本周初，研究機(jī)構(gòu)Axiom Capital Management提供的數(shù)據(jù)顯示,，一度倍受熱捧的手機(jī)游戲《口袋妖怪Go》在7月中旬陷入了原地踏步狀態(tài),，而此時(shí)距這款游戲震撼上市才過了兩個(gè)星期。此后,，《口袋妖怪Go》的受歡迎程度更是穩(wěn)步下滑,。日均活躍用戶數(shù)量和用戶參與度均從最高點(diǎn)跌落了30%左右。

科技網(wǎng)站Ars Technica經(jīng)過深入分析發(fā)現(xiàn),，這款游戲的初始用戶留存率低于任何一款可比手游,。分析師甚至對(duì)彭博社表示，《口袋妖怪Go》的下滑勢(shì)頭讓人們對(duì)增強(qiáng)現(xiàn)實(shí)這種游戲類型的長(zhǎng)期生存能力產(chǎn)生了質(zhì)疑,。

不過,，這樣下結(jié)論還過于草率?！犊诖諫o》最初引起巨大關(guān)注的部分原因顯然是它一度調(diào)動(dòng)了二十幾歲的人的懷舊情緒,，另一部分原因則是通過在真實(shí)世界里四處移動(dòng)來玩數(shù)字游戲的新穎手法產(chǎn)生的吸引力。如果《口袋妖怪Go》未能利用這樣的吸引力,，原因并不是增強(qiáng)現(xiàn)實(shí)游戲沒有生存能力?；谖以谶^去幾周的游戲體驗(yàn),，這是因?yàn)镹iantic和任天堂聯(lián)手推出的基本上是一款半成品。

《口袋妖怪Go》有種種不足,，從細(xì)節(jié)處理到統(tǒng)轄全盤的理念都是如此（我僅指游戲設(shè)計(jì),，而不是它的各種技術(shù)問題）。對(duì)新玩家來說,，這款游戲并未介紹基本規(guī)則和操作方法,。有人說，這實(shí)際上鼓勵(lì)了玩家協(xié)作，看到過成群結(jié)隊(duì)的大學(xué)生或者年輕夫婦拿著手機(jī)四處游走的人都能感覺到團(tuán)隊(duì)合作是這款游戲最初吸引玩家的關(guān)鍵,。

但合作是為了什么呢,？玩家參與程度不斷下降凸顯出《口袋妖怪Go》的一大問題，那就是雖然捕捉精靈的實(shí)際過程很有趣,，但玩家捕獲精靈后幾乎無事可做,。這款游戲的核心玩法在于占據(jù)道場(chǎng)，但要進(jìn)行這樣的嘗試,，玩家就得有和精靈差不多的等級(jí),。我碰到的大多數(shù)道場(chǎng)都由戰(zhàn)斗力超過1000的精靈占據(jù)著，以我這樣的休閑但相當(dāng)連續(xù)的玩法而言,，用一個(gè)多月時(shí)間也達(dá)不到這樣的水平,。

同時(shí)，由于沒有其他任務(wù)和內(nèi)容,，只能通過捕捉精靈來升級(jí),。玩家甚至不能直接對(duì)戰(zhàn)，這似乎漏掉了一個(gè)重大玩點(diǎn),。

就算找到了一個(gè)可以挑戰(zhàn)的道場(chǎng),，這款游戲的對(duì)戰(zhàn)機(jī)制也和其他元素一樣“樸實(shí)”而且費(fèi)解。玩家要通過左右滑動(dòng)屏幕來躲閃攻擊,。另外,，我覺得發(fā)起進(jìn)攻的方法是點(diǎn)擊對(duì)手。但我為數(shù)不多的幾次嘗試都迅速結(jié)束了,，再加上操控非常的不清晰和不靈敏,，我并不完全確定怎樣攻擊對(duì)方。

簡(jiǎn)而言之,，《口袋妖怪Go》給人的感覺就像是Niantic團(tuán)隊(duì)布置下來的家庭作業(yè),，而他們更愿意做些更酷的東西。就技術(shù)而言,，Niantic推出的游戲Ingress可謂《口袋妖怪Go》的前身,，它能讓人們深刻體會(huì)到這一點(diǎn)。借助黑色和霓虹燈光線以及網(wǎng)絡(luò)科幻故事線,，Ingress就像在地下室制作的母帶,，原始而充滿力量；《口袋妖怪Go》則是大唱片公司折中處理過的處女專輯,，毫無光彩可言,。

但一款游戲的缺陷并不意味著增強(qiáng)現(xiàn)實(shí)本身的失敗。如果說《口袋妖怪Go》有什么作用的話,，那就是它讓受眾渴望看到開發(fā)水平更高的游戲,，也就是把真實(shí)世界中的移動(dòng)和社交互動(dòng)融合在一起的游戲,。請(qǐng)?jiān)试S我借此機(jī)會(huì)以個(gè)人身份建議開發(fā)商去做增強(qiáng)現(xiàn)實(shí)的地下城探索或者偵探游戲。

但一定要保證那是一款真正的游戲,。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：Charlie

審校：詹妮

Earlier this week, data from Axiom Capital Management showed that the meteoric popularity of the Pokémon Go mobile game plateaued in mid-July—only two weeks after its earth-shattering debut—and has declined steadily since then. Daily active users and user engagement are both down by roughly 30% from their peak.

A deep analysis by Ars Technica found that the game’s initial retention was worse than that of comparable mobile games. Analysts went so far as to tell Bloomberg that downward trends cast doubt on the long-term viability of the entire augmented reality category.

But that’s jumping the gun. Huge initial interest in Pokémon Go was clearly motivated in part by a fleeting nostalgia among twentysomethings, but also by a fascination with the novelty of playing a digital game by moving around in the real world. If Pokémon Go has failed to capitalize on that fascination, it’s not because augmented reality isn’t viable. It’s because, based on what I’ve experienced in several weeks with the game, Niantic and Nintendo’s joint foray is fundamentally half-baked.

The flaws in Pokémon Go are multiple, and range from small details to all-encompassing philosophical shortcomings (and I’m just talking about design, not the game’s various technical problems). For new players, there’s no introduction to basic principles and gameplay. Some have argued that this has actually encouraged players to work together, and anyone who has seen crews of college students or young families gallivanting around with their phones out can attest that the sense of group effort was key to the game’s initial appeal.

But to what end? The big, glaring problem highlighted by Pokémon Go’s declining engagement is that, while the actual hunting of pocket monsters is fun, there’s very, very little to do with them. The gameplay proper centers on capturing gyms scattered around the world, but to even try their hand at that, players have to have leveled their monsters quite a bit—most gyms I’ve checked out are held by monsters of over 1,000 combat power, which I haven’t managed to build up over more than a month of casual but fairly consistent play.

And leveling can only be accomplished by collecting monsters, since there are no quests or other content. Players can’t even directly fight each other, which seems like a massive missed opportunity.

Even if you do find a gym you can contest, the game’s combat mechanics are as simultaneously basic and opaque as all of its other elements. You try to dodge attacks by sliding left and right, and I think you attack by tapping on your opponent. But my few tries were over so quickly, and the controls so unclear and unresponsive, that I’m not entirely sure.

In short, Pokémon Go feels like a game made as a homework assignment by a Niantic team who would rather have been doing something cooler. Taking a look at Niantic’s Ingress, the technical precursor to Pokémon Go, only drives this sense home—with its black and neon colors and cyber-punk storyline, it’s like the raw and energetic basement tape to Pokémon Go’s washed-out compromise of a major label debut album.

But the shortcomings of one game don’t mean that augmented reality itself is a flop—if anything, Pokémon Go has whetted audience hunger for a more developed take on gaming that integrates real-world movement and social interaction. Let me take this opportunity to personally lobby developers to make an AR dungeon crawler or detective game.

Just be sure to make it an actual game.