作者：Matthias Zarzecki

我将在此介绍两种理念，它们分别为“结构纯熟”和“主题纯熟”。

结构纯熟：关于一款游戏在技术上的娴熟度。图像设置是否合理？游戏是否足够稳定？游戏中是否遍布漏洞，从而粉碎了人们的幻想？游戏是否具有可玩性？

主题纯熟：游戏玩法是否有趣？是否达到平衡？故事是如何反应游戏玩法？游戏是否想传达什么？预先确定的内容是否有趣，或者是多变的？

我最近旁听了一个有关学生创造的游戏的介绍。

Game Alpha是一款跑跳类游戏。你可以在游戏中跳跃，射击以及闪避。你可以不断往前走，直到游戏最后，即遇到拥有独特攻击力的boss。游戏的色调以及幽默感都足以让我拍手叫好。

Game Bravo应该是一款益智游戏。之所以说应该是因为我只能勉强看到益智游戏的影子。游戏所呈现出的关卡包含了3个灰色盒子而映衬着Unity标准的蓝色背景。游戏主角是一个立方体，并且不能真正地移动。事实上并不存在任何真正能够发生的行动。可以说每一个关卡都是失败的。

但是人们大约花了同样的时间去评价这两款游戏。我上述所提到的内容也出现在讨论中，尽管它们在质量上具有很大的差距，但却花费了人们相同的讨论时间。

关于Game Alpha的评价主要是集中在它的主题纯熟。因为这款游戏在结构纯熟上已经做得很好了，所以无需多加讨论。

而Game Bravo甚至未触及主题关卡。因为它深陷于结构关卡中。所以在此被深入剖析了。

我从中得出的结论是：你必须在深入探讨游戏的主题关卡前先实现它的结构纯熟。

接下来我们便需要提到1至10的分数范围。

一些主要的游戏期刊都会按照1至10（游戏邦注：或者1至100）的范围去评定游戏。一个中立且不知名的观察者会认为“5便意味着较为中等。”真正的分数一般都是在7至9之间，而1或2分应该就是是真的很糟糕了。我们很少给予4至6分。通常情况下都是“7至9分的范围”，因为95%的游戏评论都是来自这三个分数的内容。

如果你着眼于分数及其背后的理念，你会发现这真的很愚蠢。

但是如果我们着眼于主题和结构纯熟，我们便有可能总结出为何会出现这样的范围。

评论当然会同时考虑这两种纯熟元素。

一款游戏的评论分数总是包含了“结构纯熟”和“主题纯熟”。如果一款游戏符合结构标准，它便能够获得一半的分数。因此大多数游戏的分数都不会低于6——它们都是“可行的游戏”。结构纯熟的游戏如果具备基本的主题的话，分数便会上升到7。

有些游戏之所以会待在1至2分范围内是因为，如果其结构并不完善的话（基本关卡设置很糟糕），那么它的主题也不可能吸引人。

Zoo Tycoon 2（from blogspot）

《Zoo Tycoon 2》便是一款结构突出，但却主题平平的游戏。它的结构与《过山车大亨》类似，但是其关卡乐趣却远不及这款游戏。

我也想建议在杂志上批评游戏的一种“更好的”方法，不过似乎已经有人在使用了。像Rock Paper Shotgun或IndieStatik等网站便避开了分数，并且很少谈论结构内容。这刚好适合于那些更在乎故事，游戏玩法和图像的人：结构并不是他们所关心的内容。他们想看到更多有关游戏玩法，故事和主题的评论。

还有一些像Eurogamer等网站，虽然在最后会出现分数，但却没多少实际意义。在这些网站中，真正有趣的内容还是评价本身，即对于游戏故事的深入剖析。

毕竟这才是评论的真谛。最后的分数其实都很荒谬，并不能真正指示一款游戏是否出色。

这种方法是可行的，毕竟它已经存在与此。当我们着眼于其它媒体，如电影书籍时会发现，那里并不存在结构式批评。似乎这种方法只存在于游戏中。

在小说评论中，作者并不会讨论这本书是否崩溃了或者字体是否易读。它本来就是结构纯熟型，所以可以完全忽视这一部分内容。所以小说作者才会专注于主题纯熟，并区分背景，角色和情节。

当我们在讨论电影时也不会专注于它是否具有可见性。在过去90年里，电影技术已经发生了改变，如果要在此给予评论分数的话也只会是针对于主题纯熟而言。

不过也绝非完全这样。最近一些电影形式发生了改变，如出现了3D或48FPS。所以结构纯熟将再次出现于讨论中，并影响着人们对电影内容的整体评价。

讨论游戏在主题上的成功或失败是件很有趣的事。这也是我们为何要玩游戏的主要原因。并且随着低保真度独立游戏的出现以及人们放慢对于更高像素的追求，这种情况将逐渐好转。

结构良好的游戏最多只能称得上是中等的游戏。而只有主题也得到完善才是创造出真正优秀游戏的关键。

（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 Two Kinds of Proficiency in Games, and the Two Kinds of Criticism

Posted by Matthias Zarzecki

I’m going to introduce two concepts here. I haven’t seen them mentioned anywhere else, and thus have decided to call them “Structural Proficiency” and “Thematic Proficiency”

Structural Proficiency . It talks about how technically proficient a game is. Do the graphics work? Is the game stable? Do horrendous bugs appear throughout, shattering the illusion? Is it even playable?

Then there is Thematic Proficiency. Is the gameplay fun? Well balanced? How does the narrative reflect the gameplay? Does the game have anything to say? Are the set-pieces interesting and varied?

I recently sat in a presentation of student-games (I love those).

Game Alpha was a solid Jump’n'Run. You could jump, shoot and duck. You progressed until the end, where you encountered a boss, which had unique attacks. There was interesting work with the color-palette, and some nice humorous bits that made me applaud (after which the rest of the class joined me).

Game Bravo was supposed to be a puzzler. I think. I say “I think”, because it barely worked. The level presented consisted of 3 grey boxes against the standard-blue background of Unity. The main character was a cube, and couldn’t actually move. The one action that was supposed to happen didn’t. It was a complete and utter failure on every level.

Yet when both games were critiqued, it took about the same time. The things I just mentioned were discussed, which, despite the huge gap in quality, took the same amount of time to talk about.

What happened was, that the Critique of Game Alpha (the good one) centered on its Thematic Proficiency. It already was Structurally Proficient, so there was no need discussing that.

Game Bravo (the crap one) didn’t even reach the Thematic level. It was stuck on the Structural Level, never moving beyond it. And was then taken apart for it.

Colonial Marines fails on a Structural Level. Without this, talking about the Thematic Proficiency is difficult, at best.

The conclusion I took away from this is: You have to EARN a Thematic Critique. Your game has to prove to be Structurally Proficient, before it can be seriously discussed on a Thematic level.

Which brings me to the infamous 1-10 scale.

Now please bear with me, because this argument will come out In Favor of the current use of the 1-10 scale (I know, right? I was surprised too). Or at least it might explain how it works, and how it has reached the state it is currently in.

The majority of game-journals (be they online or print) rate games on a scale ranging from 1 to 10 (or 1 to 100%). A neutral, unknown observer might think “Surely, a 5 would be mediocre,” Only the actual grades given range from 7-9, and maybe a 1 or 2 fro truly horrendous ones. The grades 4-6 are barely ever awarded. It is jokingly called the “7 to 9 Scale”, because 95% of games reviewed get one of these three grades.

Which, if you look at the grades and the idea behind them, is LITERALLY INSANE.

But if we take a look at Thematic and Structural Proficiencies, and we can maybe conclude how this scale came to be.

A review, of course, takes both Proficiencies into account.

When a review for a game is given, the score for “Structural Proficiency” and “Thematic Proficiency” are combined. If a game works structurally, it already deserves at least half the grade. Hence most games are never lower than 6, as they are “working games”. A Structurally Proficient game also usually has the basics of Theme down, so the score goes up to 7.

A bunch of games group around the 1-2 mark, because if a game is structurally not proficient – as in, it fails on a basic level and barely works – it usually fails thematically to.

Zoo Tycoon 2, a perfect example for a Structurally sound, yet Thematically mediocre game. Its Structure is similar to the RollerCoaster Tycoon-games, yet Zoo Tycoon doesn’t reach the levels of fun of RCT.

Of course I would like to suggest a “better” method of criticizing games in journals, but it already exists. Site that eschew scores, like Rock Paper Shotgun or IndieStatik barely even talk about the structural thing. That’s what it is to those caring about story, gameplay and art: The Structure beneath it. The canvas it was painted on. They care about gameplay, story and theme, and the reviews are more interesting for it.

Some other sites, like Eurogamer, despite having a score at the end, barely even need it. The interesting stuff is there, inside the body of the review, taking apart the narrative of a game.

And that is what a review should be, after all. An interesting take on a title. The number at the end is ridiculous, and can’t possibly work in being a general indicator of a game’s greatness (which is another discussion in itself).

This can work, because it already does. Look at other media, like books of Film, where there is NO Structural criticism. This seems only to exist in games.

If you read a review of novel, the author won’t discuss whether the book is falling apart or the font is readable. It already Structurally Proficient, and this part can be ignored outright. Hence she concentrates on the Thematic Proficiency, taking the setting, characters and plot apart.

If a movie is discussed, people do not concentrate on whether it is visible or not. Cinema-technology has changed relatively little in the last 90 years, and if a review-score is given, it is given on Thematic Proficiency alone.

…but not quite. Recently some experimental changes in the film-format have been added to movies, like 3D or the 48fps-experiment. And suddenly the Structural Proficiency is discussed again, influencing the overall verdict.

The Hobbit doubled the framerate it was recorded in, thus justifying talking about the Structural Aspects. As a result the overall scores and verdicts were skewed.

Arguing about how a game succeeds or fails thematically is the interesting stuff. This is why we play games, after all. It has gotten better recently, with the advent of low-fi Indie-Games and the gradual slowing of the hunt for more pixels.

Because a game being Structurally better will only result in a mediocre game at best. Making it Thematically better is the only way to greatness.(source:blogspot)