游戏设计师与用户需求编辑本段回目录
游戏开发者应当学会识别哪些游戏内容和玩家群体是不重要的。你最喜欢的游戏内容或许并不能引起玩家关注，而有些玩家关心的恰恰是你没有投入精力的地方。
那么这是什么意思呢？为何我不选择让所有的玩家满意呢？简单地说，这就是我所追求的目标。具体地说，如果你总是想迎合所有玩家的需求，而有些玩家的喜好却正好与游戏设置相左，那么最终可能就会导致游戏取悦不了任何玩家。
撇开漏洞和劣质的开发这两个因素，玩家离开游戏的最主要原因是开发者和玩家对游戏表现形式各有看法，未能达成一致意见：
例如，玩家希望游戏是带有FPS元素的RPG，但是开发者提供的是带有RPG元素的FPS游戏。玩家希望游戏能够更注重团队合作，其中含有个人行动的内容，但开发者更偏爱的是穿插团队行动的个人游戏。玩家期待的是开放世界中的地域控制PVP，而开发者提供的是决斗式的PVP。
这些细微的差别最初不会对游戏产生影响，但是综合起来就会产生很大的影响，最终可能导致所有玩家都会离开游戏。
正如游戏中的其他层面一样，你需要精心设计和构架你的玩家群体。以下是可供参考的方法：
1、知道你正在制作的是何种游戏，适合哪些玩家
如果设计团队都无法就游戏内容达成一致，那么你又怎么能期望玩家能认同你的设计呢？
游戏可玩性会决定哪类玩家将体验游戏乐趣，也就是在所有游戏可玩性设计决定中必须考虑哪类玩家的想法。游戏开发源于玩家想法还是可玩性想法并不重要，因为这两个是相互依存的。
如果你等到游戏发布后再尝试让他们体验到其中的乐趣，这已为时过晚。游戏在开发时就应该针对目标受众和玩家。这或许是件极具挑战性的事情，但是有许多捷径可循。
比如，你可让某些设计师扮演目标玩家群体发言人的角色，你可以定义一整套在设计时留存于脑中的原型，你可以编写用户故事，或者你可以尝试以其他游戏的用户为目标来制作游戏然后把这些用户吸引过来。
无论你采用何种方法，你都需要先确定目标玩家以及他们希望获得的游戏内容。
2、保持设计方向
毫无疑问，功能累赘是游戏行业中最令人头疼的问题，整个软件行业均是如此。它可能导致经济问题和时间编排问题，还会造成分裂的玩家群体。
诸如RPG等游戏设计最易出现功能累赘的倾向，依我个人观点来看，这就是为何快乐的MMO玩家如此之少的原因所在。以不伤害其他玩法的方法提供多样性的玩法难度极大。
比如，暴雪有足够的资源在PVE和PVP上都投入大量的精力，但还是没有获得完全的成功。《魔兽世界》玩家总是在争辩游戏应该有的玩法，而且对获取更多内容、更好装备和优势的其他玩家感到愤怒。
world-of-warcraft(from thelostjacket.com)
避免功能累赘的最佳方式是，避免特定的游戏风格，忽视特定玩家的诉求。
给游戏添加更多功能势必会吸引更多的玩家，但我可以向你保证这些玩家体验到的趣味性会大大降低。想想看，你是想要一大群不高兴的玩家，还是要些许高兴的玩家。这个问题并不难解答，不高兴的玩家会离开游戏，而高兴的玩家会带来更多玩家。
3、诚实地营销游戏
不要让玩家的希望落空。如果你确定自己的游戏不是款PVP游戏，不是款单人作战游戏，不是款含有制造系统的游戏，那么就必须向玩家提供这类信息。
如果你羞于诚实地告知玩家游戏的内容，那就足以说明你的游戏并不会吸引玩家。
4、保证现有玩家留存率
一旦有开发团队之外的玩家接触到了游戏，那你就无法再对其进行大幅度的更改，你只能通过版本更新来让游戏变得越来越好，即便你发布的游戏中存在错误。
只要玩家开始玩你的游戏，即便是免费的，他们也在游戏中有所投入。玩家总是在谈论他们如何付款和获得某种服务，但这不是真正让他们疯狂的原因所在。只要他们在游戏中投入时间和精力，他们就已给予了你某些比金钱更加珍贵的东西。
即便你设计和营销的游戏是针对某个特定群体的玩家，其他类型的玩家仍然会接触到你的游戏。这些玩家会因为游戏不适合自己而抱怨，希望开发者能够做出改变。有时你能够在不伤害现有目标玩家的基础上做出改变，但有时你必须控制住自己，让那些不满意的玩家离开游戏。
DUST 514(from gamesnation.it)
CCP的新游戏《Dust 514》令我印象深刻。数年来玩家一直抱怨《EVE》并不是款令人兴奋的游戏，但CCP从未屈服，也没有将游戏改造成包容其他玩家的类型。他们针对这些玩家制作了一款全新的游戏。这是种让新群体玩家感到高兴的绝佳方法，而且不会影响到其他群体玩家的乐趣。
分析《星球大战：星系》
《星球大战：星系》（游戏邦注：下文简称SWG）是款失败的游戏，但是其中有一定的缘由。这款游戏面临了我上面所提到过的所有问题。它尝试提供各种类型的玩法，包括政治、城市管理、制造、角色战斗和宠物战斗。
游戏看上去像是为了各种类型的《星球大战》的粉丝而设计的，所以就不可避免地会向那些只看过电影的人进行营销。当游戏只剩下那些真正喜欢SWG游戏玩法的玩家而其他人全部离开游戏之后，开发商开始决定解决这个问题。
star-wars-galaxies(from pc.gamespy.com)
他们发布了能够吸引所有已经离开游戏的玩家（游戏邦注：这部分玩家希望游戏更像电影）的新版游戏，但是没有考虑到游戏的现有玩家。那些真正留在游戏中的忠诚玩家感到很失望，也相继大批地离开游戏。
新版《星球大战》游戏似乎也步SWG的后尘。有趣的时，这次所有人都对新游戏非常感兴趣。这是因为我们可以预想到游戏的样式，而且开发商也进行了诚实的营销。
没有人希望他们的玩家离开游戏，让玩家不高兴总不是件好事。但是，如果你让自己的游戏设计过于分散而且玩家群体过于分裂，你最终会陷入难以挽救的境地。
如果你能在游戏发布和诚实营销之前确定自己的潜在目标玩家，那么就不会出现上述困境。这也意味着，你不会看到大批量的玩家离开游戏。
游戏邦注：本文发稿于2009年9月30日，所涉时间、事件和数据均以此为准。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，作者：Mike Darga）
Designing Your Audience
Mike Darga
Last week, I made a comment that I should have realized would need some explanation:
Learn to recognize which parts of your game and playerbase aren’t important. Your favorite part of the game may be something the playerbase doesn’t care about, and there are some players who care about things that it isn’t in your best interests to focus on.
I probably shouldn’t have mentioned this in passing before I had a chance to do a longer writeup on it. That’s a fairly sinister-sounding quote, after all.
So what did I mean by this? Why wouldn’t I want to just always make all of my players happy all the time? The short answer is that’s exactly what I do want. The longer answer is that if you end up with too many different groups of players who want opposing things out of your game, you’ll eventually arrive at a situation where any decision you make will anger one of the player camps.
Aside from bugs and generally shoddy development, the biggest cause of ragequits is developers and players not agreeing on what the game is supposed to be:
Players thought it was an RPG with FPS elements, developers shipped an FPS with RPG elements. Players thought the game was supposed to be mostly grouping with some soloing, developers preferred mostly soloing with some grouping. Players expected open world territorial control PvP, developers implemented consensual sport PvP.
These are very small differences in opinion that don’t matter at all, until they matter more than anything and all your players have quit.
Just like every other aspect of the game, your playerbase must be carefully designed and crafted. Here’s how:
1 – Know what game you’re making, and for whom
If your design team can’t agree on what the game’s about, how can your playerbase possibly be expected to agree with your design team?
Your gameplay will determine which players will enjoy your game, and which players you intend to enjoy your game should be the driving force in all your gameplay decisions. It’s not important whether you start the game with an idea of the players or an idea of the gameplay, it’s just important that they both support each other.
If you wait until you have real players to start trying to make them happy, it’s already too late. The game has to be tailored to the audience before the audience even exists. This can be challenging, but there are lots of shortcuts.
You can do it by treating some designers as spokespeople for the player groups you expect to have, you can define a set of archetypes that you keep in mind while designing, you can write user stories, or you can just try make a game for another game’s audience and steal them.
It doesn’t matter how do you it, but you have to figure out who your players will be and what game they’ll want in time to actually start making it.
2 – Keep your design focused
Feature creep is arguably the worst problem in the game industry, as well as the software industry as a whole. It causes financial problems and scheduling problems, and it also causes a fragmented playerbase.
Sprawling game designs such as RPGs are the most prone to feature creep, which in my opinion explains why so few MMO gamers are actually happy. It’s incredibly difficult to support divergent gameplay styles in a way that doesn’t result in each style’s features harming the other’s gameplay.
For example, Blizzard has enough resources to put huge amounts of effort into both PvE and PvP, but even they barely pull it off. WoW players are constantly arguing over which type of gameplay that game is supposed to be about, or angry that one is receiving more content, better itemization, relevant balance changes, etc.
The best way to avoid feature creep is to make a firm choice as to what game you’re not making, and which audience you’re not trying to appeal to.
By adding every feature under the sun to your game, you might attract more players, but I can guarantee you that those players will be less happy. Think about whether you want to have a huge audience of unhappy players, or a small audience of happy players. It’s a trick question though, because unhappy players quit, while happy players multiply.
3 – Market your game honestly
Stop giving players false hope. If you know that your game isn’t a PvP game, isn’t a solo game, isn’t a crafting game, etc, all you have to do is make that clear up front. Nobody wants to be the bad guy in the dev chat who tells all the nice crafters and all their nice money to take a hike, but it’s much better than leading them on and then disappointing them.
If you feel ashamed to tell your players honestly what your game is about, that’s a pretty great sign that you game isn’t about the right things.
4 – Dance with the ones that brung ya
Once your game has players who aren’t on your dev team, it’s too late to change what game it is. You can only make it a better and better version of itself, even if you screwed up and made the wrong game.
Once players are playing your game, even for free, they’ve invested themselves in it. Players always talk about how they’ve paid money and deserve a service, but that’s not actually what’s making them mad. Once they’ve invested their time and attention in a game, they’ve given you something much more precious than their money and you’ve reached the point of no return.
Even when you’ve designed and marketed a game for a specific audience, you’ll still have some players from outside your audience show up and try it out. These players will be mad that the game isn’t a game for them, and demand that you change it. Sometimes you can accommodate them without alienating your existing players, but sometimes you just have to have the self-restraint to allow them to quit.
I’m hugely impressed by CCP’s new game Dust 514. After being assaulted for years by complaints of EVE not being exciting enough, CCP didn’t cave in and dilute their game to include those players who were outside of their intended audience. They made an entirely new game just for those players. This is a perfect way to make a new group of players happy, without that gain in happiness costing some happiness from another group.
Time to pick on poor SWG
Star Wars Galaxies is an example that’s been beaten to death, but for good reason. That game suffered from all of the problems I’ve mentioned here. It tried to support every style of gameplay there is, from politics and city management to crafting to avatar combat to dogfighting in spaceships.
It was seemingly designed for fans of every part of the Star Wars universe but the movies, and then inevitably marketed to people who had only ever seen the movies. Once its audience was distilled to only people who really liked SWG’s gameplay and everyone else had quit, the devs decided to try and fix their mistakes.
They rereleased the game with a new design that would appeal to all of the players who had quit (who wanted it to be more like the movies), except those players didn’t really care anymore. The loyal players who had remained rightly felt this was a slap in the face and began quitting in droves.
The new Star Wars game seems to have much more in common with the failed SWG revamp than it does with the original SWG. The funny thing is that this time around everyone is incredibly excited about it. This is because we can all tell what that game is trying to be, and hopefuly because it’s being marketed honestly.
Nobody wants their players to quit, and it’s always a bad thing to make any of your players unhappy. However, if you let your design get too diluted and your playerbase get too fractured, you’ll end up in a position where it’s unavoidable.
If you decide which potential players are and aren’t important long before the game ships and market the game honestly, then you’ll never have such a divided playerbase that you have to make those kinds of tough calls. This hopefully also means you won’t see so many players /ragequit. (Source: Mike Darga’s Game Design Blog)
