作者：Brandon Sheffield

曾几何时，游戏包装盒后面总是印有一大堆项目内容，阐述着游戏中有多少敌人，何种功能以及需要多少游戏时间等内容。那时候的我们总是对此感到无语并抱怨。因为我们认为“游戏不只是关于这一系列功能！游戏是一种互动式体验，不能被压缩成一列简单的道具和地图！”

而随着市面上的盒装游戏越来越少，我们也逐渐开始遗忘这些功能解释内容。或者说我们开始遗忘这些内容的真正含义——因为如今的游戏设计变得越来越“小气”。

大方

在过去，许多优秀的游戏都拥有大方的设计（并且现在一些优秀游戏也仍然能够体现这一点）。我的意思是，游戏中的某些内容可能不会得到玩家的认可或欣赏，而它们仍然存在于游戏中是因为，开发者认为创造一个充满活力的游戏世界需要这些内容。

如此，玩家便能够在游戏中不断寻找新的互动方法，并更深入地体验游戏（尽管他们可能已经玩了好几个小时的游戏了）。让我们以《宝石迷阵3》为例子进行说明。《宝石迷阵》是一款非常受欢迎的游戏。玩家能够组配不同形状的宝石，连成一线，然后消除它们。

《宝石迷阵3》中拥有许多有趣且奇特的游戏理念。游戏中的大爆炸效果以及逼真的音效刚好能够迎合第一人称射击游戏（FPS）玩家的需求，而奇异的幻想小说式背景又能够调动休闲玩家的兴趣。游戏中的音乐就好像把玩家带回了90年代传统的PC游戏中，并伴随着《真人快打》式低沉且具有吸引力的旁白音。

游戏中设有8种游戏模式，并且这些模式都巧妙地使用了同一种游戏机制，不仅能够有效地吸引玩家的注意，同时也让Popcap无需投入过多精力去创造更多不同的玩法。所以对于玩家的我来说，这是一款非常大方的游戏。它能够适度地取舍自己的利益，并提供给玩家更多优秀的设计，美术，音效等游戏元素。

stingy(from emergealready.blogspot)

小气

如今的微交易和可下载内容日益普及。不久前，《俄罗斯方块》刚被评为简单的趣味导向型游戏设计代表。但是最近又出现了可付费订阅的iOS版本《俄罗斯方块》。该款游戏售价99美分，但玩家可以每个月支付2.99美元获取“独家游戏内容”，并且能够因此快速提高游戏排名。

玩家以固定价格购买到核心游戏，并且通过额外付费才能获得“额外内容”。在这种游戏设计中，开发者是以收费模式来展现“大方的”设计，所以很明显，这是一种小气的表现，但是当今的游戏产业却朝着这个方向而发展。

分割并销售

让我们诚实地面对当前的免费模式。传统意义上的游戏都是完整的游戏，而我们现在正在分割这种游戏，使其每部分内容都能够进行独立销售。在《塞尔达》中，玩家不需要为获得一把更加强大的剑而付费，他们能够在之后的游戏旅程中找到它。

很多人都说他们的免费游戏具有完整的游戏功能，并且即使未拥有任何微交易道具也不会影响玩家的整体游戏体验。但是这种设计本身就是一种“小气”的表现。尽管你事先明确了划分目的，但是这么做还是会破坏游戏的整体体验，并让游戏不能“大方”地为玩家服务。

很多AAA级游戏中的可下载内容（DLC）也是基于相同原理进行了划分。我当然理解它们这么做的原因——这种模式能够延长游戏的“寿命”。事实上，在一些通过深度内容体现“大方”的游戏中，如《辐射：新维加斯》或者《天际》，DLC甚至是游戏受欢迎的重要元素：因为游戏中的支线任务能够带给玩家耳目一新的感受。

但是如果你尝试着将这些内容整合到核心游戏中，如在本身非常“大方”的《龙腾世纪：起源》中设置可下载的全部角色和故事内容，便会因此破坏游戏中的“大方”元素。不过不管怎么说，我并不认为DLC或者免费游戏有什么错，相反地，它们甚至转变了我们原本所认为的糟糕发展方向。

整体设计

在整个游戏产业中，我们已经很难看到有人真正愿意创造一款一气呵成的完整游戏。当然了，很大程度是因为钱的问题。每个人都需要钱。但是开发者的制造热情在哪里？创造一款充满作者想象力以及带有完整“感觉”的游戏激情又在哪里？

如今，玩家对于游戏的感受主要是来自于游戏社区，以及游戏结构和设计。从某种程度看来这是好事，但是如此设置却不可能帮助你创造出像《旺达与巨像》（屈指可数的动作冒险游戏大作）或《孤岛惊魂2》等优秀的游戏。

如果你将游戏中一些“有感觉”的内容分割成DLC，你就需要明确这么做是否会改变你所创造的整体游戏。

当然了，也有许多合理的方法能够帮我们摆脱“小气”免费模式或DLC。如XBLIG的《僵尸围城》，这款游戏的设计非常大方，即使是付费游戏，但是却提供给玩家很长的随机游戏时间（游戏邦注：以及合作游戏模式）。《僵尸围城》的游戏模式非常干脆，即当开发者获得一定的销售目标后他们便会转向提供免费下载内容。

并且这种模式能够帮助游戏吸引更多玩家，更大的销售额等于要推出更多免费的DLC。但是很多公司却不敢轻易冒险，因为没人能够保证这种尝试是否有效。而对于那些选择这种模式的开发者来说，他们才是真心热爱游戏，而这也正是玩家真正在乎的。

（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）

Opinion: The generous and the stingy – a growing trend in game direction

by Brandon Sheffield

There was a time when the backs of game boxes had a slew of bullet points printed on them, illustrating numbers of enemies, features, and hours of gameplay. We decried this, at the time. “Games are more than a series of features!” we said. “Games are interactive experiences, and can’t be reduced to a simple list of numbers of items and maps!”

Nevermind the fact there aren’t nearly as many game boxes anymore—I’m starting to actually miss those bullet points, as well. Or at least I miss what they represented—because game designs are getting stingy.

Generosity

In the past, many of the best games were (and a few of the current best games still are) generously designed. By this I mean in some games a lot of the content will not be appreciated or experienced by most players, but it’s in there beneath the layers, because the developers felt it should be, and because they wanted to make a vibrant, living world.

This allows players to keep discovering new ways to interact with and enjoy the game, even after playing it for hours.
I’ll use a recent example: Bejeweled 3. Bejeweled is a proven property that’s remarkably popular. You could probably spruce up the graphics, add some nice filters, and be done with it.

But Bejeweled 3 has a whole lot of interesting, weird ideas. It’s got explosions, particle effects, and lush sound that would please any FPS fan, on top of eerie fantasy novel backgrounds that are clearly are meant to appeal to the more casual. The music is a fantastic take on classic ’90s PC games, with a bizarrely compelling Mortal Kombat-style deep voice over.

There are 8 modes to play which all use the same mechanics in clever ways, to form a very curious and very compelling amalgam that, ultimately, Popcap didn’t need to go out of its way to create.

The game is very generous to me as a player. It keeps giving up little nuggets of enjoyment when I pay attention to this or that element of the design, art, or sound.

Scrooged

Microtransactions and downloadable content are making their way into everything. Until recently, Tetris was held up as one of those classic, pure examples of straightforward, fun-oriented game design. But now, a recent iOS Tetris has launched with a paid subscription. The game is 99 cents, and you can pay $2.99 per month to get access to exclusive content, and most importantly, a booster that lets you increase your Tetris rank faster.

You get a core game for one price, then you get the “extra bits” for an additional fee. Features that might be generous in the design are sold at a premium. This is decidedly stingy, and almost every corner of the industry is trending this way.

Chop and crop

Let’s be honest about what we’re doing here in the freemium space. We’re taking what would traditionally have been a whole game, and we’re chopping parts of it up to sell off individually. In Zelda, you never paid for a sword that was slightly more powerful, you found it in the game after a long and arduous journey.

Most folks will tell you their free-to-play game is fully-featured, and all the microtransaction-purchasable items are unnecessary for full enjoyment of the game. But that sort of design is inherently stingy. Even if you design to compartmentalize, you’re separating something from the whole, and the capacity for generosity to players is diminished.

A lot of downloadable content for triple-A games is similarly compartmentalized through DLC. I do understand it—these models can extend the life of games well past their “shelf” life. In fact, in a game that’s inherently generous in its depth of content, like Fallout: New Vegas or Skyrim, DLC is almost a welcome departure: A sidequest can be a breath of fresh air.

But if you try to integrate that content into the core game, like the already generous Dragon Age: Origins did by making an entire character and story arc downloadable, the overall feeling of generosity is diminished. Ultimately, while I do not think DLC or freemium games are inherently bad, I believe that these types of models have changed the way games are envisioned for the worse.

Holistic design

In most parts of the industry, I’m seeing less and less interest in creating a full game that’s finished in one go. This is a money issue, of course. Everyone needs money. But what about the love of the craft? What about the care put into making a game with an authorial vision, or an overall “feeling?”

The feeling from games nowadays often comes from the community as much as (or more than) the structure and design. That’s all well and good for some, but that way of doing things won’t yield you a Shadow of the Colossus or a Far Cry 2. If you chop off part of the game’s “feel” into DLC, doesn’t this inherently change how you treat it as a creator?

I do believe there are genuine ways to go about freemium models or DLC which are not so stingy. Consider the model of Dead Pixels on XBLIG, which is quite a generously designed game for a dollar, with hours of randomized gameplay (and a co-op mode). This game uses a neat model where the developer will begin work on free downloadable content if the game reaches a certain sales target.

This in turn can incentivize more people to play the game, thus more sales, and thus more free DLC. But a large company would never take this risk—there’s little guarantee this will work. But it’s done for the love of the game, and as a player, that’s what matters. (source:GAMASUTRA)