我从各类游戏设计师身上总结出许多优秀游戏设计法则，其中也包括我自己的经验。这些法则并非真理，无需严格遵循。毕竟游戏设计属于创意行为，常常会出现令人意想不到的情况，会打破这些所谓的法则。但以下这些法则可以充当制作指南。在下述内容中，每个法则都以某经典游戏为例进一步说明。（请点击此处阅读下篇内容）

法则 1：富有意义的体验

“有意义体验是指操作和结果的关系能够在更大游戏背景中得到体现，且融入其中。”（Salen & Zimmerman，《Rules of Play》，2004）

有意义体验是优秀设计的最基本法则，是指游戏输入内容（玩家同游戏间的互动）和输出内容（互动的视觉和音效反馈）对玩家来说都具有意义。它们必须具有可行性。例如，当角色走进昏暗的森林中（输入内容），音效要进行相应改变，适应当前氛围（输出内容）。当玩家选择战士头像而非小偷头像时（输入内容），我们应感到强烈战斗气氛（输出内容）。当玩家向敌人投掷炸弹时（输入内容），爆炸就会出现，杀死周围的敌人（输出内容）。从更普遍角度看，玩家行为应融入更大游戏活动中。所有这些例子都体现玩家操作和页面输出内容之间的逻辑关系，这能够促使玩家持续体验。相反，当玩家操作缺乏可辨识结果时（游戏邦注：或当玩家无法获悉操作的即时结果时），反复试验情况就会出现。作为玩家，我们会反复尝试，因为我们不清楚游戏的操作结果。若要获得有意义的体验这种情况就应避免。

《光晕》：

halo wars from free-extras.com

在《光晕》系列中，玩家的操作（反抗外敌）在更大游戏背景中都富有意义。人类处在交战中，你是获胜的重要工具。因此投入大量时间击退外敌就颇具意义。对Master Chief这样的战士而言，进行其他操作就失去意义。

不论玩家是通过武器射击，还是投掷手榴弹，跳跃，抑或是驱车，都会收到富有意义的反馈。这同样适用AI。渺小敌人看到看到伙伴死去会惊慌失措。而使用斧头的庞大敌人则会以毁灭性方式进攻你。所有这些AI反应对你而言都颇为合理——他们通常能够在游戏背景中凭直觉感知。

同时战斗鲜少依靠反复尝试。关卡的设计内容让玩家清楚把握这样的情境：消灭所有敌人继续游戏。目标非常简单、清晰。敌人不会突然出现在你背后，你不会遭受其他形式的“欺骗”。玩家的死亡通常是由于自身策略失误——因为你过于贸然前进。玩家通常能够清楚获悉自己的死亡原因，从而在今后修正错误。玩家操作和产生结果存在明显差异，这能够避免出现反复试验。玩家在死去前受到大量射击的设置也能够有效减少反复试验情况的出现。设想若在《光晕》中，角色一击则死玩家将多么沮丧。玩家也有可能在尚未弄清发生什么事情的情况下死去（这出现在《光晕》中的秒杀任务中）。但总体而言，《光晕》还是极富意义的体验。玩家的所有操作都具有特定含义和预期，结果通常具有相关性和特定意义。这就是所谓的有意义体验。

法则 2：玩法平衡

“当玩家具有众多获胜选择或渠道时，每种选择都应具有一定风险-奖励关系，防止出现优势策略。尤其是关卡设计，特别要遵循这个原则。”

在多数游戏中，玩家可通过系列方式完成游戏。玩家可以在任务开始前选择不同角色、武器和工具。通常游戏还有不同获胜路线——例如赛车游戏中的捷径。各游戏的解决方案选择通常差异较大。有些游戏呈开放式，有些则采用直线式前进方式。但重要的是玩家需要进行两难选择。赛车游戏的捷径具有更快的优势。“但为综合这种优势，游戏设计师通常会让这个路线变得更具难度（游戏邦注：将道路变窄，或融入更多弯道）。这会让玩家的选择更有趣。玩家是该选择更近的艰难路线，还是走安全路线？这个决定也许要取决于玩家在比赛中的处境，以及其技能水平和心情。若捷径存在绝对优势，选择这条路线就具有明显优势，就会丧失这些有趣的考虑事项。

这同样也出现在策略和角色扮演游戏中，玩家需在游戏开始时选择族群。这里非常重要的一点是没有族群能够总是取得胜利。否则为何要在游戏中融入其他玩家。暴雪擅于运用此策略众所周知，其持续发行补丁升级竞赛间的体验空间。

总之，促使玩家做出有趣策略选择是游戏设计的基本原则。这恰好体现Sid Meier的名言：“好游戏就是系列有趣选择。”

《生化危机 5》：

resident evil 5 from ps3.pspfreak.de

《生化危机 5》有个叫做佣兵的模式。玩家需在特定时间内杀死尽可能多的僵尸。玩家可以直接射击僵尸，也可以选择进行近距离战斗。这带来有趣的风险回报选择。最安全的解决方案就是保持距离，逐一消灭。毕竟僵尸在近距离战斗中更具杀伤力。但这个方式会耗尽宝贵弹药。更重要的是，在近距离战斗中杀死僵尸能够获得额外时间，让玩家杀死更多僵尸，提高自己的积分。这是冒险行动换来的有意义和有吸引力奖励。若玩家在近距离战斗中稍有不慎，就可能面临死亡。

作为玩家，你需要不断面对这些有趣选择——使用枪战，还是赤手空拳。玩家的决定会受到许多因素影响，包括僵尸剩余的能量、僵尸数量、当前积分及剩余时间等。这些考虑事项是非常有趣的挑战，但若缺乏玩法平衡，就难获得合理呈现。若某策略在所有情况下都占据优势地位，游戏就丧失此方面的魅力。

法则 3：提供消极和积极反馈

“玩家应被清楚告知，其操作对于实现目标会产生消极还是积极影响。”

最令人沮丧的游戏状态莫过于我们无法获悉自己的操作会让我们离游戏目标更近还是更远。很多boss战斗都存在此问题。玩家可以持续向boss腹内发射子弹，但似乎没有看到什么变化。boss只是不断接受这些子弹，丝毫没有反应。是它过于坚强，还是玩家没有击中要害？无从知晓着实非常令人沮丧，这会让玩家感到困惑。

同样，在第一人称射击游戏中，敌人能够在被击中时呈现真实反应非常重要。它应该在被击中腿部时瞬间跪倒，或在脑部受击时脑袋掉落。在传递此反馈信息方面动画效果非常重要。除保持真实性，促使玩家更融入其中外，这些反馈也会让玩家觉得自己富有权利。玩家会觉得自己对于周围环境施加的影响非常有意义，这会让游戏更具体验价值。

显然，还有其他很多方式能够展示或强化此反馈机制。积分增长和能量指数就是其中两种。颗粒效果（游戏邦注：如血液喷溅）可以强化这种反馈效果。音效也非常重要。敌人的痛苦尖叫清楚表明你顺利击中其要害。马里奥死去时的经典配乐也值得一提。

《俄罗斯方块》：

《俄罗斯方块》是持续反馈的最佳例子。任何时候，玩家只要查看方块高楼就能获悉自己的进展情况，这总是清晰可见。高度会不断更新。只要一行消失，游戏就会向玩家展示。相反，若砖块无法合理嵌入，玩家能够清楚看到高楼越变越高——高楼会越变越高直至游戏结束。游戏除提供直观视觉反馈外，还通过积分增加及关键情境的强化音乐呈现游戏进展。

这个原则还体现在《使命的召唤：现代战争》：《现代战争》的多人模式也是个典型例子。当玩家杀死对立角色时，能够从屏幕上看到积分，屏幕会呈现自己增加的经验值。击中头部还会出现独特的“子弹击中脑壳”音效，这令人具有很大满足感。更重要的是，整体积分总是在屏幕顶部呈现。玩家被击中时消极反馈也非常重要。除控制器上的力量反馈外，玩家还可以看到红色箭头显示子弹来源方向，音效会出现变化，屏幕会呈喷溅画面，随着玩家更濒临死亡，画面会变得越红。

我发现这个法则并不适用所有题材。持续反馈是非常杰出的游戏模式，但这并不适合现实内容。例如，在公园散步时我们不会在右上角看到状态显示。我们不会在日常生活中不断受到评估。因此追求高仿真玩法的游戏要回避这个法则——至少避开部分内容。

法则 4：游戏沉浸性

心理学的沉浸理论是由心理学家Csikszentmihalyi于1990年在其著作《Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience》中提出。他观察人们如何单纯出于欲望进行某些活动（游戏邦注：例如绘画、攀岩和其他休闲运动）。这些活动没有对应的外部和物质奖励。相反，我们的动机是希望进入沉浸状态——这是人类的基本欲望。沉浸状态就是深深融入其中，其中我们的注意和焦点完全围绕特定活动。这会令我们失去自我意识，行为和意识会融为一体，我们会忽略与行为无关的想法。在沉浸状态中，你会觉得自己仿佛就能够主宰命运。“集中注意”就完美呈现这种状态。虽然沉浸性不只是瞄准游戏，其具有广泛适用范围，但Csikszentmihalyi特别提到，游戏非常可能引起沉浸性。

那么我们如何将玩家带入沉浸状态中？Csikszentmihalyi设定系列必要条件。首选，难度需符合我们的能力，这样我们面对的才是适度挑战。游戏若过于简单，我们很容易将视线转向其他地方。若过于复杂，我们会感到沮丧。游戏需要具有合理的平衡性，在我们能力提高时变得更具难度。在游戏初始设置各种难度选择显然是个好方法，因为玩家的游戏水平相差较大。设置递增难度曲线，遵守玩家技能发展非常重要。为达到这种平衡，广泛游戏测试必不可少。

定义清楚的单一目标亦非常重要。缺乏此元素，我们就无法专注手边任务。这其实印证我的首个法则——多余的反复尝试情况常在目标不明确时出现。

此外，反馈机制也非常重要，这是法则 3所谈到的内容。玩家需被持续告知自己是离目标更近还是更远。这能够保持我们的游戏兴致。

我们还要在不确定情境中感受到自己的控制地位。这也是个平衡问题。若游戏自行操作的内容过多，我们就无法进入沉浸状态，因为我们未能感受到权利意识。此外，若权利意识过于强烈，我们就能够轻松控制周围环境，挑战就缺乏难度。想象下若玩家死去后便能够立即就地复生，未受到丝毫损失，会是怎样的境况。我们便不会想要在游戏任务中集中注意力。我们几乎变成长生不老——权利过于庞大。因此游戏应该融入某些令人害怕的混乱元素——促使玩家谨慎操作，时刻提醒他们失败会不期而遇。

《几何战争》：

许多益智游戏都遵循此原则。《几何战争》就是其中之一——包括《俄罗斯方块》，这可算是经典例子。

《几何战争》的目标非常清晰：如何在持续涌现的大批敌人中生存下来。其反馈机制也非常丰富。敌人的毁灭会出现五彩斑斓的颗粒，玩家会获得积分增加和能量奖励。游戏还融入递增难度曲线，以保证在游戏进展中，敌人会变得越发坚固和庞大。最终玩家能够在此混乱情境中感受到自己的控制地位。大量三角状物体出现于屏幕中，不时攻击玩家，能够有效创造游戏的混乱感觉（游戏邦注：此外炸弹和漩涡也会频繁出现在屏幕中）。玩家在小心避开敌人，尝试在碰撞前射击自杀性太空飞船时，其内心颇为忐忑。若失败后果更加严重，这些操作会更加令人心惊胆寒：玩家需重头开始。这种持续“保持注意集中”的状态由恍惚会导致失败的机制支撑。

尽管存在大量混乱情境，但优秀玩家依然能够持续很久，这说明游戏完成基于技能，玩家能够在此情境发挥自己的控制权利。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Principles of Good Game Design – Part 1 – Meaningful Play

This is part one of my feature on good game design. I’ve gathered a bunch of principles of good game design from various game designers, including myself. I will present one every day and gather them in a final blog post in a week or so. Some of these are arguable and, of course, they shouldn’t be followed religiously. After all, game design is a creative act, where magic sometimes occurs when breaking the principles of what a good game is. But they can be used as general guidelines, I guess. After a description of each principle, I’ve selected a game that I believe adheares particularly well to said principle. When the feature is over, I will tell you about how I’m trying to incorporate some of the principles in my upcoming Iphone/Ipad game, called Bouncy Flame.

Principle 1: Meaningful Play:

“Meaningful play is what occurs when the relationships between actions and outcomes in a game are both discernable and integrated into the larger context of the game.” (Salen & Zimmerman in “Rules of Play”, 2004)

Meaningful play is one of the most basic principles of good game design. It states that inputs (your interactions with the game) and outputs (the visual and audio feedback of your interactions) must be meaningful to the player. They must make sense. For example, when walking into a gloomy forest with our character (input), music could change to accomodate the mood here (output). When choosing a warrior avatar as opposed to a thief (input), we should feel an increased amount strength in battle (output). When throwing bombs at enemies (input), an explosion should appear, killing nearby enemies (output). On a more general level, player actions should be integrated or woven into a larger event happening in the game. All these examples create a very basic logic connection between what you do as a player and what plays out on the screen, which provides incentive for the player to keep playing. Conversely, when player actions lack discernable outcomes – when the player can’t perceive the immediate outcome of an action, trial-error incidents tend to occur. As players, we keep trying and failing, because our understanding of the consequences of our game actions is unclear.  This should be avoided in order to achieve meaningful play.

Principle found in: Halo:

In the Halo series, your actions – to rebel against an evil alien force – clearly make sense in a larger context. The human race is at war, and you’re a vital instrument in winning it. Thus, it makes sense that you spend most of your time gunning down aliens. Doing other stuff wouldn’t make sense for a soldier such as Master Chief.

Regardless of whether your shooting with a weapon, hurling an incendiary grenade, jumping, or driving vehicles, you receive an output that makes sense. The same applies to the AI. A small enemy – having seen all his comrades die – might panic. The giant axe-wielding enemies come charging at you with devasting results. Allied characters prompt you to go into cover when in danger. All these AI reactions to your actions make sense to you – they generally feel intuitive within their context.

Also, the battles rarely rely on trial-error. The levels are designed in such a way that you’re mostly presented with an area, in which to eliminate all enemies to progress. The goal is very simple and clear to you. And you won’t experience enemies suddenly spawning behind you or “cheating” in other ways. When you die, it’s mostly due a tactical mistake from your part – because you’ve charged forward too aggressively. You tend to know exactly why you died, enabling you to correct the mistake afterwards. There is a certain discernibility between your player actions and their outcomes, which limits trial/error.  Trial/error is also diminished by the fact that you can take relatively many shots before dying. Imagine how frustrating one-shot-kills would be in Halo. You would die without even knowing what happened. (Actually this does occur in some of the sniping missions in Halo, which is why these are my least favorite levels of the game.) But, generally Halo should be commended for its high degree of meaningful play. There is usually intent and expectation behind every player action, and the result usually has some relevance and significance. This is what meaningful play is all about.

Principles of Good Game Design – Part 2 – Gameplay Balance

This is part two of my feature on good game design. I’ve gathered a bunch of principles of good game design from various game designers, including myself. I will present one every day and gather them all in a final blog post in a week or so. Some of these are arguable and, of course, they shouldn’t be followed religiously. After all, game design is a creative act, where magic sometimes occurs when breaking the laws or principles of what a good game is. But they can be used as general guidelines, I suppose. After a description of each principle, I’ve selected a game that I believe adheares particularly well to said principle. When the feature is over, I will tell you about how I’m trying to incorporate some of the principles in my upcoming Iphone/Ipad game, called Bouncy Flame.

Principle 2: Gameplay Balance

“When players have multiple options or routes to victory, each option or route should have a risk-reward relationship that prevents dominant strategies. The level design, in particular, should accommodate this feature.”

In most games, you can complete a task in several ways. You might be able to choose different playable characters, weapons, or tools before a mission. There might also be different routes to victory – for example a shortcut in a racing game. The amount of solution options obviously varies a lot from game to game. Some are very open while others offer a more linear progression. Nevertheless, it’s important that the players are put in a dilemma about which option to choose. A shortcut in a racing game has the obvious advantage – or reward – of being quicker. ‘However to compensate for this advantage, the game designer could make this route more difficult – by making it more narrow and full of tight turns, for instance. This will make the player’s choice interesting. Should he risk taking the shorter more difficult route, or opt for the safe one? The decision might depend on his current position in the race, his skill level, his mood and so forth. On the other hand, if the short cut is undeniably better in all situations, taking it would be a dominant strategy, removing these satisfying considerations.

The same thing is seen in strategy and role-playing game, in which you choose a race in the beginning. Here, it’s also important that no race always triumphs. Otherwise, why even include the others in the game. Blizzard, in particular, is known for mastering this game design principle, constantly releasing patches to level the playing field between races.

So in conclusion, forcing the player into making strategic, interesting considerations is a basic principle of game design. This goes well together with Sid Meier’s well known quote: “A [good] game is a series of interesting choices”

Principle found in: Resident Evil 5.

Resident Evil 5 has a mode called Mercenaries. Here, you must kill as many zombies as possible within a set time frame. You can obviously shoot the zombies, but you can also go into close combat. This sets up an interesting choice of risk-reward. The safest solution would be to keep your distance, and take them out one by one, After all, zombies are much more lethal in close combat. However, this solution uses up valuable ammo. What’s more, killing a zombie with a close combat move, gives you extra time, in which to kill more zombies and increase your score. This is a significant and tempting reward for an otherwise risky action. If you miss your close combat attack, you risk death.

As a player, you are constantly faced with these interesting choices – using the gun or your fisticuffs. Your decision is influenced by many factors, including the zombie’s remaining health, the number of zombies in the area, your current score, the remaining time, etc. These considerations represent a very satisfying challenge that could not materialise without gameplay balance. If one strategy had been the most dominant in all situations, you would lose this appealing aspect of games.

Principles of Good Game Design – Part 3 – Negative and Positive Feedback

This is part three of my feature on good game design. I’ve gathered a bunch of principles of good game design from various game designers, including myself. I will present one every day and gather them all in a final blog post in a week or so. Some of these are arguable and, of course, they shouldn’t be followed religiously. After all, game design is a creative act, where magic sometimes occurs when breaking the laws or principles of what a good game is. But they can be used as general guidelines, I suppose. After a description of each principle, I’ve selected a game that I believe adheares particularly well to said principle. When the feature is over, I will tell you about how I’m trying to incorporate some of the principles in my upcoming Iphone/Ipad game, called Bouncy Flame.

Principle 3: Provide positive and negative feedback

“The player should clearly and almost constantly be told whether his actions had a negative or positive effect on achieving his goal.”

One of the most frustrating game situations happens when we are unaware of whether our actions bring us closer or further away from our goal. Many boss battles suffer from this. You keep pounding bullets into the gut of the boss, but nothing seems to happen. He just keeps on accepting them, without even reacting at all. Is he just extremely tough or is the player missing some sweet spot that needs to be hit? This is frustrating not to know, and it will likely result in the player getting stuck.

Likewise, in first person shooters, it’s important that an enemy reacts realistically upon being hit. He should perhaps fall to his knee after taking a shot in the leg, or lose his head after a head-shot. Animations are vital in communicating this feedback. Apart from being more realistic, thus immersing the player more, these reactions also make the player feel more empowered. You feel as if your influence over your surroundings is that much more significant, which makes the game infinitely more rewarding to play.

Obviously, there are many other ways to show or enhance the feedback mechanism. Score increases and health meters are certainly among them. Particle effects, such as blood splattering, can also enhance feedback. Sound is important too. A scream of agony coming from an enemy indicates very clearly that you’ve done successful damage. The characteristic tune playing when Mario dies also deserves mention.

Principle found in Tetris:

Tetris is an obvious example of constant feedback. At all times, you know exactly how well you’re doing just by looking at the height of the Tetris tower, which is always in focus, anyway. The height is updated constantly. As soon as you make a line disappear, the game shows you how the tower is diminished. Conversely, if you can’t get the bricks to fit, you instantly experience how the tower grows taller – ever closer to reaching game over. This visual feedback is complemented by constant score increases and music that is intensified in critical situations.

Principle also found in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare:

The multiplayer mode in Modern Warfare is also a prime example. When you’ve killed an opposing player, you instantly see points on the screen, showing your increased experience. Making a headshot even plays a very distinct “bullet-to-skull” sound, which is immensely satisfying to hear. What’s more, the overall score is always shown at the top of the screen. Also, negative feedback is prominent when you become hit. Besides force-feedback in the controller, you see red arrows showing where the shot came from, and sounds get distorted while the screen blurs, becoming redder as your death approaches.

I realize, that this principle isn’t universally applicable to all games in all genres. Giving constant feedback is indeed a very gamey act, which doesn’t really match real-life experience. We don’t see a status display, in the top right-hand corner, when taking a walk in the park, for instance. We aren’t constantly evaluated in our daily lives. Therefore, games that strive for highly realistic gameplay could benefit from avoiding this principle – at least partially.

Principles of Good Game Design – Part 4 – Flow in Games

This is part four of my feature on good game design. I’ve gathered a bunch of principles of good game design from various game designers, including myself. I will present one every day and gather them all in a final blog post next week. Some of these are arguable and, of course, they shouldn’t be followed religiously. After all, game design is a creative act, where magic sometimes occurs when breaking the laws or principles of what a good game is. But they can be used as general guidelines, I suppose. After a description of each principle, I’ve selected a game that I believe adheares particularly well to said principle. When the feature is over, I will tell you about how I’m trying to incorporate some of the principles in my upcoming Iphone/Ipad game, called Bouncy Flame.

Principle 4: Flow in Games

“Get players to experience flow”:

The flow theory is used in psychology and developed by Csikszentmihalyi in 1990 in his book “Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience”. He has observed how some activities, such as painting, mountain-climbing, and other leisure sports, are often carried out simply because we want to. There is no external, material reward connected to these activities. Instead, our motivation is to get into a flow state – a basic human desire. The flow state is one of intense immersion, in which our attention and concentration completely revolve around a certain activity. There is a loss of the feeling of self-consciousness, a merging of action and awareness, and no place for thoughts unrelated to the activity. In flow, you feel as if you alone can affect your fate. The idiom ”to be in the zone” summarizes this state fairly well. Though flow isn’t specifically aimed at games, but has a broader scope, Csikszentmihalyi specifically mentions games as potentially flow-inducing.

So how should we bring players into flow? Csikszentmihalyi sets up several necessary criteria. First off, the difficulty has to match our abilities, so we are suitably challenged. This is a fine balance. A game, which is too easy, gets us more easily distracted by other things. If too hard, we get frustrated. The game has to strike the right balance and keep getting more difficult as we improve our skills. Having multiple difficulty options at the start of the game is obviously a good starting point, as players’ general game-playing abilities differ wildly. An increasing difficulty curve, where gameplay gets progressively more complex, and follows players’ skill developments is also vital. In order to achieve this balance, extensive play-testing is required.

A single, clearly defined overall goal is also important. Without it, we can’t keep an intense focus on the task at hand. This actually goes well with my first principle, stating that unwanted and distracting trial-error incidents tend to occur when our goal is unclear.

Feedback mechanisms are also vital, which is exactly what my third principle deals with. We need to constantly be told whether we are getting closer to or further away from our goal. This keeps us motivated.

We also need a sense of control in an otherwise uncertain situation. Again, this is a question of balance. If the game plays itself too much, we are unlikely to experience flow, because we lack a sense of empowerment. On the other hand, if the empowerment is so strong that we can easily control our surroundings, the challenge is compromised. Imagine dying in a game and just restarting exactly at the same spot with no loss experienced. There would be no incentive for us to concentrate on the task. We would be practically immortal – too empowered. Thus there has to be some frightening, chaotic elements – that keep us on our toes and reminds us that the risk of failure is always looming just around the corner.

Principle found in Geometry Wars:

Many puzzle games considerably adhere to this principle. Geometry Wars is certainly one of them – perhaps the most extreme together with Tetris.

In Geometry Wars, the goal is very clear: It’s all about surviving the hordes of enemies spawning in endless waves. Feedback mechanisms are plentiful too. Colorful particles spawn upon enemy destruction, and score increases and power-ups reward the player often. There’s also an increasing difficulty curve, making sure that enemies get harder and more numerous as a game session proceeds. Finally, you do indeed feel a sense of control in an otherwise chaotic environment. The game feels immensely chaotic as dozens of triangular shapes move about on the screen shooting at you, while bombs and vortexes frequently inhabit the screen. Your heart is pumping as you narrowly avoid an enemy and just manages too shoot a suicidal space ship before impact. These actions are made all the more nerve-wrecking as the consequences of failure are severe: you have to restart entirely. The sense of being constantly “in the zone” is supported by a hypnotizing trance beat.

Despite the amount of chaos, a good player can survive for a long time, indicating that the game is immensely skill-based and that it’s possible to exercise some degree of control over this this insanely chaotic play field.（Source：redkeybluekey Part1，Part2，Part3，Part4）