牛牛的社区，全球创媒体平台欢迎关注我们！曾在BioWare 和 Supercell 工作过、Gamasutra的专栏作者Andreas Papathanasis，分析了AAA级游戏引入到移动领域出现的问题：。
去年，我写了一篇关于AAA级 PC /单机游戏的技术装备竞赛的文章因为这些技术使用在游戏中非常有趣，让我印象深刻，因而也去体验了一把渐渐地，我发现两者之间并没有明显的联系我对AAA级游戏不顾游戏实际需求而坚持最大限度地提高硬件使用而越来越失望，因为这让游戏变得复杂且成本高。
我相信装备竞赛将继续举办，鲜少有内部人士喊停目前，微软和索尼都公布计划在游戏单机生命周期内进行更频繁的硬件更新由于害怕在比赛中落后，技术人员将强制游戏团队推动新硬件的功能和内容到极限游戏团队则将更完善其复杂的技术基础和全面改进，投入更多的精力、时间和金钱来制作更有趣的游戏；但随着视觉改进的减少，也将测试每张图片在早期硬件上的效果以作对比。
对移动平台技术的痴迷同时，在我一直工作的手游领域中，虽然手机和平板电脑硬件越来越接近主机的质量，并且仍在迅速发展，但是并没有真正的技术装备竞赛这是因为大多数成功的手游公司都足够聪明，将比赛看成是一场盛大、昂贵的调剂，而专注于对游戏制作和营销更重要的部分。
然而，在过去几年中，已经有很多将单机游戏带到手机和平板电脑的创新尝试有些游戏已经被AAA级游戏公司引进EA的执行官揭示了AAA工作室共同的态度：除非手游开始参加技术装备竞赛，否则就不成熟，甚至不能算真正的游戏。
我们将在Frostbite Go制作游戏，将使用常在Frostbite代码中看到的“毁灭”等类似功能我们认为在这些游戏中，能与手游团队一起做一些有趣的事情，用这些机器做出真正的游戏一些初创手游公司也选择通过大手笔的投资制作定制的单机质量的引擎，因为他们相信这种先进的技术和技术人员，将是他们的游戏脱颖而出的关键区别因素。
例如：《Super Evil Megacorp》以专利引擎技术的投资作为灯塔，吸引有兴趣建立图形密集型手游的开发商不只是传统的AAA公司和初创手游公司看到其前景，Kabam也预测单机元素的游戏会做得更好。
在其他的直接竞争对手把重点放在尽可能快速、广泛寻找有趣概念的时代，Kabam似乎采取了不同的策略——“我们停止了非AAA级游戏的开发”那么AAA级游戏到底意味着什么？如果你像我一样一直关注游戏文化，可能AAA级游戏会让你联想到大量手工制作的内容，充分使用最新硬件、先进的3D引擎，复杂/逼真/真实的粒子系统和动画，等等——典型的高价元素，只有那些可以雇佣300人团队的公司才能投入这样的资金。
维基百科告诉我们AAA级游戏“具有最高的开发预算和推广水平被认定为AAA级的游戏通常都是高质量的游戏“这就是我、以及网络上谈论”AAA“级游戏或”单机“级游戏时所指的游戏除了游戏以外，“AAA”级也指最优质的产品。
如果不知道定义的人看了维基百科的页面，他们会以为只有最贵的游戏才是优质游戏这很荒谬我们都被限制了思维，以其他方式而被普遍接受的高质量游戏，我们都不认为是AAA级游戏：《Minecraft》有人说太像素风；《Portal》有人说枪支太少、历时还少于8小时；《Spelunky》有人说它甚至没有3D。
许多人认为“AAA”等同于先进的技术、充实的内容和复杂的3D引擎，这是我们自己的幻想带来的悲伤故事本文不深究这一点，因为之前的文章有提过手游玩家没有同样的幻想，他们至少意识到还有更重要的元素能使手游变得更高质。
当一些公司说正在引进AAA级游戏到手机时，主要是在说引进AAA级单机游戏的卓越技术和充实内容，他们相信或希望这种先进的技术会自动为游戏带来更高的质量但我认为，这两者之间并不相关，而促使团队优先考虑单机游戏上的技术和内容，对手游来说，甚至是一个糟糕的主意。
AAA级游戏在手游并不适用由目前为止在应用商店看到的结果来说，尽管AAA级游戏拥有平台持有者的支持（例如Apple用Metal API重度展示游戏），但效果并不是很好EA很多单机游戏（包括《Dead Space》和《Mass Effect: Infiltrator》）都从App Store中删除了，因为人气不足以保证更新最新的iOS版本。
目前还没有取得长期成功的游戏，主要是因为它是用其他游戏没有的方式来推动硬件出于个人好奇，我偶然看了一下排名前100的卖座游戏，思考：“如果他们不使用充分发挥手机功能的先进的3D技术，有多少游戏会变得没那么受欢迎？“我的回答是没有，虽然其他人可能会说100个游戏里面大概有3、4个。
当然，进入前100名并不是一切成功的前提，但投资AAA级技术意味着成功率更高，排名在100之外的一般团队，收回投资的可能性更小为什么这些尝试都失败了？一些幼稚的声音是手游玩家不关心好游戏；典型的装备赛参与者则认为：手机技术还没有达到那么高的水平；更深入的思考是，这些尝试总是试图将PC /单机风格的游戏引入到移动设备（也有例外，如《Infinity Blade》）；还有单机游戏真的不适合转到移动设备的争论。
我用以上观点比较过两款优秀的游戏，其中一款并不适合移动平台
《Broken Kingdom》在每场战斗之间有出彩的过场动画，但这些动画中断了游戏流程，造成过多的加载时间我认同在引入单机/ AAA级游戏时，通常在手机和平板电脑上产生反效果过场动画（经通常无法跳过）出现在玩家正在寻找一个快速会话时，它完全打乱了进程。
过多的加载时间（有时超过30秒！）和缓冲也阻碍了正常的游戏模式最重要的是登录时要下载大量的内容，这占用了更多的内存，使得游戏很可能在下次启动时要重新载入逼真的视觉效果有时使得太难以区分对游戏玩法真正重要的前景对象。
“最佳人选”的分类许多公司都在谈论雇用“最佳人选”，但如果没有适当的资格，这可能会成为妨碍认证那些具有资深技术专长的“最佳人选”，其实设置了一个非常危险的起点，而希望把AAA级游戏转化到手游的公司很可能会这么做。
对AAA游戏来说，我认为有些开发者认为玩家不应该跳过过场动画的争论是无法理解的开发商认为这是他们努力制作出来的成果，玩家有必要了解其中的故事，这是很酷的动画；但在我看来，以上说法都不足以成为不允许跳过动画的理由。
不过，这影响并不太大 如果有人玩PC或单机的长会话游戏，每次看2分钟的过场动画还是合理的
但在AAA级手游上则态度迥异团队中没有人认为不允许跳过过场动画对手游玩家来说体验很糟糕；而这么想的人，他们的想法很快就被推翻了这两种情况，都是以技术为中心的团队在手游领域做出明显错误决策的例子其他负面影响还没那么大的决定仍然不断增多，并明显影响玩家体验。
例如，不是每个人都善于控制3D相机，只因为“很酷”而强制玩家使用旋转3D相机，通常是体验不好，因为它增加了用户体验和技术开发的复杂性这就是为什么我认为，当从有丰富经验的T型人开始鉴别“好的开发人员”时，主要是通过让他们制作好的游戏和理解平台、完全满足技术要求，而不是通过其他方式来进行。
当EA主要围绕已经在单机取得成功的游戏、并提供“破坏”等功能构建移动技术时，当Kabam向新员工展示AAA级游戏第一的愿景时，当《Super Evil Megacorp》使用引擎来吸引那些主要想构建“图形密集型手游”的开发者时，他们都更加倾向于技术驱动的团队而不是游戏型团队。
痴迷于技术与痴迷于游戏的人有不同的目标他们可能都明白玩家看到什么是非常重要的，但他们对其重要性有不同的诠释，并以完全不同的方式来实现良好的视觉体验注重游戏的人更可能寻求游戏特定的解决方案（通常技术要求低，更容易实现），同时也考虑其他影响玩家体验的限制；注重技术的人更可能寻求昂贵的技术和改进方案，因为他们认为这是他们的使命和提升质量的方式。
当手游团队比AAA团队规模小时，只要有一两个这样注重技术的人就会影响整个团队突然之间，本来明显的决定变成了复杂的政治：游戏是否应该快速加载，成为了需与内容平衡的事；玩家是否可以在手机上跳过漫长的过场动画，突然需要开很长的会议来决定；对用户体验的关注被弃置一旁，而使用以前的单机游戏体验作为准则。
如果你寄希望于AAA级手游，或正在为这样的公司工作，请确保共事的人有正确的观念我希望手游领域为实际创新而采用技术，而不仅仅是注重目前只对单机游戏有成效的技术装备竞赛原文：The attempts to bring "AAA quality" games to mobile - and why they are failing。
Last year, I wrote about my experiences in what I saw as a tech arms race in AAA PC/console games. To recap: Ive gone from playing games because of their impressive use of technology to playing games because theyre fun. Ive slowly come to discover the obvious: The two are not corellated. I have grown increasingly frustrated by AAAs insistence on maximizing hardware use regardless of games actual needs - an insistence thats largely responsible for out of control complexity and costs.
For reasons I mentioned in that article, I have no doubt the arms race will continue, despite rare insider speakouts against it. Already, both Microsoft and Sony have revealed their plan for more frequent hardware updates during a console lifecycle. In fear of being left behind by the competition, tech executives will mandate game teams implement features and content that pushes the new hardware to its limits. In response, game teams will complicate their technology base and overall development process even more, suffer more crunch, use more time and money to deliver buggier games, but with the usual diminishing visual improvements that well all be testing our vision with when staring at side by side pictures comparing how the game looked on earlier hardware.
Tech obsession on mobile platformsMeanwhile, in the mobile games Ive been working since, there is not really a tech arms race, despite the fact that phone and tablet hardware is getting closer to console quality and still advancing rapidly. Thats because most of the successful mobile game companies are smart enough to see the race as a huge, expensive distraction and are instead focusing on far more important aspects of making and marketing games.
Still, there have been many attempts over the past few years to bring "console quality" games to phones and tablets. Some them have been by established AAA companies. Heres an EA executive revealing a very common attitude among AAA studios: that mobile games are not mature (theyre not even "real" games) until they start participating in the tech arms race:
we’re going to start making games on Frostbite Go that will be featuring things that you’ve seen in the regular Frostbite code, like destruction and those types of things. We think we can do something dramatic there, with the mobile sector, and make real games on those machines.
Some mobile startup companies also choose to go through the very expensive investment of building a custom "console quality" engine, because they believe such advanced technology (and the people who can create it) will be the key differentiating factor for their game. For instance:
Super Evil Megacorp sees its investment in proprietary engine tech as a beacon for attracting developers interested in building graphically-intense mobile game
Its not just traditional AAA companies and mobile startups seeing that approach promising. Kabam is now betting on the premise that games with "console quality" elements will do better. In an era where many other direct competitors are focusing on experimenting with finding fun concepts as fast and as wide as possible, Kabam seems to be taking a different course, going as far as to say
"...we have cancelled games in development that are not AAA quality"What does "AAA quality" mean, anyway?
If, like myself, youve been paying attention to gaming culture for a long time, you probably associate the term "AAA quality" with tons of hand-crafted content, advanced 3D engines that use the latest hardware to its fullest extent, complex/lifelike/realistic particle systems and animations, etc - the stuff thats typically so expensive, only companies who can hire 300 person teams can do them. Supporting this, Wikipedia tells us the term AAA is "...used for games with the highest development budgets and levels of promotion. A title considered to be AAA is therefore expected to be a high quality game..." This is what I, and the quotes above, are referring to when talking about "AAA" or "console-quality" games.
But outside games, "AAA quality" means the best quality product. If someone who didnt grow up with our definition read that Wikipedia page, theyd be inclined to believe that only the most expensive games are any good. Thats a ridiculous notion.
We have all been so conditioned by this that we dont even apply the term AAA to games that are otherwise generally accepted to be very high quality. Minecraft? "Sorry, too pixely". Portal? "Maybe if it had more guns and lasted at least 8 hours, then it could be AAA". Spelunky? "Whats wrong with you, its not even 3D".
The fact that many of us consider "AAA" (as in "best quality") to be equivalent to technical excellency, great amount of content and complex 3D engines is a sad consequence of living in a bubble of our own making. I wont go too deep into it, because I covered this in my previous post. People who play mobile games dont live in the same bubble, or at least recognise that there are far more important elements to what makes a mobile game high quality.
When some companies say they are "bringing AAA quality games to mobile", they are primarily talking about bringing the technical excellence and amount of content AAA console games have, believing or hoping that such technical excellence will automatically translate into higher general quality of the game. But it is my position that the two are not correlated and, even worse, forcing a team to prioritize technology and content types found on console games is a bad idea on mobile.
"AAA-quality" games arent doing that well on mobileJudging by what we see so far on the app stores, its fair to say that the "AAA quality games on mobile" approach is not working that well, despite support from the platform holders (Apple for example heavily showcases games that use the Metal API). EA had lots of console-like games (including Dead Space and Mass Effect: Infiltrator) removed from the app store because they werent popular enough to warrant an update to work with the latest iOS version. No game comes to mind that has found any significant long-ish term success primarily because it pushes the hardware in ways other games dont. Just out of personal curiosity, for years Ive occationally looked at the top 100 grossing games and asked myself the question, "How many of these games wouldnt be as popular if they werent using advanced 3D technology that pushes the phone to its limits?". My answer has always been 0, though depending who you ask it could be argued that maybe 3-4 out of 100 games fit that criteria. Of course, being in the top 100 isnt the golden test of success for everything, but usually investing in AAA quality technology means bigger than average teams - for those teams, being out of the top 100 makes it much less likely to see a recoup on their investment.
Why are those attempts failing? There are some juveline arguments ("mobile players dont care about good games"). Theres the classic arms race participant mindset that says "mobile tech isnt there yet". Better arguments note that such attempts almost always try to bring PC/console-style gameplay to mobile devices (with noteable exceptions, such as the Infinity Blade games). There are obvious arguments about why console-type gameplay is not really suited on mobile. I used such arguments when comparing two great games, one of which didnt really fit the mobile platform.
I agree that attempts to bring "console quality/AAA" games usually come with baggage thats counter-productive on phones and tablets. Cutscenes (often unskippable) that completely mess up the flow when players are looking for a quick session. Excessive loading times (some times over 30 seconds!) and general sluggishness also discourage very common playing patterns. Massive content downloads on the launch that matters the most - the first one. Heavy content uses up more memory, making it very likely the game will need to do a full reload next time it is launched. Impressive "life-like" visuals sometimes make it too hard to distinguish foreground objects that really matter to gameplay.
Different kinds of "best people"Ive written before about what I think can make small teams really stand out. I think those guidelines can help teams of any size, but are far more practical to implement in small teams, like the ones found in mobile games.
As described in that post, many companies talk about hiring "the best people", but without proper qualification, that talk can get in the way of hiring the ideal people for a given job. Qualifying "best people" as those having deep technical expertise (as companies attempting to bring "AAA quality" games to mobile are very likely to do) sets a very dangerous starting point.
When I was working on AAA games, I thought it was slightly weird for some developers to argue that players should not be able to skip cutscenes. "We worked hard on making it", "Its necessary to understand the story", "Its really cool", none of those seemed to me like a good enough reason to not allow a player to skip that content if thats what they really wanted to do. Still, it wasnt that big of a deal. If someone is sitting on a PC or console playing a long session game, they can reasonably expect to look at 2 minute cutscenes every now and then.
But seeing the same attitude on some supposedly "AAA-quality" mobile games is eye-opening. One of two things happened there: Either nobody on the team thought not allowing skipping of cutscenes is a bad player experience on mobile, or (more likely) the people who thought so were overruled. In either case, this is an example of how a tech-focused team can make patently bad decisions in the mobile space. Other decisions that are not as obviously bad can still creep up and significantly affect the player experience. For instance, not everyone is good at controlling a 3D camera. Merely forcing 3D with a rotateable camera because "its cool" (like this team for example), is generally a bad thing because it adds complexity to the user experience (and to the development) for no good reason.
This is why I believe it is important when qualifying "good developers" to start from T-shaped individuals who have wide experience, are primarily driven by making good games and understand the platform, and then look at how they fullfil technical requirements - not the other way around.
When EA is building their mobile technology primarily around what has worked on consoles and delivers "destruction and those kinds of things", when Kabam is presenting their vision as "AAA-quality first" to potential new hires, when Super Evil Megacorp is using their engine to attract developers who primarily want to build "graphically-intense mobile games", they are all making it far more likely to end up with teams that are technology-driven than game-driven.
People who are obsessed with technology have different goals that people who are obsessed with the game theyre making. They both may understand that what the player sees is extremely important, but theyll interpret that importance and seek to achieve a good visual experience in completely different ways. People who care about the game are more likely to seek game-specific solutions (often low-tech and easier to achieve), while also keeping in mind other limitations that affect player experience. People who care about the technology are more likely to seek techniques that are expensive (both on the hardware and on development), because they see that as their mission and a way to advance their craft.
With mobile teams being generally much smaller than AAA teams, having even one or two such tech-obsessed people can negatively affect the entire team. Suddenly, decisions that should be obvious turn into complex politics. Whether the game should load fast becomes a "matter that has to be balanced" with the amount of content. Whether the player is allowed to skip long cutscenes on a mobile phone suddenly needs long meetings to be decided. Concerns around the user experience are brushed aside, using prior console experience as a guideline ("it doesnt really matter if they wait to download a lot of content, its just the first launch").
If you are thinking about betting your mobile future on "AAA quality" graphics, or working for a company that does, make sure the people you will be working with have the right priorities. And I wish you the best of luck in picking technology with the purpose of driving actual innovation in the mobile space, instead of just relying on the unfocused tech arms race that has worked so far on consoles.
本文由牛牛社区编译，原文作者Andreas Papathanasis，转载请注明，并附上二维码或网址：www.newclan.io。牛牛社区微信：guiguNewclan
全球创媒体平台长按二维码关注加入“Newclan牛牛社区跑会群”，了解更多中美活动及行业资讯：（群满后请微信后台留言拉群）
Newclan Media— Technology Innovation without boundaries （牛牛社区-----科技创新无国界！）硅谷Newclan双语媒体社区发起于美国硅谷，致力与为中、美两国科技从业者和投资人在APP全球化，游戏出海，VR/AR/AI，创业创新，海外投资孵化等领域提供全球最新、最前沿、最实用的资讯和咨询服务，搭建全球科技行业的B2B交流平台，促进中、西方科技领域的合作与共赢。
Newclan社区的资讯分发渠道包括Newclan中、英双语资讯网站，微信账号，微博，知乎，Facebook，Twitter，LinkedIn等全球最热的社交媒体平台等欢迎大家关注！NewClan is a cross-cultural bilingual media, business resources and professionals platform for US-China technology communities. Launched in Silicon Valley, NewClan is committed to produce news coverage on Sino-US technology innovation, entrepreneurship and investment. At Newclan, you can keep abreast of the latest news on APP globalization, Games, AR/VR/AI, Innovation and startups, foreign investment and Incubation. We provide the most edgy, latest and practical information and advisory services for the global tech business community to promote partnerships and mutual benefits between the East and West.。
Our information syndication channels include but not limited to NewClan bilingual website, WeChat Subscription Account, Microblogs, Zhihu, Facebook,Twitter, linkedIn and other prevalent social media platforms.
NewClan network looks forward to your visits!近期文章《APP推广Youtube网红哪家强？美国专家为你总结Dos & Donts!》《独家跑会干货：2016第四季度中美游戏、技术会议活动概览》
《什么广告让《愤怒的小鸟》玩家如此疯狂？奖励性广告果真效果奇佳？》《Pinterest月活跃用户达到1.5亿！一年内增加5000万》点击“阅读原文”，了解更多资讯↓↓↓
亲爱的读者们，感谢您花时间阅读本文。如果您对本文有任何疑问或建议，请随时联系我。我非常乐意与您交流。
发表评论:
◎欢迎参与讨论，请在这里发表您的看法、交流您的观点。