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

论述美术及设计在当前游戏开发中的地位

发布时间:2012-06-12 18:07:45 Tags:,,,

作者:Dan Kline

在商业游戏领域中,许多大型项目都是受美术驱动的游戏。这一点让人相当惊讶——因为大多数开发者都会说他们想要创造的是受设计驱动的游戏。一些较小的团队,如独立开发团队似乎也都在创造一些受设计驱动的游戏,如《时空幻境》或《粘粘世界》,而很少出现受美术驱动的游戏。但是从我的经验来看,大多数大型项目都被卷进了美术圈子中。就像我在多年前曾经采访了暴雪北方的相关负责人,当我问他是公司的哪个部门推动着游戏开发时(我心理期待的答案是设计),他竟然回答美术!我们都知道暴雪是一家非常有名的游戏公司,曾经创造出多款大受欢迎的游戏。所以我才会对这个回答感到如此惊讶。后来我又问了暴雪南方(拥有更明确的设计文化)同样的问题,他们也再次强调了美术这一答案。并且在之后我又反复听到了这一相同的回答。

art vs design(from jessekunze.com)

art vs design(from jessekunze.com)

这到底是什么情况呢?

如果我们的目标都是受设计所引导,那为何小型项目是受设计所驱动而大型项目却不是呢?

*通常情况下美术部门总是比其它部门的规模大出个两三倍。环境美术更是制约着许多游戏能否发行的关键因素,所以说大型团队是在创造受美术驱动的游戏也不无道理。

*美术部门总是拥有一些最优秀的工具。Maya便是当前一种优秀的美术工具,除此之外美工人员还需要投入更多的努力去完善美术工具,以此提高他们的工作效能并减少不必要的时间浪费。但是现在在游戏领域中却还未出现一种标准的系统设计工具,甚至大多数开发团队都没有或者很少有属于自己的系统工具,如此便大大约束了设计的创造与探索。

*美术能够引起更大的反响。观众总希望能够看到更高质量的美术内容,反之我们总是很难在演示文本中呈现出大规模的游戏设计,更别说将其展现在高管面前。因此每一款游戏早期呈现的都是高质量的美术内容,而非设计。

*美术领域的研究较为成熟。几乎每一所学校都设有自己的美术系。相比之下,游戏设计便显得过于年轻,不仅动态表现还不够突出,游戏测试也还未成熟。因为美术拥有更多拥护者,更多优秀的工具,并且更容易推广,所以比起设计它更能够帮助开发者轻松地创造出一些重要的游戏原型。从而也能够帮助他们快速塑造出游戏理念。

我非常认可美术的重要性。美术确实能够帮助我们有效地鼓舞并推动系统设计的发展。我们总是“很容易”察觉到艺术的存在,并且也总是会自然将它推到最前沿,并创造出反馈循环。从某种程度上看来,这也解释了为何我们会看到一些未经证明的游戏设计会缺少乐趣(甚至是项目发展末期也是如此)。团队中的任何成员(包括美工和设计师)都不希望看到游戏遭到退货,或者游戏设计得不到认可和尊重。所以我们该怎么做才能助设计一臂之力?我们该如何打破这种循环并保持两者的平衡?

也许我们可以观察美术的进一步发展,并咨询一些美术专家,从中掌握到如何才能创造出一款真正优秀的游戏。除此之外,我们还需要努力做到让别人也认可游戏的设计,而不只是美术,也就是我们需要重新思考商业领域。

我们可以创造出与Maya同样有效的系统或聘请出色的关卡设计师,让他们能够根据自己的想法进行迭代并创建游戏原型。我们同样也可以找到一种常见的设计语言,并训练团队成员们熟悉这种语言,以此推动开发者和高管们意识到设计的重要性,并希望从自己的设计部门中看到同样优秀的设计。这种趋势正在慢慢浮现出来。许多顶级的开发团队也已经开始执行这一理念。如今的生产循环正在推动着这种趋势的发展,同时我们也需要通过控制系统去确保这两者的平衡,而不能反被它们所控制。

游戏邦注:原文发表于2009年2月1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

Art-driven

Posted on February 1, 2009

In the commercial game industry on the inside most big projects are Art-driven.  This is rather surprising – most developers would say they want to be Design-driven.  Small teams like indies seem to be Design-driven, like Braid or World of Goo, but less often Art driven, like Tales of Tales.  But in my experience most big projects seem to get caught up in the art.  I’ll never forget my interview at Blizzard North years ago.  I asked them which department they thought drove development, expecting them to say Design.  Blizzard is known for having some of the best designed games in the industry, so it seemed clear.  But the interviwer said if anything they were Art-driven.  When I expressed my surprise, he couldn’t help laughing at my shock.  Design-driven was almost a foreign concept.  When I asked the same question to Blizzard South, with a more defined Design culture, they still emphasized their Art.  I’ve heard of this time and time again.

Why?

If we all want to be directed by Design, if smaller projects are Design-driven, why are big game projects different?

Art departments are usually double or triple the size of the other departments.  Environment art in particular is usually the limiting factor in why many games can or can’t ship, justifying larger teams.

Art departments usually have some of the best tools.  Maya is state of the art, and additional effort is spent to improve art tools to increase efficiency and reduce level production time.

Conversely, there’s not even a common consensus for what standard system design tools are, and most teams have few or no systems tools, limiting what design can create and explore.

Art gets a bigger reaction.  Audiences love high quality art, whereas it’s extremely difficult to convey large-scale game designs in a demo, particularly to executives.  Thus every game has to deliver high quality art early, but design is rarely a requirement.

Art is well researched.  Every school has an art department.  It’s an established field with easy reference and intuition.  Game design is still relatively new, the details of dynamics are poorly appreciated, and playtesting is still rare.

Because Art has more people, better tools, and is easier to promote, it can create definitive prototypes more easily then design.  This allows them to more quickly shape the game’s vision.

I do strongly believe art is important.  Critical.  In fact, I believe that art plays an under appreciated role in inspiring and pushing system design.   But the processes game teams follow push Art past inspiring Design and into driving it.  Art is “easier” to see, and that naturally drives it to the forefront, creating a feedback loop.  In part, I think this is why we see unproven game designs even at the end of the project, designs that just aren’t fun.  Games that all feel the same but look incredible, and just get sold back within a week.   And Design takes the blame and gets even less respect.  Nobody on the team wants that, including the artists and the designers.  How can we help Design?  How can we all break the loop and bring the balance back?

Maybe we can wait on art even longer, recognizing they can shine when called on, focusing on smaller early art departments who work primarily on pipeline and support until we’ve got a truly good game.  For that we’d also need people approving games based on design, not art, which I’ve requires rethinking the business side.  We could also create the Maya-equivalent for systems and level designers, so that they can actually iterate and prototype through their ideas.  And we could find a common design language and train people in it, so that developers and executives will recognize good design and demand to see it from their Design departments.  This is all happening, slowly.  We’ve heard many of these answers before, and the top development teams are already executing on these ideas.  What’s new is seeing the production loop that drives this to happen, and controlling that system to make sure it balances both approaches, rather then letting it control you.(source:dankline


上一篇:

下一篇: