ch6.mht

游戏设计大师Chris Crawford的大作《The Art of Game Design》唯一不足的是英文版的

The same=20
  woman randomly covered with miscellaneous bits of cloth would only =
look silly.=20
  </P>
  <P>Another way to even balance between human and computer is through =
the pace=20
  of the game. The human may be smart, but the computer is much faster =
at=20
  performing simple computations. If the pace is fast enough, the human =
will not=20
  have enough time to apply his superior processing skills, and will be=20
  befuddled. This is a very easy technique to apply, so it comes as no =
surprise=20
  that it is very heavily used by designers of skill and action =
games.</P>
  <P>I do not encourage the use of pace as an equalizing agent in =
computer=20
  games. Pace only succeeds by depriving the human player of the time he =
needs=20
  to invest a larger portion of himself into the game. Without that =
investment,=20
  the game can never offer a rich challenge. Pace does for computer =
games what=20
  the one-night stand does for romance. Like one-night stands, it will =
never go=20
  away. We certainly do not need to encourage it.</P>
  <P><A name=3DSummary></A><B>Summary</B></P>
  <P>These four techniques for balancing computer games are never used =
in=20
  isolation; every game uses some combination of the four. Most games =
rely=20
  primarily on pace and quantity for balance, with very little =
intelligence or=20
  limited information. There is no reason why a game could not use all =
four=20
  techniques; indeed, this should make the game all the more successful, =
for, by=20
  using small amounts of each method, the game would not have to strain =
the=20
  limitations of each. The designer must decide the appropriate balance =
of each=20
  for the goals of the particular game. <FONT size=3D-1><A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Chapter6.html#=
top">Top</A>=20
  </FONT></P>
  <P><A name=3D"RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN"></A><B>RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN=20
  OPPONENTS</B></P>
  <P>Every game establishes a relationship between opponents that each =
player=20
  strives to exploit to maximum advantage. The fundamental architecture =
of this=20
  relationship plays a central role in the game. It defines the =
interactions=20
  available to the players and sets the tone of the game. Most computer =
games to=20
  date utilize very simple player-to-player relationships; this has =
limited=20
  their range and depth. A deeper understanding of player-to-player=20
  relationships will lead to more interesting games. <FONT size=3D-1><A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Chapter6.html#=
top">Top</A>=20
  </FONT></P>
  <P><A name=3DSymmetric></A><B>Symmetric Relationships</B></P>
  <P>The simplest architecture establishes a symmetric relationship =
between the=20
  two players. Both possess the same properties, the same strengths and=20
  weaknesses. Symmetric games have the obviously desirable feature that =
they are=20
  automatically balanced. They tend to be much easier to program because =
the=20
  same processes are applied to each player. Finally, they are easier to =
learn=20
  and understand. Examples of symmetric games include COMBAT for the =
ATARI 2600,=20
  BASKETBALL, and DOG DAZE by Gray Chang.</P>
  <P>Symmetric games suffer from a variety of weaknesses, the greatest =
of which=20
  is their relative simplicity. Any strategy that promises to be truly =
effective=20
  can and will be used by both sides simultaneously. In such a case, =
success is=20
  derived not from planning but from execution. Alternatively, success =
in the=20
  game turns on very fine details; chess provides an example an =
advantage of but=20
  a single pawn can be parlayed into a victory. <FONT size=3D-1><A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Chapter6.html#=
top">Top</A>=20
  </FONT></P>
  <P><A name=3DAsymmetric></A><B>Asymmetric games</B></P>
  <P>Because of the weaknesses of symmetric games, many games attempt to =

  establish an asymmetric relationship between the opponents. Each =
player has a=20
  unique combination of advantages and disadvantages. The game designer =
must=20
  somehow balance the advantages so that both sides have the same =
likelihood of=20
  victory, given equal levels of skill. The simplest way of doing this =
is with=20
  plastic asymmetry. These games are formally symmetric, but the players =
are=20
  allowed to select initial traits according to some set of =
restrictions. For=20
  example, in the Avalon-Hill boardgame WIZARD=92S QUEST, the players =
are each=20
  allowed the same number of territories at the beginning of the game, =
but they=20
  choose their territories in sequence. Thus, what was initially a =
symmetric=20
  relationship (each person has N territories) becomes an asymmetric one =
(player=20
  A has one combination of N territories while player B has a different=20
  combination). The asymmetry is provided by the players themselves at =
the=20
  outset of the game, so if the results are unbalanced, the player has =
no one to=20
  blame but himself.</P>
  <P>Other games establish a more explicitly asymmetric relationship. =
Almost all=20
  solitaire computer games establish an asymmetric relationship between =
the=20
  computer player and the human player because the computer cannot hope =
to=20
  compete with the human in matters of intelligence. Thus, the human =
player is=20
  given resources that allow him to bring his superior planning power to =
bear,=20
  and the computer gets resources that compensate for its lack of =
intelligence.=20
  <FONT size=3D-1><A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Chapter6.html#=
top">Top</A>=20
  </FONT></P>
  <P><A name=3DTriangularity></A><B>Triangularity</B></P>
  <P>The advantage of asymmetric games lies in the ability to build=20
  nontransitive or triangular relationships into the game. Transitivity =
is a=20
  well-defined mathematical property. In the context of games it is best =

  illustrated with the rock-scissors-paper game. Two players play this =
game;=20
  each secretly selects one of the three pieces; they simultaneously =
announce=20
  and compare their choices. If both made the same choice the result is =
a draw=20
  and the game is repeated. If they make different choices, then rock =
breaks=20
  scissors, scissors cut paper, and paper enfolds rock. This =
relationship, in=20
  which each component can defeat one other and can be defeated by one =
other, is=20
  a nontransitive relationship; the fact that rock beats scissors and =
scissors=20
  beat paper does not mean that rock beats paper. Notice that this =
particular=20
  nontransitive relationship only produces clean results with three =
components.=20
  This is because each component only relates to two other components; =
it beats=20
  one and loses to the other. A rock-scissors-paper game with binary =
outcomes=20
  (win or lose) cannot be made with more than three components. One =
could be=20
  made with multiple components if several levels of victory (using a =
point=20
  system, perhaps) were admitted.</P>
  <P>Nontransitivity is an interesting mathematical property, but it =
does not=20
  yield rich games so long as we hew to the strict mathematical meaning =
of the=20
  term. The value of this discussion lies in the generalization of the =
principle=20
  into less well-defined areas. I use the term "triangular" to describe =
such=20
  asymmetric relationships that extend the concepts of nontransitivity =
beyond=20
  its formal definition.</P>
  <P>A simple example of a triangular relationship appears in the game=20
  BATTLEZONE. When a saucer appears, the player can pursue the saucer =
instead of=20
  an enemy tank. In such a case, there are three components: player, =
saucer, and=20
  enemy tank. The player pursues the saucer (side one) and allows the =
enemy tank=20
  to pursue him unmolested (side two). The third side of the triangle =
(saucer to=20
  enemy tank) is not directly meaningful to the human---the computer =
maneuvers=20
  the saucer to entice the human into a poor position. This example is =
easy to=20
  understand because the triangularity assumes a spatial form as well as =
a=20
  structural one.</P>
  <P>Triangularity is most often implemented with mixed =
offensive-defensive=20
  relationships. In most conflict games, regardless of the medium of =
conflict,=20
  there will be offensive actions and defensive ones. Some games =
concentrate the=20
  bulk of one activity on one side, making one side the attacker and the =
other=20
  side the defender. This is a risky business, for it restricts the =
options=20
  available to each player. It=92s hard to interact when your options =
are limited.=20
  Much more entertaining are games that mix offensive and defensive =
strategies=20
  for each player. This way, each player gets to attack and to defend. =
What is=20
  more important, players can trade off defensive needs against =
offensive=20
  opportunities. Triangular relationships automatically spring from such =

  situations.</P>
  <P>The essence of the value of triangularity lies in its indirection. =
A binary=20
  relationship makes direct conflict unavoidable; the antagonists must =
approach=20
  and attack each other through direct means. These direct approaches =
are=20
  obvious and expected; for this reason such games often degenerate into =
tedious=20
  exercises following a narrow script. A triangular relationship allows =
each=20
  player indirect methods of approach. Such an indirect approach always =
allows a=20
  far richer and subtler interaction. <FONT size=3D-1><A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Chapter6.html#=
top">Top</A>=20
  </FONT></P>
  <P><A name=3D"Actors and Indirect"></A><B>Actors and Indirect=20
  Relationships</B></P>
  <P>Indirection is the essence of the value of triangularity to game =
design.=20
  Indirection is itself an important element to consider, for =
triangularity is=20
  only the most rudimentary expression of indirection. We can take the =
concept=20
  of indirection further than triangularity. Most games provide a direct =

  relationship between opponents, as shown in the following diagram:</P>
  <P>Since the opponent is the only obstacle facing the player, the =
simplest and=20
  most obvious resolution of the conflict is to destroy the opponent. =
This is=20
  why so many of these direct games are so violent. Triangularity, on =
the other=20
  hand, provides some indirection in the relationship:</P>
  <P>With triangularity, each opponent can get at the other through the =
third=20
  party. The third party can be a passive agent, a weakly active one, or =
a=20
  full-fledged player. However, it=92s tough enough getting two people =
together for=20
  a game, much less three; therefore the third agent is often played by =
a=20
  computer-generated actor. An actor, as defined here, is not the same =
as an=20
  opponent. An actor follows a simple script; it has no guiding =
intelligence or=20
  purpose of its own. For example, the saucer in BATTLEZONE is an actor. =
Its=20
  script calls for it to drift around the battlefield without actively=20
  participating in the battle. Its function is distraction, a very weak =
role for=20
  an actor to play.</P>
  <P>The actor concept allows us to understand a higher level of =
indirection,=20
  diagrammatically represented as follows:</P>
  <P>In this arrangement, the players do not battle each other directly; =
they=20
  control actors who engage in direct conflict. A good example of this =
scheme is=20
  shown in the game ROBOTWAR by Muse Software. In this game, each player =

  controls a killer robot. The player writes a detailed script (a short =
program)=20
  for his robot; this script will be used by the robot in a gladiatorial =

  contest. The game thus removes the players from direct conflict and=20
  substitutes robot-actors as combatants. Each player is clearly =
identified with=20
  his own robot. This form of indirection is unsuccessful because the =
conflict=20
  itself remains direct; moreover, the player is removed from the =
conflict and=20
  forced to sit on the sidelines. I therefore see this form of =
indirection as an=20