ce玩家_当玩家选择错误时

ce玩家

You may have heard about the recent controversy surrounding Assassin’s Creed Odyssey. Specifically, the game attracted significant criticism related to a DLC where the game’s protagonist was required to get married and have a child. This sparked widespread anger among gamers and led to heated debates between players who were outraged by the decision and those who didn’t quite understand why it was seen as such a big deal. Now that the immediate dust has settled to a degree, I want to reflect on how Ubisoft walked into a trap of their very own making, and how this isn’t the first time such an issue has arisen.

Ÿ欧可能听说过最近围绕刺客信条奥德赛争议。 具体来说，该游戏引起了与DLC有关的重大批评，其中DLC要求游戏的主角结婚并生孩子。 这在游戏玩家之间引起了广泛的愤怒，并引起了对此决定感到愤怒的玩家与不太了解为什么认为如此重要的玩家之间的激烈辩论。 既然眼前的尘埃落定了一定程度，我想反思一下育碧是如何陷入自己的陷阱的，这又不是第一次出现这种问题。

基本规则 (Ground rules)

Let’s step right back for a moment and consider first principles. All video games are built upon a set of rules and constraints defined by the developers. As consumers of games, there’s an unwritten contract between us and the game’s developers. That is, the developer agrees to make the best possible version of a game for us to enjoy, and we agree to the rules and constraints imposed on the game’s design. A practical example of this might be a theoretical bad-ass ninja game where the object is to go around killing everyone — in this context, it might be unreasonable for players to expect a “peaceful resolution” mechanic.

让我们退后一步，考虑一下首要原则。 所有视频游戏都基于开发人员定义的一组规则和约束。 作为游戏的消费者，我们与游戏开发商之间存在不成文的合同。 也就是说，开发人员同意为我们提供尽可能最佳的游戏版本，并且我们同意对游戏设计施加的规则和约束。 一个实际的例子可能是理论上的坏蛋忍者游戏，目的是四处杀人-在这种情况下，玩家期望“和平解决方案”的机制可能是不合理的。

The ground rules that exist in each game shape our experience to the extent that they govern what we can and can’t do within a game space. As much as these rules shape our moment-to-moment experience, they also play a role in shaping our expectations around the game.

每个游戏中存在的基本规则在一定程度上决定着我们的体验，它们决定着我们在游戏空间中可以做什么和不能做什么。 这些规则不仅影响着我们的瞬间体验，而且在塑造我们对游戏的期望方面也发挥了作用。

In this context, it’s worth setting one important element aside for specific examination: player choice.

在这种情况下，值得为特定考试留出一个重要因素：玩家选择。

选择就是力量 (Choice is power)

It’s fair to say that choice — as an element of game design — has become more and more prominent over the years. All choices (including the ability for players to customize or personalize their experience) impact a player’s enjoyment of the game. Choice can be as seemingly insignificant as a palette of hairstyle options, or as momentous as allowing the player to determine the ending of the entire game.

可以公平地说，多年来，作为游戏设计元素的选择已经变得越来越突出。 所有选择(包括玩家自定义或个性化其体验的能力)都会影响玩家对游戏的享受。 选择可能看起来与发型选项调色板无关紧要，也可能像让玩家确定整个游戏的结局那样重要。

Developers cannot take choice lightly. A player will quickly uncover the rules — and the parameters of those rules — as they play a game. In that process, they’ll discover which choices matter (that is, the ones that actually impact their experience) and which ones don’t. As well, players will tend to gravitate towards the choices that are actually meaningful to them (whether or not they impact gameplay). For example, a player might reasonably become upset if a game offers a large range of personalization options, and yet they are not able to represent themselves in-game.

开发人员不能轻易选择。 玩家在玩游戏时会Swift发现这些规则以及这些规则的参数。 在此过程中，他们将发现哪些选择很重要(即那些实际上会影响其体验的选择)，而哪些则无所谓。 同样，玩家会倾向于倾向于对他们实际有意义的选择(无论它们是否影响游戏玩法)。 例如，如果游戏提供了多种个性化选项，则玩家可能会因此而烦恼，但他们却无法在游戏中展现自己。

The crucial sin that Assassin’s Creed Odyssey commits is that it offers substantial player choice throughout the main game and then proceeds to summarily withdraw those choices in the DLC (not only that, but the previous cumulative history of key player choices are disregarded).

刺客信条奥德赛犯下的关键罪过是，它在整个主游戏中提供了大量的玩家选择，然后继续在DLC中撤回这些选择(不仅如此，而且以前的关键玩家选择的累积历史也被忽略了)。

I have not played Odyssey myself yet, so I can only go by the reporting and direct accounts I’ve seen. But it’s not difficult to understand what happened here: one of the major selling points of the game was that players could choose from two well-defined characters right at the start of the game (Alexios and Kassandra). Though each of these characters represent something of an in-game male and female archetype, they’re each lovingly crafted, featuring their own personalities, voice actors, mannerisms, and unique dialogue.

我本人还没有玩过《 奥德赛》 ，所以我只能按照我看到的报告和直接帐户进行操作。 但是不难理解发生了什么：游戏的主要卖点之一是，玩家可以在游戏开始时从两个定义明确的角色中进行选择(Alexios和Kassandra)。 尽管每个角色都代表游戏中的男性和女性原型，但它们都是精心制作的，具有自己的个性，配音演员，举止和独特的对话。

Even more powerful was the fact that players could expand upon these well-crafted foundations by making their own choices throughout the game. This extends to how Alexios and Kassandra behave in different situations; how they respond to people in dialogue, and how they resolve significant plot points. The character foundations made these two Spartans believable in the context of the game world, but importantly, these foundations were largely neutral, enabling players to really establish their own personal versions of Alexios and Kassandra as the game progressed. Importantly, this included complete freedom of sexuality. Odyssey includes many romantic opportunities of various kinds, and players can quite specifically decide which paths to pursue (or not). In fact, the level of freedom in this area was perhaps one of the most notable — and genuinely positive — aspects of the design.

更加强大的事实是，玩家可以通过在整个游戏中做出自己的选择来扩展这些精心设计的基础。 这扩展到Alexios和Kassandra在不同情况下的行为。 他们如何在对话中回应人们，以及他们如何解决重要的情节问题。 角色基础使这两个斯巴达人在游戏世界中令人信服，但重要的是，这些基础在很大程度上是中立的，使玩家能够随着游戏的进行而真正建立自己的Alexios和Kassandra版本。 重要的是，这包括完全的性自由。 《奥德赛》包含许多种类繁多的浪漫机会，玩家可以很明确地决定走(或不走)哪条路。 实际上，这方面的自由度也许是设计中最显着(也是真正意义上的)方面之一。

Enter the DLC, which completely disregards many of these nuanced choices by inserting an unchangeable plot point: your Alexios or Kassandra will marry and will have a child, no matter what kind of personal relationship narrative you’ve designed as part of your unique experience.

进入DLC，它完全通过插入一个不可改变的情节点无视许多细致入微的选择：你ALEXIOS或卡珊德拉会结婚， 并有一个孩子，不管是什么样的个人关系的叙述你设计为您的独特体验的一部分。

In this case, the developers have obviously prioritised the broader game narrative over and above players’ very personal character choices.

在这种情况下，开发人员显然已经将广泛的游戏叙述置于玩家个人角色选择之上。

为选择而设计 (Designing for choice)

To return to the core thesis here: deliberately ignoring choices a player has already made — especially when they are ostensibly highly consequential — is a cardinal sin in game design. When players make decisions that are at least implied to be significant in one way or another, there should be clear in-game ramifications.

回到这里的核心论点：故意忽略玩家已经做出的选择，尤其是当这些选择表面上具有很高的重要性时，这是游戏设计的主要罪魁祸首。 当玩家做出的决定至少以一种或另一种方式暗示是重要的时，应该在游戏中产生明确的影响。

We’ve seen evidence of poor implementation of player choice before. Bioware’s Mass Effect trilogy is perhaps the most notable offender in recent memory. Here were three large, involved games that offered a wide array of seemingly consequential choices to players. But when it came to the ending of the third game, Bioware condensed all of those decisions down into just three endings — endings which left many players unsatisfied.

之前我们已经看到证据表明，玩家选择的执行不力。 生物制品的质量效应三部曲也许是最近记忆中最著名的罪犯。 这是三款大型，涉及游戏的游戏，为玩家提供了一系列看似必然的选择。 但是当谈到第三场比赛的结局时，Bioware将所有这些决定浓缩为三个结局-结局使许多玩家不满意。

Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Expecting a developer to cover all these decisions is madness!”

现在，我知道您在想什么：“期望开发人员满足所有这些决定就是疯狂！”

But therein lies the fundamental difficulty of choice in video games. The more options you offer to the player, the more work you need to do to ensure they are appropriately reflected in the game.

但其中存在着视频游戏选择的基本困难。 您提供给玩家的选项越多，您需要做更多的工作来确保它们在游戏中得到适当体现。

Short-term choices aren’t as important, but if you’re building a game on the premise that “every choice matters”, players will be expecting that. And if player choice generally does articulate along these lines in moment-to-moment gameplay, players are more likely to expect historical choices to be respected in the future. If you override these choices by fiat, you’re not only taking away control at a point in time, but you’re doing so retrospectively.

短期选择并不重要，但是如果您在“每个选择都很重要”的前提下开发游戏，那么玩家会期待的。 如果玩家选择一般沿时刻到时刻游戏这些线路确实能说会道，玩家更有可能期望在未来得到尊重历史的选择。 如果您按法令优先选择这些选项，那么您不仅会在某个时间点放弃控制权，而且还会追溯性地这样做。

选择的监狱 (Prison of choices)

One of the problems here, arguably, is that player choice has evolved into a never-ending cycle of gamers always wanting more. In an earlier piece, I talked about options from a personalization standpoint. Once you start letting players make decisions, you need to keep that in the back of your mind when designing new content and elements.

可以说，这里的问题之一是，玩家的选择已经演变成一个不断追求更高需求的游戏玩家的循环。 在较早的文章中，我从个性化的角度讨论了选项 。 一旦开始让玩家做出决定，那么在设计新的内容和元素时就需要牢记在心。

This problem should have been spotted right away by the designers of Assassin’s Creed Odyssey. It is impossible to give the player complete free will in the game, as I discussed in my recent Bandersnatch piece; nevertheless, that doesn’t give you an excuse to retcon choices made by the player.

刺客信条奥德赛的设计师们应该马上发现这个问题。 正如我在最近的Bandersnatch文章中所讨论的那样，不可能在游戏中赋予玩家完全的自由意志。 但是，这并不能为您重新探究玩家做出的选择提供借口。

There is more to talk about when it comes to choices from a customization viewpoint, but I’ll save that for another day. Once you give the player control over an aspect of a character or story, then it’s up to you to figure out how to accommodate that moving forward — especially as you introduce more content to the existing experience through DLC.

从定制的角度来看，还有更多关于选择的话题，但是我会再保留一天。 一旦让玩家控制了角色或故事的某个方面，那么您就需要弄清楚如何适应这一前进的步伐-尤其是当您通过DLC向现有体验中引入更多内容时。

Game-Wisdom. Edited and re-published with permission. Game-Wisdom提供 。 经许可编辑并重新发布。

翻译自: https://medium.com/super-jump/when-player-choice-goes-wrong-c2fb672e6b2

ce玩家