Game design has evolved greatly over the last twenty years. Games have also grown in terms of scope and scale. Titles like The Witcher 3 can easily involve hundreds of hours of content (and games like Factorio and Dwarf Fortress could be played for many times that). There has been a tendency for developers to chase this idea of “limitless replayability” and live service games are built to do just that. It’s tempting to think of replayability that sits across dozens of hours at a time, but I want to talk about a much smaller example of that.

摹 AME设计已经在过去的二十年发生巨大变化。 游戏的范围和规模也有所增长。 诸如《巫师3》之类的标题可以轻松涉及数百小时的内容(并且诸如Factorio和Dwarf Fortress之类的游戏可以播放多次)。 开发人员一直在追逐“无限重玩性”的想法，而现场服务游戏正是为此而设计的。 让人想起一次跨越数十个小时的可重播性是很诱人的，但是我想谈谈一个小得多的例子。

宏观与微观 (Macro versus micro)

A long time ago, I wrote a piece about the macro and micro elements of AAA games. Micro refers to what the player is doing over the course of several minutes, where macro refers to broader goals or objectives. Games that shoot for a very large scope (like big open-world experiences) tend to keep the micro elements very basic — or they only involve jumping from one micro element to the next. The same can be said for many RPGs that are designed for hours and hours of questing and storyline; the moment-to-moment travel and combat is often secondary to those overarching points. In these games, the designer is focused on keeping the player invested in long term goals rather than short term progress.

很久以前，我写了一篇有关AAA游戏的宏观和微观元素的文章。 微观是指玩家在几分钟内的行为，宏观是指更广泛的目标。 拍摄范围很广的游戏(例如大型开放世界的体验)往往会使微元素保持最基本的状态，或者它们只涉及从一个微元素跳到下一个微元素。 对于许多为数小时的任务和故事情节而设计的RPG，可以说是相同的。 从头至尾的旅行和战斗往往不如那些重要的事情要紧。 在这些游戏中，设计师专注于让玩家投资于长期目标而不是短期进度。

This approach can certainly work well for fans who are already invested in the game. But newer players might be put off by the amount of time required to build that investment. This can challenge the oft-expressed assumption that if a game simply has “more” it is generally “better” or “greater value”. But remember, in today’s market where dozens of new games are released every single day, consumers tend to be less willing to invest large amounts of time to “find the fun” in a game.

对于已经投入游戏的粉丝来说，这种方法当然可以很好地工作。 但是，新的参与者可能会因建立该投资所需的时间而被推迟。 这可能会挑战经常表达的假设，即如果游戏仅具有“更多”，则通常是“更好”或“更大价值”。 但是请记住，在当今每天发布数十款新游戏的市场中，消费者往往不愿意花费大量时间“寻找乐趣”。

This is precisely the reason why the games I gravitate to aren’t necessarily interested in giving me a hundred-hour play through. Rather, they tend to emphasize the replayability of the core gameplay loop itself. This requires a substantially different focus from the game designer, too.

这正是为什么我偏爱的游戏不一定要给我一百个小时的游戏时间的原因。 相反，他们倾向于强调核心游戏循环本身的可重玩性。 这也需要与游戏设计师完全不同的关注点。

什么是核心游戏循环？ (What is a core gameplay loop?)

When I refer to the core gameplay loop, I’m talking about the primary system — or set of mechanisms — that a player is going to spend time with in your game. So, that might be base building, fighting, growing crops, jumping on turtles’ heads, and so on. It is the moment-to-moment gameplay experience that makes up the micro layer of the game.

当我提到核心游戏循环时，是在说玩家要花时间在游戏中的主要系统或一套机制。 因此，这可能是建造基地，战斗，种庄稼，跳到乌龟头上等等。 瞬间的游戏体验构成了游戏的微观层面 。

This is also why I tend to prefer indie games these days compared to big AAA titles. I find that they tend to put greater focus on the core gameplay loop, partly as a consequence of not having the budget to go all-out on designing and building massive, highly-polished game spaces.

这也是为什么如今相比大型AAA游戏我更喜欢独立游戏的原因。 我发现他们倾向于将重点更多地放在核心游戏循环上，部分原因是没有预算全力设计和建造庞大，高度抛光的游戏空间。

The most important aspect of the core gameplay loop is that you don’t measure it in hours. It’s the key element that the player should be able to experience within seconds or minutes with the game. If a game’s core gameplay loop hooks me within mere moments of playing, then there’s a high chance I’ll stick around for the long haul.

核心游戏循环的最重要方面是您不必数小时就能衡量。 这是玩家在几秒钟或几分钟内就能体验到的关键元素。 如果游戏的核心游戏循环在短短的一刻就吸引了我，那么我很可能会长期坚持下去。

If the core gameplay loop is solid, it establishes sprints of gameplay that become enjoyable to repeat over and over again. Although the high-level goals and objectives may only constitute a couple of hours of play, for instance, the overall time I spend with the game might be substantially longer because the core gameplay loop itself is highly satisfying.

如果核心游戏循环是可靠的，则它将建立游戏冲刺 ，使它们变得可重复一遍又一遍。 例如，尽管高级目标只能构成几个小时的游戏时间，但我在游戏上花费的总时间可能会更长，因为核心的游戏循环本身非常令人满意。

What’s a good example of this? I think a suitable place to look is competitive games that heavily rely on a strong core gameplay loop. Matches in games like Mortal Kombat, Counter-Strike, and even slightly lengthier titles like League of Legends aren’t meant to be played for dozens of hours. Rather, a match is built upon a brief timeframe that is repeated in every subsequent match.

这是一个很好的例子吗？ 我认为合适的地方是非常依赖强大的核心游戏循环的竞技游戏。 诸如Mortal Kombat ， Counter-Strike之类的游戏中的比赛，以及英雄联盟之类的时间稍长的游戏，都不意味着要玩几十个小时。 相反，比赛是建立在短暂的时间范围内的，在随后的每场比赛中都会重复进行。

What this means for game developers is that understanding your core gameplay loop — compartmentalizing enjoyable and satisfying gameplay interactions and brief sequences — is ultimately going to lead to a better game overall.

对于游戏开发人员而言，这意味着了解您的核心游戏循环-划分令人愉悦和令人满意的游戏互动和简短的序列-最终将带来更好的游戏整体。

Whether your game is two or two hundred hours long, it’s critical to think about what the player is doing on a moment-by-moment basis. That is how you begin to compartmentalize your design and nail down the core gameplay loop. One way you might approach this is to start with higher-level objectives and consider breaking them down into smaller sprints, or more specific stage-based objectives. The 3D Mario games are a great example of this. In Super Mario Odyssey, progress is defined by acquiring power moons. Players can chart their overall progress by the number of power moons they have found or by unlocking the next world in the game. Each of these power moons in turn represents a sprint — a small slice of enjoyable gameplay, where each slice interlocks to create a much larger cohesive objective or goal. In this way, players are able to enjoy satisfying moment-to-moment game mechanics while simultaneously experiencing a broader world with bigger/longer term objectives.

无论您的游戏是两百小时还是两百小时，至关重要的一点是要时刻考虑玩家的行为。 这就是您开始分隔设计并确定核心游戏循环的方式。 解决此问题的一种方法是从更高级别的目标开始，然后考虑将其分解为较小的sprint或更具体的基于阶段的目标。 3D Mario游戏就是一个很好的例子。 在《 超级马里奥奥德赛》中 ，进步是通过获得动力卫星来定义的。 玩家可以根据发现的力量月亮数量或解锁游戏中的下一个世界来绘制整体进度。 这些月球中的每一个依次代表一个冲刺 -一小段令人愉悦的游戏玩法，其中每一块互锁以创建更大的凝聚力目标。 通过这种方式，玩家可以享受令人满意的瞬间游戏机制，同时以更大或更长期的目标体验更广阔的世界。

设计师标准 (Criteria for designers)

Let’s break this down even further. To achieve a successful relationship between the core gameplay loop and the broader macro elements, players need to be able to see the following:

让我们进一步分解。 为了在核心游戏循环和更广泛的宏元素之间建立成功的关系，玩家需要能够看到以下内容：

1. What is the immediate goal?近期目标是什么？
2. What tasks need to be achieved?需要完成哪些任务？
3. How long will this take?这需要多长时间？
4. What kind of permanent progress has been achieved?取得了什么样的永久性进展？

It’s critical for the player to be able to understand all of these points at all times. Some games — especially those that just drop players into a sandbox and say “just start exploring” — may miss one or more of these points. Without a point of reference and a goal to focus on, players may not be motivated to simply wander around and explore without context. Lest you think I’m referring to Breath of the Wild here, I want to assure you I am not: the four criteria above don’t necessarily need to exist in the form of explicit map icons. They might be far more implicit or “emergent” in the way they present to the player. Even in Breath of the Wild, you’ll find that these components do exist.

对于玩家而言，始终能够理解所有这些点至关重要。 有些游戏，尤其是那些只是将玩家放到沙盒中并说“刚刚开始探索”的游戏，可能会错过其中的一个或多个要点。 没有参考点和没有专注的目标，玩家可能没有动力简单地在没有上下文的情况下徘徊和探索。 唯恐您以为我不是在这里，我要向您保证的不是：上述四个条件不一定必须以显式地图图标的形式存在。 在呈现给玩家的方式中，它们可能更加隐性或“紧急”。 即使在《荒野之息》中 ，您也会发现这些组件确实存在。

There are numerous examples of games that meet this criteria through a more rigid (but also satisfying) methodology. For example, think about the beginnings of any good massively-multiplayer online game (MMOG). Typically, the player starts out with a very simple goal — a task that can be achieved quickly, providing rapid feedback, which in turn unlocks the next quest in the chain. This is actually a factor that separates the great MMOGs from the bad ones — it doesn’t matter how great the overarching story is, or how long the overall experience is, if people lost interest many hours before reaching that point.

有许多通过更严格(但也令人满意)的方法满足此条件的游戏示例。 例如，考虑一下任何优秀的大型多人在线游戏(MMOG)的开始。 通常，玩家以一个非常简单的目标开始-可以快速完成任务，提供快速反馈，从而解锁链中的下一个任务。 实际上，这是将大型MMOG与不良MMOG分开的一个因素-如果人们在达到这一点之前数小时失去了兴趣，那么总的故事有多大，或者总体体验有多长，都没有关系。

It’s also not question of choosing macro versus micro. The argument I’m making here is that game designers must always focus on a satisfying micro experience regardless of the game’s general scope. Players should have a rough idea of how long each task is going to take, and more importantly, know if they can finish it in a single session. It’s also vital to ensure that players gain something for their troubles, and that their efforts feed into a broader progression of some kind.

选择宏还是微也不是问题。 我在这里提出的论点是，无论游戏的总体范围如何，游戏设计师都必须始终专注于令人满意的微体验。 玩家应该对每个任务要花多长时间有一个大概的了解，更重要的是，知道他们是否可以在一个会话中完成它。 确保玩家为自己的麻烦有所收获，并确保他们的努力能够促进更大范围的进步，这一点也至关重要。

结论 (Conclusion)

When done well, you can create a core gameplay loop that works across both the short and the long term experience. Ultimately, as a developer, you should focus on short term play first; without it, players aren’t going to be invested enough to keep playing.

如果做得好，您可以创建一个可以在短期和长期体验中起作用的核心游戏循环。 最终，作为开发人员，您应该首先关注短期游戏。 没有它，玩家将没有足够的投资来继续比赛。

In my view, a game has only around 15–30 minutes to convince me that I should keep playing. If players aren’t even giving your game that amount of time, you may need to revisit both the onboarding experience as well as the core gameplay loop itself.

在我看来，一场比赛只有大约15–30分钟，才能说服我继续玩。 如果玩家甚至没有给您足够的时间，您可能需要重新审视入门经验以及核心的游戏循环本身。

If you enjoyed this article, consider joining the Game-Wisdom Discord channel. It’s open to everyone.

如果您喜欢本文，请考虑加入 Game-Wisdom Discord频道 。 它向所有人开放。