作者：Thais Weiller

这是一个相当自命不凡的标题，对吧？所以我才选择它。现在，你们一定怒气冲冲地往下读我的这篇文章，想证明我错了。不过，这样我的目的就达到了。当我还以写作谋生时，我就知道许多关于如何写作的“黄金法则”，其中有一条是“标题永远不要做出文章本身无力兑现的承诺”。然而，我现在就违背它了，但你们还是在阅读。

无论是什么行业，总是有许多“黄金法则”——每一个专业人士都知道的，每一个人都毫疑问地认同和遵循的东西。黄金法则是不能被随意创立的，虽然没有所谓的“黄金法则设计委员会”这样的组织，但它们也没有得到可靠的科学理论的支持。它们产生于知识、实践、观察，在大数情况下被采纳并证明是正确的。这不同于科学理论的确立途径，后者首先萌发于假设，然后在受控制的环境下检验各种可能性，最后才上升为不偏不倚的理论。

正是因为缺乏公正性，与真正的科学理论相比，黄金法则更类似于一种偏见和成见：尽管它们适用于最频繁出现的情形，且甚至相当准确，但那并不意味着黄金法则总是对的，尽管人们通常是那么说。

虽然游戏设计还是一个新兴领域，但已经诞生大批“黄金法则”了。至少，有些自称是游戏设计师的人在网上评论部分叫嚣自己所说的就是“黄金法则”。黄金法则在大部分情况下是正确的，但并不是放之四海皆准的：这取决于具体情形和游戏。下来我们就来谈谈几条这样的“黄金法则”：

操作必须快速和精确

这一条的意思是，在任何游戏中，精准的操作是游戏有趣的原因之一。游戏反应精确，几乎与玩家活动同步发生，被认为是所有游戏的关键元素。可惜这是一个有失偏颇的观念。

对于大多数游戏，特别是强调准确度和紧密度的游戏，精准当然非常重要。但这并不意味着所有游戏的操作都必须完全准确。例如，在经典游戏《恶魔城》中，抽打在与其他操作的关联时会发生小小的延迟，并且跳跃方向不能在空中调整。这虽然使操作变得更加不准确，但从游戏的庞大粉丝群来看，这事实上使游戏更有趣了，因为玩法的策略性增强了。

Castlevania 2(from nesmaps.com)

休闲游戏对不精确性的使用更加深入，手机游戏和许多Wii游戏甚至把它作为玩法的一部分。你是不是打算当着我的面扯谎：在基于二维图像拼接技术的游戏中，因为不精确，你从来感受不到有趣，而且还觉得非常“怪异”！当然，这种怪异感会消失得非常迅速，但当怪异感消失，有些这类游戏的生命也就到头了，但它至少大放异彩过两分钟。

永远不要欺骗玩家

depict1(from rockpapershotgun)

是的，没有人想像个傻X一样一直受骗，但猜怎么着？这就是人生啊。有时候，游戏必须体现人生的这个特征。《Depict1》非常高明地破坏了这一条法则，我很欣赏。只要适用于游戏，无论如何都要贯彻下去。我想用一款出自我喜爱的开发公司的AAA游戏作例子，但我发现有可能剧透。如果你不知道我说的是哪一款游戏，那你应该多玩玩Valve的游戏。

不要有严厉的惩罚

糟糕的游戏总是遵循无可置疑的游戏设计法则。比如，基本上所有的“无尽奔跑”类游戏。这条黄金法则的意思是，不能因为一点点小失误（如掉悬崖）就判玩家死刑（死亡）。然而，有时候游戏就要像军事学校一样严格。当然，并非所有游戏都要这样，但在讨论这个主题时，游戏的整个概念和它的目标受众必须考虑在内。

另一个相关的话题是，“伤害”玩家前不给反应时间。例如，在《洛克人》中，当游戏从一个画面进展到另一个画面时，有时候敌人会正好在洛克人面前刷出来，这样玩家还可能躲开吗？另一种情况是，在玩家跳过一道沟以前并不知道自己将遇到什么。于是，跳完后才发现自己落在进退不得的钉地之间，懊悔自己如果能跳得再远一点就好了。

Jetpack Joyride(from ipad.qualityindex)

在这两种情况下，玩家都会失败，并从中吸取教训。但不同的是，前一种情况只是使玩家受到少量伤害但还能继续前进，而后一种情况则会损失整条命。预料到这些情况有多难？相当难。然而，在“无尽奔跑”类游戏如《Jetpack Joyride》中，来不及反应就挂掉并不会让玩家感觉太糟，因为玩家总是可以立即重跑，此外没有任何其他惩罚。另外，当玩家死亡时，可以通过摇奖得到奖励，并且重玩几乎是立即的——没有“你挂了”的画面，也不必等待菜单再次加载（比如《生化危机》）。总之，在奔跑类游戏中，当死亡就是对玩家唯一的惩罚（游戏邦注：没有重玩等待时间或损失资源等）时，并不一定会让游戏显得太过苛刻或硬核，那只是一个在游戏机制中平衡奖励和惩罚的问题。

如果你的游戏设计包含某些通常被认为是故障的东西，那么你的底线就是始终如一地执行（“玩家之前遇到的所有坑都是无底的，但关卡进展到一半时，会遇到一个随机坑且不会提示玩家，我可以这样安排吗？不行。）、平衡和协调。

积极反馈循环不好

这几乎是多人游戏设计的共识。如果你不确定什么是积极反馈循环，我推荐你查一下维基百科。简而言之，积极反馈循环就是优势玩家会得到越来越多的好处，从而把其他弱势玩家越甩越远。例如，在《大富翁》中，你拥有的道具越多，把其他人拦下的概率就越大，这样你就会得到甚至更多钱和更多道具。

monopoly(from monopoly.portalux.com)

积极反馈循环通常对多人游戏产生消极影响，因为它导致赢家和输家之间距离越拉越大，赢家每一次获胜都把输家甩得更远。但有时候，这就是多人游戏的乐趣所在，特别是对于持续时间短的回合制比赛。例如《大富翁》，玩家可以玩上数个小时，使最下风的玩家眼看着优势玩家越来越富有，而感到越来越痛苦。你有多少次是真正“玩完”《大富翁》？我记得我玩了很多次，但几乎没有玩到底的。最通常的情况是，劣势玩家无法忍受自己始终占下风，于是在自己还没遭遇必然的失败前主动放弃了。

现在的大多数多人竞技游戏都使用积极反馈循环作为一种增加乐趣和加快游戏速度的办法。最先夺取优势的团队或个体玩家会更加容易获胜，这种设定不仅让玩家更加积极地争取第一轮优势，而且往往比依靠系统平衡玩家优势更加节省游戏持续时间。

目标玩家越广越好

谬论！这已经成为发行商和大公司眼中的铁律。现在，每个月都会有10款新FPS问市，其中大多数赚的钱比投入的钱来得少。给游戏定位的目标受众越广，越是吸引不了任何目标受众，这并非罕见的现象。有时候（其实是大多数时候），少数忠实的玩家对赢利的贡献甚至比大量积极性不高的玩家更大。

游戏的唯一原因是乐趣

这一条可以追溯到，当每次你想进一步了解游戏和游戏设计时，“专家”就会建议你阅读Huizinga的著作。什么？你不认识他？Huizinga（游戏邦注：荷兰学者，著有《人：游戏者》）是游戏研究史上的重要人物，可以说正是他开辟了游戏研究这个领域。根据此人的说法，游戏一定是一种自由的活动，因为玩游戏的人是正享受“乐趣”（他几乎不使用这个词，但从他的大量著作中都暗示了这一点）。也就是说，根据30年代的Huizinga理论，他认为许多运动“扼杀了游戏的本质”。据我所知，他从来没有设计过任何游戏。

当然，Huizinga仍然是重要人物，就好比现代科学中的笛卡尔。他是游戏研究（不是游戏制作，幸好）的先驱，但他的理念不是标杆，尤其不能指望通过它们来理解游戏。现在，大多数游戏研究者和游戏制作都认同，人们玩游戏没有唯一的原因，而是具有各种各样的原因。不仅乐趣有不同的类型，体验也有不同的种类。

generic-fps(from gamasutra)

作为玩家，甚至你每次玩游戏也不是追求相同的体验：有时候，你喜欢FPS，有时候你更爱玩RTS，又有时候你更偏好休闲游戏。如果所有人类玩游戏都只出于一个原因，或者说是抽象的“乐趣”，那么这个世界上也没必要存在这么多游戏了，因为经过数百年的创作，最能满足这种需求的游戏早就诞生了。确实，这样我们都丢掉饭碗了。

结论

黄金法则存在是有原因的，毕竟它们在许多情况下是适用的。你不仅要知道什么是黄金法则以及如何使用，有时候还要与黄金法则背道而驰。（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）

What is Right and Wrong in Game Design

by Thais Weiller

That’s quite a pretentious title over there, don’t you think? I thought so, that’s why I choose it. Now you are pissed and angry reading my article trying to prove me wrong and actually making my point. When I worked as a writer there were many golden rules about how to write and one of them was “Never chose a title that promises more than a text will answer”. Yet, I just did it and you are still reading this.

Independently of your field of actuation, there are many “golden rules” that every wise professional know and everybody agrees and follows unquestionably. Golden rules are not arbitrarily stipulated, there is no such thing as The Central Committee of Golden Rules of Programming, but they also aren’t proven scientific theories. They emerge from the daily use of that field of knowledge and trivial observation and survive for being mostly right, most of the times when used. This is a different path of what scientific theories course, first emerging from a hypothesis and then being tested with all variations possible in controlled environments which leads to unbiased theories.

Not being unbiased is what makes golden rules much more similar to prejudices and stereotypes than of actual scientific theories: although they emerge from most frequent situations and are even fairly accurate, that doesn’t make a golden rules always right even though people generally state so.

Despite the fact that it is a relatively new field of knowledge, game design already has a whole bunch of “golden rules”. At least, that’s what some self-proclaimed game designers scream on the comments section throughout the internet. And, as golden rules in general, they are fairly accurate but also not universally applicable: it all depends on the context and the game. Let’s discuss some of them:

Controls must be fast and precise

This one asserts that in any given game, perfectly precise controls is part of what makes them fun. Something in the preciseness and being almost simultaneous to the player action is supposed to a important ingredient for all games. Except that it isn’t.

Sure, for most games, specially games in which accuracy and tightness is a important deal, precision is really, really important. But this doesn’t mean that controls must be completely precise in all games, even in accuracy dependent one. For instance, in classic Castlevania the whip has a small delay in relation to other controls and jump direction cannot be changed mid-air. This makes controls more unprecise but actually makes the game more fun according to its numerous fans, since the whole gameplay becomes more strategic.

Casual games make even more deep use of imprecision, as mobile and many Wii titles, making it even part of the fun of the gameplay. Or are you going to lie straight to my face and say you never had fun with a tilt-based game and how “weird” it was? Sure, this weirdness wears off fast and some of these games don’t have an afterlife when the oddness is gone, but it was some darn fun 2 minutes.

Never deceive the player

Yeah, no one likes to discover she has been believing in BS all this time, but guess what? Such is life. And sometimes, games must take this characteristic of live. I love how Depict1 shatter this rule in a very clever and compelling way. If it make sense in the game, don’t drop it no matter what. I would use as example a cool AAA game from a beloved developer with a beloved game retail online platform, but realised this might be a huge spoiler for some. If you didn’t get this reference, you should play more Valve games.

No bottomless pits, like, EVER

RIP Megaman, worse game ever according to a unquestionable Game Design rule. And also almost all infinite runners. The point of this gold rule is that you cannot give capital punishment (death) for only one small fault (falling off a cliff). However, sometimes the whole point of the game is to be hard in punishment, just like a military school. Sure, this doesn’t work in all games, but the whole concept of the game and its target audience must be taken in consideration before anything is rules on this subject.

Other related topic is about “hurting” the player without giving him a reaction time. For instance, in Megaman, remember when it changed from one screen to another and sometimes an enemy spawned right in front of Megaman, leaving no time to dodge? This was also used in Megaman when you had to jump in a pit you didn’t know what you would find just to realizes (just after the screen shift) that you are in a unalterable collision route to spikes and that if you only hand jumped a little farther to left everything was going to be ok.

In both situations, player is induced to failing and has to learn something from past mistakes. The thing is that in the first example, player takes a small amount of damage and goes on, while in the second example he loses a whole life. A whole Megaman life. You know how hard to find are those things? Pretty hard. Yet, in a infinite runner like Jetpack Joyride, a insta-kill for something you couldn’t react in time doesn’t fell that bad, since you can always try again right after and there is no other penalties outside that only run. Also, when player dies on Jetpack Joyride, he can be rewarded with a slot try AND replays are almost instable, with no “You are dead” screens  and waiting for the whooooole menu to load again (I hate that, Resident Evil). To sum it up, when death is the capital punishment in that run but has no other penalties to the player (as waiting for a replay or losing resources) it doesn’t necessarly make a game too punitive or to hardcore or it is forbidden, that’s just a matter of balancing the right amount of reward and punishment in the game mechanics.

Bottom line, if things normally considered faults are something important on your game design and will be consistently used (“Can I make all pits bottomless but this one random pit, in the middle of the level and with no signs whatsoever, is actually essential to player progression?” ahahaha, nope.) and balance and make sense with everything else.

Positive Feedbacks loops are no good

This is almost a chorus on multiplayer games design. If you are not sure what Positive feedback loop means, I recommend that you read a bit about it on Wikipedia and most of what Ian Schreiber wrote about it. In a nutshell, positive feedback loops creates loops in which players that are winning gain more and more, leaving other players far behind. For instance, the more properties you own on Monopoly bigger are the probabilities of someone stopping in one of them and that you receive even more money to get even more properties.

Positive feedback loops generally has a bad impact in multiplayer since it stimulates disparity between winners and losers, making the leading ones every time harder to reach for those who were left behind. But, sometimes, this is just what you need to spice things up in a multiplayer, especially in episodic matches, especially if matches are short. That for instance Monopoly, a game that can be played for many hours and many hours, making the least favored player every minute more miserable and top players every second richer. How many times did you actually “finished” Monopoly? I remember playing it many times, but playing until the end in very little of them. Very frequently, the bottom players get so frustrated that they can’t continue playing for another whole hour just to lose, so they just give up to save this another hour.

Most MOBA nowadays use positive feedback loops as a way to spice and speed matches up. The team or player that first acquire some advantage will more easily win the match, which not only makes players more frenetic in acquire this first advantage but also tends to make matches shorter than if the game system tended to equilibrate players advantages.

The most players, the better

No, no, no, no. This has became a common rule for publishers and big companies and now we have 10 new generic FPS games launched by month, most of them hardly paying what was invested in them. It’s not uncommon to try to target a wider audience and end up with no target audience at all. Sometimes (most times, actually), a small core of avid players is better and even more profitable than a mass of apathetic ones.

Games are supposed to be fun

This one goes back to the time when every time you wanted to know a bit further about games and game design, “”"”experts”"”" said you had to read Huizinga. In the case you don’t know, Huizinga was a very important person in the game studies and basically founded this research field. For Huizinga, a game must be a free activity, as people involved are probably having fun (he used this word very little, but this is implicit in most of his writings).  That being said, Huizinga theories are from the 1930′s, he believed that the mass appeal of sports were “killing the essence” of games and, as far as I know, he never designed a single game.

Sure, Huizinga is important, as important as Descartes is in modern science. He is the starting point of games studies (and not of game making, thankfully) but he is not the cornerstone and least of all the end of the line in understanding games. Most game researchers and game makers nowadays agree that there is not one only reason why people play, but rather, a big set of different reasons. Not only different types of fun, but also different types of experiences being searched.

Even you as a player don’t play every times looking for the same sensation: sometimes, you feel like a FPS; other you rather a RTS, and there is even that time that you feel like you need a cow clicker. If all humans played in search of only one thing, even a abstract notion as fun, there wouldn’t be the need of so many games, the most efficient games to create this sensations would already been created and perfected throughout the centuries. And really, none of us would have our jobs.

TL;DR

Golden rules exist for a reason, which is there are in many cases the correct way. But also the save way, the beaten-track way. Know the golden rules and use them at the game favor, even if sometimes that means doing the complete opposite of what the rule states. (source:gamasutra)