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

从《Dear Esther》和《Journey》看当今游戏发展

发布时间:2012-05-12 14:22:29 Tags:,,,,,

作者:Adrian Tingstad Husby

游戏所具有的程序,互动和(潜在的)非线型属性让它们能够更好地处理一些人类心智问题(比起其它静态且线型媒体来说)。但是通常情况下,因为游戏总是会受到一些条条框框和人们无尽期望的束缚,所以很难体现出同等艺术媒体所具有的情感或故事。

我既是一名游戏玩家也是游戏开发者,但是纵观今天的游戏,我们看到的却只是一些“有趣的”骗人玩意儿。除了少数一些例外,大多数游戏都只是围绕着一些幼稚的故事和呆板的竞争游戏机制展开。引用Scott Brodie的话来说就是“比起其它受欢迎的艺术形式,游戏产业从整体来看显得更加平庸与幼稚。”尽管觉得遗憾,但是我真的非常同意Scott的说法。

我认为我们有必要在此讨论一些重要的问题。即是否能够创造一款不是通过进度条或高分而推动奖励的电子游戏?这是一种与趣味情感相互协调的机制,但是它们是否能够与其它复杂且相对严肃的情感结合在一起?是否正是因为玩家对于外部奖励的狂热追求才促使游戏区别于浪漫的戏剧和纪录片?

最近我到gameosphere网站玩了《Journey》和新版的《Dear Esther》,并发现这两款游戏在设计方面有许多共同点。这些共同点都遵循着一种发展趋势——尽管都是基于独立场景而言。我个人认为这类型的游戏不仅能够让我对未来的游戏媒体发展充满期待,同时它们也完美地体现出我对于游戏的一些想法。

真心希望当前的游戏领域现状能够发生改变。而我们也同时在当前的游戏身上找到了许多值得讨论和学习之处。

Journey(from tmeink.com)

Journey(from tmeink.com)

玩法关注点

通常情况下玩法关注点总是与乐趣有关。也就是设计师总是会想办法创造出具有乐趣的游戏,并且大多数人都希望游戏是有趣的。就其本身来看这并不是件坏事,但是如果开发者完全屈服于这种关注点便会大大阻碍了游戏媒体的潜在多样性,并会把那些对游戏带有兴趣且不同于传统游戏玩家的人排除在外。而《Dear Esther》和《Journey》都果敢地改变了这种方法。

一个典型的例子便是它们毫不犹豫地将玩家置于一些不安的情境下。如在《Journey》中,玩家需要顶着寒风暴雪前行,并逐渐放慢脚步直至最后体力衰竭。这里便不包含任何乐趣或娱乐,但是它却是奋斗和体验必不可少的部分。在《Dear Esther》中也是如此,玩家需要面对恶劣的环境而一步一步前行。

这种类型的游戏玩法强迫玩家必须通过探索和分析,而不只是精通硬性系统和获得外部奖励去与游戏进行互动。我们很容易在这些游戏中经历大批敌人的侵袭或者看到进度条的消极发展。

很多游戏狂热者批评《Dear Esther》和《Journey》的游戏玩法不具有任何挑战性。表面上看来这类游戏的唯一挑战便是玩家对于惩罚的恐惧,就像害怕因为失败而失去虚拟分数。如今的游戏玩家是否已经习惯于那些无意义,残酷且完全基于目标系统(我们很难抓住游戏要领)的游戏?还是玩家根本就不想去搞清楚游戏要领而只是一味地期望所有游戏能够符合自己的需求?

所以当看到thatgamecompany和thechineseroom能够大胆地表达自己的愿景并将其融入游戏设计中时,我顿时感到非常惊喜。这与许多知名游戏,如《神秘海域》具有很大的反差——后者并未能完全表现出开发者的真正愿景。《神秘海域》的核心游戏玩法总是会让我产生一种反社会的自责感。我真的很好奇这难道不是直接否定了Naughtydog的主要设计目标?——虽然它暂时实现了盈利目标。

奖励

当今游戏是否因过多地转向外部奖励而大大限制了游戏设计师传递的情感影响力?这是否就是造成玩家只能在游戏中反复感受某些相同情感的一大原因?

通过观察玩家在游戏过程中的想法和追求我们便知道游戏的主要内容。最终,大多数游戏便会被冠上“各种数字和进度条的史诗冒险”的副标题。也就是说大多数游戏的核心目标是通过让玩家精通游戏机制,并获得更多分数而取悦他们。但是这却是对于体育运动的描述而不是艺术,或者一些能够诱发新的情感的模式。举个例子来说,对于一款象棋游戏,如果你想要玩家在杀了敌人兵卒后会感到懊悔,那你就应该完全改变游戏玩法。

成就系统便是最近的游戏发展趋势以及外部奖励的典型例子——我们几乎能够在任何一个数字发行平台上看到它的身影。尽管这一系统适用于某些游戏类型,但是对于大多数游戏来说(不管合不合适)都是被强行安插了这种系统,并因此破坏了游戏原本的交流完整性。想象一下如果书籍发行商要求你每20页撰写具有10个单词的句子,或电影发行商要求你在电影中每十分钟设置一个特殊的对话你会怎么想?大多数人应该都会觉得这种要求过于荒诞吧,所以我们真不希望它们出现在游戏媒体中。

如此,大多数游戏将会慢慢变成“四不像”。老实说,这并不是一种智能设计,它更像是发行商而非设计师主导的游戏设计。尽管这么做能够创造出有趣且具有吸引力的游戏(好似这是一种正面特征),但是游戏也就只有这些特征了。这与毒贩子在建立用户基础所使用的方法有什么两样呢?我们最好还是小心处理他们所提供给用户的这种“价值”。

Dear-Esther(from gamechurch.com)

Dear-Esther(from gamechurch.com)

节奏和想象力

在《Journey》和《Dear Esther》中玩家拥有大量的空间进行思考与探索,并自由地发挥自己的想象力。如果一款游戏能够提供给玩家足够的思考空间,它便能够有效地“弥补游戏中的不足”。

“我们为这个世界创造了各种细节内容,并且在很多情况下玩家都需要以极快的速度在这个世界中穿梭着。而对于玩家来说谜题和‘停机时间’就像是劳累的旅途中的一瓶凉饮,能够帮助他们更好地理解接下来会发生些什么。如果没有这种节奏的反差,玩家便会觉得游戏中的一切内容都只是麻木的行动。”——Josh Weier(Valve)

这并不是在阐述如何创造不合逻辑且含糊的游戏体验,只是在说那种将所有细节灌输给玩家的做法,将会大大影响游戏所产生的结果。如果游戏能够鼓励玩家更多地发挥想象力并进行分析,他们定能够从一种更深入的层面去思考游戏。

游戏时间

《Journey》和《Dear Esther》都因为游戏长度过短而遭到批评。我能理解为何一些硬核玩家会将这一点看得如此重要,但是拥有较长的游戏时间就能说明一款游戏很好吗?难道我们只是在创造一些简单的娱乐方式而不是体验?或者我们也将开始以时间而不是根据内容去判断一部文学作品的好坏?

如果玩家能够在一个小时内便完成你的游戏,你又何必让他们再额外折腾7个小时呢?真的没有这个必要,这同时也是一种不尊重玩家的表现。

解决方法:基于愿景设计游戏而不是想着如何创造热门游戏!

显然thechineseroom和thatgamecompany在开发《Journey》和《Dear Ester》时一直都将自己的愿景作为设计选择的基准(游戏邦注:也就是每一个设计决策)。如果游戏的某方面包含项目的目的和愿景当然不合适——尽管有些人发现这种功能有时候看来还是蛮有趣的。就像如果毕加索决定为了增加更广泛的吸引力而在画中添加一些趣剧,那么他的名画《格尔尼卡》也不会是今天的《格尔尼卡》了。

“《时空幻境》并不打算吸引更广泛的用户,而是希望能够吸引正确的目标用户。”——Jonathan Blow

Frictional Games便有效地利用了这种方法创造出大获成功的《失忆症》。他们删除了游戏中的战斗,死刑以及竞争游戏玩法等内容——主要是因为这些内容与Frictional Games的核心沉浸式目标相违背。所以他们便用简单的行动(精通系统),真实的情感(让玩家在游戏中感受到提心吊胆,并让玩家即使在游戏中死去了也不会遭受惩罚)取代了这些内容并最终获得了成功。

虽然电影院中的观众并不会遭受到真的惩罚或威胁,但是这也不是意味着他们不能感受到这种体验。如果情感沉浸是你的目标之一,请果断删除那些阻碍这一目标的多余机制吧!

当游戏机制和叙述作为同一愿景的产物时,它们似乎总是会被区分开来。我们总是会说“我正在创造一款关于‘插入式叙述’的游戏,所以它将变成一种‘插入式游戏类型’。”所以我们应该将游戏玩法粘贴在墙上,并遵循着项目愿景从头开始设计游戏。虽然这么做很难,但是不管怎么样你都不能让玩家经历与他们的期待完全不同的故事。

换句话说,我更希望设计师能够将故事与游戏机制紧密地结合在一起。并且我真心希望设计师能够最先呈现出设计目标和愿景,如果不这么做我们的媒体便很难发挥其最大潜能。这并不是关于一个难以理解的模糊定义——这些愿景既可以是难以理解也可以是浅显易懂的。重要的是我们应该在整个开发过程中将这种预期愿景置于每一个设计选择的核心。这与《神秘海域》系列完全不同,后者希望玩家能够在屠城时也感受到自己是一名英雄。而我认为如果我们牺牲了最基本的表达,便不可能维持这种严肃表达媒体的完整性。

高分,多人玩家或死刑是否符合你的愿景?不是的话请删除它们。创造一款关于体验而非打击的游戏!游戏是一种互动媒体,所以比起使用硬性系统惩罚玩家,我更希望玩那些符合我期待的游戏。

正如我们所看到的那样,内在奖励也能够有效地激励玩家继续游戏,而非乐趣目的的游戏玩法也能够很大地加强玩家的游戏体验。同样地,如果你删除了其它多余的内容,玩家便能够在更广阔的空间里按照你的想法体验游戏。如果开发者能够明确这些事实,他们最终便能够创造出更多优秀的游戏,并且吸引更加广泛的用户群体(以及发行商)。

总结

如今还是有许多游戏狂热者盲目地捍卫着自己所认可的媒体。这明显是一种消极趋势,所以我们有责任对其发起猛烈的谴责。

事实上游戏产业中总是环绕着一些商业利益,使我们很难去改变它,但是近来的一些游戏却为我们证实了——今天的成功已经不再需要遵循过去的原则。

就像之前所提到的,现在很多游戏已经不再使用分数机制了,因为它所侧重的仅仅是游戏的竞争性。而我认为不管是哪种类型的游戏都能够从这些发展趋势中获得各种经验教训。

随着玩家平均年龄的增长,用户的喜好也在发生着改变。大发行商总会受到各种经济因素的影响,玩家以及他们对于如今这类游戏体验的需求也会左右发行商的决策。

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

Visioning games what we can learn from games like Dear Esther and Journey

by Adrian Tingstad Husby

Statement: The procedural, interactive and (potential) non-linear nature of games allows for them to address the human mind in ways none of the more static and linear media of the past can. But very often, because games are locked up in a cage of conventions and expectations to their design, they don’t cover even a fraction of the emotions or narrative of their artistic counterparts.

I am both a gamer and game developer, but I still look at the vast majority of games today as merely “fun” gimmicks. With only a few notable exceptions, games are still structured around juvenile stories and rigid, competitive gameplay. As a result, to quote Scott Brodie, “the industry as a whole looks uninspired and adolescent by comparison to other popular art forms”. I completely agree with Scott, and I think it’s such a pity, such a waste.

In that regard, here are a few questions I think is important to discuss. Can one make incentives to play video games that are not driven by progress bars or high scores? These are mechanics that go well with an emotion like fun, but do they blend well with other complex or serious emotions? Might the fanatic pursuit of extrinsic rewards be the reason we don’t have game equivalents to the contrast between a romantic comedy and a documentary film?

After waiting for what felt like an eternity, the gameosphere recently got to play Journey and the remake of Dear Esther. I found a number of similarities in their approach to game design. Similarities that seem to follow a few growing trends, though mostly in the indie scene. On a personal level, games like these bring me much hope for the future of our medium, and I find them to be perfect examples from which to vent some thoughts I’ve been having for some time, about games in general.

Hopefully, my grave portrayal of current affairs is about to change. A lot of recent games’ approach to form, pace, playtime and focus are well worth discussing and possible to learn from.

Gameplay focus

All too often, it seems as though games are made with an exclusive focus on fun. They are designed to be fun, and most people expect them to be fun. This is not necessarily bad per se, but if all developers succumb to this focus I believe it gravely hinder the mediums potential diversity, and excludes a lot of people with interests other than the traditional gamer. Both Dear Esther and Journey are bold enough to change this approach.

One example is that they don’t hesitate to put the player in uncomfortable situations. Such as the part in Journey where you walk for minutes against the freezing snow, slower and slower, until you drop from exhaustion. This part is not included to be fun or entertaining, but is still an essential part of the struggle and experience. The same goes for the entirety of Dear Esther, where the gameplay will only let you walk slowly through an environment.

This type of gameplay forces the player to start interacting with games through exploration and analysis, and not only through mastery of rigid systems and extrinsic awards (a shift in focus at least I find very appealing). It is not hard to see how hordes of enemies or a progress bar would ruin this accomplishment completely.

Many game enthusiasts criticize gameplay like that of Dear Esther and Journey as having no challenges at all. Apparently, the only acceptable challenge for a game is fear of punishment, like losing fictitious points when failing. Have we become so accustomed to games as meaningless, unforgiving, cold-blooded and rigid goal-based systems that we miss the point so easily? Or maybe we just don’t appreciate the point, while narcissistically expecting (and demanding) all games to fit us specifically?

It’s refreshing to see how thatgamecompany and thechineseroom are bold enough to take their visions seriously, even while designing gameplay. This is an obvious contrast to a lot of huge blockbusters like, say, the Uncharted games, that in my opinion do not follow their own visions at all. Beyond all the brilliant details, the core gameplay (and what one actually does during 70% of the games) ultimately makes me feel like a sociopath committing genocide. I would be surprised if this didn’t directly contradict Naughtydog’s main design goals, even though it might have supported some immediate wallet goals.

Rewards

Related to the last section, but more specifically – might the current shift towards more extrinsic rewards ultimately limit the game designer’s palette of emotions? Might this be one of the reasons games end up exploring the same narrow emotions again and again?

Through examining what the player are thinking about and striving for while playing, we can find out what the games are really about. And in the end, the subtitle of most games could just as well be ‘The Epic Adventure of Numbers and Progress bars’. In other words, most games’ core goal is to satisfy its player by letting him or her master the manipulation of mechanical rules and maximizing the right numbers. This is a description of sports (which of course has it place) but it is not necessarily art, or something good at provoking new emotions. For instance, one would have to change the gameplay of chess dramatically if you wanted the player to feel remorse when killing an enemy pawn.

A recent trend, and obvious example of extrinsic rewards, is the achievement systems integrated in almost every digital distribution platform. While they indeed work for some game types, these rigid systems are ruthlessly imposed on all games regardless of whether it fits, thus compromising their communicative integrity. Just imagine if book publishers demanded 10-word sentences every 20 pages, or movie publishers required specific dialogue every 10-minute during a movie! Most people would, and rightfully so, find these scenarios absurd, and we shouldn’t accept it in our medium.

Eventually most games might end up looking so much like everything that they start looking like nothing. To be blunt, this is not intelligent design. Actually it feels more like publishers are designing our games, rather than game designers. It might keeps games fun and addictive (as if this was a positive trait), but not much more. And I digress, this is not really unlike the strategies employed by drug dealers to build their customer bases, and we might just as well defend the “value” they provide to their customers.

Pace and imagination

Journey and Dear Esther include a lot of spaces where the player is allowed time to dwell, explore and let his or her imagination roam freely. When games dare to linger and to leave the space needed for thought, something really special happens and you are free to “fill in the gaps”.

“We build all this detail into the world, and in many cases the player whizzes through it at a breakneck pace. Puzzles and ‘down time’ are like a sorbet in a multi-course meal, in that they allow the player to better appreciate whatever comes next. Without those pacing contrasts, everything becomes a numbing blur of relentless action[…]” – Josh Weier (Valve)

It’s not about making incoherent and cryptic experiences, but that spoon-feeding the player every last detail often removes a lot of the intended impact. Remember how the simple “graphics” of letters in a book can create whole worlds and emotions. I think one would reach a deeper level of thought, if gamers were encouraged to interact more by imagination and analysis.

Playtime

Both Journey and Dear Esther have been criticized for their short length. I can see why this supposed “value for money” is a logical preference for some hardcore players, but why on earth is a longer playtime still considered a mark of quality? Are we making easy entertainment and not experiences? Or maybe it’s about time we start judging literature by how long it takes us to read it and not by its content?

If the real goal of your project can be achieved in one hour of playtime, I cant imagine why you would want to waste your player’s time for 7 hours extra. It is indeed unnecessary, and does not respect your player at all.

The solution: design a vision and not a hit!

It is obvious that thechineseroom and thatgamecompany kept their visions as a basis for all design choices during the development of Journey and Dear Esther respectively. And I mean for every single design decision. If an aspect of a game comprises the project’s intent and vision, it should of course be discarded – even though some people might find the feature to be fun. This comes quite naturally to all other forms of expression, isn’t it about time it becomes the norm in games? Just imagine what Guernica would have become if Picasso decided to include some slapstick for broader appeal.

“Braid isn’t about trying to appeal to the maximum number of people — it’s about appealing to exactly the right people.” – Jonathan Blow

This approach became the solution for Frictional Games, and part of what makes Amnesia so disturbingly successful. They decided to remove things like combat, death penalties and competitive gameplay (watch this great talk) because these seemingly natural aspects of their game conflicted with Frictional Games core immersion goal. Hence these aspects were scrapped, and thus, they replaced plain action (mastering a system), with real emotion (making it so scary on its own that it doesn’t matter if your death has no in-game penalties) — to great success.

The audience in a movie theater is not exposed to any real threats or punishment, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be engaged in the experience. If emotional immersion is one of your goals, please remove superfluous mechanics that ultimately hinder this!

Also, gameplay and narrative often seem to be held separate, when they in fact should be a result of the same vision. We say things like “I’m making a game about [insert narrative] and its going to be a [insert genre]”. And just like that, gameplay is plastered on top like wallpaper, when it in fact should be designed from the ground up in relation to the projects vision. This is not easy, but people shouldn’t be playing a vastly different story from what they are being told.

In other words, I would like more designers to approach narrative and gameplay inextricably. I strongly believe core goals and visions should come first, always, and a lack of doing this is gravely limiting our medium from reaching its full potential. It’s not about hard-to-grasp cryptic meanings — the vision could both be extracted from the deepest chasm or a shallow stream, and be both hard to grasp and obvious. What’s important is that this intended vision is kept at the center of every single design choice during the whole process. Quite unlike the Uncharted series, that naively expects you to feel like a hero while slaughtering a country. I mean, how can we sacrifice the most basic of expressions and expect to keep our integrity as a serious expressive medium?

Does high score, multiplayer or even death penalties support your visions? No? Scrap it. Make the game about experiencing it, not beating it! It’s after all an interactive medium, so instead of punishing players with rigid systems I would love to see more games role-playing along with me.

As we have seen, intrinsic rewards can also be a strong motivator to continue playing, and gameplay that is not designed exclusively to be fun can actually enhance the experience greatly. Also, if superfluous content is removed, people are given the space to experience what you really want them to. I think that remembering these facts will result in more awesome games, as well as give games the potential to appeal to a much broader audience. (Publishers, that was for you!).

Concluding thoughts

Today it seems as though game enthusiasts almost blindly defend their medium if someone as much as hints towards critique. This is a tendency I find very destructive, and I think we have the responsibility take most critique seriously (as well as a lot to learn from it).

The fact that the industry is structured around commercial profit makes it quite conservative and hard to change, but as many recent games have demonstrated — maybe one does not need to follow yesterday’s principles that slavishly to be successful today?

As mentioned, points made do not apply as strongly to all kinds of games, like those aiming simply to be competitive. But I wholeheartedly think all games, regardless of genre, has a lot to gain from studying some of these growing trends.

With the increasing average age of players (not surprisingly by one year, every year), the audience’s preferences shift. Big publishers often seem to be swayed by economic arguments, and there is both the audience and demand for more of these kinds of experiences today!(source:GAMASUTRA)


上一篇:

下一篇: