作者：Bedivere

微软创意总监Peter Molyneux在谈及《神鬼寓言III》时曾说道，简单比复杂好。简单能够提供给玩家更直接的游戏体验，并降低游戏准入门槛，让新玩家也能够快速地熟悉游戏。而复杂的游戏则提供给玩家更多选择，并且让他们必须多花点时间才能够判断游戏是否有趣。而一款成功的游戏必须同时具备这两个要素。

让我们详细分析这两个要素。

简单一点好。没有人会喜欢一个沉重的用户界面，一个每隔五分钟需要检查一次的保存系统或者难以处理的控制布局。我们总是想知道自己可以做些什么，并且通过自己的努力能够在游戏中实现什么。如果玩家进入游戏后5个小时仍然不知道如何控制游戏，那么这款游戏就真的有问题了。但是对于硬核游戏玩家来说，简单却不是一个有利的因素。如果硬核游戏缺少任何挑战，玩家也不会想要长时间地玩游戏了。

复杂一点也不错。我们总是希望能够从自己的努力中得到奖励。如果在你玩了6个多小时的游戏后简单的一个空格键就能够让你赢得胜利，那么你肯定会很快对这款游戏失去兴趣吧。你应该更喜欢花三个多小时去挑战一只凶猛的恶龙。也许在游戏中它会多次对你发动攻击，但是当你最后打败了它后，你便会觉得非常有成就感。就像是登上山峰与怪物赤手搏斗的这种感觉。

坦白地来讲，电子游戏领域正在骚动着一场变化，即所有游戏日渐趋于简单化，但是这对我来说却不是个好消息。我喜欢电子游戏，但是我喜欢长且复杂，能够带给我成就感的游戏，而不是那种6岁小孩也能够操控的游戏。

波斯王子：时之刃(from pc.ign.com)

《波斯王子：时之刃》是一款非常困难的游戏。玩家必须花几个小时去完成一定的战斗任务，并从中学习到巧妙的游戏技巧。刚开始，玩家可能会因为每三秒钟就必须见证王子的死亡是一件很受挫的事，并且他们还必须反复从之前的阶段开始游戏，但是一旦你摸透了游戏并且能够顺利地前进，那么你便不会再抱怨之前的那些挫折了。

直接的游戏不一定需要简单，但是却必须剔除掉一切复杂系统。虽然穿过地图努力去实现下一个目标很痛苦，但是这却是游戏旅程中一个重要的部分。现代射击游戏让你能够直接出现在铁轨上，直接从激动人心的场景开始游戏；而你也会出现在大使馆中，而不是暗渡陈仓，而你会依据速度而获得“任务完成”这一信息。《半条命2》在这方面也做得很好：玩家从来不会无缘无故而退出游戏。你必须在游戏中一直行走一直开车，但是正是因为这些设置才让这款游戏更加有趣。

再生机制也是许多游戏中非常重要的一大要素。寻找生命包这种传统的游戏方法已经过时了。像《英雄本色》这类型游戏通过让玩家带着一点点的生命值去进行游戏而创造出一种紧张感。你不能像一个傻瓜一样进入一间房间，向12个人射击，但是自己却濒临死亡，傻傻地等待着生命值的恢复。如果你在杀了这些人后就近乎休克了，那么下一批出现的人将能够轻易要了你的命。但是你却能因此进行深思熟虑，采用更高明的策略。毫发无伤地打败这12个敌人便能够帮你赢得最高的分数。虽然再生机制在某些游戏中很有效，但是我希望未来的射击游戏能够继续坚持传统的游戏方法。

现在让我们来说说简单的游戏。有时候，我们玩游戏只是想放松大脑，看看显示屏上轻松明亮的色彩。所以，如此简单的游戏也是存在的。有时候当我们在玩游戏时，不一定愿意投入100%的精力。这也是会出现《FarmVille》这类型游戏的原因。

复杂的控制器能够帮助游戏吸引到更多的玩家。如果你希望它变得简单，你便可以简单地设置，而如果你希望它变得复杂，亦可以进行相关设置。但是事实上，很多游戏在这方面却做得不好。

有时候，简单却往往不够简单。我能够轻松地玩《古墓丽影》，但是我也发现了某些糟糕的设计让我很容易在游戏中死去。虽然并不是开发者故意这么做的，但是我却真的在游戏中遇到了这种问题。我承认我喜欢射击游戏，也喜欢简单的游戏模式，但是很多时候我都发现自己很难驾驭某些游戏。如果我真正努力去穿过某些关卡，但却始终未能获得成功，我肯定会非常郁闷的。如果你一直在游戏中遭遇失败，肯定希望游戏能够降低难度吧。并且游戏无需直接告诉你是否降低了难度，而是可以通过提供给玩家额外的生命值或者提高射击命中率表现出来。但是如果我花了2个小时仍旧不能够完成游戏，我便不会再去纠结游戏是否应该降低难度了，因为到那时候我的耐性估计已经被磨平了。

就难度而言，我曾经听说有人在第一次尝试《光晕3》时就成功地赢得了游戏。但是对我来说这并不是一款非常困难的游戏。最困难的游戏应该留给那些赢得了游戏并正在寻找更多挑战性的玩家们。有一些较为疯狂的玩家总是希望游戏越有挑战性越好。所以设计师可以适当为那些妖怪添加生命值，并移除玩家的魔法药剂，让我们直面这种挑战。我们也许会在游戏中屡次死亡，但是这才是我们真正想要的过程。

多人游戏的学习曲线取决于玩家的游戏行动。但是唯一可以确定的便是游戏必须拥有适当的匹配机制。如果我的对手是拥有相同技巧级别的人，那么我便能够较为轻松地打败他。没有人想要成为那种一直充当着被杀的角色。另外一种有趣的方法便是让玩游戏时间低于20个小时的玩家呆在新手服务器的区域内，这样他们不但能够安心地待在游戏世界中，而且还可以毫无挫败感地学习游戏技巧。《战地之叛逆连队2》本来可以简单地按照玩家的游戏级别对其进行划分，但是它却并未这么做。

游戏邦注：原文发表于2010年7月10日，所涉事件和数据均以当时为准。

（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）

Simplicity vs. Complexity in Game Design

by Bedivere

About a month ago, Peter Molyneux made a statement while talking about Fable III that simplicity is better than complexity. Simplicity offers a more streamlined experience for the player and makes the bar for entry as low as possible so new players can enjoy the game faster. A more complex game gives the players more choice, and it takes a bit longer to get satisfying feedback from the game. A game needs elements of both in order to be successful and fun.

Let’s break it down a bit and take a look at both sides of the coin.

Simple is good. No one wants a clunky user interface, a bad save system with checkpoints five minutes away, or a cumbersome control layout. We want to be able to know what we want to do and be able to execute it in-game with as little effort as possible. If you’re five hours into a game and you still haven’t figured out the controls, then the game is doing something wrong.  Simplicity can also be the death of a game for a hardcore player. If a game isn’t challenging, then you might not play it for very long.

Hard is also good. We want to be rewarded for our efforts. If every game just handed you the victory after six hours of pushing the spacebar (or the X button for you console people), you would probably get bored of video games pretty quickly. You want to feel good when you defeat that dragon that took you three hours to kill. Sure, it kicked your ass ten times, but when you finally get it right, it feels pretty awesome. You feel like you could climb mountains and kill yeti with your bare hands (if you weren’t a nerd that didn’t go outside, that is).

So now that I’ve laid out my cards on the table, let me get to the meat of all this: There has been a disturbing movement in video games to become easier and easier, and it’s rather irritating to me. I like video games, and I like to play them. But I like long, complex games that are rewarding, not “Hey, my six-year-old kid can play this too!” games.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time was a pretty hard game to beat. It could take hours to perfect a certain fighting sequence, and the acrobatics had a steep learning curve. At first it was a bit frustrating seeing the Prince fall to his death every three minutes and having to redo the whole room, but once you got it down and could pull of the moves like clockwork, it was very satisfying.

The new Prince of Persia game (the cel-shaded one, not The Forgotten Sands) took away all the difficulty and made it easier… a lot easier. You can’t die, fall, or be defeated in combat. The running sections are all too obvious on the screen, and it looks like a roller coaster track. Pressing one button will usually get you across half the map, and the really tricky stuff might require a second button. I played about four hours of it, and it felt so repetitive and dull that I couldn’t stand it anymore. It was too easy. There was absolutely no challenge, and it made me cringe to think that this game descended from Sands of Time.

The streamlining of games isn’t necessarily making them easier, but it does take away from their overall complexity. It’s a pain in the butt to walk across the map to get to your next objective, but it is part of the journey. Modern shooters have put you on rails and let you only play out the exciting parts of the story; you start inside the embassy, rather then having to sneak in, and as soon as it’s done, you’re rewarded with an obnoxious “Mission Complete” message. Half-Life 2 did it right: you were never pulled out of the game world. Sure, you had to walk and drive a lot, but it was a better game because of it.

Regenerating health is also becoming predominate in a lot of games. The old method of finding health packs is going the way of the dodo. Games like Max Payne built up their tension by forcing you to go through the game with only a small portion of health left. It forced you to get it right. You couldn’t just run into a room like an idiot, shoot 12 guys, nearly die, and wait for your health to come back before going on. If you were almost dead after killing those guys, the next guys would get you for sure. It made you think and play smarter. Getting the moves right to kill a dozen guys without getting hit was one of that game’s high points. Regenerating health might work for some games, but I hope shooters in the future stick with the old standard (if Deus Ex 3 has regenerating health, I will throw up).

So that’s my take on the whole simple vs. complex debate. Jump in with your opinions in the comments below.

Keep on gaming, people!（source:fronttowardsgamer）http://fronttowardsgamer.com/2010/07/10/simplicity-vs-complexity-in-game-design/

Simplicity vs. Complexity in Game Design Part 2

I had a lot of interesting feed back on my first article, so I have decided to do a second part.

If you haven’t read part one, please do so before reading part two. Or, don’t. I don’t care what you do with your time, but this will make more sense if you do.

There is something to be said for easy games. Sometimes we just want to turn our brains off, and look at all the pretty colours on the screen. These games should exist. I don’t always want to be putting out 100% of my effort when I’m playing games. That’s why there is Farmville. (I’m not saying anything more about it)

A good difficulty slider can make a game much more accessible to a broader audience. If you want it easy, put it on easy. If you like it hard, make it hard (that’s what she said). A good chunk of games fail to get this right.

Sometimes easy isn’t easy enough. I played Tomb Raider Underworld on easy, but I still found myself falling to my death because of bad game design. That might not be what the developers intended, but it’s what happened when I played. I’ll admit I suck at shooters, and I like easy mode, but most of the time I still find it frustrating to play them. If I’m really trying my best to get past a level without success, it bugs me. Maybe games could benefit from dumbing down if you keep failing. They don’t have to tell you that it’s getting easier, just give you a little extra HP or make all your shots hit. I wouldn’t mind a game going easy on me if I couldn’t get past a zone for 2 hours.

As far as hard goes, I know there are people who beat Halo 3 on legendary the first time. That to me doesn’t seem very hard. Your hardest game mode should be reserved for players who have beat the game once, and are looking for a greater challenge. That way your players always have another challenge to face. There are always crazy people who want their game to be as much of a challenge as it can be (before you get all defensive, I tend to be one of those people when it comes to RPGs). So just add some hit points to those monsters, take away my mana potions, and let us have at it. We might die a lot, but that’s what we want.

Multiplayer games are a bitch. The learning curve is based on the people playing it. The only sure way to fix it is to have good matchmaking. If I can be paired against people with a similar skill level, then that makes it easier for me to compete. No one wants to be the guy getting no kills with 15 deaths. Another interesting idea would be to keep people who have played the game for less then 20 hours confined to newbie servers. That way they are safe from the wolves in the world outside, and they have a chance to learn the game without getting frustrated. A game like Battlefield Bad Company 2 could easily break up people with different levels, but they don’t. It seems simple, but for whatever reason they don’t do it that way.

Whether easy or hard, we all want one thing out of our games: to have fun playing them. And I intend to go do that right now.（source:fronttowardsgamer）