Mr.Chris Crawford的游戏策划设计文档

乐天灵魂

最近一直都想为gameres做点什么，于是有了这篇翻译。
在这段翻译开始之前，我想跟大家说一些事实。
某些人对于国外的理论不屑一顾，可是我玩过的经典游戏都是国外的，比如星际，魔兽世界，魔兽争霸，英雄无敌，拳皇等等。
在这种情况下，闭关自守，不去学习国外的理论是不合逻辑的。
Chris Crawford是公认的计算机游戏设计大师，所以在下决定把他的著作翻译过来，在翻译中，进一步阅读,并锻炼自己的表达。
有人愿意和我讨论的话，我每天早上都会看这个帖子，回复一些相关内容的讨论。
你也可以到我的blog上面留言：atian.dpnet.com.cn。
welcome!


不切实际的梦想

全世界，有数百万的青年人想要成为游戏设计者。很多人有着如此的热情以至于他们
专门上游戏设计的学校。但是我很不幸地要告诉你们，其中很少很少的一部分可以成为游戏设计者。游戏工业大概需要一万名有创造性的工作者，大部分是程序员和美工，他们从不设计游戏。这个工业在一年中制作几百个游戏；这意味着仅仅有几百个人是游戏设计师。此外，在游戏工业的人们报酬较低，因为常常有很多年轻人想要取代那些年龄比较大的，并且厌倦了这个行业的人。那些最终能够成为游戏设计者的就是那些有才华的，勤劳的，并且准备忍受数年甚至更长较低生活水准的人.
Unrealistic Expectations
All over the world, millions of kids aspire to be game designers. Many are so intent that they go to special schools for game designers. What's sad about this is that very, very few will ever be game designers. The games industry can support perhaps 10,000 creative workers, the vast majority of whom are programmers and artists who will never design a game. This industry cranks out a few hundred games a year; that means that there are only a few hundred working game designers. Moreover, people in the games industry are paid substandard wages because there are always plenty of eager young kids ready to replace the old pro who's getting tired of living on macaroni and cheese. The only ones who climb high enough in the hierarchy to become game designers are those who are brilliant, talented, and willing to endure a lower standard of living for years.




Chris Crawford on Game Design:Chapter 5. Conflict
Conflict makes challenge personal. It's one thing to be challenged by a cliff waiting to be climbed, or a puzzle waiting to be solved, but it's entirely another thing to go up against a real live opponent. A simple challenge just sits there waiting for you to come; you can ignore it or tackle it at your leisure. But a challenge coming from a human being is of entirely another order—you can't just sit there thinking about it. You accept the challenge or you slink away.

Conflict is the stressor that reveals character and ability. Challenge without conflict is entirely predictable; when you go mano a mano with a crossword puzzle, you know exactly what you're getting into. But when you enter into a conflict with an active agent, you no longer enjoy the initiative; that other person could come at you from any direction, challenging you in ways that you might not have anticipated. Conflict enlivens and animates challenge; without conflict, challenge is limp and passive. Narrative operates under the same constraint; conflict puts the protagonist under stress, forcing choices that reveal character.

冲突使得挑战个性化了。在游戏中攀爬悬崖或者解开一个谜题，这是类似的事情。但是在现实生活中却完全是另外的一回事。游戏中一个简单的挑战在那里等着你去征服它；你可以忽略，可以不慌不忙地用工具去解决它。但是来自人类世界的挑战却是另外的一回事------你不能只在那里坐着想它。你需要接受挑战，或者你逃跑。

紧张的冲突能够展现人物的能力。没有冲突的挑战是完全可以预知的；当你来到一个纵横拼字谜的难题时，你完全知道你进入了一个什么样的游戏。但是当你和你的代理商争吵的时候，你不再认为那是一种享受；这时任何一个人可能随时出现来用你无法预知的方式挑战你。冲突使得挑战更有生趣，更让人鼓舞；没有冲突，挑战仅仅是被动的，瘸腿的东西。叙述性的东西（如电影，小说译者注）使用了同样的手法；用冲突把主角承受压力，强迫他接受挑战，来展现给读者。

Chris Crawford on gamedesign:
Chapter 3.1 history of play
Play certainly started out simply enough. Early mammals learned to play as a way of polishing the complex neural circuitry that they were born with. A young colt has most of the circuitry in place to walk and to run, but getting everything coordinated with the sense of balance, the visual field, and internal neural inputs takes a certain amount of practice, which is accomplished through a form of play known as gamboling.
Jumping, dancing, darting, and running in young herbivores are immediately recognizable as play, yet they serve the deadly serious purpose of learning the fine points of maneuvering in a world full of predators.
The hunting mammals took the process even further, using play as a means of honing their hunting skills. The stalking, pouncing, wrestling games that felines play are all exercises meant to learn the skills of the hunt.
But humans took the concept of play the furthest. Lord knows they had to—with infants popping out of the womb several years before they were truly ready to take on the world, they needed every opportunity to learn the complex skills necessary to survive.
//最初的游戏当然很简单。小动物生下来就学会把游戏作为一种途径，来培养复杂的神经系统。一匹小马已经具有了大部分走和跑的神经系统，但是为了让内在的神经和平衡感协调，和视野协调，它通过“跳来跳去”来让这一切都协调起来。

//跳跃，小碎步，飞奔，奔跑，年轻的草食类动物就这样玩耍。他们这样玩耍是因为他们要学习这个充满了肉食动物世界的生存规则。

捕食类动物更加深入地学习这个过程，把玩看成是对捕食技能的训练。围捕，突袭，摔跤游戏，猫科动物在玩中学会了所有的捕食技能。


//但是人类把玩发挥的更加淋漓尽致。这些地球的统治者们从出生的那一刻起，就需要在之后的数年中学习复杂的生存技能。



Chris Crawford on gamedesign
Charpter 3 Play

LESSON 4
Good games do not simulate physical reality; they mirror emotional reality.
Sadly, the current mania for photo-realistic graphic detail has distracted us from the power of metaphor. Games are now designed with acute attention to every graphic detail, and our continuing successes in this direction have only encouraged this misdirected attention. There remains a huge opportunity here for games that operate in a metaphorical sense, rather than the overly explicit works now in vogue. A game should not be a mere stripped-down version of a simulation; it can reach far into the weird world of human emotional associations to find its truth.
All play in some sense represents something from the non-play universe. We often confuse this metaphorical aspect of play as simulation. Play is not necessarily a simulation of anything in particular, but it does generate mental associations with real-world issues. In many cases, those associations are in fact generated by means of simulation. For example, a flight simulation allows us to play at flying, and it does so by presenting us with a careful simulation of the experience of piloting an aircraft. But simulation is a small part of a larger picture; metaphor is the broader term that more completely expresses this aspect of the nature of play.

//
好的游戏不应该仅仅模仿事物表面，它们应该折射出内在的真实情感。




//
不幸的是，现在流行的图形高细节仿真游戏使得我们远离“隐喻”。游戏把我们的注意力都集中在了每个画面的细节上，每一次任务胜利我们都仅仅为这些画面而欢呼。但是还存在着很多机会，能够用隐喻来处理，胜于现在流行的直接展示。一个游戏不应该仅仅像被逐个剥开皮，从外到里暴露的东西；而应该给人们更多的情感联想，让人们联想到这个世界的神秘现象，从而找到真相。


Play Is Metaphorical
//游戏就是隐喻
//
“玩”这一行为总能表现出严酷的世界中的一些东西。我们经常把游戏的隐喻性混淆作是仿真性。玩不一定是某件特定事物的仿真，但是它确实通过一些现实规则来和现实保持联系。在很多情况下，这些联系实际上是用仿真来表现的。比如，一个飞行仿真游戏可以让我们仿真飞行，表现方式是给我们提供一种小心翼翼地驾驶飞机的模拟经验。但是仿真只是冰山一角；隐喻才是冰山的主体，它才能完整地表达出来玩的本质。

A good example of this is provided by the series of combat flight simulators designed by Larry Holland for LucasArts Games in the early 1990s (BattleHawks, Battle of Britain, and Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe). These games deliberately magnified combat results to heighten the emotional intensity of the game. You could shoot down half a dozen enemy aircraft in a single mission. These results were, of course, wildly unrealistic; many fighter pilots went through the entire war without shooting down a single aircraft. But an accurate simulation of World War II fighter combat would have been dreadfully boring. You'd take off, fly for several hours to the combat zone, hear all sorts of excitement over the radio, fly around looking for enemy aircraft, and when you found some, there would either be too many (in which case you dared not approach) or too few (in which case they would run as you approached). Very rarely would you chance upon an encounter with even enough odds to entice both sides to accept battle, and even then the chances of actually making a hit, much less a kill, were low. After many hours sweating in the freezing cold, you'd return home empty-handed.
That's what a simulation would show. But a game is another matter; it must model the emotional realities of air combat, and from that point of view, all the missed opportunities and eventless hours are non-entities. The only thing that matters is shooting and being shot at; therefore, a good air combat game will twist reality around to emphasize the emotionally significant parts.
//
一个好的例子就是1990年代Larry Holland为LucasArts Games设计的仿真飞行战斗系列。这些游戏夸大了冲突以加强游戏情感。你也许能在一个单独的关中打下来半打飞机。这种情形当然是不现实的；很多飞行员在整个战争中也没有打下来过一架飞机！况且二战飞行员过的是更加枯燥的生活：起飞，飞了数小时到达战斗区域，从无线电中感受战斗的紧张，飞来飞去寻找敌机，当你发现了一些，可能太多（你不敢过去），也可能太少（它们在你过去的时候已经跑了）。有很小的概率你可以有打一场的机会，甚至是那时你可能造成的伤害远低于击落敌机。经历了数小时的紧张后，你一无所获地回到停机坪。这就是仿真游戏应该表现得。但是一个游戏却是另一回事；它应该体现空战的情感经验，那些丢掉的机会和无所事事的数小时并不是重点。重点是开火和被击中；因此，一个好的空战游戏应该把能够刺激情感的部分夸大数倍以上。

欢迎使用百度搜索“乐天灵魂”来访问my blog
本人选择游戏设计作为终生职业，在10年之后，我要加入blizzard设计游戏。
通过漫长的思考设计出伟大的游戏，我想这就是上帝令我存在的意义。
欢迎热爱游戏的朋友们一起来交流，如果你是第一次来到我的blog，推荐你阅读“乐天灵魂的个人简介”。希望我们成为朋友：）

乐天灵魂

Consider, for another example, the old classic game Space Invaders. This game cannot be said to simulate anything from our experience. There have never been arrays of little space monsters marching back and forth across the sky, slowly closing in on us. Nor is such a situation even plausible. Space Invaders simulates nothing. I see in this game not a simulation but an excellent metaphor for the frustrations of the individual in our society. All the social rules and institutions are arrayed against us; they march in lockstep as they threaten to suffocate us.

They rain their nasty poop onto our heads; we can only dodge them. But we do have one gun with which to shoot back, and if we dodge quickly, we can defeat them. It's a compelling metaphor for the predicament with which we all struggle; that's why it was such a huge success. Even more interesting is the fact that there were many, many variations and improvements upon the basic design, and none of them caught on like the original. The designers of these imitations tweaked the components of the design, but they lost the power of the metaphor.


A similar case can be made for another old classic: Pac-Man. There had been plenty of maze-chase games before Pac-Man, and many afterward, but none seemed to have the emotional power of that particular combination of design characteristics. It can't be due to any success or failure in simulation—Pac-Man doesn't simulate anything! What Pac-Man captures so well is the frantic nature of our working lives. We rush about, collecting some meaningless dots (carrying out our daily tasks), while bad guys chase us, just waiting to trip us up on some minor mistake. It's frantic, it's mechanical, it's relentless—it's just like our daily lives. There were plenty of variations on the Pac-Man design, but none of them got the metaphor to hit home so closely.
//考虑一下另一个例子。 老版本的太空入侵者。这个游戏并未模拟我们的任何现实经验。空中也从来没有任何排成队的太空怪物慢慢地向我们移动。这也不是一个似是而非的例子；太空入侵者并没有模拟任何东西。我在这个游戏中看到的不是模拟，而是个人和他面临的许多挫折的斗争，这是一种隐喻。所有的社会的规则和制度在制约着我们；它们因循守旧，渐渐地向我们走来，威胁到我们的存在。
//它们把污浊的思想倾倒向我们；我们只能躲开它们。但是我们在游戏中有一支枪可以还击，如果我们躲的很快，我们可以战胜它们。这是对我们将要克服的困境的一种隐喻；这就是为什么这个游戏获得了空前的成功！更有趣的是这样的事实：在这个游戏之后，有很多的变种；但是没有一个像最初的版本那样成功了。那些版本的设计者把设计的思路变来变去，但是却失去了隐喻的力量。

更多英文文章：atian.dpnet.com.cn
//
还有另外一个比较简单的例子：派克人（好像是迷宫吃豆子的那个小游戏译者注）。在派克人之前，有很多迷宫游戏，在之后也有很多。但是没有一个表达了像派克人那样的情感力量。这不能归于仿真，派克人没有模仿过任何东西！派克人捕获的其实是一些毫无意义的圆点（就向我们每天的工作），当那个坏蛋碰到我们的时候，就像我们犯了一些小错误的时候。这很疯狂，这很呆板，这是无情的------就像我们每天的生活。在派克人上也有很多变种，可是没有一个像最初的那样抓住了要点。
Chris Crawford on gamedesign:Chapter9
the Education of a Game Designer
//游戏设计者应该受到的教育
LESSON 23
Don't get a job in the games industry unless you really, really love games.
//不要进入游戏工业，除非你真的那么地热爱游戏。


If you are less interested in the technical side, then you should pursue a media studies degree, but you should still supplement your degree program with some courses on programming.


Lastly, you should seriously consider the possibility of studying in Europe. There are a number of programs at European universities that tackle software design in a genuinely multidisciplinary style. Moreover, you need not worry about language problems: Many of these programs are taught in English as the "best common denominator" language.


//如果你对于技术不怎么感兴趣，那么你应该获得一个电影制作的学位，但是你仍然应该学习一些编程技术。（在此后附上的书目中，在数十本书之中，编程仅仅有三本。关于数据结构的书，这些书之所以被推荐不是因为它们流行，而是因为它们经典，流行的东西很快就会过去！译者注）
//最后，你应该考虑在欧洲学习的可能性。在欧洲有很多课程是采用多学科杂糅的形式来教授软件设计的。而且你不用担心语言问题：大多数课程都是用英文教授的。






Get a Degree
First, get a bachelor's degree at a reputable college. The degree serves three purposes:

First, it establishes your credibility in the eyes of employers.

Second, it gives you a saleable skill that you can use to launch your career.

Third, it will teach you how to learn.

These are some of your options:

Technical school: These schools provide students with a highly focused, narrow education concentrating on the specific skills necessary for success as game programmers. There are a number of schools that operate under this philosophy, and they are turning out a goodly number of graduates each year. These graduates will find good positions as programmers and will play important technical roles in many games projects. Some of these will likely become great game designers, but it will not be due to their schooling. The reason for this is simple: almost all their coursework is in programming. As I stated in the introduction to this book, game design and game programming are different fields.

Computer science plus game design: Computer science departments all over the country are rushing to bring game design into their own fold. Most of the early efforts have started small, basically little more than a regular bachelor's degree program in computer science with an emphasis on graphics techniques and a few special courses thrown in. With the passage of time, I would expect these programs to broaden, adding more courses from the arts and humanities, as well as special courses specifically about game design (as opposed to game programming).

Cinema (or media studies) plus game design: The flip side of the computer science approach is the media studies approach. An existing media studies program is broadened somewhat to include computer games. These programs have suffered from the same difficulties that beset the computer science programs: With a dearth of expertise on games in particular, they are forced to approach game design circumferentially. Moreover, these programs are just as weak in the science and technical areas as the computer science programs are weak in the arts and humanities. Academic institutions in the USA are still hobbled by a certain amount of "two cultures" antagonisms—the science and engineering side and the arts and humanities side just don't understand each other. These difficulties hurt both sides when it comes to game design.

For some reason, the European academics are not so deeply caught up in these "two cultures wars." I have seen several academic programs at different European universities that achieve a good balance between the science and engineering side and the arts and humanities side. The students seem to be comfortable with both programming and artistic considerations. This model, I think, will work better in the long run.

得到一个学位：
    首先，应该得到一个名牌大学学士学位。学位有以下三个作用：
    首先，在你的雇主眼中得到信任；
    第二，给你适用的技能以开始你的职业生涯。
    第三，它将会教给你如何学习
     以下是你可以考虑的：
     技校：
         这些学校提供给学生们一个狭窄的，高度集中的专业技能，这对于游戏程序

员来说是必要的技能。每年都有不少的优秀毕业生从这些学校毕业。这些毕业生可以在

程序员方面找到好的职位，并且在游戏设计项目中是一个很重要的角色。有些人能够成

为很棒的游戏设计者，但是不能归功于他们的学校教育。原因很简单：几乎所有的学校

教育都是编程。就好像我在这本书的开始曾经说过的那样，游戏设计和编程是两回事。
（不同意这个观点的找Chris老人家争去，别跟我争了哈译者注）
     计算机科学加上游戏设计：
          游戏设计正在很快地融入到计算机科学当中。早期努力很微小，基本上只

是一个传统计算机科学学士学位加上对于图片处理技术和一些特殊的例子的讲解。我希

望随着时间，这些科目更加广阔，加入艺术和人文的更多的例子，作为游戏设计的课程

（这和程序设计是对立的）
     电影或者媒体加上游戏设计：
           计算机科学所不太重视的方面就是多媒体课程。媒体学习是对计算机游戏

的拓展。它们同样碰到了计算机科学所遇到的问题；由于在游戏中缺乏经验，媒体制作

人员不得不在游戏设计中生搬硬套。而且，这些媒体制作人员在科学和技术领域所碰到

的困惑，就如同那些计算机程序员在艺术和人文方面碰到的困惑一样。美国的学术界分

成了两个部分------科学工程派和艺术人文派，他们互相都不理解。这些困难在游戏

设计中同时伤害了双方。
      由于一些原因，欧洲的学术界没有这种“两种文化的战争。”我曾经看到过一些

欧洲大学的课程，它们很棒，在科学工程和艺术人文方面取得了平衡。学生在编程和艺

术方面都取得了进展，这种模型，从长远来看更加有益。

乐天灵魂

Chapter5 Conflict
Mars, Venus, and Conflict
Some game designers, laden with more testosterone than experience, maintain that women can't handle conflict or are afraid of it. Female conflict over issues that are vital to female interests can be just as ferocious as male conflicts, but they differ in two respects. First, women don't go around with a chip on their shoulders, seeking out conflict as men are wont to do. Second, women don't play out their conflicts in the same dimensions that men do. Where men rely heavily on physical forms of conflict, women tend toward social conflict.

The two sex's attitudes toward each other in this respect are illuminating. In matters of conflict, men regard women as sneaky and deceitful. Men wonder why women can't just come out in the open, look you in the eye, and punch you in the nose. They conveniently overlook the fact that a woman using such an approach is almost certain to be worsted in a fistfight. Women, by contrast, view men as primitive louts when it comes to conflict. They wonder why men hit first and ask questions later. The fact that hierarchies are central to male identity is lost on most women. Understanding these differences is crucial to designing games that appeal to women.

    有些年轻，冲动的游戏设计者，保持着这样一个观点：女人不会处理冲突，她们害怕冲突。女人在适合她们能处理的冲突上表现出来的残忍肯定不比男人差，但是在以下两点上有着区别：第一，女人不可能像男人那样，肩膀上扛着筹码四处寻找冲突。第二，女人不能够像男人那样处理冲突。在男人们主要使用物理冲突的时候，女人们处理的主要是社会冲突。
    两性在这个观点上对彼此的态度很有启发性。在冲突中，男人认为女人们卑鄙，狡诈。男人奇怪为什么女人不能从正面过来，和你对视，然后用拳头砸向你的鼻子。他们没有认识到，一个采取如此方式进行冲突的女人几乎已经注定要在第一个照面中落败。女人认为男人在冲突中表现得像个原始人。她们奇怪为什么男人先攻击，后问问题。男性身份中冲突的核心点在大多数女性上并不是关键。在设计给女人玩得游戏的时候，理解这些不同非常重要。

atian.dpnet.com.cn

乐天灵魂

Chapter5 Conflict
Intensity and the Evolution
Videogames
These considerations explain the obsession with violence that saturates videogames. Violence is the most intense, direct, and physical form of conflict available; therefore, kids want to experience it. And it's intensely pleasurable, because the kid expects to kill off all the bad guys and win the game. Videogames are in the same league with candy, cartoons, and comic books…and they appeal to precisely the same audience.

What's different is that they are not part of a vast universe of computational delights, teeming with diversions appealing to a wide array of tastes. Our player is an astronaut floating alone in a vast, dark universe with no stars, no galaxies, nothing. Where are the games to appeal to his more mature tastes? Where are the games that are analogous to Caesar salads, nightly news, or bodice-ripper novels? Where are the bagel-and-cream-cheese games, the Archie Bunker games, the Jacquiline Susanne games? Where are the games about a boy and his dog or the prostitute with a heart of gold?

The reason for this emptiness, I think, has to do with the nativity of computer games. The other three pleasures all existed in forms quite separate from the kiddie-forms; indeed, the kiddie-corners of their universes were not explored until well after the main areas of the universe had been developed. We were eating nuts and berries long before we invented jellybeans; the first cartoons appeared more than a decade after the first silent movies; and literature got started thousands of years before the first entertainment-oriented comic books were created.

But computer games were the very first form of entertainment on the computer. The very first computer game, SpaceWar, featured two spaceships floating around in space shooting at each other. We didn't know the first thing about designing games when we got started, so we slapped together the simplest possible designs—designs with intense, violent conflict. It is the tragedy of computer games that they were too successful too early. It's as if Homo erectus had been so successful that he spread all over the world, occupied every possible ecological niche, and thereby blocked the evolution of larger-brained hominids.


视频游戏
   在视频游戏中，暴力是最为广泛，物理形式的冲突也是最为常见的；因此，孩子们

喜欢体验它。这很有趣，因为孩子们希望去体验杀掉所有的坏家伙并且赢得游戏。视频

游戏就像蜜饯，卡通和漫画。。。它们拥有着同样的观众。
   不同的是，它们只是宇宙中相对更为广泛的体验的一个小角落。我们的玩家是一个

在黑暗宇宙中漂浮的外星人，没有星星，没有月亮，什么也没有。到哪里游戏才能更加

成熟？哪里有能和色拉，晚间新闻，或者侦探小说媲美的游戏？奶酪和冰激凌的游戏在

哪？Archie Bunker games, the Jacquiline Susanne games? 男孩和他的狗，

道德高尚的妓女，类似这样的游戏又在哪里呢？
   这种无知的原因，我认为和计算机游戏的诞生有关。卡通，都存在于和孩子们的快

乐不同的形式；糖果，卡通，戏剧的成功都是因为它们脱离了单纯的孩子模式；当然，

孩子们的角落在整个宇宙被发展起来之前，并未被定义出来。我们在我们发明软糖之前一直吃坚果和浆果；在无声电影之后的十年卡通才出现；在文化发展了数千年之后，第一本以娱乐为主的喜剧小说才被创作出来。
    但是计算机游戏室最早的在电脑上面的娱乐形式。最早的计算机游戏，空间战争，就是两艘宇宙飞船在战斗中互相射击。我们并不知道在最初我们应该如何设计游戏，因此我们使用了最为简单的形式------使用暴力冲突来实现。这是一场灾难，因为PC游戏成功的太早了。如同直立猿人成功的太早，以至于他统治着这个世界，从而阻止了其它可能的生命形态，因此阻止了更高级形式的智慧生命的诞生。

atian.dpnet.com.cn，更多英文文章！

gthief

好东西，不过原文和译文排版有些乱。请问楼主，原文在哪里可以下载？

乐天灵魂

gthief: Re:Chris Crawford on game design(translate by Letian)

好东西，不过原文和译文排版有些乱。请问楼主，原文在哪里可以下载？

1 好在哪里？你能说出来个一二三吗？
2 网上到处都是这样的资源，只要有心就可以找到。
3 排版也许我在十一的时候有空会整理一下。不过别对排版期望太高，在我做不感兴趣事情的时候是会出奇的懒的@@

乐天灵魂

Chapter 3. Play
The finest definition of play (and the most complete discussion of

the subject) is to be found in Johan Huizinga's Homo Ludens: A

Study of the Play Element in Culture (Beacon Press, 1986). Huizinga

defines play as follows:

"A voluntary activity or occupation executed within certain fixed

limits of time and place, according to rules freely accepted but

absolutely binding, having its aim in itself and accompanied by a

feeling of tension, joy, and the consciousness that it is

'different' from 'ordinary life.'"


玩的最佳定义（也是最为完整地表达了这个意思）就是，Johan Huizinga在人类学杂

志上发表的一篇文章：文化中玩的元素。Huizinga这样定义了“玩”：
“一个主动的行为或者时间段，包括给定的时间限制和空间限制，根据可以选择接受但

是基本是固定的规则，实现它的目标并且伴随着紧张，快乐情绪，这种意识和‘普通生

活’不同。”

LESSON 5
Keep the player on the razor edge of failure, but don't let him

fall.

Play Must Be Safe

We see exactly the same phenomenon in many movies. Consider, for

example, the old classic Raiders of the Lost Ark. In the first five

minutes of this movie, the hero faces ten deadly threats—and

escapes every one. Each appears to offer little chance of survival,

yet somehow Indiana Jones cheats death each time. The sense of

underlying safety amid horrific dangers is an irresistible allure

in a movie; we love it. Games should do the same.

Good games permit the player to undo his last move, or play it

over, instantly. The quicker and more easily the player can correct

a mistake, the safer he will feel and the more exploratory and

playful his play will be. Losing should be a rare event, just

frequent enough to maintain the illusion of risk, but not frequent

enough to intimidate the player.

The player must not merely be safe; he must feel safe. Some games

foist myriad unpleasant surprises on the player. When such

surprises provide nothing more than momentary excitement, they

enhance the play of the game. But when they threaten to set the

player back substantially, they harm the play of the game out of

proportion to the setback actually inflicted. If the player fears

mines lurking underneath every step he takes, he won't take many

steps.

The fascinating paradox of play is that it provides the player with

dangerous experiences that are absolutely safe. This is best

exemplified by roller coasters. The rider is assured of the safety

of the roller coaster before consigning his personal safety to it.

He knows that it was built to careful standards and inspected by

outsiders. More to the point, he knows that thousands of people

have ridden the roller coaster before him, without any accidents.

He is therefore assured of his safety. Yet the whole point of the

roller coaster is to convince his senses that he is about to die.

The wild gyrations, high speeds, and great heights all suggest

imminent destruction. It is the perception of danger coupled with

the certainty of safety that makes the experience so much fun.

Roller coaster designers know that even one accident in a million

rides would destroy the pleasure for all riders. They push the

experience as far as possible in the direction of perceived danger

while maintaining complete safety. A problem as simple as a

squeaking wheel or a scraping sound can shatter the rider's

perception of safety and ruin the experience, even if it does not

actually compromise his safety.



第五节：让玩家在失败的边缘，但是不要让他失败。

玩应该是安全的。

我们在很多电影中都看到过这样的现象。比如，失落的方舟这部经典电影。在影片开始

的五分钟内，英雄面临着各种致命的威胁，并且逃脱了。每一个威胁看起来都只有很小

的机会逃脱，但是Indana Jones 从每个危险中逃脱出来。让主角面临看上去很危险，

但是其实很安全的情况，这是一部电影中的惯用手法；游戏应该是一样的。

好的游戏允许玩家取消他的上一步操作，或者可以立即重新来过。玩家能够越轻易地纠

正某一步错误，他就会感到越安全，并且更愿意去探索游戏中的危险，那么他玩的就越

开心。丢失的惩罚是一个罕见的事件，仅仅是为了稍微阻止一下疯狂的冒险，但是不要

太过频繁，否则会让玩家厌烦。

玩家不仅仅是完全地安全，而是让玩家感觉到安全。一些游戏强加给玩家惊讶而不快的

冲击。当这样的一个惊讶在霎那间没有给予别的什么东西，无非是惊讶而已的时候，这

种惊讶增强了游戏的趣味性。可是当玩家被吓的直往后退的时候，他们就会造成了游戏

对玩家伤害的均衡失调。如果玩家在走每一步的时候都有可能死掉，那么他就不会走那

么多步。

玩吸引人的两面就在于，它提供给玩家危险的体验，同时它是安全的。我们可以用过山

车的例子来说明这点再合适不过了。乘客在上车之前就知道它是安全的。他知道这过山

车是用安全的标准规范制造出来的，并且被细致地检查过了。更重要的是，他知道前面

有数千个人曾经坐过这个过山车，而且安然无事。他因此确保了自己的安全，然而过山

车却给他这样真实的感觉：下一秒他就要死掉。疯狂的旋转，高速冲下，还有巨大的高

度落差带来毁灭感。因此这就是在确信安全的情况下体验到的极度危险，让这个经历是

这么的有趣。过山车的设计者们知道就算是在数百万的乘客中发生一例意外事件都会毁

掉所有乘客的安全感。他们在确保安全的情况下把整个体验做的尽可能的让人觉得危险

。像轮子啸叫或者刮的声音这种小问题都会把乘客的安全感击毁，破坏这个体验，尽管

这种小问题完全、不会危及他的安全。


LESSON 6
The whole world is fun; you don't need to look under rocks or in

caves for it.

Play Need Not Be Exotic

Some game designers believe that play must have an exotic, escapist

aspect to be successful. Put the player in the shoes of some

barbarian prince, they say, or a laser-pistol-packing space

swashbuckler, and the player can escape the dull tedium of his

meaningless life. These designers have missed the underlying truth

at work. Players don't need to be spirited away to an exotic world;

they want to face and overcome interesting challenges, and the

pragmatic world in which they live goes to great lengths to

minimize all risk.

Skateboarding games allow players the chance to skateboard in

environments forbidden to real skateboarders—but these environments

need not be alien wastelands with menacing tendrils and hidden

caves. They can just as easily be freeways, factories, or fishing

ships—places that are not so much exotic as challenging. One need

merely look to the vast success of The Sims, which one wag has

dubbed "a housekeeping simulator," to realize just how unimportant

an exotic setting can be. There's still plenty of challenge in

getting the characters functioning smoothly and happily.

第六节：

整个世界本身就很有趣，你不需要完全颠覆它的规则：玩不需要颠覆式创新

一些游戏设计者相信，和现实的各个方面相比，玩必须要完整地创新才能成功。但是玩

家却陷入了王子和野蛮人或者手枪填充---射击的套路，这让设计者们懊恼。这些玩家

本可以从日常乏味的生活中摆脱出来。这些设计者在工作中忽视以下的一个至关重要的

真理。玩家并不想去一个全新的世界来逃避；他们只是想面临一些有趣的挑战，而且这

些挑战把在现实生活中可能会遇到的危险降低到最低。

滑板游戏允许玩家有机会在现实中不可能遇到的地方滑板------但是这些地方决不是什

么布满了藤蔓和坑洞的外星球。这些地方仅仅是日常生活中容易见到的：高速公路，工

厂，或者渔船------这些地方作为挑战来说并不是全新的。人们期望在各种各样的模拟

环境中成功，比如“家庭主妇模拟游戏”就可以说明一个完全不同的环境是多么的不重要

。即使不是一个全新的环境，仍旧有很多挑战给予了玩家那么多的快乐和充实。

atian.dpnet.com.cn,more english articles!

cqbaby

好东西~~~~~~我会每天来看你的更新的~~~

乐天灵魂

cqbaby: Re:Chris Crawford on game design(translate by Letian)

好东西~~~~~~我会每天来看你的更新的~~~

多谢支持！
周六周日公司不一定允许我加班，那时请大家去atian.dpnet.com.cn看吧。现在有大概六十多篇的英文文章翻译。

乐天灵魂

Chapter 6. Interactivity

Every language has its own special words, words that

express an idea better than any other word in any other

language. There really isn't any other word in the world

that quite expresses the idea of the English word "fun."

There are plenty of words for "humorous" or "enjoyable"

or "playful," but nothing that quite catches the

combination of informality, enjoyment, and

near-vulgarity that our word "fun" connotes. We have

shamelessly stolen such words from other languages.

"Taboo," for example, is stolen from a Polynesian word;

can you think of any other word that really captures the

idea of that word? There are gobs of words we have

stolen from European languages: entrepreneur, manana,

schadenfreude, presto. But there's one word, a German

word, that we haven't yet stolen that should be high on

our list of targets: schwerpunkt. It means "focal point"

or "concentration of effort point" or "central point of

attack." It's a beautiful word because it expresses an

idea that we just don't have in English: the notion

that, in any effort, you have many necessary tasks, but

there is one central task that must take first place in

your considerations.

Consider, for example, what an army does. An army

fights, right? And who does the fighting? Soldiers,

right? But wait a minute: The soldier can't fight unless

there's a cook who keeps him fed. No cook, no fighting.

Ergo, cooks are just as necessary as soldiers. We

therefore deduce that the cook is just as important as

the soldier, because he's just as necessary. Same thing

goes for truck drivers who bring the ammunition to the

front, and the clerks who keep track of the food and

ammunition, and the guys who dig the latrines, and so

on. All of these people are necessary, and so they are

just as important as the soldier. But if you are the

soldier, the guy who has to charge through fire and

death to face the enemy, would you agree that these

other people are every bit as worthy as you are? They

may be necessary, and they may be important, but they're

not central to the task. The soldier is the whole point

and purpose of the effort. He's the schwerpunkt. And the

soldier's fundamental task is to fight. So the

schwerpunkt object in an army is the soldier and the

schwerpunkt action is fighting.

Or consider a computer system. What goes into a working

computer system? Well, there's a power supply—you can't

have a working computer without a power supply. There's

also a plastic box, a motherboard, lots of solder,

plenty of wires and cables—all these things are

absolutely necessary to a working computer, and I

suppose you could argue that they are therefore

important. But they're really not the heart of the

computer. If you want to get down to the absolute core,

it's got to be the CPU. That's the real essence of any

computer. When you describe your new computer to

someone, do you say, "It's a beige tower system with a

200-watt power supply and an 8 inch by 10 inch

motherboard?" No, the very first thing you specify is

the CPU and its clock speed: It's a 900MHz G4. That's

the real schwerpunkt of the computer: its CPU. And what

does a CPU do? It processes; after all, it is the

Central Processing Unit. Thus, the schwerpunkt object in

a computer is the CPU and the schwerpunkt action in a

computer is processing.

So let us now determine the schwerpunkt of games. What

is it that is absolutely central to games, the one

element that is more than important, more than

necessary, but indeed the entire point and purpose of

games? The answer we immediately pounce upon is "play";

after all, what else do you do with a game than play it?

Unfortunately, although that answer is certainly

correct, it's not very useful; like the infamous term

fun factor, we can never really pin down what elements

of game design are useful to support good play. Can we

snuffle about and develop a more useful answer?


第六章 交互性

   举个例子，想想看；军队是什么？军队是打仗的，对吗？那么谁打仗

呢？士兵，对吗？但是等等：如果没有人为士兵做饭，让他吃饱就不能打

仗。没有食物，就没有战争。因此，厨师和士兵一样是必不可少的。我们

据此推断厨师和士兵一样重要，因为他是必不可少的。同样的推论可以用

在卡车司机上，因为他把军火运到了前线；还有那些装填弹药的人员，还

有挖厕所的人，等等。所有这些人都是必不可少的，因此他们和士兵一样

重要。但是如果你是士兵，在前线开火并且冒着被敌人射死的危险，你会

不会同意那些后勤人员和你有同样的价值呢？他们可能是不可缺少的，他

们或许可以说是重要的，但是，他们并不是核心。士兵才是整个战争的核

心，是焦点。士兵的主要职能是战斗。因此在一个军队中的核心和焦点就

是士兵，核心行为就是战斗。
   
    现在来考虑一下电脑体系。是什么让一台电脑工作了？当然有电源供

应------你不能让一台电脑不插电就工作。还有硬盘，主板，焊接，各种

线路------所有这些东西都是一台工作电脑的不可缺少的部分，我想你会

认为它们是重要的。但是他们并不是一台电脑的核心。如果你提到核心，

就是CPU。这才是任何电脑真正重要的部分。如果你要把你的新电脑向别

人描述一下，你会不会说“恩，那是一台两百瓦功率，八英尺高，带十英

寸主板浅褐色的电力系统？”不。最初你要描述的事情是CPU和它的功率：

这是奔四九百兆赫兹。这才是电脑真正的核心：CPU。那么CPU用来什么呢

？是进程；毕竟这是进程的中枢部分。因此，在一台电脑中的核心是CPU

，核心行为是进程活动。
  
     接下来让我们来决定游戏中的核心部分。游戏的真正核心部分是什

么呢？那个部分最为重要，比那些必要的部分重要，而且是游戏核心和游

戏的目的？我们会很快地回答“玩”；无论如何，你对一个游戏除了玩还能

做些什么？不幸的是，这个答案虽然正确，却没有任何意义。就像那场声

名狼藉的电影“趣味因素”，我们从来没有真正地把那些对玩来说很重要的

游戏设计因素加进来。我们能找到一个更有用的回答吗？

History
At this point, let's consider an important historical observation: Computers gave gaming a big boost. Sure, there were plenty of games before computers came along, but with the advent of computers, games suddenly seized a much larger portion of our consciousness. Before computers, gaming was a petty industry, employing a few thousand people at most. In the twenty years since personal computers burst upon the scene, gaming has suddenly exploded into a major industry, rivaling Hollywood in sales and employees. Something about computers made a big, big difference in games. What was that magic element?

If you answered "video," you get twenty lashes with a wet noodle. Video entertainment has been around since 1910! And the same thing goes for sound, music, or even text; all those media have been around for long before the computer made its appearance.

The magic element that computers brought to the party was their processing power, their ability to crunch numbers. That processing power made games so much more compelling. But processing power is an internal trait of computers—the user never directly experiences processing power. Instead, the user experiences processing power through the interactivity that the computer offers.

Consider the most common use of personal computers: word processing. What is it about word processing that is so damned useful? It's not the ability to print out text that's clean and neat—we've had typewriters that could do that for nearly a century before word processing became available. Moreover, word processing made typewriters obsolete in a matter of a few years. Clearly, the ability to get clean, mechanically generated text is not the primary appeal of word processing.

The real power of word processing lies in its interactivity. You type something on your screen, and if you make a mistake, it takes only a second to hit the Delete key and correct the typo. If you misspell a word, your spell checker will flag the error for you and you can fix it. If you don't like the way a sentence reads, you can rewrite it. If you don't like the order of paragraphs, you can rearrange them with a simple cut and paste. It's the interactivity between user and computer that makes word processing so powerful. Take the interactivity out of a word processor, and all you've got left is a typewriter. Take the interactivity out of a spreadsheet, and all you've got left is a calculator.

Just as the schwerpunkt of computers is processing, so too the schwerpunkt of all software is interactivity—and this goes double for games. The turbo-charged interactivity that computers brought to gaming transformed the medium from wimp to superhero. Graphics, animation, sound, and music are all necessary to gaming, and they're all important, but they're not the schwerpunkt. Interactivity (sometimes called "gameplay") is the real schwerpunkt of games



历史

    在这个观点的基础上，让我们进行一些历史上的回顾。电脑给游戏一

个很巨大的市场。在有电脑出现之前，有很多游戏，但是仅仅是在电脑出

现之后，游戏才变成了我们日常生活中的一部分。在电脑之前，游戏仅仅

是一个小型工业，最多雇佣数千人。在个人电脑出现的二十年间，游戏突

然成了一个很巨大的行业，雇佣了很多员工，从事专门的销售。某种东西

，是电脑特有的东西，让游戏进行了一场翻天覆地的革命，那是什么？
  
    如果你回答“视频”，你应该被湿面条做成的鞭子抽二十次。视频娱乐

在1910年就已经开始了！同样，声音，音乐或者文本；这些媒体在电脑出

现前很久就已经出现了。
     
    电脑带来的因素就是它们的过程处理能力，它们能够处理数字的能力

。是过程处理让游戏变得引人注目。但是过程处理是电脑内在的隐藏因素

------玩家并没有直接体验到它。取而代之的是，玩家通过电脑提供的交

互性感受到它的过程处理性。
      
    想想最为流行的个人电脑的字处理过程。是什么让文字处理如此流行

？并不是能够打印出来干净漂亮的文字------我们在过去的一百年中都使

用着打字机来做同样的事情。文字处理软件仅仅在最近几年才流行起来。很显然，打印清晰，机械重复出所打印的文档并不是字处理的核心功能。

     字处理真正的力量在于交互性。你在你的屏幕上打印一些东西，如

果你出错，在一秒钟以内你按下Delete键就可以修复错误。如果你不小心

打错了一个词，自动检测会检测到这个词并且指出来，你可以改正它。如

果你想改正一句话，马上你就能重写它。如果你不喜欢整段话，你只需要

简单的复制，粘贴就可以了。用户和电脑之间的交互性让它变得如此迷人。如果把交互性从字处理软件拿出来，剩下的就只是一台打字机。把交互性从Excel表格拿出来，剩下的就只是一台计算器。
  
      因为电脑的核心部分是进程处理，电脑的软件的核心功能也应该是交互性------在谈到游戏的时候，这个核心功能应该扩大数倍。电脑带给用户的感情交互，使得电脑游戏从一个懦夫变成一个巨人。图片，动画，音频和音乐，这些都是游戏的必备条件，它们非常重要；但是正如前文所说，它们不是核心。交互性才是游戏的核心。
      
atian.dpnet.com.cn，welcome!