ch4.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

  use hexgrids for their maps. Indeed, most computer wargames do so =
---but it is=20
  a terrible mistake. The hex does have advantages, but it imposes a =
penalty on=20
  computer wargames that does not apply to boardgames. You can print =
anything=20
  you desire on a piece of paper, but the graphic display of the =
computer is not=20
  so accommodating. The display system of the television set is =
fundamentally=20
  rectangular in its architecture. Horizontal lines are stacked in a =
vertical=20
  sequence. Such a display can very easily handle rectangular shapes; =
hexagonal=20
  shapes just don=92t work very well. To draw a hex the program must =
draw four=20
  diagonal lines, each one composed of a set of staggered dots. To make =
the=20
  hexgrid recognizable the lines must be surrounded by an exclusion zone =
at=20
  least one pixel wide; this consumes a large portion of the screen area =
if the=20
  hexes are small and dense. If they are larger, less screen area is =
consumed by=20
  the gridwork but fewer hexes can be shown on a single screen. =
Moreover,=20
  joysticks cannot be easily used with hexgrids because joysticks are =
set up=20
  with rectangular geometry. I do not wish to imply that hexgrids cannot =
be=20
  implemented on personal computer displays; on the contrary, they have =
already=20
  been implemented on many personal computers. The problem is that they =
are=20
  clumsy to display, lacking in graphic detail, and difficult to use. =
They just=20
  don=92t work smoothly. A topologically identical solution has been =
used in a few=20
  games: horizontally staggered rows of squares ("bricks") are used in =
place of=20
  hexes. This system retains the flexibility of hexes while imposing =
fewer=20
  display problems; it remains very difficult to use with a =
joystick.</P>
  <P>For these reasons I went back to rectgrid for EASTERN FRONT 1941. =
My=20
  decision was not based on laziness or unwillingness to tackle the =
problem of=20
  hexgrids; indeed, I had already solved the problem with another game =
(TACTICS)=20
  and could easily have transported the code. The experience I gained in =
working=20
  with the earlier code convinced me that hexgrids weren=92t so =
important. The=20
  success of EASTERN FRONT 1941 seems to indicate that the lack of =
hexgrids need=20
  not impose a handicap. <FONT size=3D-1><A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Chapter4.html#=
top">Top</A>=20
  </FONT></P>
  <P><A name=3D"PRECEPT #2: DON=92T TRANSPLANT"></A><B>PRECEPT #2: =
DON=92T TRANSPLANT=20
  <BR></B>(Now our hero is plummeting earthward from the top of a cliff, =

  furiously flapping makeshift wings attached to his arms.)</P>
  <P>One of the most disgusting denizens of computer gamedom is the =
transplanted=20
  game. This is a game design originally developed on another medium =
that some=20
  misguided soul has seen fit to reincarnate on a computer. The high =
incidence=20
  of this practice does not excuse its fundamental folly. The most =
generous=20
  reaction I can muster is the observation that we are in the early =
stages of=20
  computer game design; we have no sure guidelines and must rely on =
existing=20
  technologies to guide us. Some day we will look back on these early=20
  transplanted games with the same derision with which we look on early =
aircraft=20
  designs based on flapping wings.</P>
  <P>Why do I so vehemently denounce transplanted games? Because they =
are design=20
  bastards, the illegitimate children of two technologies that have =
nothing in=20
  common. Consider the worst example I have discovered so far, a =
computer craps=20
  game. The computer displays and rolls two dice for the player in a =
standard=20
  game of craps. The computer plays the game perfectly well, but that is =
not the=20
  point. The point is, why bother implementing on the computer a game =
that works=20
  perfectly well on another technology? A pair of dice can be had for =
less than=20
  a dollar. Indeed, a strong case can be made that the computer version =
is less=20
  successful than the original. Apparently one of the appeals of the =
game of=20
  craps is the right of the player to shake the dice himself. Many =
players share=20
  the belief that proper grip on the dice, or speaking to them, or =
perhaps=20
  kissing them will improve their luck. Thus, the player can maintain =
the=20
  illusion of control, of participation rather than observation. The =
computer=20
  provides none of this; the mathematics may be the same, but the =
fantasy and=20
  illusion aren=92t there.</P>
  <P>In one way or another, every transplanted game loses something in =
the=20
  translation. It may also gain something, but it always loses =
something. This=20
  is because any game that succeeds in one technology does so because it =
is=20
  optimized to that technology; it takes maximum advantage of the =
strengths and=20
  avoids the weaknesses. The transplanted version uses the same design =
on a=20
  different set of strengths and weaknesses; it will almost certainly be =
a=20
  lesser product. Any memorable artistic expression is as much a =
creature of its=20
  vehicle of expression as it is an image of a thought. Shakespeare =
reads best=20
  in Elizabethan English; translation to modern English loses some of =
the verve=20
  and linguistic panache that we find so entertaining. The rhetoric of=20
  Isocrates, dull and drab in English, acquires a compelling cadence in =
Greek=20
  that thrills the listener. Great books that touched our souls when we =
read=20
  them almost always disappoint us when we see their movie adaptations. =
Why=20
  should computer games be immune to this law of loss on translation? =
<FONT=20
  size=3D-1><A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Chapter4.html#=
top">Top</A>=20
  </FONT></P>
  <P><A name=3D"PRECEPT #3: DESIGN AROUND THE"></A><B>PRECEPT #3: DESIGN =
AROUND=20
  THE I/O</B></P>
  <P>(Now our man is putting the final touches onto a gigantic and =
complex=20
  machine with pipes, valves, smokestacks, and many wires. On the front =
face of=20
  the machine is a sign that reads, "Make your move". Underneath it are =
two=20
  buttons labeled "CHOICE A" and "CHOICE B". To the right of this are a =
pair of=20
  illuminable signs, one reading, "YOU WIN!!!", the other reading "YOU =
LOSE!!!"=20
  )</P>
  <P>As I mentioned earlier, the computer=92s ability to calculate is a =
strength,=20
  but it=92s I/O is a weakness. Thus, the primary limitation facing the =
computer=20
  game designer is not in the machine=92s ability to perform complex =
computations,=20
  but in the I/O: moving the information between the computer and the =
human=20
  player. The game must be designed in such a way that the information =
given to=20
  the player flows naturally and directly from the screen layout and =
sound=20
  output. I have seen far too many games with good game structures that =
were=20
  ruined by poor I/O structures. The user was never able to appreciate =
the=20
  architectural beauties of the game because they were buried in a =
confusing=20
  display structure. Even worse are the games that sport poor input=20
  arrangements, especially poor use of the keyboard. Most game players =
find=20
  keyboards difficult to use smoothly. Difficulty can in some cases =
create=20
  challenge, but difficulties with keyboards generate only frustration. =
The=20
  implementation of the game will be dominated by the limitations of =
I/O. What=20
  can and cannot be displayed, what can and cannot be inputted, these =
things=20
  must decide the shape of the same.</P>
  <P>A comparison of two of my own games provides an excellent example =
of the=20
  importance of I/O structures. EASTERN FRONT 1941 and TANKTICS =
(trademark of=20
  Avalon-Hill) are both wargames dealing with World War II. Both provide =

  reasonably intelligent opponents, complex detailed simulation, a rich =
variety=20
  of options, and thought-provoking strategic challenges. In all these =
respects,=20
  they are roughly equivalent. They differ primarily in their I/O. =
EASTERN FRONT=20
  1941 was designed around its I/O; it provides clean, informative =
graphics and=20
  an intuitively obvious joystick input system. By contrast, TANKTICS =
was=20
  designed around its game structure; its keyboard input system is =
clumsy and=20
  confusing and its alphanumeric; screen display is cryptic. EASTERN =
FRONT 1941=20
  has been acclaimed by the critics and has received awards; TANKTICS =
has been=20
  panned. The quality of a game=92s I/O structure is crucial to its =
success. <FONT=20
  size=3D-1><A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Chapter4.html#=
top">Top</A>=20
  </FONT></P>
  <P><A name=3D"PRECEPT #4: KEEP IT"></A><B>PRECEPT #4: KEEP IT =
CLEAN</B></P>
  <P>(Our hero at the controls of his custom motorcycle, 20 feet long, =
equipped=20
  with numerous rear-view mirrors, power steering, brakes, and throttle, =

  adjustable seats, adjustable handlebars, windshield wipers on several=20
  windshields and on each mirror, television, hamburger dispenser, etc. =
The=20
  artist can use imagination here.)</P>
  <P>Many game designers fail to keep the overall structure of their =
game close=20
  to heart as they develop the details of the game structure. As they =
encounter=20
  design problems, they resort to quick patches that are grafted onto =
the main=20
  game structure without due regard to the impact such grafts have on =
the=20
  overall cleanliness of the design. A game must have artistic unity if =
it is to=20
  have emotional impact on its audience. Artistic unity can only be =
achieved by=20
  sticking close to the theme and eschewing distracting details.</P>
  <P>I refer to any factors that do not comport with the central theme =
of the=20
  game as "dirt." The debilitating nature of dirt is seldom recognized, =
because=20
  dirt also endows a game with "color", namely the texture or feel that =
makes=20
  the game seem real. It is true that proper use of this kind of color =
will=20
  indeed enhance a game. However, the game designer must realize that =
color is=20
  obtained at the price of a certain amount of dirt. The critical =
quantity then=20
  becomes the ratio of color to dirt. The designer always desires the =
highest=20
  possible ratio, but sometimes, to increase the absolute amount of =
color, s/he=20
  must accept some more dirt. In all cases, the inclusion of dirt into a =
game=20
  must be a conscious trade-off on the part of the game designer, not an =

  accident springing from the desire to quickly resolve some irritating =
problem.=20
  </P>
  <P>Dirt most often arises from special-case rules that are applied =
rarely. For=20
  example, EASTERN FRONT 1941 has a number of special-case rules that =
add dirt=20
  to the game. The worst is the rule forbidding Finnish units to attack. =

  Inasmuch as there are only two Finnish units, this rule has very =
little=20
  significance to the game as a whole, yet the player must still be =
aware of it.=20
  It clutters up the game and the player=92s mind without adding much. =
(I had to=20
  put it in to solve a design problem: what=92s to stop the Finns from =
taking=20
  Leningrad all by themselves?)</P>
  <P>A less dirty rule provides that Axis allies (Rumanian, Hungarian, =
and=20
  Italian units) fight with less determination than the Germans. There =
are six=20
  of these units in EASTERN FRONT 1941; thus, the rule is not quite so =
special a=20
  case and hence not quite so dirty.</P>
  <P>There is a rule in EASTERN FRONT 1941 that armored units move =
faster than=20
  infantry units. EASTERN FRONT 1941 has many armored units; thus, this =
rule is=20
  not a particularly special case, because it applies to a goodly =
portion of all=20
  units. It is therefore not dirty.</P>
  <P>I can generalize these observations by saying that the narrower the =
range=20
  of application of a rule, the dirtier it is. My precept against dirt =
thus=20
  requires the designer to formulate a set of rules that cover the =
entire game=20
  situation without recourse to special case rules. In the perfect game =
design,=20
  each rule is applied universally. We can never achieve the perfect =
design, but=20
  we can and should strive to give each rule the widest possible =
application.=20
  The player must consider the implications of each rule while making =
every=20
  decision in the game.</P>
  <P>There is a school of game design that I derisively label the =
"humongous=20
  heap" school of game design. Perpetrators of this philosophy design a =
game by=20
  selecting a simple structure and piling onto it the largest possible =
jumble of=20