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

策略游戏设计所面临的7大常见问题

发布时间:2013-07-18 15:09:23 Tags:,,,,

作者:Soren Johnson

在计算机游戏中,策略游戏是最古老且最让人骄傲的类型,包括《M.U.L.E.》,《文明》以及《星际争霸》等游戏。尽管如此,我们仍然在重蹈一些设计问题。以下是7大常见的问题:

1.太多脚本内容

策略游戏与桌面游戏具有直接的关系,玩桌面游戏的乐趣是关于理解游戏规则和机制,然后做出可能影响游戏世界的决策。而计算机策略游戏让玩家能够独自经历这一游戏世界。在某一时刻起,策略开发者便开始创造冗长,且照本宣科的情节,并将其整合到单人玩家的游戏体验中。(与此相反的是,最近的《冲突世界》却不具有单人玩家小冲突模式。)这些情节具有一些特殊的感觉——它们将某些同样的规则作为核心游戏内容,同时还经常违背其它规则。

AI是基于其自身的开发速度或战略重点采取行动,同时还取决于人类是否撞击了某一特定的触发物。在很多情节中,人类甚至不会失败,因为当他们击败某些方式时,脚本便会冻结AI并开始向玩家灌输免费单位。此外,这些情节经常围绕着特定目标而创造,如破坏一个特定结构或吸引一个单点。这一人造环境将决策带离了玩家身上。这不只是玩家获胜的唯一方法,同时玩家在游戏过程中的表现也变得不再重要。缺少了有趣决策的游戏很快就会变无聊。

幸运的是,最近一些策略游戏,如《太阳帝国的原罪》和《劫世帝国》便恢复到开放世界和随机地图游戏玩法中(游戏邦注:没有预设目标或人为触发器),并让我们回想起具有凝聚性的策略游戏的乐趣。

2.黑盒机制

在90年代末期,也就是在《黑与白》的开发阶段,更少界面的游戏理念开始流行起来。该理念是关于界面将抑制游戏接触到更多主流用户。从那时起,我便注意到一个明显的趋势,即在玩家面前隐藏起游戏机制。发行于1999年的《Age of Kings》带有一张惊人的卡片,即列出了游戏中的每种成本,价值和修饰元素。然而对于一款现代RTS游戏来说,手册通常都不会包含数字内容。

在此我想要强调的答案是,不要以透明度的名义而将玩家置于复杂的机制中。相反地,设计师应该将将其界面分成两个层面:教学层面和参考层面。教学层面是面向新手玩家,他们需要学习游戏的基本内容,如如何创建坦克并杀死坏人。而参考层面应该回答玩家对于游戏机制如何运行的所有问题。同时,我们还需要将这些信息置于不同的游戏资源中,就像《文明》系列中的“文明百科”。

Civilization(from amazon)

Civilization(from amazon)

《传说再现》便有效执行了这两个界面理念的有趣版本。游戏中的大多数弹出窗口都带有一个“高级”模式,你可以通过按住某一按键而打开,从而获得有关游戏基础机制的更多细节内容。

3.过多内容

我们总是很容易受到各种引诱而在已经完成的设计中堆积额外的单位和建筑等内容。我便看过许多开发者将游戏描述为各种内容的集合(“18种武器!68种怪物!29个关卡!”)。这一方法却是错误的。游戏设计是由各种有趣决策所组合在一起,而这些堆积在游戏中的“内容”不仅会占空间,同时还会强迫你执行某些决策。游戏可以提供给玩家较少的选择,但通常情况下游戏都提供了过多内容。

多少内容才是合适的?显然,并不存在一个魔法数字,但是我们能够想出一个合理的经验法则,即关于玩家在所有内容被摧毁前能够记得多少不同的选择。暴雪便使用12种内容去确保其RTS游戏不会过于复杂。就像在《星际争霸》中,每一面平均会出现12个单位。《魔兽争霸3》中也是如此(不包括英雄)。实际上,暴雪也已经宣称会在《星际争霸2》延续这一法则,即开发者将删除一些早久的单位为新单位腾出更多空间。同时玩家还必须能从心理上去追踪其游戏内部的选择,而如果游戏一下子呈现出过多选择,玩家便很难去理解可能性空间了。

4.有限的游戏多样性

不管你的游戏多出色,它都会慢慢开始“变质”。不幸的是,当一款出色的游戏不能再采取一些必要步骤时,玩家便可能改变其设置去创造一些可替代的游戏体验。就像《英雄连》就是一款优秀的战术RTS游戏;可以说是这类型游戏的转折点——但是游戏既不允许轴于轴之间的战斗,也不允许超过2个团队以上的比赛。也许这一设计选择适合二战的背景,但却大大减少了游戏的多样性。

而《帝国时代》系列则在这方面做得很好。你不仅能够搭配任何文明,玩家和团队,你甚至还可以设计自己的地图脚本。我记得《世纪帝国》中izhang有趣的地图几乎没有任何木材,但却拥有许多石头和金子,能够彻底颠覆游戏经济。游戏甚至让多个玩家去控制一个单独的文明(能够控制军队,其它经济等)。

因此我便在《世纪帝国》中玩过2比3的游戏,即4个玩家真正控制着2个文明(所以能够轻松地赢得游戏)。这一简单的多样性让我的好友圈们更愿意长久地玩这款游戏。值得注意的是,这些选择必须与游戏核心机制直接相联系——它们需要在不添加任何复杂性的前提下添加多样性。

5.锁定的代码/数据

我们总是会本能地保护代码和数据——毕竟你可能已经花了很多年时间致力于某一项目中,创造了独特的功能,突破了某一类型的界限。对于许多开发者来说,公开游戏中的内部结构是非常困难的事,特别是对于高管们来说。

尽管如此,我们在《文明4》发行后一段时间公开了游戏/AI源代码,并取得了很棒的结果。我们还在游戏的第2个扩展包中包含了3个由粉丝创造的插件,即《Beyond the Sword》中Derek Paxton创造的“Fall From Heaven: Age of Ice”,Gabriele Trovato创造的“RhyeRhye’s and Fall of Civilization”和Dale Kent创造的“WWII: The Road to War”,迄今为止,这些情节都被标记为补充包中最强大的功能。而如果我们未公开源代码的话,这些插件并不可能如此吸引人了。

我想要重申这里所阐述的是策略游戏。所以不管何种原因(可能是缺少像id Software那样的先驱开发者),比起射击游戏和RPG游戏开发者,策略开发者总是更加抵触插件。不过也有例外,就像暴雪在《魔兽争霸3》设置的奇幻场景编辑器,但是从总体上看,策略插件并没有过多转移空间,这也是我们认为有必要专注于《文明4》的插件的主要原因。适当泄漏某些内容是合理且有效的。

6.反盗版妄想症

盗版对于我们产业的破坏是不可估算同时也是不可忽视的。很少有公司的领导能像Stardock的Brad Wardell那样勇敢,即在《银河文明》系列游戏中完全省去复制保护。(游戏邦注:该公司通过提供给玩家带有合法序列号的在线更新而鼓励他们消费。)

设置一些机制去阻止盗版行为是我们产业的一种特定方法,有些公司让他们的用户越过这些机制而开始游戏则不是既定的方法。我们需要思考的最重要的问题便是“这种新添加的安全层面是否能够提高我们的销量?”例如基于当地的多人游戏便是一种很好的方法,但是换句话说,没有CD的玩家是否能够加入基于合法复制的多人游戏中?

《星际争霸》让你能够“繁殖”只能加入当地多人游戏的额外游戏副本。允许无限的LAN游戏也是我们在《文明4》中所使用的非官方政策。游戏在打开执行内容(而不是等到游戏真正发行)时将会检查磁盘,因此你们一群好友(4个)可以相互传递磁盘去玩当地的多人游戏。

我们不相信玩家只是为了LAN聚会而购买额外的磁盘,这是很少发生的情况。但是我们希望新玩家是通过好友的介绍进入这些环境中,并受到他们的玩家好友的鼓励。那时候,他们将会想要尝试单人玩家体验——如此他们便会千万当地零售商店购买自己的游戏。

7.将故事安置在错误的位置上

故事和游戏具有一段曲折的历史。许多游戏都带有无聊的过场动画,老套的角色,以及不受玩家控制的情节。还有一个特别的问题是,游戏不让玩家快速穿过一些阿谀的对话。最糟糕的错误是故事出现在不属于它的位置上,就像在策略游戏中那样。

毕竟,策略游戏是初创游戏。人类是从西洋双陆棋,象棋和围棋中发现游戏玩法;这是一种传统。策略游戏中的“故事”也就是游戏本身。举个例子来说吧,如果Big Huge Games放弃创造基于故事的活动,而是反复重申源自《国家的崛起》的基于回合制的“攻克世界”策略,那么《传说再现》是否会变得更好?

让人感到讽刺的是,战役模式是我在《传说再现》中最喜欢的游戏方式。我喜欢游戏让玩家智能在任务间的策略地图上获得技术和高级单位,如此便有效简化了硬核RTS游戏。我喜欢战役模式是与故事内容毫无关系。

这里的关键在于,为了追逐故事,Big Huge Games错失了将一款优秀的硬核RTS游戏与简单但却重要的策略层面(能够反复游戏)相匹配的机会。并不是只有Big Huge Games面对着这样的情况;几乎所有RTS游戏开发者都掉进了同样的陷阱中,而现在我们是时候去阻止这种情况了。

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

Seven Deadly Sins of strategy game design

By Soren Johnson

Amongst computer games, the strategy genre is one of the oldest and proudest, with a strong tradition running from M.U.L.E., to Civilization, to StarCraft, and beyond. Nonetheless, certain design mistakes are made over and over again. Here are seven of the most common:

1. Too Much Scripting

Strategy games have a direct lineage from board games, and the fun of playing the latter comes from understanding the rules and mechanics of the game world and then making decisions that have consequence within that world. Computerized strategy games allow a single player to experience this same world on his or her own. At some point, however, strategy developers began to create lengthy, scripted scenarios as the single-player portion of their games. (Contrarily, the recent World in Conflict shipped without a single-player skirmish mode altogether.) These scenarios have a peculiar feeling—they use some of the same rules as the core game while often violating others.

The AI takes action depending not on its own development rate or strategic priorities but on whether the human has hit certain triggers. In many scenarios the human cannot even lose because when defeat approaches, the script will freeze the AI and starting pumping in free units for the player. Further, these scenarios are often built around specific objectives to achieve, such as destroying a specific structure or capturing a single point. This artificial environment takes decision-making away from the player. Not only is there only one path to victory, but the player’s performance along that path may not even matter. Games without interesting decisions get boring quickly.

Fortunately, some recent strategy games, such as Sins of a Solar Empire and Armageddon Empires, have returned to open-world, random-map gameplay — without pre-set objectives or artificial triggers—and are reminding us of the joy of cohesive and consistent strategy games.

2. Black Box Mechanics

Sometime during the late-90′s, around when Black & White was being developed, the concept of an interface-less game came into vogue. The idea was that interfaces were holding games back from larger, more mainstream audiences. Ever since then, I have noticed a discernible trend to hide game mechanics from the player. Age of Kings shipped in 1999 with an incredible reference card listing every cost, value, and modifier in the game. For a modern RTS, however, it’s unusual if the manual actually contains numbers.

I want to emphasize that the answer here is not to bathe the players in complicated mathematics in the name of transparency. Instead, designers should think of their interfaces as having two levels: a teaching level and a reference level. The teaching level focuses on first-time players who need to know the basics, like how to build a tank and go kill the bad guys. The reference level should answer any question the player can think of about how a game mechanic works. It is perfectly fine, by the way, to put this info inside of a separate in-game resource, like the Civilopedia in the Civilization series.

Rise of Legends implemented an interesting version of this two-interface idea. Most of the popup help in the game had an “advanced” mode that you could unlock by holding down a key, giving you significantly more details about the game’s underlying mechanics.

3. Too Much Stuff

The temptation to pile extra units and buildings and whatnot onto to an already complete design is strong. I have seen many developers describe games as simply a collection of stuff (“18 Weapons! 68 Monsters! 29 Levels!”). This approach is wrong-headed. A game design is a collection of interesting decisions, and the “stuff” in the game is there not just to fill space but to let you execute decisions. Games can provide too few options for the player but — more commonly — games provide too many.

How many is just right? Obviously, there is no magic number, but it is possible to come up with a good rule-of-thumb for how many different options a player can keep in his or her mind before everything turns to mush. Blizzard uses the number 12 to make sure their RTS games don’t get too complex. StarCraft averaged 12 units per side. So did WarCraft 3 (not counting Heroes). And you can bet that StarCraft 2 is going to be in that neighborhood as well. In fact, Blizzard has already announced that for StarCraft 2, the developers will be removing some of the old units to make room for the new ones. Players must be able to mentally track their in-game options at one time, and putting too many choices on the table makes it impossible to understand the possibility space.

4. Limited Play Variety

No matter how good your game is, it is going to get stale after awhile. It’s unfortunate when a great game doesn’t take the few steps necessary so that players can change the settings to create alternate play experiences. Company of Heroes is an incredible tactical RTS; a watershed moment for the genre—but the game allows neither Axis vs. Axis battles nor matches of more than two teams. This design choice may fit the universe of WWII, but it significantly reduced the game’s play variety.

An example of an RTS that got this right is the Age of Empires series. Not only could you mix-and-match any combination of civilizations and players and teams, but you could also design your own map scripts. I remember one interesting Age of Kings map that had almost no wood but tons of stone and gold, which turned the game’s economy upside down. The game even allowed multiple players to control a single civilization (one could control the military, the other the economy, for example).

Thus, I’ve played 2-vs-3 games of AoK where the side with two civilizations was actually controlled by four players (and, in fact, handily won the game!). These simple variations probably doubled the life-span of AoK among my group of friends. Significantly, these options should be orthogonal to the game’s core mechanics—they need to add variety without adding complexity.

5. Locked Code/Data

Protecting your code and data is a very natural instinct — after all, you may have spent years working on the project, developing unique features, pushing the boundaries of the genre. Giving away the innards of your game is a hard step for many developers, especially executives, to take.

Nonetheless, we released the game/AI source code for Civilization 4 shortly after shipping, and — so far — the results have been fantastic. Three fan-made mods were included in the game’s second expansion pack, Beyond the Sword — Derek Paxton’s Fall from Heaven: Age of Ice, Gabriele Trovato’s Rhye’s and Fall of Civilization, and Dale Kent’s WWII: The Road to War — and so far, these scenarios have been heralded as one of the pack’s strongest features. These mods would have been nowhere near as deep or compelling (or even possible) if we had not released our source code.

I should specify that for many PC developers, I’m preaching to the choir, so I’d like to reiterate that I am calling out strategy games. For whatever reason (perhaps the lack of a pioneering developer like id Software?), strategy developers have been much more closed off to modding than their shooter and RPG brethren. There are exceptions, like Blizzard’s fantastic scenario editor for WarCraft 3, but by and large, strategy modders do not have many places to turn, which was one reason we felt compelled to focus on modding for Civilization 4. Giving stuff away can feel good. It should also feel smart.

6. Anti-Piracy Paranoia

The damage that piracy does to our industry is impossible to calculate but also impossible to ignore. Few company heads can be as brave as Stardock’s Brad Wardell, who chose to leave out copy protection altogether for the Galactic Civilization series. (The company encourages paying customers by providing online updates to players with legitimate serial numbers.)

Having some sort of mechanism to stop casual piracy is a given in the industry, but what is not a given are the hoops companies will make their customers jump through just to be able to start the game. The most important question to ask is “will this added security layer actually increase our sales?” A good place to be lenient, for example, is with local multiplayer games — in other words, can players without the CD join a multiplayer game hosted by a legitimate copy?

StarCraft lets you “spawn” extra copies of the game that could only join local multiplayer games. Allowing unlimited LAN play was our unofficial policy for Civilization 4 as well. The game does a disk check when opening the executable but not when you actually launch the game; thus, a group of four friends could just pass one disk around for local multiplayer games.

We do not believe players are willing to buy extra discs just for LAN parties, which are rare events. However, we would love for new players to be introduced to the game in these environments, encouraged by their friends who are already fans. At some point, they are going to want to try single-player — in which case, it is time for a trip down to the local retailer to buy their own copy.

7. Putting Story in the Wrong Places

Story and games have a checkered history. Too many have suffered from boring cut scenes, stereotyped characters, and plots that take control away from the player. Especially problematic are games that don’t let the player fast-forward through cringe-worthy dialogue. The worst offense is when a story gets stuck somewhere it really doesn’t belong, like in a strategy game.

After all, strategy games are the original games. Humans first discovered gameplay with backgammon and chess and go; it’s a noble tradition. The “story” in a strategy game is the game itself. Picking a specific example, how much better of a game would R ISE OF L EGENDS have been if Big Huge Games had given up on creating a story-based campaign and instead iterated on the excellent turn-based “Conquer the World” strategy layer from Rise of Nations?

Ironically, the campaign mode was my favorite way to play RoL. I loved that you could only acquire technologies and advanced units on the strategic map between missions, which helped simplify the core RTS game. I enjoyed the campaign in spite of the story, not because of it.

The key point here is that, for the sake of chasing a story, Big Huge Games missed a big opportunity to match a great core RTS game with a simple, overarching strategy layer that could be infinitely replayable. Big Huge Games is not alone; almost every other RTS developer seems to be falling into the same trap, and it is time for this trend to stop.(source:gamasutra)


上一篇:

下一篇: