篇目1，作者：Charmie Kim

在游戏设计领域，每个设计师都有一些自己的设计方法论，在此我想分享一些自己的心得，以助开发者理解并评估自己的设计问题。

当我还是温哥华的一名游戏设计学生时，有个导师提到了一种设计工具，我在之后的游戏设计生涯中一直使用这个强大的工具来评估自己的设计。而这个工具却是一个简单的图表，我将它称为“核心图表”：

在这个模型中，核心机制位于最中心地位，它就是游戏的核心。而其他机制则围绕这一核心层层相裹，处于最外层的就是故事层。

理论型设计师喜欢定义文字，我也不例外。我将“机制”定义为促进交互的系统，而“交互”则是玩家与游戏之间的对话。“机制”与“交互”并不足单独描述游戏本质，因为游戏是一种由这些内容相结合并作用于玩家大脑和环境而产生的体验。但在我们发明出一种能够直接将体验从一个大脑传递到另一个大脑的神经技术之前，我们设计师唯一能控制的恐怕就只是游戏机制而已。这些机制之间的关系好比是颜料和画笔，钉子和锤子。

但究竟何为“核心”游戏机制？我想最简单的理解方法就是根据它的发生频繁来判断：

*核心机制就是在游戏中最频繁发生、有意识的交互行为。例如在平台游戏中，核心机制就是跳跃；在射击游戏中，核心机制就是射击；在赛车游戏中，核心机制就是驾驶。另一个判断方法就是，若游戏缺了某个元素就无法运行，则该元素即为核心机制。

*次级机制是指发生频率较少的交互行为。它们之间甚至还可以再划分为发生频繁更高和更低的不同层次。

*进展系统组成了游戏的机制包层，它是游戏系统整体上的变化来源。

*故事层是处于最外面的层次 ，它将所有内层囊括其中。

玩法和创新

现在你已经理解了这个模型的含义，能不能据此判断出以下核心图表分别代表哪款游戏？

答案：

A：《超级马里奥》

B：《传送门》

C：《Flower》

D：奇幻类RPG

从这些例子中我们可以观察到一些现象：

*最出色的游戏通常都有一个强大而易于理解的核心机制，但也具有一定扩展空间。而假如这个机制本身就非常强大也仍然有助于游戏获得成功——这可以解释为何射击会成为一种极受欢迎的核心机制。

*最有效的游戏一般都会体现出各个层次互补的特点。你可以通过查看各个层次的相互影响来测试不同层次间的关系。例如，“为了铲除敌人，我得跳跃，而为了通过关卡获得进展，我必须铲除敌人”。如果你的游戏层次缺乏这种向外的召唤关系，以及对内的前后关系，那你可能就需要重新审视自己的设计问题了。

*真正的新鲜体验一般来自游戏核心的创新。例如，《Flower》至今仍是我最难忘的游戏体验，因为其他游戏从未像这样令我犹如置身云端飞翔。它的核心机制非常与众不同，并且极为出色。

*有时候创新也会来自不同层次间非同寻常的组合方式。例如，射击这种核心机制一般并不会与解谜元素融合在一起，但《传送门》做到了，并且将其发挥得淋漓尽致。

*有些机制可以组合成不朽的经典。例如D类游戏。这好比是经典法国菜肴，品尝起来很棒，但却很难烹制。

社交及手机游戏

我从去年开始以这个视角观察社交和手机游戏，现在再来猜猜以下两个图表是什么游戏：

A：《愤怒的小鸟》

B：《CityVille》

从中观察所得的结果如下：

*因新平台和用户而产生的最大设计变化通常来源于核心和故事层。例如在《愤怒的小鸟》中，清除小猪相当于清除《超级马里奥》中的蘑菇，并且其进程设计也基本上离不开完成或解琐机制。对我来说，有意思的现象是这里的“核心”变化多与界面或平台（游戏邦注：例如触屏界面）有关，而“故事”变化 则与游戏瞄准的玩家群体有关。

*《愤怒的小鸟》是一款设计笨拙的游戏。它将弹射与清除小猪联系起来，但并非一种直接关第，有时候甚至让人感觉有点牵强。而将弹射与完成关卡联系起来就更怪了。你是否曾在玩这款游戏时也有这种奇怪之感，即你错过一只小猪后却还是要不停地反复尝试要击中它？这种感觉令人尴尬，并且一点都不有趣。上述图表中没有纳入的元素就是积分系统，因为它和其他层次的融合度并不高。清除小猪可以让你获得分数，但你玩游戏就是要清除小猪，所以这个系统就显得有点多余，而要完成关卡却需要积分，这种设置就显得极具强迫性了。对于《愤怒的小鸟》为何如此强大，相信每个游戏设计师都有自己的见解，但我认为这个图表已能够证明这款游戏设计很不妥。

*我并没有针对所有的Zynga游戏制作核心图表，但我认为几乎每款Zynga游戏的虚拟世界（除了以Indiana Jones为主题的那款游戏，以及寻物解谜游戏之外）都有三个相同的内层——搜集/收割，买东西，解琐内容。看起来Zynga成员似乎知道这三个内层的妙处，并且希望一直挖掘同样的设计。

我还没有研究这种模型为何会适用于社交/多人游戏，而这也并非本文要探讨的话题。但我认为真正的社交游戏的各个层面至少都需要至少2名玩家参与互动。假如要我把Zynga游戏设计得更有社交性，我可能会将搜集设置为与好友一起参与的活动（Zynga游戏已经实现这一点），将购买建筑的行为也同好友相绑定（例如，我买了个服装设计工作室，那么好友就买一个时装精品店，我可以向好友的店面提供服装，我们可以一起进行利润分成）。为何《魔兽世界》这种MMO游戏会如此强大？因为他们采用了典型的RPG模式，并且在每个步骤中都巧用了社交动态元素。

策略游戏

我发现在其他游戏的核心机制中，优秀的平台游戏设计师可能会将注意力集中于音个跳跃物理机制中，这样即使没有次级机制或进展元素，这个核心活动也仍会富有生气。但并非每个核心机制都需要拥有如此紧凑的单个循环。例如在策略游戏的核心机制通常是“单位布局”。严格来讲，在策略游戏中移动物体并没有什么天然乐趣，但如果将其视为一项大脑活动，就会理解其核心机制究竟有何意义和深度，策略游戏为何如此好玩。要知道策略游戏中的核心机制一般也更复杂，并融入了多种不同的反馈循环。换句话说，这种游戏的核心交互过程需要处理更多信息。

模式转换

在此我得先声明：并非所有游戏都适合我采用的这个模型，有许多成功游戏可能会进行模式转换，即从一个核心图表转变为另一个图表。我认为这种方式也会非常有效，假如一个机制更紧凑，而另一个机制更轻松，那么这种模式转换就可以发挥协调作用。这方面的典型例子就是《质量效应》。

希望这个工具能够对你有所启发，因为它对我来说真的很有帮助。你也可以试着为自己最喜欢的游戏绘制出核心图表，从中分析出有价值的参考信息。

篇目2，设计师应注意的游戏机制与节奏问题

假设你正在制作一款游戏。已经挨块创建了地图，为角色命名，编写了史诗般的故事，为武器和盔甲写好了程序。也制作了战斗动画，精心策划了过场动画。平衡了战斗，为角色分配状态，创造挑战。

你想“这游戏真完美！”。在你看来，它确实完美。它已经具备了你认为RPG应该拥有的一切。

但它可能并不像你自己想得那么完美。也许人们并不喜欢战斗。也许他们认为游戏中的战斗无聊而乏味。

你告诉自己“他们都是笨蛋！这款游戏很有挑战性，他们不喜欢太困难的东西！”

但这很可能并非真正原因。极可能是因为你的战斗，并且很可能你的整款游戏都乱了步调。

现在我就来告诉你这是为什么，以及你该如何避免这种情况。

故事衔接要紧凑

我推崇使用游戏机制来讲故事的技巧。将机制与故事整合，可以让玩家觉得与故事更为亲近。这并不仅仅是发生于屏幕角色身上的事情。玩家处于场景之中，这些就是发生在他们身上的事情。

这并不是你可以有所选择地施加的结果，无论你想不想要，都会发生这些事情。所有的因素都会影响玩家如何到达场景或者与该场景互动。这意味着你开发游戏过程中可能从来没有考虑过的因素，正在影响着玩家如何吸收游戏故事信息的方式。

你需要考虑一切向向玩家传递信息的东西，以及他们获取信息的方式。有些可能是很明显的事物，例如字体大小，文本速度、玩家角色的行走速度，游戏颜色方案以及其他图像选择。但这些只是表面元素。而像地下城长度、遭遇战的难度等其他层面，却有可能在不经意间打断游戏故事。

在此我要讨论的是游戏的流状态，即游戏故事如何衔接在一起的过程。想想人们说故事的方式。如果有人很擅长讲故事，他们就会呈现所有你需要的重要信息，不会涉及那些无意义的信息。而不擅长讲故事的人可能就会语无伦次，甚至忘了提起一些事情，或者以毫无逻辑的方式将场景拼凑起来。这是一个糟糕的流状态。

游戏故事的流状态必须富有意义和逻辑性。其中有些是很明显的，例如场景富有逻辑地彼此相连。实际上还存在一种所谓的模块化叙事写作风格，它并不遵从连贯的故事，而是由那些在更大的视角中有可能或不可能拼凑在一起、能够自成一体的小片断组成的。但你必须有一些相当严肃的体裁判断条件来避免这类情况。如果你的故事是起伏不断并杂乱无章的，那就很可能会令玩家困惑或激怒他们。

也许你会说，“我以为我们应该讨论游戏机制而不是故事！”

现在我准备说说机制的问题。

游戏难度设置

我知道你是那种重视玩法的人，不是吗？你可能认为整款游戏中每个敌人都必须经过统计而精心制造，并且能够为你的英雄提供富有挑战性而合理的战斗。这确实很好。你想在游戏中的许多地方为英雄添加富有挑战性、设计精良的对手，但也并不想在所有地方都如此设计。

你认为战斗是游戏故事的一部分吗？当然！我们可以知道自己在起始村庄外杀死每只硕鼠和飞翔的意面怪物，并卷走现金购买到心仪的长剑对于游戏故事来说并不重要。这类怪物只是游戏中的障碍，它们就是玩家的战斗对象，并使用自己的武器变得更强大。我们知道与两只兔子和一个生活中世纪的忍者展开战斗的中途过程中，并不会出现什么重大的事件。

但你并不能像那样对待所有敌人。有些敌人是你的部分故事情节，如果植入方式很糟糕，它们就可能破坏故事情节乃至整款游戏。让我们看以下例子。

邪恶男爵掳走了英雄童年时的至爱Damsela，并强迫她嫁给自己。我们的英雄Heroy决定痛打男爵，并救回自己心爱之人。当他们闯进教堂高喊“我愿意”，甚至都没有想过牧师并没有问有没有人反对时，他们显得很愚蠢，但这并不重要。男爵派士兵去阻止Heroy破坏自己的婚礼！这些士兵分别来了三拔人马，英雄必须将他们全部收拾干净后才有机会亲自见到男爵，而男爵此时正在秘密地磨炼一项邪恶的技艺，打算以击杀掉这个讨厌的英雄。

那么，在此情况中以下哪一幕场景更为引人入胜？

A：Heroy与士兵交战。每个士兵都是富有挑战性的对手，都需要大量的攻击点数才能毙命。这些战斗来来去去不下十个回合，Heroy逐渐扫清了每个士兵，在此过程中可能还会被迫进行数次疗伤。他在对付这三拔人马时会重复多次遇到这一情况，而邪恶男爵则是一个极具挑战性的boss，他可能以自己的秘密技能杀死Heroy，迫使英雄重新载入游戏并重复之前的整个序列。

B.Heroy几招就把这些士兵全部收拾了。每场战斗都很快结速了，这让Heroy得以加快拯救爱人的步伐。这些士兵根本无力阻止Heroy。邪恶男爵要与Heroy决斗，但他的秘密技能根本奈何不了Heroy，所以Heroy轻松地救回了爱人。

场景B可能在故事情节上更有吸引力，尽管这一幕场景中的敌人简直是胆小鬼。为什么？因为战斗中的实际行动并非这幕场景中的关键。这个场景中的要点就是Heroy拯救了Damsela。如果Heroy与每个士兵交手都要花费5分钟时间，这就会破坏情景的流状态。谁会在乎这些士兵的实力呢？Heroy正处于盛怒之中，他们挡了英雄的路。将他们一网打尽才抓住了要点。这也正是游戏故事的需要，也就是让每个士兵都成为英雄的训练靶子。延长杀死每个士兵的时间将会令玩家在更大游戏情境中分心。如果Heroy实际上输掉了任何一场战斗，游戏体验就会遭到破坏，当他们无奈叹气并重新载入游戏时，这一幕就失去了同样的影响力。

那么男爵呢？当然，他必须是一个重量级的对手！你看，你并不希望玩家在这种序列中输掉。这是过场动画/动作序列的中间环节，如果玩家死在这里，他的一切就得重来了。这当然不是你希望的结果。将一个超级困难的boss置于脚本序列的尾声通常是个糟糕的设计。

那么我们应该如何设计男爵这个坏蛋，但又不让玩家输给他呢？男爵有一项之前提到的“秘密必杀技”。如果这一举动确有杀死玩家的极大风险，那就太糟糕了。除非玩家是彻头彻尾的笨蛋，否则就不应该让他们在这种情况下挂掉。那么我们该怎么做呢？

1.邪恶男爵发来了他的威胁通告。“我将以超级邪恶的技能将你干掉！”这样玩家就知道即将有人来攻击了，并且可以做好预防措施。

2.该超级邪恶的技能并不会致命。它可能会令Heroy的命值降为1。

这两种情况都不错，因为它们创造了紧张感，以及实际上并未将玩家置于危险境地的危险幻觉中。在第一种情况中，玩家会警惕。在第二种情况下，他会治愈自己。如果他什么都不做，那就活该受死了。

使用这些技巧，我们就可以用游戏机制来增强游戏故事，而无需打断游戏的流状态。

你可能又会问，“敌人应该设计得富得挑战性！不然玩家为什么要玩这愚蠢的游戏？”

对此我只能说，这是你的问题了。

为游戏增加多样性

设置脆弱敌人的原因多种多样。也许并非所有的敌人都应该如此。但为你的敌人设置多种难度却是件好事。其中一个原因就在于节奏。

玩家可能并不希望每次进入战场都像经历炼狱一般。有时候他们只想向敌群抛下自己的一个强大的符咒，然后看他们全部倒下身亡。或者他们在等待战斗结束的过程中并不想花5分钟时间来收拾这些坏蛋。有时候他们就是想成为蓝博（游戏邦注：电影《第一滴血》男主角）一招就摆平一切。有时候让玩家体验一下这种感觉也无妨。

这背后存在一种心理效应。如果游戏中的每个人敌人的强度进展都与玩家一样，那么玩家进入不同区域时并不会觉得有太大不同。玩家就不会觉得自己正在进步。这可能造成玩家的受挫感。令遭遇战呈现多样化特点不但可以打破单调性，还可以让玩家在偶然遇到一些轻易就能打败的敌人时获得一种进步感，而不是认为所有敌人都具有相同的强度和挑战性。你可以采用多种方法散布遭遇战以及调整其节奏。每个区域可能都有一打不堪一击的弱小敌人，也有一群属于中度挑战性的敌人。也可能有单个极为强大的敌人。聪明的设计师可以混合这些怪物创造有趣的遭遇战。

多样化游戏遭遇战的难度，不但可以照顾玩家的情绪，也可以造福故事情节的发展。让我们回到Heroy的例子中。假设Heroy是在一个深山老林的村子中长大，他在该地就是恶名远扬的坏蛋。这个恶名就以令国王雇佣他来执行某些任务，并以此展开故事。

Heroy向城堡出发，一路斩杀怪物。如果这些怪物都特别难招架，那我真怀疑Heroy究竟凭什么实力获得国王的注意？他甚至都对付不了老鼠！如果Heroy轻易拾掇掉了家乡周围的敌人，这才像个英雄。他已经吃透了这个地区野生动物的习性，是时候走向更大的世界挑战更大的威胁了。你有大把时间来提升游戏难度。不要觉得你得平衡每一场遭遇战，你有什么理由让一切战斗都如此困难呢？

所以，你要在哪设置困难？你可以在地下城布置挑战性、深思熟虑的遭遇战（但不要在首个地下城教程中如此设计）。这个地方很容易给予玩家一种精通之感。如果他们走出地下城教程后杀掉了一切敌人，他们就会觉得不知道自己究竟在干什么。

当玩家玩够游戏获得了足够的玩法，知道哪种技巧管用，哪项道具强大，有机会获得自己的装备，认清自己一方的实力和弱点时，你就该在地下城中多设置几场恶战了。玩家走进地下城时就预料到有敌人和boss出没，你可以心情发挥，适时抛出一些声音。玩家会欣赏你这种做法，因为这给予他们在被收拾前进行设想的机会，他们会更自信地面对这些新挑战。不要在玩家刚出门时就展开攻击。让玩家在游戏头20分钟就阵亡的做法只会令他们望而却步。

不要浪费我的时间

这是一条黄金法则。这是重要的设计格言。你应该认真考虑这一点。

不要浪费玩家的时间。基于刷任务、重复性RPG和MMO的发展史已经令游戏浪费玩家时间成为可被接受的理念。我不想浪费自己的时间。你的游戏不应该浪费我的时间。

你每次在游戏中做出任何决定，无论是增加一场战役或一个谜题，或者让玩家返回原路时，就要自问：这会丰富游戏内容，还是说只是在浪费玩家时间？如果答案是后者，你可能就得调整一下序列。你的游戏及其节奏、流状态可能也会更好。

但这还不够！所有只会浪费玩家时间的愚蠢想法在游戏开发过程中都带有“个性化的选择”这种伪装。以下就是其中某些例子，以及你为何要禁用这些方法的原因：

1.缓慢的文本速度

如果有人说这是一个好想法，我真的不敢苛同。在字里行间，人为地插入对话停顿甚至也成了一种可被接受的行为。

我们有些人阅读速度很快。这种做法无异于惩罚阅读速度很快的人。如果你想打断对话，那就要更努力一点，以有点意义的内容而非空洞的停顿来插入对话。即使是让角色在说话的时候四处转转也比这个更强！

2.缓慢的行走速度

这是一个大问题。人们喜欢加入一些缓慢的行走速度，以便增强游戏背景、氛围、基调。“他们在此应该缓慢行走，这样他们才能欣赏到我所创建的这个地图中的一切内容！”不，如果我觉得自己想欣赏你严密的光照图，我可以根据自己的喜好花点时间走完地图。你迫使我这么做等于是将自己的意志强加于玩家身上。如果地图很小，设计足够精良，那么你就可以采用缓慢的行走速度，但如果我有大量需要穿越的空间，那么我敢保证人们首先注意并抱怨的就是行走速度过慢的问题。

也许你会说“但缓慢的行走速度是一个合理的工具。”

没错，如果使用得当，缓慢的行走速度可以作为叙事工具。但可能并不是出于你所认为的原因。缓慢行走速度的主要用途应该是创造特定场景中的紧张感。比如女主角独自在小黑屋里，而屋里正好有个杀手！缓慢的行走速度此时就是增加紧张感的一个绝佳选项。但在每个地图上都使用这一做法，那就不仅仅是惹人烦了，它还会令这种合理用途失效。

3.无意义的回溯法

这是填补游戏时间的另一个常见做法，即让玩家反复穿越同个地点。如果你看让玩家原路返回，至少要为玩家增加一点新鲜元素。这一路上会发生什么新事件吗？玩家的能力是否足以应对新出现的走廊或发现新宝藏？现在是否存在能够开启的捷径？回溯法是你调戏玩家预期的一个机会！单纯地迫使玩家无意义地重玩游戏真是太无聊了。

4.过于“随机”的机会

这一传统的存在历史几乎与角色扮演游戏一样悠久了。这通常是一种填补游戏时间的简便方法。MMO游戏中就不乏这种设置。收集20个道具来完成这一任务。这一道具却只存在于某人物身上，而这一人物在特定区域的出现概率仅为1/20。此外，这一人物掉落这种道具的概率只有30%！这样你就是在浪费玩家3个小时的时间了。他们每次找到一件道具，就会觉得自己取得了进步！但事实并非如此，你只是以这种小伎俩迫使他们产生这种感觉。你太邪恶了。

单人游戏也会出现这种情况。你执行某一任务都有X%的获胜概率，例如制作药水、摧毁陷阱或者是开启门锁。你会说“做这种事只是在浪费我的时间。”如果迫使玩家因为在概率事件上的失败而去打战或完成其他任务，那就真是在浪费他们的时间了。

你可能又会说，“随机的机会是RPG游戏20多年来的一个惯例。你居然认为这很糟糕！”

人们曾认为奴隶制是个好主意。之后又觉得它很糟糕是错误做法，并废止了这一制度。人们能够意识到自己过去认为正确的东西实际上是完全错误的，并继续前行。这就是所谓的“进步”。认为某物应该保留，只是因为它过去一向如此，这真是最糟糕的辩论结构。因为你并没有什么具有说服力的逻辑或原因。

给予玩家明确的游戏目的

是否曾遇到过在游戏中漫无目的地行走，却不知道自己该干什么？这可能发生了两种情况：

1.设计师没有告诉你该做什么

2.设计师认为让你四处游荡，自己想想要做什么是个好主意

但事实并非如此！

设计师应该告诉玩家该往哪里走才能到达下一个节点！如果玩家尽力了，却还是没想出来，那也不是他们的错，而是设计师的失职。要让你的玩家知道他们该走向何处，该做什么，该去杀谁。玩家在游戏中游荡的时候很无趣，不知道自己该干什么的感觉非常糟糕，你应该做些有意义的行为最小化这一情况。

我曾看到许多开发者认为理解游戏是玩家的责任，而实际上他们所存在的问题就是玩家并不理解作者的意图。但理解设计师的理念并非玩家的职责，向玩家明确作者意图和想法却是设计师的职责。如果玩家无法理解，那他们可能就不会喜欢游戏，那你除了自责就无法归咎于他人了。

人们不喜欢你的游戏有多种原因。但极大可能是你的机制或故事破坏了游戏。你可能从未想过是节奏的问题。我希望现在你能够意识到你的游戏设计箱中最重要的工具是什么。

篇目3，游戏设计4要素：机制、故事、美学、技术

作者：Farshid

游戏设计是一个非常重要且关键的问题，但是我却找不到一个统一且具体的答案能够准确地回答这个问题。

在我去寻找这个问题的答案之前，我一直在研究一个较为哲学的问题。诸如“如果开发了一款游戏但是却没人愿意玩它，那这还像话么？”等等。但是显然，这并不是我真正想要了解的问题，好吧，我的朋友们，其实我的问题真的很简单，我只是想要知道，什么是游戏？

“一款游戏是如何炼成的？”

以下是我的答案。

构成游戏的4大要素

在这里你需要记住，在游戏设计中这4大因素是同等重要的，而我所罗列出的列表并未强调哪个因素优于其它因素，只有当所有因素相互影响、相互作用时才能为玩家创造出最棒的游戏体验。

机制

机制是游戏的规则所在；是玩家必须克服的游戏挑战；是他们在完成游戏目标时必须遵守的步骤；是他们在游戏过程中将会获得的成就。当玩家完成了一个目标后会怎样？当玩家努力玩游戏但却还是失败后会怎样？正是因为机制的存在才能让游戏有别于其它娱乐形式。

举个例子来说，书籍和电影也具备各种娱乐因素，但是它们却不存在机制。因此，是机制造就了游戏。

当你选择了一套机制作为你的主要游戏设置，你将同时需要选择一些能够维持这些机制的技术，美学能够更好地强调它们并将其呈现在玩家面前，而故事能让这些游戏机制更加有意义（游戏邦注：这是Jesse Schell曾发表的看法）。

故事

故事并不要求太多的解释，我们都知道如何去定义故事。故事揭露了事件，角色和玩家，但是最重要的是，如何才能更好地组织这些因素？你作为一名游戏设计者，必须选择适当的游戏机制以更好地帮你讲故事。你可以通过美学赋予你的故事生气，并用你自己想要表达的方式去呈现这个故事。理想上，你可以采用一些特殊的技巧，即用一些适当的道具去武装自己，从而更好地描述自己的故事。

美学

我认为美学是最重要的一方面，因为它直接关系到玩家的游戏体验，而创造这种体验总是需要耗费你很多精力。美学能帮助你更好地传达游戏理念，任何依附于感官的东西都是美学所创造出来的。你需要为游戏确定一个基调，从而更好地强调游戏故事，并帮助玩家更深入地融合到游戏中去。

想象一下模拟游戏，如《模拟人生》或者第一人称射击游戏，如《使命召唤》，它们有何不同？他们从外观，声音甚至是感觉都完全不同。

所有的美学都在按照自己的方式帮助设计者创造出最棒的游戏体验。而更多独特且有趣的体验能够帮助游戏诞生出更多更棒的续集作品。

最后，你需要运用一些技术帮助你使用一些有益的工具，从而创造出这种美学。

技术

说到技术，我并不是指Playstation 3或者任天堂DS，而是那些能够帮助你创造出上述所有因素的工具。这些技术必须能够创造美学，设置机制，并能够充当讲故事的媒介。这种技术可以是非常简单的铅笔或白纸，也可以是一整套的模具，它可以是一个控制杆，一台iPhone或者其它尚未被发明出来的技术等。（例如，《太空入侵者》设计者就创造了自己的开发技术，在此之前，市面上还没有专门开发此类游戏的工具）

篇目4，总结现代电子游戏设计的50大创新理念

作者：Ernest Adams

从游戏玩法到游戏描述再到输入设备，电子游戏都可以称得上是孕育着创新理念的温床。我记录下了50种游戏设计创新理念，这些有的已经发挥作用了，而剩下的也必将在不久的未来大放异彩。

50年前，William Higinbotham创造了第一款基于示波器以及模拟电路的电子游戏。从那时开始，游戏便发生了巨大的变化，甚至是今天的AAA级游戏巨作也应该将自己的成功归功于早前的设计创新。我将在这篇文章中列举出50条我认为非常重要，或者将在不久后的某一天得到证实的游戏设计理念。这些理念中的很多方面都是早前游戏形式不断完善并增强的产物，就像体育，赛车以及射击等游戏也就是过去的露天比赛以及投币游戏的升级。而其它类型，如回合制策略游戏，逻辑智力游戏，角色扮演游戏等也都是从桌面游戏上慢慢发展而来。我们通过不同的方法去完善早前的游戏，而电脑也帮助我们能够创造出更多新类型的游戏，这也是其它媒体不能做到的。

不幸的是，我们经常会忽略掉那些游戏设计理念真正的创新者，反倒是那些运用了这些创新理念的游戏获得了这项殊荣。举个例子来说，大多数人只记得游戏《Pong》，但却不知道Ralph Baer（游戏邦注：电玩游戏之父）针对于奥德赛（游戏邦注：Magnavox Odyssey，全球第一款电子游戏机）创造的非电脑设计理念，尽管Baer的作品最先问世。为了纠正这种趋势，我将同时列出各个理念的最早提出者（如果能找到的话）以及早期最出名的创新典例（游戏邦注：作者并不能保证所有观点都是对的，但欢迎他人为其纠错）。

游戏玩法创新

我这里所说的游戏设置是指游戏提供给玩家的挑战，以及玩家为了应对这些挑战所采取的行动。绝大部分的行动都是很明显，如跳跃，驾驶，打斗，建造，贸易等等。但是也有一些挑战和行动比目前的游戏水平更先进，也为我们的游戏提供了一种全新的玩法。

1.探索

早前的电脑游戏并未提供给玩家探索机制。很多游戏只是在一个特定的位置安插一些模拟器，或者只是在较小的空间范围里提供一定的运动（如1972年的《Hunt the Wumpus》）。我们最后借鉴了桌面角色扮演游戏中的探索机制，并利用它们而创造出一些华丽大作，如《生化奇兵》等。真正的探索机制能够让你在进入一个不熟悉的地方时感到一种新奇感，并且你能够根据周边环境而做出一定的选择。这是与战斗完全不一样的挑战，能够吸引那些来自于现实世界的玩家们的注意。首次使用这个理念的游戏是《Colossal Cave》亦称作《Adventure》，发行于1975年。

2.讲故事

比起电子游戏的其它设计机制，讲故事更加备受争议，甚至有人还牵扯上了游戏保存的问题。我们是否应该这么做，或者我们应该怎么做？讲故事意味着什么？是否对游戏有所帮助？等等。

结果：并不是每一款游戏都需要故事，但是我们却不能不忽视它的存在。如果缺少故事，游戏将只能是一种抽象的存在，虽然能够吸引玩家的注意，但是这种吸引力却不再长久。我们经常认为首次使用讲故事机制的游戏是《Colossal Cave》，但是说实在的，这款游戏中并不存在着情节，而只是围绕着探索财宝展开。所以我认为首次使用讲故事理念的游戏是《Akalabeth》（游戏邦注：后来正式命名为《创世纪》，是该系列游戏的先驱之作），或者《Mystery House》，这两款游戏都发行于1980年。

3.秘密行动

事实上，绝大部分动作类游戏都是关于武力。甚至是当你面对的是一群力量强大的敌人时，你的唯一选择便是避开他们的绝招，想办法逃离他们或者找出他们最致命的弱点。秘密行动的游戏理念是指玩家必须想办法让敌人找不到他们，而这与《Rambo》这种硬碰硬的游戏类型完全不同。早前最有名的例子：1998年发行的《Thief: The Dark Project》。首次使用：不详。

4.拥有独立个性的游戏角色

如果你对早期游戏年代并不熟悉，那么你必会对此感到惊讶。最初的探险类游戏以及其它电脑游戏都为玩家呈现了一个不一样的游戏世界，即在此，游戏角色不再只是你的代表物，而是真正的你。结果，游戏不再为你拟定年龄，性别以及社交地位等内容，因为使用这些虚拟的内容与游戏中的非玩家控制角色进行交流着实无聊透顶。早期的电子游戏经常只会出现一些车（如《Asteroids》，《太空入侵者》），甚至没有任何游戏角色（如《Pong》或者《夜之车手》）。拥有独立个性的游戏角色要求玩家必须证明自己有别于他人的特点，但是他们经常会随着游戏的进行而慢慢壮大发展。早前最有名的例子：《吃豆人》，发行于1980年（如果说是个性的话，那么发行于1981年的《大金刚》中的Jumpman，亦称为Mario也属于这种类型）。首次这种理念的可能是欧美游戏公司Midway在1975年发行的投币游戏的《枪战》。

5.领导权

在绝大多数党派争斗类角色扮演游戏以及射击类游戏，如《Ghost Recon》中，玩家可以单独控制一些游戏角色，但是却并未拥有领导权。关于领导权的真正挑战取决于其他玩家对你的违抗，特别是当你不得不接管一个团队，而毫无反抗能力之时。你可以通过你所控制团队成员完成任务的情况去判断他们的优劣，而判断他们的特性和能力则成为你需要掌握的一个必要技巧。一个较为鲜为人知，但是却真正典型的例子是1999年的《龙城之王》。而早前较为有名的例子便是1996年的《近距离作战》。首次使用：不详。

6.交际手段

对于电脑游戏来说这并不是一个特别新的理念，桌面游戏《强权外交》早在1959年便问世了。对于电脑来说，其面对的最大问题便是如何制作出最适合的AI，而如今我们也开始慢慢掌握这种方法了。拥有领导权的玩家便能够使用交际手段去判断其他角色，而非算计着如何对他们发动进攻。早前最出名的例子：1991年的《文明》。可能的首次使用：1986年的《Balance of Power》。

7.Mod支持（通过修改游戏代码来改变游戏的相关设置）

Mod是一种与角色扮演游戏一样具有创造性的玩法。早前的游戏并不具备可修改性，它们都属于开源内容，它们的源代码都会被刊登在诸如《Creative Computing》的杂志中。当我们开始贩售电脑游戏时，这些游戏的代码便开始成为了商业机密。所以在商业游戏中使用Mod着实是个非常大的进步，因为它大大扩展了游戏对于引擎的需求，而不再只让玩家受限于藏在小盒子里的游戏内容。早前最出名的例子：1993年发行的《毁灭战士》。可能的首次使用：1982年的《街机》，这款游戏的出现确立了塔防类游戏的基本结构。也许纯化论者会质疑固定操作模式的游戏能否称之为Mod游戏，但是关键在于这些游戏让玩家能够自己创造内容——而这都出现在“Web 2.0”或者“Web”之前。

8.有思想有意识的聪明NPC角色

在早前回合制2D游戏《Chase》中，你被囚禁在一个布满电丝网的笼子中，而且不断出现机器人试图要杀了你。所有机器人都在逼近你。如果你躲在电丝网后面，那么这些机器人便会走进去随之被炸个片甲不留，这就是10年前NPC角色的智力。随后我们便开始开发一些带有视觉和听觉的游戏角色，但是还是存在一定的限制因素。我们同样也开始赋予一些机器形式的角色智力，甚至是协作能力。现在最复杂的NPC角色AI出现在体育类游戏中，在此运动员必须为了获得集体目标而动作一致。我认为这是一种设计特征，由设计者提出并由程序人员想出如何在游戏中落实行动。首次使用：不详。

9.对话框

以前的电脑游戏中几乎没有用来做交流的对话空间。文本中的统一语法内容只能说是一种命令形式（如“把甜甜圈交给警察”），而非自然的讲话形式（“嘿，先生，你知道这附近哪里可以买到牙齿+5的护身符？”）。如果在游戏中安插了对话框，那么你便可以选择向其他角色表达自己的想法，而他们也会适时地对你做出回应。如果游戏允许的话，你可以进行“角色扮演”，也就是你可以用自己想要表达的态度去进行这种对话。如果编写妥当，脚本对话框也可以很自然地表现出游戏角色间的对话，也可以很有趣，形象生动。《Monkey Island》中因为受到侮辱而掀起的刀剑之争便是使用了这种对话框的功能。首次使用：不详。

10.多级别的游戏设置

通常来说桌面游戏都是围绕着同一种模式展开，或垄断或冒险。电脑游戏（以及桌面角色扮演游戏）则经常能让玩家在不同模式间发生转变，即可以从高级别的策略转变到低级别战术中。只有电脑能够让你在游戏中的不同级别之间进进出出，就像游戏《孢子》。你是否是一个围观管理者或者是精通于策略而不会为了一些琐事费神的人？不同游戏要求你使用不同的应对方法。早前最有名的例子：1983年发行的《Archon: The Light and the Dark》。首次使用：不详。

11.迷你游戏

指的是大型游戏中的一些小游戏，玩家可以自行选择要不要玩这些游戏。与多级别的游戏设置不同，这些小游戏与整体游戏也存在着很大的差别。《WarioWare》就是由这种迷你游戏组成的。也许很多时候迷你游戏会破坏玩家的沉浸式感受，但是同时也能够让他们在游戏中尝试一些不一样的体验。有时候这种迷你游戏甚至比整体游戏还优秀。首次使用：不详。

12.多种难度设置

游戏设计师John Harris曾经发现早前的游戏，特别是投币游戏都注重于测试玩家的技巧，而如今有一种更新的方法，便是无需测量玩家的技巧级别便提供给他们游戏体验。守旧派认为玩家是设计者的敌人，而先进派则认为玩家是游戏的观众。通过提供给玩家多种难度级别的选择，我们可以让游戏吸引到更多不同玩家的注意，同样也包括那些并不是那么擅长游戏的玩家。首次使用：不详。

13.逆转时间

拯救和再次加载游戏其实是相同的，但是有时候你想要的是毫无代价（游戏邦注：既无需重新加载游戏也无需回到前面的游戏步骤中）地纠正错误。最出名的例子：2003年发行的《波斯王子：时之沙》。在这款游戏中，玩家可以在每次犯错误的时候逆转时间10秒钟，但是为了阻止玩家不断使用这一方法，游戏规定每次玩家使用这种方法便要扣除一定量的沙子，而通过打败更多敌人才能弥补这些损失沙子。同时这款游戏还让玩家能够看到未来，从而帮助他们理解一些即将到来的疑惑，这也是游戏另一个让人佩服的创新之处。具有可能性的首次使用：2002年发行的《Blinx: The Time Sweeper》，玩家通过收集各种各样的晶体从而获得多次“一次性”的时间控制权。

14.双重身份的角色

这个创新有点新奇，玩家在游戏中的行动或者进行的任何冒险都可以通过使用两个特长不同，但可互补的游戏角色。有时候它们会相互协作一起行动，有时候玩家却不得不选择其中之一。但这与《Sonic and Tails》中两个完全不同的游戏角色不同。可能的首次使用：1998年发行的《Banjo-Kazooie》。

15.沙盒模式

这个特别的术语指的是玩家可以在游戏世界中到处晃荡而无需完成任何特定目标。至今为止最有名的沙盒模式游戏要数《侠盗猎车手》，这款游戏确实很受欢迎。沙盒模式是用来描写一种特别的游戏模式，即目标指向，而非《模拟城市》这种开放式游戏。有时候沙盒模式也可以用来应对游戏中一些突发行为或事件，这是游戏设计者未曾计划或预见到的。首次使用：不详。

16.物理谜题

很多现实世界的游戏都包含了物理性质，但是事实上它们只是简单地在测试玩家的技巧。而有了电脑我们便能够创造物理谜题，让玩家尝试着利用模拟目标的物理性质去解决问题完成目标。这是以智能而言，无需手和眼的调和。可能的首次使用：1992年发行的《不可思议的机器》。

17.交互式情节

也许现在只有部分游戏拥有这一机制，但是我相信在不久的将来一定会有更多游戏受益于这一机制。《Fa?ade》是一款第一人称3D游戏，发行于2005年。在游戏中你要想办法帮一对面临婚姻困境的夫妻解决问题。你在一个夜晚拜访他们，并在键盘上打出一些真实的句子与他们交流，而他们会以记录好的音频模式回复你。他们是否能够复合都取决于你所说的每一句话，也就是说你将深刻影响这对夫妻之间的关系——让他们复合，或者让其中一方离开，甚至是惹恼他们而把你提出家门。这是一个具有真实意义的角色扮演游戏：没有算计，没有战斗，没有财富，而只是一种带有情节式的互动——关于一对饱受婚姻折磨的夫妻未来的幸福。有很多设计师都认为《星际迷航：下一代》中的“全息剧”是交互式情节的“圣杯”。《Façade》在这一方面的探索着实是个大发展。

输入设备的创新

交互性是游戏中非常必要的一方面，特别是在电子游戏中，有些设备还将玩家的目的转化成实际行动。我们有按钮，把手（也可以说是转盘或浆），操纵杆，滑块，触发器，方向盘以及踏板。但是最近，我们关于输入设备的选择更加多样化了，甚至是一名非常优秀的设计者在选择输入设备前都要再三考虑而做出选择。

18.独立的移动和目标输入设置

早前的游戏总是要求游戏角色朝着一个特定的方向进行射击，就像《Asteroids》。如果区分了不同目标移动，那么游戏便需要使用两个操纵杆，而这就更加需要玩家去提高自己的物理协调性，但是这么做对于玩家和设计者来说都会比较自由。可能的首次使用：1982年发行的投币游戏《Robotron: 2084》。

19.指向-点击

鼠标的出现改变了玩家与空间以及立体物体间的交互方式。尽管在现在看起来有些过时，但是正是指向-点击机制让冒险类游戏比起早前基于分析系统去猜测“玩家动作”的游戏易亲近多了。早前最有名的例子：发行于1987年的《疯狂豪宅》；它所使用的SCUMM引擎直到现在仍然受到许多独立开发者的喜欢。可能的首次使用：1984年发行的针对于Macintosh（游戏邦注：苹果公司于1984年推出的一种系列微机）的游戏《Enchanted Scepters》。苹果Mac是第一款带鼠标的个人电脑。

20.使用鼠标+方向键控制的第一人称3D移动方式

在我们发明出虚拟现实操控装置之前，鼠标和方向键可谓是3D空间中用来控制第一人称角色的最佳方法。甚至是控制器上的双游戏摇杆也无法做到如此精确。首次使用：不详。

21.语音识别（及其它扩音器的支持）

高声大喊“A伙计，开火！”或者用鼠标在A伙伴周围画一个框框，然后点击菜单选项中的“开枪”，这两种方法那个比较刺激？朝着好友（或者敌人）大喊，亦或是与他们一起唱歌都属于游戏中一大乐趣。可能的首次使用：发行于1987年的发行于Commodore 64型主机上的《空中梯队》。

22.针对音乐的专业I/O设备（并不包括MIDI键盘）

不论是技术还是设计，I/O设备中的进步都能够帮助我们改变游戏的玩法，特别是针对于音乐类游戏而言。音乐和舞蹈对于物理活动的要求都很高，所以很难在操纵杆或者键盘上表现出来。

《吉他英雄》的控制器能够表现出沙球，康茄鼓等乐曲演奏的音乐，所以非常有趣。可能的首次使用：发行于1998年的《劲舞革命》跳舞毯。

23.手势接口

有一些文化都赋予了手势一些特殊且具有象征意义的能量，从天主教徒的双手合十到印度教的马德拉舞再到佛教的造像，我们都可以看到特殊手势的体现。手势也总与魔法联系在一起，魔杖就是其中一部分。而在一些电子游戏中玩家只能通过点击标识按压按钮去施展魔法，如此看来并不能带来多大感受吧。手势接口是最近刚刚发明的一种方式，即让玩家能够不使用语言和技术方法便能够表达自己。最出名的例子：任天堂的控制器。可能的首次使用：发行于2001年的《黑与白》。

24.可重组的控制以及其它易用性功能

当你习惯了一款游戏的控制器以及键盘设置后，你肯定也会希望能够按照相同的操纵方式去玩其它类似的游戏。现在的电脑游戏让玩家能够重新设置自己键盘的操作键位，但是在掌机设备中却还未普及这一做法。这一方法对于那些残障人士来说至关重要。不幸的是，很多游戏设计者都忽视了那些残疾人士的游戏需求，这点着实让我感到可耻。而我们现在开始慢慢了解到这个现实了。其它一些有意义的创新包括：为听觉有问题的玩家提供字幕选项；区分音乐的音量控制和音效；设置可调节的亮度和对比度；为色盲玩家设置可选择的调色板；以及可设置的游戏速度等等。对于易用性游戏设计来说，“天下没有游戏速度太慢这回事”。

呈现方式的创新

在玩家的视觉和听觉方面进行创新需要依靠大量先进技术，而我也仍认为这也是一种设计创新，是游戏设计者所选择的并用于（或者没有）其游戏中的特殊功能。静态以及轴卷式2D屏幕就是如此，而且早在之前的投币游戏时期它们便存在了。

25.等角视角，有时候也称“四分之三视角”

在侧面视角和顶端视角控制着电子游戏多年后，等角视角一出现便让人惊艳连连。它所创造的立体感是当时游戏所缺少的。它的出现让玩家能够很自然地同时看到一个物体的顶端和侧面，而无需通过任何尴尬的“欺骗”方式；甚至还可以转动这个物体以观察它的其它方面（如果设计者提供了这一功能的话）。早前最有名的例子：发行于1989年的《上帝也疯狂》。可能的首次使用：发行于1982年的投币游戏《立体空战》。

26.第一人称视角

第一人称视角比起其它视角更为直接。当敌人拿着枪杆指向你的时候，你便能真切地体会到枪杆就在面前的紧张感。但是最大的代价便是你看不到自己角色的正面。第一人称并不等价于3D；在最早的例子中，主角并不能够完成3D移动或者上窜下跳。早前最有名的例子：发行于1980年的投币游戏《终极战区》。可能的首次使用：1973年用NASA（美国国家航空和宇宙航行局）中的Imlac小型计算机开发的《迷宫战争》。

27.第三人称视角

从游戏角色后面，即越过他的肩膀这个方位去控制他。摄影机将随时跟随游戏角色行走。与第一人称一样，第三人称也不需要真正的3D空间，但是它所提供的画面却与之类似。这种创新非常重要，因为它让玩家按照一种较为自然的角度去观看自己的角色如何做事，而不像早前的横向或滚动式视角。但是这种代价便是，你的游戏角色可能会遮住游戏中的一些部分，而这点在射击游戏中就非常不利。早前最有名的游戏：发行于1996年的《古墓丽影》。首次使用：不详。《Pole Position》（1982年）中一些跟随车辆的视角则更适合被定义为追随视角。

28.过场动画

不论你喜不喜欢，它们都是游戏场景中的一部分。它们能够让玩家在游戏中途获得一定的休息时间，让他们能够从另一个视角去观看游戏世界（而且往往是最吸引人的部分），当然了，通过过场动画游戏也能够阐述一个故事。早前最有名的游戏：发行于1987年的《疯狂豪宅》。可能的首次使用：发行于1979年的《吃豆人》。

29.真实3D

因为我们的CPU经常不足以提供真实的画面，所以我们经常会仿照一些类似于3D的视角。《毁灭战士》就是一款聪明地仿照了3D画面的游戏。3D并不一定能够改善游戏设置，如《疯狂小旅鼠》与《疯狂小旅鼠3D》，但是它带给游戏的影响确实非常巨大的。甚至连手机也开始加入3D加速器。早前最有名的例子：1982年发行的《微软模拟飞行X》V1.0版。可能的首次使用：发行于1974年的《SPASIM》，是一款以星际迷航为主题的多人主机游戏。因为这些游戏中的目标数量都很有限，所以都有可能创造出这种真实的3D效果。

30.情境摄像机

随着第三人称视角的出现，情境摄像机也紧随其脚步，慢慢贯穿于游戏中。情境摄像机让游戏设计者也能够使用电影摄影技师的技巧在最佳方位展现游戏最棒的角度。对于冒险游戏以及慢节奏的动作冒险游戏来说，情境摄像机再合适不过了。而在快节奏的游戏中，摄像机的突然移动都会让玩家失去方向感；所以为更好地操纵事件的速度，你需要一个可预见的视点。最受欢迎的例子：发行于2001年的《古堡迷踪》。首次使用：不详。但是，预渲染的背景（在指向与点击冒险游戏中）和玩家控制摄像机（就像《狩魔猎人3》）都与之不同。

31.程序上的场景生成

这种技巧让设计者无需动手便能够创造出大量的游戏空间。如果他们能够快速生成这些空间，甚至不用将其保存，这对于早期机器来说非常重要。早前最有名的例子：发行于1984年的《七座金城》。可能的首次使用：发行于1982年的《河上反击》。

32.可变化的对话回放

这指的是将一些音频剪辑汇聚在一起而制作一个富有多种内容的无缝对话。我们用这种方法去播放体育游戏中的详情内容，并且将不同运动员的名字都插入注释中。同时我们经常利用这种方法去创造犹如电视般的游戏体验。早前最受欢迎的例子：发行于1992年的《硬派棒球III》。可能的首次使用：1992年在CD-i播放器上的《3rd Degree》（歌曲）。

33.情景交融的音乐

每个人都知道音乐能够陶冶情操。在电子游戏中，音乐的变化是针对于不同游戏事件而做出回应，当然了，作曲家也不会知道音乐会在什么时候出现。一种简单的方法便是你可以在需要的时候插入一首新曲，但是如果过渡不好的话也许会适得其反。另外一个方法是层次化，你可以将不同类型的音乐混合在一起，改变它们的音量以适应游戏中的不同需要。早前最有名的例子：发行于1990年的《银河飞将》。可能的首次使用：1982年发行于Atari800上的《Way Out》。

34.子弹时间

飞行模拟器上的可调节时间早已成为另一种标准；它让你能够加速游戏世界中的时间从而能够更快地穿越一些乏味的阶段。子弹时间是后来的一种创新。它放缓了时间同时也让你能够快速行动，从而让你感受到一种超高速的体验，并伴随着一般游戏中的超强度以及超负荷的感觉。早前最有名的例子：发行于2001年的《英雄本色》。可能的首次使用：发行于1999年的《安魂曲：堕落天使》。

35.可变化的环境

这里我要提到一个传统游戏的谬论：一场大爆炸能够摧毁一辆坦克，但是却对附近的墙壁和窗户没有任何影响。而可变化的环境能够纠正这一谬论并让你逐渐改变游戏世界。这一功能对于游戏关卡的设计可能是一大挑战，因为玩家有可能会踏进设计者不喜欢他们进入的领域；但是它却能够让整个世界变得更加真实，而玩家也能够按照自己的方法去解决问题。可能的首次使用：发行于1994年的《魔毯》。

36.对于特殊属性的巧妙指示

健康，速度，魔法值，生命，弹药，燃料等等都是按照同一标准的指示器来表示：能量条，数字，计量表以及重复的小图像。许多都是借鉴于现实世界中的设备。那么那些比较不明显的属性又是怎样表达的呢？在过去的几年里，我们已经设置了一些较为巧妙的方法去表现它们，因为方法实在太多了，我就不好在此一一列举，所以我将它们综合在了一起。以下是我个人喜欢的一些方法：《黑暗计划》中的闪光灯能够暗示你的角色可能会被注意到；在射击游戏中，当瞄准器离得越远便意味着你的武器的准确度越低；而如果屏幕变模糊了或者出现了一些朦胧特效，那么你的游戏角色可能喝醉了或者被下药了。

类型

我们从其它游戏形式中借鉴了许多电子游戏的类型，但是有些类型只有在电脑出现之后才能得以发展，并展现出真正的设计创造性。

37.建设和管理模拟

乐高积木和商业管理游戏都先于电脑出现，但是正是电子游戏的出现才首次将这两种理念结合在了一起。早前最有名的例子：发行于1989年的《模拟城市》。可能的首次使用：1982年发行于美泰Intellivision主机上《乌托邦》。

38.即时战略游戏

回合制战争类游戏其实是跟源自一些传统游戏，如桌面游戏《Avalon Hill》，而且有很多回合制游戏与桌面游戏很相似，即有一些四方形的计量仪表以代表六角网格中的一些单位。而即时战略游戏则使得这类型游戏更容易被大众所接受，即使也有一些纯化论者抱怨即时战略游戏只是用快速的鼠标点击以及资源管理等方法去取代真正的策略游戏。早前最有名的例子：发行于1984年的《古代战争艺术》。可能的首次使用：1983年针对ZX Spectrum（游戏邦注：1982年由Sinclair公司生产的一款8位个人电脑）发行的《Stonkers》。与之相关的游戏类型是即时战术游戏，这种类型主要针对于个人战场（例如《全面战争》系列游戏）而取消了即时战略游戏中的资源管理方面。

39.格斗游戏

除了现实世界中的体育运动以及20世纪60年代的玩具“格斗机器人”，我找不到任何可以称得上是视频格斗游戏先驱的例子了。虽然很多游戏都带有格斗元素，但是真正的格斗游戏更加专注于混战而非探索或者解决谜题。格斗游戏已经远远超乎现实世界中的武术（其中更是涵括了魔力，虚构的武器以及一些非现实属性）而包含一些资深的创造性元素。虽然现在也出现了一些子类别，但是最普遍的游戏元素仍是不使用任何远程武器而进行空手搏斗。可能的首次使用：1976年发行的投币游戏《重量级冠军》。早前最受欢迎的例子：1987年发行的《街头霸王》。

40.节奏，舞蹈与音乐游戏

早在《Pong》那个时代就有了关于时间协调的游戏，但是针对于节奏的游戏直到最近才真正出现。如今关于制作音乐的游戏越来越受欢迎。而且因为这种游戏避免了反反复复的暴力冲突，所以更加受到女性玩家的喜欢。早前最受欢迎的例子：发行于1996年的《啪啦啪啦啪》。可能的首次使用：1995年的在世嘉32X游戏机上发行的《Tempo》。（发行于1984年的《音乐建筑合辑》，但是它并不算是一款游戏。）

41.模拟宠物和人类

人们总喜欢观看一些小动物如何生活，特别是当它们死后而无需对其感到内疚的时候（或者它们永远都不会死去）。训练，培养这些小东西，并购买饰品装饰它们就是一种乐趣。《模拟人生》一直是最畅销的电脑游戏；任天堂DS上的《任天狗》也是一款大热游戏。可能的首次使用：1985年发行的《电脑小人》。早前最受欢迎的例子：1995年发行的《模拟宠物狗》。

42.上帝游戏

这类型的游戏混合了建设，管理模拟，即时战略游戏，模拟类游戏以及其本身的一些特性。在上帝游戏中，你将扮演上帝的角色去控制一群人，而你的主要工作则是帮助他们变繁荣。在这里的主要功能是间接控制，你可以通过自己的行动去影响信仰者们，但是你却不能够直接向他们下达命令；同时你还拥有一些神圣的力量，如改变风景或者引发一些自然灾害等。上帝游戏让我们能够在需要的时候制造火山喷发，还有什么需要我说的呢？可能的首次使用：1989年发行的《上帝也疯狂》。（有些人认为1982年发行的《乌托邦》也属于上帝游戏，但是我却将其归类为内容管理游戏，因为在这里玩家的权利并不像上帝那般神圣。据说Firaxis公共关系部门也声称《文明》不属于上帝游戏。）

43.社交和约会游戏（包括或不包括性）

我只能找到一款非电脑的约会游戏，即Milton Bradley在1965年发行的桌面游戏《Mystery Date》。主要的电脑约会模拟游戏都是出自日本。在这种游戏中，多会出现对话框，而玩家则通过一些对白与自己期望的搭档拉近关系。有的约会游戏带有很复杂的属性系统，并不像是普通的角色扮演游戏，它们更倾向于描写角色的浪漫而非他们如何击败一个怪物。可能的首次使用：发行于1992年的《同级生》。

44.交互式电影

这种类型来了却又走了，真是可喜可贺。这可称得上是改变世界的设计创新，因为它把创造性带进了一个死胡同里，让每个人都发誓再也不会制作交互式电影了，尽管现在我们仍然能够在一些不同类型中看到这个术语对于其它游戏电影质量的描述。交互式电影给予了我们一个负面的例子，即游戏玩法最重要。CD驱动器的出现使得这种交互式电影成为了可能，而在它的全盛时期，甚至获得了巨大的销量。直到人们对于观看这种小东西的好奇和热情慢慢冷却。早前最受欢迎的例子：发行于1993年的《第七访客》。可能的首次使用：发行于1983年的投币游戏《龙穴历险记》。

45.“针对于女孩的游戏”（而非女人）

在游戏产业早期发展中可以说完全忽视了女孩玩家。在20世纪90年代中期，曾经出现了为女孩制作游戏的短暂热潮，但是这些游戏看起来就像是一些营销炒作，而很多女孩子都是被那些用粉色盒子包裹着的假冒产品所欺骗。这种为女孩制作游戏的理念在最近再次兴起了，如《贝兹娃娃》系列。但是对于这类型的游戏仍然有许多争议，有些人认为实现女孩对购物的幻想并不需要像实现男孩对暴力的幻想那样担负社会责任。而其它瞄准女孩市场的游戏也不再那么古板了，如《神秘南茜》冒险游戏。早前最受欢迎的例子：发行于1996年的《巴比时装设计师》，可能的首次使用：1991年的《芭比娃娃》。（尽管同样出现于1980年的《吃豆人》和《蜈蚣》都深受女性玩家的欢迎，但是它们却都未明确指向女孩玩家。而发行于1982年的《被俘之心》则更是针对于成年女性玩家。）

游戏风格

每个玩家的游戏风格都不一样，游戏设计者应该如何就此改进游戏。

46.吹牛榜单（或者说是高分排行榜）

早前的桌面游戏并没有排行榜。如果你是在玩多人游戏，那么你便可以和好友一决高下，但是结果却只有你们两人知晓。而吹牛榜单可以将你的名字首字母以及你的游戏成绩公开，让你始终高高在上，除非被更厉害的对手而打败。首次使用：1979年发行的《Asteroids》。

47.保存游戏

自从保存功能出现以来，便出现了对于这一目标的两种不同看法，有些人喜欢挑战一些复杂的环节而不需要任何安全措施，也有些人喜欢中途停止游戏并按照自己的时间安排表再次开始游戏。不论好坏，按照你自己的观点，保存游戏的能力都将深刻影响到你的游戏风格。保存游戏的方法多种多样，但是这些方法也有自己的优劣。我把关卡密码以及检查点集特归类于此。首次使用：年代太久远了已经无从考究。

48.调制解调器以及网络游戏

调制解调器让玩家们能够双双一起玩游戏。尽管这已经是非常重要的一大发展，但是最大的缺陷在于缺少适当的配对设备，即两个玩家必须同时拥有调制解调器并且进行相同一款游戏才行。

后来随着互联网逐渐普及，媒体的方式便越来越多样了。事实上，在个人电脑出现之前互联网便已经存在了。早前最受欢迎的例子：1986年发行于Commodore 64上的《杰克兔俱乐部》。可能的首次使用：1974年发行于Imlac小型计算机上的《迷宫战争》。

49.多人游戏地下城（MUD）

将游戏中的探索乐趣，如《魔域大冒险》与多人游戏的乐趣相结合，你便能够感受到多人游戏地下城的魅力。MUD可以说是今天大受欢迎的大型多人在线角色扮演游戏的先驱。在韩国，这种游戏甚至可以称得上是“国粹”。早前的MUD版本并非互联网游戏，而是运营于一些分时主机上的游戏。首次使用：于1979年在埃塞克斯大学问世的MUD。

50.派对游戏

虽然我们有了多人游戏，但是派对游戏与之还是有所区别，这种游戏主要是为了在一个模仿真实派对的情境下提供给玩家娱乐体验，而玩家可以在好友的陪同下享受派对的乐趣。比起让玩家沉浸于游戏中的虚幻世界，派对游戏更注重于提供各种迷你游戏而让玩家放松心情。首次使用：发行于1998年的《马里奥聚会》。

以上是我所选择的50大设计创新理念，我们已经见识到一些理念的重要性了，而剩下的必将在不久的将来发挥其作用。关于这些理念的重要性肯定存在着众多分歧，而且我们也许也忽略了一些重要的内容，所以我希望在不久的将来我们能够就此作进一步的讨论。

篇目1，篇目2，篇目3，篇目4（本文由游戏邦编译，转载请注明来源，或咨询微信zhengjintiao）

篇目1，Designing around a core mechanic

by Charmie Kim

It’s easy to plug game mechanics into your game design, but it’s not always obvious whether those mechanics suit your game. Here’s a simple framework to help you understand and evaluate your design from the core out.

Reposted from Funstormgames.com blog.

In our wild wild game design world every designer is likely to have their own shade of design methodology, lack thereof being a kind of methodology of its own. I’d like to share a bit of mine.

When I was still a game design student in Vancouver, I was taught this life-changing design tool by a mentor (giving credit where it’s due!) over lunch at a White Spot. At least one mind was blown in that generic family-style restaurant that day. I’ve been whipping this tool out to evaluate every bit of game design I do ever since. Trust me, it’s amazing.
The tool is a deceptively simple diagram that I call the ‘Core Diagram’:

In this model, the core mechanic is at the very center and forms a nucleus for your game. The other mechanics form layers around the core, with the narrative forming the very outer layer.

Theory-crafting game designers love to define words, as do I, so let’s not skip that bit! By mechanic I mean a system that facilitates interaction, and by interaction I mean a kind of conversation between the player and the game. Neither of these words actually amount to what games actually are, because a game is the experience generated by those words when they get put in a disco with the player’s brain and circumstance. However, until we invent neuro-technology that can transfer experiences directly from one brain to another, what us game designers can control within this dance are the mechanics. The mechanics are the paint and paintbrush, the nail and hammer, the two girls and cup of our art!

But still, it’s probably not very clear what exactly is a ‘Core’ mechanic in a game. Easiest way to understand it, I think, is in relation to time.

•The core mechanic in a game will usually be the purposeful interaction that occurs the most frequently. In a platforming game, this is usually jumping. In a shooter, it is usually shooting. In a racing game, it will be driving. Another way to determine the core mechanic is, if without it, you wouldn’t be able to play the game at all.

•The secondary mechanics are the interactions that happen less frequently. They could even be layered out from more frequent to least frequent.

•Progression systems form the mechanical envelope of the game, being the source of change within the game system at a holistic level.

•The Narrative layer is the outer most layer that puts all the inner layers within it into context.

Gameplay and Innovation

Now that you understand the model, could you guess which games each of these core diagrams represent?

The answers are:

A. Super Mario Bros.

B. Portal

C. Flower

D. Every fantasy RPG ever made

There are some qualitative observations that can be made immediately, just from looking at these examples.

•The best games usually have a very strong core mechanic that is easy to grasp but provides room to expand upon. It also helps if the mechanic has a powerful meaning to it of its own – there’s a good reason why shooting is such a popular core mechanic in our field.

•The most effective games are ones where each layer compliments the other. You can test the relationship between the layers by seeing what effect each layer has on the other. i.e. “In order to remove enemies, I must jump, and in order to progress through levels, I must remove enemies.” If your layers don’t have this kind of gating relationship going outward, and contextual relationship going inward, you may want to re-consider your design!

•Truly fresh experiences often result from innovations at the core of the game. For example, Flower is to this day one of my most memorable game experiences because I’d never played a game that made me feel so much like I was flying in the wind. It had an unusual core mechanic, and it did that mechanic extremely well.

•Sometimes innovation comes from having an unusual combination of layers, for example, the shooting core mechanic won’t normally be paired with solving puzzles. But Portal did it, and did it well.

Also consider how Portal differs from shooter games that have puzzles on the side (puzzles that do not use the shooting mechanic in order to solve them), and how effective those experiences are in comparison.

•Some combinations of mechanics are truly timeless, such as D. It’s like a classic dish in French cuisine – it tastes good, and it’s hard to mess with.
Social and Mobile

In the last year or so I started looking at social and mobile games in this light, and again, it’s really fascinating to see how they map.

Let’s play guess the game again! Ready?

A. Angry Birds

B. CityVille

Now some more observations!

•The biggest shift in design caused by new platforms and audiences are in the Core and the Narrative layers. Removing pigs is no different from removing mushrooms, and completion or unlocking mechanics have always been staples in progression design. This is really interesting to me because I understand it to mean that the Core shifts mostly with new interfaces or platforms, like the touch screen, while Narratives shift because of the different players that the games target. But otherwise, game design is still game design!

•Angry Birds is an awkwardly designed game. Flinging relates to removing pigs, but the relationship is indirect, and sometimes feels arbitrary, even. This also makes relating flinging to completing levels rather awkward. You know that strange feeling you get in an Angry Birds level where you have that one pig off to the side that you can’t seem to get, and you’re madly playing fling trial-and-error to get it? Yea, it gets a little awkward, and not fun! Something else that gets left out in this diagram is the points system, it just doesn’t fit very well with the other layers. Removing pigs gets you points but you have to remove them anyway so it’s redundant, and the points are needed to complete the levels but in an entirely arbitrary way! Every game designer in the world has their own opinion on how Angry Birds got to be so big, but I think I have proof here that it ain’t the design.

•In comparison, CityVille is amazingly elegant within the inner 3 layers. Look how tightly collecting currency weaves into buying buildings, and collecting XP weaves into unlocking buildings, which weaves back into buying buildings, and then again, weaves back into collecting from them. Beautiful! But, there is still a weakness, and it’s a big one. Exactly how does clicking buildings to collect from them (it’s not even made very clear that they are supposed to be taxes) and unlocking buildings (again, messaged in a very ‘game-y’ way with buildings unlocking at every level) make you a better mayor? CityVille could do well with some tweaks in how it integrates its overall narrative.

•I don’t have a diagram here for all the Zynga games but my biggest beef with them is that almost every one of their virtual world games (other than their newer Indiana Jones game and the hidden object game) have the same 3 inner layers – collect/harvest, buy stuff, unlock stuff. It’s like they know how good it is and they wanted to explore that same design until noone wanted to play it anymore.

I haven’t tackled how social/multiplayer fits into all this, that would be a post of its own. But a good measure to go by is, a truly social game would require more than one player involved at each of the layers. If I were to make a Zynga game more social, for example, I would make collecting an activity done with friends (this is already the case), buying buildings would be in relation to friends (for example, if I buy the Fashion Design Studio building and you buy the Clothing Boutique building, I could supply you with clothes for your building and we could split profits, right?) etc. Is it any wonder MMO games like WoW are so powerful? They take the classic RPG formula and apply social dynamics every step of the way.

Strategy Games a.k.a. The Slow Core

The core mechanics I’ve looked at in other games so far have a physical ‘fun’ to it on its own. A good designer working on a platformer would pay a lot of attention to the physics of a single jump so that the core activity feels good even without the secondary mechanics or progression. Yet, it would be a mistake to think that every core mechanic needs to have such a twitchy tight singular loop. Looking at strategic games, for example, the core mechanic is often ‘unit placement’. Physically speaking, there’s nothing innately joyful about placing a unit in a strategy game, but look at it as a cerebral activity and it sheds light on how deep and meaningful this core mechanic can be and why strategy games are so much fun. Note also that with strategy games, the core mechanic is far more complex and involves lots of different feedback loops within it. In other words, there’s a lot more information being processed within the interaction right in the core!

Modal Shifts

I would also add a caveat here and say that not all games fit this mould so well, and those are some of the most fun. Many successful games do modal shifts where you go from one core diagram to another. This works really well, I think, if one set of mechanics is more twitch and the other more relaxed, and the modal shift is used for pacing. A great example of this is one of my favourite game franchises of all time, Mass Effect!

I hope this tool is as inspiring for you as it has been for me, at the very least I hope you find the musings interesting. Try mapping some of your favourite games and see what the diagram can teach you through them. Are there any games that really don’t map at all? Let me know!

篇目2，GAME MECHANICS AND PACING

Tips on how to not waste your player’s time.

Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services 0
So, you’re making a game. You build the maps tile by tile. You name the characters. You write the epic story. You program the weapons and armor. You make the badass battle animations. You choreograph the awesome cutscene where the MC beheads a villain with an envelope opener. You balance your awesome battles. You give the characters stats. You always create your encounters to be a challenge.

“The game is perfect!” you say. And in your mind, it is. It does everything that you think an RPG should do.

But maybe it’s not as perfect as you think it is. Maybe people don’t enjoy the combat. Maybe they find the battles tedious or boring.

“They’re just wimps!” you tell yourself. “The game is challenging! They just don’t like things that are hard!”

Chances are, however, that this isn’t it either. Chances are that your combat, and possibly your entire game, is badly paced.

I am here to tell you why this happens and how you can prevent it.

Go with the flow.

I’m a fan of story-telling techniques through the use of game mechanics. By integrating your mechanics with you narrative, it makes the player feel closer to the story. These aren’t just things happening to a character on a screen. The player is IN the scene and these things are happening to them.

This isn’t something you can impose selectively, however. It happens whether you want it to or not. And all kinds of factors can influence how the player is approaching or interacting with a scene. This means that factors you might never even think about while you are developing your game are influencing absolutely everything about how your player is absorbing information about your narrative.

You need to think about everything that conveys information to the player, and the manner in which they are acquiring it. Some of these can be obvious things, such as font size and style, text speed, the walking speed of the player’s avatar, the game’s palette and other graphical choices. But those are only surface elements. Other things, from dungeon length, to the length and difficulty of encounters, can interrupt your game’s narrative if you aren’t careful.

What I’m talking about here is a game’s flow, and if you don’t know what that is, flow is how the game’s narrative fits together. Think about how someone tells a story. If someone is good at telling a story, they will present all the relevant information you need only when you need it, and probably doesn’t weigh their story down with irrelevant tangents or pointless information. Someone who is bad at telling a story might be incoherent, might forget to mention things, or tie scenes together in an illogical manner. That’s bad flow. Don’t do that.

The flow of a game’s narrative must make sense and be logical. Some of this is obvious, such as scenes logically following from each other. There is actually a style of writing known as modular storytelling that doesn’t follow a coherent narrative, but often consists of self-contained vignettes that may or may not fit together in a larger perspective. But you need to have some pretty serious stylistic justification to get away with that sort of thing. If your narrative is choppy and disjointed, it’s probably just going to confuse and irritate your player.

“But Solitayre, I thought we were here to talk about game mechanics! Story is stupid!”

No, you’re stupid. Also, I’m getting to that.

Adventurus Interruptus

I know your type. You’re one of those gameplay people, aren’t you? You probably think every single enemy in the whole game must be handcrafted through statistics and abilities to provide the a challenging yet reasonable battle for your heroes to face. That’s great. Really. There are absolutely lots of places in a game where you want challenging, well-crafted opponents for your heroes to fight. But there are some places you might not WANT to do that.

Did you know battles are a part of your game’s story? They are! Sure, we can assume that every giant rat and flying spaghetti monster we slay outside the starting village while squirreling away the cash to buy that super sweet LONG SWORD aren’t very important to the game’s narrative. Creatures like that are just game abstractions, they’re there for the player to fight, use his SWEET MOVES on, get stronger. We can assume no major revelations or life-altering epiphanies will happen in the midst of a battle with two dire bunnies and a ninja who lives in a medieval fantasy setting for some reason.

But you can’t treat all enemies like that. Some enemies are part of your plot. And if implemented badly, they can damage your plot, and damage your game. Let’s look at an example.

Evil Baron Nefarious has kidnapped the hero’s childhood love interest, Damsela, and is forcing her to marry him! That bastard! Our Hero, Heroy, decides he needs to go kick the Baron’s ass and save his love interest from this horrible fate. He and his comrades kick in the door to the Church shouting “I do!” even thought the priest didn’t ask if anyone objected yet. They feel kind of silly, but that doesn’t matter. Baron Nefarious sends his guardsmen to stop Heroy from ruining his wedding! The guardsmen come in three separate waves and Heroy will have to fight them all before facing the baron himself, who has been honing a secret EVIL TECHNIQUE especially to kill that pesky Hero with.

So, which of these two scenarios is more compelling in this situation?

A. Heroy engages a battle with the guards. Each guard is a challenging opponent who will take many hits to defeat. These battles go back and forth for upwards of ten rounds as Heroy slowly whittles down each guard, probably being forced to heal several times over the course of the battle. He will repeat this encounter two more times as he fights all three waves, before facing Baron Nefarious who is a very challenging boss who might kill Heroy with his secret technique and force him to reload his game and replay this entire sequence again.

B. Heroy mows down each of these guards in one or two hits. Heroy absolutely plows through them. Each battle is over quickly allowing Heroy to rapidly advance towards rescuing his love. The guardsmen are powerless to stop him. Baron Nefarious challenges Heroy to a duel, but he and his secret technique aren’t actually that much of a threat and Heroy bests him easily to rescue his beloved.

Scenario B is probably more narratively compelling even though the enemies in this situation are complete wusses. Why? Because the actual act of fighting battles is not the point of this scene. The point of this scene is Heroy rescues Damsela like a badass. If Heroy had to spend five minutes with each wave of guards, that would disrupt the scene’s flow. Who cares how strong these guards actually are? Heroy is pissed and they are in his way. Dispatching them in one hit gets the point across. Heroy is kicking the guards’ asses. That’s what needs to happen here. Having each guard be a trial defeats the point of that. Having each guard take forever to kill would distract the player from what’s going on in the larger context. If Heroy actually loses any of these battles, the moment is ruined and the scene will lack any of the same impact when they sigh and reload the game.

What about the Baron? Surely he must be a worthy opponent! Well, sure, but you can convey that narratively too. Because you see, you probably don’t actually want the player to lose in a sequence like this. This is the middle of a cutscene/action sequence, and if the player dies here, he has to do the whole thing again. You don’t want that. Putting a super hard boss at the end of a scripted sequence is usually bad design (I’m looking at you, Xenogears.)

So how can we make the Baron a badass without actually making the player lose to him? The Baron has an aforementioned SECRET TECHNIQUE OF EVIL. If this move actually had a serious chance of killing the player here, that would be bad. The player shouldn’t lose in situations like this unless they’re being stupid. So what can we do?

1. Baron Nefarious telegraphs his attack. “I’M ABOUT TO HIT YOU WITH MY SUPER EVIL TECHNIQUE!” (Translation: “Defend, stupid!”). The player knows the attack is coming and can take proper precautions.

2. The super evil technique is non-lethal. Maybe it drops Heroy’s HP to 1.

Both of these situations are good, because they create tension and the illusion of danger without actually putting the player in danger. In the first situation, the player will guard. In the second, he will heal himself. If they don’t do those things, they deserve to lose!

Using these techniques, we can have game mechanics enhance the game’s narrative instead of interrupting your game’s flow.

“But Solitayre! Enemies should always be well-crafted encounters designed to challenge your player. Why even play your dumb stupid dumb game otherwise?”

You again. You’re the problem. Yes, you. Go sit in the corner.

Variety is the spice of life.

There are lots of reasons to have weak, throwaway enemies. Not ALL enemies should be like this, probably. But having some variety in the level of difficulty in your enemies is a good thing. And again, one of the reasons is pacing.

The player might not want to have to undergo a hellish trial worthy of being chronicled by Alighieri every time they go into a battle. Sometimes they just want to drop one of their strongest area spells on an enemy group and watch them all drop dead. Or maybe they don’t want to spend five minutes jackhammering the attack key while waiting for the battle to be over. Sometimes they want to be Rambo and just blow everything away. It is okay to let them do this sometimes.

There is a psychological effect behind this, too. If every single enemy in the game advances at the same rate of strength as the player, the player won’t notice much difference in encounters from one area to the next. The player won’t feel like they’re making progress. This can be frustrating. Varying up your encounters can not only break up monotony but give a greater sense of progress as the player occasionally runs into an enemy they can annihilate easily instead of all enemies being of equivalent strength and challenge. There are lots of ways to spread out and pace your encounters. Each area might have a pack of really weak enemies that can be dispatched without effort. There might be groups of enemies designed to be a moderate challenge. There might be a single enemy who is quite powerful. Clever designers can mix and match these creatures to create more interesting encounters.

There is plenty to be gained from varying the difficulty of your encounters, both for the sanity of your players, and for story purposes. Let’s go back to Heroy for a minute. Let’s say Heroy was raised in a remote mountain village where he acquired a reputation for being a badass. This reputation was enough that the king wanted to hire Heroy for some task that starts the plot.

Heroy sets out for the castle, fighting monsters on the way. If these monsters are designed to give Heroy a hard time, I’m going to wonder what it is that makes Heroy so badass. Why is he strong enough get the king’s attention? He’s having trouble fighting rats! If Heroy dispatches the enemies around his starting home village with ease, it makes him seem much more competent. He has already mastered this area’s wildlife and it will feel justified as he moves out into the world and challenges greater threats. There is plenty of time for you to ramp up your difficulty. Don’t feel like you have to balance every encounter be a hassle just because. Do you have a reason for why you want to make everything so hard?

So, where DO you put the hard stuff? The dungeons are the places to put your challenging, thoughtful encounters. And not the first tutorial dungeon, either. That place should be easy, to give the player a sense of mastery for clearing it. If they walk out of the tutorial dungeon beaten to all hell, they’ll feel like they don’t know what they’re doing.

Once the player has played enough of the game to get a sense of how to play, what techniques work, what items are useful, once they’ve had a chance to get their equipment in order, to figure out their party’s strengths and weaknesses, that is when you can start populating your dungeons with your fiendish encounters. The player will walk into a dungeon expecting enemies and bosses, so you can feel free to bring the noise. The player will appreciate that you gave them the opportunity to figure things out before manhandling them, and they’ll approach these new challenges with confidence. Don’t manhandle your player right out of the gate. Nothing is more likely to make someone give up on your gate then a game over in the first twenty minutes.

Don’t waste my time.

This is the golden rule. This is the maxim. You should really, definitely think about this part. Yes, even you.

Don’t waste your player’s time. Twenty years of grind-heavy, repetitive RPGs and MMOs have made it acceptable for games to waste your time. I don’t want to waste my time. Your game shouldn’t make me waste my time.

Every time you make any decision in your game, whether it’s adding a battle or a puzzle or making the player backtrack or anything like that, ask yourself this: Is this adding something to the game or am I just wasting the player’s time? If the answer is the latter, you should probably adjust the sequence. Your game, and its pacing and flow, will be better as a result.

But that’s not all! All kinds of stupid ideas designed only to waste the player’s time have been floating around the game development hivemind in the guise of “stylistic choices.” Here’s a list of some of them and why they’re terrible and you’re terrible if you use them. (And you are.)

1. Slow text speed.

I honestly can’t fathom why anyone ever thought this was a good idea. Somewhere along the line, it even became acceptable artificially insert pauses into your dialogue to draw it out.

Some of us can read fast. You are punishing us for being able to read fast. If you want to break up your dialogue, be willing to go the extra mile and break it up with something besides vacant pauses. Even little things like having the characters move around while talking can make a huge difference!

2. Slow walk speed.

This is a big one. People love to throw around slow walking speeds as some kind of legitimate gameplay mechanism as though it can enhance the game’s setting, mood, tone, or atmosphere. “They need to be walking slow here, so they can appreciate all the work I put into building these maps!” No, if I feel like I want to appreciate your rigorous tileset/light map endeavors, I am free to take my own time through the map if I wish. You forcing me to do so is putting your priorities over the player’s. You could get away with a really slow walking speed if the maps are small and well-constructed enough that I won’t notice (some games have done this!) but if I ever have huge amounts of empty space to traverse you can bet this is the first thing people will notice and complain about.

“But Solitayre, slow walk speed is a legitimate tool that I should be allowed to use for certain purposes! You’re dumb and stupid!”

You’re right. When used properly, slow walk speed CAN be used as a narrative tool. But probably not for the reasons you think it is. The primary use for slow walk speed would be for the purposes of building tension during a certain scene. The heroine is alone in a dark room, and there’s a killer! Slow walk speed would be an excellent choice to increase suspense in this situation. But using it always, on every map, all the time, is not only annoying, it makes the legitimate usages of this technique ineffective.

3. Pointless backtracking.

This is another common way to pad play time, by making the player traverse the same few locales over and over again. If you’re going to make the player backtrack, at least add something novel for the player to do en-route. Are there any new events along the way? Have the player’s abilities allowed for opening new passages or revealing new treasures? Are there any shortcuts that can be opened now? Backtracking is an opportunity for you to toy with the player’s expectations! Just forcing the player to pointlessly replay sections of your game is just boring.

4. Random chance.

This convention has been around pretty much as long as role-playing games have. It’s often an easy way to pad play time. MMOs are full of this. Collect 20 “whatevers” to complete this quest. This item is only dropped by the “whatever man” which has only a 1/20 chance of appearing in a certain area. Also, the “whatever man” only has a 30% chance of dropping the “whatever!” Voila, you’ve instantly wasted three hours of the player’s time. Each time they find one of those vaunted “whatevers” they feel like they’re making progress! But they’re not. You’ve just tricked them into thinking they have. You monster.

This happens in single player games too. Any time you have an xty percent chance to succeed at a given task, whether making a potion, disabling a trap, or opening a lock, you’re really just saying “There’s a chance that doing this was a waste of your time.” This is especially true if failing a task forces them to fight a battle or complete some other task for failing what was essentially a dice roll.

“But SOLITAYRE!”

You again? What now?

“Random chance has been a staple of RPGs for twenty years. It’s dumb and weird that you would think this is bad!”

People used to think slavery was a good idea. Then they realized it was terrible and wrong, and stopped doing it. People are capable of realizing that an idea they thought had merit is actually stupid, and moving past it. This is called “progress.” Saying that something should remain the same because it has always been that way is basically the worst way you could ever frame an argument, because you aren’t appealing to logic or reason. You’re just appealing to the status quo.

I’m not saying that if you like random chance, you support slavery, but I’m not sure how you can sleep at night.

You cannot get there from here.

Ever been wandering around in a game not really knowing what you’re supposed to be doing? There are two things that might have happened here.

1. The designer did a bad job of telling you where you were supposed to go.
2. The designer thought making you wander around and figure out what to do on your own was a good idea.

But it’s not!

It’s your job to tell the player where to go to get to the next part of your epic plot! If the player makes an honest effort but can’t figure it out, that’s not their fault, it’s yours. Let your player know where they’re supposed to go or what they’re supposed to do, or who they have to kill/talk to/both. Any time the player is wandering around bored and not knowing what they’re supposed to do is bad, and you should do everything reasonable to minimize this.

Honestly, I see a lot of developers who seem to expect the onus of understanding their game to be on the player, and any problems they have are because they didn’t understand the author’s intentions. But it isn’t the player’s job to decipher your ideas. It’s your job to make your intentions and ideas clear to the player. If they can’t figure it out, they’re probably not going to like your game, and you won’t have anyone to blame but yourself!

There are lots of reasons someone may or may not like your game. But chances are you are going to think it is your mechanics or your writing that will make or break your game. Pacing might be something that never even crosses your mind. I hope that now, you realize what an important and essential tool this is in your game design arsenal.

Go forth and wield this tool for justice.

篇目3，The 4 Elements of Game Design

Today started out as a beautiful day, a day filled with joy and excitement. But it all came crashing down when I came across a question, a very important question about game design, that surprising enough does not have a solid and concerete answer that everyone would agree on.

Before I knew it, I had spent hours on what I now know to be some sort of a philosophical question. “If a game is developed and no one is there to play it, does it make a sound?” That sort of question. But that wasn’t exactly my question, oh no my friend, my question was a lot simpler … What is a Game?

Seeing as to how I could not find an answer that would satisfy me, or at least an answer that two different people would be able to agree on, I decided to ask a different question, one that just happens to have an answer that seems to be acceptable by everyone (maybe not, let me know in the comments).

“What makes a Game?”

And without further ado I give to you …

The 4 Elements that form a Game

Now, please keep in mind, soon you will realize that all these elements are equally important in game design and the listing here is just that, a list, it does not emphasize any importance on any of the items over the others. Especially since they all work together to create the experience for the player.

The Mechanics

The Mechanics are the rules of your game. The challenges the players has to over come. The steps they have to follow to accomplish the goal of your game. The achievements they would obtain throughout the game. What happens when they accomplish a goal or what happens when they try and fail? It is the mechanics that set games apart from other forms of entertainment.

For example, books and movies, they have all the other elements but they do not have the Mechanics. Therefore, it is the mechanics that make a game a Game.

When you choose a set of mechanics as crucial to your gameplay, you will need to choose technology that can support them, aesthetics that emphasize them clearly to players, and a story that allows your (sometimes strange) game mechanics to make sense to the players. – Jesse Schell

The Story

The story does not require a lot of explanation, we all know what defines a story. The events that unfold. The characters and the player. What is important though, is how does story interact with other elements? You, as a game designer, have to choose the mechanics of the game that aid in telling the story. You decide on the aesthetics that add life to your story and present the ideas in the way that is intended by you. Idealistically, you would pick a technology that would equip you with the best tools to tell your story.

The Aesthetics

The aesthetics is the most important aspect in my opinion because they are directly tied to the experience that is felt by the player(s), the experience that you try so hard to create for them. The aesthetics makes your game look the way it does, sound the way it does, feel the way it does or even taste the way it does. Anything and everything that somehow is attached to the senses are created by the aesthetics. You need to set a tone for your game that intensifies the story and consumes the player(s) within the game environment.

Just imagine a simulation game like “The Sims” or first-person-shooter game like “Call of Duty”. How are they different? They look, sound and feel totally different.

All the aesthetics are used the way they are, to create those essentials experiences that the game designers aim to create for the player(s). The experiences that are so unique and enjoyable that lead to multiple sequels and expansions.

Lastly, you need to pick a technology that gives you the tools to create these aesthetics.

The Technology

By technology, I don’t simply mean, Playstation 3 or Nintendo DS, I mean the tools that aid you to accomplish everything else I mentioned above. They should allow for the creation of the aesthetics, the placement of the mechanics and be used as a medium to tell the story. The technology could be as simple as a pen and a paper, it can be a set of die (plural of dice), it can be a joystick, an iPhone or some other technology that is yet to be invented.

(Fun fact: The game designers of Space Invaders created their own technology for the game. Prior to that the technology did not exist to create a game similar to Space Invaders.)

PS: Your comments are welcomed. Do you agree with the 4 elements? What other elements do you believe is essential to form a game?

篇目4，50 GREATEST GAME DESIGN INNOVATIONS

From gameplay, to presentation to input devices, videogames are a hotbed of innovation. Ernest Adams notes 50 game design innovations, some that have already made their impact, and others that will shape the future of the medium…

Digg this article here.

Fifty years ago William Higinbotham built the first videogame with an oscilloscope and some analog circuitry. While games have changed enormously since then, even today’s AAA blockbusters owe some of their success to design innovations made years earlier. In this article I’m going to look at 50 design advances that I feel were especially important, or will prove to be some day. Many of them are actually enhancements to older forms of play; sports, driving, and shooting go back to fairground games and mechanical coin-ops. Other genres, such as turn-based strategy, logic puzzles, and RPGs, began life on the dining room table. We have improved these earlier games in many ways, and the computer has allowed us to create new genres that would be impossible in any other medium.

Unfortunately the true innovator of a design idea is often forgotten, while a particularly successful later game gets the credit. For example, more people remember Pong than remember Ralph Baer’s non-computerized design for the Magnavox Odyssey, even though Baer’s work came first. To correct this tendency, I’ll list both the original inventor of the idea (if I could find it) and the best-known early example of the innovation. I don’t promise to be right all the time; corrections are welcome.

Gameplay Innovations

By gameplay I mean the challenges that the game poses to the player, and the actions that the player may take to meet the challenges. The vast majority of these actions are obvious: jumping, steering, fighting, building, trading and so on. But some challenges and actions distinctly advanced the state of the art, and provided new ways for us to play.

1. Exploration.

The earliest computer games didn’t offer exploration. Many were simulations set in one location, or afforded movement only through trivial spaces (e.g. Hunt the Wumpus, 1972). We eventually borrowed exploration from tabletop role-playing and turned it into extravaganzas like BioShock. True exploration provides ongoing novelty as you enter unfamiliar areas, and lets you make choices based on clues in the environment. It’s a different sort of challenge from combat, and attracts players who enjoy being virtual tourists. Probable first use: Colossal Cave, aka Adventure, 1975.

2. Storytelling.

Storytelling is the subject of more acrimonious debate than any other design feature of videogames, even including the save-game issue. Should we do it or not, and if so, how? What does it mean? Is it even possible to do well? —and so on. Bottom line: not every game needs a story, but they’re here to stay. Without a story, a game is just an abstraction—which can be enough to engage the player, but isn’t always. First use is often attributed to Colossal Cave, but that was really a treasure-hunt without a plot. Possible first use: Akalabeth, precursor to the Ultima series, or Mystery House, both released in 1980.

3. Stealth.

Let’s face it, most action games are about force. Even when confronted with overwhelmingly powerful enemies, your only option is to avoid their killing shots while grinding away at them or searching for their vulnerable spots. In stealth play the idea is to never even let the enemies know you’re there, and it requires a completely different approach from the usual Rambo-style mayhem. Best-known early example: Thief: The Dark Project, 1998. First use: unknown.

4. Avatars with their own personalities.

If you weren’t around in the early days this one might surprise you. The first adventure games, and most other computer games too, described the world as if you, the player, were actually in the game—not a representation of you, but you. Consequently, the games could make no assumptions about your age, sex, social position, or anything else—which meant that NPC interactions with your avatar were always rather bland. The early video games, too, mostly displayed vehicles (Asteroids, Space Invaders) or no avatar at all (Pong, Night Driver). Avatars with independent personalities required you to identify with someone different from yourself, but they increased the dramatic possibilities in games enormously. Best-known early example: Pac-Man, 1980 (if you can call that a personality; otherwise, Jumpman, aka Mario, in Donkey Kong, 1981). Possible first use: Midway’s Gun Fight coin-op, 1975.

5. Leadership.

In most party-based RPGs and shooters like Ghost Recon, you can control any of the characters individually, but that’s not really leadership. The true challenge of leadership is delegating to others who might disobey you, especially when you have to take over an existing team without any choice about who’s in it. The strengths and weaknesses of your people determine how well they succeed at the tasks you give them, so judging their characters and abilities becomes a critical skill. A little-known but excellent example is King of Dragon Pass, 1999. Best-known early example: Close Combat, 1996. First use: unknown.

6. Diplomacy.

Not new with computer games—the board game Diplomacy was first published in 1959. The big problem for computers has always been making credible AI for computer opponents, but we’re starting to get this right. As with leadership, diplomacy is more about judgment of character than counting hit points. Best-known early example: Civilization, 1991. Probable first use: Balance of Power, 1986.

7. Mod support.

Modding is a form of gameplay; it’s creative play with the meta-game. The earliest games weren’t just moddable, they were open-source, since their source code was printed in magazines like Creative Computing. When we began to sell computer games, their code naturally became a trade secret. Opening commercial games up to modding was a brilliant move, as it extended the demand for a game engine far beyond what it would have been if players were limited to the content that came in the box.

Best-known early example: Doom, 1993. Probable first use: The Arcade Machine, 1982, which was a construction set for arcade-like games. Purists may debate whether construction set products count as moddable games, but the key point is that they enlisted the player to build content—long before “Web 2.0” or indeed the Web itself.

8. Smart NPCs with brains and senses.

In an early 2D turn-based game called Chase, you were trapped in a cage filled with electric fences and some robots trying to kill you. All the robots did was move towards you. If you could get behind an electric fence, they’d walk into it and fry—and that was the sum total of NPC intelligence for about ten years. Then we began to implement characters with vision and hearing and limits to both. We also gave them rudimentary brainpower in the form of finite state machines and, eventually, the ability to cooperate. Some of the most sophisticated NPC AI is now in sports games, where athletes have to work in concert to achieve a collective goal. I consider this a design feature, as it’s something designers asked for and programmers figured out how to implement. First use: unknown.

9. Dialog tree (scripted) conversations.

Early efforts to include interactive conversation in computer games were pretty dire. The parsers in text adventures were okay for commands (“GIVE DOUGHNUT TO COP”) but not for ordinary speech (“Hey, mister, do you know anybody around here who can sell me an Amulet of Improved Dentistry+5?”). With a dialog tree the game gives you a choice of pre-written lines to say, and the character you’re talking to responds appropriately. If the game allows it, you can role-play a bit by choosing the lines that most closely match the attitude you want to express. Written well, scripted conversations read like natural dialog and can be funny, dramatic, and even moving. The hilarious insult-driven sword fights in the Monkey Island games are sterling examples of the form. First use: unknown.

10. Multi-level gameplay.

With a board game everything usually takes place on the same board, as in Monopoly or Risk. Computer games (and tabletop RPGs) often let you switch between two modes, from high-level strategy to low-level tactics. And only a computer can let you zoom in and out to any level you want—as Spore apparently will do. Are you a micromanager or a master of strategy who doesn’t sweat the small stuff? Different games demand different approaches. Best-known early example: Archon: The Light and the Dark, 1983. First use: unknown.

11. Mini-games.

A small game within a big game, usually optional, sometimes not. Not the same as multi-level gameplay; a mini-game feels very different from its parent. WarioWare consists of nothing but mini-games. Mini-games often destroy the player’s immersion, but offer a different set of challenges from those in the overall game.

Sometimes the mini-game is actually better than the overall game. First use: unknown.

12. Multiple difficulty levels.

Designer John Harris has observed that older games, especially coin-ops, were intended to measure the player’s skill, while the newer approach is to provide the player with an experience regardless of his skill level. The old-fashioned school of thought is that the player is the designer’s opponent; the new school is that the player is your audience. By offering multiple difficulty levels, we make games available to larger audiences, which also includes handicapped players. First use: unknown.

13. Reversible time.

Saving and reloading is one thing, but sometimes what you really want is what as kids we used to call a “do-over”-a chance to correct an error without the hassle of a reload or going back a long way in the game world. Best-known example: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, 2003. When you made a mistake, you could reverse time for ten seconds. To prevent you from using it continually, each usage costs you a certain amount of sand, which has to be replenished by defeating enemies. The game also let the player see into the future to help with upcoming puzzles, another clever innovation. Possible first use: Blinx: The Time Sweeper, 2002, in which collecting up crystals in various combinations gives the player a variety of one-shot time control commands.

14. Coupled avatars.

In this slightly oddball innovation, you play an action or action-adventure game using two quite different avatars with complementary abilities. Sometimes they work together as one; at other times you have to choose which to use, or are required to use one or the other. Not the same as two separate avatars like Sonic and Tails. Possible first use: Banjo-Kazooie, 1998.

15. Sandbox modes.

The term refers to a mode of play in which you can fool around in a game’s world without being required to meet a particular objective. By far the best-known sandbox modes are in the later Grand Theft Auto games, contributing greatly to their popularity. Sandbox mode is normally used to describe special modes within otherwise goal-oriented games, not open-ended games like SimCity. Sandbox modes also sometimes afford emergent behavior, events arising in a game’s world that were not planned or predicted by the designer. First use: unknown.

16. Physics puzzles.

Many real-world games involve physics, but they’re usually tests of skill. The computer lets us create physics puzzles, in which you try to figure out how to accomplish a task using the physical properties of simulated objects. They’re about brainpower, not hand-eye coordination. Possible first use: The Incredible Machine, 1992.

17. Interactive drama.

There’s only one of these, but someday its descendants will change the world. Fa?ade is a first-person 3D game released in 2005. In Fa?ade you play the friend of a couple whose marriage is in trouble. You visit their apartment for an evening and converse with them by typing real English sentences; they respond with recorded audio. Depending on what you say, you can influence their relationship—get them to reconcile, cause one or the other to leave, or even anger them so much that they throw you out. It’s role-playing in the real meaning of the term: no stats, no combat, no treasure, just dramatic interactions—with a couple’s future happiness at stake. Many designers consider the “holonovels” from Star Trek: The Next Generation to be the holy grail of interactive storytelling; Fa?ade is an important advance on the quest.

Input Innovations

Interactivity is the essence of gaming, and in a videogame, some device has to translate the player’s intentions into action. We’ve always had buttons, knobs (aka spinners or paddles), joysticks, sliders, triggers, steering wheels and pedals. But recently our options for input devices have exploded, and a good designer gives careful thought to them before choosing an approach to use.

18. Independent movement and aiming.

Early games restricted the avatar to shooting in the direction that it was facing—as in Asteroids, for example. Separating movement from aiming requires a second joystick, which substantially increases the physical coordination required of the player, but offers more freedom for both player and designer. Probable first use: Robotron: 2084 coin-op, 1982.

19. Point-and-click.

The mouse changed the way players interact with spaces and the objects within them. Although now considered dated, point-and-click made adventure games much more accessible than the older “guess the verb” parser-based system. Best-known early example: Maniac Mansion, 1987; the SCUMM engine devised for it is still in use by independent developers. Probable first use: Enchanted Scepters for the Macintosh, 1984. The Mac was the first personal computer to routinely ship with a mouse.

20. Mouse+WASD keys for 3D first-person movement.

This is so much the best way to move a first-person avatar in a 3D space that, until we get virtual reality gear that really works, there is no reason to consider anything else. Dual-joystick setups on controllers can’t match it for precision. First use: unknown.

21. Speech recognition (and other microphone support).

Which is the more exciting: yelling “Company A, charge!” or drawing a box with your mouse around Company A, then clicking a menu item labeled CHARGE? I rest my case. And hollering at your buddies (or at your enemies)—or singing with them—can be a big part of the fun too. Probable first use: Echelon for Commodore 64, 1987.

22. Specialized I/O devices for music (not counting MIDI keyboards).

Part technology, part design, advancements in I/O devices have changed the way we play, especially in musical games. Making music and dancing to it is an intensely physical activity that doesn’t easily translate to joysticks and typewriter keyboards. Maracas, conga drums, the Guitar Hero controller—all great fun. Possible first use: dance mats in Dance Dance Revolution, 1998.

23. Gestural interfaces.

Many cultures imbue gestures with supernatural or symbolic power, from Catholics crossing themselves to the mudras of Hindu and Buddhist iconography. Magic is often invoked with gestures, too—that’s part of what magic wands are for. The problem with a lot of videogame magic is that clicking icons and pushing buttons feels more technical than magical. The gestural interface is a comparatively recent invention that gives us a non-verbal, non-technical way to express ourselves. Best-known example: Wii controller. Probable first use: Black & White, 2001.

24. Reconfigurable controls and other accessibility features.

When you get used to a certain controller or keyboard setup, you want to be able to use it in every analogous game. PC games now routinely allow players to remap the commands on their input devices, but this is not yet as common as it should be on console machines. For people with hand problems it can be vital. Unfortunately, game developers have almost completely ignored the needs of the handicapped—to our lasting shame. We’re finally starting to get a clue. Among the other useful innovations here are: subtitles for the hearing-impaired; separate volume controls for music and sound effects; adjustable brightness and contrast controls; alternative color palettes to help the color-blind; settable game speed. The slogan of accessible game design is there’s no such thing as “too slow.”

Next: Presentational innovations

MOSPAGEBREAK

Presentational Innovations

Innovations in what the player sees and hears may depend heavily on technological advances, but I still consider them design innovations as well, features the designer can choose to use in their game—or not. I take static and scrolling 2D screens for granted; they already existed in mechanical coin-ops.

25. Isometric perspective, also sometimes called “three-quarters perspective.”

After years of side-view or top-view videogames, the isometric perspective provoked gasps of astonishment when it first appeared. It created a sense of three-dimensionality that had been sorely lacking from games to that point. For the first time, players could see both the tops and the sides of objects in a natural way, rather than through awkward “cheated” sprites, and could even move around objects to see them from the other side, if the designer had provided that feature. Best-known early example: Populous, 1989. Probable first use: Zaxxon coin-op, 1982.

26. First person perspective.

First person lends immediacy like no other point of view. When an enemy points a gun at you, it’s really at you—right in your face. The big tradeoff is that you don’t get to see your avatar, so visually dramatic activities such as traversing hand-over-hand along a telephone wire lose their impact. First person doesn’t have to mean true 3D; the earliest examples didn’t allow fully 3D movement or tilting up and down. Best-known early example: Battlezone coin-op, 1980. Probable first use: Maze Wars, developed at NASA on the Imlac minicomputer, 1973.

27. Third person perspective.

Controlling your avatar as seen from behind, looking over its shoulder. The camera follows wherever the avatar goes. Like first person, third person doesn’t necessarily require a true 3D space, but it has to seem like one. This innovation was important because it allowed you to watch a heroic character doing his stuff from a natural viewpoint, unlike the older side-scrolling and top-scrolling perspectives. The tradeoff is that the avatar obscures your view of part of the world, which can be awkward in shooting games. Best-known early example: Tomb Raider, 1996. First use: unknown. Viewpoints that follow vehicles as in Pole Position, 1982, are more properly defined as chase views.

28. Cut scenes.

Love ’em or hate ’em, they’re part of the gaming landscape. They give players a rest between periods of activity, allow them to see the game world from a viewpoint that doesn’t have to be playable (and is often more attractive), and of course can tell a story. Best-known early example: Maniac Mansion, 1987. Probable first use: Pac-Man, 1979.

29. True 3D.

We used to fake 3D viewpoints a lot, usually because we didn’t have the CPU power to provide the real thing. Doom was a very clever fake. 3D doesn’t always improve gameplay—consider Lemmings versus Lemmings 3D—but its impact on gaming is incalculable. Even mobile phones are starting to get 3D accelerators. Best-known early example: Microsoft Flight Simulator v1.0, 1982. Probable first use in a game: SPASIM, a Star Trek-themed multiplayer mainframe game, 1974. These were possible only because of the extremely limited number of objects in the landscape.

30. Context-sensitive camera.

A natural advancement on the third person perspective, a context-sensitive camera moves intelligently to follow the action. This enables the designer to use a cinematographer’s skills to present the game from the best angle at every moment. Context-sensitive cameras are excellent for adventure and slower-paced action-adventure games. In fast games, however, there’s a risk that sudden camera movements will be disorienting—to control events at speed, you need a predictable viewpoint. Best-known example: ICO, 2001. First use: unknown. Pre-rendered backdrops (as in point-and-click adventures) and player-controlled cameras (as in Gabriel Knight 3) aren’t the same thing.

31. Procedural landscape generation.

This technique enables designers to create large play spaces without having to build them by hand. If it’s done on the fly, they don’t even have to store them, which was important in the early machines. Best-known early example: Seven Cities of Gold, 1984. Probable first use: River Raid, 1982.

32. Interchangeable dialog playback (aka “stitching”).

This is the practice of assembling audio clips together to produce seamless dialog with varying content. We use it to create credible play-by-play in sports games, where the names of different athletes have to be inserted into the commentary. It has done a lot to create a truly television-like experience. Best-known early example: Hardball III, 1992. Probable first use: 3rd Degree for the CD-i player, 1992.

33. Adaptive music.

Everyone recognizes the power of music to create a mood. In videogames, the trick is to change the music in response to game events, and of course the composer can’t know in advance when they might occur. One approach is simply to play a new track on demand, but the transition can be jarring if not done well. Another approach is layering—mixing harmonizing pieces of music together and changing their volumes in response to the needs of the game. Best-known early example: Wing Commander, 1990.

Possible first use: Way Out for the Atari 800, 1982.

34. Bullet time.

Adjustable time has long been standard in flight simulators; it lets you speed up game-world time in order to get through dull periods quickly. Bullet time is a later innovation. It slows time down while still letting you act quickly, so it creates a feeling of super-speed to go with the more common game sensations of super-strength or super-toughness. Best-known early example: Max Payne, 2001. Possible first use: Requiem: Avenging Angel, 1999.

35. Deformable environments.

Here’s a classic game absurdity: a huge explosion destroys a tank, but does nothing to the walls and windows nearby. Deformable environments correct this and let you literally change the world. This feature poses a　risk to a game’s level design because you may be able to get into places the designer didn’t expect you to; but it makes the world much more realistic and lets you solve problems in your own way. Possible first use: Magic Carpet, 1994.

36. Clever indicators for unusual attributes.

Health, speed, mana, lives, ammunition, fuel, and so on all use pretty standard screen indicators: power bars, digits, gauges, repeating small images. Many are borrowed from real-world devices. But what about other, less obvious attributes? Over the years we’ve devised a variety of clever ways to display them—too many to list, so I’m lumping them all together. Some personal favorites: the flickering light in Thief: The Dark Project that indicates how “noticeable” your avatar is; the crosshairs that grow farther apart to indicate reduced weapon accuracy while you’re moving in shooter games; blurring the screen and rendering the controls unreliable to convey that the avatar is drunk or drugged.

Genres

We borrowed many videogame genres from other game forms, but a few genres would not have been possible before the invention of the computer, and represent real design innovation.

37. Construction and management simulations.

Both LEGO blocks and business management games predate the computer, but videogames put the two ideas together for the first time. Best-known early example: SimCity, 1989. Probable first use: Utopia for the Mattel Intellivision, 1982.

38. Real-time strategy games.

Turn-based computer war games had their roots in classics like the Avalon Hill board games, and many of them looked like board games too, with square counters representing units on a hexagonal grid. The addition of real time play made strategy gaming far more accessible to the general public, although purists would complain that RTS games replace true strategy with rapid mouse clicking and resource management. Best-known early example: The Ancient Art of War, 1984. Probable first use:

Stonkers for the ZX Spectrum, 1983. A related genre is real-time tactics, games that concentrate on individual battlefields (e.g. the Total War series) and eliminate the resource-manufacturing aspects of RTS games.

39. Fighting games.

Apart from real-world sports and the 1960’s toy Rock ’Em Sock ’Em Robots, I can’t find any examples of fighting games that predated the videogame. Many games include fighting elements, but true fighting games concentrate on mêlée combat without exploration or puzzle-solving. Fighting games have moved so far beyond real-life martial arts (incorporating magic powers, fictitious weapons, and unrealistic physics) that they constitute a major innovation of their own. There are now many sub-genres, but the common element is hand-to-hand fighting without ranged weapons. Possible first use: Heavyweight Champ coin-op, 1976. Best-known early example: Street Fighter, 1987.

40. Rhythm, dance and music games.

Timing challenges are as old as Pong, but games specifically based on rhythm arrived comparatively recently. Games about making music are increasingly popular too. By avoiding mindless repetitive violence, they also attract a larger female audience. Best-known early example: PaRappa the Rapper, 1996. Possible first use: Tempo for Sega 32X, 1995. (Music Construction Set, 1984, doesn’t count as a game.)

41. Artificial pets and people.

People love watching little critters live their lives, especially if you don’t have to feel guilty about letting them die (or if they’re immortal and can’t die at all). Training and nurturing them and buying trinkets for them are all part of the fun. The Sims is the best-selling PC game of all time; Nintendogs is a massive hit on the Nintendo DS. Possible first use: Little Computer People, 1985. Best-known early example: Dogz, 1995.

42. God games.

This genre is a mashup of construction and management simulations, real-time strategy games, and artificial life games, with some extra qualities all its own. In a god game, you assume the role of the god of a group of people, and your job is (mostly) to help them prosper. The key features are indirect control—you can influence your worshippers through your actions, but you cannot give them explicit orders—and divine powers such as changing the landscape or causing natural disasters. God games let us make volcanoes on demand; what more need I say? Probable first use: Populous, 1989. (Some people consider Utopia, 1982, to be a god game, but I class it as a CMS because the player’s powers aren’t truly godly. The claims of the Firaxis PR department notwithstanding, Civilization is not a god game.)

43. Social and dating games (with or without sex).

I can only find one non-computerized dating game, Milton Bradley’s 1965 board game Mystery Date. Computerized dating sims are a major phenomenon in Japan. Many use dialog tree conversation, in which saying the right thing to a prospective partner leads to a closer relationship. Some have complex systems of attributes not unlike those in role-playing games, but the attributes describe a character’s romantic appeal rather than his ability to whack monsters. Possible first use: D??ky?′sei (Classmates), 1992.

44. Interactive movies.

This genre came and went, and good riddance to it. It’s a world-changing design innovation because it proved so clearly to be a creative dead end that everybody knows not to make interactive movies any more—although the term is still used at times to describe the cinematic quality of games in other genres. Interactive movies taught us, by negative example, that gameplay comes first, period. The CD-ROM drive first made them possible, and in their heyday, they sold tons…until the novelty of watching tiny, grainy videos wore off. Best-known early example: The 7th Guest, 1993. Probable first use: Dragon’s Lair coin-op, 1983.

45. “Games for girls” (not women).

The game industry ignored girls entirely for most of its early history. In the mid-1990s there was a short-lived vogue for making games for girls, but it was mostly marketing hype and a lot of girls got ripped off by shoddy products in pink boxes. The idea has since been revived somewhat; witness the Bratz series based on the (in)famous dolls. A degree of controversy surrounds games for girls, as some people are concerned that fulfilling girls’ shopping fantasies is not as socially responsible as fulfilling boys’ violence fantasies. Other games aimed at the girl market are less stereotypical, e.g. the Nancy Drew adventure games. Best-known early example: Barbie Fashion Designer, 1996. Probable first use: Barbie, 1991. (Although Pac-Man and Centipede, both from 1980, were popular with female players, neither was explicitly marketed to girls. Plundered Hearts, 1982, was aimed at adult women.)

Play Styles

Different ways that people play, and how designers facilitate them.

46. Brag boards (aka high score tables).

The earliest arcade games didn’t have them. You could beat your buddy if the game was multiplayer, but only you and he knew it. The brag board, which records your initials along with your score, lets you be king of the hill until someone bests you, an irresistible challenge to competitive players. First use: Asteroids, 1979.

47. Save game.

The subject of religious warfare ever since it was invented, with those who enjoy the challenge of making it through a difficult section with no safety net in one camp, and those who want to stop and start play on their own timetable in the other. For good or ill, depending on your perspective, the ability to save profoundly affects your play style. There are many ways to implement saving, however, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. I include level passwords (for machines with no storage media) and checkpoints in the same category. First use: lost in the mists of time.

48. Modem-to-modem and networked play.

Modem-to-modem games let people play together in pairs. Although an important step forward, their biggest weakness was in the lack of a matchmaking facility—you had to know someone else who owned a modem and a copy of the same game. Then we got networking, and the medium exploded. However, networked play actually existed before personal computers. Best-known early example: RabbitJack’s Casino on the Quantum Link service for Commodore 64 machines, 1986. Probable first use: Maze Wars on networked Imlac minicomputers at MIT, 1974.

49. Multiplayer dungeons.

Combine the fun of exploration in games like Zork with the fun of multiplayer play, and you get the multiplayer dungeon. MUDs are the direct precursors of today’s wildly popular MMORPGs. In South Korea, they’re a national mania. The earliest version was not networked, but played on a timesharing mainframe. First use: MUD, at the University of Essex, 1979.

50. Party games.

We’ve always had multiplayer games, but party games are different—they’re designed to provide entertainment in the context of a real party, a group of people enjoying each other’s company. Instead of immersing players deeply in a fantasy world, party games give them lots of mini-games to play and laugh about. First use:

Mario Party, 1998.

Those are the fifty design innovations that I’ve selected, some that were extremely important, others that will be increasingly so in the future. Opinions will doubtless vary as to their significance, and I may have omitted something that others find essential. I look forward to further discussion!