>>>  技術話題—商業文明的嶄新時代  >>>

簡體     傳統

作者：Tucker Abbott

功能疲劳指产品的可用性因产品拥有大量功能而受到损害。功能疲劳在各个行业中显得越来越普遍，但在这篇文章中，我想阐述的是为何游戏开发者不可再因有人提出新功能时感到厌恶。绕过功能疲劳这道障碍，勇于添加新功能。

我认为功能疲劳的产生不能简单归咎于功能数量，只有大量功能以令人难以承受的形式呈现出来才会产生功能疲劳。有些宣传具有大量功能的游戏之所以能够获得成功，只是因为它们以恰当的方式来呈现机制和功能。在电子游戏领域中，功能疲劳被当成是“功能蔓延”，即不断在产品的初始功能上增添新功能。这种做法可能导致功能疲劳的产生，但如果控制合理也能够产生很棒的成果。

如果能意识到某些游戏有着些许冗余的功能，确实是件很不错的事情。有些设计师似乎认为，应该将游戏尽量简化，强大的核心机制便足以成就一款优秀的游戏。但这会限制游戏拉近与玩家距离的可能性。如果游戏中能做的选择很少，那么玩家会觉得他们只能做开发者设计好的事情，而无法在游戏中选择自己的路途。

下图显示了开发者与玩家之间联系的基本想法。MeGusta和Fuuuu（游戏邦注：作者假设的两个玩家）是两个有着相同资质和经历的玩家。MeGusta体验的是一款有着许多小功能的游戏，绿圈代表的就是他在游戏中所能做的事情。大部分时间他都会呆在黑圈里，但偶尔他也可以离开这片限制，意识到游戏世界真得很大。Fuuuu体验的是几乎没有什么额外机制的游戏。他发现MeGusta可以在游戏中做某些有趣的小事情，所以他也想在自己选择的游戏中尝试这些做法，但他的想法显然受到了游戏的限制。

Developer To Player Limits(from gamasutra.com)

J.R.R. Tolkien在《Middle Earth》创造了一个生机勃勃的世界。读者经常会讨论起书中未曾探索过的远方山脉和世界。当问及他是否会在书中对那些迷雾中的山脉深入描写时，他回答道：“我可能不会这么做。因为如果我告诉你那些山脉中发生的故事，那么我就得再去创造些遥不可及的山脉。这些是让读者感受到书中世界的真实性的必要元素，因为在我们的世界中总是有些我们不甚熟悉的事物。这些元素的存在会使你所听到的故事更加精彩。”

以此远方山脉理论为背景，同理可推测在游戏中添加某些用户从未想到过的功能确实有可能让游戏变得更好。当用户发现他们可以在《上古卷轴：湮灭》中读书或者在《荒野大镖客》中玩纸牌游戏，他们会觉得游戏世界与所处的真实世界相似，他们可以在游戏进程所需行动之外做更多的事情。即便用户在游戏中只尝试了一次这些新功能，他们心中的这种想法也可以让游戏更具拟真化，改善游戏体验。

这种方法同样也可用于在某些游戏中添加对核心可玩性机制至关重要的功能。以《传送门2》为例，在学习曲线和功能增加方面已经成为了游戏设计领域的标榜之作。在初代的核心可玩性机制上，Valve添加了斥力凝胶、加速凝胶、媒介凝胶和水。在传送门这个核心机制上，这些新添加的功能很容易让用户感到不知所措。但由于这些机制以易于理解的方式逐步引入到游戏中，游戏依然让人感到直观和简单。到游戏末期，玩家所做的事情可能是他们在游戏刚开始时根本想不到的事情。

我觉得有些游戏确实需要功能蔓延。我希望角色在《神鬼寓言3》中能够跳跃。尽管这完全不是个必要的功能，但其他许多游戏都有跳跃按键，这让我觉得在游戏中受到了限制，也使游戏世界的鲜活性受到影响。许多游戏中有着善恶明显的机制，比如让玩家选择焚毁孤儿院或收养所有的孩子。但如果能增添第三个选项，比如信步离开对事件不管不顾，这也会让游戏体验变得更好。

功能经济

功能经济指的是某项游戏机制能够给予玩家多少选择或体验。比如，武器转换便是项可好可坏的机制。以《巫师2》为例，玩家在游戏中可以从许多图标（游戏邦注：这些是能够在战斗中提供帮助的咒语）中做出选择。他们可以使用滚轮或数字键来控制所拥有的咒语，但真正让我迅速做出选择的不是控制手法而是视觉吸引，这种设计还出现在战斗之外的其他游戏情形中。这便是个绝佳的功能经济，因为CD Projekt添加了某些直观的功能，给予玩家多种选择，让游戏变得更为出色。诚然，这种设计并非必需品，但它确实能够改善游戏，将质量提升到更高的层次。

游戏中的咒语(from gamasutra.com)

所有的开发者都应当在为游戏添加功能时考虑到功能经济。或许你有些很棒的想法，向游戏中添加些许小东西，但你需要考虑到玩家的感受。他们会在此项功能中看到更多潜在因素吗？他们是否会在任意时刻都感觉不受此功能限制？功能是否能够增强游戏主题？如果这些问题的答案都是否定的话，那么就必须重新设计这项功能。将你的想法对外公示，看看别人对此有何看法，听取他人的意见和反馈。

而且，在执行此功能时，还必须考虑游戏的目标用户和他们的学习能力。如果你在做的是一款休闲Facebook游戏，那么就别为玩家提供过于复杂的物品和状态系统。你或许觉得有些东西很棒，但玩家可能并不这么想。你应该站在玩家的立场和想法上来考虑问题。他们想要什么内容？他们在游戏中可能面临何种挑战？

言归正传，功能蔓延是不可避免的事情，你需要进行合理的控制，为游戏世界增添新功能来深化游戏，给玩家提供各种尝试机会。确实每个功能都物有所值，挨个审查各个功能要点，判断游戏对此项功能的需求程度以及功能是否能够贴合游戏内容。别对这种扼杀自己想法的行为感到恐惧，最终得利的是你的项目。我曾经数次在未判断游戏范围的前提下在其中塞入过多内容，已是深受其害，不可重蹈覆辙。希望不久之后，每个开发者都的功能蔓延都能够与Michael Jackson在《Thriller》中的表现那样出众。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Feature Fatigue: Control It, Embrace It

Tucker Abbott

Feature fatigue is a term used for when a product’s usability suffers due to the large number of functions, or features, that the product has. Feature fatigue is becoming more and more apparent with every industry, and in this post I’m going to go over why game developers should no longer cringe when someone brings a new feature to the table. Grab the creep by its own horns, and give it a hug.

I believe that feature fatigue is not so much caused by simply having a large number of features, but rather having a slew of features that are presented in an overwhelming way. Some games that are widely successful can boast a large amount of features, simply because they present their mechanics and features in a way that isn’t overwhelming. Feature fatigue in the videogame world is referred to as ‘feature creep’, which is a constant addition of features tacked onto a product that expand beyond the initial goals of the product. This can lead to games being overwhelming, but it can also be used well if controlled. Take the knife on the side for an example of good feature cree- no wait, that actually looks dangerous. I wonder why…

It is important to realize that certain games thrive off of features that aren’t necessary, as that is a good thing. Some designers seem to believe that simplifying a game to the point where it is just a strong core mechanic is enough to make a good game. This brings the limits of the game closer to the player and makes them more visible. A world of choice becomes limited to a fishbowl where the player feels like they can only do what the developers intended, rather than doing anything they want.

This beautifully piece of art below shows the basic idea of this connection between the developer and the player. Mr. MeGusta and Mr. Fuuuu are two players of the same talent and experience. MeGusta picked up a game that has a lot of little features, and the green circle represents everything he can do in his game. He will mainly stay inside the black circle, but every once in a while he will leave his boundaries, and realize just how big the world is. Mr. Fuuuu on the other hand picked up a game where the developers put very few extra mechanics in. He sees that MeGusta can do some quirky, little things in his game, and he tries it in his game, but he is limited by the game. The rules of any game should try to stay as far away from the players as possible.

J.R.R. Tolkien created a living, breathing world in Middle Earth. There were always talks of distant mountains and worlds that were never explored in the books. When asked if he would ever go to those distant mountains in his books, he replied, “Well I can’t do that. If I go there to tell you about those stories, then I have to invent more distant mountains to the distant mountains because those serve to make the world that we’re in realistic, because there’s always stuff about our world that we don’t quite know about. But if those elements are there, then the story works that you’re telling.”

Using this distant mountain theory, it is safe to assume that adding features into a game that a user might never even realize are there really could make the game better. When the user discovers that they can read books in Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, or play card games in Red Dead Redemption, they realize that the game world is their world, and that they can do more things than required during the game. Even if the user uses the feature once and never touches it again, knowing that there is the potential to do little things makes the game that much more immersive, and makes the game experience better.

This can also apply to games that have features that are vital to the core gameplay mechanic. Portal 2, for instance, has become a cliché in the world of game design when talking about learning curves and feature additions. Valve expanded on the core gameplay from Portal 1 in adding repulsion gel, propulsion gel, conversion gel, and water. In addition to the mechanic of teleporting portals, these features could very easily have been overwhelming do the user. But, because the mechanics are introduced at an easy-to-comprehend pace, the game feels intuitive and simplistic. By the end of the game, the player is doing things that they never could have imagined themselves doing at the start of things.

Some games I wish did feature creep. I would have liked to jump in Fable 3. Sure, it wasn’t necessary at all, but since so many other games ‘feature’ a jump button, I felt limited by the game, and the world lost a little bit of its vividness. Many games that boast a good/evil mechanic give you two choices to either burn an orphanage or personally adopt all the kids. Even adding a third choice to walk away and ignore things makes the game experience better.

Feature Economics

Feature economics is the concept of how many choices or experiences one game mechanic can give the player. Weapon-switching, for instance is a mechanic that can have both poor economy and good economy. The Witcher 2, for instance, has a few signs (spells to aid you in combat) that you can choose from. They could have just used the scroll wheel or numpad to control which spell you had, but instead there is this cool control doohickey that lets me select right away what I want, is visually appealing, and is used in situations other than just combat. This is great feature economy, because CD Projekt added a feature that is intuitive, gives the player a good amount of choices, and makes the game better. Sure, it’s not needed, but it helps improve the game and bring it to the high level of quality that it is at.

To all developers, please consider feature economy when you are thinking about what to put into your games. You may have this AWESOME idea which adds one little thing to your game, but think about where you can take it. Think about the player. Will they see more potential in this feature? Will they feel restricted by this feature at any given time? Does the feature not reinforce or strengthen the theme of the game? If the answer to any of those questions is no, then rework the feature. Take your idea to people and see what they think, get recommendations and feedback.

Also, when implementing the feature, consider your target audience and think about their learning curve. Are you making a casual Facebook game? Don’t throw the player into a deep inventory and stats system. Just because you think something is cool doesn’t mean it’s cool. Step into the body and mind of the people that will play your game. What do they want, and how much of a challenge do you think they intend to get out of your game? Learning curves is a blog post for another day though, quite possibly next time I will be back to write about that.

Stepping back from that tangent, ‘feature creep’ is something that should not be avoided at all costs, but rather embraced and controlled, to add to the game world and create a deeper game that gives players extra opportunities- if they want them. Make sure each feature is worth it, and go through each point of it separately and judge how much you really need it, or whether it’s just filler. Don’t be afraid to kill your own ideas, your project might benefit from it. A couple too many times I’ve fallen victim to both throwing filler content into games and not judging the scope of my game. DON’T MAKE MY MISTAKES. Good luck in the future, and hopefully soon everyone will be feature creeping around like Michael Jackson in Thriller. (Source: Gamasutra)

Tucker Abbott 2011-07-15 19:26:56