戏变得更简单或更困难。

本文由游戏邦编译，转载请注明来源，或咨询微信zhengjintiao

Video game difficulty has often been a polarizing topic — whether we’re talking about the “live, die, repeat” cycle of roguelikes, the higher than normal skill floor of Soulslikes, or the idea of a game possessing a casual or “story” difficulty level. Regardless of your stance on video game difficulty, one thing is clear: the core design philosophy around difficulty has changed, and it’s important to recognize this when thinking about game design today.

Origins of difficulty

Video games were born from the arcades. This is important to recognize, because there are particular drivers that guide the direction of arcade game design. Also, because most early games existed in an arcade context, game design itself was highly influenced by arcade games for many years. One of the drivers that most impacted arcade game design was the need to get the maximum dollar value out of each consumer. The way this articulated in arcade games was generally in the form of increased difficulty — if the player continually died or lost, they might be motivated to spend more money to keep playing.

When console games arrived, this formula didn’t actually disappear. But developers did find other ways to extend the life of some video games. For example, extra complexity — which may sometimes require a strategy guide — meant that it could take longer for a player to complete the game. Nevertheless, arcade-style concepts remained prominent (for example, Ninja Gaiden’s infamous final chapter was frustrating because the player’s progress was lost each time they died during the final set of bosses).

Regardless of the specific approach taken around difficulty, there’s one common theme that I hope you’ve picked up on here: each system actively punishes new and lesser-skilled players in particular. If you watch speed runs or master level play of these games, you’ll notice that the players aren’t bothered by any of these barriers at all. When you’re good enough at a game, no punishment system is going to impact you at all — but these systems will definitely affect new players. What’s worse is that many of these punishment systems don’t actually add anything to the game experience; that is to say, they only have a negative effect on certain players. And while many gamers will treat difficulty as a badge of honor, developers should avoid implicitly targeting new players with difficult systems — that’s not how you want to design your game today.

Different flavors of difficulty

Players do experience games differently, and therefore have different thoughts about that experience. Some people want to be tested and face a substantial uphill struggle. Others just want to experience the game mechanics or experience the story. Given these differences in motivation — and player experience and skill level — we’ve seen developers increasingly embrace more controlled forms of difficulty. When we discuss difficulty in this context, we aren’t just talking about making the game easier — we’re also referring to ways of making it harder without adding needless frustration.

How do developers approach this? The first and arguably most well known way is through explicit difficulty settings. Many games are now designed around multiple difficulties that vary between almost no challenge to deeply punishing. In my opinion, these explicit difficulty settings are still something of a band-aid fix — that’s because they involve developers applying settings as blanket rules across the board. What typically happens here is that various stats are tweaked to raise or lower the bar. This approach can work, but it doesn’t lend itself to the developer casting a critical eye at the game itself to understand where the major pain points are.

There are more nuanced variations on this idea of difficulty settings. Some games allow the player to fine tune very specific parts of the experience from a difficultly perspective. So, maybe you aren’t the best at stealth but you’re great at combat — you could make the stealth sections easier and increase the difficulty of the combat. Games like The Last of Us Part II and Way of the Passive Fist allow players to adjust specific components to their preferred level of challenge. This approach is closer to what I’d call player-controlled difficulty. And I’d argue it’s an essential ingredient in terms of improving the approachability of video games. It’s also useful because it helps developers understand — in more specific terms — which parts of their design might be frustrating for players. These can then be refined and adjusted going forward.

There are many other permutations that go beyond these individualized settings. Hades, for example, has a “god mode” that is specifically aimed at newer or lesser-skilled players who want to enjoy the game and see the story without being so heavily reliant on twitch-based skills. If you turn this mode on, you’ll receive a permanent buff every time you die. This guarantees that the experience will become progressively easier over time.

Monster Hunter World is a good example of a game that has implicit ways of making the game easier and more accommodating for new players. As I’ve detailed in the past, Monster Hunter is a series that defined itself by opaque and challenging gameplay for more than a decade. With the most recent iteration, however, the developers completely redesigned the onboarding experience — providing much easier ways to set up groups without sacrificing the depth and challenge fans have come to expect from the series. Players certainly can try to tackle every fight solo if they want. But the option to go in with a group is always there.

Of course, some developers implement the nuclear option when it comes to player-controlled difficulty. This involves giving players access to a cheats menu of sorts that they can use at their whim. Celeste famously allowed players to activate invincibility, infinite jumping, and other modifiers if they got stuck on any challenging section. If you want to guarantee game completion, this is a surefire way of doing so.

So far I have discussed various ways of making a game easier. And although there are better and worse ways of doing that, the greater challenge for developers is arguably the idea of increasing challenge without increasing frustration.

Progressive difficulty

Let’s start with a simple but vital point: learning a game should not be difficult. There are still developers out there creating bad tutorials, or purposely allowing the game to be difficult to figure out as a way of driving challenge. That is a game design sin in my book, and it’s not where you want to focus on challenge. As always, tutorials and onboarding are massive topics in and of themselves. I won’t cover them in more detail here, but you can read a dedicated piece on the topic right here.

What is good challenge? Fundamentally, it’s about raising the stakes and rewards for those who want it. Remember my earlier comments about the different motivations of different players. Some people are out looking for a tough-as-nails challenge. Others are looking for story or the pleasure of interacting with the game’s mechanics. I am conscious that whenever this topic comes up, there are always some people whose knee-jerk reaction will be to claim that developers shouldn’t “dumb down” the experience — the implication being that any attempt to cater for approachability represents a compromise or concession. But that is a misunderstanding of the design philosophy I’m discussing here. To explain by way of example, many developers now are adopting an approach that Nintendo has followed for many years now: provide a baseline experience for everyone, and then ratchet up the difficulty for those who want it.

I would classify this approach as progressive difficulty. It’s an idea that we’re seeing adopted by modern roguelikes, for example. It’s a design that allows the player to adjust the game to make it tougher in interesting ways. Players — regardless of their actual skill level — can tailor the experience to their play style without affecting anyone else. There can be unique rewards and bonuses for playing the game with these greater challenges in place, but it should also be possible to see the story through on the baseline setting.

Difficulty for the sake of difficulty isn’t the selling point it was a few years ago. Developers who chase these hardcore fans are going to find a dedicated — though very small — group of potential customers.

Fair but tough

It’s not possible to discuss difficulty in video games and ignore the Soulslike genre — that is, the games that belong to the Dark Souls/Demon’s Souls/Bloodborne family (including games that are based on the sub-genre that From Software created). What these games demonstrate is that controller-throwing difficulty can still be applied to major hits. But that’s not the end of the story, as you might imagine. The question then becomes “How do I make a hard game that’s still fun?” I’ve played many games from indie developers who are all trying to capture the magic of Dark Souls or Hollow Knight — or really any highly popular and challenging game. Most of these games end up selling a fraction of their progenitor, though they might still build up a ravenous and dedicated fan base.

One of these games is La Mulana 2. I’d call it a “good-bad” game. It’s one of the deepest and most challenging Metroidvania titles around.

But it also fails on several fronts: from onboarding, to approachability…to the moment-to-moment gameplay experience. It’s a series that prides itself on getting the player completely lost and introducing puzzles with no in-game explanation of what the solution could be. Most successful players will need to reach for a strategy guide to make it through. Nothing about this series could be considered accessible — attempts to try to give it more mainstream appeal tend to be met with backlash from fans. La Mulana isn’t the exception, though. Plenty of games never achieved mainstream success despite featuring some original and great gameplay.

No matter how great the gameplay is, the entire experience suffers if it’s buffered by constant frustration. Most people know the phrase “tough, but fair” — I’d argue that in a game design context it should be, “fair, but tough”. Too many developers lean on difficulty as a crutch when it comes to gameplay. Oftentimes poor design decisions are hand-waved away with the explanation that “it’s supposed to be like this” — as if this magically fixes the frustration, or makes it acceptable.

Ultimately, a frustrating game isn’t a good game. And as the above example demonstrates, otherwise great games can shoot themselves in the foot by leaning into the frustration. The thing is, designing a frustrating experience is easier than designing a truly balanced game.

New difficulty

Let’s wrap up by recapping what difficulty means today. Players expect a fair and balanced design regardless of the intended audience. That means providing an experience that caters to the widest possible market — from someone who is a beginner to the genre all the way through to experts.

Remember though that this discussion isn’t about gameplay itself, it’s about skill levels. In the past, when referencing approachability, I’ve said there’s a vast difference between someone not liking a specific genre versus someone not liking your version of a genre.

Taking a closer look at approachability and making your game appealing to a wide range of fans of that genre ultimately gives your project a greater chance of success in the market. The benefit isn’t just for players, though: as a developer, you’ll improve your own skills and understanding when it comes to identifying and troubleshooting pain points. Many of the most popular and highest-selling games released today have placed a greater emphasis on approachability and accessibility than ever before.

Remember, there’s nothing inherently wrong with making a difficult or challenging game. But if you’re going to do that, you should carefully consider the approach you’re going to take, and avoid simply tweaking global stats at different difficulty levels. You could go for progressive difficulty (where you build a broadly-approachable baseline and then progressively add further difficulty based on the player’s preferences). Or you could follow the Hades example, which contains a higher baseline skill floor but which also contains systems that deliberately cater for new or less skilled players (e.g. the “God Mode”, which enables players to still feel tested but which provides an easier pathway to enjoy the story).

It’s important to point out that you can make a more accessible and approachable game without losing its bite — especially if you’re looking to make a more challenging experience. Catering for accessibility and approachability need not be seen as something that will compromise your game.

When it comes to difficulty in general, the mantra is that players should always feel like it’s their fault when they’ve lost — not that it’s happened due to the game’s design. As always, play testing is key; identifying the line between fair and frustration can lead to great games that can be as easy or hard as the player wants them to be.

(source: gameworldobserver )