作者：Christian Nutt

在过去一年里，roguelike成为了一种受欢迎的游戏类型，特别是对于独立开发者来说。尽管关于roguelike的构成以及是否应该继续使用这一词仍存在争议，但不可否认的是，不管是开发者还是玩家都因为其无尽的程序上的挑战而喜欢上了这类型游戏。

今年在Independent Games Festival上的最佳学生游戏是《雨中冒险》；而去年Klei Entertainment共卖出100多万份《Don’t Starve》。这是拥有许多吸引人的roguelike游戏机制的两个成功的例子。

来自Kitfox Games的Tanya X. Short便简要分析了这样的吸引力：“作为一名设计师以及一名玩家，我非常喜欢程序生成且受系统驱动的游戏，因为我对此真的很好奇。”

这种吸引力导致越来越多人去探索roguelike游戏设计的界限。《Don’t Starve》的设计师Kevin Forbes说道：“我认为是成功孕育着成功。在过去几年里有一些真正优秀的游戏既能作为玩家的入门内容，也能够成为开发者们的灵感来源。”

Spry Fox的开发者Daniel Cook解释了这类型游戏的另一个关键元素，即它的长寿。他说道：“我玩了《NetHack》20多年了。这真的变成了我的一种爱好。长期的可变性，精通深度以及充满让人惊讶的时刻都是这个时代的游戏中鲜见的元素。”实际上，从历史发展到设计领域来看，roguelike真的算是一个非常丰富的主题，甚至“可以专门出一本书去描述这一主题。”

Cook说道：“当一些记者/研究生/权威人士问道，‘从文化角度来看游戏产业的未来会是怎样的？’一个显著的答案会是‘roguelikes’。”

为什么玩家和开发者会喜欢这类型游戏？

roguelike不仅吸引了开发者的注意，同时也吸引了玩家的注意。为什么会这样？《100 Rogues》的开发者Keith Burgun将其归结为是玩家重新开始寻找能够提供丰富游戏体验的内容—-我们也可以在《我的世界》以及欧洲一些桌面游戏中看到这些内容。

“我认为人们正慢慢地，但却一定能够搞清楚‘游戏到底是什么。’他们逐渐意识到游戏不只是环球影城中的主题公园。”

他继续说道：“我认为他们开始意识到游戏玩法（游戏邦注：高质量的互动）的重要性，这也是导致越来越多人着眼于之前从未注意到的领域的原因。”

简单地来说就是，玩家并不是被roguelike的理念所吸引，而是沉迷于这些游戏所呈现的体验：“就像人们并不是因为FPS这一词去玩第一人称射击游戏；而是因为他们喜欢射枪这一沉浸式的体验。”

Cook说道：“作为玩家我喜欢的是可以不断进入一些我愿意与好友分享的全新情境中。它们的价值是提供了最具可能性的结果，如使用最少的元素而呈现出最让人满足的新鲜感。”

Burgun表示这种新鲜感能够从根本上吸引玩家的注意，就像roguelike能够“一次性提供许多你会喜欢的内容。”

Forbes说道：“你会在每次游戏的时候惊讶地看到一些全新的内容。你可以挑战自己去学习并精通一些复杂的系统。我认为很多玩家真正喜欢的是能够控制自己的体验，并且还有一些意外的游戏玩法能够导致某些情况的发生而让游戏体验变得更加新鲜。在这一类型游戏中存在着一些今天的游戏中很少看到的重玩价值。”

Cook说道：“roguelikes允许玩家与复杂系统间出现独特，超现实且奇妙的碰撞。”这种表达模式在游戏中也是独特的。

Forbes继续说道：“我一直觉得作为游戏设计师的我们能够拥有如此有趣且独特的媒体是件很奇怪的事，而如果我们尝试着去模仿电影的话便是在浪费它的潜能。”

它的潜能既能吸引玩家的注意，也能引起开发者的关注。“作为一名玩家，我喜欢任何能够发挥其极限的机制或系统，即作为一种挑战或策略工具。而作为一名设计师，能够看到玩家使用你的系统去想出你未能想到的新策略是件让人满足的事。”

对于开发者的吸引力远不止如此

但它对于开发者的吸引力可不只是这样：roguelikes提供了一个非常让人兴奋的创造性空间，并且该类型也允许今天一些较小的团队能够扩展自己的资源。

Short说道：“我认为今天的每一名设计师都必须在任何游戏项目的一开始就问自己，‘是否存在任何方式让我可以无需破坏游戏质量而从程序上创造任何内容？’我们必须正视任何肯定的答案。而价值与成本的比例非常高。”

Cook继续说道：“拥有一两个人的团队难以创造100个小时的3D游戏。但是他们却可以创造100个小时的roguelike游戏。”

这并不是因为内容是通过程序而生成的，创造这类型游戏的想法同样也将确保设计改变不会造成昂贵的返工。Cook说道：“伴随着静态关卡，关于你的核心机制的改变将需要数个月时间的返工。在游戏机制改变后重新生成关卡是不必要的。内容将服从于廉价的重构。”

《Defender’s Quest》的开发者Lars Doucet说道：“灵活性也会创造出一些不同的游戏玩法。在大多数游戏中，你可以重新设置或装载，并使用关于未来的知识不断前进。大多数电子游戏就像你反复练习的空手道招式一样。基于roguelikes和程序死亡迷宫，这就像是在大街上打架一样—-你无需知道前方会出现什么你只需要即兴发挥便可。”

这一程序灵活性与这类型游戏中受欢迎的永久性死亡机制相一致，Burgun说道：“这为单人玩家电子游戏开启了一些具有竞争性的内容，让你能够在此经历获胜与失败。”

任何创造过游戏的人都曾经历过游戏系统未能发动的情况，以及游戏从未能传达关于最初原型的承诺。Cook认为，roguelikes同样也在防卫遇到这样的情况。

他说道：“没有什么比发现自己投入6个月时间进行创造但却发现游戏机制很无聊更糟糕的事了吧。通过基于程序关卡创造原型，你将需要创造一些带有活力的核心机制去面对各种奇怪的情况。这种稳定性将创造出能够处理未来各种弊端，如未来的扩展和平衡问题的方法，并确保它们始终具有乐趣。”

他还说道：“基于一个更高的概念层次，roguelikes呈现了一个强烈的审美立场。他们说道：如果我们的游戏被当成代码一样的话该怎么办？伴随着简单的模块对象；伴随着互动系统；伴随着某些特定的实体内容。”

这将促成更棒的合作—-这对于一些较小的团队来说非常重要。Short说道：“我认为roguelikes设计属于程序友好型，这也意味着这是独立友好型，因为大多数独立公司也就等于一半的程序员。roguelikes是等待解决的谜题，而程序员则能够剖析这些谜题。”

这导致游戏的定义将由其自身的游戏性所完成。Cook说道：“伴随着游戏动词和抽象的游戏规则，它们可以勇敢地作为游戏。”Short补充道：“当然了，一些文字描写和图像能够完善roguelikes游戏，但其核心乐趣则是来自系统的逻辑。系统是超越电子表格的存在。”

上述的内容整合成一款不断进化的游戏—-这是游戏开发者在确保玩家对游戏感兴趣并愿意创建社区所需要重视的。这也是这类型游戏对于开发者的另一个吸引力。

Short说道：“它们非常适合不断地进化。每一个额外的道具并不是一个全新的篇章—-这是一个新的可能性世界。既然你可以出售你最初的游戏，你也可以选择永远专注于它，如此你便可能实现独立之梦。”

Cook说道：“基于roguelikes，你可以添加2000个新的对象以及能够适应按压按键的整体系统。当然了，这仍然是一件辛苦的工作，但这是一种永远都不会完结的游戏类型。”

“你可以许愿将一生都付诸于roguelikes游戏上。当你现在看到一个玩家社区仍然能够兴奋地玩一款30多年前所诞生的游戏时，你该多开心啊。”

它远不止如此。Short说道：“程序生成的价值并不只在于重玩价值；玩家对于他们在roguelikes游戏中所体验到的故事和策略的比较也是一种口头上的市场营销方式，并且也属于玩家所生成的内容！通常情况下，你是不可能获得这种类型的社区病毒式传播，除非你所面对的是多人游戏。”

但这已经创造了《Don’t Starve》的成功。Forbes说道：“社交媒体以及整个Let’s Play提供给玩家一个平台去呈现他们的游戏表现，这非常适合程序上以及意外的游戏玩法。这同样也是人们难以抗拒的一种免费广告。”

灵活性，适应性和未来

roguelikes元素快速成为了游戏组织中的一部分—-甚至延伸到了AAA级游戏中。Forbes说道：“我认为像《恶魔之魂》这样的游戏拥有大众吸引力，这意味着玩家喜欢一些想法。”

甚至连休闲的玩家也准备好接受这类型游戏，Short认为：“像《Candy Crush》这样的游戏要求玩家需要精通并做出即兴发挥。很快地roguelikes将变成主流。”

就像Doucet指出的那样，这一类型具有很强的适应性，这也是成功的预兆。“我可以开始玩一款游戏，并且能够在15分钟内获得独特且有趣的体验，并在之后再次尝试。如果你是一个没有很多空闲时间的成人的话，这便非常重要。基于这些参数，这对于我来说算得上是一个完美的游戏类型。”

Cook认为rogue是创造游戏的框架。他列举了Edmund McMillen的《以撒的结合》去解释roguelikes是如何有效地结合来自其它游戏的理念并且还能够创造出一个连贯且具有吸引力的整体。

Cook说道：“我发现现在人们会繁殖来自许多不同类型的个体，并将其整合到roguelikes架构上。这一架构元素，也就是各种个性化设计模式是如何整合到一个完整的个体中是非常值得我们关注的。”

其可变性也开启了主题上的可能性。Doucet说道：“我想要利用这一类型去探索现实中的情况。在现实生活中，你不可能按压一个重置按键并使用未来的知识去推翻面前的挑战。”在空闲的时候，Doucet致力于《Tourette’s Quest》，这是一款关于探索他自己的挑战的游戏。多亏于这类型的优势，他说道：“我能够创造关于风险管理的游戏，并学习如何接受残疾的身体约束。”

尽管这类型带有种种潜能，但Cook同样也表示担心这种潜能会被耗尽。任何类型只要一受到追捧便会陷入危险。“较小的团队也有机会创造更棒的游戏。而这里所存在的风险在于他们将复制人们已经厌倦的模式并运行这样的理念。”

展望未来

本文有意识地回避了我们在讨论roguelikes类型时会想到的正统问题。Forbes也列举了自己的游戏进行说明：“《Don’t Starve》使用了永久性死亡，程序世界生成以及探索性规则系统。但是比起经典的roguelikes，它缺少了一定的管理，实际上我会认为它更倾向于是受到roguelikes启发的游戏而不是真正的这类型游戏。”

不管是Doucet还是Short都深入讨论了这一主题，如果你感兴趣的话可以作进一步的了解。实际上，Burgun并未看到这一类型的真正价值，除了它是一套可以用来试验的机制外：“可能这类型应该备摧毁，实际上，我认为它可能已经被摧毁了。”而本文的目的其实是专注于游戏开发者可以利用的roguelikes核心机制。

很明显，无关类型，那些让这些游戏变得吸引人的设计元素在各种环境中既是可识别的也是有用的；而现在它们也成为了游戏设计中的一份子。

我们所访问的这些人为那些从这类型游戏机制中获取灵感的游戏描绘了一片美好的未来，而这不仅仅是因为它们具有吸引力：还有一些制作和推广元素成就了它们。这将成为我们永久的遗产。

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转功，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

‘Roguelikes’: Getting to the heart of the it-genre

by Christian Nutt

Over the last year, the roguelike has become the it-genre, particularly for independent developers. While debate remains over what constitutes a roguelike or whether the term should even be used, there’s no argument around the fact that both developers and players have come to love these games for their endless, procedural challenges.

This year’s best student game in the Independent Games Festival was Risk of Rain; Klei Entertainment sold over a million copies of Don’t Starve last year. These are just two obvious success stories that owe a lot to the appeal of roguelike mechanics.

Tanya X. Short of Kitfox Games (Shattered Planet) succinctly captures this appeal: “As a designer, and as a player, I love procedurally generated, system-driven games because I’m curious.”

That hook has lead more and more to explore the boundaries of roguelike game design. “I think success breeds success,” says Don’t Starve lead Kevin Forbes. “There have been a couple of really good games in the past few years that serve both as an introduction for players, and as inspiration for developers.”

Daniel Cook, developer at Spry Fox (Road Not Taken) explains another key element of the genre — its longevity. “I’ve been playing NetHack for well over 20 years. It is very much a hobby for me. The long-term variability, depth of mastery, and richness of evergreen surprising moments are an anomaly in this era of disposable movie games,” he says. In fact, the roguelike — from its history to its design space — is so fruitful that “there’s a book that could be written on this topic,” he says.

“When some journalist / grad student / pundit asks ‘What is the culturally relevant future of the game industry?’ one loud and clear answer should be ‘roguelikes,’” says Cook.

Why do players and developers love them?

The roguelike has caught on not just with developers, but also with players. Why is that? 100 Rogues developer Keith Burgun puts it down to a renaissance of players looking for games that offer rich play experiences — which we can also see in the surge of popularity of everything from Minecraft to European board games, he suggests.

“I think people are just slowly, but surely, getting a tiny bit more ground about ‘what games are.’ They are realizing that games are fundamentally way more than just a Universal Studios theme park ride.”

He continues, “I think they’re starting to realize how important gameplay — quality interactions — are, and that’s causing more and more of them to look in places that they wouldn’t have before.”

Short notes that players are attracted not to the idea of the “roguelike” per se, but the experiences these games afford to them: “People don’t play first person shooters because they like the word FPS; people play FPSes because they enjoy shooting guns as an immersive experience.”

“What I love as a player is that I’m constantly running into new situations that I want to share with my friends,” Cook says. Short agrees: “Their value tends to be in providing the maximum possible array of outcomes… i.e. satisfying novelty as long as possible, with the minimum number of elements.”

Burgun notes that this novelty can speak to gamers in a very basic way, with roguelikes offering “so much stuff in one package that surely something in there, you’re going to enjoy.”

“You can be surprised by something new every time you play. You can challenge yourself to learn about and master complex systems,” Forbes says. “I think that a lot of players really appreciate being able to direct their own experience, and emergent gameplay lets things happen that keep the experience fresh. There’s a level of replayability inherent to the genre that’s sorely missing these days.”

The roguelike allows for “unique, surreal and wonderful collisions between player agency and complex systems,” says Cook, a mode of expression that is “unique to games.”

Forbes continues this thought: “I’ve always found it odd we game designers have such an exciting, unique medium to work with, but so often waste its potential trying to emulate film.”

It’s the potential for surprise that can excite both the player and the developer, Short says. “As a player, I feel like any given mechanic or system can reliably be pushed to its limits, as a challenge and as a strategic tool. And as a designer, it’s incredibly satisfying to watch players use your systems to come up with new strategies you didn’t think of.”

Developer appeal goes further than that

But its appeal for developers extends well beyond that: Roguelikes provide an exciting creative space, certainly, but the genre also allows today’s smaller teams to stretch their resources.

“I think every designer now has to ask themselves, at the start of any game project these days, ‘Is there any way I can procedurally generate any of my content without the quality suffering enormously?’ Any answers to the affirmative must be taken seriously. The value-to-cost ratio is just too high,” Short says.

Cook puts it more succinctly: “One- or two-person teams can’t afford to make 100 hours of sexy 3D-storytime. But they can make 100 hours of roguelike bliss.”

The savings is not simply based on the fact that content is generated procedurally and thus, in some sense, free — the thinking required to create games like these also insures design changes won’t result in costly rework, says Cook. “With static levels, a change to your core mechanics could result in months of rework,” Cook says. “Regenerating levels after a change to your game mechanics is a trivial exercise. Content becomes amenable to cheap refactoring.”

That flexibility also results in a fundamentally different kind of gameplay, says Defender’s Quest developer Lars Doucet. “In most other games, you can always reset, or reload, and use your knowledge of the future (or of unchanging levels) to march your way forward. Most video games are like karate katas that you practice over and over again. With roguelikes and procedural death labyrinths, it’s an actual fight on the streets — you don’t know what’s coming at you, and you have to improvise and think on your feet.”

This procedural flexibility, in concert with mechanics like permadeath that the genre has popularized, “opens up the possibility for single-player video games to actually be contests — to be competitive — to be a thing you can win and lose,” notes Burgun.

Anyone who has made a game has first-hand experience with gameplay systems that never took off, and games that never delivered the promise of their initial prototypes. Roguelikes are also insurance against facing that scenario, argues Cook.

“There’s nothing worse than finding yourself six months into production only to discover that the mechanics that seemed convincing enough in test tube of preproduction are in fact shallow and boring,” he says. “By prototyping with procedural levels, you are forced to make your core mechanics robust in the face of really bizarre scenarios. This robustness tends to yield playspaces that deal with all sorts of abuse in terms of future expansions or balancing issues while still remaining fun.”

He zooms out: “On a higher conceptual level, roguelikes pose a strong aesthetic stance. They say: What if our game was treated like code? With simple modular objects; with systems of interaction; with a certain physics to the world.”

This allows for better collaborations — a particular must for small teams — argues Short. “I think roguelike design is extremely programmer-friendly… which means indie-friendly, since most indie companies are at least 50 percent programmers. Roguelikes are puzzles to be solved, and programmers (and technical designers) dig puzzles.”

This leads to games that are well defined by their own gaminess. “They aren’t shy about being games with game verbs and abstract game-like rules,” says Cook. “Sure, that fluffy writing and art stuff can improve a roguelike, but the core fun is the logic of the systems. Systems beyond spreadsheets,” adds Short.

All of the above cascades into a game that is primed for constant evolution — which is increasingly crucial as game developers strive to keep players interested in a game past an initial purchase, and to build communities. That’s another secret to their appeal for developers.

“They’re perfect for constant evolution. Every additional item isn’t a new episode – it’s a new world of possibility,” says Short. “Now that it’s common knowledge that you can sell your initial game, and keep working on it, potentially forever… it’s an indie dream come true.”

“With a roguelike, you can add in 2,000 new objects and the whole system adapts with the press of a button. It is still hard work, of course, but here’s a style of game that thrives on never being finished,” says Cook.

“There’s a lifetime of potential expansions you could pour into a roguelike. How wonderful would it be to have a community playing a game 30 years from now that they still consider fresh and exciting?”

It goes further than that, however, says Short. “The value of proc-gen isn’t just in replayability; players comparing stories and strategies of how they survived a roguelike is part word-of-mouth marketing and part player generated content! Normally, you don’t get that kind of community-building virality except in multiplayer.”

That has already driven success for Don’t Starve. “Social media and the whole Let’s Play scene are providing a platform for players to present their play as performance, which works really well with procedural and emergent gameplay. It’s also free advertising, which is hard to resist,” Forbes says.

Flexibility, adaptability, and the future

Roguelike elements are fast becoming part of the fabric of gaming — even creeping into triple-A titles. “I think the fact that a game like Demon’s Souls has mass appeal means that players are warming to some of the ideas,” says Forbes.

Even players with much more casual tastes are also prepped to appreciate the fruits of the genre, Short argues: “Games like Candy Crush demand mastery and improvisation. It won’t be long before a roguelike takes the mainstream by storm.”

The genre is highly adaptable, as Doucet points out, which also bodes well for its success. “I can start one of those up, have a unique and interesting experience in 15 minutes, get my butt kicked, and try again. This is very important when you’re an adult and have less time. Within those parameters, it’s the perfect genre for me.”

Cook suggests that the “roguelike” is a framework to build a game on. He sees Edmund McMillen’s The Binding of Isaac as a great example of how melding roguelike concepts to ideas taken from other games can still lead to a coherent and compelling whole.

“What I find exciting is how people are now breeding these wild chimeras out of a half dozen different genres and gluing it all together with roguelike architectures. The architectural element, how the various individual design patterns fit together into a robust whole, is something that is worth more attention,” Cook says.

Its changeability opens up thematic possibilities, too. “I want to use the genre as a way to explore real-life conditions. In real life, you can’t hit the reset button and use knowledge of the future to subvert the challenges in front of you,” says Doucet. In his spare time, he’s been working on Tourette’s Quest, a game that explores his own personal challenges. Thanks to the genre’s strengths, he says, “I can make a game that’s fundamentally about risk management and learning to embrace the physical limitations of a disability.”

Despite the potential of the genre, Cook also worries that it could become played out. It’s a danger of any genre that comes into fashion. “There’s an opportunity to make better games by smaller teams. The risk is that they just copy tired patterns and run the concept into the ground.”

Looking ahead…

This article has consciously sidestepped the issue of orthodoxy that has been such a piece of the discussion around the roguelike genre. Forbes’ take on his own game exemplifies this conversation well: “Don’t Starve uses permadeath, procedural world generation, and discoverable rules-based systems. It’s quite a bit less directed than a classical roguelike, and in fact I would consider it more roguelike-inspired than an actual example of the genre.”

Both Doucet and Short have covered this topic in depth, if you’re interested in learning more. Burgun, in fact, doesn’t see the value of considering it a genre rather than a set of mechanics to experiment with: “Probably, the genre should be destroyed, and actually I’d argue it maybe already has been.” The goal of this article is concentrating on what core roguelike mechanics make possible for game developers.

It’s clear that, genre or not, the design elements that make these games compelling are both identifiable and useable in a wide variety of contexts; they are now part of the lexicon of game design.

Our interviewees paint a bright future for games which take inspiration from these mechanics, and it isn’t purely because they’re compelling to play: there are also production and promotional reasons that make them extremely attractive. That adds up to a recipe for an enduring legacy.（source：Gamasutra）