游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

如何解决玩家对程序生成内容的误解

发布时间:2016-11-14 11:32:48 Tags:,,,

作者:Dan Marshall

《The Swindle》的程序生成拥有一个很奇怪的缺陷。经常会有人因此感到生气并跟我们抱怨游戏崩溃了。其实游戏并未崩溃,游戏完全是按照我们预期设定在运行,但我们仍会不断收到这样的评论。我觉得有必要跟你们分享我在游戏开发中所犯的一些错误,因为这将是帮助人们更好地浏览游戏,以及去理解你正在执行的一些新技术的有趣案例研究。

The Swindle(from 3h3)

The Swindle(from 3h3)

我是在《The Swindle》的开发初期便清楚自己并不喜欢教程,因为我更喜欢自己解决问题。独立开发的核心便是关于创造你想要看到的游戏。虽然这并不一定能够迎合所有人的口味,但毕竟不存在任何能够让所有人都满意的东西。无论如何我认为这便是一个正确的决定,我认为不去手把手教授能让《The Swindle》变得更有趣,玩家将能够凭借自己的能力从中获得最大的游戏乐趣。

而这里也存在一个值得我们注意的要点:从来没有人和我抱怨过上锁的门。真的从来没有。

在游戏一开始,玩家拥有的资金非常有限,你需要专攻于某一领域—-如使用黑客技术穿过上锁的门,或将其炸掉。而这些方法都有自己的优势,如黑客技术能让你的升级树变得更大且更好操控,而爆炸方式则是更便捷的逃跑方式且能够用于对付较强大的敌人。而这一切都是由玩家自行做出选择。

一般而言,游戏生成建筑的方式是创造一个空间然后使用门或固体墙将其分解。通常门都是上了锁的,游戏会使用弹出式告示告诉你你需要一个更高的黑客技能。而固体墙就是你可以在任何游戏中看到的那样。

比起给予玩家过多信息,这种方法能够有效且正确地为玩家指明方向,并让他们觉得自己真的像个小偷一般:当你看到一扇上锁的门,这时你会想“我需要提高自己的黑客技能,”当你看到一堵墙时,你会想“如果我拥有爆炸技能的话我便可以将其炸毁,”然后你可以选择花费自己的“不义之财”去购买炸弹。

现在:没有人跟我抱怨过上锁的门。

当人们看到一堵墙时他们的第一个想法便是抱怨程序生成带有漏洞,游戏竟然创造出了让自己不能通行的空间。而就代码而言,设置一扇门或一堵墙从功能性来看并无区别—-这都是阻塞点,但是玩家却是以不同的视角在看待它们。

这里的解决方法便是UI,对吧?即在每一扇门上都贴上“可推倒”的图标,但这么做不会显得很无趣吗?这不就等同于我在告诉你该怎么做。如此玩家的满足感便会大大较少,这其实就等同于《刺客信条》中无尽的任务获取,即到达一个场所按压X去挖掘一个遗迹然后继续前进。这种过程是不可能带给玩家满足感的,这只是在一个列表上不断清除每项条目而已。而这也绝不是我想创造的游戏。

(注:这里所存在的问题是由《The Swindle》的100个偷盗限制所组成的。虽然这能让人感到兴奋,但同时玩家也会觉得自己必须在每个关卡都偷到100%的现金,因为他们害怕需要再重头来过。)

所以才会有那么多人跟我说游戏的程序生成出问题了,而我也从这一错误中学到了如何让自己的下一款游戏更加用户友好型并避免玩家不能独立思考,但这也让我担心游戏是否会因此失去乐趣。

不过我从中所吸取的经验教训便是:清清楚楚地去呈现你的程序生成所创造的内容。因为任何“微妙设定”都可能被误会成是“坏掉了”。

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

Procedural Generation, and the problem of Player Perception

by Dan Marshall

The Swindle’s Procedural Generation has a weird flaw that causes people to get angry and tell me it’s broken. It isn’t broken, it works exactly as intended, but still the comments come in. I thought it might be useful to share the mistake I made, because I think it’s quite an interesting case study in how people read games, and how people react to this new-and-unusual tech you’re implementing.

I took a decision early on in The Swindle’s development that I hate tutorials, and in games I prefer to work things out for myself. That’s the ethos, that’s what indie development is all about: making the games you want to see. It’s not going to be to everyone’s tastes, but that’s fine, not everything has to be. For what it’s worth, I think it was the right decision, I think The Swindle is a better game for not leading the player by the hand, and I think the players who got the most out of the game enjoyed working things out for themselves.

Here’s the issue: no one has ever complained to me about a locked door. Not once.

At the start of the game, cash is really tight and you need to specialise in one field or the other – Hacking to get you through locked doors, or Explosives, to get you… well, wherever you want. Both have perks – hacking sets you down an upgrade tree to bigger and better manipulation of computer stuff, explosives are handy for impromptu escape routes and taking out tough enemies. It’s the player’s choice, and an important one.

The way the game generates building is – by and large – to create a room and then block it off, either with a DOOR or with a SOLID WALL. Doors are locked, and on approach a notification pops up that says you need a higher hacking skill. Walls are solid walls like any other wall found in the game.

The idea was to lead people in the right direction, rather than overtly telling them, to get them thinking on the fly like a real thief: you see a locked door, you think “I need to increase my hack skill”, you see a wall you think “I could access that room if I had explosives” and choose to spend your ill-gotten gains on bombs.

Now: no one has ever complained to me about a locked door.

People see a wall and their first thought is to complain that the Procedural Generation is buggy, it’s broken, it creates rooms you can’t access. As far as the code is concerned, placing a door or a wall is functionally the same thing – it’s a room that has its access point blocked – but the way players read it is very very different.

The solution would be just to stick a UI on, right? A big “BREAKABLE” icon on any wall that leads to a room but… eugh, isn’t that less fun? Isn’t that just me telling you what to do? There’s no satisfaction in that – it’s the equivalent of endless fetch quests in Assassin’s Creed – go to a location and press X to dig up a relic and move on. There’s no satisfaction in that process, it’s ticking items off a list. That’s not the game I wanted to make.

(side note: the issue here is compounded by The Swindle’s 100 Heist Limit. It freaks people out despite the fact it’s generous, and can be extended, but people feel a need to steal 100% of the cash in every level, for fear of having to start over)

So, I have people telling endlessly me the Procedural Generation is broken and yes, I will probably learn from this mistake and think where to make my next PG game more user-friendly for fear of people not being able to think for themselves, and as a result I suspect it’ll be a little bit less interesting.

It’s pretty obvious in hindsight, but that’s the lesson I learned, and I thought it might come in handy for others: consider showing what your procedural generation has done, overtly. Because ‘subtlety’ can be mistaken for ‘broken’.(source:gamasutra)

 


上一篇:

下一篇: