作者：Jon Shafer

在前两部分文章中我们介绍了结果主题，谈论了不同用户所追求的结果，并通过玩家角色的死亡看到运作中的结果的效应。（请点击此处阅读本系列第一、第二篇）

而在本篇总结中，我们将讨论与死亡不相干的结果，在策略游戏和MMO中结果所扮演的重要角色，玩家与结果的关系以及设计师该如何发挥它们的优势。

与死亡不相关的结果

死亡总是会导致游戏所提供的最重要的结果，但仍有许多其它情境值得我们去考虑。我们将在此涉及其它一些较重要的结果。

在幕后操作的单方面结果是伴随着能力与道具的使用。在此最重要的问题是它们何时可以再次使用？最轻量级的结果是基于较短的间隔时间计时器。我将任何采取这一方法的机制称为一种“能力”。不管是在现实游戏还是回合制战斗游戏中，我们都能看到间隔时间计时器功能。对于发射一个强大的咒语，你不能在接下来的10秒或4个回合内继续使用该技能。开发者在创造一款带有源自普通游戏的战术战斗模式，以及是否允许玩家在每次战斗中使用能力超过一次的游戏。显然，间隔时间越短，结果便越轻。实际上，在频繁出现战斗以及间隔时间很短的游戏中是几乎不存在结果的。在执行一些要求消耗“神力”或“能量”（游戏邦注：这些资源可以自动恢复，或轻松地填满廉价的道具，或在“补充站”储蓄能量）的特殊行动中也是如此。

我个人并不是很推崇这些方法，因为如此轻量级的结果很容易导致玩家之后对其不理睬，或者他们必须担心难以获得主要能力的境况。毕竟，如果你永远都不会耗尽神力，为什么还要让它存在于游戏中？不幸的是，大多数JRPG以及许多西方的RPG都遭遇了这一问题。像《天际》这样的“行动RPG”便未提供足够的时间让玩家基于战略意义去规划战斗，所以比起一些你计划好的事，耗尽神力更不便。

这将我们引向了有关能力/道具使用的重量级结果。从基本上来看，“道具”一经使用就一去不复返了。在大多数游戏中道具所面临的问题是，1）太多了，导致为其消费不需要做出任何思考，或2）不够重要，所以它们只值得消费不值得储存。游戏通常通过提供提升难度的选择去结果这一问题，如《Persona》和《Witcher》。不幸的是，许多游戏将玩家带向了更简单，且不看重策略的设置中。当然，你可以发行一款更复杂的新游戏，但要知道只有少数人会玩多次的RPG类游戏。即便如此，这里也存在一些非常出色的游戏玩法，即有的游戏会提供足够的挑战性，像规定道具使用是获取成功的关键因素。这对于设计师来说是一条狭窄的绳索，但是如果他们能够成功走过这条绳索，这对于那些追求重量级结果的人来说将是巨大的奖励。

结果能够扮演重要角色的另一种方式便是当开发团队决定整合分支点（即玩家不能在一款游戏中做所有的事）时。它的范围从像非游戏玩法对话选择（游戏邦注：回答X，你将永远都不会看到角色对Y的回应）等最小结果，到像该使用怎样的NPC，而哪些又该永远留下等更加严肃的决定。与其它大多数结果不同的是，被吸引的用户分支类型主要是基于玩家的完成趋势。有些人希望能在一次游戏过程中看到所有内容并做所有事。也有些人更倾向于给游戏另外一个机会去明确会发生些什么，或接受朝A前进就要放弃看到B结果的选择。对于开发者来说，这里并不存在明确的选择—-这只是关于个人和设计喜好。但是，如果我们不得不进行猜测，我更希望今天的大多数玩家被归到前一类。

持久游戏中的结果

在玩家的成就能够维持多年重要性的MMO和Facebook游戏中都带有与结果的一种奇怪关系——而这一关系总是会让设计师的工作变得更快复杂。

Spelunky(from wikia)

人们会花许多时间持续玩一款游戏是因为他们的时间投资是有回报的，事实上当我们获得某些内容时是不大可能再失去它们的。玩家成功玩了蛮久的《洞穴探险》却只是看到它最终结束于30分钟的标记与玩家花30个月去控制《魔兽世界》的角色却不料他会在一次艰难的打斗中丧生是完全不同的情况。尽管我更喜欢游戏中的沉重结果，但是我也不得不承认持久游戏中的结果最好能够倾向于轻量级。

之后的问题是，MMO设计是否能够超越15至60秒“具有象征性的惩罚”结果（实际上是没有意义的）？像突袭（一群人尝试着攻占地牢）等主要事件在这方面就做得不错。如果你在突袭中花一个小时尝试着去获得一些战利品，却最终被最后的boss杀掉，这绝对就是一次重量级的结果！我认为这是这类型游戏中最有效的方法——整体进度是永久的，但是短期的收获却仍是具有风险的。

甚至是最硬核的游戏也都有一个阀值。在《洞穴探险》的上个领域中死亡会让人不快，但幸好我最多只花了半个小时于一次运行中。如果我花了比这更长的时间，我可能不会继续花时间去玩这款游戏了。关于持久游戏的一个特性便是玩家总是会投入比其它类型游戏更多的时间于这类游戏中。设计师需要认识到这点，并明确只是在“线性”模式中放大结果是没用的这一事实。

策略游戏中的结果

少数策略游戏会突出玩家控制的主要角色的死亡，但这类型游戏中的结果却非常突出。实际上，如果我是那些喜欢为不同类型明确分界线的人，我便会认为“策略游戏”的定义是像“一款具有非常高的行动结果比例的游戏。”但幸好我不是那样的人。

策略游戏是检查结果角色最有趣的环境之一。不像基于故事或围绕着进程去实现一个特定目标的游戏，大多数策略游戏都不带有自然撤销状态。你在错误时间攻击了某一单位并且该单位死掉了？真不走运，它就这么消失了！关于单位的可能损失要求玩家决定向谁传达内容，而又向谁隐瞒情况。像《高级战争》等轻量级游戏允许单位多次复苏，但是像象棋这样重量级游戏则不会做出任何让步——受到攻击的单位会立刻出局。

不过即使是《高级战争》也有残忍的一面，如失误的单位将会频繁地死亡。在策略宇宙中，对于那些习惯于其它类型游戏的人来说，即使是最轻量级的结果也会让他们很受挫。这让策略游戏设计师的工作变得非常困难——如果玩家不能接受你所呈现的结果，并只是再次加载的话，那么你精心设计的系统将只会带给游戏负面价值。

在策略游戏中伴随着永久性引发的战斗结果，资源的使用是我们需要考虑的另一个元素。你是否花钱去完善基础设施，或更新前线单位？甚至连单位的不熟也是一种资源管理。有时候，资源消费是可撤销的（不喜欢你放置单位的地方？那就在敌人到达前将其移动到门边的位置！），但是较困难的却会毫不留情。想起便是基于重量级结果的策略游戏的典例—-你在此所做的每个决定都是永久且有效的。结果便是，象棋总是能够吸引硬核用户的注意，其历史知名度也让它能够吸引硬核用户以外的人。

最近大热门的策略游戏《幽浮：未知敌人》便是少数死亡角色超越资源损失的策略游戏之一。它通过整合RPG元素做到了这点：你带有有限的特色士兵，每个人都拥有独特的外观和能力。这从“享受”与“有助于成功”间区分了你的士兵。伴随着士兵的能力也将带来一些个人元素，这是这类型其它游戏中很少看到的。你每损失一名士兵不仅会影响你的策略，也会影响你的内在。《幽浮》呈献给玩家的结果并不是同时面向所有人，它能够提供给那些真心喜欢策略与角色扮演相融合的玩家极大的游戏乐趣，这也是其它游戏所不能给予的。像《魔界战记》和《最终幻想战略版》等日本SRPG（策略RPG）也带有类似的机制，所以它们也能够吸引世界各地带有热情的玩家。

接受结果

游戏中最吸引人的趋势是关于多少玩家拒绝接受结果并愿意不断重新加载，直至获得自己想要的结果。更详细地思考这一情况，这并不会让我们多意外，因为大多数人将游戏当成是自己逃离现实世界永久性结果的工具。所以为什么又要让自己的娱乐工具变得如此痛苦呢？

当我还年轻的时候，我玩过像《Panzer General》这样的策略游戏，那时候每当我输掉时，即使只是一个单位，我也会选择重新加载游戏。我并不理解这种行为背后的心理学，但我认为这与游戏不是真实的这一实际情况相关，玩家会对自己说：“嘿，这就是我的世界，我会在此使用终极力量——既然如此，为什么我们不接受一个糟糕的结果？”

随着年龄的增长，我也发生了改变，今天的我已经能够从容应对游戏中的挫折了。实际上，很多时候当我在享受游戏乐趣时——基于一种奇怪的方式，失去一个重要的单位或角色对于我来说其实也是一种荣誉。失败的能力会让体验变得更让人印象深刻且更有意义。如果不存在失败的深渊，也就不会出现胜利的山谷。角色都将复苏并从此幸福地生活中的故事与那些随便什么事都可能发生的故事并不具有相同的影响。

所以这一切对于游戏设计师来说意味着什么？从根本上来看，我们必须接受自己所创造出来的结果不被玩家接受的情况。但这并不意味着我们不能塑造游戏设计去阻止重新加载机制。

Paradox的《十字军之王2》便有效整合了不是很严重的结果，并让重新加载变成下意识反应。例如，在战争中的失败将消费玩家大量的金钱以及1，2个省会，但却不会因此结束游戏。玩家有可能恢复并变得更加强大。这在其它公司的策略游戏中并未出现过。这里所使用的窍门是使用一个结构化系统去限制引导玩家朝着某以特定方向前进。侵略战争仍然是有效的，失败的代价并非不可容忍。没有一种设计能够同时吸引所有人的注意，但这却是关于平衡将如何解决困扰策略游戏的一个问题。

大多数玩家都希望能够感受到自己有能力从挫折中恢复过来——最优秀的设计师总是能够明确一个最佳甜蜜点，即拥有足够重量级结果去娱乐用户同时也不会超过他们的底线。我希望通过这系列文章能够帮助设计师们弄清楚自己所面临的一些决策，以及如何进一步完善自己的游戏。我真的很希望在未来，所有人都能创造出最棒的结果。

（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）

Consequences – Part 3 – MMOs, Strategy Games & Conclusion

By Jon Shafer

In the first two parts of this series we introduced the topic of consequences, talked about what different audiences look for and saw the effect of consequences in action through the death of the player’s avatar or characters.

In this concluding article we’ll discuss consequences unrelated to death, the fascinating role consequences play in strategy games and MMOs, the player’s relationship with consequences and how designers can use that to their advantage.

So without further ado, let’s wrap things up!

…

Consequences Unrelated to Death

Death nearly always results to the most significant consequences games have to offer, but there are a variety of other situations still worth looking at. We’ll cover a couple more of the big ones here.

One way consequences secretly pull the strings behind the curtain is with abilities and item use. The most important question is, when – if ever – can they be used again? The lightest consequence is a short cooldown timer of some sort. Any mechanic which takes this approach I’ll call an “ability.” Cooldown timers feature in both real-time games as well as ones with turn-based combat. Fire off a powerful spell, and you can’t use it for another 10 seconds, or maybe 4 turns. Developers creating a game with a tactical combat mode detached from normal play also have the option of whether or not players are allowed to use the ability more than once per battle. Obviously the shorter the cooldown the lighter the consequence. In fact, consequences are almost nonexistent in games where combat is frequent and cooldown timers are short. The same is basically true when performing some kind of special action that requires spending “mana” or “energy,” and this resource either recharges automatically or can be easily refilled with cheap items or at ‘refill stations’ (such as inns).

I’m personally not a fan of these approaches simply because the consequences are so light that players can ‘fire and forget’ and rarely, if ever have to worry about a situation where a vital ability is unavailable. After all, if you’re never realistically going to run out of mana, why even have it in the game at all? Unfortunately, most JRPGs and many western RPGs suffer from this problem. “Action RPGs” like Skyrim usually don’t offer enough time to strategically plan combat once it has begun, so running out of mana is more of an inconvenience than something you plan for or around.

Which leads us to heavier consequences for ability/item usage. “Items” are basically anything which, when spent, is gone forever. The trouble items have in most games is that they are usually either A) so plentiful that spending them requires no thought whatsoever, or B) not important enough that they’re actually worth spending instead of just hoarding. This is often addressed in games that have options for increased difficulty, such as the Persona and Witcher games. Unfortunately, many titles steer players towards the easier settings where strategy is typically unimportant. Sure, you could just fire up a new game on a tougher level, but only a small number of people play RPG-style games more than once. Even so, there is definitely good gameplay here when a title offers enough challenge such that item usage is an important ingredient to success. It’s a narrow tightrope for a designer to walk, but when pulled off can be very rewarding for those who seek heavier consequences.

Another way consequences can play a subtle role is when the development team decides to incorporate branching points – that is, players are unable to do everything in a single game. This ranges from minor consequences such as non-gameplay dialogue choices (answer X and you’ll never see the character’s response to Y), to more serious decisions such as what NPC to recruit, and which to leave behind forever. Unlike most other consequences, the type of audience branching appeals to (and vice-versa) is mainly based on the completionist tendencies of a player. Some individuals like to be able to see everything, do everything in a single playthrough. Others are more willing to give a game another spin just to see what happens, or accept the fact going direction A forgoes the option of seeing where B ends up. There are no clear-cut rules here for developers – it’s just another one of those personal and design preferences. However, if I had to make a guess I would say that the majority of today’s gamers fall into the former category.

Consequences in Persistent Games

MMOs and Facebook games where a player’s accomplishments persist and remain relevant over years have a very strange relationship with consequences – one that can make the designer’s job very, very hard.

Ultimately, the reason people spend any time at all on persistent games is because their time investment will be rewarded, and it’s virtually impossible to lose something once earned. It’s one thing to make a long, successful run in Spelunky only to see it end tragically at the 30-minute mark… it’s quite another to spend 30 months on a World of Warcraft character only to have it permanently killed in a particularly tough fight. Although I definitely favor heavier consequences in the games I like to play, even I have to acknowledge that consequences in persistent games need to be on the lighter end. No permadeath here, folk!

The question is then – is it possible in MMO design to go beyond the 15-60 second ‘slap on the wrist’ consequence that is virtually meaningless? Major events like raids where a group people try to complete a dungeon together already does a solid job of this. If you spend an hour in a raid trying to earn some loot, only to be killed by the final boss – that can definitely be a fairly heavy consequence! (As nearly every serious MMO gamer can tell you) I think this is the best approach possible in this genre – overall progress is permanent, but short-term gains can still be at risk.

Even the most hardcore have a threshold past which a game is just unfun. Dying in the last area of Spelunky is painful, but at most I’ve lost a half hour on a single run. If it were much more than that then I probably wouldn’t have spent nearly as much time with it. One of the unique qualities about persistent gaming is that players nearly always pour much, much more time into them than any other type of genre. Designers need to be cognizant of that and the fact that simply scaling up consequences in a ‘linear’ fashion does not work.

Consequences in Strategy Games

Few strategy games feature the death of important player-controlled characters, but this is the genre where consequences can really shine. In fact, if I were one of those people who liked to obsess over drawing dividing lines between genres I might argue that the definition of a ‘strategy game’ is something like “a game that has a very high proportion of actions taken that have consequences to those which don’t.” But hey, thankfully I’m not one of those people!

Strategy games are one of the most interesting environments to examine the role of consequences. Unlike games that are story-based or centered around progression towards a specific goal, most strategy games have no natural undo state. Oh, you attacked with that unit at the wrong time and it died? Tough luck, buddy, it’s gone! Deal with it. The possible loss of units typically forces players to make tough decisions about who to send into the fray and who to hold back. Lighter games such as Advance Wars allow units to survive multiple ‘losing’ engagements, while heavier ones like Chess make no such concessions – an attacked unit is immediately toast.

Even Advance Wars can be fairly brutal though, as misplayed units can and will die fairly often. In the strategy universe even the lightest possible consequences can be extremely painful for those accustomed to other genres. This makes the job of the strategy game designer very difficult – if players do not accept the consequences you present them and simply reload then your carefully-architected systems have actually contributed negative value to the game. I’ll talk about this in more detail in the next section.

Along with the nearly-always-permadeath-inducing consequences of combat in strategy games, use of resources is frequently another factor to consider. Do you spend that money on improving your infrastructure, or upgrading your front-line units? Even the deployment of units is resource management. Sometimes the spending of resources can be reversible (didn’t like where you put that unit? Just move him to the space next door before the enemy arrives!), but the tougher ones give no quarter. Our old friend Chess is one of the heaviest-consequences strategy games out there – every decision you make is permanent and impactful. As a result, Chess generally appeals to a fairly hardcore audience, with its historical popularity allowing it to spread a bit beyond that core.

The recent strategy hotness XCOM: Enemy Unknown (along with its now-old-enough-to-vote ancestor) is one of the few strategy games where death has a role beyond simply the loss of resources. It does this by incorporating RPG elements: you have a limited number of distinctive soldiers, each possessing a unique appearance and set of abilities. This elevates distinguishing between your squaddies from ‘luxury’ to ‘vital to success’. The ability to name and associate with your soldiers even brings a personal element, which is something lacking from nearly every other member of the genre. The loss of one of your own hurts not only your strategy but also your gut. The consequences XCOM forces onto its players aren’t for everyone, but they provide gaming bliss for those who desire that rare mix of strategy and role-playing which almost no other game offers. Japanese SRPGs (Strategy RPGs) like Disgaea and Final Fantasy Tactics can do something similar, and they too have found a dedicated and passionate audience across the world.

Accepting Consequences

One of the most fascinating tendencies in gaming is how many players refuse to accept consequences and will reload until they get the result they desire. Thinking about it in more detail, this is not terribly surprising, since most people look to games as an escape from the often-harsh, always-permanent consequences of the real world. Why make your entertainment painful as well?

Even I have some skeletons in my consequence-accepting closet. When I was much younger I played strategy games like Panzer General, and while doing so I would nearly always reload if I lost even a single unit. I don’t fully understand the psychology behind this sort of behavior, but I imagine it has something to do with the fact that games aren’t real, and players think to themselves “hey, this is my world, where I wield ultimate power – given that, why would I ever accept a bad result?”

As I grew older I changed, and today I’m able to take gaming setbacks in stride. In fact, there are times when I relish it – in a strange way, losing an important unit or character is almost a badge of honor. The ability to fail is what makes experiences memorable and meaningful. If there is no valley of defeat, then there will also be no peak of victory. The stories where you know that the characters are all going to survive and live happily ever after don’t have the same impact as those where literally anything can happen.

So what does this all mean to a game designer? Ultimately, we must be at peace with the fact that there are some players and some times where the consequences we’ve crafted or allowed for will not be accepted. But this doesn’t mean that we can’t shape the design of a game to discourage reloading.

Paradox’s Crusader Kings II does an excellent job of incorporating consequences that aren’t so heavy that reloading becomes the knee-jerk reaction. For example, a defeat in war will often cost the player a large amount of money and a province or two, but it’s not game over. It’s very much possible to recover and come back even stronger. This is almost never the case in the strategy games from other companies. The trick is a very structured system for diplomacy where limits steer players in a particular direction. Wars of aggression are still fruitful, and the price of defeat is not intolerable. No design appeals to everyone, but this is a great example of how a balance can be struck to sidestep an issue that’s plagued strategy gaming since the ability to write to a hard drive was provided.

Most players want to always feel like they have the ability to recover from setbacks – the best designers are able to identify that sweet spot where consequences are heavy enough to entertain their audience without going beyond that line. It is my hope that this series has helped shed some light on a few of the decisions designers are faced with, and how we might collectively step up our game. I, for one, am excited to see what everyone comes up with in the future!(source:jonshaferondesign)