作者：Russell Lees

《黑暗之眼》：叙述，游戏和艺术

美国最高法院今年终于宣布游戏与其它艺术形式一样应该受到保护。为了达到这个目标我们做了很多努力，没想到还是耗费了如此长的时间。不管怎么样，9位法官中至少有7位认为游戏属于名副其实的艺术。但就在法院裁定的前几周，Brian Moriarity（游戏邦注：网络游戏《传奇》的设计师）在游戏开发者大会上进行了一次演说，主题是游戏并不属于艺术也不会成为艺术。我并不赞同Moriarity的观点，但是我却很欣赏他所提出的论据。而相比之下，在Moriarity演讲文章的下方，即公众所做出的一些反义评价则更让人失望。虽然有很多评论者反对Moriarity的观点，但是他们的论据却很让人气恼，即很多人表示“嘿！既然有人认为缝被子是一种艺术了，那么游戏又何尝不是呢！”所以降低艺术的门槛不代表他也是艺术家了，也不代表他拥有艺术家的水平！

不久前，游戏产业断定如果能创造一款让玩家哭的游戏，那么便能更加接近艺术领域。而事实证明确实如此。我们可以很骄傲地说，当今的游戏足以让玩家哭了。但是结果却是，绝大多数肥皂剧或者YouTube上的视频也有能力让观众哭泣。所以这种判断标准并不能用来判断游戏是否属于艺术，我们对此感到难过。

但是这种难过已经过去了！最高法院帮我们实现了这一目标，而事实便是：我们能够创造艺术！这完全在我们的掌控之内。而唯一存在的问题便是我们对此定义仍带有一丝丝模糊的思维。

黑暗之眼(from gamingbolt.com)

为了解决这一问题，我想提供一些建议，而这些建议是很久很久以前，在游戏还不是艺术但却接近艺术的时候我所获得的。大约在15年前，我参加了《黑暗之眼》的制作过程。是否还有人记得这款游戏？这款游戏改编自爱伦坡的小说故事，由William S. Burroughs编辑，Thomas Dolby作曲。好吧，不管你们是否记得，只要相信我的话就行，我们，将爱伦坡的故事真正融入了这款视频游戏中。当然了，与现在的游戏相比，这款游戏已经“老去”，在今天看来，它的那种神秘叙述法以及多变的技巧问题已经不再具有太大的吸引力。不过将其当成一种经验还是不错的。结合艺术方向，原始资料，表演，音效设计以及特别的交互性，我们便有可能创造出一款接近于艺术的游戏。

首先，我们来想想为何要提到爱伦坡？是什么造成这种差异性？艺术存在的其中一个特性便是它能够唤起我们的回忆。所以我们可以把这个特性称之为艺术沉浸。也就是说，我们在制作游戏，也是在从事一种沉浸式的批发产业。我们可以提供理智沉浸，情感沉浸，美学沉浸，以及身体沉浸等等。如果你拥护Moriarity所主张的传统艺术形式（也就是如“人之处境”这一类的东西），那么从叙述方面来看，你的目标是希望能够引起玩家的精神发泄（游戏邦注：即一种情感流露）。而这也是我们希望在《黑暗之眼》中所表达的，所以让我们将目光转向情感沉浸。

（我们还应该注意：一些重要的游戏设计者非常喜欢精神发泄模式。但是我并不是说精神发泄是帮助游戏获得艺术认可的唯一方法，我只是认为掌握传统方法是打破常规形式的先决条件。没有肖邦也就谈不上约翰·凯奇了。）

所以我们应该如何做？的确，我们已经按照音效，视觉和行动等因素明确了较高层次的现实性为目标，而且我们同样也做出了一系列重要的决定：

1.努力创造深层次的心理体验

在讲故事方面，游戏比起其它艺术形式拥有一个鲜明的优点，但是开发者却未完全挖掘出这个优点。所有讲故事的过程都要求一定量的叙述说明。对于编剧家和剧作家来说，他们如何做才能有效地获得这些阐述这一问题应该在他们开始真正描述故事之前解决好。而在游戏中，我们很容易在探索空间里安置故事因素，而将探索转变成一种主动的方式，帮助玩家更好地理解故事阐述。在《黑暗之眼》中，我们进一步升华了这个优点。因为玩家是在爱伦坡的故事中玩游戏，于是我们在游戏中安插了一些具有心理学意义的目标环境。玩家将能够与这些对其角色有帮助的目标进行交流，并能够看到并听到一个与该目标相关的想法或记忆。如此看来，探索实体空间将会变成探索游戏角色的心理空间。

2.游戏设置？

没有游戏设置。虽然这听起来很彻底，但是在游戏设计过程中，我们还是会遇到一些问题：我们是否应该列出一份详细目录？如何进行资源管理？如何解决难题？当我们在努力解决这些问题的同时，很显然，游戏设置因素便意味着能够帮助游戏更理智地吸引玩家注意。理智沉浸和情感沉浸从定义看来是不相融合的，但是在实践中，以及在我们的一些游戏中，如让玩家为了杀掉Old Man（游戏中的角色）而去解决一个难题，将会让他们渐渐偏离原先我们所设定的游戏环境。

诚实来说，难道你从未遇到过一款游戏拥有一个很棒的故事，让你愿意按A键略过游戏设置而直奔游戏故事的？

3.分支？

另外一个问题是“玩家的选择是否会改变故事进程？”依据引人入胜的叙述化过程，选择着实是一种极其虚伪的交互性。我们通常很难创造出一个真正完美的结局（游戏邦注：即让玩家有一种满足的精神宣泄）。故事中的方方面面都必须用来支撑这个结局，包括表现，艺术方向，基调，音乐等等。关于单一的叙述将导致多重完美的结局这种境况确实很矛盾。在《黑暗之眼》中，玩家并无选择权：你必须用砖块将敌人封锁在一个洞穴里。如果你是游戏中的输家，那么不可避免的，你便是那个被堵在洞穴里的可怜人。

在叙述游戏中，比无意义的选择还无趣的便是有意义的选择了。这种表达方法确实很恼人，而我也是用半严肃的态度在看待这个问题。即使一个选择在游戏中有意义，但是对我本身来说也许不然。也就是说一个对于游戏来说有意义的选择将意味着游戏结局不能让我得到满足。当然了，也有例外存在：如果这个选择是关于精神发泄，那么对于玩家和游戏来说它都是有意义的。这就是非分支规则中的一个真实例外。否则，在《黑暗之眼》中，一切的一切都将把你逼到凶手的绝境。

但是我漏掉了一个很重要的问题：为什么当电影已经将精神发泄表现得淋漓尽致之时游戏才开始创造这种体验？答案便是：电影在这方面做得并不是很好。《黑暗之眼》是否比电影来得有效？当然了。如果我们拒绝使用简单的游戏设置和分支选择，那么情况又是怎样？相反地，我们选择了那些有利于推动情感沉浸的游戏因素。这包括上述中提到的自由探索，但是更重要的是：玩家可以作为节奏和时间的代理人而走进游戏的叙述中。当玩家认为自己已经在游戏中，并感受到游戏的线性叙述过程以及精神发泄时，他们经常会想象自己会成为交响乐团的乐师——以此让他们更好地抒发自己的创造性从而衍生出一个让其满意的结果。但是他们的这种想象太过于局限了。游戏的真正目标只是让玩家成为爵士乐中的一员，有时候帮助领导整个团队，拟定行程，推动其他团员的发展或者有时候是用来维持当前音乐的节拍罢了。

在《黑暗之眼》中最有效的时刻便是玩家在接近临界点的那个时候。举个例子来说，当玩家准备杀了Old Man时，他可以通过音乐节拍而创造一种应景音效，去拖延这个致命的时刻。我总是在想象玩家的这一暂停仿佛让我的心也提到嗓子眼上了，我几乎认为他不会这么做了，但是最后，最后他却还是下了手，结束了这个紧张的时刻。不论是玩家将敌人一刀毙命还是稍微推迟动手时间都是不适当的。他的这种行为事实上就是一种创造性。玩家对于时间的这种掌控让他们能够切身且深层次地进行游戏体验，而这也是其它媒介所做不到的。

许多年前我们便创造出了接近于爱伦坡小说的交互式体验。那时候还不流行巧妙地描述故事，但是现在，叙述故事却开始崭露头角了。深层次的故事描述也许在将来的某一天将会更加受欢迎并得到更多的重视。开发者应该继续研究并逐步完善这种叙述技巧。从而让游戏成为名副其实的艺术形式。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Interactive Narrative, Edgar Allen Poe and Art

by Russell Lees

The Dark Eye: Narrative, Games and Art

The Supreme Court has declared that games have the same protections as any other art form.  We’re all mystified that it took so long, given the variety and realism of the exploding zombie heads we can do.  In any case, seven out of nine of those folks in the stylish black robes believe that games have at least a shot at making Art with a capital A.  Now we have to get everyone else on board – including, it seems, some of ourselves.  Just weeks before the court decision, Brian Moriarity gave a pretty persuasive GDC talk arguing that games are NOT Art and aren’t intended to be.  I don’t agree with Mr. Moriarity, but I appreciate the rigor and breadth of his reasoning.  By contrast, the tone of the comments sections wherever his talk is posted is rather discouraging.  Most commenters stand against Moriarity’s position, but with an off-putting defensiveness, often arguing along the lines of: “Hey! Some people think quilting is Art, by those rules, we totally count!”  Defining Art down is not indicative of confident artists, sure of their powers.

Not so long ago, the industry decided that creating games that could get people to cry was our ticket to Artsville.  And by George, we hit it!  We can proudly say that games exist that can make people cry.  It turns out, however, that most soap operas and some puppy youtubes can also make people cry.  The resulting failure to get automatic admission into the Art club apparently left some of us embittered.

But that’s behind us now!  The Supreme Court wants us to go for it, and the fact is: of course we can produce Art.  It’s completely within our grasp.  The only thing standing in our way is a little fuzzy thinking.

To that end, I’d like to humbly offer some suggestions based on a game I worked on long, long ago that may or may not be Art, but at a minimum came pretty damn close.  Over fifteen years ago I worked on The Dark Eye.  Anyone remember that one?  Based on the tales of Poe, William S. Burroughs did VO, Thomas Dolby did the music.  Anybody?  (crickets)  Okay, well, you’ll just have to take my word for it – we successfully translated the content, feel and impact of several of Poe’s tales into a video game.  Of course, the game has aged – today it seems rickety with its Myst-like navigation and various technical problems.  But as an experience, it holds up remarkably well.  By a combination of art direction, source material, acting, sound design and especially interactivity, we managed to create a game that approached something, um, Art-like.

But first, why even make an interactive Poe?  What distinguishes it from just another movie?  One of the qualities of most Art is its ability to pull us into its evocative world. We might call this quality of Art immersion.  Well, hey, baby!  We make games!  We’ve got immersion wholesale!  We can give you intellectual immersion, emotional immersion, aesthetic immersion, physical immersion and more.  If you’re going for the classic kind of Art that Moriarity is interested in (you know, “the human condition” kind of thing), in narrative terms that means that your objective is to bring about catharsis (an emotional outpouring) for the player.  That’s what we wanted to do for The Dark Eye, so we set our sights on emotional immersion.

(I should note: there are forms of drama – and some important game designers – that aren’t interested in catharsis.  I’m not claiming that catharsis is the only way for games to achieve Art status, but I am saying that mastery of classical methods is a prerequisite for more rule-breaking forms.  Without Chopin there can be no John Cage.)

So how did we do it?  Certainly we aimed for a high level of realization in terms of sound, visuals, acting, etc; but we also made a series of important decisions:

Strive for Psychological Depth.

Storytelling-wise, games hold one clear advantage over other dramatic forms – an advantage that isn’t exploited nearly enough.  All storytelling requires a certain amount of exposition.  For screenwriters and playwrights, getting the exposition across efficiently and engagingly is generally considered a problem that must be solved before moving on to the really enjoyable action of the story.  In games, it’s relatively easy to plant story elements in an explorable space in a way that turns exploration into an active way for the player to absorb the exposition.  In The Dark Eye, we pushed this advantage one step further.  Since the player was playing a character in a Poe tale, we invested objects in the environment with psychological significance.  A player would interact with an object that’s important to his character, a pressed rose perhaps, and would see or hear a thought or a memory tangentially related to that object.  In this way, exploration of physical space became exploration of the character’s psychological space.

Gameplay?

No gameplay.  That sounds pretty radical, but in the course of designing the game, questions kept coming up: shouldn’t we have an inventory?  How about resource management?  Puzzle solving?  As we struggled with these questions, it became clear that these gameplay elements are meant to engage a player intellectually.  Intellectual immersion and emotional immersion are not incompatible by definition, but in practice, and certainly in our project, getting the player to solve a puzzle in order to murder the Old Man would simply distance him from the character he was playing and the environment we’d labored so carefully to construct.

Be honest, haven’t you played at least one game that had such a good story that you wanted to be able to press A to skip the gameplay and get on with the story instead of the other way around?

Branching?

Another question that came up was, “Shouldn’t player choices change the course of the story?”  In terms of dramatic narrative, Choice is the Great False God of interactivity.  A really good ending (that is, one with a satisfying catharsis) is very difficult to create.  Everything, everything in the story must support that ending: performances, art direction, tone, music and so on.  The idea that a single narrative can result in multiple satisfying endings is a contradiction in terms.  In The Dark Eye, the player has NO choice: you must brick your adversary into the cave in The Cask of Amontillado.  As the victim, you cannot avoid getting bricked in.

In a narrative game the only thing less interesting than meaningless choice is meaningful choice.  That’s a provocative statement, and I’m only half serious, but that half is very serious indeed.  A choice that is meaningful to the game is not the same thing as a choice that is meaningful to me.  And a choice that is meaningful to the game implies multiple, unsatisfying endings.   Okay, so there is one exception: if the single moment of choice is the catharsis itself, that choice is both meaningful to the player and to the game.  That is an effective exception to the no-branching rule.  Otherwise, as in The Dark Eye, everything is taking you to the point of murder.

But the big question I’ve been putting off is this one:  Why should games try to create catharses when, say, films already do it better?  The answer is: films don’t do it better. Was The Dark Eye more effective than a movie?  Absolutely.   How is this possible given that we refused to employ basic game elements like simple gameplay and branching choice?  We did it by choosing instead those game elements that promote emotional immersion.  These include the free exploration mentioned above, but more important was another aspect that emerged as we worked on the game: the player is able to enter into the narrative as an agent of pacing and timing.  When gamers argue, as I have here, in favor of essentially linear, catharsis-based narratives, they often invoke the simile of the player as a musician in a symphony orchestra – adding their creative input to a larger enterprise that yields a satisfying creative result.  But that image is too limited.  The real goal is to allow the player to become a member of a jazz ensemble.  Sometimes leading the group, drawing out passages, accelerating others; sometimes supporting the current beat.

The most effective moments of The Dark Eye are those where the player approaches a critical point.  For example, when the player is preparing to murder the Old Man in Tell Tale Heart, he can hold off that final, fatal moment for quite some time with the music seemingly increasing in tension with each beat.  I always imagined the player suspended, almost in disbelief that he was about to commit this act, but act he must and finally, finally! he completes the interaction at what to him is just the right moment to  break the tension.  If he breaks it too soon, the moment doesn’t get its proper weight; too late, the illusion is diminished.  His input is, in fact, a creative act.  That element of timing brings the player into the experience personally in a way that is deeply powerful, and no other medium can provide it so well.

All those years ago, we created something that really did approach the interactive equivalent of the literary level of Edgar Poe.  Back then, artful storytelling really wasn’t on anybody’s radar, but now narrative has come to the fore.  Stories, stories with depth, maybe even one day, profound stories are increasingly drawing interest and budget.  Developers continue to experiment with narrative techniques and improve their skills.  Captial ‘A’ Art? Of course.(source:gamasutra）