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

分析以非致命战术替代“杀戮”的解决之道(二)

发布时间:2011-09-27 16:47:12 Tags:,,,

作者:Anjin Anhut

如何激励玩家在战斗游戏中做出策略性决策,以判断自己到底该不该杀掉敌人?以及会有何种感受?

第一部分文章里,对于很多战斗游戏中只是简单地用“杀或被杀”这一方法解决问题我表示质疑,且不认为这么做能提供给玩家太大的乐趣。

我们将进一步探索游戏设置和叙述的长期可能性和短期变化,而它们正是依赖于玩家所使用的致命或非致命技巧。

在现代,未来以及过去的战斗中,非致命技巧、武器、战术和战略并不重要,更是经常被绝大多数游戏所忽视,但是在我看来,它们的潜力巨大,虽然是个未被触及的领域,但是却具有无限的可能性。在这篇文章中,我想开始研究这个领域。因为与之相关的观点和情节实在太多了,所以这个研究在某种意义上是不可能被完成的。

在我们开始阐述之前,我想先列出一些条例:

怎么样都行。尽管生产资料很匮乏,但是我们也能够尽可能地收集到观点。这是一个头脑风暴的过程,所以不会受到成本或开销的约束。

在考虑到游戏中的非致命技巧和游戏设置相关因素时,设计者应该始终牢记,玩家需要受到激励才会去尝试这些技巧甚至掌握它们。如果玩家并不满足于单纯地征服敌人,那他应该怎么做呢?

从《吃豆豆》到《太空入侵者》,几乎每个玩家都是用来杀掉敌人的,以此带给他们一种优胜感。所以征服敌人同样能够带给玩家一种胜利感,杀掉敌人亦是如此。

非致命战斗技巧应该比致命技巧更有趣。它们不会因为带给玩家沮丧或者脱离感而影响游戏设置。同时它们也不会让玩家感到自卑或者受约束。

在非致命战斗中始终保持风险与奖励的平衡。如果玩家被一个受到制服的敌人偷袭了,那么他至少也应该获得一个相应有价值的奖励。

你还了解些什么?

选择vs局限

在之前的文章中我收到了很多有意义的评论,即有人提到玩家会因为在非致命技巧可行,或者非致命技巧更有利的情况下对敌人使用杀戮而自责和难受。这当然也是依靠于设计者如何执行这些技巧以及他们针对于不同游戏风格所做出的调整。

SWAT 4(from howtonotsuckatgamedesign)

SWAT 4(from howtonotsuckatgamedesign)

在游戏《SWAT》中,非致命技巧被设置为游戏中的优先选项,而玩家如果太过随心所欲将会输掉游戏,很显然这么做会限制了玩家的选择而强迫他们去进行自己不喜欢的游戏风格。但是这只是在游戏中添加非致命决策的一种方法而已。还有许多不会让玩家感受到局限性的好方法,即扩大选择范围让玩家能够中肯地做出选择。而这也是这篇文章将要谈论的内容。

从哪里开始?

为了研究这些情节的因果关系,以及设计观点和游戏机制,我想要以玩家与游戏间相互作用的四大领域来进行讨论。

游戏设计的触感标准:

Steve Swink所说的游戏设计触感标准意味着即时控制,空间仿真和润色。而这里我所说的特例则是关注于非致命武器,非致命解决方法,协商战术和视频上的视觉震撼效果等。

战术:

玩家在特殊任务或战斗序列中所使用的非致命战术有何风险和奖励?我们应该如何做才能在短期效果上激励玩家?

策略:

有一些游戏支持道德选择,这就使得游戏主角会朝着两个完全相反的类型发展,即善良和邪恶。但是是否就只存在这两种类型?我们应该如何做才能激励玩家长期关注于致命,非致命或者这两种游戏风格的巧妙结合呢?

叙述:

经常地,关于游戏主角的描写以及整个游戏叙述都支持“杀戮”的游戏风格。但是有很多游戏却经常不能将叙述与战斗型游戏设置相匹配,即它们的游戏叙述虽然在向我们描述一个了不起的英雄,但是我们所看来的游戏设置却更像是一种杀人工具。我们要如何做才能让游戏设置和游戏叙述趋于一致?同时我们怎样才能让游戏叙述遵循玩家的游戏风格?

我们将首先讨论针对于玩家的长期和短期激励机制,而它们分别意味着策略和战术。而游戏设计的触感标准和叙述我们将在后面的部分详细讨论。

战术——逼近敌人

实际上这要看玩家到底接收到什么样的游戏任务,探索并破坏?清除某片区域?暗杀某一目标?取回某物?避免引起对手的警觉?掳获某人?逃离某地?前行到某个区域?单纯地求生?还是解救人质等?有一些任务需要玩家进行杀戮,同时也有一些要求玩家采取非致命策略,而这些都取决于玩家自己的选择。

在现实生活中,某些职业,如警察或者保安人员会监督你履行职责并用非致命方法解决问题。而且我们并不能与死人或者无意识的人进行交流。这一方面意味着敌人对我们的威胁消除了,但是另一方面也意味着我们不可能要求或者得到敌人那一方的援助。

一些游戏已经在一定程度上提供了非致命战术选择了,如:

《分裂细胞》(通过审问形式),《战地双雄》(解救人质),《SWAT》(监禁),《战争机器2》(人肉盾)

策略——远离敌人

通过玩家自行决定如何解决自己所遭遇的情境以及要留下些什么等,能够帮助他在游戏中形成相应的游戏角色并呈现他所做出改变的游戏世界。勇敢的英雄,懦弱的敌人,杀人狂魔或者残暴的统治者等都会影响主角的形成,以及敌人与其在未来的交战和他是否能从非游戏玩家手上获得帮助等等。

就像美国军队在阿富汗和伊拉克并不是单纯地进行军事战斗,他们同时也想在当地公众面前建立起一个正面的形象。但是如果美国政府所接触的政体严格追随现代战争的脚本,那么他们的这一想法便更加难以实现。与之相反的是非洲的的军阀,他们不只袭击了整个村庄,掳杀了村庄里的男男女女,同时还将孩童带走当成童子军进行培养,更残忍的是他们切断了村子里那些苟活之人的手脚,把这种可怕的做法当成是心理战的有效武器。

所以说非致命技巧也不全是好的。

很多游戏使用了道德系统为玩家提供一些战略选择,而因此使得玩家会朝着两个不同的方向发展,即善良或邪恶,模范或叛徒。我将提供给玩家4种不同的角色发展方向作为战略性选择。

除此之外玩家也不能决定自己在游戏中的行为,他们需要等待一定的图形逻辑,过场动画或者交互点出现,从而做出符合道德标准的决定。而在战斗序列区域中有一些例外,那里是道德自由区,没有人去追踪玩家的行为是否得当。我们能否让每一次的对抗变得更有意义?

交战规则

在我们深入研究一些细节案例之前,我们来讨论一般情况下的交战方法,不同选择以及它们所造成的影响。

我测试了4种交战方法:杀掉,击倒,掳获或者谈判。每一种方法都会导致一些短期的影响,我们需要判断哪一种方法适合哪一种玩家。交战方法选择也决定着主角的角色养成:救世主,傻瓜,冷血杀手或者怪物。而每一种类型的角色养成都会带给玩家一种长期性的影响。

四种角色的选择(from howtonotsuckatgamedesign)

四种角色的选择(from howtonotsuckatgamedesign)

下面我将比较不同的方法以及它们所产生的不同影响。

案例

让我们分析一些详细案例所造成的短期影响和长期影响:

短期风险:

威胁消除

不需要自己去杀掉敌人

可能需要隐藏尸体

其他敌人发现尸体后会产生警觉性并感到害怕

敌人再次复苏的风险

敌人能够继续攻击玩家

敌人能够提醒同伴

敌人能够躲起来或者将道具藏起来

敌人可以自由活动的风险

敌人能够继续攻击玩家

敌人能够提醒同伴

敌人能够躲起来或者藏起道具

敌人能够警报同伙的风险

敌人能够向同伙请求帮助

突袭的风险

敌人可以在玩家放松警惕时发动攻击

因为较低的警惕可能给玩家带来危险甚至是致命

Arkham Asylum(from howtonotsuckatgamedesign)

Arkham Asylum(from howtonotsuckatgamedesign)

短期奖励:

*威胁消除

不会再遇到敌人

可以自由搜索道具

*可以强迫敌人与之合作

审问敌人什么是通关密码,敌人的巢穴或道具所在地

可以找到敌人并获得道具

强迫敌人去欺骗同伙上当

把敌人当成诱饵

把敌人当成人质

强迫敌人去揭开其巢穴的面纱

强迫敌人开车

强迫敌人在雷区时首当其冲

强迫敌人引导玩家通过某些区域

*要求敌人与之合作

审问敌人什么是通关密码,敌人的巢穴卖道具所在地

强迫敌人去揭开其巢穴的面纱

强迫敌人开车

强迫敌人乖乖地让玩家顺利过关

强迫敌人引导玩家通过某些区域

强迫敌人去引诱其他同伙加入这个合作协议

*可以获得新的盟友

让盟友去引诱其他敌人上当

让盟友去揭开敌人去揭开其巢穴的面纱

让盟友开车

让盟友助玩家一臂之力

让盟友去说服其他敌人与玩家合作

让盟友去说服其他敌人变成新盟友

长期角色养成:

救世主

因为没有理由讨厌玩家,所以敌人的敌意较弱

因为并不害怕玩家,所以敌人更显敌意

因为没有理由讨厌玩家,所以敌人更有可能与玩家合作

因为并不害怕玩家,所以敌人不会轻易逃跑或投降

非玩家角色也许会因为一些正当理由而提供更多东西和服务给玩家

非玩家角色也许会因为一些正当理由而加入玩家的队伍

如果非玩家角色认为玩家没有能力,他们便不会提供太多东西和服务

如果非玩家角色认为玩家没有能力,他们便不会加入玩家的队伍

玩家将会拥有更多可行的非致命方法和能力

傻瓜

因为讨厌玩家,所以敌人更显敌意

因为讨厌玩家,所以敌人并不想要与之合作

因为怕丢脸,所以敌人不会轻易投降

因为讨厌玩家,非玩家角色将不会提供太多的东西和服务

因为讨厌玩家,非玩家角色和敌人将不会加入玩家的队伍

玩家将会做出更多丢脸的事

玩家拥有一些特别的能力,如偷窃或勒索等能让他变成一个没有价值的孤独之人

冷血杀手

因为不想被杀,所以敌人更显敌意

因为不想莫名其妙死掉,所以敌人不会与之合作或投降

因为不想被杀,敌人很有可能逃走

因为希望杀手能站在自己一方,所以非玩家角色会提供更多东西和服务

因为考虑到杀手的能力,非玩家角色和敌人有可能会加入其队伍中

这时候玩家将具有更多致命的方法和能力

怪物

因为不想死或者被捕,敌人更显敌意

因为比起被杀,被捕明显好多了,所以敌人会竭尽全力进行攻击

因为害怕被杀或受折磨,敌人更有可能投降

因为害怕被杀或受折磨,敌人更有可能逃跑

因为不想被杀或受折磨,非玩家角色会提供更多东西和服务

因为不想与玩家为敌,所以非玩家角色会加入玩家的队伍

因为城镇被疏散了,所以非玩家角色会提供更少的东西和服务

因为发现玩家很可怕,所以非玩家角色不会加入玩家的队伍

这时候玩家将拥有更多致命且残忍的方法和能力

当然了,这个列表并不完整,但也让我们看到了复杂的游戏设置变化。特别是非玩家角色或者他们的行动冒险让我们感受到了一种不一样的游戏体验。这些非玩家角色也能够给玩家提供相关建议,因为他们能够完全控制自己的角色,而这也正是带有杀与被杀错误观念的战斗游戏机制所不能做到的。

当然了,每一个游戏养成都需要适当的游戏叙述的支持。也许这些技巧和方法听起来难以执行,所以我们今后将继续探讨这个话题,并希望能够提供给玩家一种结构良好的游戏功能,以此丰富未来玩家的游戏体验。

游戏邦注:原文发表于2010年5月22日,所涉事件和数据均以当时为准。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

To Kill Or Not To Kill Part 2

Anjin Anhut

How do we incentivize the player to make strategic and tactic decisions regarding killing or not killing his enemies in combat gameplay? And how does it feel?

In the last part I questioned how appropriate and how much fun it is for most combat based games to offer just one default combat solution: Kill or get killed.

Let’s explore the possibilities of long term and short term changes in gameplay and narration depending on the player using lethal or non-lethal techniques.

Non lethal takedown techniques, weapons, tactics and strategies are not only a significant part of modern, futuristic and ancient forms combat and are generally neglected in the majority of games, … in my opinion, they also represent a vast and mostly uncharted area of unexplored gameplay possibilities. In this post, I’d like to begin mapping that area. This map wont be complete in any meaning of that word, since the amount of ideas and scenarios to put in there is virtually endless.

Before we start, a few rules first:

Everything goes. Though production resources are limited we still collect as much ideas as possible. It’s just a brainstorming session, so don’t be limited by costs or expenses.

When considering non-lethal techniques and gameplay elements for a game, the designer always has to keep in mind, that the player needs incentives to try those techniques out or even truly master them. If the player has no somewhat satisfying reason to only subdue his opponent, why should he?

The average player is used to killing enemies, since Pacman or Space Invaders and killing your opponent generally produces the sensation of winning. So it is important that subduing one’s enemies results in at least the same feel of winning and/or killing is still a method for winning.

Non-lethal combat techniques should not be less fun than the very lethal ones. They should not result in noticeably slower gameplay, in frustrating moments or less feel of impact. Neither should they make the player feel weak and restrained.

Always try to balance the risk and reward of non-lethal combat. If the player risks to get shot in the back by an only subdued enemy, he should at least get some worthwhile reward.

Do you know more?

options vs limitations

In the comments to my previous installment there where a lot of concerns, that the player would feel restricted and punished when he uses kill methods while non-lethal techniques are available and that non-lethal techniques would take the simple fun of going berserk on your enemies away. That of course depends on how the designers implement those techniques and what kind of payoff the designers offer for different play styles.

In games like SWAT, where non-lethal techniques are by design the preferred option and you can lose the mission when you are too trigger happy, it of course limits the player’s choices and maybe even forces the player into a play style he does not enjoy. But that is just one way of adding non-lethal combat to a game. There are many ways to add those kind of mechanics and instead of limiting the player’s choices, broadening those choices and making them more relevant. This is what this little series of articles is all about.

Where to begin?

To map this infinite amount of cause and effect scenarios, design ideas and mechanics, I’d like to work with four areas of player-game-interaction.

Game feel:

Referring to principles established in Steve Swink’s Game Feel, meaning real-time control, spatial simulation and polish. I this particular case focussing on non-lethal weapons, non-lethal takedown methods, negotiation tactics and audio visual polish to make them rock.

Tactics:

What are the risks and rewards of using non-lethal tactics in the very mission or combat sequence the player is currently playing? How can we incentivize the player in the short term?

Strategy:

There are games who support moral choices, which allow the protagonist to develop into two directions (good vs. evil). Are there really just those two directions? How can we incentivize the player in the long term to focus mostly on a lethal, non-lethal or a cleverly mixed play style?

Narration:

Often enough the depiction of the protagonist and the overall story allow for kill-all play style. But some do games struggle or even fail to match their narration with their combat gameplay and while the narration tries to sell us a hero, the gameplay delivers a killing machine. How can we match gameplay and narration? And how can we have the narration follow the player’s play style?

For this post we begin with long term and short term incentives for the player, meaning strategy and tactics. Game feel and narration will be subject a later installment.

Tactics – Engaging the Enemy

It all comes down to what kind of tasks the player has been given. Seek and destroy, clear the area, assassinate target, retrieve an item, don’t raise alarm, capture somebody, escape area, progress to next area, simply survive, free hostage and so on. A lot of those tasks can be done in a way of the player’s choice, while some of those tasks require killing of course and some tasks explicitly require non-lethal methods.

In real life, in some professions, police officer or security personnel for example, you are required by protocol to try to solve situations in a non-lethal manner. Also, there is no further interaction with a dead or unconscious enemy. That means on the one hand that the enemy threat is eliminated, but on the other hand offers no possible forced or free support from the enemy unit.

A few games already support non-lethal tactical options to a certain degree:

Splinter Cell (interrogation), Army of Two (hostage), SWAT (arrest), Gears of War 2 (meat shield)

Strategy – Disengaging from the Enemy

Depending how the player decides to end the encounter and what he decides to leave behind, it shapes who his in-game character is and how the world is receiving him. Being a valiant hero, a weak opponent, a killing machine or tyrant can not only affect the character of the protagonist, but also how enemies engage the player in future encounters and what kind of support he gets from civilians.

In Afganistan and Iraq the U.S. Forces do not only engage in military combat, but also try to establish a positive image in the public. This would be much harder than it already is, if the engagement policy was something from a Modern Warfare playbook. In contrast, warlords in Africa do not only raid whole villages, kill men and women, but also take children to train them to be child soldiers and leave some villagers alive, heavily mutilated to be an effective weapon in psychological warfare.

So, non-lethal techniques do not only apply when you want to have a positive impact.

Quiet a few games use a moral system to offer strategical options for the player in that regard. Usually they offer the player to develop into two opposite directions, good vs evil or paragon vs renegade. I’d like to offer at least 4 different character development paths as strategical options for the player.

Also quite common is that the player can not decide on the fly how to behave, but has to wait for certain sequences, cut scenes or interaction points to appear, where he is directly asked to make a conscious moral decision. Combat sequences are, with only a few exceptions, moral free zones, where nobody keeps track of the player’s behavior. Can we make every confrontation count?

Rules of Engagement

Let’s explore engagement and disengagement options and their consequences on a general level, before we dive into detailed examples.

I examine 4 engagement methods: kill, knock out, capture or talk. Every method offers own short term consequences and determines which disengagement options are available for the player. The chosen disengagement options determine the direction of the protagonist’s character development: savior, jackass, cold killer or monster. Every direction of character development comes with own long term consequences for the player.

Check out the different methods and their consequences in comparison below.

Gameplay Examples

Let’s take a look at detailed examples of the short term and long term consequences mentioned in the diagramm above:

Short term risks:

threat eliminated

no risk from killed enemy himself

possible need to hide corpse

other enemies finding corpse can get alarmed and scared

risk of enemy regaining consciousness

enemy can continue attacking player

enemy can alert other enemies

enemy can shut doors or hide items

risk of enemy breaking free

enemy can continue attacking player

enemy can alert other enemies

enemy can shut doors or hide items

risk of alarming other enemies

enemy is able to scream for help

risk of surprising attack

enemy can exploit the players low guard and attack him

possible severe damage or instant death because of low guard

Short term rewards:

threat eliminated

no further interaction with enemy

can search body for items

can force enemy to cooperate

interrogate to get passwords, enemy locations, item locations

can search enemy for items

force enemy to lure other enemies into a trap

use enemy as meat shield

take enemy as hostage

can force enemy to open doors or containments

can force enemy to drive vehicles

can force enemy go ahead on a mine field

can force enemy to guide player thru area

can ask enemy to cooperate

ask for passwords, enemy locations, item locations

ask enemy to open doors or containments

ask enemy to drive vehicles

ask enemy to keep quiet and to let the player pass

ask enemy to guide player thru area

ask enemy to convince other enemies to cooperate

can gain possible new ally

ask ally to lure other enemies into a trap

ask ally to open doors or containments

ask ally to drive vehicles

ask ally to join forces with player

ask ally to convince other enemies to cooperate

ask ally to convince other enemies to become new ally

Long term character development:

savior

enemies may be less hostile, because they have no reason to hate the player

enemies may be more hostile, because they don’t fear the player

enemies will be more likely to cooperate, because they have no reason to hate the player

enemies wont run away or surrender, since they don’t fear the player

npcs may offer better goods and services to the player to support the player’s good cause

npcs and enemies may join the player’s forces to support the player’s good cause

npcs may offer less goods and services to the player, because they consider him weak

npcs and enemies don’t join the player’s forces, because they consider him weak

more non-lethal methods and abilities become available to the player

jackass

enemies may be more hostile, because they hate the player

enemies will be less likely to cooperate, because they hate the player

enemies wont surrender, since they don’t want to be humiliated

npcs may offer less goods and services to the player, because they hate him

npcs and enemies don’t join the player’s forces, because they hate him

more funny humiliating lines and abilities become available to the player

special abilities become available to the player, like stealing or extortion, to make being a loner worthwhile

cold killer

enemies may be more hostile, because they don’t want to get killed

enemies wont cooperate or surrender, because they would die anyway

enemies are more likely to run away, because they don’t want to get killed

npcs may offer more goods and services to the player, because they want him on their side

npcs and enemies may join the player’s forces, because they consider him em

more lethal methods and abilities become available to the player

monster

enemies may be more hostile, because they don’t want to die or get captured

enemies may try desperate attacks, because getting captured by the player is worse than death

enemies will be more likely to surrender, because they are afraid of death and torture

enemies will be more likely to run away, because they are afraid of death and torture

npcs may offer better goods and services to the player to not get killed or tortured

npcs and enemies may join the player’s forces to not be targeted by the player

npcs may offer less goods and services to the player, because towns are evacuated

npcs and enemies don’t join the player’s forces, because they find him appalling

more lethal and brutal methods and abilities become available to the player

Of course this lists are in no way complete, but still offer a fairly complex load of gameplay variations. Especially in rpgs or rpg-heavy action adventures many features on those lists offer exciting experiences. They also can suggest to the player, that he is in full control of his character, something the default kill-or-get-killed concept of combat gameplay sure can’t.

Every character development needs the support proper narration, of course. Techniques and methods must feel awesome to execute. Next time we will tackle those two issues and hope end up with a nicely structured collection of gameplay features waiting to enrich future gaming experiences.(source:howtonotsuckatgamedesign


上一篇:

下一篇: