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

分析游戏中风格元素和物质元素间的关系

发布时间:2011-08-11 00:04:55 Tags:,,,,

作者:Tynan Sylvester

没有人能够完全理解整个游戏设计领域。这个领域中有着太多相互作用的元素和太多的信息,人们根本无法同时考虑。因而,没有人能够同时思考所有的游戏设计。对设计师而言,唯一可用的解决方案是概念化地将这片领域划分成可以掌控的数块,随后便可以将每个小块单独考虑。

划分游戏设计的方法多种多样。这篇文章的意图在于澄清这些方法中的一种,即将游戏及其所有部分划分成风格和物质两类。首先,我要解释下何谓风格和物质。

物质是游戏的基础,存在于所有游戏中。每款电脑游戏、桌游、桌面战略游戏或纸笔RPG游戏都由物质元素组成。这些元素通过它们的表现手法以及与其他游戏元素的相互作用来界定。以电脑游戏为例,你可以将物质视为游戏中直接来源于代码的内容。物质元素存在的目标在于,为玩家生成判断点。

风格元素起到辅助作用,其存在是为了帮助阐述故事,让玩家沉浸在游戏中,使游戏内容学习更为便利或达成其他提升游戏体验的目标。它们是物质元素的表象,让物质元素看起来类似于某些可为玩家识别的东西,包括真实或虚幻的东西。你可以将风格元素视为由美术和音效来界定。风格元素并非独立于物质元素而存在,它是物质元素的外观和表象。它的最终目标是让人类将游戏内的物质同现实生活或虚构的东西联系起来。

以下例证可以帮你更好地理解风格和物质间的差异。许多射击游戏中都设计有角色冲突和子弹发射,设计师将子弹模型化为线,角色只是个移动的圆柱体。在这种情形中,角色的圆柱体便是其本质,也就是角色的物质。战士的图像、角色发出的音效以及他做出的动作就是角色的风格。

我们可以将角色从风格中剥离出来,简单地将其视为抽象化的圆柱体,这个圆柱体游戏物质闯过各个关卡,意图将线形的子弹射向其他圆柱体。物质便是这个圆柱体及其互动的规则和实际动作,而风格是这个圆柱体的外观以及这个圆柱体动作的视觉效果。

每个移动的圆柱体物质上可以覆盖各种各样不同的风格。这个圆柱体可以被制成星际战士、二战士兵、某些抽象竞技游戏中的角色或发射激光的步行机器人。元素的风格不会影响到物质,无论这个圆柱体看起来像是毁灭公爵还是巴特·辛普森,它的动作都是相同的。

理解风格和物质间的关系很有用,因为这能够让我们更精确地分析游戏元素的互动方式,而不必过于关注这些元素的表象。这是中很棒的分析方法,因为这让我们将注意力集中在游戏可玩性上。需要培养的重要能力是,将风格从元素身上剥离,这样就可以单独审查潜藏其中的物质元素。让元素脱去风格的外衣,这样我们就能够清楚地察觉到那些对游戏可玩性没有帮助的元素。

无论元素的风格看起来多么独特,如果从物质的角度上看某个互动元素或系统不会提升游戏的可玩性,那么就应该对其重新进行评估和设计。

物质永远比游戏设计更为重要。尽管精巧的风格对游戏不无裨益,但是这并非绝佳游戏体验的必要条件。反之,物质却是必要元素。以象棋为例,这款桌游并没有为敌对的双方设置真实的战场,但是其产生的判断点的质量仍然很棒,这也是为何它仍能够如此流行的原因。《反恐精英》、《文明》和《星际争霸》等经典电脑游戏也是如此。在风格质量方面,这些游戏早已落于下风,但是其物质元素仍然位于前列,因而这些游戏仍然很流行。

《文明》等经典游戏因其出色的物质元素,至今仍广受欢迎(from asamakabino.de)

《文明》等经典游戏因其出色的物质元素,至今仍广受欢迎(from asamakabino.de)

物质是真正让游戏成为游戏的因素。没有物质元素的娱乐形式不能称之为游戏。比如,电影和书籍等娱乐形式只含有风格元素,因为这些娱乐形式的元素间并没有互动。它们并没有为受众提供判断点,人们完全可以预测到第二次的体验。因为物质来源于互动并能够动态生成判断点,这意味着电影和书籍中并不含有物质元素。游戏设计师的主要工作就是设计物质元素。

目前,有少数不含有任何风格元素的游戏,桌游《Go》正属于此类。《宝石迷阵》之类的电脑益智游戏通常也不含有风格。以《宝石迷阵》为例,游戏确实使用了珠宝的图像,但是这些珠宝的排列和动作并非与人们在现实生活中看到的东西相似,它们只是抽象化的图标而已。

虽然风格并非优良游戏的必要元素,但是它确实能够表现出游戏的优势。表现为以下5种:

1、使用户容易掌握、理解游戏并提高游戏的留存率

2、产生故事

3、角色扮演

4、扩展令人赞叹的因素

5、控制和扩展情感冲击

接下来,我将深入阐述以上5点。

1、使用户容易掌握、理解游戏并提高游戏的留存率

地球上的每个人都从日常生活中积累了一定的知识,这里面所包含着大量的信息。游戏设计师可以利用这种知识,使得他们的游戏更容易理解。如果游戏中的物质类似于现实生活中的某些系统,那么就可以用风格来将游戏包装成这种现实生活中的系统。

比如,圆柱体互相射出线状物并在3D环境中移动,这种游戏可能很难为玩家所理解。但是如果是同样的游戏包装上未来战士的风格,就更容易理解了。玩家会很容易意识到,如果角色被子弹击中,会发生很可怕的事情。未来主义的游戏包装让游戏中的事物与小说中的事物联系起来。游戏可以用身体状况变化来让玩家意识到角色受伤或者死亡,这也正是为何没有FPS游戏教程会向玩家解释应该避免角色死亡的信息。因为,游戏所采用的风格让这一点显得很直观。

2、产生故事

人类都很喜欢优美的故事。我们喜欢听故事,喜欢看故事而且乐于参与其中。游戏设计的风格方面的第二个功能便是满足人类对故事的需求。风格可以通过多种方法来实现这个目标。

最简单的方法是,风格可以让设计师直接将故事融入设计当中。许多游戏中含有线性或几近线性的系列挑战,让玩家沿着某些预设的故事线路发展。这种游戏设计方法可以用于几乎所有题材的游戏中。

另一种方式是,风格让玩家在游戏过程中潜意识地产生自己的故事。有些玩家会有意去生成故事,比如《Machinima》中的玩家。所有的玩家都有这种潜意识的行为。潜意识产生的故事通常比预设的故事更为强大,因为这种故事更为真实,并非某些游戏公司靠头脑风暴得出的产品。更棒的是,它们是玩家自己亲身经历的故事,也是经由玩家第一手缔造的故事。如果玩家因为某些机会或特别的技能在游戏激烈的枪战中得以存活,这件事便成为了故事,可以为人所传颂。这样的故事更为强大,因为这种故事是完全真实的,是确实发生在玩家身上的。

3、角色扮演

设计精巧的风格可以让玩家扮演游戏角色。这并非只限于角色扮演类游戏。所有带有一定风格的游戏都含有角色扮演的元素,即便有些游戏并没有等级设计或经验值。精巧的风格会让玩家将自己置身与游戏之中。

Tamagotchi是一度非常流行的手持虚拟宠物设备。这款游戏中几乎没有物质,没有任何目标,判断点也很少。Tamagotchi的精巧之处在于让玩家可以扮演自己喜欢的角色,善待或是虐待宠物。正是这种角色扮演的强大力量让Tamagotchi格外畅销。

许多超现实游戏的吸引人之处也在于此。《Lock On: Modern Air Combat》、《SWAT 3》和《Rainbow Six》之类的游戏正是基于这种对现实的表现来设计的。这些游戏在角色扮演方面的造诣很深,因为它们让玩家相信,如果自己遇到与游戏中相同的情况也会采取同样的做法。因为这些游戏同现实很接近,至少看起来像是,因而玩家很容易便可以融入游戏世界中。如果虚拟世界的成就与现实世界看起来很相似,那么就更容易让玩家感到满意。

4、扩展令人赞叹的因素

玩家在游戏中看到某些不可思议的东西时感到的喜悦便是“令人赞叹的”因素。精巧的风格能够提供这种效果。人们喜欢看到新颖的事物,即便只是一小段时间。这种风格开发更像是营销工作,而不是游戏设计工具,因为新事物很快就会变成老事物。

尽管如此,这些令人惊奇的事物同故事的产生也有所联系。如果游戏中会发生某些令人惊叹的事情,当这些事情能够被描述成现实生活中类似的事情时,效果会更好。现实生活中发生的事情更具煽动性,因为人的感受会更为强烈而且后果更加严重。我们可以将游戏中的事情与相应的现实事件联系起来,从而放大游戏世界中某些不可思议事件的情感力量。

5、控制和扩展情感冲击

风格的使用可以让游戏引发更多种类的情感,而且更易于控制并且更加强大。在这一点中,重要的是要意识到,物质可以呈现游戏中的决定。单单凭借物质固然也能够唤起情感,但是这样情感并不强烈也不是很丰富。想让玩家在游戏中感到恐惧、怀旧或愉快的设计师必须通过风格的设计来完成这个目标。

比如,《网络奇兵2》是目前我玩过的最惊悚的游戏。游戏的物质很好地提供了这种效果,因为它时常让玩家感到脆弱无助。但是,这种由物质提供的恐慌被风格所放大,也就是那些空空如也的太空飞船场景和半人类畸形生物。

个人偏好和营销目标

有些玩家注重游戏中的物质,有些玩家更看重风格。

有些FPS玩家购买市场上性能最低的电脑,然后把游戏的图像设置降到最低。也就是说,他们的游戏每秒可以运行数百帧,但是看起来很丑。这样的游戏看起来就像是一群多边形物体在移动。这些玩家感觉良好,因为他们对角色扮演、故事生成或游戏情感并不感兴趣,一心只想要击败敌人。他们玩游戏的目标在于游戏内的物质。这些人玩游戏纯粹是为了游戏,而不是为了故事。《Go》、象棋和《反恐精英》的玩家正属于此类。

《模拟人生》允许玩家拍摄自己虚拟角色的照片并将其上传到网络上。这是风格元素凸显的绝佳例证,这种游戏中含有与玩家有所联系的故事。那些玩《模拟人生》的玩家只是为了制造或体验与他们相关的故事。同类的游戏还包括《Syberia》、《Baldur’s Gate》甚至像《Lock On: Modern Air Combat》之类的超现实游戏。

Syberia这类游戏拥有丰富的故事情节和引人入胜的视觉效果(from gamasutra)

Syberia这类游戏拥有丰富的故事情节和引人入胜的视觉效果(from gamasutra)

设计师应该理解他们的目标用户的想法,对设计的侧重点做出相应的调整。看重物质的玩家通常都是年轻男性,占当前游戏市场很大一部分。偏好风格的玩家更多为女性,而且年龄段分布也较广。以年轻男性为目标用户的动作游戏需要设计出非凡的物质,这样方能流行。而看重非硬核玩家的游戏就需要在风格和故事上面下功夫。

将风格作为营销工具

商业游戏的设计只有一个目标,那就是让游戏更为畅销。这个任务可以分为两个部分:首先我们必须让玩家购买游戏,接着我们必须吸引他们不断玩游戏,这样他们才会鼓励自己的好友也购买游戏。通常情况下,第一个目标由风格来实现,而物质负责第二个目标。

虽然单纯从游戏设计的角度来看,物质是最为重要的东西,但是良好的物质对营销的帮助却很小,因为只有玩家在游戏中投入时间方能察觉到物质的优秀之处。而精巧的风格会在瞬间吸引看到游戏画面的人。这也正是为何许多游戏开发商仍然在风格开发和图像设计上投入大量精力的主要原因。风格将游戏推销给发行商和玩家,而物质会吸引人们在游戏中投入更多时间,让游戏闻名遐迩。

体验的剧烈程度以及联系的便利性

模拟体验越强烈,就越难将其与生活联系起来。这两种效果是相互对立的。

《模拟人生》便是绝佳的例证。该游戏的主题为人们所熟悉,甚至有人认为这是个失败的产品。从一方面来看,这种想法的产生确实有一定的道理。游戏中的任务是我们在日常生活中经常遇到的。那么,为什么还有人玩这么无聊的游戏呢?

这款游戏最终成为巨作有多个原因,但其中之一是游戏为人所熟知的主题让我们可以很简单可在游戏中创造自己的故事。这种效果是多么的强大,尽管游戏的主题与多数其他游戏相比略显平庸,但是玩家觉得它充满吸引力,因为很容易将其与现实生活联系起来。

游戏更为贴近现实生活,这意味着游戏内容可能相当乏味但玩家更为熟悉,这种效果使得游戏变得更为强大。所以,强烈的体验和与现实的贴近这两个极端都能够使游戏变得出众。

使用风格和物质的设计方法

理解风格和物质后,我们就可以使用某些新方法来分析和设计游戏。

首先要提到的是风格剥离游戏可玩性分析。这种绝妙方法可以深入探究游戏的可玩性系统。如果你在制作的是射击游戏,可以将角色想象成圆柱体,把子弹当成线即可。如果你这样做,就可以通过审查可玩性系统来发现无法发挥作用的设计,随即对问题进行修正。这是种优秀的分析方法,因为它可以将游戏可玩性完全摆在面前,抛开风格可能给我们带来的影响。

第二种方法是物质优先的设计。即便物质更为重要,多数游戏设计时优先注重的是风格。风格不仅是最终产品的包装物,其中也蕴含着设计师的思维过程。激发设计师灵感的不是抽象的游戏元素,而是新故事元素,新的可在游戏中模拟的现实生活元素,物质系统是以此为基础而确立起来的。

这样的设计并没有好坏之分。模拟现实生活来设计游戏能够激发出更多新机制和想法。Valve的设计师在开发《半条命》初作时发现,给关卡设计师施加的人为限制(游戏邦注:比如要求使用某种类型的环境效果)通常会激发起创造性,随即产生新想法。

风格游戏的设计方法的主要问题在于,设计数次之后,所有的设计互相之间存在相似性。在游戏物质仍然可用的前提下,开发商只需要变更风格即可。这意味着游戏的基础元素完全相同,新游戏只是老游戏的变体而已。

尝试在纸上设计完全抽象的游戏是种有趣的体验,在设计时需要避免考虑物质在现实生活中的风格样式。你可以在设计过程的末期为物质找寻恰当的风格,最终得到完整的游戏。

我亲身进行的纸上物质优先设计实验表明,这种游戏设计方法很难掌握,但是可以产生独特的产品。物质优先设计可以让我们摒弃所有的限制因素,完全自由地探索可玩性机制。这是种强大的方法,原创可玩性系统在今日的游戏市场中如同黄金一般珍贵。

甚至可以利用这种方法来抛开风格为整个游戏编程,使用简单的图表代替美术效果即可,这样可以先查看到游戏最终的模样,以此来测试物质游戏设计想法的优劣。

结语

对风格和物质的理解让我们可以从许多方面系统化地分析我们的游戏,这些方面包括营销、目标用户、玩家沉浸程度、故事、游戏熟悉度与体验激烈程度对比和刺激感情的方法。

这篇文章澄清了风格和物质间的关系。事实上,创造优秀的风格和物质元素是个值得研究的大领域,需要大量的文章才能解释清楚。但是理解风格和物质间的关系可以帮助游戏设计师更有效地分析和开发游戏。

游戏邦注:本文发稿于2005年10月4日,所涉时间、事件和数据均以此为准。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

Style and Substance in Game Design

Tynan Sylvester

Nobody can completely understand the entire field of game design. There are too many interacting elements, too much information, for the human mind to perceive and consider simultaneously. Thus nobody can hope to think about all of game design at once. The only solution available to the designer is to conceptually split the field up into manageable chunks, each of which can then be considered separately.

There are many ways to divide game design so that it can be contemplated intelligently. This article attempts to clarify one of these ways, namely, splitting a game and all of its parts into categories as either style or substance. First, I’ll define what style and substance are.

Substance is fundamental, and exists in all games by definition, whether these games run on a computer or not. Every computer game, every board game, every tabletop strategy game or pen-and-paper RPG, are all fundamentally composed of substance elements. These elements are defined by how they act and interact with other game elements. One could think of substance, in the example of a computer game, as the part of the game that comes directly from the code. The purpose of substance elements is to, by interacting according to their fundamental natures, to generate decision points for the player.

Style elements are auxiliary, and exist to help elucidate stories, immerse players, facilitate learning, or to serve many other experience-enhancing purposes. They provide an appearance for the substance elements and make the substance elements resemble recognizable things, real or fictitious. One may think of style elements as all those parts of the game that are defined by the art and sound. Style elements, when present, are not separate from the substance elements, but exist as wrappers for the substance elements. Their ultimate purpose is to allow human beings to associate the substance of the game with something in real life or fiction.

An easy way to understand for the difference between style and substance is by example. Many shooter games have traditionally calculated world collision and bullet impacts by modeling bullets as instantaneous line traces and characters as moving collision cylinders. In this case, the line-projecting cylinder is the fundamental nature of the character – the character’s substance. The image of a fighter, the sounds he makes and the way he animates is the character’s style.

A character can thus be, as a thought exercise, stripped of his style and considered simply as an abstract cylindrical game piece that slides around a level, attempting to project lines into other cylinders. The substance is the cylinder; its rules of interaction, its practical properties. The style is what the cylinder is made to appear as, and what the cylinder’s actions appear as.

Any number of different styles could be overlaid on top of the sliding, line-projecting cylinder substance. This cylinder could be made to appear as a space marine, a World War II soldier, a puzzle piece in some abstract competitive game, or a robot on treads that fires lasers. The style of the element does not affect the substance – the cylinder still acts the same way whether it looks like Duke Nukem or Bart Simpson.

An understanding of the style-substance relationship is useful because it allows us to better analyze how game elements interact without being too concerned with how these elements appear. This is a good method of analysis since it allows us to focus clearly on gameplay. An important ability to develop is the capacity to mentally strip away the style of an element so that the underlying substance can be examined alone. It becomes obvious when an element is not contributing to gameplay because it no longer has a crutch, in the forms of a cool appearance, to prop it up.

No matter how fascinating the style is (with a few exceptions), if an interactive element or system does not improve the game from a purely abstract lines-and-cylinders gameplay point of view, it needs to be re-evaluated.

Substance is always more important in game design. While well-done style is great to have, it is not absolutely necessary to produce a great gaming experience. Substance is necessary. Consider Chess. The game doesn’t really resemble contesting armies on an ancient battlefield, but the quality of the decision points it generates is still excellent, which is why it is still popular. The same could be said for classic computer games like Counter-Strike, Civilization and Starcraft. These games have been long surpassed in terms of style quality for years, but the substance remains some of the best available, and these games are still popular.

Substance is what really defines games as games. Forms of entertainment without substance elements cannot be games. Movies and books, for example, are forms of entertainment that consist solely of style elements because there is no non-predefined interaction between elements within these forms of entertainment. They present no decisions to the person entertained and are perfectly predictable the second time they are viewed. Since substance is defined by semi-unpredictable interaction and dynamic generation of decision points, this means that movies and books have no substance. To be a game designer is to be a designer of substance.

There are a few games that exist without any style element. The board game Go, for example, is not generally thought to associate the pieces with warriors since their rules of interaction and appearances don’t resemble warriors. Computer puzzle games like Bejeweled often have no style. Bejeweled, for example, does use images of gemstones for its pieces, but the arrangement and action of these gemstones doesn’t resemble anything that people do in real life – they are no more than abstract icons.

While style is not strictly necessary to create a great game, it does convey major advantages. These are:

1. Ease of learning, understanding, and retention

2. Story Generation

3. Role-playing

4. Amplification of the wow factor

5. Control and amplification of emotional impact

I’ll now discuss these in detail.

1. Ease of learning and understanding

Every human on this planet has years of accumulated knowledge from everyday life. This is a vast amount of information. Game designers can harness this pool of knowledge to make their games much easier to understand. If the substance of the game resembles some system that exists in real life, the style wrapper can be designed so that the game appears to be a simulation of this real life system. Joe User will have a much easier time learning a game with a good style wrapper than the same game reduced to abstract elements since Joe will be able to intuitively predict the rules of the system by relating it to the real-life system it resembles.

For example, a game about cylinders projecting lines at each other and sliding around in a 3D environment would be difficult to learn. There’s no reason to assume that there is anything bad about lines being projected at one’s own cylinder. Every rule of the game would have to be explicitly memorized before the game could be understood properly.

The same game, wrapped up as futuristic fighters in a blood tournament, is much easier to understand. It’s very obvious that something bad is happening when the player’s character gets shot. The futuristic action game wrapper creates an association between things in the game and things in fiction. A smaller health variable is associated with real injury and death, which are obviously bad. This is why no FPS game tutorial has ever needed to explain that you should avoid dying. The style wrapper makes it intuitive.

2. Story Generation

Humans enjoy good stories. We like hearing them, watching them, and participating in them. The second function of the style aspect of a game design is to feed the human desire for stories. Style wrappers do this in several ways.

The most obvious way is that style allows designers to incorporate a story directly into a design. Many games consist of a linear or mostly-linear series of challenges that derive from the player’s role in some preconceived storyline. This is a well-used basis for game designs that cross almost all genres.

The other way that style helps feed the human appetite for stories is that it causes the gamer to subconsciously create his own stories as he plays. Some players intentionally do this, as in Machinima. All players subconsciously do this. Subconsciously generated stories are often more powerful than predefined stories because they are, in a sense, true, because they are not the product of some game company’s brainstorming session. Even better, they are the player’s own stories that he experienced and created firsthand. When the player barely survives an intense gunfight because of some incredible turn of chance or feat of skill, that event becomes a story, to be appreciated and retold. It is made more powerful because it did, in a way, actually happen.

3. Role-playing

Well-done style allows the gamer to role-play. This is not in any way limited to role-playing games. All games with style involve an element of role-playing, in the general sense of the word, even if they don’t involve levels or experience points. Well-done style allows gamers to mentally place themselves in their game roles.

The Tamagotchi was a virtual pet handheld device that was once very popular. There was almost no substance; it provided no goal and few decision points. What the Tamagotchi did well was allow the owner to role play as whatever kind of person he wished – kind and benevolent to maniacally evil. This power to role-play sold many Tamagotchis.

This accounts for much of the attraction of some types of ultra-realistic games. Games like Lock On: Modern Air Combat, SWAT 3 and Rainbow Six, are largely based on the appearance of realism. These games are effective at allowing role-playing because they allow the player to believe that, on some level, he could have done what he did in the game. Since these games are so close to reality, or at least appear so, it is easier for the player to mentally enter the game world. Virtual achievements are more gratifying when they appear as if they could have been real.

4. Amplification of the “wow” factor

The “wow” factor is what people feel when they find gratification in seeing something incredible. Well-done style can provide this. Obvious examples are the awesome graphics usually present in major new game engines. People enjoy marveling at the new effects, even if only for a while, before new becomes old. This aspect of style development is most effective as a marketing tool, not a game design tool, since new becomes old so fast.

However, the “wow” factor also ties in with the generation of stories. If something awesome and unusual happens in a game, it incites the wow factor better when it can be described as something awesome and unusual happening with things that exist in real life. Things that happen in real life are more provocative because the sensations are more intense and consequences more serious. We can amplify the emotional power of incredible events in the game world by associating them with corresponding real events. “My hit cylinder somehow made it past 4 opposing cylinders and hit the goal area in record time.” is not as good as “My favorite player got physically touched by four defenders and still made it to the end zone in record time.” The real-life association amplifies the emotional power of the event.

5. Control and amplification of emotional impact

The use of style allows games to incite more types of emotions than are possible with only abstract representations, and in a more controllable and powerful way. This is where it is important to realize that substance is only the fundamental game in the decision-making sense – substance presents a series of choices, no more. Substance alone can provoke emotions, but they are not very strong and are not very diverse. Designers who want the gamer to feel fear, get nostalgic or laugh need to design their style to accomplish this goal.

For example, System Shock 2 is by far the most frightening game I have ever played. The substance of the game was well-done to this effect, since it was well-balanced to keep the player vulnerable and needy. The general sense of worry provided by the substance was amplified and focused into terror by the use of the empty spaceship setting, and freakish half-human enemies.

Individual Preferences and Market Targeting

Some gamers value substance, others value style.

Many competitive FPS gamers buy the most tricked-out and overclocked computers on the market, and then turn all of their graphics settings down to the minimum. This means that their games run at hundreds of frames per second, but are horrifically ugly. The game often ends up looking like little more than moving polygonal lumps. This is fine because competitive FPS gamers are not interested in playing a role, making a story or feeling any emotion besides triumph over a defeated opponent. They want to play the game as it is and learn the substance of it down to the most minute detail. These people play the game for the game, not for the story. This is the audience of Go, Chess, Quake 3 and Counter-Strike.

The Sims has a feature which allows players to take captioned photos of their virtual characters and upload these photos to the web. This is a great example of style elements being placed such that game will generate stories that the gamers can relate to. Those who play The Sims are not particularly interested in perfectly optimizing their performance. These players play the game, to make and experience stories that they can relate to. Syberia, Baldur’s Gate or even ultra-realistic games like Lock On: Modern Air Combat appeal to similar audiences.

Designers should understand who they are targeting with their game and focus their design efforts accordingly. Substance gamers tend to be young men, the large part of the current games market. Style-preference gamers tend to be more female, and appear along a wider age bracket. An action game marketed towards young men needs to have a phenomenal substance design in order to be popular. A game targeted towards less hardcore gamers has a greater need for style, story, recognizable subject matter, and story-generating opportunities.

Style as a Marketing Tool

Game design for a commercial product has one goal: to sell games. This is a two-part task: we must first make gamers purchase the game, and then we must make them continue playing the game so that they will encourage their friends to play as well, and are more likely to buy the sequel. In general, style accomplishes the first goal, substance the second.

While substance is the most important thing from a pure game-design perspective, well-done substance is ineffective as a basis for a marketing campaign because it is impossible to perceive without playing the game for a good amount of time. Well-done style is immediately obvious to anyone who sees a screenshot. This is a major part of the reason that many games continue to have so much effort allocated into style development and graphics, even though these areas are ultimately less important than the underlying substance. Style sells the game to publisher and public, substance keeps people playing and puts you in the hall of fame.

Intensity of Experience Versus Ease of Relation

The more intense a simulated experience becomes, the more difficult it is to relate to. These two effects work against each other.

The Sims is also a good example for demonstrating this. The subject matter of The Sims is so familiar and pedestrian that, before it went into production, it was thought by many to be a failure in the making. From one point of view, this seems logical. The game is about mundane tasks which we all deal with daily. Why would anyone want to play a game about something so boring?

The game ultimately became a huge hit for many reasons, but one of them is that the familiar nature of the subject matter makes it incredibly easy for us to subconsciously and effortlessly develop our own stories while playing the game, without even trying. This is such a powerful effect that, even though the subject matter of The Sims is generally quite pedestrian compared to most other games, gamers find it attractive because it’s just so damn easy to relate to.

The game is close to real life, which means it is about something more boring, but is more familiar, which makes it more powerful. The two effects, one towards intensity of experience, the other towards ease of relation, counterbalance each other.

Design Methods Using Style and Substance

An understanding of style and substance allows us to use some new methods of design analysis and creation.

The first is style-stripped gameplay analysis. A great method to search for holes in a gameplay system is to mentally strip it of style. If you’re making a shooter, imagine your characters as cylinders and gunfire as line traces. When you can do that, examine the gameplay system, determine where it is not generating good decisions, and fix the problem. This is a good method of analysis because it leaves the gameplay naked and deprives it of any crutch that our feelings towards the style might bring.

The second method is substance-first design. Even though substance is more important, most games are designed style-first. The style act not just as a wrapper for the final product, but as a wrapper for the designer’s thought process. Inspiration comes not in terms of abstract game elements, but of new story elements, new real-life things to place into the simulation, for which a substance system is then built.

This is not necessarily a good or bad thing. Designing a game as a simulation can provide an excellent source of inspiration for new mechanisms and ideas, as arbitrary restrictions often do. Designers at Valve, during the development of the first Half-Life, found that artificial constraints placed on a level designer (such as a requirement to use a certain type of environmental effect) often spurred creativity and inspired new ideas. So it is with style and game design in general.

The major problem with style-first design is that after some time, the designs all become too similar each other because they’re all simulations of the same things. The style is decided upon and a simulation built before the substance gets tweaked. This means that the fundamentals of the games are all the same; they are just variations on one another.

It is an interesting exercise to attempt to design a game, at least on paper, in a purely abstract way while avoiding all references to what the substance of the game represents in real life. Should one desire, one could find a style for the substance elements at the end of the design process, ultimately producing a complete game.

My own paper experiments with substance-first design have revealed that it’s a method of game design which is difficult to get used to, but can produce unique results. Designing substance-first removes all constraints and leaves us free to explore totally original gameplay mechanics. This is an extremely powerful method. Good, original gameplay systems are pure gold in today’s game market.

One could even go so far as to program an entire game free of style, using simple placeholder icons for art, in order to test substance game design ideas before deciding what the game will ultimately be about.

Closing Thoughts

An understanding of style and substance allows us to more systematically analyze our games from many perspectives, including decision-making, marketing, intended target demographics, immersion, emergent story creation, predefined story, familiarity versus intensity of experience, and methods of inciting emotions.

This article clarifies the relationship between style and substance, it does not attempt to present methods of developing these elements. Actually creating good style and substance elements is an infinitely larger field of study, and is the subject of innumerable other articles. Understanding the relationship between style and substance, however, will help any game designer analyze and create games that much more effectively. (Source: Gamasutra)


上一篇:

下一篇: