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

RPG不可因道德选择令玩家走向失败结局

发布时间:2012-11-21 15:45:04 Tags:,,

作者:Vaizard 27

最近,我一直在思考RPG游戏中有关道德选择方面的问题。

我首先想到了近年来出现的AAA游戏,也就是《龙腾世纪》与《巫师》。《质量效应》也属于这一范畴,但我仍得亲自体验后才能知晓。

那么,这些游戏存在哪些有价值的信息呢?

我认为,它们的故事情节十分精彩,玩法也相当有趣。但我无法理解这类游戏的“真实的决定与后果”特性。

当然,游戏中存在抉择,但我认为,将它们定义为道德抉择有点牵强。你可以在游戏中选择自己的辅助与作战对象,但对于玩家而言,这只是一种有利有弊的选择。你在游戏中制定的决定不应置你于死地。

而对于以道德选择为特色的游戏,其最终结局必定是令玩家丧生。

choices(from dmn3.com)

choices(from dmn3.com)

因此,我们可以在游戏中做出选择,但它们无法决定是否可以取胜。

假如,在游戏开始的最初2分钟时,NPC会要求你做某些事项,20小时后,如果你拒绝帮助同一个NPC,那么你将无法与最后的boss作战。

对此你会感到十分郁闷。

然而,真实世界有时就会充满挫败感。因此,为何不将这种元素运用到游戏中呢?

这主要因为开发商不允许你这样做,而且这也涉及到设计惯例问题。你遇到过因为玩家在早期做出错误决定,而无法取胜的游戏吗?没有。游戏结局必须在玩家可预测的范围内。

如果情况不是这样,玩家会产生被游戏背叛的感觉。

为何会这样?

以前,《洛克人》这类游戏会阻止你的进程。目前仍有些游戏存在类似情况,比如《Super Meat Boy》或是更具受挫感的《I Wanna Be The Guy》(游戏邦注:这是一款免费游戏)。

但它们都与跑跳动作相关。玩家已经习惯在跑跳中丧生。有时你的丧生在这类题材中属于正常现象。而且你十分清楚自己为何死去。

但这些并非我上面提到的长期性结局。

当然,也有一些玩家认为如果自己在RPG中的行动所产生的结果更具可信度,那么他们就更易于融入游戏世界中。他们会启动游戏,重新体验相同进程,避免犯同一个错误。

然而,一般而言,玩家只会在游戏中投入3-5个小时。而在么短的时间内,中途打断游戏进程只会破坏玩家体验,导致他再也不愿意接触这款游戏。

你无法打破这种惯例。无论你怎么做,RPG游戏仍应保持它的可玩性。

那么,关于未来RPG提供的“道德选择”又有何含义。

基本上没有任何意义。游戏内的所有事物会一陈不变,除了画面会更加精美,有时允许在遇到险恶山谷时跳过时间,同时,游戏会从多方面加强玩法。故事情节仍保持叙事风格。但在之后的游戏中,我们所做的选择不会对我们造成损失。游戏角色会更具人性、更加真实,他们还应同自己生存的真实世界作战。

也许,线性RPG游戏将会回归,但我无法完全确定。尽管我期盼它们的回归。

而我们也不会因为拒绝帮助第一回合中的乞丐,而被游戏阻止到达最后关卡。

我不喜欢这种做法,因为失败是我们在现实生活中必须历经的过程。

但现实与游戏大不相同。我们无法在游戏中遇到现实世界中所有可能与选择问题。因此,RPG游戏注重传递很棒的获胜体验,仅有一小部分失败体验。

但这总比不存在失败结局的游戏强。

老实讲,谁乐意体验一款充满失败元素的游戏呢?(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

The problem of moral choices in RPGs

by Vaizard 27

Also a topic I think a lot about lately.

What comes to my mind first are the AAA titles of the last few years. Namely Dragon Age and the Witcher. Mass Effect should be mentioned too, but i still have to play through it.

So what is worth writing about concerning those games?

I think the storylines in both titles are great. It really is fun to play through them. But I do not understand the hype on the “real decisions and consequences” those games feature.

Yeah there certainly are decisions in those games, but to call them moral decisions is a bit too far fetched in my opinion. Of course you decide who to help and who to fight, but this is just a pro and con list in the players mind. No decision in the game has consequences that make you fail the game.

For a game to really feature moral choices the consequences must be able to crush the player.

Because of this fact we will get choices in games but they wont be determining the success we have while playing.

Imagine you would be asked to do something in the first two minutes of the game and if you decline to help 20 hours later that very same NPC you did not help will deny you to fight the final boss.

Hell that would be frustrating.

But the real life sometimes is that frustrating. So why not use it in a game?

Well, mostly because a publisher won’t allow you too. And it’s also a question of design conventions. Remember a game you could not win because you made a wrong decision at a point far in the past? There are none. Consequences in games must always be something the player can forecast himself.

If that’s not the case the player will feel betrayed by the game.

But why is that?

In the older days there were games like Mega Man that literally made you fail to proceed. Some games nowadays do the same, like Super Meat Boy or the even more frustrating I Wanna Be The Guy (this one is free, try it if you don’t believe me).

But those are jump and runs. Players are used to dying in a jump and run. You die sometimes, it is normal for the genre. But you always know why you died.

That is not the case for the long term consequences I mentioned above.

Of course you can argue that there really are guys out there (I’m one of them) that would feel even more emerged into the world of an RPG if the consequences of your actions were more credible. They would just start over and play the game again not making the same mistake.

But the normal gamer only spends 3-5 hours with a game. A flow-breaker in that short period basicly kills the game for the player. He won’t touch it ever again.

It’s a convention you mustn’t break. An RPG must remain playable no matter what you do.

So what does this mean for the “moral choices” the future RPGs will offer us.

Basicly not much. Everything will remain as it is, the graphics will get better and at some point of time leap over the uncanny valley. The gameplay will be enhanced in many ways. The stories told will stay as epic as ever . But the consequences of our choices will never hunt us down later in the game. The characters will be made even more human and credible and will fight for the world they life in as they always did.

Maybe the linear RPG will return, but I dont really believe that myself. Even tough I would love to see it come back.

But we will never be denied the end of the game, just because we didn’t help the beggar in act one.

I think it’s sad because failure is a experience we often have in life.

But here lies the main differnce between life and a game. A game just cannot cope for all the possibilities and choices the real world offers. So the RPGs focus on delivering a great experience of victory, with some smaller controlled failures.

Thats better than having no failure at all in games.

And let’s be honest, who would like to play a game about failing? (take a look at karoshi!)

Follow this blog if you like what I wrote, share it, give it thumb up, or whatever your social network is capable of.

You can leave a comment too!(source:vaizards-game-design-blog)


上一篇:

下一篇: