作者：Daniel Cook

在80年代和90年代的时候，即当有关游戏设计的谈话最初出现在没有经验的实践者的社区中时，一些较为极端的主题便反复被提起。你将会看到：

“游戏”的正确定义

叙述vs机制

随机性vs技能

现实的重要性

休闲vs硬核

很多其实只是游戏玩家在挑游戏的毛病罢了。然后基于一些修辞转换，玩家便会变成设计师去传达一个普遍的设计真理。人们的观点总是不同，因此在缺少数据的时候我们便很难做出判断。

幸亏我们的开发者社区正在不断成长。随着时间的发展以及越来越多游戏的诞生，有经验的游戏开发者对游戏设计也拥有了更多的看法。最终证明细微差别还是存在着很大的空间。

我们可以将宝贵的时间花在创造优秀的游戏，然后利用实用知识去创造能够带给我们进一步帮助的工作原理。

为了成为具有前瞻性的游戏设计师，我将在此分享自己在2014年忽视掉的5大设计争论内容。

1.“游戏”的正确定义

在过去几年里我看过许多关于游戏的定义，并且也曾自己对其进行定义。但是在我每天的游戏开发过程中却没有一种定义能够带给我帮助。

为什么这一讨论如此累人

游戏是巨大且多样的。如果只有一种定义的话便会出现如下问题：

太泛：定义不能提供任何方向或指导。

太狭隘：定义会消除来自其它系统，想法或艺术等领域的有用的工具和影响。每个项目的约束条件通常都是有益的，但我需要在创造它们的同时对其进行分解。

太复杂：定义只适用于那些关心边界情况的律师们，而不是关于完成某些事。

可替代的讨论

我专注于寻找并探索有用的设计工具。我并不需要去关心“木工”的定义。对于游戏也是如此。我专注于架构，战利品掉落表以及游戏内部经济。

对于我来说一个有益的目标便是找到设计师能够用于完善自己的作品的工具。

执行问题：与制作工具一样，它们也需要伴随着技能进行使用。这并不是你随便扔出一个问题便能够得到解决的模式。

建议：你应该创造属于自己的灵活设计工具箱。精通这些工具。将其用于适当的地方。不再理睬那些只顾着定义“游戏”的人。

2.叙述vs机制

我们的科学曾经面临过这样的理念，即特定行为是完全受到遗传或完全受到环境影响。经过证明这只是对于最复杂且相关联的系统遗传素质，环境因素与反馈循环的简化。经过证明叙述（讲故事）和机制（因果效应的系统）也具有同样错综复杂的关系。

为什么这一讨论如此累人

人类大脑从来不会基于系统去理解世界。它也不会基于叙述去理解世界。记忆，学习，情感，触发物，因果关系等等元素都影响着我们的大脑对于环境机制的适应，并对此作出社会反应。

所以所谓的冲突模式也就遭遇瓦解了。因为并不存在真正的对抗。

有很多关于为何会出现这一讨论的解释。我最喜欢的解释是：来自早前线性媒体的一个自大的部落与一个独立的游戏创造者部落发生冲突。他们为了与游戏制作毫无关系的权利和地位展开了愚蠢的战斗。

可替代的讨论

现代讨论可以包含：

我的游戏激活了哪些现有模式？

我们该如何执行学习和架构？

游戏循环中各种形式的刺激物的影响是什么？

我们到底该收紧还是放松因果关系系统？

什么是节奏系统？

什么是实际的边界情况？Chris Bateman编写了一篇能够解释这类型讨论的文章。

叙述扮演着怎样的社交角色？我们的工程师系统该如何激励它？

像互动循环或情感工程等理论便整合了叙述与机制。在创造优秀的互动体验的过程中，我们被迫分解“叙述”与“机制”并观察它们在实践中的表现。让我们讨论互动系统中的故事，世界创造和机械技术等内容的综合。

建议：想想叙述是如何从现有的机制中诞生出来。想想主题是如何通过激活现有的心理模式去解释机制。我们需要的是综合模式。所以请忽视对立的二分法。

3.随机性vs技能

80年代的野战游戏复兴了。人们认为随机性不如纯技能游戏中那般熟练且缺少策略性。

为什么这一讨论如此累人

随机性只是另一种设计工具。与技能一起使用的话，它便能够创造出一些让人惊艳的游戏。作为一个社会群体，我们一再地证实自己对于《文明》，MMO，三消游戏以及各种类型的纸牌游戏的喜爱。不管是益智游戏还是策略游戏，随机性都有其存在的理由。

随机性系统伴随着各种精通。“随机性”可以提供非常强大的精通元素。即学习属性，管理选择以及适应新环境等等。甚至是老虎机也可以设计为带有精通元素的游戏。

游戏包含循环。随机性输出永远都不会单独出现，而是会作为游戏内部经济的组成部分。随机性通常都是创造策略变量和环境的必要工具。

存在许多不同且稳定的游戏形式。并非所有人都在追求能让自己控制别人的技能型游戏。有些人只是为了放松，社交等等目的去玩游戏。当设计师面向这些玩家设计随机性时，它便可以成为一种有益的工具。

可替代的讨论

哪些游戏会基于有趣的方式使用随机性？

你的游戏是如何将随机性当成一种技能？

随机性是如何映射到讨论中？

是否存在其它讨论生成元素？复杂性，社交，反馈等等。

我们该如何帮助玩家更好地经历游戏过程？

建议：在适当的地方使用随机性。创造一款带有随机性的游戏也是关于一种精通。如果你是一个将智力看得比机会重要的人，那么你应该学习如何为别人创造游戏而不是为自己。

4.现实性

在过去，未来主义者总是在出售游戏与现实截然不同的理念。我们不断营销这样的理念使之逐渐变成一种教条。你会为了实现梦想购买一台新的主机，一张新的电子游戏纸牌，一台新的计算机。你会认为1080p是对于Holodeckian的奋战。

为什么这一讨论如此累人

图像或模拟中的现实性不再是大多数游戏开发者的主要目标。实际上，这不再是一款成功游戏的必要元素。在我们不远的未来时代，你甚至可以忽视现实性并从《我的世界》或《智龙迷城》这类型游戏中赚取数十亿美元的利益。

现实性拥有立基吸引力。这是一种能够吸引次文化群体的美学选择。卡通，文本以及其它具有风格的表现形式也具有这样的吸引力。

现实性可以是一笔不必要的开销。当我们不知道到底什么元素才能吸引玩家的注意力时，我们便会大量地复制现实性。这是一种浪费大量精力去创造某种有趣内容的突击销售法。不断增加的游戏开发成本的部分原因便是过度追逐现实性。

模拟会增添设计风险：许多模拟元素很复杂且难以操控。它们同样也难以带给玩家情感上的满足感。如果在坚持于机制上的现实性的同时尝试着模拟创造一款有趣的游戏，你最终只会看到一个失败的游戏设计。

游戏同时也是内在的价值系统。它们就像数学中各种分子能够组成有趣的内在关系。像《俄罗斯方块》这样的游戏便拥有独立于现实世界的价值。

当玩家想要追求现实性时，他们往往不是真的在追求现实性。根据玩家对于现有心理模式的学习和使用，我们能够更好地理解他们对于现实性的欲望。他们对于现实性的需求可以是：新玩家想要一个能够帮助自己理解抽象系统的比喻。或者资深玩家指出不必要的边界情况。这两种情况都带有现实性以外的解决方法。

可替代的讨论

对于你的用户来说什么才是有效的图像风格？

如何权衡图像风格，游戏制作与预算？

怎样的系统是不依赖于它们在现实世界中的表象？

我们该如何创造具有游戏风格，卡通风格，带有丰富的信息的超现实虚拟现实游戏？

建议：怎样的实利反馈才是你的游戏真正需要的。你应该投入图像资源去创造那些真正吸引人的元素。系统到底需要怎样的模式才能创造真正丰富的游戏玩法。你应该投入设计资源去创造带有深意的小型规则集。当有人要求现实性时，你应该尝试着去明确他们到底需要什么。

5.休闲vs硬核

我们面对着一种文化定势，即认为休闲玩家是基于一种方式行动而硬核玩家则是基于另外一种方式。让人惊讶的是有无数设计决策都是基于这种定势诞生的。

为什么这一讨论如此累人

休闲和硬核定势是源于人们典型的刻板印象。它们将会导致设计师们作出一些错误的设计决定。

许多定势其实都是错误的：哪些游戏拥有最长的平均游戏时间？不是主机游戏或PC游戏。而是掌上游戏，特别是那些更具童趣的任天堂游戏。玩家每天使用智能手机和平板电脑玩游戏的时间长于主机游戏。当我着眼于数据时发现大多数“休闲”或“硬核”游戏的定势是错误的。

一款特定的游戏中总是存在许多变量：你将在任何合理的游戏复杂性中找到更多不同的游戏风格。每款游戏都是一座居住着许多不同人的巨大城市。平均值并不能清楚地告诉你如何完善游戏状态。

市场正在发生变化：基于服务的游戏正在通过完善游戏玩法而提高用户留存。女性玩家不断增多。主机拥有者的年龄也不断增长。许多关于目标用户与游戏风格的经验教训都发生了改变。并且在未来这种改变还将继续。

我认为“休闲”或“硬核”其实就像是“游戏玩家”或“斯金纳箱”这样的部落标签。它们就像是加了一层装备的定势，用于强化我们可以察觉到的群组界限。在现代设计（或市场营销）讨论中它们没有多少立足之地。

可替代的讨论

为了获得优势你将如何摆脱基于廉价定势进行思考？

不同的群组在你的游戏中具有哪些不同的表现？

你的游戏群组具有哪些动机？

你是如何使用不同的元素去吸引不同的用户？

你是如何基于活跃社区而通过迭代去创造带有目标的立基游戏？

我个人倾向于创造“休闲”化的游戏，但同时我也会不断感化那些习惯了无尽的教程，过场动画和快速反应事件的“硬核”玩家们。一些30，40岁的女性玩家对于逻辑，计划和创造性思维等内容具有强大的耐性。她们是依赖于复杂的游戏而成长。如果你是透过“休闲/硬核”去看待世界的话，我的市场也就不复存在。幸好这个星球上的无数玩家只是想着单纯享受游戏乐趣。

建议：没有人真正在创造“硬核”或“休闲”游戏。充其量我们只是在使用市场，群组和分销渠道在玩家心里获得暂时的落脚点。然后我们将整合玩家的复杂性。了解他们属于什么类型。然后创造能够适用于各种类型玩家的有效解决方法。

对于2015年的设想

如果你发现自己遇到了这5个主题，那就避开它们。我们的创造性是有限的。你应该将时间投入于一些具有生产性的内容中。

老师总是会传播这些模因：应该教授一些更现代的游戏设计工具。避免那些经过证明是错误的教条。

学者将解释这些理念：不要再创造一些天真的理论，应该参考来自实践型设计师的微妙数据。

游戏设计学生将啃食这些骨头：讨论一些过时的内容会导致你一事无成。相反地你应该去创造真正的游戏。围绕着自己的实践展开设计对话。如此你将能够更快地学到更多内容。

谁知道基于过时的设计理念的对话会不会结束。玩家及其无数衍生物（游戏邦注：粉丝新闻，论坛活跃者，文化评论者等等）将继续谈论这些主题。有些人只是出于乐趣进行谈论。有些人是为了自己的身份。有些人则是为了业务。也有些人是出于情感去谈论自己的游戏体验。

所以这些愚蠢的设计观点将变成真正的传统，或至少是让人苦恼的定势。这就像对着电视机里的足球比赛大声吼叫一样。当然了，玩家并不会进行具有技能型的对话，所以我们不应该基于同样的标准去评判他们。

作为游戏设计师，你需要扮演不同的角色。你应该识别出自己何时会变成一个无知的玩家或学生。当这种情况出现时，你应该尝试着与其他设计师进行直接的交谈。一起创造有用的工具和知识。

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

Top 5 design debates ignored in 2014

by Daniel Cook

Back in the 80’s and 90’s, when conversation about game design was first bubbling up out of our community of inexperienced practitioners, a few polarizing topics would arise again and again. You’ll recognize them:

The correct definition of ‘game’

Narrative vs Mechanics

Randomness vs Skill

The importance of realism

Casual vs Hardcore

Many were (and are) merely the irritated observations of game players picking at specific games. However, with a flip of the rhetorical switch, players become designers expressing a universal design truth. Opinions inevitably differ and thus positions harden in the absence of data. And it snowballs from there.

Thankfully, as a developer community, we’ve grown older. With time and the accumulation of thousands published games, experienced game makers have a lot more insight into how game design actually works. It turns out there’s plenty of room for nuance.

There’s also the growing maturity to ignore false dichotomies and worn out talking points. We could instead spend our precious time making great games. And then take that practical knowledge to build working theories that help us all reach further.

In the spirit of becoming a forward looking game designer, here are my top 5 design debates that I’ve ignored in 2014.

#1 The correct definition of ‘Game’

I’ve seen a metric ton of definitions for game over the years and have dabbled in crafting them myself. Not a single one has been useful to me in my daily practice of making great games.

Why this discussion is exhausted

Games are vast and varied. A single definition tends have one or more of the following issues:

Overly broad: The definition is unable to provide any direction or guidance.

Overly narrow: The definition eliminates useful tools and influences from other areas of systems, thought or art. Per project constraints can often be beneficial, but they should be mischieveously broken as often as they are forged.

Overly convoluted: The definition is only useful to lawyers who care primarily about edge cases and not about getting things done.

Alternative discussions to have instead

I focus on finding and exploring useful design tools. I don’t need to care about the definition of ‘woodworking’ in order to be damned happy that hammers and nails exist. The same goes for games. I focus on scaffolding. And loot drop tables. And internal economies.

A useful goal is to find general tools that a smart designer can use to radically improve their work.

Context matters: Like most tools, they should to be applied in the proper context. So they are rarely universal or one-size fits all.

Execution matters: And like a craft tool, they need to be applied with skill. They aren’t a playbook pattern that you toss at a problem and get a fixed result.

Recommendation: Build your flexible design toolbox. Master those tools. Apply them where appropriate. Ignore pedants obsessed with defining ‘game’.

#2 Narrative vs mechanics

Science was once plagued by the idea that certain behavior derived entirely from genetics (nature) or entirely from environmental effects (nurture). This turned out to be a naive simplification of a vastly most intricate and interrelated system genetic predispositions, environmental triggers and feedback loops. Narrative (the telling of stories) and mechanics (the systems of cause and effect) have proven to be similarly intertwined.

Why this discussion is exhausted

In the end, the human brain has neither a pure systemic understanding the world. Nor does it have a purely narrative understanding of the world. Memory, learning, emotional triggers, cause and effect all feed into how our brain adapts to environmental mechanics and then flow out again as a social response.

So the model suggested by the supposed conflict is simply broken. There is no ‘versus’.

There are many explanations for how this argument even arose. My favorite: A cocky tribe from old linear media clashed with an isolated tribe of game makers. They fought a stupid fight about authority and status that had almost nothing to do with making games. Meh.

Alternative discussions to have instead

A modern discussion could include:

What existing schemas are activated by my game?

How should we implement learning and scaffolding structures?

What is the impact of various forms of stimuli within game loops?

How should we tighten or loosen our systems of cause and effect?

What are systems of pacing?

What are some practical edge cases? Chris Bateman wrote a worthy essay that’s a great example of this type of discussion.

What social role does narrative serve? How can we engineer human systems to encourage it?

Theories like Interaction Loops or Emotion Engineering integrate narrative and mechanics. In the process of banging our heads against building great interactive experiences, we’ve been forced to break down ‘narrative’ and ‘mechanics’ into atomic chunks and see how they fit in practice. Let’s discuss the rich synthesis of story, world building and mechanical techniques that thrives in interactive systems.

Recommendation: Consider how narrative emerges from existing mechanics. And consider how theme illuminates mechanics by activating existing mental schema. We need holistic, integrated models. Ignore antagonistic dichotomies.

#3 Randomness vs Skill

There’s been a sad resurgence of this 80’s wargamer rant. Randomness is obsessively derided as less masterful or strategic relative to pure skill games.

Why this discussion is exhausted

Randomness is just another design tool. Used with skill, it yields some amazing games. As a society, we’ve time and time again demonstrated our love for wonderful games like Civilization, MMOs, match-3 and cards games of all forms. From puzzle games to strategy games, randomness is here to stay and for good reasons.

Random systems are rife with mastery. ‘Randomness’ can provide strong elements of mastery, in terms of learning distributions, managing options and adapting to new situations. Even slot machines are engineered for mastery (via near miss distributions). In game design, all dice are loaded.

Games involve loops. Random outputs almost never occurs in isolation, but are part of an internal game economy. Randomness is often an essential tool for creating strategic variation and context.

There are different, equally valid playstyles. Not everyone is a rigidly intellectual young man who desires only mental-skill games that let them dominate others. Some play to relax, some to socialize, some for physical mastery, some to feel part of a shared purpose. Randomness can be a beneficial tool when designing for these players.

Alternate discussions

What games use randomness in interesting ways?

How does your game use randomness as skill?

How does randomness map onto noise?

What are other noise generators? Complexity noise, social noise, feedback noise, etc.

How do we make people better through play?

Recommendation: Practice using randomness where appropriate. Explore the space. Make a game with randomness that is about mastery. If you happen to be someone that values intellectual rigor over chance, make a game for someone other than yourself. Stretch your humanity.

#4 Realism

Past futurists sold a vision where games must inevitably become indistinguishable from reality. We marketed the hell out of that vision to the point it became dogma. You bought a new console, a new video card, a new computer to creep ever closer to the dream. You argued for 1080p as a paladin fighting for the glorious Holodeckian cause.

Why this discussion is exhausted

Realism in graphics or simulations no longer is a dominant goal for most game developers. In practice, it turned out it wasn’t really an essential feature for a successful games. In our far future era, you can snub realism and still make a billion dollars with a game like Minecraft or Puzzle & Dragons.

Realism has niche appeal. It is an aesthetic choice that tends to appeal to a singular sub-culture that we’ve trained with our decades of marketing. Cartoons, text and other stylized forms of representation are also appealing.

Realism can be an unnecessary expense. We sometimes wholesale replicate reality when we don’t know what specific stimuli actually appeals to players. It is sort of a shotgun approach that wastes vast amount of effort to hopefully make something interesting. A substantial portion of the exponential escalating cost of game development can be attributed directly to the pursuit of realism.

Simulation adds design risk: Many simulations are complex and difficult to manipulate. They also are not inherently emotionally satisfying. Insisting on mechanical realism while simultaneously trying to make a fun game tends to yield failed game designs.

Games are also endogenous systems of value. They are like little self contained baubles of math that set up interesting internal relationships. A game like Tetris has immensely value independent of references to the real world.

When players ask for realism, they often aren’t asking for realism. The desire for realism is often best understood in terms of how players learn and apply existing mental schema to new system. A request for realism could be: A new player asking for a metaphor that helps them understand an abstract system. Or it could be an advanced player pointing out unnecessary edge cases. Both these have solutions outside belabored realism.

Alternative discussions to have instead

What is the right art style for your audience?

What are the trade offs between art style, production concerns and budget?

What sort of math or systems are interesting independent of their appearance in the real world?

How do we make game-like, cartoon-like, info rich, surreal virtual reality games?

Recommendation: Ask what utilitarian feedback your game truly needs. Invest your art resources making those elements amazing. Ask what level of modeling a system needs to create rich gameplay. Invest your design resources to create a tiny rule set with deep emergence. Be smart. Be frugal. When someone demands realism, try to figure out what they really want.

#5 Casual vs Hardcore

There’s a set of cultural stereotypes that casual players act one way while hardcore players act another. A surprising number of design decisions are made based off these stereotypes.

Why this discussion is exhausted

The casual and hardcore stereotypes suffer from the problems typical of stereotypes. They are gross simplifications that yield the incorrect design decisions.

Many of the stereotypes are simply wrong: The longest average playtimes? Not console or PC. Handheld games, particularly those ‘kiddy’ Nintendo titles dominate session length. Regular daily play happens more often on smartphones and tablets than it does on consoles. When I look at data, there are very few ‘casual’ or ‘hardcore’ stereotypes that hold true. And when they do there are massive exceptions.

The variation within a specific game is huge: You’ve got a half dozen or more distinct playstyles within almost any game of reasonable complexity. Each game is a vast city with many different people living within it. Mere averages tell you very little about how to improve the state of your game.

The market is shifting: Service-based games are driving for improved retention by doubling down on play. Women are playing more. Console owners are aging and slowing down. A lot of the old lessons about demographics and play styles have shifted. And they’ll continue to change in the future.

I see ‘casual’ or ‘hardcore’ as poisoned tribal labels like ‘gamer’ or ‘skinner box’. Mostly they are just weaponized stereotypes, deployed to enforce perceived group boundaries. They have little productive place in a modern design (or marketing) discussion.

Alternative discussions to have instead

How do you break out of thinking in cheap stereotypes in order to gain an advantage over the dinosaurs that don’t see the market has it truly exists?

How do different groups unique to your game behave? (Hint: We can get the data!)

What motivates the groups unique to your game?

How do you include diverse hooks to appeal to multiple passionate audiences?

How do you make a targeted niche game using iteration with a live community?

I personally tend to make games that look ‘casual’, but consistently melt the brains of self identified ‘hardcore’ players trained on endless tutorials, cut scenes and QTEs. Some of the best players are smart 30-40-year old women that have the intense mental stamina for activities like logic, planning and creative thinking. They thrive on hard games. My market doesn’t even exist if you see the world through a ‘casual / hardcore’ lens. Yet there it is, merrily enjoying games amidst the vast diversity of this planet’s billion odd players.

Recommendation: No one really makes ‘hardcore’ or ‘casual’ games. At best, we use existing markets, tribes and distribution channels to get a tentative foothold in a player’s psyche. But then it gets complicated. Embrace the complexity of your players. Learn who they actually are. Create elegant solutions that serve your many types of players.

Thoughts for 2015

If you happen to find yourself facing these 5 topics: Turn away. Our creative lives are limited. Pour your time into something productive.

Teachers that spread these memes: Consider teaching modern game design tools. Cull disproved dogma.

Academics that expound on these ideas: Stop naive theory crafting and start referencing nuanced data from working designers.

Game design students that gnaw at these bones: Arguing ancient talking points in comment sections gets you nowhere in life. Make games instead. Base your design conversations around your hands-on experiments. You’ll learn more, faster.

Goodness knows that conversations on depleted design ideas will not end. Players and their innumerable derivatives (fan press, forum warriors, cultural critics, etc) continue talking about these topics. Some talk for entertainment. Some for status. Some for business. Some talk about their game experiences in order to process them mentally and emotionally. For many of these purposes, simplistic polarizing hooks are more enticing than deep comprehension.

So these inane design views become practically tradition, or at least common hazing rituals. Like yelling at televised football games. Or laughing at trucknuts. Sure, players aren’t having a productive craft conversation, but they shouldn’t be judged by the same rubric. Consider their chatter a cultural performance.

As for game designers, you have a different role to fill. Recognize when you are accidentally acting like a uninformed player or student. Instead of getting caught up in the babble of ill-informed internet backwash, try talking directly with other working designers. Build tools and knowledge together.(source:gamasutra)