QUAKE☆雷神的小铁锤
钢铁鲨鱼 阿库拉潜艇
- UID
- 978555
- 主题
- 16
- 阅读权限
- 100
- 帖子
- 4000
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 3452
- 金钱
- 73899
- 荣誉
- 145
- 人气
- 12
- 在线时间
- 2293 小时
- 评议
- 0
  
- 帖子
- 4000
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 3452
- 金钱
- 73899
- 荣誉
- 145
- 人气
- 12
- 评议
- 0
|
以下为简要翻译（全部完成 ）：
EA并没有在媒体上公布很多RA3的消息，所以IGN直接找到了执行制作人Chris Corry。
RA3将会一如既往的带有轻松、幽默、有趣、周六日场爆米花的感觉，以及重多明星加盟的真人电影。
RA与C&C正传处于两个宇宙之中。RA的风格是快节奏、有趣的游戏体验；而C&C3所处的则是黑暗、混乱的世界，它触及了一些严肃的主题，如环保、信仰对抗科学等等，同时它也是KANE的编年史。
RA跟二战以及冷战并没有很多联系，但它确实是关于时间旅行以及由此带来的意料之外的结果。
Chris Corry介绍了RA3故事的开头（时间机器、爱因斯坦被干掉等，这部分大家应该比较熟悉了），苏联受到日本的进攻，这样它有了除盟军以外的第二个敌人，RA3成为三足鼎立的世界。
新增的势力就是日本，但Chris Corry喜欢把它叫做the Empire of the Rising Sun，因为这样显得更加不祥和独特。要为RA注入一些新鲜和令人激动的东西，日本是一个很棒的选择，因为它拥有历史和文化上的宝贵财富。人人都知道忍者、武士以及anime mecha。但并不是说游戏中就会有忍者和mecha。
三个阵营彼此有很大区别。对于日本，他们当然是科技上最先进的。他们拥有占优势的海军力量。单位变形在日本阵营中有重要地位。他们拥有很多苏联和盟军阵营中没有的东西。
真人电影将超过一个小时。演员基本上定下来了，但现在还没到谈论演员阵容的恰当时间，等到四月中旬（按计划）开拍之后再说。
影片拍摄将在洛杉矶进行。这一次拍摄会动用很多专业设备和人员，并有详尽的计划，就像好莱坞所做的一样。
讨好铁杆玩家是我们必须做的事情，我们首先会确保忠实于前作的精神并制作一款伟大的PC RTS。同时游戏也会吸引更广泛的玩家群体，这一部分玩家注重娱乐，不会太较真。
更具竞争性的多人游戏会吸引比较特定类型的玩家，而更大一部分人买游戏来是为了单人游戏。单人体验是一个很棒的讲述好故事的机会，RA3将会以合作模式来给玩家带来独特而令人兴奋的体验。
合作模式在RTS领域可以说是前无古人的，在这之前没有人能让两个人同时参与进来。尽管我们希望让更多喜欢以单人模式开始的新玩家参与进来，但如果他们遇到了麻烦，他们可以上网拉上一个朋友帮助自己度过难关。如果朋友仅仅与你水平相当，那上网游戏也将少一分风险。
两人合作的具体形式，将介于“两人发展各自的基地”和“两人在同一队伍中作不同的事情”之间。我们设计战役时，就假设有两名指挥官。以一个潜入任务为例，你可以让一个人操纵一个巨大的护盾发生器单位，另一个人控制攻击部队在护盾的保护之下前进。玩家间通过他们的头戴耳机来通话以协调他们的行动，这是一种很亲密的合作体验。
另一个极端是，当你们都有机会建造基地、单位并着手进攻时，如果你们能协调一下将会有更大的胜算。比如一个人说“我来发动空袭干掉这些磁力线圈，让你的坦克前进”，这就比两个人什么都不说而盲目进攻强得多。
如果是只有一个人玩，在这些复杂情况下，AI将会足够聪明来代替另一位玩家的角色。不同类型的AI指挥官将在战役的进程中逐渐被解锁，这些指挥官有独特的个性，会对事情的进展发表看法。他们有的喜欢坦克流而有的偏好空军。
Chris Corry着重强调了RA3中海军的地位。之前的RTS中海军总是作为一种附属物出现，甚至根本没有海军。而在RA3的战役中，多数地图会设计海军的戏份。每个势力都有一大把两栖单位，在陆地上和在海里会有不同的形态，能力也不同。
我们给了玩家在海里建造建筑的选择，基地车可以开进海里并展开为基地。着开创了新的战略思路。在考虑战略的时候，你得想一想对手会不会把基地建在海里。具有讽刺意味的是，这将会鼓励人们建造更多的空军，但这种方法也会面临挑战。
在这种情况下，早期的坦克速推战略将会失效。在C&C 3中，由于游戏的设定，优秀的玩家可以在早期就建立起一支庞大的部队，将对手Rush掉。但在RA3中我们打算摒弃这个。因为对新玩家，甚至一些老玩家来说，这没有多少乐趣。我们不想延缓游戏的节奏，但我们正尝试让你在RA3中能够更加从容不迫的下达更具战略性的决定。对付早期的Rush主要是限制经济，而在中后期将会有可行的Rush战术。
我们强调的是让游戏体验变得更加理性，而不是做成《文明》那样的游戏，你必须在部队的构成上下功夫，用不同的单位对付不同的目标。尤其是对于高级玩家来说，一些微观上的控制，如所有单位都拥有的主要和次要技能，将会是十分重要的。
============================================================
已下为采访原文：
For long-suffering fans of the Red Alert series, the revelation last month that work on Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 is now underway at EALA was welcome news indeed. Red Alert is one of the seminal real-time strategy games, of course, and the original is still one of the most beloved games of all time. Of course, EA didn't reveal much in its press release announcement, so we went straight to executive producer Chris Corry himself to talk about the game, which is due for the PC, Xbox 360, and PlayStation 3 this holiday season.
IGN: Red Alert 3 was recently revealed. It's been a while since the last one, hasn't it?
Chris Corry: There actually hasn't been a Red Alert game for a little while now; it's been seven years. It's kind of interesting reintroducing the world to Red Alert. For those who are already familiar with Red Alert games and their place in the C&C universe, certainly Red Alert 3 is going to be everything that the hardcore fans have been looking for. It's going to have that trademark, light, humorous, fun, Saturday matinee popcorn feel to it, with live-action cinematics and all these great actors chewing up the stage.
IGN: Is that what you consider to be the distinction that makes Red Alert different?
Chris Corry: We think of there being two universes that reside under the Command & Conquer brand. When we think about Command & Conquer, we think about sort of a style of play. So it's fast, fun, fluid RTS gameplay. But then underneath that we have the Tiberium universe, which C&C 3 lived in and that's the dark, gritty, brooding sci-fi world of Kane and Nod and GDI. It touches on some pretty serious themes; environmentalism, religion versus science, and other themes. And it really chronicles the journey of Kane.
Blimps are cool.
And then very distinct and separate from that we have the Red Alert universe. We really think of Red Alert being not so much about World War II or the Cold War, but it really is about time travel and the unintended consequences that can occur from meddling in areas that no man has a right to. The way that manifests itself in the game is this series of alternate histories. In Red Alert 2--and we're carrying it through to Red Alert 3--it's also kind of a fundamental shift in tone where we're trying to not take ourselves nearly as seriously as the Tiberium universe does. There's a little bit of tongue-in-cheek there, and it really is about that humorous, bright saturated experience, as opposed to that dark, gritty, sci-fi experience.
IGN: Tell us about the setting and the story, and is it directly related or connected to the events of the last game, or is it a completely different timeline?
Chris Corry: I touched on that time travel theme. The events that kick off Red Alert 3 really come back to that. Our story opens with the Allies and the Soviets going at it again, but this time the Allies have beaten the Soviets back and have the upper hand. The Soviet leadership is cowering behind the walls of the Kremlin; their defeat is imminent and all but certain. At that point, sort of crazed with desperation, the leadership descends into the bowels of the Kremlin into their secret labs where they have this skunk works project going on. They fire up this prototype of this device which is a time machine that's never been used before. And their intention is to go back in time and erase Albert Einstein from the timeline. Of course, Albert Einstein in the previous games has been instrumental in the technological advances that made the Allies so successful...
IGN: And he shot Hitler!
Chris Corry: And you see that kind of parallel there from Red Alert 1, which has kind of a similar dynamic with Einstein going back to erase Hitler.
So the Soviet leadership goes back [in time] and they do it. They take our good man Albert out. They come back to the present day and it looks like the operation has been a resounding success. Moscow and the Kremlin have been resorted to their former glory. It looks like the operation has gone off magnificently. Of course, that lasts for a healthy two minutes, and then all of a sudden alarms and klaxons start going off, and all the monitors come to life, and the aids come rushing in and they realize that they're under attack. But they're not under attack this time from the Allies. They're under attack from this huge, intimidating superpower that they have inadvertently spawned on the world stage: the technology cult of the Empire of the Rising Sun. And they realize with this sinking feeling in their gut that by meddling with time, they haven't erased the Allies. The Allies are still there; the Allies are still a threat. But they've actually spawned a second mortal enemy, and that kicks off the third Red Alert war, where we now have this triumvirate of the Soviet, the Allies, and the Empire of the Rising Sun.
IGN: You say that and everyone is going to think Japan.
Chris Corry: It is Japan. I really like to call them the Empire of the Rising Sun because it makes them more ominous and it makes them different. And they are different. The great thing about using Japan is that it works for us in a lot of great ways. We wanted to make sure that we were brining something new and fresh and exciting to the Red Alert experience, and Japan was a really great choice for us because it has this really great wealth of historical and cultural touchstones that we can riff on. Everyone knows about ninjas and samurais and anime mecha. At the same time we've got full license to make them a little bit mysterious and maybe confound expectations a bit as well.
IGN: Ninja mecha. Ninja mecha.
Chris Corry: I'm not saying that there are ninjas. I'm not saying there are mecha. But I'm saying that if I were making a game with the Empire of the Rising Sun in it, you'd kind of want to put ninja and mecha in it, wouldn't you?
Land and sea combat.
IGN: That's the new faction. Are all the factions completely rebuilt from scratch?
Chris Corry: They're pretty different. In the previous two Red Alert games, the Allies and the Soviet factions have been pretty different. Certainly, the Empire of the Rising Sun is going to be very different as well. In practical terms, all three factions have a very different build mechanic. For the Empire of the Rising Sun, we're keeping information about that faction a little close to the vest, but there are some themes that you see there. They're certainly the most technologically advanced. They're a dominant naval power. Unit transformation plays a significant role in that faction. There's certainly a lot in that faction that you don't see in the Soviets and Allies.
IGN: It wouldn't be Red Alert without the live-action cutscenes. What do you have in mind?
Chris Corry: We really do think the live-action cinematics are a staple of the Red Alert series. We're going pretty full bore with the cinematics this time. We're going to have more than an hour of cinematics; it's almost a minimovie that we're shooting for this. We're not quite ready to talk about the cast. We've got almost the entire cast locked down, but until we actually do the cinematics shoot, which we're currently scheduled to do in mid April, we won't be talking about that. Until I've got the movie stars in their seats and doing their stuff, it doesn't feel real.
IGN: Where does the filming take place at? Los Angeles? Vancouver?
Chris Corry: It's LA. We do SAG shoots here in LA and it's actually amazing to me. Before C&C 3, I'd never been on a movie set, and that really is what these are. These are full-on movie productions. We use movie production houses, we use a real movie DP [director of photography], and of course we're using real movie talent. We put a great deal of energy and time and attention into building elaborate sets and shooting a lot of green and doing a pretty aggressive post-production schedule where we do a lot of the sort of things that you would see in a Hollywood feature.
IGN: I want to get back to something that Mike Verdu, general manager of EALA, said in the announcement of Red Alert 3. He mentioned that Red Alert appealed more to the casual player. Are you aiming this at both the hardcore and someone who's never played a C&C game before? It sounds like this new cooperative mode will play a role in that?
Chris Corry: When you look at the products that we do here at EALA in the RTS group, they're first and foremost PC RTS games. We know who butters our bread and we have to make sure that we are scratching the itch of our core constituency, which really is a pretty hardcore bunch of guys who are really into an experience that is--from a user-interface standpoint--quite intricate. There are these fundamental gameplay themes that you have in a PC RTS that you really don't want to buck, because that's what makes RTS on the PC such a compelling and interesting proposition. First and foremost, we want to make sure that we're being true to the spirit of the previous games and that we're building a great PC RTS. And that really is job one.
Now with that said, I certainly agree with Mike's comments in the press release that Red Alert is uniquely, or perhaps better, poised to attract a wider audience because it's a little less threatening. It is about having fun and not taking things so seriously, and the gameplay experience can reflect that. It's not about all about going online and playing a competitive match and getting the smack down from a 12-year old kid that's going to swear at you a lot. The tone and tenor of the Red Alert franchise helps us there.
Out at sea.
This idea of co-op is really intriguing. We've always thought of our RTS games as always resting on two pillars. The multiplayer experience, which is certainly a more hardcore experience, is a more competitive experience. It attracts a very particular type of player. And then we thought of the single-player experience, which is actually what the vast majority of people who purchase our games play and play exclusively. And we've always thought of that single-player experience as being our opportunity for great narrative, for telling a good story, and for having the hand-crafted custom campaigns with all of these tightly-scripted big moments to delight the player. This time around, I think what's so exciting about Red Alert 3 is that we're now giving you the opportunity to take what we thought of a single-player experience before and broaden it a bit by bringing in someone else and experiencing the entire game in that co-op context.
Of course, co-op is a huge, emerging theme in the industry right now. I think what's a little unique about the story that we're telling here really hasn't been done successfully in RTS before. I don't think anyone's done that hand-crafted, tightly-scripted campaign experience in a way that two people can simultaneously take part in it. Certainly my fond hope is that more casual players will play the game, and maybe they'll only be comfortable starting out in a single-player context. But if they encounter problems or as they make their first tentative explorations of what it means to do RTS online, they can go online and pull in a friend and help them through a difficult spot. Or if it's just a friend that's going through the same sort of RTS education that they are, then going online is going to be a lot less threatening.
IGN: Is the co-op deeper than simply having two guys having two bases running together in tandem, or are you going to integrate it so they're both on the same team but they're doing different things? So one might be managing the economy while the other is controlling the armies?
Chris Corry: Where we're going falls in the middle of those two extremes. We're building the entire campaign with the assumption that there are two commanders there. Going into the design of every mission in the campaign, our designers know, "Alright, I need to design this so that there are two guys gunning for the AI here." When you start to dissect what that means, there's actually a lot of different ways to approach that. There's an integrated co-op experience where literally the two players have to work in tandem to pursue some goal. On a stealth mission, for example, you may have one guy who's moving a big, bulky shield generator unit and the other guy has to take his assault force and has to keep it underneath the cover of that shield generator unit. That's a very intimate co-op experience because they're talking into their voice-over-IP headsets and they have to coordinate their movements that way.
And then there is the other extreme, which is we're in this mission, maybe we've done some of that tandem co-op and now we get to a break where things widen up a bit and now we both have an opportunity to establish a base, build units, and initiate assaults. We're setting up our missions so that even in that case, you're going to be most successful if you're coordinating your assaults. So if one person says, "I'm going to initiate an airstrike over here which will take out these Tesla coils so you can move in with your tanks," that's going to be a lot more successful than if the two guys aren't talking to each other and they decide to throw arbitrary units at the enemy.
IGN: In single-player then, will the AI be smart enough to take over one of those roles in those intricate situations?
Chris Corry: Exactly. The problem with putting co-op at the center of this is what if I don't have any friends online? Because we're designing these missions with the assumption that there are always two of you, if you don't have a co-op person to play with there needs to be a surrogate there. We have a whole palette of AI commanders that we present to you and that you progressively unlock over the course of a campaign. If you are playing by yourself, you can select a commander to come play with you. These commanders have unique personalities, to the point that they'll pop-up with full-motion video and give you feedback about how things are going or to bitch-and-moan about how things are going. And these AI commanders are tuned so that they play quite differently. One commander might favor tank-rushing tactics or be sort of a heavy ground force assault general, whereas another might be your air force guy. As you move through the campaign, and as you become comfortable with how these AI guys work, it's our hope that you'll form preferences for one or the other and that you'll make some choices about who you prefer to play with. And that even opens up replay possibilities, because the hope is that these AIs are going to play differently enough so that going back and replaying the campaign with different AI commanders is likely going to feel very different.
IGN: Is there anything that you'd like to add about Red Alert 3?
Chris Corry: There is one that I'd really want to call out, and that really is naval gameplay. It's not a complete first for the series. Both Red Alert 1 and Red Alert 2 had navy, but generally navy gameplay in most games is either nonexistent or you play the game and you feel like the designers have kept it at arm's length. It feels like an adjunct experience; something that's kind of bolted on to the side. No one really leverages the potential of naval gameplay quite as much as we'd like to with Red Alert 3.
Yes, Tesla boats!
We had to spend a lot of time thinking about why have people kept this at arm's length? Why is this something that really hasn't gotten as much traction before? We're doing a bunch of things to address that and to bring naval gameplay into the heart of the RTS experience.
In the story-driven campaign, most maps will have naval gameplay there. Every single multiplayer map that we ship will have significant bodies of water and will be designed with naval gameplay in mind. We've really taken that and pulled that into the units and structures game. We have this concept of "blurring the shoreline" where each faction has a bunch of units that are amphibious. They can fight on land and they can fight as sea. It's all done in a seamless contextual faction. If I move a unit through a beach and off of land and into the ocean it will transform into its naval equivalent. Amphibious units will have different capabilities, different stats based on whether if they're in the land form or ocean form. The dedicated units--units that can only work on land or can only work at sea-- might be a little more effective but they're not nearly as flexible. This idea of blurring the shorelines is one way that we lower the barrier to wanting to take your forces and moving them out to sea.
The most profound thing that we're doing is that we're actually giving the player a choice--and there's some real incentive to do this--to take their base and actually build the base at sea. You can take your mobile construction vehicle, you can drive it into the ocean, and you can actually build your base in the ocean. This is an extraordinary thing. This opens up a whole new dimension of strategy here. As you contemplate what your opponent is doing, now you have to ask yourself are they going to stay on land or are they going to push out and make a naval base? And woe be the player who miscalculates and makes an uniformed early tank rush and gets to the other side of the map and realizes that, "Oops, my opponent is actually out at sea and I've committed all my resources to building stuff that is now largely useless."
That base building at sea mechanic, we think, is a real game changer. One consequence of this is that it will, ironically, encourage people to play more air power as well. Because air power can reach both places, but it has its own challenges.
IGN: So is this the death of the tank rush, perhaps?
Chris Corry: We want to get to the death of the early-game tank rush anyway. When you look at C&C 3, it was a game where we sort of took the mantra of fast, fun, fluid gameplay very seriously. As released, C&C 3 was a very fast game. For a bunch of reason, a lot of them were related to how we tuned the economy and the mechanics of harvesting tiberium, there was some economic inflation there that really allowed good players to create large numbers of units early in the game and push off and rush early in the game, and those tended to be very effective tactics.
In Red Alert 3, we definitely want to get away from that. That's not a lot of fun for new players, or even for experienced players. That doesn't have the strategic subtlety or finesse that we're trying to get. We're not trying to slow down the game, but we are trying to make the decisions that you make in Red Alert 3 be a little bit more deliberate and certainly more strategic. I think you'll see us doing a bunch of things, mainly gating the economy, to get away from early rushes. In the mid game and the late game there will be probably be viable rushing tactics.
Our emphasis is about making the gameplay experience a bit more cerebral. We're not making Civilization here--it is still going to be that fast RTS action--but to be really successful you are going to have to focus a lot on force composition; getting a different mix of units to take on a variety of different targets. And especially for the more advanced players, some of this micromanagement where all of our units have a primary and a secondary power--and being able to toggle back and forth between these powers--is going to be a pretty important dynamic.
IGN: Thank you, Chris.
[ 本帖最后由 softboy86 于 2008-3-15 14:10 编辑 ] |
-
总评分: 金钱 + 4
+ 2
查看全部评分
|
发表于 2008-3-15 10:04:41
分享
收藏
