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

游戏玩法如何激发玩家的创造力?(1)

发布时间:2013-01-01 08:42:26 Tags:,,,,

作者:Eddy Léja-Six

如何将创造力引入游戏中—-可能吗?设计师Eddy Léja-Six通过解释创造力和游戏的本质,提出的最终问题是:什么样的游戏允许创造力以及这类游戏如何鼓励创造力?

创造力和游戏是人类活动中最重要的两个方面。儿童花大量的时间用于游戏和发明,并且通常是同时:“现在你是抢银行的劫匪,我会骑一只看不见的恐龙来追捕你!”

许多成年人会告诉你,他们不玩扫雷是因为它“简直算不上游戏。”其他人会说是因为那些人不够创意,他们“不懂怎么扫。”

事实上,创造和游戏正是人类生活的组成部分,就像呼吸一样自然而然,基本上也是很益的。

作为电子游戏开发者,我们都知道如何娱乐玩家,给他们提供有意义而触动的体验。但我们拥有让玩家在游戏时产生创造力的必要工具吗?游戏如何激发玩家的创造力?我们应该试试将玩法与创造力相结合吗?

首先,什么是创造力?以下定义是我认为最多人会赞同的:

创造力一种让我们找到和运用新想法的心理过程。

我将在下文中继续充实上述定义。

calvin_hobbes(from gamasutra)

calvin_hobbes(from gamasutra)

摘要

本文的目的在于剖析电子游戏中的玩法是否能够以及如何与创造力相结合。我会尽量引用相关的游戏作为案例。在我达到最终目的以前,我要先完成以下任务:

1、充实创造力的含义

2、定义游戏玩法

3、鉴定现存的游戏如何将二者相结合

4、分析试图给予玩家创造自由的游戏为什么会成功或失败

用户生成内容

在电子游戏中,关于创造力的最明显的例子当属用户生成内容。关卡编辑器和角色自定义存在已久,而最近的游戏如Media Molecule的《LittleBigPlanet》给予玩家的创造机会更是多得令人惊叹。

我们来看看用户生成内容和可以将其视为创意玩法的标准。

试玩《Faceez》

在Neko Entertainment公司,我们开发了一款DSiWare应用,名为《Faceez》。在这款游戏中,玩家可以混合、装饰和动画照片中的人脸。这是我参与制作过的唯一“非游戏”的应用,它向玩家提出的创造力要求比我设计过的所有游戏都高。事实上,整个应用就是一个角色自定义菜单。

当然,一款应用和一款游戏之间的区别在于玩法。所以,就玩法能不能与创造力相结合这个论题,《Faceez》绝对算不上一个好例子。但它告诉我许多关于玩家如何在软件中产生创意的线索。

faceez(from gamasutra)

faceez(from gamasutra)

(如果有人要拿你的脸来装饰你设计的软件,相信我,你应该拒绝。)

试玩《Faceez》非常有趣,产生了两个不同的现象:玩家根据经验浏览游戏资源(附件和动画)中的可用选项,然后使用随机按钮,最后才开始自己设计。相反地,当从他们自己拍的照片中混合脸蛋时,玩家马上就产生创意想法了。这是什么呢?

玩家使用的照片是他们周围的人的。使用游戏资源和自己拍的照片的区别是,玩家已经认识照片中的人物了。一旦他们知道系统如何运作,他们立刻就想到如何使用自己拍的照片:

“我姐姐长着我的粗眉毛……”

“我留着老板的发型!”

“喔,我可以布拉德皮特的照片跟我的混合起来!”

“等等,将我、布拉德和我邻居的照片跟猩猩组合在一起会怎么样呢?”
……

完成这些构想可能需要测试、验证、修改想法和机遇……但在这个过程中,始终是有想法的——有创意的想法。

相反地,在玩家产生创意想法以前,在《Faceez》中做一只挥着刀虚张声势的金枪鱼,他必须:

根据经验,知道应用包含一个金枪鱼的附件和一段挥刀的动画。

或猜想这两个选项必须可用——我的意思是,只有蹩脚的游戏才会没有金枪鱼!然后是主动搜索选项。软件用户极少那样想,因为结果通常是令人失望的。当然,猜想也是一种不错的体验(我们后面再谈)。

要有创造力,玩家必须很清楚存在什么可用选项。

这一点的负作用是,玩家的选择越多,学习和掌握所需的时间就越长。是吧?

叫什么名字?有什么任务?最喜欢的颜色?

想象一下Xbox 360中的Rare的角色编辑器如果只有四种发型、三种鼻形、两种衬衫……会怎么样呢?在这种条件下玩家会产生创意吗?玩家可以混合这些元素得到他想要的结果吗?或者玩家就喜欢最合适的搭配?

创造力只有在选择多时才可能发生。

看来有矛盾了:要产生创意,玩家必须很容易地就理解游戏给予他们的选择。但为了容易,我们又不得不减少需要学习的选项。但这么做又减少了可用选项,进而减少了创造的可能性。

Five_minutes_to_kill_yourself_copy(from gamasutra)

Five_minutes_to_kill_yourself_copy(from gamasutra)

(Adult Swim的《Five Minutes to Kill Yourself》的角色自定义设计得相当好,因此创造力完全是不可能的;通过大量减少有意义结果的数量,它很好地贴合了游戏世界的消极气氛。)

在《The Art of Game Design》中,Jesse Schell分享了一段关于间接控制的有趣经历:

在游乐园时,我有时会在糖果店打工。我就站在60种口味的棒棒糖前面,每天都听到有人问:“你们有什么口味的?”

一开始,我自作聪明地背诵60种棒棒糖的口味——当我这么做时,顾客会目瞪口呆地在我背到第32种口味时叫停:“好了!好了!够了!”他们完全被这么多的选择搞晕了。过了一阵子,我想到了新的回答。当顾客问口味时,我会说:“只要你想得到的我们都有。好吧,你最喜欢的是什么口味——我肯定我们有。”

他们先是很惊讶居然有这么多选择。但之后他们就皱眉了,想得很辛苦才说:“呃……樱桃?不要,等下……嗯……薄荷?不……算了。”说罢,他们郁闷地走开了。

最后我想出一条策略,帮我卖了很多棒棒糖。当有人问口味时,我就说:“只要你想得到的我们都有,但最受欢迎的口味是樱桃、蓝莓、柠檬、沙士、冬青和甘草。”他们会很高兴有这么多选择,但更高兴的是有几个中意的选择;事实上,大多数顾客都会从“最受欢迎的六种”中选择,而这六种我会经常改的,好让其他口味的棒棒糖不会在货架上留太久。

间接控制可以避免玩家对过多的创意自由感到不知所措。其实,默认配置和“随机”按钮的作用就在于此。它们告诉玩家:“你可以随意设计你的角色,或者使用默认的这个。”

为什么要在口红和胡子之间做选择?

这个问题的另一个经典解决方案是,减少选项的数量,但允许玩家组合选项,这样就仍然可以产生许多有意义的结果。例如,玩家在《魔兽争霸3》(暴雪)有12种颜色可选择;因此有12种可能的结果。而在《泰坦之旅》(Iron Lore)中,玩家的性别选择有2种,服装选择有5种。

我们可以通过计算各个选项的结果比率来评估系统的组合深度:在《魔兽争霸3》中,玩家有12种选项和12种可能的结果。12/12=1,所以它的比率只有1。完全没有组合深度。《泰坦之旅》共有7种选项(男性、女性、白、褐、蓝、灰和红)和7种可能的结果。这意味着它的比率是10/7=1.42。

组合选项的能力对需掌握选项的数量和有意义结果的数量影响很大。它满足了某些游戏的要求:挑选一种几乎算不上自定义的颜色:暴雪的设计师需要不同的颜色让玩家看起来不一样,所以《魔兽争霸3》就有了12种角色。而在《泰坦之旅》中,增加了男性和女性的性别选择,这是自定义组合的初始阶段(游戏的后期,角色的外观也会因为装备和增益魔法而有所区别)。

注: 我一直强调“有意义”的结果是因为,如果变化太过细微,根本不能产生可以感知的区别,那种结果就是“无意义”的;比如,将角色的下巴移动1毫米,这种变化等于没有变化。

Little Big Planet(from gamasutra)

Little Big Planet(from gamasutra)

(就自定义和创意方面而言,《LittleBigPlanet》可能是最有深度的游戏。)

组合选项的方法表明,游戏玩家只能通过组合已经存在的物品来产生创意。除此之外,创造力是非常有限的。但是,组合旧东西不能算作一种有创意的过程吗?正如斯坦福大学的Robert I. Sutton所说的:

创造力是利用旧东西做出新事物。

一个想法要被称作创意,必须是全新的吗?好吧,创新只是一种心理过程。如果玩家认为他们发明了世界上从来不存在过的东西,那就是创新。所以,创新只需要对创造者来说是新的就行了——而不是对世界上的其他人来说。

但正如我所说的,《Faceez》没有玩法。其他非常有创意的游戏,如《Elektroplankton》(Indies Zero)或《Art Academy》(Headstrong),也没有什么玩法。为了发现用户生成内容如何成为玩法的一部分,我们必须先定义一下“玩法”是什么。

什么是“玩法”?

读者们应该都很明白什么是电子游戏,所以我就不再多说了,也不打算在这里重新定义它。注意:本文包含的观点可能会让某些读者不能认同。如果你认为《The Sims》不是游戏,那么你不要再往下看了。

我们都知道游戏可以做得“有创意”,就像杂志也可以做成拼贴画。我们必须确认,在游戏过程中,是否可以发生创造力。令人吃惊的是,“玩法”这个词并没有得到一致的定义。Tom Heaton认为:“大多数人都会同意这条宽泛的定义‘游戏的元素’。但不同意的人很快就会提出游戏玩法到底是什么,它的元素是什么,为什么一种特征能促进玩法而另一种不能。”

出于本文的目的,我将提出一条我个人的定义。玩法是游戏流的核心。因此,玩法是玩游戏这一活动的中心。

电子游戏的玩法活动的例子有:探索地图以发现隐藏的秘密、移动白色方块后弹出一个白色的方块、在《Track D》上用42号车创造个人时间纪录、装备新防御物品以增加武器等级、或爬上高山看看你能眺望多远。等等。

那么,什么不是玩法?例如:浏览菜单来选择游戏模式、看过场动画、调节音量或在游戏大厅等待匹配玩家。

玩法产生时,玩家应该:

-有目标

-在实现目标的过程中存在阻碍而不能立即达到

-必须采取行动来克服这些阻碍

当然,不同游戏的细节可能相差很大:可能是同时有几个目标,可能玩家要自己选择或创造自己的目标,阻碍可能是由任务、规则、迷宫、谜题等组成的,需采取的行动可能需要玩家动脑筋(“要不要现在就升级我的基地呢?”)或纯粹的条件反射(“用特殊技能吧!”)

玩家生成内容对玩法的影响

游戏越来越多地允许玩家创造他们自己的角色、关卡和游戏世界。可用选项的数量和深度决定了玩家的自由程度。在大多数编辑器中,可能结果的数量多得令人眼花。

这些编辑器中有许多是与玩法无关的:例如,制作关卡并分享,让玩家成为关卡设计师。你大概知道,关卡设计本身并不是游戏。

有时候,玩法可能会影响这些编辑器,最常见的就是通过解锁选项和道具(“干得好!你升到2级啦!你可以用3×2平台制作新关卡了!”)但是,即使在这种情况下玩法打开了创造力的大门,它也没有使创造力成为玩法的一部分。当扑克玩家花掉她羸来的钱时,她扮演的就不再是扑克玩家的角色。

有时候,玩法也可能限制创造力。例如,在Lionhead的游戏《The Movies》中,玩家管理一家电影制作工作室,编辑电影的工具很多,但只能让可用演员出演,或使用已经解锁的场景等。再者,在一部电影中能使用的创意方法并不会影响玩法。创意的结果只是,在线分享一段非常不错的视频。

《Audiosurf《(Audiosurf LLC)和《Vib-Ripple》(Nana On-Sha)等游戏用音乐或照片作为关卡设计的材料。即使有创造性的资源,它们通常也是在游戏之外制作的(大多数时候不是玩家做的。Prodigy是我最喜欢的《Audiosurf》关卡设计团队。)

APB_copy_2(from gamasutra)

APB_copy_2(from gamasutra)

(《All Points Bulletin》(Realtime Worlds)允许玩家将自己的持枪角色变成70年代的蓝胡子色情影星。)

最普遍的自定义功能允许玩家改变角色的外观。这种编辑通常很多,但对游戏玩法没有影响:例如,我曾经给Commander Shepard(BioWare的《质量效应》中的角色)的脸上加上小胡子,但显然,这不会影响人们对他的反应。

当然,玩法不是游戏的一切。角色的外观对游戏体验是有影响的;否则大游戏工作室也不会那么麻烦地开发那么多自定义功能了。玩一个自定义出来的独特角色会改变玩家对整个游戏的印象……可能会让玩家意识不到自己只是在操作第65535个玩家角色。在线分享创意也让玩家非常有满足感。但毫无疑问,这种创造虽然很有益,但它与游戏玩法并不直接相关。

我可以让加农炮换一种颜色吗?

然而,角色编辑器也可能对玩法有影响。在Bethesda Softworks的《天际》中,玩家可以从10种角色中挑选1种。玩家的选择会影响角色的属性、技能和某些NPC对角色的反应;还决定了其他自定义选项是否可用。例如,Khajiits是长得像猫的种族,玩家可以给它定义很多种面部特征,但角色始终是像猫。

在这个例子中,我们看到玩家的选择有10个与玩法相关的结果,以及上亿种纯外观的结果。通常在角色自定义选项中,与玩法相关的选项(如技能、种族、特技)比外观选项少(颜色、服装、面部特征)。

为什么会这样?好吧,所有做出好系统的设计师都知道,不同元素越多,越难实现平衡。在开发后期增加一两种新技能可能会毁掉整个玩家体验,而在发布前一周增加15种胡子形状却很安全。

除非我们说的是《Fable》(Lionhead),在这款游戏中,面部毛发可是有非常重大的意义。记着:Sheriff的胡子会让你非常迷人,但也很可怕!

现在看来,玩法自定义几乎没给玩家什么创造的自由:没有大量选项,创造力就是不可能的。提供大量游戏玩法相关的选项相当困难。当然,并非没有例外。

Maxis的《Spore Creature Creator》可能是有史以前最有深度的角色创造工具。它允许玩家产生亿万种完全不同的生物。不用说,任何允许创造七条腿、三个鼻子的生物的都是令人惊艳的创意工具。另外,已选中的元素会影响生物的能力:它靠翅膀飞,大尖牙说明它食肉,灵活的脚让它跑得飞快。

其他几款游戏允许角色自定义也对玩法也有影响,如《Impossible Creatures》(Relic)和《Freakyforms 》(Asobism)。当使用这些编辑器时,角色的原创性和能力就有冲突了。有时候,这种冲突会导致甚至更多的创意,但也可能是令人失望和不符逻辑的结果:想象一下,你要创造一个完美的捕食者,它有许多尖锐的爪子。之后你查看它的属性发现,因为你使用的是基础等级1的爪子,所以它的攻击力非常弱……

跟朋友说到这一点以后,我发现他也有同样的疑问,抱有和我相同的想法(创意)。他在生物的脚之间添加了一个攻击等级5(最大值)的小东西,没人会看到。就这样,这个生物具有了他期望中的战斗力;但它并没有毁掉他想要的外观,除了多了一条锋利的小东西。

Spore(from gamasutra)

Spore(from gamasutra)

( 左边的生物有1级的攻击选项(打、咬和冲),而右边的有相同的攻击动作,但等级是5。在近身战中,这只单腿的青色小怪物真的比紫色的大块头强五倍么?)

相同的现象(自定义与玩法之间的互补或相克)也出现在其他游戏中。《SimCity》(Maxis)的玩家可能会发现,他们想建设的小镇完全行不通。这种发现可能是一种有趣的体验(“啊,人们不会交两倍的税来建这么奢华的公园!”)但即使是这样,执行这种创意确实减少了玩法的效率。玩家意识到自己的两个目的并不能兼顾:一是创造一个“我自己”的小镇,二是避免破产。

相反地,之后玩家更加理解游戏的玩法,想出有创意又高效的设计。《Spore》的玩家也一样。玩家在这款游戏中制作的生物往往与游戏的逻辑一致,同时又具有突出的创意,即使那些玩家并不知道游戏是如何运作的。

知道游戏规则和游戏世界的逻辑的玩家不太可能犯下可笑的错误——如给一个隐密的角色戴上三副亮绿色的眼镜。

创造力的语法

一个众所周知的真相是,这个世界上最伟大的发现往往来源于转瞬即逝的灵感。当然,首先得有大量的基础工作,但对整个发现起决定作用的是,比如一颗下落的苹果或一只沸腾的水壶或溢出澡盆的水,这些东西启发了观察者,让他们犹如醍醐灌顶。据说,发现DNA的形状要归功于科学家苦思冥想之际偶然看到螺旋形的楼梯。如果他是搭电梯,整个基因科学的发展恐怕要被推迟了。

- Terry Pratchett,《Sourcery》

美学和玩法丰富的设计之间的根本区别是什么?事实上,它们使用的不是同一种语言。当玩家根据玩法(使用所有满足某种操作风格的必要技能)制作《Spore》中的生物时,他们考虑游戏的规则、可能遇到的障碍、最终目标和达到目标的方法。

那么,在玩家很了解玩法以前,他们设计创意的动机是什么?确实,当他们在《Spore》中制作第一个生物时,他们并不清楚自己将面临什么问题。是的,他们的感觉是不是就像脑袋空空时使用Zbrush雕刻东西?当然不是。

对于初级玩家,使用编辑器是很容易的,因为游戏会指导你,你不会遇到“脑袋一片空白”的情况。但主要的区别可能是,玩家知道他们的生物会生气勃勃(即使他们不知道它是否能生存很久)。当设计他们的生物时,玩家根据他们想象中的游戏世界的样子来想象它将如何过活。

如果创造力是指组合旧想法以产生新想法的能力,那么我的问题是:这些旧想法从哪里来?大多数玩法相关的自定义系统是非常狭隘有限的,并没有给玩家太多选项来实现创意。来自其他领域的想法通常没有太多价值。唯一相关的语法是严格内源性的。

当编辑工具有足够的深度,允许玩家根据创意来设计时,如在《Spore》中,玩家使用的语法就广泛得多了。可能是组合了来自现实世界的(“看看我的蝴蝶飞花!”)、游戏世界的(“其他生物都想吃的小飞物”)、日常生活(“模仿我那位恶心的数学老师”)、想象(“一个大阴茎”)、文化符号(“长了狼人爪子的辛普森”)或同时来自许多不同的语法(“长着大阴茎、中间带滑轮的、飞翔的辛普森”)

butterfloctopus_copy(from gamasutra)

butterfloctopus_copy(from gamasutra)

(这正是为什么《Faceez》的照片能让玩家产生创意。游戏不仅给予玩家大量选项,而且允许使用玩家已经知道的语法。)

当然,创造一些同时满足创意语法和玩法语法的东西总是有可能的。有时候,效率也具有自身的美学价值,熟悉游戏的人仅通过观察(“我看到你已经设计了一只群居动物,让它变成短跑能手是个好主意,以防万一嘛!”),就能够解码创意的特征。

无论想法来自哪里,将不同来源的概念联系起来的能力正是创造力的基石。或者更简单地说:

创造力需要灵感。

灵感主要是指大脑联系已存在的想法,以形成新的样式、概念、活动……这个过程大部分是无意识的,而且来无影去无踪,虽然如此,但总有激发灵感的办法。

我们已经探讨过随机按钮如何使玩家熟悉可用的选项。随机性可能也会带来创意,就像浏览自己搜索到的图片或在头脑风暴大会时听其他人发言。随意流动的概念是思考的养料。

随意性条件可能发挥着相同的作用:当你唯一拥有的工具就是一把锤子时,任何席琳狄翁的CD都可能带给你灵感。条件不仅给玩家提供创造的元素,但也意味着一定数量的限制。有时候限制会引导灵感;有时候又会摧毁灵感。玩法的语法限制了自定义的过程。这些限制可能促进新创意的诞生,也可能抑制并扼杀所有创意的思维。

结果是,用户生成内容虽然鼓励灵感和创造力,便并没有让它们成为玩法的一部分。几乎没有游戏允许创造力对玩法产生重大影响,无论前者起的增益作用还是冲突作用。

冲突来自不可避免的事实:所有玩家至少有一个玩法目标。用户生成内容可能或可能不会与这个目标结合得很好。这就提出了一个重要的问题:创造的目的是什么?

缪斯女神的秘密

对于我们所有人,创造力会唤起观察、联想和想象。这确实是创造力的一个非常重要的方面:没有想象的能力,创造力就不存在了。

但创造力还不止于此。它是有目的的。这个目的可能是变化的,无意识的,随意的,愚蠢的……但仍然是一个目的。如果你没有目的,那你就不可能有创意。创造是灵感加上汗水。

从理论上说,抱有一个目标和提出一个问题是同一件事。当然,它们听起来是完全不一样的。例如,我可能指责你自己给自己制造问题,但我会表扬你定下了自己的目标。哪个听起来更好?虽然感觉不同,但我说的确实是同一个情况:创造你自己的问题就是给你自己树立目标。类似地,树立了你自己的目标,你也就面临着如何达到它的问题。

创造力是一种解决问题的能力;它需要目的。

coyote(from gamasutra)

coyote(from gamasutra)

(ACME 统计学表明,土狼挨饿时的创造力会比平时高78%。)

生活充满了目标:野心、梦想、必须品、职业挑战和要求、社会义务……所以哪一种现实的问题有办法通过“找到并运用新想法”而得到解决呢?很多:结束商业合同、让你的孩子吃蔬菜、想一个笑话打破沉寂、把所有行李塞进车里、周日晚上写一篇10页的作文、打开荒岛上的宝箱等。

如果说有一个目的,和找到了问题的解决办法是一样的,那么玩法和创造力就非常接近了。另外,以上例子都非常有难度。是的,它们是不是差不多?

所有游戏都至少有一个目标,没有也要玩家创造一个。否则,这个游戏就不是游戏了。但是,解决现实问题不同于解决玩法问题。在游戏中,玩家的选项有限,且不断根据游戏作判断。

你可能会说这取决于游戏,但现实生活却不是。记住,我们在这里是将游戏比成现实生活:在与现实生活作比时,甚至模拟最出色的AAA游戏也不过包含极其简单和有限的物品和系统。

如果说游戏的目标就是创造力,那会怎么样呢?我们来看看《Create》(EA Bright Light)是怎么说的。

因为创意而创意

《Create》是一款混合了复杂的谜题、巧妙的挑战和高度自定义的环境的游戏。虽然它是一款很好的益智游戏,且包含上百个不同的自定义选项和可解锁的玩法道具,它还是没有达到EA网站上显示的目标:“Create tracks your creativity and rewards you for it(创造你的创意轨道,并以此奖励你自己)。”

游戏有一种特殊的挑战名为“创造链”:玩家在特定的等级时使用一套特定的工具就会得到奖励。显然 ,“创造链”的目的是给玩家很多创意的机会,以便他们了解更好的可用选项。这些选项就好比关卡编辑器,但它们完全是内置的,且使用了相同的界面作为解决问题的玩法——就像出自《Trackmania》系列(Nadeo)的游戏,给玩家一个关卡编辑器界面来设计他们想到的最有效的轨道。

事实上,创造不是“创造链”的真实目标。真正的目标是“使用各种工具”。玩家可能会因为使用任何一种工具和随机点击画面而得到奖励:任务是完成了,但没有产生创造力。因为这个任务没有障碍。

玩家为了继续玩下去,只是简单地满足游戏的要求。

Create(from gamasutra)

Create(from gamasutra)

(在上面的图片中,你可以看到《Create》给你的场景,作为“创造链”第一关的起点:主题公园。另外两张图片显示了不同的“解决方案”,同样完成系统的要求,但显然创意程度是不同的。)

我们已经知道灵感是不能强求的。所以我们理解了为什么游戏不能要求玩家马上产生创意(“有点创意!就是现在!”)。

你不能强求创造力。

即使玩家乐意做点有创意的事,他们可能也不能马上实现。需要时间。但如果我们承认某个玩家有创意,那又怎么样呢?

如果创造力>0.5,那就继续到10

《Create》称不上是有创造力的。现在还没有游戏称得上。甚至我们有时候也很难评估其他人的想法——作为开发者,你可能理解这个难题。一个基础的游戏AI怎能解决这么主观的问题呢?

不然,游戏通常假装理解玩家的感觉,比如,当判断玩家的内部设计(如任天堂的《Animal Crossing》)或当对你刚刚输入的名字作出反应时:“‘胡说’?天啦,真是个好名字!”

Duke_Nukem_Forever_copy(from gamasutra)

Duke_Nukem_Forever_copy(from gamasutra)

( 在《Duke Nukem Forever》(3D Realms)的第一关,AI控制的地球防卫军战士好像接受了我写在白板上的狡猾计划。 )

任天堂的《Wii Music》有非常有趣的办法。它允许玩家挑选乐器,演奏选中的音乐,设计封面,甚至系统还要求玩家自己评估自己的作品,没有什么限制。设计师知道游戏不能判断音乐的质量,所以唯一的态度就是玩家自己的态度。

电脑无法识别或评估创造力。

如果创造力不能被电脑识别,电脑就无法奖励它。更重要的是,它永远不会因为玩家没创意而惩罚玩家。甚至因此阻碍玩家继续游戏也是一种轻微的惩罚。

我们现在已经充实了创造力的定义。下来我们来总结一下创造力的定义:

创造力是一个让我们找到并运用新想法的心理过程。

要有创造力,玩家必须很清楚有哪些可用选项。

如果没有大量的选择,创意可能不会发生。

创造力是利用旧东西制作新东西。

创造力需要灵感。

创造力是解决问题的能力;它需要目的。

你不能强求创造力。

电脑不能识别或评估创造力。(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

How Can Gameplay Allow Players to Get Creative?

by Eddy Léja-Six

How can creativity be brought into games — is it even possible? Designer Eddy Léja-Six examines the nature of both creativity and games to get to the bottom of the question: which games allow for creativity, and how do they encourage it?

Creativity and games are among the most important human activities. Children spend a lot of time playing and inventing, often at the same time: “Now you’ll be the bank robber, and I’ll chase you with this invisible dinosaur!”

Many adults will tell you they do not play games because WinMine (a.k.a. Minesweeper) “isn’t really a game.” Others will assure you they are not creative, as “they can’t draw properly.”

In fact, these two activities are part of everyone’s life, and turn out to be as natural and spontaneous as breathing; almost as useful too.

As video game developers, we know how to entertain players and offer them meaningful and emotional experiences. But do we have the necessary tools to allow players to use their creative mind while they play? How did the games that attempted it fare? Should we even try to mix gameplay and creativity?

First and foremost, what is creativity? Here is the definition I could craft that gained the most consensus.

Creativity is the mental process allowing us to find and apply new ideas.

We’ll add chunks to this rather short definition as the article goes on.

Calvinball, a perfect example of (excessively) creative gameplay

Calvin & Hobbes, ? Bill Waterson

So What’s the Plan, Then?

My objective in this feature is to identify if and how gameplay and creativity may work together in video game design. I shall try and cite as many relevant games as possible along the way. Here is a list of the missions I shall have to complete before I reach the end of my quest:

Define creativity further

Define gameplay

Identify how these two have already been used together in existing games

Analyze why those games succeed or fail in their attempt to give the players creative powers

UGC

The most obvious case of creativity in a video game comes from user generated content. While level editors and character customization have been around for a long time now, recent titles such as Media Molecule’s LittleBigPlanet have given the players tremendous creative opportunities.

Let us look at user generated content and the way it can be considered as creative gameplay.

Playtesting Faceez

At Neko Entertainment, we developed a DSiWare app called Faceez, in which users may mix, accessorize and animate faces from photographs. It is the only “non-game” I have ever worked on, but it requires a lot more creativity from the user than all the games I have designed. In fact, the whole app is a character customization menu.

Of course, the difference between an app and a game is gameplay. So Faceez is never going to be a good example of how gameplay and creativity may or may not mix. But it gave me a lot of clues about user creativity in software.

If someone asks to use your face to promote the app you’ve designed, believe me, you should say no.

Playtesting Faceez was particularly interesting, as two distinct behavior patterns emerged: Users combining game assets (accessories and animations) began by empirically browsing the available options, and then used the random button for a while before they felt really comfortable enough to be creative. Conversely, when mixing faces from their own photos, people had creative ideas right away. Why is that?

The faces that users mix come from pictures of the people close to them. The difference with other assets is that users already know them. Once they grasp how the system works, they immediately come up with ideas using the photos they have taken and the ones they could take:

“My sister with my big eyebrows…”

“Me with my boss’ hair!”

“Oh, and I could take a picture of Brad Pitt and mix him with me!”

“Wait, what about a mixture of me, Brad, and my next door neighbor all inside the face of a chimp?”

And so on…

Applying those ideas may require testing, validation, mind changing, and chance findings… But at some point in the process, there are ideas — creative ideas.

In the opposite, before a user may have the creative idea, for example, to make a Faceez use a tuna fish for swashbuckling, she either:

Must know, from experience, that the app contains a tuna accessory and a sword-fighting animation.

Or guess those two options must be available — I mean, only crappy games don’t feature tuna! — and then actively search for them. Software users rarely think like that, because it is often disappointing. Of course, when guessing works, that is an awesome experience (we shall get back to that later on).

To be creative, a player must know the available options well.

The downside is that the more options the players have, the longer it takes to learn and master them. Or does it?

What is Your Name? What is Your Quest? What is Your Favorite Color?

Imagine how Rare’s avatar editor for the Xbox 360 would feel with only four haircuts, three nose shapes, two shirts… Could anyone get creative in that context? Could a player try and mix those elements to meet the result she imagined? Or would any user just go for the least inappropriate result?

Creativity may only happen if there is a large number of choices.

Already, there seems to be a conflict: to allow for creativity, the users must easily understand the tools we give them. So to keep it simple, we might want to reduce the number of options to learn. But that would reduce the amount of available choices, thus reducing creative potential.

Character customization in Adult Swim’s Five Minutes to Kill Yourself is brilliantly designed so that creativity is totally impossible; this is achieved by drastically reducing the number of meaningful outcomes, and it suits the depressing atmosphere of the game world perfectly.

In the indispensable The Art of Game Design, Jesse Schell shares a very interesting personal experience about indirect control:

In my amusement park days, I sometimes worked in the candy store, in front of a big display of 60 flavors of old-fashioned stick candy. A hundred times a day, people would come in and ask, “What flavors do you have back there?”

At first, I thought I would be a smart aleck, and recite all 60 flavors — as I did this, the customer’s eyes would get wide with fear, and right around the 32nd flavor they would say, “Stop! Stop! That’s enough!” They were completely overwhelmed by so many choices. After a while, I thought of a new approach. When they asked about the flavors, I would say, “We have every flavor you can imagine. Go on, name the flavors you would like — I’m sure we have them.”

At first they would be impressed with this powerful freedom. But then they would furrow up their brows, think hard, and say, “Uh… cherry? No, wait… I don’t want that… Hmm… Peppermint? No… Oh, just forget it,” and they would walk away in frustration.

Finally I figured out a strategy that sold a lot of candy sticks. When someone would ask about the flavors, I would say “We have just about every flavor you can imagine, but our most popular flavors are Cherry, Blueberry, Lemon, Root Beer, Wintergreen, and Licorice.” They were delighted at having the feeling of freedom, but also glad to have a small number of attractive choices; in fact, most customers would choose from the “popular six,” a list I made up, and a list I would change frequently to help ensure the other flavors didn’t get too old on the shelf.

Indirect control may be used to help players overcome the overwhelming sensation of creative freedom. In fact, default settings and “randomize” buttons do just that. They tell the player: “You could design any character you want, or you might also just use that one.”

Why Choose Between Lipstick and a Moustache?

Another classic solution to that problem is to reduce the number of options, but allow players to combine them so that there still is a large number of possible meaningful outcomes. For example, Warcraft III (Blizzard) allows players to pick a color among 12; there are just 12 possible results. Players of Titan Quest (Iron Lore) may choose their clothes color among five choices per gender.

We may evaluate the combinatorial depth of a system by calculating a ratio of outcomes per option: in Warcraft III, the player has 12 options and there are 12 possible results. 12/12=1, so its ratio is just 1. There is no combinatorial depth at all. Titan Quest has seven options in total (male, female, white, brown, blue, gray and red) and 10 possible outcomes. This means Titan Quest’s ratio is 10/7=1.42.

The ability to combine options may create a great difference between the number of options to master and the number of meaningful outcomes [1]. It’s interesting to see that it suits those games’ ambitions: Just picking a color hardly qualifies as customization: Blizzard’s designers needed different colors to make each player different, and Warcraft III allows up to 12 players. Adding the choice between male and female, as in Titan Quest, is the beginning of combinatorial customization. (Later in the game, the appearance of characters mainly varies due of their equipment and active buffs.)

LittleBigPlanet may be the deepest game ever when it comes to customization and creation.

This way of combining options illustrates how game users can only be creative by combining things that already exist. Put that way, it seems very limited. But cannot the same thing be said of any creative process? As Robert I. Sutton of Stanford University points out, creativity is making new things out of old ones.

Creativity is making new things out of old ones.

Do ideas need to be new in order for them to qualify as creative? Well, creativity is a mental process, above anything else. If the players think they invented something the world has never seen (“Ooh, how about a Barack Obama Mii!”), then it just feels that way. So yes, creative ideas need to be new for the creator — not for the world.

But as I said, Faceez did not have gameplay. Other very creative titles, such as Elektroplankton (Indies Zero) or Art Academy (Headstrong), will not help either. In order to find if and how user generated content is a part of gameplay, we must first define the word.

[1] I keep mentioning “meaningful” outcomes because moving the character’s jawbone one millimeter down will not result in a perceptible difference.

What is Gameplay?

All Gamasutra readers have a good grasp of what a video game is — so while there’s room for argument, I will not even bother to redefine it here. Warning: this article contains ideas that some readers may find offensive. If you don’t think The Sims is a game, look away now!

We all know games may be “used” to be creative, just as a magazine may be used for collage. We need to find out if creativity may occur during gameplay. Surprisingly, there is no easy consensus on the word “gameplay”. Tom Heaton wrote: “Most people could agree on a rough definition along the lines of ‘the gamey bit of the game.’ But disagreement will quickly arise as to what gameplay actually is, what its elements are, why one feature contributes gameplay and another doesn’t.”

For the purpose of this article, I will try to build my own personal definition. Gameplay is the core of the game’s flow. Therefore, gameplay is the heart of the activity of playing.

Here are a few examples of gameplay actions in a video game: exploring a map to find hidden secrets, moving a white rectangle to bounce a white square back, trying to beat your own time record on Track D with Car #42, equipping a new shield for increased armor class, or climbing a large mountain to find out how far you can see.

So what isn’t gameplay, then? For example: navigating a menu to choose a game mode, watching a cutscene, modding, turning the volume up, or waiting for an opponent in a matchmaking lobby.

Gameplay occurs when players:

- Have an objective

- Cannot immediately reach their objective because of the obstacles on their way

- Have to undertake actions to overcome these obstacles

Of course, the details may vary greatly from game to game: there may be several objectives at once, the players may choose or invent their own objectives, the obstacles can consist of challenges, rules, labyrinths, puzzles and many more, and the actions may range from very intellectual choices (“is it the right moment to upgrade my base to Tech Tier 2?”) to mere reflexes (“Do a barrel roll!”)

The Impact of User Generated Content on Gameplay

More and more, games allow players to create their own characters, their own levels, and their own worlds. The amount and depth of available options determine the user’s freedom. In most editors, the number of possible outcomes is just dizzying.

Many of those editors do not partake of gameplay: for instance, building levels and sharing them turns the player into a level designer. And level design, as you probably know, is not a game in itself.

Sometimes, gameplay may affect those editors, most commonly by unlocking options and items (“Well done, you’ve completed Level 2! Here is a nice 3×2 platform to build new levels!”) But while, in this case, gameplay opens the door to creativity, it does not make creativity a part of gameplay. When a poker player spends the money she won, she is no longer playing poker.

Other times, gameplay may limit creativity. For example, Lionhead’s game The Movies puts the player in charge of a production studio. A rich tool allows editing movies, but the player can only cast the available actors, use the already unlocked sets, etc. Yet again, the creative efforts one may put in one’s movie will not impact the gameplay. It may just result in a very nice video to share online.

Games such as Audiosurf (Audiosurf LLC) and Vib-Ripple (Nana On-Sha) make level design out of assets such as music or photos. Even if these are creative assets, they are usually created outside of the game (and most of the time not by the player. The Prodigy is my favorite Audiosurf level design team.)

All Points Bulletin (Realtime Worlds) gives you the amazing power to turn your gun-toting character into a male pornstar from the ’70s with a blue moustache.

The most common customization feature allows the player to craft the main character’s appearance. This kind of editing is usually very deep but has no impact on gameplay: for example, I once gave Commander Shepard (from BioWare’s Mass Effect) the face of a skinny grumpy guy with distasteful facial hair, but understandably, it did not have any impact on the way people reacted to him.

Of course, gameplay is not everything in a game. The character’s appearance has an impact on the play experience; otherwise the greatest game studios would never bother to develop deep customization features. Playing as a unique custom character changes the player’s whole impression of the game… and it may prevent a MMO player from realizing that she is just player #65535. Sharing creations online is also amazingly satisfying. Again, there is no doubt this kind of creativity is very rewarding, but it is not directly gameplay-related.

May I See this Plasma Cannon in Another Color?

However, it may happen that character editors have an impact on gameplay. In Bethesda Softworks’ Skyrim, players can pick a character race among 10. This choice influences stats, skills and some of the NPC’s reactions. It will also determine what the visual customization options are. For example, Khajiits are humanoids with cat-like heads. The player may customize many facial features, but the character will always look like a cat.

In this example, we see the player’s choices have 10 different gameplay-related outcomes, and billions of purely aesthetic possible results. It is often the case during character creation: there are fewer options pertaining to the gameplay (such as skills, classes, perks) than visual options (colors, clothing, facial traits).

Why is that? Well, any designer who has actually fine-tuned a game system knows that the more different elements you have, the harder it is to find a balance. Adding just one new skill too late during the production may ruin the whole experience for players, whilst adding 15 moustache shapes just one week before Gold Master seems quite safe.

…Unless of course we are talking about the Fable games (Lionhead), in which facial hair patterns grant bonuses. Remember guys: a Sheriff Moustache makes you attractive but scary!

It now seems gameplay customization hardly gives enough freedom for players to get creative: without a large number of options, creativity is impossible. And allowing a large number of gameplay-related options is quite difficult. There are a few noticeable exceptions, though.

Maxis’ Spore Creature Creator may be the deepest character creation tool ever made. It allows the user to spawn trillions of totally different creatures. Doubtlessly, any editor allowing creating a seven-legged creature with three noses is indeed an amazing creative tool. What’s more, the chosen elements have an impact on the creature’s abilities: wings allow the creature to fly, nasty big pointy teeth make it carnivorous, and nimble feet will make it the best dancer in the ecosystem.

Several other games allow character customization to have deep gameplay effects, such as Impossible Creatures (Relic) or Freakyforms (Asobism). When using those editors, a conflict may emerge between the will to create original creatures and the desire for efficiency. Sometimes this conflict will result in even more creativity, but it may as well get frustrating and illogical: imagine yourself creating a perfect predator, a huge carnivorous brute with massive claws. You then check its stats and, because you used basic Level 1 claws, it has weak combat abilities…

After mentioning this to a friend, I realize he had the same problem, and came up with the same (creative) idea as me. He added a tiny appendix granting a Level 5 attack ability (the maximum value) hidden between the creature’s legs, where no one would see it. That way, the creature was the fighting juggernaut he expected; yet it did not ruin the look he wanted it to have, notwithstanding the tiny razor-sharp genitalia.

The creature on the left has Level 1 attack options (Strike, Bite and Charge), while the creature on the right has these same attack options at Level 5. Does the single-legged teal freak really look five times more powerful in close combat than the purple hulking beast?

The same phenomenon (synergy or rivalry between customization and gameplay) appear in other games. Players of SimCity (Maxis) may discover that the town they always wanted to build is not viable at all. Discovering that might be an interesting experience (“Oh, people will not pay twice as much tax for a magnificent park!”) but even in that case, following wacky ideas will actually reduce gameplay efficiency. The players then realize their two objectives do not mix: creating a “me-town” and avoiding bankruptcy.

On the contrary, players may later get to understand the gameplay better and come up with creative and efficient design. The same goes for Spore. The creatures players build later in the game tend to be consistent with the game’s logic and at the same time be noteworthy creations, even for those who do not know how the game works.

Players who get to know a game’s rules, as well as the game world’s logic, are less likely to make ridiculous mistakes — such as giving a very stealthy character goggles with three bright green lenses.

The Grammar of Creativity

It is a well-known established fact throughout the many-dimensional worlds of the multiverse that most really great discoveries are owed to one brief moment of inspiration. There’s a lot of spadework first, of course, but what clinches the whole thing is the sight of, say, a falling apple or a boiling kettle or the water slopping over the edge of the bath. Something goes click inside the observer’s head and then everything falls into place. The shape of DNA, it is popularly said, owes its discovery to the chance sight of a spiral staircase when the scientist’s mind was just at the right receptive temperature. Had he used the elevator, the whole science of genetics might have been a good deal different.

- Terry Pratchett, Sourcery

What is the fundamental distinction between aesthetic and gameplay-efficient designs? In fact, they do not use the same language. When players create Spore creatures tailored for gameplay (with all the skills necessary for a certain play style), they think about the rules of the game, about the obstacles they may encounter, about their ultimate goals and the way they are going to reach them.

On the other hand, what motivates players to design creatures before they even know the gameplay that well? Indeed, when they create their first Spore creature to try the game out, they do not have a clear idea of what they will face. Yet, is it the same feeling as modeling a creature from scratch in Zbrush? Not at all.

For starters, it is easier with a creature editor, as you are guided and never experience a “blank page” syndrome. But the main difference is probably that players know their creature will come to life (even if they do not know if it is going to survive for long). When designing their creature, players imagine how it would fare in what they expect the game world to be.

If creativity is the ability to combine old ideas to generate new ones, the question is: Where do these old ideas come from? Most gameplay-related customization systems are very narrow and limited, and do not allow a large enough number of options for players to be creative. Ideas from other domains usually do not have much value. The only pertaining grammar is strictly endogenous.

When the editing tools are deep enough to allow for designs based on a creative idea, as in Spore, the player uses a much wider grammar. It may be a combination of elements from the real world (“behold the butterfloctopus!”), the game world (“tiny flying animals every other creature wants to eat”), from everyday life (“a clone of my ugly math teacher”), from fantasies (“a giant penis”), from cultural icons (“Homer Simpson with Wolverine’s claws”) or even from many different grammars at once (“flying Homer with a giant penis and a pulley in the middle!”)

Behold the butterfloctopus!

This is exactly why Faceez’ photos allow users to be creative right away. Not only do they allow for a larger number of options, but they use a grammar the player already knows.

Of course it is always possible to create something that will work in creative grammars as well as the gameplay grammar. Sometimes, efficiency brings its own aesthetic value, and people familiar with the game will be able to decipher the creation’s characteristics by just looking at it (“I see you’ve designed a social creature; nice idea to make it a fast sprinter, just in case!”)

Wherever ideas come from, the ability to connect concepts from very different worlds is a cornerstone of creativity. Or more simply:

Creativity requires inspiration.

Inspiration mainly describes the way the brain connects existing ideas to build new forms, concepts, actions… The process is mostly unconscious, and has the reputation of coming and going. While this is true, there are several ways it can be stimulated.

We have already discussed how randomize buttons may familiarize players with the available options. Randomness may also give ideas, just as browsing Google Images or listening to people during a brainstorming session. An arbitrary flow of concepts gives food for thought.

Arbitrary situations may have the same effect: When the only tool you have is a hammer, any Celine Dion CD you come across may give you ideas. Situations do not only give players elements to work with, they also imply a certain number of constraints. Sometimes constraints guide inspiration; sometimes they destroy it. A gameplay grammar brings constraints to the customization process. These constraints may help new ideas appear, or they may just prevent and kill any creative ambition.

It turns out user generated content allows for inspiration and creativity but is not strictly a part of gameplay. Few games allow creations to have a deep impact on gameplay, and that may result in synergy or conflict.

Those conflicts come from this unavoidable fact: all players have at least one gameplay objective. User generated content may or may not mix well with it. This raises an important question: What is the purpose of creativity?

The Muses’ Secret Agenda

For any of us, creativity evokes insight, epiphanies, imagination. This is indeed a very important aspect of creativity: Without the ability to have ideas, creativity cannot exist.

But creativity does not stop there. It has a purpose. That purpose may fluctuate, be unconscious, arbitrary, silly… but it still is a purpose. If you do not have an objective, there is just no point in being creative. Creativity is inspiration plus perspiration.

On a theoretical level, having an objective and having a problem is just the same thing. Of course they do not sound the same at all. For example, I may accuse you of creating your own problems, and that would sound bad. Or I could praise you for deciding of your own objectives, which sounds a lot better. While these feel different, I am really talking about the same phenomenon: creating your own problems gives you objectives. Similarly, by picking your own goals, you will face the new problems of how to reach them.

Creativity is a problem-solving ability; it requires a purpose.

ACME statistics show that coyotes are 78% more creative when they are starving. (Citation needed)

Life is full of goals: ambitions, dreams, needs, professional challenges and requirements, social obligations… So which real-life problems may the ability to “find and apply new ideas” solve? Plenty: closing a business deal, getting your children to eat vegetables, coming up with a funny joke to break the ice, getting all the luggage in the car, writing a 10-page composition on a Sunday evening, opening a strongbox on a desert island, and so many more.

If having a purpose and looking for a solution to a problem are the same, then gameplay and creativity seem very close. Moreover, the above examples are all quite challenging. Yet, are they similar?

Any game has at least one goal, even if the player had to invent it. Otherwise, it would not be a game at all. But it turns out real-life problem-solving is different from gameplay problem-solving. During gameplay, the player has limited options and is constantly judged by the game.

You may think this depends on the game but, in reality, it does not. Remember, we are comparing games to real life here: even the most amazing free-roaming physics-based massively multiplayer triple-A game contains extremely simple and limited objects and systems when compared to the real world.

What would happen if creativity were deemed the objective of the game? Let us look at Create (EA Bright Light) to find out.

Creativity for the Sake of It

Create is a mixture of Incredible Machine-like puzzles, contraption-building challenges, and highly customizable environments. While this title is a good puzzler and contains hundreds of different customization and/or gameplay items to unlock, it fails to reach the objective displayed on Electronic Arts’ website: “Create tracks your creativity and rewards you for it.”

The game features special challenges called “Create Chains”: the player is rewarded for using a specific set of tools in a given level. Apparently, the ambition of Create Chains is to give players many opportunities to be creative, and thus get them to know the available options better. These options are quite comparable to those of a level editor, but they are entirely built-in and use the same interface as the problem-solving gameplay — just as games from the Trackmania series (Nadeo) brilliantly gives players a level editor interface to design the most efficient track they can.

In fact, creativity is not the Create Chains’ real objective. The real hardcoded objective is “use each of these tools enough”. The player may be rewarded for picking any option and clicking randomly in the scene: the challenge has been completed but there has been no creativity. The challenge is a no-brainer.

The player simply gave the game what it wanted in order to keep playing.

At the top, you can see the situation Create gives you as a starting point for a Create Chain in level 1: Theme Park. The two other pictures show different “solutions” to the challenge, equally valid for the game system, but one of those is clearly more creative than the other.

We have seen how inspiration cannot be forced. So we understand how a game cannot ask a player to be creative on demand (“Be creative! NOW!”)

You cannot just make creativity happen.

Even if players are willing to be creative, they may not be able to do it on demand. They may need time. But let’s admit a given player succeeds in being creative, what happens then?

IF CREATIVITY>0.5 THEN GOTO 10

Create is unable to rate creativity. No existing video game could. Even fellow human beings are sometimes very poor at assessing another person’s ideas — as developers, you probably know about that problem. How could a basic video game AI crack such a subjective question?

Of course, games often pretend to acknowledge the players’ sensitivity, for instance when judging the player’s interior design (as in Nintendo’s Animal Crossing) or when reacting to the name you just typed in: “Bollocks? My, what a pretty name!”

In the first level of Duke Nukem Forever (3D Realms), this AI-controlled Earth Defense Forces soldier seems to approve the cunning plan I’ve written for him on the whiteboard.

Nintendo’s Wii Music has a very interesting approach. It allows the players to pick instruments, play the chosen track, design a cover, and then the system asks them to rate their own work, with no limitations whatsoever. The designers knew the game was unable to judge the music’s quality, so the only pertinent opinion is the players’.

Creativity cannot be identified or rated by a computer.

If creativity cannot be identified by the computer, it cannot reward it and more importantly, it should never punish players for not being creative. Even preventing the player from continuing to play is a slight punishment.

We have now defined creativity in a satisfying way. Let us gather all the fragments so that we can forge the ultimate definition of creativity.

Creativity is the mental process allowing us to find and apply new ideas.

To be creative, a player must know the available options well.

It may only happen if there is a large number of choices.

Creativity is making new things out of old ones.

It requires inspiration.

It is a problem-solving ability; it requires a purpose.

You cannot just make creativity happen.

It cannot be identified or rated by a computer. (source:gamasutra


上一篇:

下一篇: