知名開發公司設計師談多人遊戲的四種合作模式
知名開發公司設計師談多人遊戲的四種合作模式
原作者：Thierry Lauret 譯者：Willow Wu
Thierry Lauret是育碧魁北克公司的關卡設計師。
遊戲設計一直都是一份高難度係數的工作。在機制和/或關卡設計方面，知道玩家想要什麼，玩家要做什麼以及玩家能夠做什麼是一件非常考驗人的事。再想象一下如果你考慮的不只是一個玩家呢？兩個、三個甚至更多？
幾年前，我對多人合作遊戲有做過研究，找到了兩篇非常值得一讀的文章：
1.《多人合作遊戲設計的五個問題以及嘗試性解決方案》[5 problems with co-op game design (and possible solutions)]，作者Tanya Short
2.《對合作遊戲玩家進行分類討論》（Different player types for coop games），作者Asher Einhorn
Tanya Short和Asher Einhorn聚焦的是玩家，而我決定從設計角度切入。或許我們不能改變人與人之間的互動方式，但我們也許可以用遊戲來改變玩家的行為。
我把玩家的合作行為簡化分成了四類，分別代表了合作遊戲中的一種特定玩法。
注意，本文只關注PvE遊戲。
1.The Gate
示例：《細胞分裂6：黑名單》（Splinter Cell Blacklist）
在《細胞分裂6：黑名單》的合作模式中，Sam Fisher和Isaac Briggs要一同協作完成他們的共同目標：保護寡婦和孤兒。但是，戰場上會出現一個特工進行清場工作，而另一個特工從一開始就在旁邊待命的情況。
在Gate合作設計中，除非有要求兩個人都達到某個條件，否則一方不能繼續的情況，不然玩家是可以選擇各自行動的。這種設計是很經典的，遊戲依靠的是團隊的良好溝通，知道誰要在什麼時候幹什麼。即使是這樣，玩家在絕大多數時間還是可以按自己的方式單幹。所以遊戲好不好玩這個問題在很大程度上是取決於玩家的，有的人會玩出很多花樣，有的人只會覺得乏味。
如何識別這類遊戲：如果一個玩家就能夠替整個團隊完成任務，但是到某一時刻所有人必須達到遊戲所要求的狀態才能繼續遊戲（比如在某個地方集合、要按“A”鍵準備，等等），那這就是Gate合作設計。
The Comfort
示例: 《求生之路》（Left for Dead）
在這個型別的遊戲中，玩家組成了一個團隊，但理論來上說一個技術高超的玩家還是可以代替團隊完成任務。
這就是最廣泛應用的的合作遊戲設計——系統給出一個非常難的挑戰任務，要多人合作才能攻克。MMO遊戲中的團隊副本一般都是為有準備充分的活躍團隊設計的，但是總有玩家能夠一個人破五關斬六將。這種情況很罕見，但並不是不可能。這種設計的關鍵點在於難度平衡的把握，在攻克挑戰時要給予玩家充分的合作自由。
《求生之路》在這方面就非常值得借鑑，遊戲內建人工智慧導演系統（AI Director）會根據使用者的玩法風格調整難度。合作不是強制的，團隊成員交流也不是強制的，玩家只需要跟著領隊的alpha就好了。
如何識別這類遊戲：選出對那個最困擾玩家的挑戰，然後剔除掉。這其中可能包括限時挑戰、全面防禦、一擊致命。如果玩家單槍匹馬就能拿下你設計的挑戰，那麼你的遊戲應該就是Comfort合作遊戲了。
The Class
示例: 《沒人會被炸掉》（Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes）
在這個遊戲中專家們要使用手冊來協助拆彈者阻止爆炸的發生。他們必須通過交流來破解謎題。拆彈者和專家各有不一樣的任務，在其中一方完成之前都不能交換工作。
在Class合作設計中，每個玩家都有單獨的任務安排，可能是考驗技巧或是解決環境問題又或者是克服障礙。要實現成功，每個玩家都要完成自己的任務。在多數情況下，交流是很關鍵的，尤其是各方處於不一樣的環境中。在《雷曼：傳奇》中，兩個玩家一下就能明白對方的需求，及時採取行動。
如何識別這類遊戲：要識別Class合作遊戲有點複雜。並不是說你有一個戰士，有一個遊騎兵，有一個巫師就意味著你的遊戲是Class合作遊戲。角色的能力必須與關卡設計中的挑戰相匹配：比如，只有盜賊才能來這個關卡，開啟那扇門；玩家們要穿過熔岩地面時，戰士可以背起巫師跳躍，而巫師則負責治癒。
The Job
示例: 《傳送門2》（portal 2）
我們經常會把Class和Job這兩種設計混淆是因為它們都是利用了角色的能力專長。我的意思是如果一個騎士有那麼厚的血量和那麼高的防禦能力，他應該就是肉盾，對吧？確實如此，然而這並不是因為騎士就是肉盾的專屬角色，只是剛好對上了屬性以及專長。
Portal_2_Tractor_Beam(from gamedev)
說到Job合作設計模式時，我認為角色專長是能為遊戲增色的，但絕對不是必要的。在《傳送門2》中，機器人Atlas和P-body的技能是完全一樣的。這樣玩家就可以根據自己的技術水平和偏好去選擇誰、做什麼。擁有同樣的能力並不是這類遊戲的鑑別要素，而是玩家互相幫助的這種必要需求。為了完成這個關卡，一個機器人必須為另一個創造道路。沒有誰可以依靠自己的能力達到下一扇門。
交流至關重要。玩家必須靈活執行計劃，也許是因為其中一人在某個特定挑戰中比較得心應手，或者知道某個謎題的解決方法。
你要確保玩家必須相互合作才能繼續遊戲。這通常就意味著如果其中一個玩家被限制住了，無法前進，那麼就要由另一個玩家來解除困境。風險在於這種關卡設計可能會讓玩家覺得合作起來沒什麼意思。因此，你必須確保玩家可以隨時交換位置。當某個玩家無法執行任務時，這樣做能喚起同理心，促使兩個玩家合作更加順利。讓一個玩家去幫助另一個玩家總是會有收穫的。在《傳送門2》裡，這樣做能讓整個團隊受益。
如何識別這類遊戲：可以說，如果你的遊戲不符合其它三個設計模式的話，那應該就是Job合作遊戲了。玩家應該能隨時交換任務，幫對方解決難題，一同前進。所以設計師應該記住兩件重要的事：
1.玩家所具備的基礎技能應該足以應付各種任務。
2.一個玩家無法在同一時間完成所有任務。
讓我們套用一個簡單的場景來解釋這些設計模式，任務是玩家們要把壞掉的車搬進車庫：
·Gate：車庫的門需要兩個玩家合力才能抬起來，之後他們還需要一起把車推進去。
·Comfort：光憑一個玩家就能開啟車庫，把汽車推進去。
·Class：車庫門只能由開鎖匠開啟，汽車只能由專業駕駛員匯入車庫。
·Job：一個玩家控制車庫門，不讓它關閉，另一個玩家推車進去。
總結
為什麼這很重要？理解這些分類能夠幫助你在設計中找到焦點，更容易地找到目標使用者。
但這並不是萬能公式，你不必只選擇一個設計模式，大多數遊戲都是混合了上述的四種模式。在某個階段，某個合作模式會成為遊戲體驗的核心，而其它模式則成為輔助。
比如說，桌遊Zombicide，根據玩家所處的關卡不同，遊戲會在comfort、class和gate三者之間切換。這是我最喜歡的合作遊戲之一，因為遊戲過程是在層層遞進的。每個關卡都具有獨創性，建立在堅固的遊戲基石之上。在某個地圖中，玩家們必須分為兩組去開啟不同的門，然後消滅房間裡的所有殭屍，最後大家要在出口集合一起離開。
在同一個遊戲中，甚至是同一關卡中你可以將四種合作模式混合在一起，當然前提是懂得如何使用。我堅信遊戲體驗越專注就越有趣，開發者們也會得到更多收穫。
本文由遊戲邦編譯，轉載請註明來源，或諮詢微信zhengjintiao
Thierry Lauret is a level designer chez Ubisoft Quebec
Designing a game is always hard. Knowing what the player wants, what the player does and what the player is able to do is always a challenge, in terms of mechanics and/or level design. So imagine when you have to take into account not one but two, three or more players!
A few years ago, I did some research on coop games and I found two articles that were really inspiring:
5 problems with co-op game design (and possible solutions) from Tanya Short
Different player types for coop games by Asher Einhorn
While Tanya Short and Asher Einhorn focused on the player, I decided to investigate the design of the games. After all, if we cannot change the way humans interact with each other, maybe we will have to use the game to modify a player’s behavior.
I did this by reducing the co-op behavior to its simplest expression, splitting it apart into four different atoms, each one representing one specific way to play in a coop game.
This article only concerns a Players Versus Environment-type of game.
THE GATE
Example: Splinter Cell Blacklist
In the co-op campaign of Splinter Cell Blacklist, Sam Fisher and Isaac Briggs are working together to complete their objectives of protecting widows and orphans. However, in the field, one agent can clear the zone while the other waits at the beginning of the mission.
In a Gate co-op design, the players don’t have to collaborate with each other until a gate blocks both of them. It’s a pretty classic design. It relies on good communication with the team to know who is going to do what and when. Even so, players can still go their own ways, with minimal interaction. The burden to make the experience fun is on the players, making the experience either awesome or bland.
How to identify this type: If one player can complete the challenge for the other team members but is blocked until everyone is ready to continue (moving to a specific location, pressing the “A” button, etc…), you have a Gate co-op design.
THE COMFORT
Example: Left for Dead
In this type of game, even though the players are a team, one super player can theoretically do the job.
This is the most used co-op design: it relies on having a challenge mechanic so incredibly hard that having more than one player is a necessity. Raids in MMOs are most of the time designed for a well-prepared team, but there are always players that find a way to solo them. Obviously, that’s rare, but it is possible. To work, this kind of design needs to be associated with a good difficulty balance, allowing the players the freedom to collaborate as they want to complete the challenge.
Left for Dead is particularly brilliant in its design, having a director feature that dynamically adapts to the difficulty of the players’ style. Still, co-operation is not mandatory. Communication is not mandatory either. Players just have to follow the alpha.
How to identify this type: You have to select the main challenge mechanics of your players and remove it. Those mechanics can be timed challenge, invulnerability or a homing one shot kill. If a single player can finish your challenge, you’re probably designing a Comfort co-op experience.
THE CLASS
Example: Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes
In this game, a defuser is alone with a bomb while the expert has the manual to crack the bomb. To defuse the bomb, the team needs to communicate about the puzzle they are facing. The defuser and the expert each have a unique task to do and they cannot switch until the party ends.
In a Class co-op design, each player has a unique setup whether that be skills, environment or handicap. To succeed, each player needs to complete their task. Most of the time, communication is essential, especially when they don’t share the same environment. In a game like Rayman Legends, the two players can easily see each other’s needs and promptly interact with the level in order to progress.
How to identify this type: It can be tricky to identify if you’re designing a Class co-op game. It’s not because you have a warrior, a ranger and a wizard (yes, I’m looking at you, Gauntlet) that means the game is Class co-op. The mechanics in your abilities must match the challenge in the level design: Only the thief can reach this level to open the door? You have it. The wizard can heal and jump on the back of the warrior while they cross a lava floor? Now we’re talking.
THE JOB
Example: Portal 2
Most of the time, we mistake Class and Job because of their specializations. I mean, if a paladin has so much HP and so much armor, it should tank, right? Yes indeed. However, it’s not because the paladin is the class for that. It just happens that it is its specialization.
When I talk about a Job co-op design, specialization is nice-to-have but it’s far from mandatory. In Portal 2, the robots Atlas and P-body have the exact same skill sets. That allows the players to choose who is going to do what, depending on their own skills or on their preferences. Having the same abilities don’t define this genre. It’s the need for the player to unlock each other. To be able to complete the level, a robot needs to create a path for the other and vice-versa. No one can reach the next door by themselves.
Communication is essential in this design. Players must be able to change their plan, maybe because they had better skills in a specific challenge (timed platforms for example) or they saw a puzzle they know they can solve.
You need to make sure that the players have to help each other. That often means that a gate will block one player only to be unlocked by the other player. The danger here is to design levels in silos, making the collaboration dull. To correct that, you have to make sure that the players can trade places at any time. This will improve empathy when a player is not able to perform a task. Empowering one player to help another is always rewarding. In this case, it’s also helpful for the entire team.
How to detect this type: Basically, if you’re not designing one of the other atoms, you’re in a Job co-op design. The players must be able to switch their tasks anytime to unlock their progression. That means 2 fundamental things:
Players’ basic abilities is enough to complete any task.
One player cannot complete all the tasks at the same time.
Designing for the 4 Atoms
Let’s take a simple situation and adapt the design for each atom: The players have to bring a broken car into a closed garage.
Designing for the Gate: The garage door only opens if 2 players lift the door. Once done, they have to push the car together.
Designing for the Comfort: The garage door can be opened by one player and the car can be pushed by one player.
Designing for the Class: The garage door can only be opened by a locksmith and the car can only be driven by a pilot.
Designing for the Job: The garage door will close if a player doesn’t keep it open and any player can push the car.
In conclusion
Why is this important? Knowing theses categories will help to bring focus on a design and to target your audience more easily.
It’s not a magic formula though. You don’t have to choose one category and stick with it. Most of games do a mix between these categories. There’s always an atom that is core to the experience at some point but the other ones are often revolving around it.
For instance, Zombicide, a board game, switches between comfort, role and gate, depending on the level you’re playing. And it’s one of my favorite co-op games because it’s evolving. Each level has its own specificity, always based on a solid ground. You can play a map where you must separate in two groups at first to open different doors, then kill every zombies in a room, to end by getting everyone to the exit.
Within the same game, even in the same level, you can design a four atoms experience, as long as you understand how to use it. I truly believe the more focus your experience is, the more fun and rewarding your game will be.（source:）