作者：Greg Johnson

我能做的只有射擊？

在設(shè)計(jì)一款互動(dòng)故事游戲時(shí)需要面臨的一大挑戰(zhàn)便是玩家代理。之前我們說(shuō)過(guò)游戲是關(guān)于玩家“做”什么。當(dāng)我們談到玩家在一個(gè)不斷展開的故事中所扮演的角色時(shí)，這一問(wèn)題便變成了“我該如何影響故事的發(fā)展？”

如今，大多數(shù)游戲所設(shè)定的基本標(biāo)準(zhǔn)便包括玩家移動(dòng)，射擊以及拳腳相向。當(dāng)你停下來(lái)并開始思考自己該如何只通過(guò)這些行動(dòng)去影響故事時(shí)，這便變成了“我是否該使用暴力”或者“我該殺誰(shuí)”以及“我該救誰(shuí)”的選擇。你可以基于有限代理去創(chuàng)造更高級(jí)別的選擇，即引出“我該與誰(shuí)合作”或“我該選擇執(zhí)行或不執(zhí)行怎樣的任務(wù)？”而當(dāng)你手上沒有槍支時(shí)，你能夠影響故事世界的方法便會(huì)非常有限。

我們必須承認(rèn)的是，除了射擊外游戲中還存在其它類型的代理。例如潛行和隱藏便是一種行走路徑。也有許多游戲?qū)⑦@種選擇路徑作為實(shí)現(xiàn)目標(biāo)的方式（游戲邦注：如《神偷》，《刺客信條》，《合金裝備》）。而最常見的其它類型的代理（玩家行動(dòng)）當(dāng)屬環(huán)境行動(dòng)了。從根本上來(lái)看，你將接近游戲世界中的某些對(duì)象，然后你將按壓按鍵去打開一扇門，喝一杯水，瀏覽一個(gè)標(biāo)識(shí)，或者撿起一把鑰匙等等。有時(shí)候環(huán)境行動(dòng)會(huì)出現(xiàn)在與NPC的互動(dòng)中，有時(shí)候玩家也將從有限的行動(dòng)集中獲得一個(gè)環(huán)境行動(dòng)選擇，如1）親切地對(duì)待一只小貓，2）踢貓。

毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)我們可以找到一些已經(jīng)使用過(guò)玩家代理的創(chuàng)意故事游戲。而在任何故事游戲中，“我可以在何時(shí)做出怎樣的行動(dòng)”這一問(wèn)題都是核心問(wèn)題。也許有人會(huì)認(rèn)為如果我們的目標(biāo)是模擬真正的世界，我們便需要盡可能地提供給玩家使用更多行動(dòng)的機(jī)會(huì)。實(shí)際上，關(guān)于為什么這么做是不可行且不合適的存在一些原因。以下便是我們需要考慮到的內(nèi)容：

1.在角色的控制方面我們受限于輸入設(shè)備。

2.我們希望能夠保持游戲控制足夠簡(jiǎn)單，容易，不會(huì)讓玩家感到郁悶。

3.我們希望玩家行動(dòng)足夠清楚且夠特別，因?yàn)橛螒蛉慷际顷P(guān)于行動(dòng)。

4.許多玩家行動(dòng)意味著需要更多玩家和NPC動(dòng)畫資產(chǎn)，而這卻是不現(xiàn)實(shí)的，除非你能夠從程序上創(chuàng)建這些內(nèi)容，而在這里你也將遇到各種不同的問(wèn)題。

5.基于各種玩家行動(dòng)，我們也需要處理各種不同的反應(yīng)以及大量的故事結(jié)果（可能還有分支）。

6.所有玩家行動(dòng)都需要對(duì)“游戲系統(tǒng)”產(chǎn)生影響，例如你能否在玩家實(shí)現(xiàn)目標(biāo)的過(guò)程中幫助他們或阻礙他們。許多行動(dòng)都將創(chuàng)造出更加復(fù)雜的游戲系統(tǒng)。

7.硬核主機(jī)游戲用戶總是喜歡更加強(qiáng)烈的內(nèi)容，如果我們是面向他們創(chuàng)造游戲并希望將游戲賣給他們，我們就要用行動(dòng)說(shuō)話。

也許除了這些內(nèi)容外我們還有其它需要考慮的內(nèi)容。從根本上來(lái)看這并不是一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的問(wèn)題。而解決這一問(wèn)題的方法并非提供給玩家更多代理，而是應(yīng)該采取我們?cè)诂F(xiàn)實(shí)生活中所采取的方式。也就是我們應(yīng)該提供給玩家合適的代理，并在適當(dāng)時(shí)候讓他們能夠面對(duì)適當(dāng)?shù)倪x擇。如果你在玩家經(jīng)歷游戲的過(guò)程中只呈現(xiàn)給他們少量行動(dòng)，游戲?qū)⒋蟠笙拗仆婕矣绊懝适?，特別是其他角色的方式。環(huán)境選擇所面對(duì)的問(wèn)題在于玩家并不習(xí)慣故事中的有限集，因?yàn)樗偸遣粩喔淖冎?。這意味著玩家將需要留意自己的選擇是任意的還是有限的。每當(dāng)玩家希望自己能在游戲中做些什么而又不能這么做時(shí)，他們的沉浸感便會(huì)被打破。相反地，當(dāng)游戲提供給玩家固定的行動(dòng)集時(shí)，他們便會(huì)愿意接受這里的局限性并且一段時(shí)間后便不會(huì)再糾結(jié)于此。

有些游戲嘗試了所謂的“直接控制”，即玩家可以通過(guò)直接移動(dòng)去控制角色（例如當(dāng)你移動(dòng)鼠標(biāo)或控制器時(shí)，你的手臂便會(huì)移動(dòng)）。直接控制似乎能夠讓玩家更直接地“享有”對(duì)于行動(dòng)的所有權(quán)并讓他們覺得自己真正參與其中，但同時(shí)這也具有許多問(wèn)題與挑戰(zhàn)。例如：你該如何直觀地在控制器上呈現(xiàn)復(fù)雜的行動(dòng)，或者你該添加怎樣基于直接控制的行動(dòng)到游戲體驗(yàn)中，以及怎樣的行動(dòng)會(huì)讓玩家感到厭煩？如果你在錯(cuò)誤的地方或基于錯(cuò)誤的方法使用了直接控制，這便會(huì)破壞游戲的沉浸感并讓玩家感受到游戲控制。隨著VR以及全新紅外線傳感器或像戒指和觸感手套等輸入設(shè)備的出現(xiàn)，這些輸入問(wèn)題便得到緩解。也許關(guān)于直接控制最有趣的挑戰(zhàn)便是NPC角色對(duì)于玩家意圖或者所傳達(dá)的意義的理解。這便需要一些非常復(fù)雜的AI。即使NPC不能“理解”，直接控制也會(huì)很有趣。有些游戲甚至使用直接控制去影響多人游戲設(shè)置（如《小小大星球》，《MakeOurWay》）。

Little Big Planet(from verycd)

關(guān)于這一主題的最后一點(diǎn)便是射擊本身，或者更準(zhǔn)確地說(shuō)是“殺戮”。我們并不需要深入討論有關(guān)道德和電子游戲的熱門話題，但必須注意的是，從現(xiàn)實(shí)的游戲玩法角度來(lái)看，創(chuàng)造一個(gè)不包含殺戮的游戲活動(dòng)是非常具有挑戰(zhàn)性的。當(dāng)一款游戲通過(guò)實(shí)體行動(dòng)在講述一個(gè)故事時(shí)，總是存在一些比生存更容易傳達(dá)或更多動(dòng)態(tài)性的內(nèi)容。我們很容易通過(guò)有限的玩家行動(dòng)去傳達(dá)殺戮，并且很容易創(chuàng)造基于技能的殺戮。但即便如此還是有許多游戲找到了其它玩家行動(dòng)的創(chuàng)意解決方法，我們?cè)摓樗麄兊膭?chuàng)造性鼓掌。但不幸的是，許多擁有有趣的互動(dòng)故事的游戲卻是基于非常黑暗的主題以及非常血腥的內(nèi)容。這也是許多潛在玩家所難以接受的。

單詞很古怪不是嗎？

也許現(xiàn)在去定義這一詞有點(diǎn)太晚了，因?yàn)槲覀円呀?jīng)使用了許多次了，但或許我們還是應(yīng)該花些時(shí)間去好好定義我們所謂的“游戲結(jié)構(gòu)”。同時(shí)我們也需要定義另一個(gè)頻繁出現(xiàn)的詞，游戲機(jī)制。

單詞真的很有趣。我們可以將其當(dāng)成實(shí)物任意擺弄，我們可以假設(shè)我們所想的有關(guān)它們的東西也是其他人所想的那樣，因?yàn)椴还茉鯓迂埦褪秦?，不是嗎？而游戲也就是游戲。在我們的日常生活中，我們很難在第二次就猜出所有東西，但這里所存在的秘密是我們的大腦總是不斷地跟我們開玩笑，所以我們才可以每天正常運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)。如果你不再去考慮它，你便會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)我們所使用的每個(gè)單詞都擁有一個(gè)抽象結(jié)構(gòu)；這也是居住于這個(gè)宇宙中的我們所具有的心智模式中的一部分。不管怎樣你所擁有的每個(gè)想法，每種直覺以及所有理解都只是不斷運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)的心智模式機(jī)器而已?；谖覀兇竽X中的電線的運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)速度，我們的心智模式將根據(jù)我們的記憶和情感進(jìn)行一些隨機(jī)且具有關(guān)聯(lián)的連接，并嘗試著將我們所看到，聽到與讀到的的事物帶進(jìn)一個(gè)更大的背景中從而讓其變得有意義。當(dāng)我們將我們所聽到或讀到的單詞轉(zhuǎn)變成“意義”時(shí)，我們的心智模式將考慮像環(huán)境和意圖等元素。而所有的這一切都是發(fā)生在一張巨大的神經(jīng)網(wǎng)中，并以極高的速度連接著我們的大腦，而我們只能真正意識(shí)到那些最終跳出來(lái)的想法。

這里的重點(diǎn)是，單詞只不過(guò)是我們添加到擁有各種“模糊”程度的概念上的標(biāo)簽，并且我們還會(huì)將其與其它概念相連接。再加上你自己的心智模式和其他人的心智模式具有很大的區(qū)別，所以這真的是我們希望能夠好好處理的一部分。讓我們以一個(gè)較為明確的單詞為例，如“cat”。這是指獅子還是貓？當(dāng)你的朋友說(shuō)自己要養(yǎng)貓時(shí)，你應(yīng)該就不會(huì)有這種疑問(wèn)了。讓我們?cè)倏纯础癵ame-play”或“art”。當(dāng)我們說(shuō)“game play”或“video-game”時(shí)，我們認(rèn)為自己知道這意味著什么，但是這些單詞卻也擁有許多讓人困惑的內(nèi)容，只是我們假設(shè)自己的理解便是其真正含義。讓我們?cè)倏纯础癮rt”這一次。當(dāng)游戲玩家和非游戲玩家花了好幾個(gè)小時(shí)去爭(zhēng)論游戲是否是“art”時(shí)我真的非常驚訝，這就好像他們所理解是同樣的內(nèi)容。而這點(diǎn)真的很有趣。

所以為什么我們要繞到語(yǔ)言原理中？這只是為了指出游戲結(jié)構(gòu)這一詞只是一個(gè)任意結(jié)構(gòu)，就像游戲機(jī)制一樣。

就像學(xué)術(shù)一樣，似乎我們需要花些時(shí)間去定義我們的詞語(yǔ)，這里存在非常有幫助的用途。了解一個(gè)機(jī)制是什么并清楚結(jié)構(gòu)是什么，或者主題，故事，獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)系統(tǒng)等等，你便能夠更明確地去考慮它們。模糊的思考總是會(huì)浪費(fèi)你更多時(shí)間。所以讓我們更清楚地進(jìn)行定義。

“游戲機(jī)制”？

“游戲機(jī)制”指的是玩家在游戲中所做的事，并伴隨著一些讓這些事變的更具挑戰(zhàn)性，且是有趣的挑戰(zhàn)的元素。之前我們?cè)?jīng)討論過(guò)一款成功游戲的目標(biāo)是如何強(qiáng)化玩家的行動(dòng)和選擇。而在這里玩家所做的事便是游戲的核心，即玩家期待的很大組成部分。考慮游戲設(shè)計(jì)的一種最有效的方法便是詢問(wèn)一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的問(wèn)題：“大多數(shù)情況下玩家會(huì)怎么做”。但是讓人驚訝的是，即使是最優(yōu)秀的設(shè)計(jì)師也經(jīng)常會(huì)忘記問(wèn)自己這一問(wèn)題。

當(dāng)你在設(shè)想一個(gè)游戲機(jī)制或分解現(xiàn)有游戲的游戲機(jī)制時(shí)，你可以先考慮類別。在現(xiàn)有的游戲機(jī)制中可能只存在40或50種類別。簡(jiǎn)單來(lái)說(shuō)，這些便是玩家真正會(huì)“做”的事。以下便是其中的一部分類別：

徒手打斗

射擊

賽車

解決謎題

收集

跟上音樂(lè)節(jié)奏

鍛造

操控對(duì)話樹

閃避與跳躍

隱藏與潛行

攀爬與跑酷

飛翔

簡(jiǎn)單的快速按鍵回應(yīng)

建造和創(chuàng)造

一些特殊的機(jī)制：

使用彈弓通過(guò)收縮與釋放發(fā)射小鳥。根據(jù)小鳥的重量以及彈弓拉縮的距離小鳥將呈弧形移動(dòng)。玩家將嘗試著敲擊結(jié)構(gòu)以撞擊小豬。

在敵人攻擊階段快速移動(dòng)以避免被襲擊，然后在敵人休息的時(shí)候準(zhǔn)確打壓敵人的薄弱區(qū)域。

嘗試著在音符消失前通過(guò)按壓準(zhǔn)確按鍵去匹配音符。

一些簡(jiǎn)單的機(jī)制：

隨著地域的顯現(xiàn)朝前移動(dòng)并嘗試著尋找前進(jìn)的道路。

在不同對(duì)象間移動(dòng)并躲避敵人的探射燈。

在時(shí)間范圍內(nèi)按壓按鍵。

一些復(fù)雜的機(jī)制：

駕駛坦克的同時(shí)轉(zhuǎn)動(dòng)炮口并使用伸縮功能去射擊目標(biāo)。針對(duì)目標(biāo)選擇適當(dāng)?shù)亩芘?，并在盔甲無(wú)用時(shí)從內(nèi)部或后方攻擊敵人，同時(shí)利用地形作掩護(hù)。

需要注意的是這些行動(dòng)案例都是將挑戰(zhàn)描述作為行動(dòng)的一部分?！爱嫃垐D”是一種活動(dòng)，這并不是真的游戲機(jī)制，而“在5秒鐘內(nèi)畫張圖”則更像是一個(gè)游戲機(jī)制。我們未提到但卻應(yīng)該作為游戲機(jī)制定義的一部分的內(nèi)容是，評(píng)估玩家的表現(xiàn)以及對(duì)于自己表現(xiàn)的反饋。但是“在5秒鐘內(nèi)畫張圖”還不是一個(gè)真正的有機(jī)制，因?yàn)檫@是一個(gè)很難判斷的內(nèi)容。但這并不是說(shuō)主觀的“創(chuàng)造性”活動(dòng)在游戲中沒有立足地—-它們當(dāng)然有，只是它們本身并非游戲機(jī)制而已。

另外一個(gè)需要注意的是：我們經(jīng)常聽到的“游戲玩法”這一詞。這通常指代的是一款游戲中出現(xiàn)的機(jī)制集合，即伴隨著玩家對(duì)于這些內(nèi)容的“樂(lè)趣”的期待。玩家和游戲評(píng)論者經(jīng)常將游戲玩法當(dāng)成游戲中“最重要的內(nèi)容”。有時(shí)候他們可能會(huì)困惑游戲玩法到底指什么，但如果你能夠提供給他們明確的定義，他們便會(huì)豁然開朗。

“游戲結(jié)構(gòu)”？

既然我們已經(jīng)描述了什么是游戲機(jī)制，我們便能夠?qū)⑵渑c游戲結(jié)構(gòu)區(qū)分開來(lái)。就像我們之前提到的，游戲可以擁有許多游戲機(jī)制，但卻只能擁有一個(gè)游戲結(jié)構(gòu)。

為了著眼于游戲結(jié)構(gòu)，我們必須著眼于游戲整體。在某種意義上，游戲結(jié)構(gòu)便是更高級(jí)的游戲形狀。它將定義玩家體驗(yàn)流，即他們將前往哪里，他們將基于怎樣的順序做什么？因?yàn)榇蠖鄶?shù)游戲都包含玩家在不同場(chǎng)所間的移動(dòng)，所以游戲結(jié)構(gòu)其實(shí)就像游戲世界的地圖一般，并帶有能夠用于各種場(chǎng)所的設(shè)計(jì)說(shuō)明。也有些游戲比這個(gè)更復(fù)雜，通常情況下如果你能夠繪制出游戲結(jié)構(gòu)的話事情便會(huì)簡(jiǎn)單許多。通常情況下在玩家訪問(wèn)全新游戲部分前他們需要滿足某些特定條件。這些條件可能非常簡(jiǎn)單，如到達(dá)游戲中的某個(gè)場(chǎng)所，收集特定的資源，與NPC角色交朋友，達(dá)到特定級(jí)別，或者獲取一個(gè)道具等等。所以你如果能在圖表中繪制出這些內(nèi)容便會(huì)很有幫助。除此之外這也能讓設(shè)計(jì)師更清楚地了解玩家在游戲中的選擇點(diǎn)。這就像在為一部電影編寫提綱。

故事游戲的游戲結(jié)構(gòu)通常包含一些故事章節(jié)概念。即故事環(huán)境發(fā)生改變的游戲階段。有時(shí)候基于玩家所處的章節(jié)他們可能會(huì)出現(xiàn)新的目標(biāo)或擁有新的能力。在一款線性游戲中，要映射出這些與故事相關(guān)的改變非常簡(jiǎn)單。而在一款包含自然發(fā)生的故事的游戲中，繪制結(jié)構(gòu)便會(huì)較復(fù)雜。在這里這便是關(guān)于明確潛在故事線并羅列出玩家需要滿足并且能夠改變與故事相關(guān)的角色狀態(tài)和世界狀態(tài)的條件。

（本文為游戲邦/gamerboom.com編譯，拒絕任何不保留版權(quán)的轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)，如需轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)聯(lián)系：游戲邦）

Designing Interactive Story (PART FIVE)

by Greg Johnson

ALL I CAN DO IS SHOOT?

One of the big challenges to face in designing an Interactive Story game is player agency. Earlier we spoke about games being all about what players “do”. When we’re talking about the role a player plays in an unfolding story, the question becomes “what can I do to affect the story?”

The basic standard set by most of today’s games involves players moving, shooting, and possibly punching and kicking. When you stop and think about how you can impact a story based on having access to only these actions, it pretty much comes down to choices of “do I use violence or do I not” , or perhaps “who do I kill?” and “who do I save”. You can certainly build in higher level choices with this limited agency that result in “who do I align myself with?” or “what quests do I choose to do or not do?” Still there is a pretty limited set of ways one can affect the world when there is a gun strapped irrevocably to one’s hand.

Admittedly there are other types of agency in games besides simply shooting. Sneaking and hiding is one example of an agency that isn’t too far off this well trodden path. Many games will make this an optional path to achieving goals. (Thief, Assassin’s Creed, Metal Gear Solid). Probably the most common other type of agency (player action) is contextual action. Essentially, you come up to some object in the world and you can press your button to open a door, drink from a cup, read a sign, or pick up the key, etc… Contextual actions are sometime used for interactions with NPCs as well, and sometimes players are given a choice of contextual options from a limited set of actions… (a) pet the cat, (b) kick the cat.

We are undoubtedly shortchanging a few particularly innovative story-games out there that have experimented with player agency. This question of “what actions can I do, and when” is a core question in any story game. One might think that if our goal is to mimic the real world, we always want to try and give players access to as many actions as possible. Actually, there are quite a few reasons why this isn’t feasible, and why sometimes it’s not even desirable. Here are a few ‘example’ considerations:

1.We’re limited by our input devices in terms of controlling our avatars

2.We want to keep our game controls simple and accessible and not bog things down

3.We want player actions to be clear and unambiguous, and generally physical, since games are all about action

4.A wider array of player actions means a lot more animation assets for players and NPCs which gets impractical unless you happen to be building procedurally, in which case you have a different set of issues.

5.With a wide array of player actions, we need to deal with a wide array of responses and a larger set of story consequences (possibly branches).

6.All player actions need to have an effect on the ‘game-system’ i.e. do they help or hinder the player in achieving their goals. Many actions make for a much more complex game-system.

7.The core console gaming audience loves to kick butt – so if we’re building a game for them and we want it to sell…. Just sayin’.

There are probably other considerations but these are a few. Basically, it’s not a simple problem. The answer may not be in giving players a lot of agency, the way we have in real life. More likely, it lies in giving them the right agency…. access to good choices at the right time. The problem with having a small set of fixed actions players can do throughout the game is it severely limits how players can impact the story, especially other characters. The problem with contextual choices is that players can’t get used to the limited set as part of the fiction, because it’s always changing. This means that players are continually aware that their choices are arbitrary and limited. Every time the player wishes they could do something in a game and can’t, it breaks them out of the immersive fantasy. In contrast, when players have a fixed set of actions, they tend to adapt to the limitations and stop thinking about them after awhile.

Some games have experimented with something called “direct control” where players can essentially puppet their avatar with direct movement. (i.e., as you move your mouse or controller your arm moves). Direct control seems to offer promise in terms of connecting players more directly to an “ownership” of their actions and allowing them to feel more directly involved but it poses a number of issues and challenges. These are things like: how do you intuitively map complex actions onto a controller, or what actions add to the experience with direct control, and what actions simply become annoying? Using direct control in the wrong places, or in the wrong ways, can actually work against your immersion, and make players too aware of the game controls. (Until Dawn, Octodad, Growing Home, Surgeon Simulator) With the advent of VR, and new infra-red sensing devices, or input devices like rings and haptic gloves, these input-mapping concerns may start to diminish. Perhaps the most intriguing challenge having to do with direct control has to do with NPC characters interpreting player intent, or expressive meaning. This requires some fairly sophisticated AI. Even without being “understood” by NPCs in the game, direct control can be a lot of fun. Some games have used it to great effect in multi-player settings. (Little Big Planet, MakeOurWay)

A last word on this topic has to do with the shooting itself, or more generally put, the “killing”. Without getting too deeply into the hot topic of ethics and video-games it’s worth noting that it can be a challenge, from a practical game-play perspective, to come up with primary player activities that don’t involve killing. When one is telling a story through physical action, there are few things easier to communicate, or more dramatic, than simple survival. Killing is clear and easy to represent with a very limited set of player actions, and easy to make skill-based. That said, there are a ton of great games out there that have found other creative solutions for player action, and their ingenuity should be recognized and applauded. Unfortunately, a large percentage of the games doing interesting things with Interactive Story have rather dark themes, and bloody subject matter. This is quite a turn-off to a large population of potential players. (I find I can’t even get through many of these otherwise amazing games).

WORDS ARE WEIRD, AREN’T THEY?

It may be a little late to be defining this term, since we’ve been using it left and right already, but perhaps we should take a moment and clearly define what we mean by ‘game structure’. For that matter, while we’re at it lets define another term we’re tossing about, play-mechanic (or game-mechanic).

Words are funny things aren’t they? We toss them around as if they were real solid things, assuming that what we think we mean by them is what other people think as well, because after all, a cat is a cat, isn’t it? And a game is a game. In our daily lives it’s generally not productive for us to go around second guessing everything… but the truth behind the curtain is that our brains are playing a continual trick on us, so that we can function on a daily basis. If you stop to think about it, you’ll see that every word we use is an arbitrary construct; part of our mental model of the Universe we live in. After all, every thought you have, every perception, and every bit of understanding is nothing more than the machinery of that mental model working away. At the speed of the electrical wiring in our brains our mental models make causal and associative connections, layering in memories, and emotions, and trying to fit what we see and hear and read, into a bigger picture that makes sense. When we translate the words we hear or read into ‘meaning’ (reading this sentence, for example), our model is also taking things like context, and intention into account. All of this happens within the vast neural network of links and associations in our brainputers at super high speeds, with us only really aware of the thought that pops out at the end, as if by magic.

The point here is that words are nothing more than labels we slap onto concepts that have varying degrees of ‘fuzziness’, by virtue of this myriad of connections to other concepts. Add to this fuzziness the endless differences between your own mental models, and all those other mental models floating around in all those other brains, and it really is a wonder we manage to communicate at all. Take a solid, unambiguous word like “cat”, for example. Is a lion a cat? Well, sort of, though it’s probably not what your friend meant when they said they were going to adopt a cat. Now consider words like “game-play” or “art”. We think we know what we mean when we say “game play” or even “video-game” but these words have an awful lot of fuzz around their boundaries, yet we sling them about left and right assuming our meaning is getting across. And let’s not even get started on disastrously fuzzy words like “art”. I’d be surprised if two people’s definitions of this concept line up, yet gamers and non-gamers spend hours debating the question of whether games are “art”, as if they all meant the same thing…. Ok, so it is entertaining.

So, why this little detour into the philosophy of language? Well it’s really just to point out that the term Game Structure is just an arbitrary construct, as is the term Game Mechanic. (Come to think of it, I suppose I could have just said that to begin with, but then I wouldn’t have been able to use my “is a lion a cat?” question, and I’ve been wanting to ask that one for a long time now.)

As academic as it may seem to spend time defining our terms, or perhaps even boringly pedantic, there is a very practical and useful application to this. Knowing what a mechanic is, and knowing what a structure is, or for that matter, a theme, or a story, or a reward system, or whatever, allow you really zero in and think about it with much greater clarity and efficiency. Fuzzy thinking takes more time. So let’s get to defining.

‘GAME MECHANIC’?

A ‘game mechanic’ (or ‘game-play mechanic’ or just ‘mechanic’), is what a player DOES in a game coupled with some aspect that makes this “doing” a challenge, hopefully an enjoyable challenge. In the first few pages, we talked a little bit about how the goal of a successful game is to empower players though action and choice. This “doing” is at the heart of what makes a game… a game, and it is a HUGE part of player expectation. One of the most productive ways to think about game design is by asking the simple question: “what does the player do, most of the time”. Surprisingly, even the best designers often forget to ask this question enough.

When coming up with mechanics for a game, or breaking down mechanics for an existing game, one can start by thinking in terms of categories. There are probably only about 40 or 50 categories of existing game mechanics. Again, simply put, these are the things players actually “do”. Here are some examples of these categories:

Hand to Hand Fighting

Shooting

Racing

Physical Puzzles

Collecting

Rhythmic Music Matching

Crafting (combining elements)

Navigating Conversational Trees

Dodging and Jumping

Hiding and Sneaking

Climbing and Leaping “Parkour” Movement

Flying

Simple Quick-Button Response

Building and Creating

A few specific mechanics might be things like:

Shoot the bird with the slingshot by pulling back and releasing. Bird moves in an arc based on weight of bird and the distance it was pulled back. Player attempts to hit and knock over structures to pop the pigs inside.

Move constantly during attacking phase of enemy to avoid getting hit, then strike the enemies vulnerable zone accurately during the enemy’s resting phase.

Attempt to match the musical notes by hitting the correct key within a window of time as shown by the notes passing the bar.

Some simple mechanic might be things like:

Move forward as the terrain becomes visible and try to find the path forward.

Move from object to object, hiding from enemy’s searchlight

Press the button within the window of time allowed

A complex mechanic might be something like:

Drive your tank while also turning your turret and using the zoom feature to shoot targets. Select appropriate shell type for target and attempt to hit enemies in side or rear where armor is weakest, while using terrain for cover and to stay hidden.

Notice that these examples of actions all include the description of the challenge as part of the action. “Paint a picture” is an activity, it’s not really a game-mechanic, whereas “paint a picture within a 5 second window” comes much closer to being a mechanic. One thing we didn’t mention, that should also probably be part of our definition of game mechanic, is the idea of being able to evaluate player performance and feedback to them how they did. “Paint a picture within 5 seconds” still has problems as a mechanic, because it is a difficult thing to judge or give player feedback on. (as opposed to say, something like connect the dots correctly to form a picture). This isn’t to say that subjective “creative” activities don’t have a place in games – they certainly do, but in and of themselves they are not game-mechanics.

One other side note here: we often hear the term “game play”. This almost always refers to the collection of mechanics that are found in a single game, coupled with an expectation of these as being ‘fun’. Gamers and game critics will often talk about game play as ‘the most important thing’ in games. They may sometimes have a fuzzy concept of what they mean by this, but if you offered them this definition, most would say “yeah, that’s what I meant”.

‘GAME STRUCTURE’?

Now that we’ve described what a game mechanic is, we can distinguish this from what a game structure is. As we’ve said early on, games can have many mechanics but only one game structure.

To look at a game’s structure we have to step back and look at the game as a whole. The game structure is, in a sense, the higher-level shape of the game. It’s the thing that defines the flow of player experience….where do they go, and what do they do, in what order? Since most games tend to involve movement from one place to another, a game’s structure might be as simple as the map of the game world, with design notes applied to various locations. Many games are more complex than this however, and it’s often useful to diagram out your game’s structure. Often there are conditions that players need to meet before they are given access to new parts of the game. These conditions can be as simple as reaching a location in the game, or it may be collecting certain resources, or making friends with NPC characters, or attaining a certain level, acquiring an item, etc… Mapping all this out in a flowchart can be of great value. Among other things, this allows a designer to know exactly where player choice points are in a game. It’s a bit like writing an outline for a movie.

Game structures for Story-Games generally included some notion of story chapters. These are the phases of the game where the story context has shifted. Players may sometimes have new goals and new abilities based on the chapter they are in. In a linear-path game, mapping these story-related changes is very straightforward. In a game that allows for more emergent (or organic) story, plotting the structure is more complex. Here it becomes a matter of identifying potential story threads and laying out the conditions that need to be met which will change story-related character states and world states. In the section above titled “Creating a Network of Dependent Gates” we talked a little bit about how some of these conditional networked structures can be built.（source：Gamasutra）