在遊戲設計領域，每個設計師都有一些自己的設計方法論，在此我想分享一些自己的心得，以助開發者理解並評估自己的設計問題。
當我還是溫哥華的一名遊戲設計學生時，有個導師提到了一種設計工具，我在之後的遊戲設計生涯中一直使用這個強大的工具來評估自己的設計。而這個工具卻是一個簡單的圖表，我將它稱爲“核心圖表”：
Core Diagram1(from gamasutra)
在這個模型中，核心機制位於最中心地位，它就是遊戲的核心。而其他機制則圍繞這一核心層層相裹，處於最外層的就是故事層。
理論型設計師喜歡定義文字，我也不例外。我將“機制”定義爲促進交互的系統，而“交互”則是玩家與遊戲之間的對話。“機制”與“交互”並不足單獨描述遊戲本質，因爲遊戲是一種由這些內容相結合並作用於玩家大腦和環境而產生的體驗。但在我們發明出一種能夠直接將體驗從一個大腦傳遞到另一個大腦的神經技術之前，我們設計師唯一能控制的恐怕就只是遊戲機制而已。這些機制之間的關係好比是顏料和畫筆，釘子和錘子。
但究竟何爲“核心”遊戲機制？我想最簡單的理解方法就是根據它的發生頻繁來判斷：
*核心機制就是在遊戲中最頻繁發生、有意識的交互行爲。例如在平臺遊戲中，核心機制就是跳躍；在射擊遊戲中，核心機制就是射擊；在賽車遊戲中，核心機制就是駕駛。另一個判斷方法就是，若遊戲缺了某個元素就無法運行，則該元素即爲核心機制。
*次級機制是指發生頻率較少的交互行爲。它們之間甚至還可以再劃分爲發生頻繁更高和更低的不同層次。
*進展系統組成了遊戲的機制包層，它是遊戲系統整體上的變化來源。
*故事層是處於最外面的層次 ，它將所有內層囊括其中。
玩法和創新
現在你已經理解了這個模型的含義，能不能據此判斷出以下核心圖表分別代表哪款遊戲？
Core Diagram Examples(from gamasutra)
答案：
A：《超級馬里奧》
B：《傳送門》
C：《Flower》
D：奇幻類RPG
從這些例子中我們可以觀察到一些現象：
*最出色的遊戲通常都有一個強大而易於理解的核心機制，但也具有一定擴展空間。而假如這個機制本身就非常強大也仍然有助於遊戲獲得成功——這可以解釋爲何射擊會成爲一種極受歡迎的核心機制。
*最有效的遊戲一般都會體現出各個層次互補的特點。你可以通過查看各個層次的相互影響來測試不同層次間的關係。例如，“爲了剷除敵人，我得跳躍，而爲了通過關卡獲得進展，我必須剷除敵人”。如果你的遊戲層次缺乏這種向外的召喚關係，以及對內的前後關係，那你可能就需要重新審視自己的設計問題了。
*真正的新鮮體驗一般來自遊戲核心的創新。例如，《Flower》至今仍是我最難忘的遊戲體驗，因爲其他遊戲從未像這樣令我猶如置身雲端飛翔。它的核心機制非常與衆不同，並且極爲出色。
*有時候創新也會來自不同層次間非同尋常的組合方式。例如，射擊這種核心機制一般並不會與解謎元素融合在一起，但《傳送門》做到了，並且將其發揮得淋漓盡致。
*有些機制可以組合成不朽的經典。例如D類遊戲。這好比是經典法國菜餚，品嚐起來很棒，但卻很難烹製。
社交及手機遊戲
我從去年開始以這個視角觀察社交和手機遊戲，現在再來猜猜以下兩個圖表是什麼遊戲：
Core Diagram Examples2(from gamasutra)
A：《憤怒的小鳥》
B：《CityVille》
從中觀察所得的結果如下：
*因新平臺和用戶而產生的最大設計變化通常來源於核心和故事層。例如在《憤怒的小鳥》中，清除小豬相當於清除《超級馬里奧》中的蘑菇，並且其進程設計也基本上離不開完成或解瑣機制。對我來說，有意思的現象是這裏的“核心”變化多與界面或平臺（遊戲邦注：例如觸屏界面）有關，而“故事”變化 則與遊戲瞄準的玩家羣體有關。
*《憤怒的小鳥》是一款設計笨拙的遊戲。它將彈射與清除小豬聯繫起來，但並非一種直接關第，有時候甚至讓人感覺有點牽強。而將彈射與完成關卡聯繫起來就更怪了。你是否曾在玩這款遊戲時也有這種奇怪之感，即你錯過一隻小豬後卻還是要不停地反覆嘗試要擊中它？這種感覺令人尷尬，並且一點都不有趣。上述圖表中沒有納入的元素就是積分系統，因爲它和其他層次的融合度並不高。清除小豬可以讓你獲得分數，但你玩遊戲就是要清除小豬，所以這個系統就顯得有點多餘，而要完成關卡卻需要積分，這種設置就顯得極具強迫性了。對於《憤怒的小鳥》爲何如此強大，相信每個遊戲設計師都有自己的見解，但我認爲這個圖表已能夠證明這款遊戲設計很不妥。
*我並沒有針對所有的Zynga遊戲製作核心圖表，但我認爲幾乎每款Zynga遊戲的虛擬世界（除了以Indiana Jones爲主題的那款遊戲，以及尋物解謎遊戲之外）都有三個相同的內層——蒐集/收割，買東西，解瑣內容。看起來Zynga成員似乎知道這三個內層的妙處，並且希望一直挖掘同樣的設計。
我還沒有研究這種模型爲何會適用於社交/多人遊戲，而這也並非本文要探討的話題。但我認爲真正的社交遊戲的各個層面至少都需要至少2名玩家參與互動。假如要我把Zynga遊戲設計得更有社交性，我可能會將蒐集設置爲與好友一起參與的活動（Zynga遊戲已經實現這一點），將購買建築的行爲也同好友相綁定（例如，我買了個服裝設計工作室，那麼好友就買一個時裝精品店，我可以向好友的店面提供服裝，我們可以一起進行利潤分成）。爲何《魔獸世界》這種MMO遊戲會如此強大？因爲他們採用了典型的RPG模式，並且在每個步驟中都巧用了社交動態元素。
策略遊戲
我發現在其他遊戲的核心機制中，優秀的平臺遊戲設計師可能會將注意力集中於音個跳躍物理機制中，這樣即使沒有次級機制或進展元素，這個核心活動也仍會富有生氣。但並非每個核心機制都需要擁有如此緊湊的單個循環。例如在策略遊戲的核心機制通常是“單位佈局”。嚴格來講，在策略遊戲中移動物體並沒有什麼天然樂趣，但如果將其視爲一項大腦活動，就會理解其核心機制究竟有何意義和深度，策略遊戲爲何如此好玩。要知道策略遊戲中的核心機制一般也更復雜，並融入了多種不同的反饋循環。換句話說，這種遊戲的核心交互過程需要處理更多信息。
模式轉換
在此我得先聲明：並非所有遊戲都適合我採用的這個模型，有許多成功遊戲可能會進行模式轉換，即從一個核心圖表轉變爲另一個圖表。我認爲這種方式也會非常有效，假如一個機制更緊湊，而另一個機制更輕鬆，那麼這種模式轉換就可以發揮協調作用。這方面的典型例子就是《質量效應》。
希望這個工具能夠對你有所啓發，因爲它對我來說真的很有幫助。你也可以試着爲自己最喜歡的遊戲繪製出核心圖表，從中分析出有價值的參考信息。（本文爲遊戲邦/gamerboom.com編譯，拒絕任何不保留版權的轉載，如需轉載請聯繫：遊戲邦）
Designing around a core mechanic
by Charmie Kim
It’s easy to plug game mechanics into your game design, but it’s not always obvious whether those mechanics suit your game. Here’s a simple framework to help you understand and evaluate your design from the core out.
Reposted from Funstormgames.com blog.
In our wild wild game design world every designer is likely to have their own shade of design methodology, lack thereof being a kind of methodology of its own. I’d like to share a bit of mine.
When I was still a game design student in Vancouver, I was taught this life-changing design tool by a mentor (giving credit where it’s due!) over lunch at a White Spot. At least one mind was blown in that generic family-style restaurant that day. I’ve been
whipping this tool out to evaluate every bit of game design I do ever since. Trust me, it’s amazing.
The tool is a deceptively simple diagram that I call the ‘Core Diagram’:
In this model, the core mechanic is at the very center and forms a nucleus for your game. The other mechanics form layers around the core, with the narrative forming the very outer layer.
Theory-crafting game designers love to define words, as do I, so let’s not skip that bit! By mechanic I mean a system that facilitates interaction, and by interaction I mean a kind of conversation between the player and the game. Neither of these words actually amount to what games actually are, because a game is the experience generated by those words when they get put in a disco with the player’s brain and circumstance. However, until we invent neuro-technology that can transfer experiences directly from one brain to another, what us game designers can control within this dance are the mechanics. The mechanics are the paint and paintbrush, the nail and hammer, the two girls and cup of our art!
But still, it’s probably not very clear what exactly is a ‘Core’ mechanic in a game. Easiest way to understand it, I think, is in relation to time.
•The core mechanic in a game will usually be the purposeful interaction that occurs the most frequently. In a platforming game, this is usually jumping. In a shooter, it is usually shooting. In a racing game, it will be driving. Another way to determine the core mechanic is, if without it, you wouldn’t be able to play the game at all.
•The secondary mechanics are the interactions that happen less frequently. They could even be layered out from more frequent to least frequent.
•Progression systems form the mechanical envelope of the game, being the source of change within the game system at a holistic level.
•The Narrative layer is the outer most layer that puts all the inner layers within it into context.
Gameplay and Innovation
Now that you understand the model, could you guess which games each of these core diagrams represent?
The answers are:
A. Super Mario Bros.
B. Portal
C. Flower
D. Every fantasy RPG ever made
There are some qualitative observations that can be made immediately, just from looking at these examples.
•The best games usually have a very strong core mechanic that is easy to grasp but provides room to expand upon. It also helps if the mechanic has a powerful meaning to it of its own – there’s a good reason why shooting is such a popular core mechanic in our field.
•The most effective games are ones where each layer compliments the other. You can test the relationship between the layers by seeing what effect each layer has on the other. i.e. “In order to remove enemies, I must jump, and in order to progress through levels, I must remove enemies.” If your layers don’t have this kind of gating relationship going outward, and contextual relationship going inward, you may want to re-consider your design!
•Truly fresh experiences often result from innovations at the core of the game. For example, Flower is to this day one of my most memorable game experiences because I’d never played a game that made me feel so much like I was flying in the wind. It had an unusual core mechanic, and it did that mechanic extremely well.
•Sometimes innovation comes from having an unusual combination of layers, for example, the shooting core mechanic won’t normally be paired with solving puzzles. But Portal did it, and did it well.
Also consider how Portal differs from shooter games that have puzzles on the side (puzzles that do not use the shooting mechanic in order to solve them), and how effective those experiences are in comparison.
•Some combinations of mechanics are truly timeless, such as D. It’s like a classic dish in French cuisine – it tastes good, and it’s hard to mess with.
Social and Mobile
In the last year or so I started looking at social and mobile games in this light, and again, it’s really fascinating to see how they map.
Let’s play guess the game again! Ready?
A. Angry Birds
B. CityVille
Now some more observations!
•The biggest shift in design caused by new platforms and audiences are in the Core and the Narrative layers. Removing pigs is no different from removing mushrooms, and completion or unlocking mechanics have always been staples in progression design. This is really interesting to me because I understand it to mean that the Core shifts mostly with new interfaces or platforms, like the touch screen, while Narratives shift because of the different players that the games target. But otherwise, game design is still game design!
•Angry Birds is an awkwardly designed game. Flinging relates to removing pigs, but the relationship is indirect, and sometimes feels arbitrary, even. This also makes relating flinging to completing levels rather awkward. You know that strange feeling you get in an Angry Birds level where you have that one pig off to the side that you can’t seem to get, and you’re madly playing fling trial-and-error to get it? Yea, it gets a little awkward, and not fun! Something else that gets left out in this diagram is the points system, it just doesn’t fit very well with the other layers. Removing pigs gets you points but you have to remove them anyway so it’s redundant, and the points are needed to complete the levels but in an entirely arbitrary way! Every game designer in the world has their own opinion on how Angry Birds got to be so big, but I think I have proof here that it ain’t the design.
•In comparison, CityVille is amazingly elegant within the inner 3 layers. Look how tightly collecting currency weaves into buying buildings, and collecting XP weaves into unlocking buildings, which weaves back into buying buildings, and then again, weaves back into collecting from them. Beautiful! But, there is still a weakness, and it’s a big one. Exactly how does clicking buildings to collect from them (it’s not even made very clear that they are supposed to be taxes) and unlocking buildings (again, messaged in a very ‘game-y’ way with buildings unlocking at every level) make you a better mayor? CityVille could do well with some tweaks in how it integrates its overall narrative.
•I don’t have a diagram here for all the Zynga games but my biggest beef with them is that almost every one of their virtual world games (other than their newer Indiana Jones game and the hidden object game) have the same 3 inner layers – collect/harvest, buy stuff, unlock stuff. It’s like they know how good it is and they wanted to explore that same design until noone wanted to play it anymore.
I haven’t tackled how social/multiplayer fits into all this, that would be a post of its own. But a good measure to go by is, a truly social game would require more than one player involved at each of the layers. If I were to make a Zynga game more social, for example, I would make collecting an activity done with friends (this is already the case), buying buildings would be in relation to friends (for example, if I buy the Fashion Design Studio building and you buy the Clothing Boutique building, I could supply you with clothes for your building and we could split profits, right?) etc. Is it any wonder MMO games like WoW are so powerful? They take the classic RPG formula and apply social dynamics every step of the way.
Strategy Games a.k.a. The Slow Core
The core mechanics I’ve looked at in other games so far have a physical ‘fun’ to it on its own. A good designer working on a platformer would pay a lot of attention to the physics of a single jump so that the core activity feels good even without the secondary mechanics or progression. Yet, it would be a mistake to think that every core mechanic needs to have such a twitchy tight singular loop. Looking at strategic games, for example, the core mechanic is often ‘unit placement’. Physically speaking, there’s nothing innately joyful about placing a unit in a strategy game, but look at it as a cerebral activity and it sheds light on how deep and meaningful this core mechanic can be and why strategy games are so much fun. Note also that with strategy games, the core mechanic is far more complex and involves lots of different feedback loops within it. In other words, there’s a lot more information being processed within the interaction right in the core!
Modal Shifts
I would also add a caveat here and say that not all games fit this mould so well, and those are some of the most fun. Many successful games do modal shifts where you go from one core diagram to another. This works really well, I think, if one set of mechanics is more twitch and the other more relaxed, and the modal shift is used for pacing. A great example of this is one of my favourite game franchises of all time, Mass Effect!
I hope this tool is as inspiring for you as it has been for me, at the very least I hope you find the musings interesting. Try mapping some of your favourite games and see what the diagram can teach you through them. Are there any games that really don’t map at all? Let me know!（source:gamasutra）