作者：Ernest Adams

首先，跟之前的文章一样，我会先呈现出一段免责声明：即使是非常优秀的游戏也会包含糟糕的游戏设计决策。对于本文所提到的任何游戏，我都不是说它们就是糟糕的游戏。有时候它们只是带有缺陷的优秀游戏而已。（请点击此处阅读本系列第1、2、3、4、5、7、8、9、10、11、12、13篇）

让我们继续这一话题：

“简单模式”不像简单模式

这是我在较早时期的一个No Twinkie专栏，那时候我是在抱怨游戏未能提供更多复杂的关卡。而现在，我意识到这种想法并不适合所有类型的游戏，但在行动和策略游戏中却是可行的。我认为提供不同的难度关卡能够拓宽你的市场范围，并让那些从未尝试过游戏的人更愿意亲近游戏。

根据Christopher Kempke，这一TDC是必然的结果。他写道：

“最近我注意到许多游戏都想要阻止你完成游戏。你可以前往最后的房间/关卡/boss，但是该房间/关卡/boss必然会是‘一大挑战’。”

“我更倾向基于最简单的难度水平去玩所有的游戏，因为我不会永远沉浸在游戏中。我想要完成游戏，并因此选择简单模式。如果我可以以一半的死亡为代价完成前15个关卡，那么我便有可能在2，3次，或者至多5，6次尝试下完成最后的关卡。但事实却不是如此！通常情况下，最后的关卡，房间或boss都比我们之前所尝试的复杂20倍，并要求使用完全不同的技能，或超越我们的能力范围。”

“《孤岛惊魂》便是我最近看到的最糟糕的例子；你获得全新的手枪和盾牌，一扇门在你背后关闭了，现在你将面对游戏中几十只最厉害的怪物。在之前的关卡中你每次都未遇到超过3只的怪物。而现在你面前却出现了8只怪物，并且还有3或4个额外的敌人会从阴影中出现。全部消灭这些敌人后你将打开一扇门并释放出更多敌人。这就像一种刑罚；你别无选择，只能打开每一扇门，并清楚每扇门后都包含自己永远都打不完的敌人。”

“我猜一年中玩两款游戏的情况下，我大约能够独立走完99%的路程，但对于最后的任务我却需要依靠作弊代码。为此我真的郁闷死了，这并不有趣啊！如果我真的想要获得这样的体验，我在之前就会设置较高的难度水平了！”

在最后，《Far Cry》变得非常复杂，即使是基于简单模式。

Far Cry（from designersnotebook）

现在我知道我们必须使用不同的技能去对抗boss角色—-电子游戏的惯例是至少25岁，这为游戏玩法添加了挑战和乐趣。但是我同意Christopher关于难度问题的看法。这一TDC是经典设计问题的典例：未思考玩家真正想要的是什么。如果玩家选择假单模式，他便希望自己能够轻松游戏并获取胜利。

但是许多早前的游戏设计师却会说：“这便意味着他们很快就会完成我们的游戏了！”很快又怎样？这只是你的自我意识，因为仍带着玩家是自己的对手这样过时的想法。事实上，他们并不是你的对手。他们是你的用户，是你尝试着去娱乐并提供乐趣的人。如果这意味着所有游戏内容只花费他们2个小时，那就2个小时呗，这毕竟是他们的选择。他们也有可能选择再次回到游戏中并挑战更复杂的模式。

执行糟糕声音与力反馈

这是来自Adam Doyle的观点：

“我讨厌控制器在每一个细微动作下产生震动。每次行走都发生震动真的有必要吗？这是打斗游戏和第一人称射击游戏中所存在的问题，即每次影响或射击都会导致控制器嗡嗡叫。如果做得妥当的话，这将在场景中创造出更加身临其境的效果，但如果反馈太过频繁，便会失去实体影响，因为玩家将不再对这种震动产生新鲜感。面向主机的《英雄萨姆》便是一个典型的例子。但许多射击游戏和打斗游戏（如《Tekken 4》）都具有太多反馈了。”

“之后便是不一致的反馈程度问题。当一个小窗户破裂时，控制器便跳离你的手？或者你的角色所在的仓库爆炸时，你却只感受到轻微的嗡嗡声？这再一次打破了玩家与游戏间的联系。当力反馈操纵着车轮，车轮将猛烈地来回行走，从而强迫玩家松手，让他们等待反馈停止旋转，从而才能继续游戏。全新模拟赛车游戏《Enthusia Racer》便是一个典型的例子。车轮将逐渐脱离你的手的控制。”

Enthusia（from designersnotebook）

“不只糟糕的声音反馈设计会将玩家带离游戏，这也将导致他们在战争最激烈的时候失去控制权，错过按键或行动，或手指从模拟操纵杆上滑落。在一些极端情况下还存在健康问题：长期的高度震动将导致手指与手变得麻木。开发者必须清楚这只是因为控制器的震动，这并不意味着它就需要具有声音反馈功能。在我眼里，比起糟糕的执行，直接删除声音和力反馈的效果会更好。”

实际上你可以将最后一句概括为：没有功能总比拥有糟糕的功能来得强。就像我说过好几次的，如果你不能做好一些事，那就干脆不要去做了。

声音反馈并不是你可以随便使用的方法。它必须是对玩家有意义的反馈，用户界面的组成部分，同时也是作为游戏设计师的你的部分责任。你应该多花点时间仔细想想如何做好这点。

不可游戏的摄像机角度

Adam还发给我另外一个TDC，即不可的摄像机角度——通常是在努力创造“电影般体验”的情况下。他写道：

“许多生存恐怖游戏出现的问题是，为了追求‘电影般体验’，开发者努力让摄像机视角能够框下整个场景，但最终却创造出不可游戏的体验。如果你的角色击退了许多敌人，为什么你要将摄像机放在地板上并调成动态角度？当然这看起来可能不错，但是如果玩家都不能游戏的话又怎会去关心画面好不好看？”

现在，我喜欢特别的摄像机视角以及任何能够创造出有趣视觉效果并打破第三人称视角单调性的内容。但Adam的想法是对的：游戏必须仍须有游戏性！有趣的摄像机视角虽然适合冒险游戏或行动游戏等不太难且移动速度较慢的游戏，如《ICO》，但如果你是为了生命而战斗，你便希望能够清楚看到眼前所进展的一切。

糟糕的指南或糟糕的教程

T.C.Fox写道：

“我是那些常常会在进入游戏前阅读指南，且喜欢带有详细信息教程的玩家之一。就像在《Gran Turismo 4》中，我便非常喜欢所有有关赛车的教程。在长久不接触高尔夫球后，我决定看看《Tiger Woods 2004》的教程，但却惊讶地发现这里却没有有关游戏细节的信息（游戏邦注：不管是高尔夫球还是电子游戏本身）。教程将帮助你在笨拙地做任何事之前教你如何游戏。而这样的情况导致我在最初的游戏体验中大大受挫。”

似乎在今天看来，指南已经过时了，即很大程度上被教程所取代了。但即使如此，指南也能提供一些教程所不具有的重要功能：你可以在游戏暂停的时候从中找到所需要的信息。这对于那些想要在进入游戏前明确目标的玩家来说非常有价值，并且比通过反复试验法去学习有效多了。反复试验法是硬核游戏风格的特征，这也是许多休闲玩家所不适应的，更重要的是他们没有时间这么做。

《Tiger Woods》是休闲玩家，甚至是非玩家都会去尝试的一款游戏。有些人会将其当成生日礼物送给从未接触过电子游戏的高尔夫球爱好者。这类型的玩家需要并期待有关游戏体验的介绍。如果你让他们在最初的体验中受挫，你便没有机会继续向其推销明年的新版本。

我知道指南需要投入成本去制作，并且也很占空间（包装盒子）；这也是为何现在我们会将其压缩成薄薄的传单的主要原因。但如果你想要触及传统硬核玩家（拥有大量时间与耐性耗在游戏世界中）以外的市场，你就需要提供出色的指南与教程。

糟糕的多画面设计

这是主机赛车游戏所面临的主要问题，即面向每个玩家划分屏幕。Mat Lamarche这么说道：

“在单人玩家模式中，屏幕总是大而精致，你将能够清楚地看到素有内，但是我们却还未看到一款游戏能够真正有效地处理多人玩家分区屏幕。该死的指示器总是会突然弹出，一段时间后你却什么都看不到。”

这是一个更大的常见问题的一大例子：分区屏幕界面设计很困难。当我们转向HDTV游戏时代的话，这一问题将变得更加困难。面对更高的像素，你会期待它变得较为简单，但不幸的是，在下一个五年将出现数百万未拥有高清电视的玩家。你也必须设计能够出现在他们的电视上的游戏，否则你就会失去这部分商机。

同时，挪开弹出窗口。将其移到边上或其它地方。

没有踏板或铲车的板条箱

在电子游戏世界中，板条箱总是被当成笑柄，因为它们的出现频率真的太高了。Old Man Murray网站中有许多关于各种游戏的有趣评论——基于看到第一个板条箱前的游戏长度，作者们还声称，游戏设计师们已经用光所有想法了。如果在看到板条箱前你能玩更长时间，那就说明这是一款不错的游戏。

Counter-Strike（from designersnotebook）

同样的一篇文章指出，如果没有铲车和踏板，你就不能移动板条箱。如果某个地方有一些板条箱，你就需要确保在它们的下方能看到踏板，或者至少有一辆铲车。实际上，有人跟我说在现在，木包装箱已经完全过时了。现代的运输是由纸板盒与强大的塑料包裹膜共同完成的。木头重又贵，而纸板箱不仅轻，便宜，而且可以反复使用。不过我们的FPS仍呈现在有着40年历史的运输技术上，甚至是具有未来感的科幻游戏。

很显然这并不适用于常有板条箱漂浮在半空中的平台游戏。漂浮的板条箱是平台游戏的一部分；我能理解这点，也许这也是为什么它们不需要踏板或铲车的原因。但如果你的游戏将假装是关于现实世界，如果你将创造许多关于自己的故事多么有趣且可信的盒子副本，那就尝试着创造带有门的房间，里面装满通过通风井运进去的板条箱。避免将板条箱放在污水管道系统上，因为这里的所有检查井都小于滚筒。也避免将装有半吨武器和铠甲的板条箱放在50英尺高的悬崖上。为此，你可以尝试着想出一些比板条箱和滚筒有趣并且能够装载弹药的内容。

结论

以上便是6大你需要在游戏中避免的内容。其中的某些内容，如糟糕的摄像机视角将会彻底破坏游戏的游戏性。而像糟糕的声音反馈等则会让玩家感到厌烦。不管怎样你都需要牢记这些警示，并避免这些错误设计。

（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）

Bad Game Designer, No Twinkie! VI

By Ernest Adams

Here we go again! The messages have come in, the people have spoken, and I now have another half-dozen game design errors for you to avoid. I’m always interested in more, though, so if you think of one, be sure to send it to notwinkie@designersnotebook.com.

As ever, a disclaimer: even good games can contain bad game design decisions. Just because a game is mentioned here, that doesn’t mean I think it’s a bad game. Sometimes it’s just a good game with a mistake in it.

On to the Twinkie Denial Conditions:

“Easy Mode” Is Supposed to Be Easy, Dammit!

In one of my earlier No Twinkie columns, I complained about games that don’t offer multiple difficulty levels. Now, I realize that this isn’t appropriate for all kinds of games; but it’s usually possible in the action and strategy genres. Offering different levels of difficulty, I argued, broadens your market and makes your game accessible to people who might not otherwise have played it.

This TDC is a corollary, sent in by Christopher Kempke. He writes:

“I’ve noticed a lot of games lately (and almost all shooters) seem to have a deep desire to prevent you from finishing. You can get to the last room/level/boss, but that room/level/boss has to be ‘a challenge.’

“I tend to play all games on the easiest difficulty level, because I don’t have forever to spend on a game. But I want to finish, and I selected Easy Mode for a reason.   If I can play the first 15 levels with a half a dozen deaths, it seems reasonable that I should be able to complete the last level within two or three, or at most five or six attempts. But no! Generally the last level, room, or boss is roughly twenty times as challenging as anything I’ve faced to date, requires entirely different techniques to fight, or is simply beyond my abilities altogether.

“Far Cry is the worst I’ve seen lately; you get a full refresh of guns and shields, a door closes (and seals) behind you, and now you get to face dozens of the hardest monsters in the game.  At no previous point have you faced more than three at a time (and almost died on those occasions). Now there are eight of them, and three or four extra enemies sniping at you from the shadows. Killing them all (probably at the cost of all your ammo) just lets you open a door that releases a bunch more.   And of course it’s a gantlet; you have no choice but to open every single door, knowing that each one contains an army that you can no longer fight.

“I’d guess I average about two games a year that I can get 99% of the way through unaided, but need a cheat code for the last little bit.   It drives me nuts, and it isn’t fun.  If I wanted such an experience, I’d have set the difficulty higher.”

Towards the end, Far Cry gets quite difficult even in Easy Mode.

Now, I don’t have a problem with the fact that you have to use different techniques to fight boss characters – that video game convention is at least 25 years old, and it adds challenge and interest to the gameplay. But I think Christopher is right on target about the difficulty issue. This TDC is a good example of a classic design error: failing to think about what the player actually wants. If the player chooses Easy Mode, then he wants the game to be easy to play and easy to win – period.

“But,” I hear a legion of old-time game designers cry, “that means he’ll finish the game too soon!” Oh, yeah? Too soon for what? Too soon for your ego is what you mean, because you’ve still got that outmoded notion that the player is your adversary. He isn’t. He’s your audience, the person you’re trying to entertain and provide enjoyment to. And if that means the whole thing only takes him two hours, well, so be it; it was his choice. He can always go back and play it again on a harder setting.

Poorly-Implemented Rumble or Force Feedback

This one was sent to me by Adam Doyle:

“I hate when the controller vibrates at every slightest action. Is a vibration for every footstep necessary? This is especially a problem in fighting games and first person shooters, where every impact or shot fired causes the controller to buzz. When correctly done, this can create a more immersive effect in a scene, but if the rumble is too frequent, it loses its physical impact because players will get so used to the vibration. A good example would be the new Serious Sam game for consoles. But many shooters and fighting games (like Tekken 4) have way too much rumble.

“Then there is the problem of inconsistent rumble power. Did a small window just break, and the controller jumped out of your hands? Or did a warehouse blow up with your character in it, and all you felt was a slight hum? Again, this breaks the connection between the player and the game. With force feedback steering wheels, the wheel can jerk back and forth so violently it forces the players  to let go of it, and make them wait for the feedback to stop spinning before they can resume the game. A prime example is the new sim racer Enthusia Racer. The wheel will literally spin out of your hands.

Enthusia can sometimes take the control right out of your hands.

“Not only does bad rumble design pull the players away from the game, but it can actually make them lose control of it by causing them to miss buttons or actions, or have their fingers slip off of the analog stick in the heat of a battle. There are also health issue in extreme cases: long periods of high vibration can cause numbness in the fingers and hands. Developers need to know that just because the controller vibrates, it doesn’t mean that they have to have a rumble feature. In my opinion it’s better to have no rumble or force feedback than poorly implemented rumble any day.”

Actually you can generalize that last sentence to almost everything about games: a bad feature is worse than no feature at all. As I’ve said many times, if you can’t do it well, don’t do it.

All good points there, Adam. Rumble isn’t just a gimmick you throw in because you can. It should be meaningful feedback to the player, part of the user interface and therefore part of your responsibility as a game designer. Take the time to think it through carefully and do it right.

Unplayable Camera Angles

Adam also sent me a second Twinkie Denial Condition, unplayable camera angles – usually in an effort to produce a “cinematic experience.”  He wrote:

“The problem with many survival horror games (and other genres too), is that the developers, in going for that ‘cinematic experience,’ will place cameras that may frame the scene well, but end up making for an unplayable experience. If your character is fighting off swarms of enemies, why in the world would you place the camera on the floor at a dynamic angle? Sure it may look nice, but players couldn’t care less how nice it looks if they can’t play the game.”

Now, I love unusual camera angles and anything that creates visual interest and breaks up the monotony of the third-person perspective. But Adam is right: the game must still be playable! Interesting camera angles are great for slower moving genres such as adventure games or action-adventures that aren’t too difficult, like ICO. But if you’re fighting for your life, it’s imperative that you be able to see clearly what’s going on.

Bad Manuals and/or Bad Tutorials

T.C. Fox wrote in to say:

“I am one of those gamers who always reads the manual and likes good, informative tutorials before I am thrown into a game. I loved all the tutorials about race driving in Gran Turismo 4. However, after a long hiatus from the world of golf, I decided to pick up a copy of Tiger Woods 2004, and I was dismayed at the complete lack of information about the finer points of the game (both the game of golf and the videogame itself). The tutorial the game makes you play before you can do anything else is abrupt and cursory. The manual is awfully thin. This made for a hugely frustrating initial game experience that almost made me return it on the spot.”

Manuals seem rather outdated today, as they have mostly been replaced by tutorial levels. Even so, a manual offers an important feature that a tutorial can’t: you can look stuff up in it while the game is paused. It’s also valuable to a player who likes to know what’s expected of her before she dives in, rather than learning by trial-and-error. Trial-and-error learning is characteristic of a hardcore style of gameplay (“shoot it and see what happens”) that many casual gamers aren’t comfortable with and, more importantly, don’t have time for.

Tiger Woods is a game that a casual gamer or even a non-gamer might try out. Someone might give it as a birthday present to a golf aficionado who would otherwise never touch a videogame. That kind of player is going to need – and to expect – a decent introduction to the experience. Make it frustrating for him, and you’ve just blown your chance to sell him next year’s edition.

I know manuals cost money to produce and they take up space in the box; that’s why we’ve shrunk them down to nothing but a leaflet these days. But if you want to reach a market beyond the traditional hardcore gamers who have all the time and patience in the world, you owe them a decent manual and decent tutorials.

Bad Split-Screen Design

This is chiefly a problem in console racing games, where the screen is split for each of the players. Mat Lamarche writes:

“In single-player mode the screens are nice and big, you get a great view of the track and whatever is down the road… but I have yet to see a game that handles multi-player split screen management properly. Those damned time indicators (how much you are winning/losing by) pop up in front of you and you can barely see anything down the road!”

This is just one example of a larger general problem: split screen interface design is tough. It’s about to get tougher, too, as we move into the HDTV generation of games. With higher resolution, you would expect it to be easier, but unfortunately, for the next five years or so there will be millions of players who don’t have high-definition televisions. You’ll have to design your game to be playable on their TVs too, or lose their business.

In the meantime, keep the pop-ups out of the road! Put them off to the side or something.

Crates Without Pallets or Forklifts (Stuff in Impossible Places)

Crates are already a standing joke in the world of videogames, because we see so many of them. The Old Man Murray website includes a hilarious review of a number of games (caution: strong language) based on the length of time you have to play before you see the first crate – at which point, the authors claim, the game designer has run out of ideas. The longer you can play without seeing a crate or a barrel, the better the game is.

The ubiquitous crate makes its inevitable appearance in
Counter-Strike.

The same article points out that you can’t move crates without a forklift and a pallet for the crate to sit on. If there are crates in a place, there had better be pallets under them and at least one forklift as well. In fact, somebody wrote to me (unfortunately I lost his name in an E-mail crash) and pointed out that wooden crates are completely passé now anyway. Modern shipping is done in piles of cardboard boxes all held together with industrial-strength plastic wrap. Wood is heavy and expensive, cardboard is light, cheap, and recyclable. But our FPSes are still displaying 40-year-old shipping technology, even in futuristic science fiction games.

I can’t claim crates without pallets as an original Twinkie Denial Condition because the Old Man Murray guys thought of it first, but I can generalize the issue to the problem of stuff being in impossible places, something that several people have complained about. Now, obviously, this doesn’t apply to platform games in which it’s common for crates (among other things) to float in mid-air. Levitating crates is part of the platform game convention; I understand that and maybe that’s why they don’t need pallets or forklifts. But if your game is going to pretend it’s about the real world, if you’re going to have a lot of box copy about how exciting and believable your storyline is, then try not to create rooms without any doors, full of crates that apparently came in through a ventilation shaft. Try not to put barrels down in a sewer system in which all the manholes are smaller than the barrels. Try not to put a crate containing half a ton of weapons and armor in an alcove 50 feet up a cliff. And – for that matter – try to think of something more interesting than crates and barrels to keep health and ammo in.

Conclusion

That’s it for this year: six more dumb things not to do in your game. Some of them, like bad camera angles, will actually kill the game’s playability. Others, like poorly-designed rumble, will just annoy the player for no good reason. In any case, heed these warnings, lest you, too, have your Twinkies taken away.

Thanks to all those people who contributed, and once again, keep ‘em coming!(source:designersnotebook)