易上手和无止尽是手机游戏可玩性的关键编辑本段回目录
大约两年前，我编写的题为“A Peek into the Mind of a Social Gamer”的博客发表在Gamasutra上。在那篇博文中，我表示休闲玩家喜欢的是可爱、简单而且易于上手的游戏。
我在文中提到：“保持游戏简短很重要。游戏本身不一定要短，但一定要简单。否则，玩家们不会接受。这么说并非表示社交游戏玩家愚钝，事实上他们并非如此。原因在于，我们玩社交游戏的目的在于娱乐，让自己的大脑得到休息。我们不想花30分钟时间来弄清楚怎么玩游戏。”当时，我还强调了社交游戏的可接入性。
大约1年前，我又在Gamasutra上发表了一篇文章，题为“I Want My Games In Bite Sized Chunks!”。当时我提出的解决方案是，希望游戏能够有丰富的内容，可以不断挑战我自己。
在这边文章中，我写道：“游戏玩法应该易于上手。游戏不应该太短或太长，避免玩家失去兴趣，应该吸引玩家这样他们才不会感到厌烦。正如我上文中提到的那样，休闲游戏玩家会在课余时间、查看Facebook消息或乘坐地铁时玩游戏。”
现在，我开发iPhone游戏1年之后，我又有了些新想法。
我们近期发布了一款游戏，最经常看到的评论是游戏太短了。我们的游戏是一款射击游戏，有5个关卡，每个持续3分钟左右的时间。这样的游戏确实短了些，我们会在下次更新时增添更多关卡。然而，仅仅是增添关卡就能够真正解决问题吗？我怕最后我们只能靠永无止尽地增添关卡来吸引用户。
游戏的问题不在于长短，而在于它的可玩性。
我意识到，自己想让丰富的游戏内容永远对玩家保持吸引力。也就是说，我想要的是没有结局的游戏（游戏邦注：就像歌曲可以反复播放）。
tiny-wings(from whatmobile.net)
但是，我们要如何制作出永保可玩性且不会让玩家感到厌烦的游戏呢？我认为《Tiny Wings》（游戏邦注：包括近期发布的《Be The Kiwi》）已经回答了这个问题。
玩家每天玩这种游戏时都会有新的感觉，甚至每次打开游戏时都会感到有所不同。《Tiny Wings》每天可使用程序化图形来生成关卡。因为关卡的产生由程序执行，因而几乎不可能出现完全相同的关卡。换句话说，关卡数是无穷无尽的。
然而，为何我们需要一款永没有终点的游戏呢？
iPhone游戏（游戏邦注：Android等其他系统也是如此）的目标用户是休闲用户以及那些在上下班途中及等待地铁的玩家。这些玩家在乘坐地铁等交通工具感到厌烦时会想打开手机玩游戏。
在这种情况下，易接入性意味着他们可以在最短的时间内玩到游戏。他们并不希望玩游戏之前还需要注册GameCenter或其他服务，他们想要的是快速游戏按键（游戏邦注：点击便可以开始游戏）。而且，当他们到站时，希望能够马上停止游戏，随后能在任何时候回到游戏中。
也就是说，他们对游戏的投入不如那些在主机或PC上玩游戏的玩家。他们玩游戏的目的在于消磨时光，只是为了休闲而已。
一旦他们发现游戏有简单机制的游戏，他们很可能一直玩这款游戏。我见过许多人一直在玩《愤怒的小鸟》，包括我自己。而在《愤怒的小鸟》中，我会一直玩同一个关卡，直到拿到3颗星。《愤怒的小鸟》的好处在于，游戏有许多关卡。当然，设计、开发和平衡这么多关卡需要耗费大把精力。
所以，你既可以为游戏设计大量关卡，也可以想办法让游戏通过程序生成无数的关卡。哪种方法更好呢？作为一个开发者，我也无法给出确切的答案。
但如果从玩家方向考虑，我希望游戏能够永无止尽地玩下去，而且只需0.99美元就可以买到。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，作者：Hsiao Wei Chen）
Opinion: This Is The Game That Doesn’t End
Hsiao Wei Chen
Almost two years ago, I wrote a blog post on Gamasutra, “A Peek into the Mind of a Social Gamer”. In that blog post, I said that casual gamers want their games cute, simple, and what’s the last one again, oh yeah, easily accessible.
I mentioned: “KISS. Keep it short and simple. The game itself doesn’t have to be short per se, but it absolutely has to be simple. Otherwise, we wouldn’t get it. I’m not saying that social gamers are dumb because we most definitely are not! But the reason we play games is so that we can relax and rest our brains. We don’t really want to spend 30 minutes or so figuring out how a game works.”
I also brought up easily accessible — back then it meant Alt-Tab, and Facebook, “we just have to switch tabs on our Firefox to play games while we’re pretending to be researching stuff.”
And then almost a year ago, I wrote another blog post on Gamasutra, “I Want My Games In Bite Sized Chunks!”. The solution I came up with then is “games in bite-size chunks that I can keep challenging myself over and over again with”.
In it, I argued: “Games HAVE to be pick up and play. Games don’t have to be really short, but they should be short enough so that the player doesn’t lose interest, or they have to be really engaging so that the player doesn’t get bored. Like I mentioned before, casual games are played in between — in between classes, checking Facebook messages, or during train rides.”
Now, after a year in iPhone game development, I have made some new realizations.
We recently released a game, and the comment that we got most often is the game is too short. Our game is a shoot’em up, with five levels, each lasting about three minutes. Okay, it does seem short, so in our next update, we will have to add another level. Although, would adding another level really solve the problem? I fear that we might end up adding more levels (repeat ad infinitum).
Our problem is not actually how short the game is, rather how replayable it is.
I realized that I don’t want my games simply in bite-sized chunks; I want my game in bite-sized chunks that I can keep on eating forever (and not get bored or fat). Basically, I want a game that doesn’t end (like the song).
But how do we make a game that is infinitely replayable and won’t get our players bored? I think Tiny Wings (and the newly released Be The Kiwi) already answers the question in some ways.
Both games offer “a new look every day you play,” a “different appearance every time you start the game.” Tiny Wings uses procedural graphics to generate the levels each day. And with procedural generation, it’s almost impossible to end up generating the exact same level. In a sense, it has an infinite possibilities of levels.
But why would we want a game that never ends?
The target audience of iPhone games (Android, etc) are casual and commuter gamers, (people who play with games while they are waiting for the train, etc). They are the type of people (forgive me for generalizing) who would slide unlock their phones, and then tap on one game and start playing when they get bored on the train, etc.
Easily accessible now means that they want to be able to play the game as soon as possible, they don’t want to have to sign in the GameCenter or other services in order to play the game, and they want a Quick Play button (just one tap, and the game will start). Also, when they arrive at their stop, they want to stop the game at once, and then maybe pick up again whenever.
In a way, they are not as invested in the game as people who would play games on their consoles or PCs. They play games to pass the time, to relax.
Once they have the simple mechanics of one game, most likely they will play the game over and over again. I have seen many people (ok, myself included) play Angry Birds to death. Well, with Angry Birds, I play the same levels over and over again in order to get the three stars. And the good thing about Angry Birds is that it has a lot of levels. But of course, a lot of levels is hard work to design, develop and balance.
So it’s either make a lot of levels, or find a way to make your game levels procedural and have an infinite number of levels. Which is a better option? As a developer, I’m not really sure.
But as a gamer, I think I’d like a game that I can play forever, and at $0.99, that’s a bargain. (Source: Gamasutra)
