作者：Mike Birkhead

为全新游戏设计新战斗系统或任何新系统都是件令人畏惧的事情，尤其是当你需要面对的是完全空白的页面之时。对于我这样一个研究员来说，从零开始确实非常艰难。我很羡慕那些可以从新开始构建奇幻世界的设计师。出于保险的想法，我列出了些许有关游戏设计的要点清单。制作这些清单的目标在于帮助我飞速开展创意性设计。我制成的首个清单是“玩家满意度的五个层面”。最早，我习惯于设计新式武器。然而，经过更深层次的分析后，我发现这个清单并不仅仅适用于武器设计，它实际上也可以反映任何系统对玩家的吸引力。

当设计师使用某种机制时，玩家从中得到的满足感来自于五个层面：执行、感觉、掌控、目标和有意义的选择。

执行

无论你的机制有多么有趣、多么富有创意或多么平衡，如果这项机制无法发挥任何作用，那么就没人会喜欢它。这不单单是程序员的责任，设计师也应该顾及这一点。设计师必须时常考虑他的想法所需要的工作量。你必须确保自己的想法不会导致最终发布出的是带有半成品机制的游戏。

当事情发展方向错误或未按时间计划发展，所有人都会埋怨别人。但是，设计师必须承当起执行失败的责任。必须时刻谨记你的系统需要各个部门付出的工作量，因为如果在游戏发布之时出错，那完全是因为设计师考虑不周。

感觉

机制给人的感觉就是你首次使用这项机制时的反应。这包括玩家首次用散弹枪开火的音效或游戏中人们首次被闪电击中时的尖叫和战战兢兢。游戏机制的视觉效果和听觉效果如何？敌人对此有何反应？机制使用起来的困难程度如何？按键是否正确？机制给人的感觉很难说得清楚，但也是相当重要的层面。如果机制的感觉不好，那么你就不能再继续使用下去。

如果你是个像我一样的分析型设计师的话，那么可能会很难将注意力集中在事物的感觉上。机制的感觉与“科学”并没有多大联系，更多地取决于你的直觉。那些曾经跟我合作过的很棒的设计师对这个层面特别有激情。在开发《战神》时，我看到有个设计师只用Kratos和单个Hoplite来模拟小型打斗。接下来，他花了数个小时的时间，以各种各样的方法来与敌人交战。他将Hoplite抛到空中然后死命按动闪电攻击键，他感觉怪物在落地之前只被点击两次是个不甚完美的设计，随后他便会调整下落时间。这种改变不基于任何数据或量化因素，仅仅是由于感觉不对。

战神(from gx.com)

《战神》敌人中设计最微妙的部分在于小游戏按键的停留时间。按键如何或何时显示以及在多长时间内保持有效，精确设定这个时间是个很有技巧性的工作。从中也体现出机制的“科学”和“感觉”方面的不同。从科学上来说，按键窗口显示15帧时间产生的难度最为恰当。只是通过测试无数已经制作出来的小游戏而得出的量化结果。现在说说这款游戏的不同之处。有个设计师完成某个敌人后，让我尝试下其中的小游戏。我玩了数次之后，觉得有点太难了。他指出，问题在于按键出现时怪物上正显示某些很酷的东西，因而玩家的眼睛会被吸引到怪物身上。为解决这个问题，设计师在按键窗口中添加了1帧的时间，然后将按键显示时间往后调数帧，感觉立马就不同了。虽然科学数据告诉你应该采用某种方法，机制的感觉却需要你对此做出改变。

掌控

有些机制很难掌控，比如在FPS（游戏邦注：即第一人称射击游戏）中用火箭追踪你的目标，也有些机制比较容易掌控。当你有效地使用某项机制时，掌控与兴奋感息息相关。机制越难掌控，你获得的满足感会越强。游戏中有挑战总是好的，但必须确保机制掌控不会难到让玩家因挫败感而放弃游戏（游戏邦注：核心机制更要注意这一点），当然也不能让机制过于简单，使玩家毫无满足感。想象下，如果狙击步枪会自动瞄准敌人的头部，那么这种机制会让满足感消失殆尽。

掌控的行为并非呈线性发展。你刚开始学习某项机制时会觉得很困难，但是你进步得也很快。随着时间推移，你利用机制的技术变得更为娴熟，但是你的进步就开始放慢下来了。Daniel Pink在他所著的书籍《Drive》中对掌控有很细致的描述。他写道：掌控是条渐近线。你可以无限接近它，但无法触及。玩家不可能完全理解掌控。真正的乐趣在于追求掌控的过程，而不是完全掌握。最终，正是掌控的神秘性导致其产生很大的吸引力。

掌控是条渐近线(from flarkminator)

你可以在大量成功的游戏中看到上述描述的准确性，但我认为最佳的例子是《魔兽世界》。在这款游戏中，你会不断掌控新事物，而且这些新事物以不会让玩家感到超负荷的频率呈现给玩家。在游戏的前数个小时中，你可以连升数级。游戏中的巴甫洛夫设计（游戏邦注：即杀怪——获得经验值——升级）极具吸引力，因为你不断获得很棒的奖励。很多人（游戏邦注：通常是那些没玩过这款游戏的人）对WOW这种无尽的模式大加抱怨（游戏邦注：MMO游戏通常都是这种模式）。

但是这些怨言并不完全正确。在WOW中，你确实可以快速升级，但并非永远可以享受到这种待遇。游戏刚开始时，升级所需的经验值较少，你可以很快地提升等级。你感觉很棒，因为你可以掌控游戏世界中的新内容。然后游戏会让你知道，升到下一级所需的经验值要更多。于是你努力朝着这个方向继续前进。当你实现目标后，你会发现下个目标在更高的地方。通过这种掌控——奖励——掌控的精明设计、权衡暴露供玩家学习的新事物的频率以及将机制融入游戏中的设计手法，游戏营造出一种完全符合掌控渐进曲线的场景。这也是为何人们会如此沉迷于这款游戏的原因所在。

目标

在各种游戏中，或许你多次盯着屏幕大喊道：“你到底想让我做什么？”为游戏机制设定目标至关重要。强大的目标不仅可以帮助你读过掌控曲线最初那段“急速上升”的阶段，如果使用恰当还可以提供更多的满足感。确保机制有个明确的目标确实是设计师的工作，但他还必须确保这个目标能够清晰为玩家所明白。

假设某款游戏有两种敌人，人类和外星人。现在再假设玩家有两种手枪。这两把手枪看起来很像，开火时发出的声音也很相似，集中时敌人的反应也相同。但是，第一把手枪可以对人类造成更多的伤害，第二把手枪可以对外星人造成更多的伤害。在这种情况下，玩家根本不知道两把手枪间的差别。拿起第二把手枪时，他可能会开火数次，看看到底有什么作用，然后切换回他之前使用的那把手枪。你耗费精力所创造的内容不为玩家所利用只是部分问题。更为糟糕的是，玩家根本不理解第二把手枪的作用，觉得这种设计很愚蠢，但这显然并非玩家的错。

RSA访谈曾提及人类的驱动问题。Daniel Pink说道：“人类是目标最大化者。”如果你想要让玩家获得满足感，就不进需要努力为机制营造一个目标，整个游戏也需要有个目标。

有意义的选择

营造玩家满足感中最后一个也是最困难的层面在于有意义的选择。选择是区别游戏与其他娱乐媒介的因素，正是玩家选择背后潜藏的意义使得游戏极具趣味性。如果你玩过《大富翁》之类的游戏，或许你会更经常碰到那些选择已经毫无意义的时刻。在《大富翁》中，要获得胜利你只能积累大量的地产和财富。一旦你失去了这些，就意味着注定要失败。你可以选择继续扔骰子，或者积累足够的财富来升级那些已经鲜有价值的地产，但这么做又有什么用呢？所有的玩家都知道那时游戏已经结束了，然而游戏还是会继续进行下去。因为此刻你的选择已经没有任何意义，因而游戏也变得不那么有趣了。

ogre_battle_strategic_choice(from flarkminator)

有意义的选择有两种形式：战略和战术。战略选择是个层次较高的选择，属于决定未来的走向（游戏邦注：比如玩家的魔法要选择火系还是冰系）。战术选择是个较低层次的选择，决定的是此刻用何种方法来应对（游戏邦注：比如怪物属于火系，因而要用水系的法术）。偏好两种形式的玩家都有。就我个人而言，我更喜欢战略选择。我会花数个小时的时间来决定如果构建完美的角色法术，一旦得出结论，我便会转向另一个层面。这并不是说我不喜欢战略选择相对较少的游戏，我只是觉得自己更喜欢那些有着大量战略选择的游戏。

tactics_ogre_tactical_choice(from flarkminator)

我觉得有些游戏给玩家的选择太多了。你给玩家的选择越多，他们越难做出有意义的选择，因为他们无法再准确判断选择间的价值比较。这就是所谓的“Paradox of Choice”，游戏设计师应该记住这一点。你或许会认为游戏内容很丰富，因为游戏中提供了各种现代突击步枪，但是身为玩家的我会觉得内容过多。在这种情况下，许多武器的目标之间都有很大的重叠部分。作为玩家，我不仅觉得选择某把枪支很艰难，即便最终做出了选择，我也会觉得满足感不够，因为我会不断在想是否能有更好的选择。

结束语

正如你所看到的那样，这些层次都是以上一个层次为基础。如果机制感觉不好，那么掌控就会受到影响。如果目标不明确，掌控的存在就没有任何价值。如果两项机制的目标重叠或者目标不清晰，那么你就很难做出有意义的选择。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

The Five Layers of Player Satisfaction

Mike Birkhead

The task of designing a new combat system, or any system, for a brand new game can be daunting, especially when staring at the insidious blank page. For me, as a scientist, it is incredibly hard to start from nothing. I am envious of designers that can start from nothing and imagineer fantastic worlds. Out of a simple desire for self preservation I created a few checklists. Their purpose is to help me jump-start the creative process. The first checklist I created is the “five layers of player satisfaction”. In the beginning I used to design new weapons; however, after deeper analysis I found it applied to more than “weapons”. It is a generic structure for what player’s find appealing about any system.

The satisfaction that a player feels when using a mechanic comes from five things: Implementation, Feel, Mastery, Purpose, and Meaningful Choice.

Implementation

No matter how interesting, well thought out, or balanced your mechanic is, if it doesn’t function, then you can’t expect someone to use it. This is not the sole responsibility of programmers; it’s on designers as well. A designer must always take into account the amount of work that his ideas are going to require. You must always make sure that your ideas do not require so much that that you are forced to ship a game with half finished mechanics.

It is easy to blame other people when things go wrong or fall behind schedule. However, designers must take responsibility for failed implementation. Keep in mind the amount of work your systems are going to require from every department, because at the end of the day, we are the top of the shit hill, and all our bad ideas roll down…

Feel

The feel of a mechanic is all about your reaction the first time you use it. The way your bass kicks when you fire that shotgun or the way that guy screams and jitters the first time you shock him with that lightning bolt. How does it look, how does it sound, how do my enemies react to it, how hard is it to use, is it on the right button? The feel of a mechanic is incredibly hard to nail, but it is also incredibly important. If it doesn’t feel good then you won’t stick around to master it.

If you are a particularly analytical designer (like me) it is hard to focus on the Feel of something. The feel of a mechanic is less about the “science” and more about your gut. The best designers I’ve worked with have an almost fanatical passion for this stage of the process. When working on God of War I would watch a designer load up a small arena with just Kratos and a single Hoplite. He would proceed to spend the next several hours beating the crap out of that one enemy in as many ways as possible. Launching the Hoplite into the air and mashing the light attack button he would realize that it felt wrong to only hit the guy twice before you both landed back on the ground, and so would adjust the falling rate of the monster. This was a change not based on any kind of numbers or values or anything that can be quantified other than the fact that it just FELT wrong.

One of the trickiest parts about a God of War enemy is nailing the button minigames. The exact timing of how or when the button shows up and how long it stays active is tricky. It is also a great example of the difference between the “science” and the “feel” of a mechanic. Scientifically, around 15 frames is the number of frames to use if you want a button window that has a decent amount of difficulty. This has been quantified through the countless minigames that have been created. It’s something to start with. There was a particular enemy that a designer was implementing, and he asked me to try the minigame. I played it a few times and said I felt it was just a little too hard. He pointed out that the button was coming up when something cool had just happened to the monster, so my eyes were drawn to the monster. I was distracted and missing the first early frames. To fix this the designer added a frame to the button window and shifted when the button showed up by a few frames – suddenly it felt perfect. Even though the science tells you that it should be a certain way, the feel of the mechanic demands change.

Mastery

Some mechanics are hard to master, like leading your target with a rocket in an FPS, and some are easier to master. Mastery is responsible for that rush of excitement when you use a mechanic effectively, and the harder it is to master the more satisfaction you feel. Challenge is good, but always make sure that a mechanic is not so hard to master that the player gives up in frustration (especially if it’s a core mechanic), additionally you can not make it so easy that it gives no satisfaction.

Imagine a sniper rifle that automatically zoomed in on someone’s head. The feeling of satisfaction you get would be fleeting.

The act of mastering something does not follow a linear curve. In the beginning when you are first learning something it is difficult, but you make progress quickly.

Over time it becomes easier to use the mechanic, but your progress (increase in skill) begins to slow down. A great description of mastery comes from the author Daniel Pink in his book “Drive”. He says the following:

Mastery is an asymptote. You can approach it. You can home in on it. You can get really, really close to it. But… you can never touch it. Mastery is impossible to realize fully. The joy is in the pursuit more than the realization. In the end, mastery attracts precisely because mastery eludes.

You can see this in tons of successful games, but I think one of the best examples is World of Warcraft. In WoW you are constantly mastering new things, and they expose them to the player at such a rate that you are never overwhelmed. In the first few hours of the game you gain several levels in a row, and the Pavlovian design at play (kill -> exp -> level up) is so compelling because you are constantly getting cool rewards. It makes it so that by level 50 you no longer realize it takes days to get that same reward. A lot of people (usually people who have not played it) complain of the Sisyphean nature of WoW (and MMOs in general).

These complaints are… partially correct. In WoW, you do push a rock up a hill, but not forever. In the beginning it’s a very small hill and you eventually do get that rock over. You feel awesome; you’ve mastered some new part of the world. Then the game says to you, “hey buddy, check out this hill over here it is even bigger.” So you roll up your sleeves and get to pushing. Soon enough you push your rock over that hill and the game slyly points out a new hill that is even BIGGER.

This goes on and on. Through the brilliant design of mastery -> reward -> mastery, the rate at which it exposes new things to learn and the way it weaves all of it’s mechanics together the game creates a scenario where the entire game as a whole follows the curve of the mastery asymptote. Is it any wonder people get so addicted?

Purpose

How many times in various games have you stared at the screen and yelled, “What the fuck is the point of this thing?” Probably more than you can count. Defining a purpose for your mechanics is critically important. A strong purpose not only helps you to get over the initial “steepness” of the Mastery curve, but also provides extra satisfacation in using it effectively. It is the designer’s job to make sure that a mechanic has a distinct purpose, but more than this he must also make sure that the purpose is clearly defined to the player.

Imagine a game that has two kinds of enemies: humans and aliens. Now imagine the player has two kinds of pistols. These pistols look similar, they make a similar sound when you fire them, enemies react in similar ways when shot by them; however, the first pistol does extra damage to humans and the second pistol does extra damage to aliens. In this example the player has NO idea that one is more effective than the other. Upon picking up the second pistol he will probably fire it a few times, wonder what the hell it’s for, and then go back to the pistol he was already using (mastering). All the time spent creating something that’s not being used by your players is only part of the problem. What’s WORSE is that the player feels stupid for not understanding the purpose of the second pistol, when it was clearly not his fault.

There is a great RSA talk (Daniel Pink again) which talks about human motivations. In it he says, “Human beings are purpose maximizers.” If you want player satisfaction you need to not only strive to create a purpose to your mechanics, but also to the game as a whole.

Meaningful Choice

The last and most difficult layer in creating player satisfaction is meaningful choice. Choice is what separates games from other entertainment mediums, and it the meaning behind your choices that make games so much fun. If you have ever played a game of Monopoly then you have more than likely faced that moment where your choices no longer had any meaning. In Monopoly, there is always that one game where some asshole ends up with lots of property and lots of money, while you are barely managing to hold it together with your shitty little Baltic avenue. Once you are losing it is almost impossible to climb out of that whole. You can choose to roll the dice, or maybe you’ve saved up enough to upgrade your house on your crappy property, but what does it matter? All of the players realize the game is over, but the game continues. Since your choices at this point have no meaning the game stops being fun.

Meaningful choices come in two varieties: Strategic and Tactical. Strategic choices are high level choices that involve having a perspective beyond the immediate future (should my mage focus on fire or ice). Tactical choices are low level choices that involve the here and now (this monster is fire based so I shall use water).

Some people tend to fixate on one or the other. Me personally, I tend to love systems with Strategic choice. I will spend HOURS deciding the “perfect” build for my *insert RPG class* and then once I have it figured out I will move on to something else. Which isn’t to say that I don’t love games with little Strategic choice in them, I just think I fall particularly prey to games with a lot of Strategic choice.

That being said, I feel that too often games try and give the player too MUCH choice. The more choice you give a player the harder it actually is for them to make a meaningful choice because they can no longer accurately judge the value of one choice against another. This is sometimes referred to as the “Paradox of Choice”, and it is something that you always have to keep in mind. You might think that your game is “totally awesome” because it offers me every single kind of variation in modern day assault rifles, but as a player all I am going to feel is completely overwhelmed. In this case having that many weapons is going to have massive overlap in the purpose. As a player not only am I going to struggle to pick a gun, but when I finally do pick one I am going to feel less satisfaction in my choice because I will be constantly wondering if there was a better option.

Closing

As you can see, each of these different layers builds upon the part that comes before it. If a mechanic doesn’t feel good, then mastery is going to be painful. If there is no purpose, then mastering it is unrewarding. If the purpose of two mechanics overlaps or the purpose is unclear, then you can’t make a meaningful choice. (Source: Flark Design)