作者：Red Key Blue Key

以下内容是我从以前写的关于制作电脑游戏的文章中归纳出来的。

原则1、有意义的玩法

“有意义的玩法产生的前提是，游戏中的行动和结果之间的关系是可辨别的，且符合游戏的大环境，”—-Salen & Zimmerman，《Rules of Play》2004

有意义的玩法是游戏设计最基本的原则之一。它要求，输入（玩家与游戏的交互活动）和输出（你的交互活动的视觉反馈和声音反馈）对玩家来说必须是有意义的。例如，当玩家角色走进昏暗的森林时（输入），背景音乐发生变化，以契合森林的氛围（输出）。当选择战士角色而不是盗贼角色时（输入），玩家应该觉得在战斗中的力量显著增加（输出）。当朝敌人扔炸弹时（输入），应该出现爆炸效果，杀死附近的敌人（输出）。在更一般的水平上，玩家行为应该与游戏中发生的大事件交织在一起。所有这些这些例子都说明，游戏必须在玩家行为和屏幕显示之间创造非常基本的逻辑关系，从而为玩家提供继续玩下去的动机。相反地，当玩家行为缺少可辨别的输出时—-当玩家无法感知行为的直接结果时，往往会产生尝试-犯错事件。作为玩家，我们继续玩下去却失败了，因为我们不能清楚地理解我们的游戏行为的后果。为了实现有意义的玩法，这是应该避免的。

案例：《光晕》

在《光晕》系列中，玩家反抗邪恶外星人势力的行为是符合游戏的大环境。人类陷于战争的水深火热之中，玩家是战胜敌人的重要力量。因此，你将大部时间用在消灭外星人上是非常合理的。像Master Chief这样的战士，如果是忙于做其他与对抗外星人无关的事，那就说不通了。

无论你是射击、投手榴弹、跳跃还是开车，你都会收到合理的反馈。AI也要符合这条原则。小喽啰看到所有同伴已阵亡，可能惊慌失措。挥舞着大斧头的BOSS怪砍你一下应该造成严重的伤害。当遇到危险时，同伴提醒你躲到掩蔽物后面。所有这些AI对你的行为做出的反应都是合情合理的—-在游戏的环境下，这些反应通常让人觉得是本能的。

另外，战斗极少依靠试错法。关卡往往是这么设计的，即给你一个区域，必须消灭该区域的所有敌人才能继续前进。这个目标对你来说是很简单且清楚的。你不会遇到敌人突然在你身后刷出来或用什么诡计“欺骗”你。如果你死了，基本上是因为你自己的策略失误—-因为你的进攻太激进了。你通常很明确失败的原因，所以继续玩时你会改正错误。你的玩家行为和反馈之间有某种分辨能力，这限制了尝试-犯错事件。尝试-犯错事件之所以被削弱，还因为你在死前可以承受多次射击伤害。想象一下，在《光晕》中被打中一下就死是多么令人沮丧—-死得不明不白。（在《光晕》的某些狙击任务中确实存在，所以那些是我最不喜欢的关卡。）但是，总体说来，《光晕》的玩法大多是有意义的，值得称赞。简单地说，有意义的玩法就是，玩家行为背后应该有意图和期待，行为结果通常有一些相关性和意义。

原则2：玩法平衡

“当玩家有多个获得胜利的选择或途径时，每个选择和途径都应该存在风险-奖励关系，以防止玩家采用优势策略。特别是关卡设计，应该符合这条原则。”

在大多数游戏中，完成某个任务的方法有若干种。在做任务以前，你可以选择不同的可玩角色、武器或工具。可能还有不同的路径—-例如，赛车游戏中的捷径。不同的游戏有不同数量的解决方案。有些非常开放，而有些则更加线性。尽管如此，游戏必须让玩家置身于做出选择的处境。赛车游戏中的捷径有明显的优势或奖励—-路程更短。“然而，为了弱化这个优势，游戏设计师应该使这条路径更难走—-比如让它更狭窄、更多转弯。这样玩家的选择才会更有意思。他应该冒险走更短但更危险的捷径呢，还是走更长但更安全的正道呢？决策取决于玩家在比赛中的当前位置、技术水平、情绪等等。另一方面，如果走捷径在所有情况下都毫无疑问是更好的选择，那么它就会变成优势策略，这就使决策过程消失了。

策略游戏和角色扮演游戏中也存在优势策略，即在游戏开头选择职业/种族。这里，必须禁止任何一种职业/种族总是占优势。否则，其他职业/种族就成了鸡肋。暴雪公司就非常擅长运用这条游戏原则，经常发布平衡职业/种族的补丁。

总之，迫使玩家进行策略性且有意义的考虑是游戏设计的基本原则。这条原则也印证了Sid Meier说过的一句著名的话：“好游戏是一系列有意义的选择。”

案例：《生化危机5》

《生化危机5》中有一个模式叫作“佣兵”—-要求你在固定的时间内杀死尽可能多的僵尸。你可以直接远程射击僵尸，也可以近战。这就形成了一个风险-奖励的有趣抉择。最安全的办法是，保持距离，逐个放倒。毕竟，近战打僵尸太危险了。然而，射击僵尸要消耗宝贵的弹药。另外，近战打僵尸让你有额外的时间杀死更多的僵尸，从而增加得分。这就增加了冒险的作战方式的吸引力和意义。如果你错失近战进攻机会，你的小命就危险了。

作为玩家，你会不断面临这些有趣的选择—-用枪还是用拳头。你的决定受到许多因素的影响，比如僵尸的剩余命值、僵尸数量、当前得分、剩余时间，等等。这些决策就是如果没有玩法上的平衡，就无法成为有趣的挑战。如果一种策略主导了所有情境，那么游戏就会失去吸引力。

原则3：提供积极和消极反馈

“玩家应该清楚且几乎马上被告之自己的行为对达到目标具有积极或消极的影响。”

无法感知自己的行为是否让自己更接近或更远离目标，是最令人沮丧的游戏情形之一。许多BOSS战都存在这个问题。你不断地朝BOSS开枪，但似乎看不到什么效果。子弹打在BOSS身上，但BOSS好像全无反应。是BOSS太强大了还是玩家没有打中要害？不知道怎么回事可能会让玩家觉得沮丧和不知所措。

类似地，在FPS中，敌人被攻击时做出贴近现实的反应是非常重要的。比如说，当敌人腿部中枪时应该跪在地上，被爆头时应该掉脑袋。动画在传达这种反馈中有重要作用。除了更加贴近现实，进而增加玩家沉浸感，这些反应还使玩家觉得自己更加强大。当你觉得自己对周边的影响更大了，游戏便会更加吸引人。

显然，显示或强化反馈机制的方法还有许多。比如得分增加和命值条。颗粒特效，如血液飞溅，可以增强反馈。声音也很重要。敌人痛苦的尖叫将清楚地告诉玩家，他们的攻击有效。马里奥死亡时播放的音乐非常有特点，也值得一提。

案例1：《俄罗斯方块》

《俄罗斯方块》是经常性反馈的鲜明例子。在游戏中，通过看方块堆叠的高度，玩家始终清楚地知道自己表现如何。这个高度是不断改变的。只要玩家让一行方块消失，高度就会降低。相反地，如果玩家不能让方块排成一行，高度便会立即升高—-更加接近游戏结束。除了这种视觉反馈，还有得分增加和在关键时刻音调增强的音乐。

案例2：《使命的召唤：现代战争》

《现代战争》中的多人模式也是一个经典的例子。当你杀死一个对手后，屏幕上会立即显示点数，让你知道经验增加了。如果是爆头，游戏还会播放非常特殊的音效，听到这种声音对玩家来说是非常有成就感的。另外，当玩家被攻击时，游戏会给出非常明显的消极反馈。除了控制器的力量反馈，玩家还会看到红色的箭头指向子弹的来源，玩家伤势越重，屏幕变得越红，声音也变得模糊。

这条原则不适用于所有类型的所有游戏。给出经常性的反馈确实是非常游戏化的行为，这与现实生活的体验是不相符的。例如，在现实生活中，当我们在公园散步时，我们并不会看到右上方挂着个显示器。我们不会不断地评估自己的日常生活。因此，追求高度现实主义玩法的游戏反而应该避免这条原则—-至少是从部分上来看。

原则4：游戏的流状态

“让玩家体验流状态。”

“流状态”是一个心理学术语。1990年，Csikszentmihalyi在他的书《Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience》中发展了流状态理论。他观察到，某些活动，如绘画、爬山和其他休闲运动，通常只是因为我们想做于是就去做的—-没有外部、物质奖励的刺激。相反地，我们的动机则进入了流状态—-基本的人类渴望。流状态是一种强烈的沉浸感，我们的注意力完全集中于某种活动，达到全神贯注、忘我、行为与意识统一的状态。当你处于流状态时，你觉得好像自己一个人就掌控了自己的命运。尽管并非只有游戏才能激发流状态，在其他许多活动中也能产生流状态，但Csikszentmihalyi认为游戏可能是最能刺激人类产生流状态的活动。

所以，我们如何让玩家进入流状态？Csikszentmihalyi提出了几个必要条件。第一，难度与我们的能力相适应，这样我们才会受到适当的挑战性。游戏必须达到这个平衡点。当游戏太容易时，我们会很容易被其他东西分心；当游戏太困难时，我们会觉得沮丧受挫。所以，游戏最好一开始就有多种难度选项，因为玩家的游戏水平是参差不齐的。逐渐上升的难度曲线，即玩法变得越来越复杂，跟着玩家的水平进步，也是非常重要的。为了达到这种平衡，大量的游戏测试是必须的。

一个清楚定义的总体目标也很重要。否则，我们就无法专注于手头上的任务。这其实与我的第一条原则相辅相成，当我们的目标不明确时，我们往往会遇到不想要的和令人分心的尝试-犯错事件。

反馈机制也是关键，我的第三条原则针对的其实就是这一点。我们必须不断地被告之自己是否正在接近或远离目标。这样我们才会有动机继续玩下去。

我们还需要一种控制感。这还是一个平衡的问题。如果游戏自动完成的地方太多，我们就不可能体验到流状态，因为我们缺少控制感。另一方面，如果我们手上的控制感强大到足以影响周边，那么挑战性就会下降。想象一下，当你在游戏中死亡后，又在同一个地点刷出，且没有损失任何经验。那样我们就不会对任务太上心。我们会不停地重生—-控制权太大。所以，必须有一些令人害怕的、混乱的元素—-以便提醒我们总是存在失败的可能。

案例：《几何战争》

许多益智游戏都非常遵守这条原则。《几何战争》肯定是其中之一—-也许与《俄罗斯方块》并列为最典型的例子。

在《几何战争》中，玩家的目标很清楚：在不断刷出的敌群中活下来。反馈机制也很多。每一次敌人被消灭，屏幕上就会显示多彩的颗粒效果、得分增加。玩家还会经常获得增益奖励。难度也随着进度上涨，敌人力量增强、数量增加。最后，你会对这种原本混乱的环境产生控制感。当大量三角形朝你飞来时，游戏会让人觉得非常混乱，更别说屏幕上还会出现炸弹和旋涡。在你小心翼翼地避开敌人和击毁即将自爆的飞船时，你的心脏会跳得很快。这些活动使玩家精神紧张，因为失败的后果是严重的：你必须全部重新开始。

尽管场面混乱，优秀的玩家仍然可以坚持很长一段时间，这表明这款游戏是非常技术型的，玩家在这么混乱的情况下有可能练出一定的操作水平。

原则5：学习容易，精通困难

“所有的优秀的游戏都是容易学习，难以精通的。”—-Nolan Bushnell（游戏邦注：他是阿塔里视频游戏公司、查克奶酪餐馆和二十五家其他公司的创始人。）

虽然我不认为所有游戏都应该遵守这条原则（毕竟，许多游戏的受众是硬核玩家，为了避免让玩家觉得无聊，硬核游戏通常一开始就难度很大），它仍然是一条有价值的普遍原则—-特别是对于休闲和手机游戏而言。

在玩家第一次玩游戏时，让他们成功而不受挫是极其重要的。你必须立即捕获他们的兴趣—-在几分钟内就让他们脸上出现笑容。对此，告诉玩家游戏怎么玩的教程是必需的，但教程应该保持简明、容易理解。

另外，确保游戏以一个简单的玩法机制为基础，契合游戏的大语境。作为测试，检查玩法是否可以用一个简单的动宾和对象组成的词组来解释。比如，“扔炸弹”、“手枪瞄准”、“避开敌人”或“切绳子”。如果测试失败，你的目标受众可能属于不太休闲的玩家。

为了确保游戏的寿命比较长，游戏的难度必须逐渐上升。新的挑战、工具、敌人、增益道具……必须一个接一个地加入到潜层玩法机制中，使游戏越来越复杂。确保游戏难度上升是以玩家过去的体验为基础的，缩小已知和未知的差距。每次只引入一个新机制。如果成功，玩家可能会一直玩下去，直到大部分玩法元素都出现了，复杂度达到顶点，要求玩家的精神更加集中。玩家会觉得自己自第一次玩之款游戏开始，技术取得了长足进步。

最后，还要保证完成游戏的各个环节或关卡有若干种有不同评估的方法。例如，可以根据玩家的表现给出评分或星级。这样，老手和新手便有了玩某个关卡的动机—-当玩家渴望取得更好的评分或星级时，游戏的寿命就会大大延长。

案例：《翼飞冲天》

iPhone和Ipod Touch版的《翼飞冲天》极其简单：你操作一只小鸟飞过2D环境里的座座小山。你必须在给定的时间内飞得尽可能远。当小鸟没有碰到任何东西时，它会浮在半空中缓缓地下沉；一旦碰到东西，它就会迅速下落。你必须利用这个机制落到下坡，以便获得的加速冲力。《翼飞冲天》的核心机制是限时。这个机制非常容易学习—-玩家看一个用几张图解组成的教程就能学会了。当你操作得不好时，小鸟的速度会自动变慢，因为它缺少操作良好时获得的冲力。这种慢节奏使新手有更多时间寻找着陆点。相反地，小鸟获得的冲力和速度越多（换句话说，你的操作越好），游戏的难度越大。当以极快的速度飞过天空时，着陆在下坡上会更困难得多。这种内置玩法机制完美地支撑了这条设计原则。

另外，这款游戏有可选择的增益道具，比如有助于增加得分的跳板和食物。对于希望破纪录的硬核玩家来说，充分利用这些道具是非常重要的。另外，玩家会因自己的某种玩法而获得特殊的奖励，以此鼓励多种攻略。这些是游戏中可选择的任务，主要是针对希望尝试额外挑战的有资深玩家。

原则6：奖励玩家

“不只有增加得分能够带给玩家奖励。扩展玩法本身也是一种奖励。”

正强化是一个重要的动机因素。得到表扬让我们开心，让我们更自信，让我们再接再厉。这在关于积极反馈的重要性的第三条原则中已经简单地提到了。第六条原则将更详细地解释了应该如何奖励玩家。

给出分数是最古老且最常用的方法。当游戏结束时我们得到一个分数，用数字总结我们的表现。这可以鼓励玩家重复游戏，因为我们想打败最高分—-当高分榜与在线系统相结合、允许玩家与好友及其他人竞争时，这个动机就更强了。炫耀可以成为一个强大的动机因素，使得分系统—-包括成就，成为游戏中有价值的一部分。

作为游戏设计师，我们通过使某些奖励成为游戏设计本身的实用元素，可以激发玩家的积极性。得到分数并不是游戏中可感、实用的奖励。它只是一个数字。就像在现实生活中，得到实用的奖品比别人对你坚起大揩来得有效。

所以，这个奖励应该是怎么样的？幸运的是，答案是数之不尽的。解锁新区域就是其中之一。有些游戏的关卡解锁比较特殊，需要玩家满足特殊的、困难的要求。得到新武器或工具—-或叫作掉落物品，也是一个选择。在角色扮演游戏中，你经常得到额外的技能作为奖励。除了增加玩家能力，这些方法还给玩法增加了一层新的复杂度，进而增加游戏的难度曲线。奖励还可以是声音、视觉的，或与剧情有关，比如，漂亮的过场动画解释故事的小花絮，就像《最终幻想》那样。

在极端的情况下，奖励还可以融入现实生活，就像在《魔兽世界》中，玩家可以把自己的虚拟角色和道具放在拍卖网站上出售真钱；或者像在《小小大星球》上，玩家可以使用自己的关卡设计作为虚拟营销活动的一部分。当然，这些活动不是游戏设计的直接组件，但它们对许多人来说仍然是相当强的动机因素。另外，我们看到在奖励方面，越来越多的游戏融入现实领域。

案例：《超级银河战士》

所有《银河战士》系列的奖励机制都不只是分数。你操作一个孤独的赏金猎人Samus去消灭邪恶的Mother Brain，在开头，你的兵工厂和技能是极其有限的。你很弱小—-无论是防御还是进攻。你经常忍不住瞄一眼那些除非你获得特殊的武器或工具才能进去的区域或使用的道具。例如，获得爪钩是非常让人高兴的奖励，不只是使你更强大了，而且允许你进入更多新区域。武器和弹药升级、命值增加和获得技能如墙跳也可以作为奖励。它们都比分数来得有趣，因为实用、有趣、丰富了玩法、打开了新区域，让玩家觉得自己更强大。分数永远达不到这样的效果。

注意：完成游戏后，你得到的不是分数本身。比如，取决于你的完成时间，Samus穿得越来越“凉快”—-真是（男性）玩家的福利啊！

原则7：让电脑去做单调乏味的工作

与桌面游戏相反，电脑游戏可以让电脑去自动化或模拟某种活动或事件。电脑可以在不受玩家控制的情况下让某事发生。角色可以按脚本程序来移动—-独立于玩家行为。游戏中的天气系统也可以自动变化。建筑可能突然崩塌。

电脑游戏设计师可以好好利用这些特征。他可以限制玩家行为，让他们只做有趣的活动，而由电脑去执行无趣的部分。正如第二条原则中所说的，好游戏是一系列有意义的选择。因此，删除无聊的选择是重要的游戏设计原则。

在这方面，使用瞬间传送机制是一个知名的案例。不是迫使玩家去跋涉漫长的道路，而是给玩家瞬间传送的能力，这就大大优化了游戏的节奏，使体验更有趣更丰富。确保玩家在战斗前不会让自己的角色花太多时间在虚拟的“健身中心”，也是一个实用的例子。不要有管理目录、导航界面，或其他管理任务，也可以增强娱乐价值。

在驾驶游戏中，我们看到许多相关的例子。成为赛车手的乐趣在于，体验速度带来的兴奋和快乐。创造这种感觉是大多数驾驶游戏的重点。你往往不会花若干小时准备比赛，分析赛道和细致地评估比赛后的表现—-虽然真正的赛车手必须做这些事。甚至驾驶赛车的体验本身也通常仅限于速度和刹车控制，因为这些是最有趣的。操作其他机制如换档通常被部分地或完全地忽略。

简化现实行为是电脑游戏的共同特质—-让电脑游戏有趣的关键。

案例：《马里奥网球》

《马里奥网球》简化了网球运动，只保留了它最有趣的精华。当完成一个完美的基线命中、高球和截空命中或使用特殊进攻来救场时，玩家会获得满足感。这些通常可以由防御方执行—-救下不可能的一击，或由进攻方执行—-以最大的准确度和速度打到球。相反地，网球中通常被认为比较无趣的部分被忽略了。所有的策略方面或多或少被移除了。甚至界外击球这种动作也发生得相当频繁，因为它比用决胜球定输赢来得无趣。

再者，如果你制作的是相当现实主义的游戏，那么你就不必严格遵守这条原则。在现实世界中，我们不能总是让电脑去做无趣的工作(我们当然不能自己瞬间传送自己），所以使用这种游戏设计技术可能会破坏参与现实世界的沉浸感。

原则8：核心玩法机制的重要性

“确保大部分基础的玩家活动是有趣的。以这个核心机制为基础来制作你的游戏。”

大部分成功的游戏都以一个简单有趣的玩法机制为基础。这是最基本和最频繁的玩家行为。如果这个活动太无趣或不能让人满足，那么你修改多少次或添加额外的特征，都没有用。它们不能拯救失败的游戏设计。

核心游戏机制必须直观、比较容易学习，因为学习机制永远不如使用它作为完成目标的工具那样有趣。换句话说，学习时间应该尽量少。随着游戏进展，玩家进步，游戏应该增加复杂度和挑战水平，这时候应该引入叫作“卫星机制”的小特征。这些小特征补充了核心玩法机制，迫使玩家以稍有不同和更困难的方式使用它。

游戏开发者还应该尽量减少这些卫星机制的学习时间。办法是，确保卫星机制与核心机制以逻辑、直观和有意义方式相结合。《超级马里奥兄弟》中的蹦床就是一个经典例子。你立即就能理解它的功能。你知道为什么它会存在以及它做什么—-它的执行是有意义的。你可能还想尽量减少卫星机制的数量，这样玩家就不必总是学习新机制。特别是，如果两个卫星机制具有相似的功能—-如果它们比较多余，那就删除吧。或者也许你可以重新设计一个具有多种功能的卫星机制（例如，一把可以反射激光又可以近战刺穿敌人的光剑）。尽管如此，不要在你的游戏中堵塞大量卫星机制—-这样只会增加学习时间。

一旦所有卫星机制都出现，确保切换使用，以便创造丰富多样的玩法体验。为了保持玩家的兴趣，不要长时间使用一个卫星机制。如果能把若干卫星机制以有趣的方式结合使用，那么就有可能进一步多样化玩法。

案例：《愤怒的小鸟》

《愤怒的小鸟》是以一个核心机制为基础的：用弹弓把小鸟射向猪头。为了完成游戏，这个动作必须执行几百次，并且它是很容易执行的。甚至小孩子也能理解弹弓的逻辑。为了使玩法更复杂，游戏逐渐引入各种卫星机制。比如，引入若干类型的小鸟就是其中之一（每种小鸟都有自己的特殊进攻方式）。TNT炸弹的布置是另一个例子。当命中时，有些目标还给额外的分数，也使游戏更难精通。玩家能够马上便领悟到这些卫星机制，并且它们也都与其它机制和核心游戏玩法紧密地整合在一起。

最后，我希望以上8条游戏设计原则能对读者有所启发。

（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）

8 Principles of Good Game Design

by Red Key Blue Key

Here, I will gather all my previous posts about what makes a good computer game. Or you can download the pdf here.

Principle 1: Meaningful Play:

“Meaningful play is what occurs when the relationships between actions and outcomes in a game are both discernable and integrated into the larger context of the game.” (Salen & Zimmerman in “Rules of Play”, 2004)

Meaningful play is one of the most basic principles of good game design. It states that inputs (your interactions with the game) and outputs (the visual and audio feedback of your interactions) must be meaningful to the player. They must make sense. For example, when walking into a gloomy forest with our character (input), music could change to accomodate the mood here (output). When choosing a warrior avatar as opposed to a thief (input), we should feel an increased amount strength in battle (output). When throwing bombs at enemies (input), an explosion should appear, killing nearby enemies (output). On a more general level, player actions should be integrated or woven into a larger event happening in the game. All these examples create a very basic logic connection between what you do as a player and what plays out on the screen, which provides incentive for the player to keep playing. Conversely, when player actions lack discernable outcomes – when the player can’t perceive the immediate outcome of an action, trial-error incidents tend to occur. As players, we keep trying and failing, because our understanding of the consequences of our game actions is unclear. This should be avoided in order to achieve meaningful play.

Principle found in: Halo:

In the Halo series, your actions – to rebel against an evil alien force – clearly make sense in a larger context. The human race is at war, and you’re a vital instrument in winning it. Thus, it makes sense that you spend most of your time gunning down aliens. Doing other stuff wouldn’t make sense for a soldier such as Master Chief.

Regardless of whether your shooting with a weapon, hurling an incendiary grenade, jumping, or driving vehicles, you receive an output that makes sense. The same applies to the AI. A small enemy – having seen all his comrades die – might panic. The giant axe-wielding enemies come charging at you with devasting results. Allied characters prompt you to go into cover when in danger. All these AI reactions to your actions make sense to you – they generally feel intuitive within their context.

Also, the battles rarely rely on trial-error. The levels are designed in such a way that you’re mostly presented with an area, in which to eliminate all enemies to progress. The goal is very simple and clear to you. And you won’t experience enemies suddenly spawning behind you or “cheating” in other ways. When you die, it’s mostly due a tactical mistake from your part – because you’ve charged forward too aggressively. You tend to know exactly why you died, enabling you to correct the mistake afterwards. There is a certain discernibility between your player actions and their outcomes, which limits trial/error. Trial/error is also diminished by the fact that you can take relatively many shots before dying. Imagine how frustrating one-shot-kills would be in Halo. You would die without even knowing what happened. (Actually this does occur in some of the sniping missions in Halo, which is why these are my least favorite levels of the game.) But, generally Halo should be commended for its high degree of meaningful play. There is usually intent and expectation behind every player action, and the result usually has some relevance and significance. This is what meaningful play is all about.

Principle 2: Gameplay Balance

“When players have multiple options or routes to victory, each option or route should have a risk-reward relationship that prevents dominant strategies. The level design, in particular, should accommodate this feature.”

In most games, you can complete a task in several ways. You might be able to choose different playable characters, weapons, or tools before a mission. There might also be different routes to victory – for example a shortcut in a racing game. The amount of solution options obviously varies a lot from game to game. Some are very open while others offer a more linear progression. Nevertheless, it’s important that the players are put in a dilemma about which option to choose. A shortcut in a racing game has the obvious advantage – or reward – of being quicker. ‘However to compensate for this advantage, the game designer could make this route more difficult – by making it more narrow and full of tight turns, for instance. This will make the player’s choice interesting. Should he risk taking the shorter more difficult route, or opt for the safe one? The decision might depend on his current position in the race, his skill level, his mood and so forth. On the other hand, if the short cut is undeniably better in all situations, taking it would be a dominant strategy, removing these satisfying considerations.

The same thing is seen in strategy and role-playing game, in which you choose a race in the beginning. Here, it’s also important that no race always triumphs. Otherwise, why even include the others in the game. Blizzard, in particular, is known for mastering this game design principle, constantly releasing patches to level the playing field between races.

So in conclusion, forcing the player into making strategic, interesting considerations is a basic principle of game design. This goes well together with Sid Meier’s well known quote: “A [good] game is a series of interesting choices”

Principle found in: Resident Evil 5.

Resident Evil 5 has a mode called Mercenaries. Here, you must kill as many zombies as possible within a set time frame. You can obviously shoot the zombies, but you can also go into close combat. This sets up an interesting choice of risk-reward. The safest solution would be to keep your distance, and take them out one by one, After all, zombies are much more lethal in close combat. However, this solution uses up valuable ammo. What’s more, killing a zombie with a close combat move, gives you extra time, in which to kill more zombies and increase your score. This is a significant and tempting reward for an otherwise risky action. If you miss your close combat attack, you risk death.

As a player, you are constantly faced with these interesting choices – using the gun or your fisticuffs. Your decision is influenced by many factors, including the zombie’s remaining health, the number of zombies in the area, your current score, the remaining time, etc. These considerations represent a very satisfying challenge that could not materialise without gameplay balance. If one strategy had been the most dominant in all situations, you would lose this appealing aspect of games.

Principle 3: Provide positive and negative feedback

“The player should clearly and almost constantly be told whether his actions had a negative or positive effect on achieving his goal.”

One of the most frustrating game situations happens when we are unaware of whether our actions bring us closer or further away from our goal. Many boss battles suffer from this. You keep pounding bullets into the gut of the boss, but nothing seems to happen. He just keeps on accepting them, without even reacting at all. Is he just extremely tough or is the player missing some sweet spot that needs to be hit? This is frustrating not to know, and it will likely result in the player getting stuck.

Likewise, in first person shooters, it’s important that an enemy reacts realistically upon being hit. He should perhaps fall to his knee after taking a shot in the leg, or lose his head after a head-shot. Animations are vital in communicating this feedback. Apart from being more realistic, thus immersing the player more, these reactions also make the player feel more empowered. You feel as if your influence over your surroundings is that much more significant, which makes the game infinitely more rewarding to play.

Obviously, there are many other ways to show or enhance the feedback mechanism. Score increases and health meters are certainly among them. Particle effects, such as blood splattering, can also enhance feedback. Sound is important too. A scream of agony coming from an enemy indicates very clearly that you’ve done successful damage. The characteristic tune playing when Mario dies also deserves mention.

Principle found in Tetris:

Tetris is an obvious example of constant feedback. At all times, you know exactly how well you’re doing just by looking at the height of the Tetris tower, which is always in focus, anyway. The height is updated constantly. As soon as you make a line disappear, the game shows you how the tower is diminished. Conversely, if you can’t get the bricks to fit, you instantly experience how the tower grows taller – ever closer to reaching game over. This visual feedback is complemented by constant score increases and music that is intensified in critical situations.

Principle also found in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare:

The multiplayer mode in Modern Warfare is also a prime example. When you’ve killed an opposing player, you instantly see points on the screen, showing your increased experience. Making a headshot even plays a very distinct “bullet-to-skull” sound, which is immensely satisfying to hear. What’s more, the overall score is always shown at the top of the screen. Also, negative feedback is prominent when you become hit. Besides force-feedback in the controller, you see red arrows showing where the shot came from, and sounds get distorted while the screen blurs, becoming redder as your death approaches.

I realize, that this principle isn’t universally applicable to all games in all genres. Giving constant feedback is indeed a very gamey act, which doesn’t really match real-life experience. We don’t see a status display, in the top right-hand corner, when taking a walk in the park, for instance. We aren’t constantly evaluated in our daily lives. Therefore, games that strive for highly realistic gameplay could benefit from avoiding this principle – at least partially.

Principle 4: Flow in Games

“Get players to experience flow”:

The flow theory is used in psychology and developed by Csikszentmihalyi in 1990 in his book “Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience”. He has observed how some activities, such as painting, mountain-climbing, and other leisure sports, are often carried out simply because we want to. There is no external, material reward connected to these activities. Instead, our motivation is to get into a flow state – a basic human desire. The flow state is one of intense immersion, in which our attention and concentration completely revolve around a certain activity. There is a loss of the feeling of self-consciousness, a merging of action and awareness, and no place for thoughts unrelated to the activity. In flow, you feel as if you alone can affect your fate. The idiom ”to be in the zone” summarizes this state fairly well. Though flow isn’t specifically aimed at games, but has a broader scope, Csikszentmihalyi specifically mentions games as potentially flow-inducing.

So how should we bring players into flow? Csikszentmihalyi sets up several necessary criteria. First off, the difficulty has to match our abilities, so we are suitably challenged. This is a fine balance. A game, which is too easy, gets us more easily distracted by other things. If too hard, we get frustrated. The game has to strike the right balance and keep getting more difficult as we improve our skills. Having multiple difficulty options at the start of the game is obviously a good starting point, as players’ general game-playing abilities differ wildly. An increasing difficulty curve, where gameplay gets progressively more complex, and follows players’ skill developments is also vital. In order to achieve this balance, extensive play-testing is required.

A single, clearly defined overall goal is also important. Without it, we can’t keep an intense focus on the task at hand. This actually goes well with my first principle, stating that unwanted and distracting trial-error incidents tend to occur when our goal is unclear.

Feedback mechanisms are also vital, which is exactly what my third principle deals with. We need to constantly be told whether we are getting closer to or further away from our goal. This keeps us motivated.

We also need a sense of control in an otherwise uncertain situation. Again, this is a question of balance. If the game plays itself too much, we are unlikely to experience flow, because we lack a sense of empowerment. On the other hand, if the empowerment is so strong that we can easily control our surroundings, the challenge is compromised. Imagine dying in a game and just restarting exactly at the same spot with no loss experienced. There would be no incentive for us to concentrate on the task. We would be practically immortal – too empowered. Thus there has to be some frightening, chaotic elements – that keep us on our toes and reminds us that the risk of failure is always looming just around the corner.

Principle found in Geometry Wars:

Many puzzle games considerably adhere to this principle. Geometry Wars is certainly one of them – perhaps the most extreme together with Tetris.

In Geometry Wars, the goal is very clear: It’s all about surviving the hordes of enemies spawning in endless waves. Feedback mechanisms are plentiful too. Colorful particles spawn upon enemy destruction, and score increases and power-ups reward the player often. There’s also an increasing difficulty curve, making sure that enemies get harder and more numerous as a game session proceeds. Finally, you do indeed feel a sense of control in an otherwise chaotic environment. The game feels immensely chaotic as dozens of triangular shapes move about on the screen shooting at you, while bombs and vortexes frequently inhabit the screen. Your heart is pumping as you narrowly avoid an enemy and just manages too shoot a suicidal space ship before impact. These actions are made all the more nerve-wrecking as the consequences of failure are severe: you have to restart entirely. The sense of being constantly “in the zone” is supported by a hypnotizing trance beat.

Despite the amount of chaos, a good player can survive for a long time, indicating that the game is immensely skill-based and that it’s possible to exercise some degree of control over this this insanely chaotic play field.

Principle 5: Easy to Learn – Difficult to Master

“All the best games are easy to learn and difficult to master. They should reward the first quarter and the hundredth”. – Nolan Bushnell

While I don’t think that all games should follow this principle (afterall, many games for the hardcore players in particular can benefit from starting off in a complex and difficult manner in order to avoid boring the generally experienced target audience), it is still a valuable general guideline – especially for casual and mobile game developers.

It is particularly important for their audience not to experience frustration but success shortly after starting the game the first time. You have to capture their interest immediately – put a smile on their face within few minutes. A tutorial can be necessary to communicate what the game is about, but keep it concise and easy-to-understand.

Also, make sure that the game is based on a single, simple gameplay mechanic that makes sense in the context of the game (see also part 1 on meaningful play). To test this, check if the gameplay can be explained with a simple verb and object. It could be “throw bombs”, “aim pistol”, “avoid enemies”, or “cut the rope” (pun intended). If this test fails, your target audience might belong to less casual players.

To ensure the longevity of the game, an increasing difficulty curve must be implemented. New challenges, tools, enemies, power-ups etc, must be gradually included to complicate the underlying gameplay mechanic. Make sure you build upon past player experiences, bridging the gap between the known and the unknown. Introduce one new feature at a time. If successful, the player might play until the very end when most gameplay elements exist together, culminating in a complex and maybe even chaotic design that demands much focus and concentration. The player will feel that his skills have come a long way since he booted up the game for the first time.

Finally, this principle can also be met by making sure that each section or level of the game can be completed in several ways that are rated differently. For example, you can give scores or stars to the player depending on his performance. In this way, both bad and good players can have their own incentives to play a specific level – and longevity is boosted when the desire to improve your score settles in.

Principle found in Tiny Wings:

Tiny Wings for the iPhone and Ipod Touch, is extremely simple. You control a small bird, trying to fly over a bunch of hills in a 2D environment. You must get as far as possible within a set amount of time. When not pressing anything, you float in the air slowly drifting down. While touching anywhere on the screen, you fall down quickly. You must use this mechanic to land on downhill slopes in order to get momentum and speed. In other words, Tiny Wings is all about timing. The mechanic is extremely easy is to learn – and complemented by a simple tutorial with a few informative pictures. When you’re doing poorly, the speed of your bird is automatically slowed down, since you lack the momentum gained when playing well. This slow pace gives beginners a larger time frame in which to time their landings. Conversely, the more momentum and speed gained (in other the words: the better you get at the game), the more difficult the game becomes. Landing on a downhill slope is much harder when blazing through the skies with tremendous pace. This built-in gameplay mechanic thus perfectly supports this design principle.

Furthermore, the game has optional power-ups, such as jump pads and food that increase your score. Taking advantage of these becomes especially important for the hard-core gamer that wishes to beat his high-score. Also, special awards are given for playing in particular ways, which encourages multiple play-throughs. These are optional tasks implicit in the game and mainly directed at experienced players looking for additional challenge.

Principle 6: Rewarding the Player

“Reward the player with more than just score increases. Include rewards that expand gameplay itself”

Positive reinforcement is well known for being a great motivator. Getting praise makes us happy, boosts our confidence, and pushes our efforts further. This is already briefly mentioned in the third principle regarding the importance of giving out positive feedback. This sixth principle is a more in-depth account on how the player should be rewarded.

Giving out scores is one of the oldest and most widely used techniques. When the game is over we get a score, summarizing our efforts with a single number, typically reaching into the thousands. This encourages several play-throughs, as we try to beat our high-score – a motivation that is increased when the high-score list is integrated in an online system with friends and other people competing. Bragging rights can be big motivation factor, making score systems – including achievements – a valuable asset to your game.

As game designers, we can motivate players even more by making some rewards useful in the game design itself. Just getting a score is not a tangible, useful reward within the game. It’s just a number. Just like in real-life getting a useful present is much nicer than a simple pad on the back.

So what should this present be like? Fortunately, there are countless answers. Unlocking new areas is one of them. Some games have special, advanced levels unlocked only when a specific, difficult requirement is met. Getting new weapons or tools – also known as loot – is an option too, and in role-playing games, you’re often rewarded with extra abilities and skills as well. Apart from empowering the player, these approaches provide an extra layer of complexity to the gameplay thus supporting an increased difficulty curve as a bonus feature. A reward can also be audio-visual or be related to the story – for example, a beautiful cut-scene explaining tidbits in the story – like in the Final Fantasy games.

In extreme cases, the rewards can also be more integrated in reality, as in World of Warcraft where you can earn real money by selling your virtual character and goods on auction sites, or Little Big Planet where you can use your level design retorically or as part of a viral marketing campaign. Of course, these actions are not a direct component of the game design of these games, but they still represent a considerable motivation factor for many people. On a side note, we see more and more games expanding into the realm of reality when it comes to rewarding the player (look up ubiquitous gaming, pervasive gaming, or see my thesis The Expansion of Computer Games Beyond Ludology for more details)

Principle found in: Super Metroid

All the Metroid games have extensive reward mechanisms that go way beyond scores. You control Samus, a lonely bounty hunter, out to destroy the evil Mother Brain. In the beginning, your arsenal and abilities are extremely limited. You’re weak – both defensively and offensively. You often gain tempting glimpses of areas and items unaccessible until you get a specific weapon or tool later on. For example, getting the grappling hook – upon destroying a boss – is an immensely satisfying reward, not only empowering you, but also giving you access to so many new areas. Weapon and ammo upgrades, health increases, and abilities such as wall-jumping also make up your rewards. They are a lot more interesting than scores because they are useful, fun to use, complicates gameplay, open up new areas, and empower you in your overall objective. Scores can never achieve these effects.

As a side note: upon completing the game, you don’t get a score per se. However, depending on your completion time, you see Samus take off an increasing amount of her clothes – another interesting way of rewarding the (male) player?

Principle 7: Let the computer do the tedious work

As opposed to board games, computer games can use the computer to automate or simulate certain actions or events. The computer can make stuff happen outside of manual player control. Characters can be programmed to move – independent of player actions. The weather system in the game might change. Buildings may suddenly collapse.

A computer game designer can use these features to his advantage. He can limit player actions to what is interesting, letting the computer handle the tedious work. As stated in the second principle, a good game is a series of interesting choices. The elimination of uninteresting ones thus represents an important game design principle.

The use of teleportation mechanics is a well-known example in this regard. Instead of forcing the player to travel long distances, which can be tedious, the ability to teleport can optimize the pace of the game considerably, leading to a more entertaining and varied experience. Making sure that the players don’t spend hours in a virtual fitness center with their avatar before a fight in a beat-em-up is also a useful example. Not having to manage inventory, navigate interfaces, or do other administrative tasks can also enhance the entertainment value.

In the driving game genre, we see more examples. What is interesting about being a race driver is the thrill and exhilaration experienced by the sense of speed. Generating this feeling is the focus for most driving games. You typically don’t’ spend hours preparing for a race, analyzing tracks, and evaluating your performance meticulously after a race – actions that would be necessary for a real driver. Even the driving experience itself is often limited to speed and brake controls, because these are the most interesting. Operating other mechanics such as shifting gears is often neglected, partially or completely.
This act of simplifying real-life behaviors is a common trait of computer games – and an important one in order to keep games interesting.

Principle found in: Mario Power Tennis

The Mario Tennis games simplify what tennis is all about in its most entertaining essence. The satisfaction gained when hammering a perfect baseline hit, doing a well-adjusted lob, a great volley, or an unbelievable save is emphasized considerably in Mario Power Tennis via its use of special attacks. These can be executed often either defensively – to save an otherwise impossible shot – or offensively – to hammer the ball with utmost precision and speed. Conversely, what is generally perceived as less interesting about tennis is ignored. All the strategic aspects are more or less gone. Even the act of hitting the ball out of bounds happens fairly infrequently, because it’s less fun than determining a duel with a winning shot.

Again, this principle should not be followed religiously if you’re making a highly realistic game. In the real world, we can’t always let the computer do the tedious work (and we certainly can’t teleport ourselves), so using this game design technique might break the immersion of participating in a real world.

Principle 8 – The Importance of a Solid Core Gameplay Mechanic

“Make sure the most fundamental player action is fun. Build your game around this core mechanic.”

Most successful games are built around a simple, fun gameplay mechanic. This is the most fundamental and frequent action you perform as the player. If this action is boring or unfulfilling, it doesn’t matter how many twists or extra features you add to the game. They can’t save your game design.

This core game mechanic must be intuitive and relatively easy to learn, because learning a mechanic is never as interesting as utilizing it as a means to completing your goal. In other words, learning time should be minimized. In order to increase the complexity and challenge level as the game progresses and player skills improve, small extra features also known as “satellite mechanics” should be introduced. These provide twists to the core gameplay mechanic, forcing the player to use it in a slightly different and more challenging way.

Game developers should minimize the learning time of these satellite mechanics too. This can be done by making sure that they are connected to the core gameplay mechanic in a logical, intuitive, and meaningful manner (see the first principle on “Meaningful Play”). The trampoline in Super Mario Bros. is a great example. Its function instantly clicks with you. You understand why it’s there and what it does – its implementation is meaningful. You might also want to minimise the amount of satellite mechanics, so the player doesn’t have to learn new ones constantly. In particular, if two mechanics have similar functions – if they are relatively redundant – delete one of them from your game. Or perhaps you can redesign one of them to have multiple functions (i.e. a lightsaber that can both deflect lasers and cut through enemies in close combat). Nonetheless, it’s important to beware of “feature-creep”! Kill your darlings! Don’t spam your game with huge amounts of satellite mechanics – that approach will just increase learning time.

Once all the satellite mechanics are introduced, make sure to switch them up in order to create a varied gameplay experience. Avoid using one for a while in order to renew player interest in it. If several satellite mechanics work together in interesting ways, exploit these relationships to bolster gameplay variation even further.

Principle found in: Angry Birds

Angry Birds is based on a single core mechanic: catapulting birds towards pigs. This action must be done hundreds of times in order to complete the game, and it’s very easy to get to grips with. Even small children understand the logic behind catapults. In order to complicate gameplay, various satellite mechanics are gradually introduced. The inclusion of several bird types – each with their own special attack – is one of them. The placement of TNT barrels that explode upon impact is another example. And the fact that some objects give bonus points when hit also serves to make the game harder to master. These satellite mechanics are instantly learned and seamlessly integrated with each other and the core gameplay mechanic.

I hope this all makes sense. If it does, please like it on Facebook?(source:redkeybluekey)