Category: 产品和设计的那点事儿

单击、双击还是拖拽?

有个不是很成熟的观点,关于软件里(非网页产品)对于单击、双击还有拖拽的功能设计的分析想法:
60年代末70年代初生人的人,他对鼠标中建特别熟,因为他们接触电脑和鼠标的那个年龄,每个软件都会支持下鼠标中建。
80后呢,认为双击是Default的行为,因为Windows给训练的,但是不太会用鼠标中键。
而90后,认为单击是Default的行为,而双击是比较陌生,因为他们受网页产品以及手持设备的影响比较大。
现在观察00后,他们对拖拽最熟,因为他们上来就玩iPad这样的手持设备,其次是单击,双击根本不会。

PopCap's Jason Kapalka

这个是Jason Kapalka接受GI采访的那个文章。因为GI要求注册用户才可以看,而它的注册流程实在是太汗。因此全文COPY到这里。原文地址是:http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2010-09-02-popcaps-jason-kapalka-article 和http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2010-09-02-popcaps-jason-kapalka-part-two-interview。

Part One:

Although just 10 years old, Popcap Games is something of a grand old man in the current gaming scene. Tackling browser, mobile and social games years before the start-ups that now dominate the headlines, it has been quietly consistent, growing in stature thanks to a twin philosophy of new ideas and regularly iterating existing properties and concepts. Despite both commercial and critical success with Peggle and Plants vs Zombies, the 50 million-selling match-3 title Bejewelled is indeed the jewel in its crown – even transitioning well to Facebook and microtransactions with its Blitz reinvention.

GamesIndustry.biz caught up with PopCap’s thoughtful yet outspoken Chief Creative Officer and co-founder Jason Kapalka to hear his feelings on the rush towards social games, the future of the Apple vs Google vs Microsoft mobile war, the problems with Facebook, and the trends he’s seen come and go doing PopCap’s long tenure on what was once known as “casual” gaming.

Q: So PC, Mac, iPhone, iPad, in-browser, Google Chrome, Facebook: will Android be next?

Jason Kapalka: We’re working on it. I think it’s inevitable, it’s just right now it’s an awkward platform because they’re changing so much and they have all these different hardware layouts. The nice thing with iPhone is there’s one – well, now it’s two – there’s one resolution, one piece of hardware, it’s very straightforward. Android’s not as bad as the old days, when you had to make the game for like 300 handsets. But it’s still like three or four, or however many weird versions from various different manufacturers. It definitely makes it more work; Google really need to get a handle on it if they want to push it to more developers. I think it’ll happen, it’s just that it’s definitely a hurdle to get over right now.

It’s a hassle that iPhone developers don’t have, and the marketplace for Android is still a bit confusing because all the different carriers have their own versions of it. I think it’ll all get better, unless Google gets sued out of existence by Oracle. Right now it’s definitely not the ideal game platform – very promising but there’s still a bit of work to get there.

Q: How confident are you about which platforms you’re going to target the hardest, given how many seem to be cropping up now – mobile, social, desktop, tablet?

Jason Kapalka: It is unfortunate. From our point of view, we’re pretty agnostic about platform. The truth is we like Apple, we like Google, we like Microsoft. We’re just trying to reach players. And the best way to reach players is the platform that they favour. Unfortunately right now you’ve got three of four of these big players, who are all at each other’s throats and not at all co-operating as far as standards and so forth go. So we have the obvious issue of, y’know, Flash. It might be good for doing a game on Facebook, it might be even conceivable on Android – but it’s absolutely not feasible on iPhone.

There are other issues like that, between Microsoft, Google and Apple – they all hate each other. Well, they’re all competing. It’s very hard to build stuff that works on all those platforms. You almost want to sit back and see who wins. Or ideally that they at least agree on some sort of standards, so you can say “alright, what’s the standard, you tell me? Is it Flash, is it HTML5, is it somethin’ else?”

If people can agree on one of those things, from our point of view we can work with everybody. As it is, when they’re fighting each other we have to try and support all three of them which means we’ve got to spend three times as much effort to do that. That’s tricky in terms of costs and to make time to make stuff, so we’re looking forward to some kind of unification, whether that’s by a victor or by a truce. That’d be better for us and ultimately better I think for game players.

Q: I see you’ve got Plants Vs Zombies on Chrome Web Store as well, and there’s new streaming stuff coming through too. How far do you intend to pursue that as well as the mobile battle?

Jason Kapalka: We’re trying all these things. They’re all experimental right now and we don’t know which will work and which will end up falling by the wayside. Generally PopCap has tried to be fairly catholic and do a lot of different things without jumping on any one bandwagon. It’s very hard to predict the future. You can always find someone who has gotten lucky. But it’s the Vegas fallacy. You can always find one guy who’s gone to Vegas and made a fortune on slot machines, but that’s not necessarily the same guy you want to invest your money in.

The same problem is true in the high-tech field. A few years ago mobile happened to be the big thing, and so someone like Jamdat did very well and sold to EA for $700 million or whatever. Were they especially smart, or did they just happen to be the right company at the right time? And now you’ve got social companies doing the same thing. And not to say that they did anything wrong, but if you’re a game company you run the risk of trying to follow every trend and they’re not all going to work out.

There are plenty of trends that we’re quite happy we didn’t do anything with, like just a couple of years ago it was Flash MMOs, like Club Penguin. After Club Penguin sold to Disney, everyone and their dog were trying to make some sort of tween-orientated Flash MMO. One or two of them are still around, but most of them are the ones who were there before – Habbo Hotel and Club Penguin. Everything else just kind of [crashing aeroplane sound.]

Q: Could it be similar to what happened with World of Warcraft and traditional MMOs? All those giant projects designed to compete, but half of them have closed and the rest have gone free to play.

Jason Kapalka: Well, yeah. And we’ll see how it goes right now. I think the vibe I’m getting certainly is that people are really deciding that MMOs are a bad place to do business. There’s gonna be one or two last gasps – probably [Star Wars] The Old Republic will be, well… I know it’s a big, expensive project, and if that underperforms, that’ll probably be the last time someone decides to spend $100 million on a WoW-killer. I think they’ll try and come at it from a different direction.

The truth is that Farmville is probably more of a WoW-killer than the Old Republic. I doubt that it’s exactly the same crowd, but I have a feeling there’s starting to be a little bit of that, and probably more so as you go forwards in time – as WoW players get older, have less spare time. I’m 100 per cent sure that people who stop playing WoW are playing FarmVille. Just because they don’t have time for a three hour raid, they’ve got time to put down a few crops or so forth.

Q: That seems to be becoming the commodity: time. We’ve got all these demands for attention, how do you make a game that stands out amidst all that noise? Is Bejewelled Blitz, a game that only takes a minute, the future of games?

Jason Kapalka: People are arguing if that’s good or bad; it’s hard to say, but from my point of view, as you get older and you have a job and a family and stuff like this, this idea of your early 20s gaming where you can sit around in a basement with your buddies and kick back and… I think I played Super Mario 3 for three days straight, that sort of thing. That’s not going to happen again. I’m never going to have three days to play videogames straight. I don’t even have three hours. That’s why World of Warcraft is right out for me. I think increasingly a lot of people are in that position, and games have to evolve to meet that need. Whether it’s a game like FarmVille or Bejewelled Blitz, or a lot of mobile games that have the same idea of “I have it wherever I go, I can play short games on it.” The game adapting to your schedule, rather than you trying to conform to the game’s demands.

Those are the kinds of the kinds of games that are probably going to be the big scary ones as far as the current guys like Blizzard, Activision, and EA are concerned. They’re going to be fighting them on unequal terms, like asymmetric warfare. So FarmVille versus WoW doesn’t seem like a fair match, but they’re not fighting on the same ground, they’re fighting in very different ways. To date, a lot of the bigger companies haven’t shown that they really understand that, or are capable of adapting to it.

Q: But we are seeing a lot of acquisitions for insane amounts of money – it seems they’re paying attention, whether or not they’re approaching it in the right way.

Jason Kapalka: They tried, Electronic Arts did try their own versions of Facebook games that didn’t work out very well, and that’s why I think they acquired PlayFish as a way to buy their way in. Whether it works out, it’s hard to say. Part of it is trying to integrate a very different company into the bigger structure. Will it happen? If it does, that’ll be good. But it’s going to be tough.

Amongst other things, those companies tend to have earn-outs, which means that PlayFish will have to have a big earn-out probably, which means they can’t just do whatever they like, they have to give EA the freedom to make money and therefore make back their investment. Which is probably three years of letting them do whatever they need to get their earnings up. Which’ll be good for making money, but maybe not for integrating them into the EA mothership… And I think you’ll see that in a lot of that, where the integration into the bigger company may be quite difficult because the cultures are very difficult and the terms of the acquisition make it hard.

So that’ll be the question. Whether companies like EA or Disney can really digest these purchases and really incorporate them into their corporate culture in a way that changes their thinking going forwards. If they just buy them and sit them there in a silo, they might do alright, but they won’t change their overall culture. This I can speak of because I was at Pogo. Pogo got bought by EA, it continues to be a profitable business, but it’s really just sat in a little silo by itself. It’s never really been incorporated into the rest of EA in useful way, and the rest of EA has never really I think learned the lessons that Pogo might have had to teach them, in terms of how Pogo was a social game company in 1999.

They still are – they’re a bit dated, they’re still using what was considered social media in 1999, which was chatrooms. Which nowadays seems more like… when people say chatrooms, they think of it as a den of perverts, they don’t think of it as a family gaming destination. But in 1999 it was. They got them and they left them frozen in time, so they haven’t really evolved.

But they would run that risk with acquisitions now; if they do the wrong thing those companies are going to end up frozen in amber and they never really change because a lot of their motivation for evolving on a Darwinist basis is taken away. Maybe it’ll work; it’s definitely going to be very interesting for the next year or so, I suspect.

Part Two:
In the first part of our interview with PopCap Game’s Chief Creative Office Jason Kapalka, he shared his thoughts on Google vs Apple, whether big companies can adjust to the new wave of mobile and social games and why FarmVille is a Warcraft-killer.

In this second part, the loquacious co-founder discusses the dangers of hasty acquisitions, Popcap’s future in the changing marketplace and the importance of brands in the Facebook age.

Q: You seem oddly relaxed about all the drama going on in the social space – is this not a fight you feel you have to win, or even really take part in?

Jason Kapalka: I don’t think we’re quite safe exactly. There’s always something surprising that can come along. I wish certainly that we’d been a bit more in the social space a bit earlier. We’ve got a foothold there with Blitz, but we’re not Zynga, we’re hardly the leader in social games. I feel we least have a beginning, I don’t feel like we’re on the outside trying to figure out how to get in. I feel PopCap’s really diversified over the last ten years, we’ve never been necessarily the biggest company doing Xbox games or mobile games, but we’ve always been able to keep our hands in all these different areas, and sort of shift as necessary to whichever platforms are doing well. We’re not trying to win the lottery, we just want to stay abreast of the stuff that’s happening and bring our games where they can be played. So I’m not that panicked about it because we’re relatively well-placed for the future. A lot of the games are the kind of thing that we do. They’re small games that work well on things like the iPhone or the iPad or on web browsers. Compared to a company that makes $50 million first-person shooters, we make small kind of things.

Q: And people don’t have to agonise about buying them…

Jason Kapalka: Yeah, and our price-points are low. I certainly wouldn’t say that we’re cocky or arrogant about things going forward, because there’s a lot of stuff that could go wrong. In general though it feels like the industry is caught up in the kind of games that we’ve always been doing. It feels less like we’re in a position where we have to argue about why casual games and other games like we do are legitimate forms of entertainment. Anyone can look around now, they look on their iPhone, they look on Facebook or at the Nintendo Wii. It’s pretty obvious that casual has kind of won, casual is the new mainstream.

Q: Can that sustain, if the reaction from new and acquired studios is to continue to make lots of FarmVille and Bejewelled clones?

Jason Kapalka: There’s going to be a lot of that. The truth is that there’s that in every industry. I mean, MMOs, there’s no shortage of terrible World of WarCraft clones that didn’t really work out, and you’ll see the same thing I think here. A handful will survive, a bunch will fail. You’re definitely in the stage right now in social games where there’s a lot of bandwagon jumping, where everyone sees moneymoneymoney and suddenly all these new companies appear… It happened before in mobile, it happened before in casual – in the past it’s tended to signal the beginning of the end.

Not necessarily of the genre, but of the sort of golden era, where everything was a fresh blue ocean and all that stuff. It’s getting into the era where it’ll be a lot more hard-fought. It’ll be tough. People will make money there, but there’ll be a lot of competition and then margins will shrink and all that sort of stuff. That’s my thought on where we’re heading with social stuff. Facebook can’t go that much faster, they’re only going to tighten up their restrictions. Sooner or later they will raise their rates, do other things like that, margins will just get increasingly tough.

You’re already sort of seeing that, a lot of the viral growth of Facebook games is now shut down, they have to do it the old fashioned way, which is by buying ads or by having something that people are actually interested in playing and actually want to want to tell their friends about. From our point of view, we can live with that. That’s an okay solution for us. So I’m fairly optimistic about the future – there’s enough crazy stuff going on that you never know what’s going to happen. I know Google are doing some sort of social network…

Q: I was going to ask about that – how much room do you think there is for another one?

Jason Kapalka: I don’t know. I like Google and frankly I kind of hope they succeed. But their track record for social stuff like Buzz and Wave and Lively isn’t so great. In terms of social and games, the two things they’re trying to do right now, they don’t have a genetic background for it. That said, they didn’t have one for phones either, and Android seems to be working out pretty good. I certainly wouldn’t count them out. I would say that if you’re going to take on Facebook right now you’ve got a pretty uphill battle. But if anyone can do it, might it be Google? Yeah, I think so.

Microsoft are trying their own thing to… [pause] Yeah, Microsoft, yeah – surprisingly, they’ve been doing some pretty good stuff lately. Some of those things like Bing and Windows Phone 7… It’s fashionable to look at Microsoft as being a bit unhip, and not quite getting it. But if you look over the last few years, they innovated pretty dramatically in a couple of key gaming areas. Xbox Live is really the model for how to do effectively a social network. Xbox Live is basically a gaming social network, and no-one’s done that better. They haven’t figured out how to carry that through effectively onto PC, but that said, might they be able to make it work on phones? Possibly. It could go either way. I could see it working either really well or not. It’ll be very interesting.

Q: They could almost start being seen as the plucky underdog, versus the Goliath of Apple.

Jason Kapalka: In some ways they almost are. And frankly if Oracle and Google beat each other up, Microsoft might be the winner. That’ll give Windows Phone 7 a lot of breathing room that they probably need.

Q: How has PopCap’s stance on new ideas versus sticking to established brands changed in this era where people don’t have the time or patience they once did to try new things? Someone came up with a list of dozens of URLs you guys had registered the other day – Pegglebingo.com, bejewelledslots.com and that sort of thing…

Jason Kapalka: Yeah…. Most of that stuff’s just protective. There’s an issue that if you don’t get those URLs and trademarks some guy squats on them and eventually you have to pay him a bunch of money. As far as brands go, they have some value. There’s no question that in some markets, like iPhone for example, it is pretty important. The iPhone App Store is such a Darwinian environment where stuff comes out there and if you can’t immediately get onto the top 10 charts you can easily just vanish. There’s no real way to market there, there’s no real way to buy ads, so a brand is the only thing you have, the only predictable way to get yourself noticed on the App Store.

There’s unpredictable ways – there’s fluke hits like Angry Birds or Doodle Jumps that come out of nowhere, but again it’s the lottery win thing. Those two have done well, they’re good games, but there’s tens of thousands of other games out there. There’s a lot of luck involved.

If Plants vs Zombies had been released on the iPhone first, it might have disappeared without a trace, but because it had a recognisable brand, because it was released on PC and Mac first, that actually built up a lot of interest, so people bought it. And then you have that cycle where because it’s on the top 10 a lot more people buy it. It’s a bit unfair, the rich get richer syndrome, but there’s nothing you can do about that. Apple can probably do better, they’re trying to do stuff like Genius to help recommend things, and it might help give some things a bit of a long tail, but until something like that happens, you really have to do your best to get them into that top ten. So brand is important there.

I think it’s less important in lots of other emerging areas. It’s not particularly important on Facebook; people might believe that Bejewelled is doing well on Facebook because it’s Bejewelled, but there’s a lot of other branded games on Facebook that failed – from Tetris to FIFA and all these things like that. And they’ve all done poorly, or at best mediocre. The viral growth is much more important – it’s the same in casual and downloadable games. The brand would get someone to try it, but it had very little effect on whether they would purchase anything or not. So it was less important than a game that had a high conversion rate. The good thing about the casual downloadable space was it really forced them to make good games, because there’s no possible way to sucker someone.

马化腾的2个经典PPT

一个是写QQMAIL的PPT:点击下载
一个是写产品设计与用户体验的PPT:点击下载
都是很经典的好东西。

周鸿祎的三个凡是

凡是用户提的问题,一定要追根述源,找到问题的原因,从用户的角度想解决的方案;凡是负面的信息里,即使是对手的枪稿,也要找到可以改进产品的启发点;凡是竞争对手的产品,都必然有学习借鉴的优点。

个人认为很有道理。

关于设计的碎碎念

第一次用碎碎念这个词……
刚看到闪王的一个博文:

地址是:http://blog.163.com/whikgd@126/blog/static/24502392201021193017323
设计领域有一个特征,就是特更依赖于个案研究和样本,设计师需要去研究其他人的工作成果。一个好的设计主要取决于经验和借鉴他人的设计。你必须了解很多案例,理解它们各有什么优点和缺点,然后再使用这些知识来指导你的设计。
关于设计的学术研究是非常微妙的,因为它在很大程度上取决于隐含的知识,这些知识来源于经验或其他人的设计,你不能把它们逐条记录下来。很多设计实际上蕴含了方法学。我们关心的并不是设计本身,而是如何进行设计,例如应采取什么样的步骤,如何把它们结合起来等。

想了想这几天乱糟糟的事情,更觉得心有戚戚然:
1、模板和验收标准应该反映本质,即“如何进行设计”。
2、产品需求文档则就是“设计本身”。
3、1和2在制作之前,“必须了解很多案例理解他们各有什么优点和缺点,然后再使用这些知识来指导你的设计”。

AND:
1、如果觉得Feed与Free gifts很简单,可以照抄某款游戏的设计,那就错了。
2、“有”很多时候比“没有”更可怕。
3、做设计的时候,记得“减法”这件事,忘记“加法”这件事。
4、只有没找到市场的产品,没有容不下产品的市场。

成为一个更好的游戏策划的40个办法

转自互联网,不仅适合游戏策划人员阅读的文章。注意第17条。

1,蓝色条框

仅有着粗糙画面,甚至借用来的画面的游戏原型;或者使用纸、笔、纸牌和骰子。艺术手段可以加强、翻倍、提高,但是并不会代替游戏所缺乏的乐趣。如果你用最少的表达手段就能做出有趣的东西来,那么在拥有更好的表达手段时,它将更加有趣。

2,暗喻
决定你的游戏是“关于”什么的可以帮助你裁除无关系的内容。把游戏想得再简单一些,比如棋牌游戏,如果它能帮你迅速认清游戏的本质。“一个下命令式的游戏”、“一个抢夺地盘的游戏”、“一个把握精确时间的游戏”。

3,划分
如果你正在制作一款大型游戏,能认识到你的大型游戏实际上是再同一个背景下的一堆小型游戏的组合,可能会帮助你很多。而各个系统之间过于独立的内容将会使一款游戏很难平衡。

4,总结
你应该能够从你的游戏设计理念中抽出一些关键的动词和句子,以此来描述你的创意。如果你做不到,你在某个地方一定出了错。

5,风格化
最好的游戏应该是主题、系统和表现方式的完美结合。这样将使你的游戏更具风格。不要小看风格化的制作。

6,冗长的会议无用
尤其是创意讨论会,你希望人们在散会的时候个个踌躇满志,而不是精疲力竭和愤世嫉俗。冗长的会议将导致集体考虑和过于复杂化。保持创意讨论会的紧凑和简短。

7,使用草图本
草图是游戏设计的一个非常强大的工具。通过屏幕或者画板可以传递如此多的信息,在早期把玩家的游戏体验画下来是及其有用的。画一幅关于玩家将看到和要做的事物的草图,做好重要的标记说明。

8,不要在代码里/纸张上策划
在自行车上策划,一边顺着大街骑下去;或者在洗澡的时候;或者在一个独木舟上。在任何其他地方策划。不用太担心你因为无法写下来而丢掉什么,专注于那些令你激动的核心精华。环境的改观激发创造力。

9,说和听
新鲜的点子互相碰撞,甚至老旧的点子也会以不可预知的方式互相碰撞,由此产生创造。你通过“听”获取这些新的东西,并以“说”来交换。点子是廉价的,不要藏着它们。

10,每片雪花都不一样
如果你分派12个人来创作“一个关于银河贸易的太空游戏”,你将得到12个不同的游戏-这些点子究竟如何,这并不重要。

11,资产
早点考虑资产问题;做做关于一个游戏或者系统需要多少声音、图片等的计算,往往会令你大吃一惊。

12,偷和借
系统并非神圣不可侵犯。他们只是实现最终游戏的工具。如果某个系统很有用,就拿过来用,即使你在其他游戏中看到过。除了你没有人注意到你感到恶心的生命条。

13,尽早试玩,经常试玩
如果你的第一个系统甚至在游戏出来之前就很有趣,太棒了;如果不是,当心。如果规则确定之前把东西排列在纸板上就很有趣,酷;如果不是,当心。

14,不同的人玩得不同
不要一直用同一伙人进行试玩。打乱他们。

15,闭嘴
看别人玩的时候不要说话。只是看,记下来他们所有愚蠢的行为,因为你够愚蠢,没有把该做的东西做得更加明显。

16,玩
你不用通关人们正在谈论的那款游戏。不过你应该去玩一下,10分钟一般就够了,但是打过第一个boss更好。

17,K.I.S.S.(keep it simple,stupid)
如果你有很多系统,用简单的数据使每个系统简单,如果你有一个系统,花点儿时间在数据上。

18,算法,而非固定的数据
最好的游戏在算法上变化无穷,玩法也由此多种多样;反面的例子是依赖于你提供的固定迷题的游戏。争取做到前者-你可能无法达成(这是可以理解的),但你总会由此变得更聪明些。

19,保留一切
草图、早期的文档、旧原型、纸上游戏版本、后备规则。你永远也不知道什么时候就会用到他们。

20,别跟任何艺术联姻
等游戏有趣了,试试一种艺术形式,然后试试另一种,然后再试试另一种。

21,不要使用lossy的数据
Photoshop的层是你的朋友,High res是你的朋友。通往提供免费结构的链接,你保存下来的screencap。把原型存好!

22,找个编辑
那些当你做了一堆垃圾的时候可以提醒你的人,即使他们仅仅是业余爱好者。

23,注释
6个月以后,你不会记得为什么那个魔术数字是37.5。在代码旁写下注释,在策划案里解释这段逻辑。

24,庞大的策划案无用
他们都是些没有人会去执行的,过分细节化的白日梦。一个关于重要条目的列表会有用得多。

25,回到开始
每次你达到一个里程碑,回头比较一下你起初的版本,起初的主题和起初的目标。你说你想改变他们是可以的-如果你真的想改变他们;你说你想改变他们是不可以的-如果你并没有意识到已经偏离了他们。

26,知道何时停止
加入太多很容易会破坏一些东西。再多一个系统,再多一个变量,甚至在游戏板上多画一排,就可能会让它轰然倒塌。

27,自己的狗粮自己吃
玩你自己做的游戏。如果你觉得那是一种享受,那你真的做出些东西了。

28,学会提取
学习从你的设计中看到底层的数学内容,而不是外表装饰。要看到发射的源动力、影响的范围、隐藏的变化和每一秒钟键盘的敲击数。这样你将更深刻的理解实际游戏的过程。

29,学习艺术。以及编程。以及市场营销。
你对相关的其他学科了解的越多,你设计的东西就越好。不用精通他们-只需获得基本的能力。

30,不要跟玩家争吵
他们永远最清楚自己的体验。告诉他们实际上不应该那样玩是浪费时间。问题在于他们为什么要那样玩。

31,注意细节

细节化的元素仅仅是因为“酷”而留在那里,常常可以让一个游戏脱颖而出。他们可以让玩家享受到快乐和激情,从而进一步游戏。

32,讲个故事
不管是一个潜在的玩家,还是一个潜在的投资者,你需要把游戏推销给他们,办法就是讲个故事。

33,局限是好事
很多创意来自于局限。如果你卡住了,试试给自己提供更多的限制,再看看有什么点子出来。

34,走吧
一旦游戏做出来了,就不是你的了。抛弃任何关于“如何玩这个游戏”的想法。

35,去做
更多的人是在谈论如何做游戏,而不是真正的去做。任何人都能用几张纸和几个彩笔做一个游戏。不管你有什么借口,他们都是糟糕的借口。你只要比别人多迈出一步,直到到达终点。如果你完成了一个,就再做一个,接着再做一个,不停的去做。

36,不要迁就
如果感到疲惫和挫败,很容易就降低你的标准来迁就一些东西。这对于最终产品的影响将是巨大的。这跟妥协不同,妥协是不可避免的,常常可以给产品带来好处。而迁就,一般是致命的。

37,以玩家的眼光考虑
当你工作于某个系统,描绘一下玩家的行动,想象一下他们用的方法。练习一下达成目标的步骤,想象一下玩家达成这个目标的路线。从玩家的角度考虑,而不是从“应该采用30种技巧达到下一层”的角度。你为他们设计游戏,而不是你自己。

38,奖励
当玩家做对了一件事,给他们奖励。一道光,一阵欢呼,一个明显的反馈。

39,使用列表
检查游戏乐趣所需要的重要内容:为迎接挑战而做的准备;领土/环境问题;解决问题的多种选择;挑战的变化;失败的风险;执行的技巧;no bottom-feeding, 以及多样的可选性成就。你可能有你自己的列表,而这是对我有用的一套。

40,除去不好玩的内容

任何你“不得不”在游戏中做的东西都应该删除,或者放在最后。厌烦是乐趣的敌人。

传统策略游戏的四要素

传统策略游戏的四要素:
探索(eXplore)
开发(eXploit)
扩张(eXpand)
消灭(eXterminate)

转:腾讯、百度、阿里巴巴、盛大的平台战略关键点

腾讯、百度、阿里巴巴、盛大的平台战略关键点 – 节选自一封邮件

腾讯平台战略关键点

  1. 中流砥柱的QQ IM
  2. 黏性强大的社区平台
  3. 商业模式龙头的无线、支付平台
  4. 规模庞大的客户端群系

百度平台战略关键点
  1. 占强势地位的搜索引擎
  2.“简单,可依赖”的体验
  3. 新闻、百科等的门户平台
  4. 初见规模的社区平台

阿里巴巴平台战略关键点
  1. 核心的电子商务平台
  2. 相对开放的信息流平台
  3. 支付平台
  4. 淘宝平台

盛大平台战略关键点
  1. 多元的游戏平台
  2. 统一的后台支撑平台(销售、计费、客服、技术、账号)
  3. 开放的网络游戏研发和运营
  4. 资本平台

Designing Rich Applications

http://designingwebinterfaces.com/designing-rich-applications-at-delveui 里看到的PPT,很不错~

PDF下载>>

可不可以这样说

可不可以这样说:网站是内容为王,软件是功能为王。
为王的,其实就是要做到极致的地方。
极致需要注意一个性能过剩的问题。
性能过剩的判断需要注意目标用户群的问题。
我觉得,Orbit是有些地方性能过剩。3D看是严重不极致。

Dansette