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

“失败是一种乐趣”的游戏设计可行吗?

发布时间:2014-01-21 10:35:02 Tags:,,,,

作者:Josh Bycer

如果你玩过像《幽浮》,《洞穴探险》和《矮人要塞》等困难的电子游戏,你便可能听过有人用“失败是一种乐趣”去描述它们。失败是一种乐趣意味着游戏设计的目的是为了被战胜且攻克挑战。

就我个人来说,我讨厌人们将其作为游戏设计的辩词,即它通常都是任何有关难度和设计的讨论的说辞。失败作为乐趣是可行的,但在我看来如果它作为一种可接受的设计将不具有多大的优势。

Dark Souls(from game-wisdom)

Dark Souls(from game-wisdom)

平衡进程:

为了谈论游戏难度,我们首先需要简单地说下游戏设计中的两种进程。玩家进程是指玩家在游戏中完善他们的知识和技能。而角色进程则是关于游戏中任何影响玩家成功机会的元素:升级,道具等等。

这意味着当提到失败时,这两种进程形式将具有不同的感受。在基于技能的游戏中,失败意味着作为玩家的你并未达到胜利所要求的技能水平,而问题是出在你身上。而在基于角色的游戏中失败则意味着安静控制之外的情况是其失败的原因。也许他们并未在战斗中购买足够强大的武器或获得随机数量的生成器而给敌人致命一击。

当提到游戏失败是否让人沮丧以及哪里的失败是有趣的时,玩家对于成功的控制数量是很难进行调整的。

适当的惩罚:

当提到游戏设计时,重玩价值是个很重要的理念,并且是难度游戏或者那些玩家必须立刻重新开始的游戏内容的主要组件。如果你的游戏是关于每次失败都从0开始,那么游戏便非常需要重玩价值。

在我看来,为了保证失败是一种乐趣是正确的,游戏的进程就必须是进程的极端。

在基于像《洞穴探险》这样的技能游戏或那些带有少许RPG元素的游戏,如《恶魔灵魂》,玩家便是决定输赢的关键元素。

在像《洞穴探险》这样的游戏中遭遇失败并没关系,因为它总是会带给你一些经验教训,让你能够在下一次尝试中利用起来。

关于角色进程或强大的随机元素,像在《以撒的结合》或《地下城冒险》中,游戏设计总是具有许多可变性,从而导致你对于自己的输赢缺少足够的控制,所以如果你遭遇了失败也不全是自己的错。也许敌人碰巧击中了你,或者你找不到任何强大的升级工具去获取胜利。

不管是哪种情况,失败要么是受到玩家行动的控制,要么是完全脱离玩家的控制。所以在我看来,将失败当成一种乐趣意味着玩家需要变得更好,或者只是想再次滚动骰子看看会发生些什么。

从根本上看来,为了让“失败是一种乐趣”发挥作用,游戏中就必须包含一个主要的重玩价值细节内容:玩家必须能在每次游戏时获得某种形式的成长。

游戏绝对要避免掉进一种常规,即未提供给玩家任何可继续学习的内容。

发展可以是一种基于技能的IE:玩家通过反复尝试去摸索打败boss的正确方法。或者是基于角色:在尝试了许多不同的技能组合后,玩家找到一种自己喜欢的。如果游戏变成一种纯粹的刷任务,那么“失败是一种乐趣”便不再可行。

我写下这篇文章的主要原因是来自《幽浮:未知的敌人》(游戏邦注:以及最近的扩展《内部敌人》)。

我听过人们因为选择和角色而在提及《未知的敌人》时表明了失败是一种乐趣的观点,就像这全部是关于打着一场艰难的战斗。关于《未知的敌人》,我所遇到的问题是到达了一个临界点,即坚持对抗一个经典的钢铁人,那时候游戏的角色平衡和基于技能的进程开始停滞不前了。

因为游戏的覆盖系统以及敌人破坏的随机性,游戏的战术面或者技能获得奖励之处对于我来说都太过于随机,以至于很难再学到什么。

关于策略方面或角色进程—-即我知道自己需要做些什么,但却不能在战术部分依赖于技能,在整个活动中对于进程起着巨大的影响作用。

就像我在关于《内部敌人》的分析中提到的,游戏的反馈循环是非常两极化的,如果你开始在某些地方落后了,你便很难恢复了。基于基地创建和研究进程,我知道正确的创建顺序去战胜经典的内容。但如果我不能快速推动角色的发展,或打开正确的研究内容,我便不可能在过去的两个月中生存下来。

所以我的游戏可能会在两个月结束后终止,或者我会继续坚持玩几个月然后基于自己的策略和运气获取胜利或遭遇失败。

举个例子来说吧,就像我便很多次因为游戏的随机性而不能拯救角色并失去整个群组。

如果你的游戏是关于技能推动进程,那就需要确保玩家的技能足以影响游戏玩法。另一方面,如果你的游戏是关于角色进程和随机性,那么游戏就必须是随机的,即不存在任一种每次都能取胜的方法。

我并不喜欢听到“失败是一种乐趣”这种说法,这通常是在包庇游戏设计问题免受批评。

如果玩游戏是一种受挫的体验,那么我便不会去关心失败会有多少乐趣。

这也是为何那些围绕着不断失败而实现平衡的游戏有可能是最佳设计游戏也有可能是最糟糕的游戏。

平衡必须确保玩家能够沉浸于通过自己的努力获得进程的游戏中。

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

Debunking “Losing is Fun” Game Design

By Josh Bycer

If you’ve ever played any difficult video games such as X-Com, Spelunky, Dwarf Fortress and so on, you’ve probably heard the phrase “losing is fun” to describe them. Losing is fun means that the game’s design is meant to be overcome and a challenge to be conquered.

Personally, I hate when people use it as a defense of game design as it is more often than not used as a catch all for any kind of discussion on difficulty and design. Losing is fun can work, but in my opinion there is a very narrow margin of where it is acceptable design.

Balancing Progression:

To talk about game difficulty, we first need to talk briefly about the two kinds of progression in game design. Player progression refers to the player improving their knowledge and skill at a game. While character progression is about anything in-game that affects the player’s chance at success: Leveling up, items and so on.

What that means is that both forms of progression have a different feeling when it comes to failure. Failing at a skill based game means that you as the player haven’t reached the skill level needed to win and the problem is on your end. While failing at a character based game means that things outside of the player’s control were the reasons for their demise. Maybe they didn’t buy a strong enough weapon, or the random number generator during combat gave the enemy a critical hit.

The amount of control the player has over their success is a big factor when it comes to if a game is frustrating or not to lose at and where losing is fun is difficult to fine tune.

The Right Kind of Punishment:

Replayability is an important concept when it comes to game design and is a major component of difficult games or those where the player has to restart constantly. If your game is all about starting back at 0 each time, then the game needs to be very replayable.

In my opinion, for losing is fun to be correct, the game’s progression has to be on either extreme of progression.

In a skill based game like Spelunky or even those with light RPG elements such as Demon’s Souls, the player is the determining factor of whether they win or lose.

Failing in a game like Spelunky is OK as it always gives you a lesson to learn or something to make use of for the next time.

With character progression or strong randomized elements, like The Binding of Isaac or Dungeons of Dredmor. There is enough variability to the design that you don’t have enough control to win or lose that it’s not completely on you if you fail. Maybe an enemy got a lucky hit or you couldn’t find any powerful upgrades to win.

Depending on which case, either failure is controlled by the player’s actions or it’s completely out of their hands. This in my opinion is where losing is fun works as it means that either the player needs to get better or you just need to roll the die again and see what happens.

Ultimately there is one main detail of replayability that must be involved in a game for “losing is fun” to work: there must be some form of growth earned through each play.

The game must never reach a state where the game falls into a routine and there is nothing for the player to continue learning from.

Growth can be skill based IE: Player learns through trial and error the right way to beat a boss. Or character based: After experimenting with enough different builds, the player finds one that they like. When a game just becomes a grind to play, then “losing is fun” no longer works in my opinion.

My case in point and the reason for writing this post has to do with X-Com Enemy Unknown (and recently the expansion — Enemy Within).

I’ve heard people reference Enemy Unknown due to the choices and squishiness of characters as where losing can be fun, as it’s all about fighting an uphill battle. My problem with Enemy Unknown is that I’ve reached a point trying to play through on classic ironman where the game’s balance of character and skill based progression has become stagnant.

Due to the game’s cover system and randomness of enemy damage, the tactical side of the game or where skill is rewarded is too random for me to learn anything from.

While on the strategic side or character progression, I know what I need to do but not being able to rely on my skill during the tactical section, has a huge affect on progressing through the campaign.

As I mentioned in my analysis of Enemy Within, the feedback loop of the game is very polarizing, that if you start to fall behind at any point, it becomes very hard to recover. I know the right build order to go for in terms of base building and research progression to have a chance at winning on classic. But if I can’t get characters to be promoted quickly enough, or unlock the right researches, than I won’t be able to survive past the second month.

So my games either stall before the end of month two, or I get several months down the line and then win or fail based on my strategies and luck.

To give you an example, there are times where there is nothing more I could have done to save my characters and I lose an entire group due to the game’s randomness and therefore the game.

If your game is about promoting skill based progression, then the player’s skill needs to have enough impact on the gameplay. On the other hand, if your game is all about character progression and randomization, than the game must be so random that there isn’t any one way that wins every time.

“Losing is Fun” is a phrase that I hate to hear, as more often than not, it’s used to shield games with design issues from criticism.

If playing the game is a frustrating experience, then I don’t care how much fun losing is.

This is why games that are balanced around constant lost are either some of the best designed titles out there or horrible.

As the balance has to be perfect to keep the player invested in a game where progress is earned and not given.(source:game-wisdom)


上一篇:

下一篇: