jjaocgd.htm

关于windows游戏编程的一些文章还有相关图形

<H3><FONT COLOR=YELLOW><I>The Content</I></FONT></H3>

<P>Okay, now that I've described the four elements to you, we
can now discuss how they work together to form the content of a
game.  To examine the relationships between each element, let's
look at a few genres of gaming.


<P><I>Action</I>

<P>Action games (such as Space Invaders, Missile Command, etc.)
are very simple in nature.  They're designed to create a quick
adrenaline rush in the player.  The main elements involved in
such a case is swarming and simplicity.  What the swarming does
is create that rush.  It makes the player think, "DAMMIT, you
might be able to put me down, but not before I give you a serious
lickin'!"  The simplicity exists to provide the player with an
outlet at which he or she may do maximum damage with the least
amount of effort.

<P>But what of story and simulation?  Well, as stated above, the
objective in an action game is quick adrenaline.  Simulation
would just complicate the controls, and thus handling the swarm
would be more of a frustration than fun.  The story is again
negligible since an action game relies solely on reflexes and not
words.

<P><I>Strategy</I>

<P>Strategy games rely more on the simulation aspect.  Whether
it be an RTS or a turn-based war game, this still holds true. 
The simulation is in commanding enormous armies, employing war
tactics, and watching them fight realistically.  Remember playing
with Army Men as a child?  It's the same deal.  When you were a
lil' toddler manoeuvring those plastic soldiers on the floor, you
were simulating a real war just b'cuz it was fun.  Now, instead
of playing with plastic soldiers, a $2000 machine is used ;).

<P>Anyways, because of this simulation aspect, a strategy game
loses simplicity.  Now, a whole set of rules (like strengths,
armour ratings, movement points, etc.) are taken into account,
and the AI actually thinks.  No more mindless blasting.

<P>However, this may not be true in an RTS.  An RTS is a very
interesting type of game as it blends together some of the
elements.  By simplifying the interface and rules, making it
real-time, and keeping a good part of that "World War III" feel,
an undeniably enjoyable game was created.  But what exactly
happened in the creation of the RTS?  Well, let's see.

<P>Simplifying the interface and rules obviously adds to the
simplicity element.  Making it real-time gives adds to the swarm
factor (think, instead of five tanks slowly, turn-by-turn,
surrounding your base, you have five tanks wrecking havoc in a
matter of seconds).  Finally, by keeping that World War III feel,
the simulation component persists.

<P>However, there still remains one more element to discuss
regarding strategy, and that is the story.  What story may do is
enhance the simulation feeling.  In Command & Conquer story was
used to give meaning to the little skirmishes that happened on
the field -it made it into a real war.  Similarly, in a game like
Wing Commander or Mech Warrior, the story again adds purpose to
all the blasting and mech/spaceship handling.  It made it real,
thus supplementing the simulation aspect.

<P><I>RPG/Adventure</I>

<P>Here's a juicy nugget.  When I previously went over RPGs and
Adventures, I didn't mention one thing.  Is an RPG a game?  For
example, Final Fantasy.  Is that a game or Interactive
Storytelling?  In my opinion, FF is not a game but interactive
storytelling because it lacks the need for any skill and the
outcome will always be the same.  In even the most linear game
(Pacman, whatever), there is a requirement of skill (which means
that there is variation in gameplay -the order in which you eat
the dots in this case), yet in FF, heck, you just go through the
story and mindlessly hit the 'attack' button during those petty
fights.  It's too easy and mindless.

<P>WAIT!  Before you say, "NO way!  You got it ALL wrong!"  I
realize now that certain RPG/Adventures are different (or
starting to be different).  For example, Baldur's Gate relies
more on the battles.  Skill is now required to overcome monsters
and such and thus, it moves away from the Interactive
Storytelling arena.  So to correct myself, *some* RPGs are
interactive storytelling.
 
<P>Getting back on track now, let's think about this story
element.  It seems that story is a dependant ingredient.  If
story were to survive on its own, it would cease to be a
videogame.  Instead it would be Interactive Storytelling in which
case literature should be the subject of discussion.  However,
despite this dependence, story is still an integral part of a
game.  What it does is give purpose, that's it.  Mostly though,
it gives purpose to simulation.  For example, in Wing Commander,
the gameplay was extremely repetitive.  I ended up defeating
every ship the same way, flying at set speeds, and I had set
procedures on playing the game.  In other words, there was no
variety.  Yet, it was still my favourite game.  I played it
constantly, and after I beat it, I played it again.  Why?  Am I
just dumb or stupid?  [Don't answer that :)]

<P>No, what I'm getting at is that Wing Commander had story,
albeit a pretty lame one.  But even with such a lame story, I
found myself playing the game just to advance the plot.  It was
the story that made the game.  I wasn't flying a ship in the
middle of outer-space blasting away alien spaceships anymore, but
flying for the confederation against the corrupt Kilrathi.  Yet I
was considered a traitor amongst my peers, and all the while I
was trying to prove them wrong.  I had purpose.

<P>Okay, I think we've covered enough genres to get the idea. 
Not all the elements can co-exist with one another.  To make a
fun game, you need to pick and choose what you want and focus on
it.  If you want to make a quick action game, focus on swarm.  If
it's an epic tale, give it a good story (obviously) but throw in
some simulation so that gamers would feel that it's not just any
story, but *their* story.  Whatever you do though, remember:
focus is the key.  If a game is made to appeal to all masses, it
will look lost.  But wait, let's just say we did make this game
that equally used all four elements.  Fine.  Now let me dissect
it. ;)

<P>So we have this game that has an equal amount of swarm,
simplicity, simulation and story.  However, since it has an equal
amount of simplicity and an equal amount of simulation then it is
neither simple nor does it simulate (simulation would try to
complicate it but simple would try to keep it easy making it
neutral).  In addition, since there is as much swarm as there are
other elements, it is not truly a swarm game.  As you can see
this is not a very fun game at all.  Instead it is like a bunch
of 'could-have-been-more' type of games rammed together.  What I
mean is that players who like swarm would think, "this blows,
there's not enough baddies."  Players who like simulation would
think, "this sux.  It's so fake!"  And so on.

<P>Now you have an idea of how these elements work together (or
not) to create a fun game.

<P>Let's talk about form.

<H3><FONT COLOR=YELLOW><I>The Form</I></FONT></H3>

<P>Game design is an art and should be treated like one.  That
is why we introduced form.  Content is what the game technically
is.  It is form that makes it a masterpiece (or a piece of crap). 
To put it in Justin's words, "if a I were to paint a picture of a
house, and Vincent Van Gogh were to paint one, his would probably
be the better picture.  Our content is the same, but it is the
form that separates us."  Form is the artistic interpretation of
the content.

<P>What this means is that there are an infinite amount of ways
to achieve the same content, meaning an infinite amount of games. 
What this also means, is that it's okay to clone (the content) so
long as you enhance the form.  Take, for example Doom and its
predecessor Wolfenstein 3D.  Both had the simulation element of
actually being that person (hence the first person point of view)
and the same lack of a story, etc.  Yet Doom (the clone) was more
fun [arguably] than the original.  It had a new form.  Now,
instead of strolling through brightly lit rooms, you had to tread
into mysteriously dark corridors, not knowing what will turn the
corner.  Another example is the Zelda series.  Each dealt with
the same story and the same hero, but what each sequel changed
was the form.  The story was told through different ways each
time.  It was the same picture of a house, but artistically
different.

<P>The main issue here, is that it is *okay* to clone.  Okay,
before I get boo'ed off stage, just keep those eggs in your hand
for a sec and give me a few sentences to explain myself :)  What
I mean by cloning is using the same content (ie. the four S's). 
What I don't mean is copying the game straight out and not
changing the form.  Anyways, it's okay to clone because it's the
form that counts.  As a side note, this also explains all the
terrible clones out in the market: some people just aren't good
artists!

<H3><FONT COLOR=YELLOW><I>To Conclude</I></FONT></H3>

<P>What Justin and I have attempted to do was to probe the art
of video game design and make it more understandable.  These are
our ideas though and we encourage any thoughts you might have on
them.  After all, game design is a complicated issue, and it
can't all be solved in a few pages.  So if you have something to
say, contact us and maybe we can shed even more light onto the
subject.  As for now, cya and ~have fun!</P>

<!--Bottom Navigation-->
<A NAME="bottom"></A>
<!--End Bottom Navigation-->
</STRONG>
</FONT>
<!--End Body-->
<!--Bottom-->
<BR>
<IMG SRC="gradbar.jpg">
<BR>
<FONT SIZE=2 COLOR=#8B8B8B FACE=Helvetica>
<I><font color="#FBFBFB">T</font><font color="#F7F7F7">h</font><font color="#F3F3F3">e</font><font color="#EFEFEF"> </font><font color="#EBEBEB">G</font><font color="#E7E7E7">a</font><font color="#E3E3E3">m</font><font color="#DFDFDF">e</font><font color="#DBDBDB"> </font><font color="#D7D7D7">P</font><font color="#D3D3D3">r</font><font color="#CFCFCF">o</font><font color="#CBCBCB">g</font><font color="#C7C7C7">r</font><font color="#C3C3C3">a</font><font color="#BFBFBF">m</font><font color="#BBBBBB">m</font><font color="#B7B7B7">i</font><font color="#B3B3B3">n</font><font color="#AFAFAF">g</font><font color="#ABABAB"> </font><font color="#A7A7A7">M</font><font color="#A3A3A3">e</font><font color="#9F9F9F">g</font><font color="#9B9B9B">a</font><font color="#979797">S</font><font color="#939393">i</font><font color="#8F8F8F">t</font><font color="#8B8B8B">e</font> -