游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

游戏设计课程之游戏艺术性之争(6)

发布时间:2011-11-15 17:49:52 Tags:,,

现在,让我们将注意力转到“游戏能否变成艺术?”这个话题中来。也许在一些较为严肃的设计原则中,这看起来就像是一个不相干的参杂体。而且这也是这么多年以来我们一直喋喋不休的话题,所以为何我们还要浪费时间去翻出这些内容呢?对于将这个议题涵括在我们的课程表中我有几点需要解释,而你们也可以尽情地讨论这些涵括内容的优劣之处。(请点击此处阅读本系列第1第2、第3、第4、第5、第7第8第9第10第11第12、第13第14第15、第16第17第18课程内容

谈论这个话题的第一个原因是我们将在后面的课程讨论“趣味性”的整体概念,以及如何让游戏更加有趣。对于绝大多数游戏设计者来说,这是他们的最高指导原则:制作一款游戏并让它变得有趣。所以,在我们进一步深入这个原则之前,我想要先澄清,趣味性并不是游戏设计的唯一目的,事实上,一些游戏即使不具备太多特别的“乐趣”,也能够按照设计目标而取得巨大成功。

其次,作为一个持续多年的争论,我希望让那些新进入这个圈子的人也能够快速了解到这个争论的基点。许多设计者总是会不时拿起这个话题说事,而且我也想有些设计新手也应该试着进入这个争论圈中。

再次,那些所谓的“艺术游戏”——也就是那些以艺术表达(而非娱乐)为主要目的的游戏已经越来越多了。现在,在这个领域中有许许多多非常有天赋的人正在制作着一些很有趣的东西。很多艺术游戏其实都很简单,且规模较小,且通常是一个人在非常短的时间内完成的作品。还有许多潜在的方法有待挖掘。而这点刚好让艺术游戏能够提供给那些想要成为游戏设计者的人们更好的机遇。

最后,我深知艺术历史和艺术评论是一块很危险的领域。因此,我在某种程度上受到激励,而着重从个人兴趣这块进行阐述,尽管我不得不承认,讨论这个话题会给我带来一定的麻烦。

What_is_art(from pedrohbv.deviantart.com)

What_is_art(from pedrohbv.deviantart.com)

什么是艺术?

就像你所看到的,《Understanding Comics》是一本关于漫画书艺术形态的漫画书。如果你阅读了该书的第7章节,你将会立刻发现漫画书艺术与游戏设计的相似之处,除了公众普遍意识到的“非严肃”和“针对于儿童”这两个问题。

McCloud(游戏邦注:《Understanding Comics》作者)开始尝试将“艺术”定义为一种与生存或繁殖无关的内容。我曾经交流过的大多数学生都认为这个定义太过广泛,但是却很少有更好的定义了。事实上,如果你接受了这个定义,那么“游戏是艺术”对于你来说便不再是一个难以解决的问题,毕竟,当你真正花心思去完善下一款《生存之旅》的关卡,或者考虑着将你的下一款游戏定义为象棋这类型的游戏,那么你也许就不用费心思去处理现实世界中的生存或繁殖问题了(除非你设置了不一样的游戏玩法)。

我曾经听过有人将艺术与交际性和多变性联系在一起。虽然这个定义的面也很广但是却也清晰地将游戏涵括在内。

Dictionary.com(词典网)根据美学原则,即什么是好看,且具有吸引力与特殊意义的判断方法,将艺术定义为特性,产品,表达或者领域。如果按照这个定义,那些充满着“花瓶角色”或者具有各种突出因素的游戏,也都能够被定义为艺术。

维基百科将艺术定义为过程或者一件具有吸引力的产品。如果游戏具有这些形式要素,那么设计者便可以基于这些要素去设计游戏。显然地,如果游戏能够影响人们的感觉,那么定是基于它们的视觉特性而非其它属性。游戏同样也能够影响人们的情绪——来自电子游戏领域两大典型的例子便是《Planetfall》中Floyd之死以及《最终幻想7》中Aerith身亡,尽管人们也可以从电视在的体育比赛,以及桌游《Diplomacy》中朋友和爱人的离开而感受到相同的情绪。

其实我的意图并不是定义艺术这个词本身,因为这与定于游戏这个词一样困难,且一般都是徒劳的。而是我认为不论你认为该如何定义“艺术”,都不难发现在游戏都在这些艺术的定义范围之列。

为何会存在这个问题?

如果游戏符合任何“艺术”定义,那么我们就应该想想为何这仍是一个备受争议的话题。为何仍有人认为“游戏不是艺术”?

在这里我们最好能够区分早前朴素的“艺术”以及较为华丽的“纯艺术”或者“高端艺术”的区别——这种永恒的艺术总是能够传达出人类体验的本质内容。莎士比亚,达芬奇,莫奈都是在创造这种类型的艺术。但是,这个论据并不是在说游戏不是一种“艺术”,从某些意义上来看游戏也是经过有目的性雕琢的一件艺术品,但是因为游戏媒介中的一些内在因素,它达不到“高端艺术”的标准。

对于这点我不想加以描述,主要是因为育碧设计师Clint Hocking在《On Authorship in Games》中已经详细描绘了这一内容。

无论如何,只要你注意到我所列出读物的共同主题,你便能够看出我的个人观点。也许我们的游戏不能像“蒙娜丽莎”或者电影《公民凯恩》那般伟大,但是这同时也是一种机遇。所以我们暂且跳过这个话题。让我们假设游戏是艺术表达的一种有效媒介,并开始讨论如何去传达这种艺术。

6大步骤

关于《Understanding Comics》我想提及两大关键点,首先便是 McCloud关于艺术的定义,如上文描述道的。而其次就是以下关于艺术的六个层面内容:

观点/目的。要传达什么信息,要表达故事中的哪些想法?为什么你想创造一件艺术品?

形式。你将使用何种艺术媒介去传达你的信息?油画?雕塑?形意舞?漫画书?游戏?

习语。McCloud说习语,如果牵扯到游戏,更常被称为类型。而这些类型包括第一人称射击游戏,即时战略游戏,汽车模拟游戏,大型多人在线角色扮演游戏等等(或者桌上游戏,如资源管理游戏,追踪游戏,细节游戏,骰子游戏,铺砖游戏,赌博游戏等等)

结构。在故事中,结构包括基本情节,角色以及其它建筑模块。在游戏中我们称其为“核心机制”。是哪一些结构部件组成核心的用户/观众/玩家体验?

工艺。在漫画书中,这点包括一个故事的表达是否合适。而在游戏中,工艺是指如何让游戏规则和玩家体验更加合理与自然,也就是比起应付繁琐的规则,玩家可以更加轻松地享受游戏乐趣。

外观。这是指外部体验,如颜色,音效,图形,美丽,以及那些立刻可以察觉到的细节。也就是所谓的“花瓶角色”。

McCloud注意到忠实的漫画书读者会从外到内真正地体验一部作品。先是看到表面,然后往深层次去感受故事。更进一步看来,你甚至可以掌握到故事背后的真谛,并从内心深处感受艺术家的创造性,即使这个故事并没你想象中那般优秀。甚至,当对故事做进一步研究时,你还会找到不同类型之间所存在的差别,并理解为何在一个类型中会出现一些特定的故事元素或者其它管理等。看得越深,你便能够鉴赏漫画书的媒介,并理解它与其它艺术形式的不同之处,从而你便能够了解一部作品背后的真理,以及真正长久的文学作品的真正目的。

你也许会发现这些同样也适用于游戏中。

McCloud同样也注意到了,当一件作品是“从外向内”进行设置时,它同样也会创造出“从内向外”的表达——在设计之前,而创造者必须在一开始就选择并明确一种模式,从而从中选出最适合的类型。创造者既能够慎重地做出选择也能够情绪化地进行选择,但是不管怎样他们都需要最先考虑这个问题。随后定义结构,然后精心地雕琢所有的细节,最后便创造出了外观。

MDA(from girlzinweb.com)

MDA(from girlzinweb.com)

是否这听起来很耳熟?的确,从很多方面来看,这是对于MDA Framework(游戏邦注:MDA是Mechanics/Dynamics/Aesthetics的简称)的重述。

而我认为McCloud的6大步骤是MDA的延伸。MDA中的Mechanics就等于McCloud口中的结构;Dynamics则与工艺类似;而Aesthetics也就是外观。虽然它们并非完全相同,但是却真的很相近。在这两个例子中,用户都更加关注于外观,而真正的艺术家则更加注重于艺术过程中的内部核心要素。

面向艺术的过程

如果MDA代表一件艺术品的外部三层,那么又有什么才能体现内部三层呢?为了回答这个问题,我们需要再次转向McCloud的范例中。

继LeBlanc等人之后,McCloud采取了另外一个重要步骤。他声称不论是从外到内的体验以及从内到外的创作,艺术家及其他创作者都会遵从从外到内的学习方法。

仔细想想,什么才是对游戏有帮助的“最佳创想”?可能是与你喜欢的一款游戏有关的外部特征。“就像是《吃豆人》遇见《太空入侵者》。没有最好只有更好!”很多人都是通过“修改”自己喜欢的游戏,改变现有的游戏设置或者一些外部特征,改变游戏中的角色外表等等,而不是像游戏《Marines Shooting Aliens In Space》,变得越来越山寨《Wizards Battling Dragons In The Mountains》了,因为它们拥有相同的mechanics,相同的dynamics以及不同的外观。

随后会怎样?也许你会玩许多游戏,而发现许多同样带有龙,火球以及巫师等角色的游戏也有好坏之分,而它们间的差别并不是来自于故事或者类型,而是来自游戏设置。随后你便开始思考不同的游戏类型,以及哪种类型有趣而哪种无趣。经过进一步的体验和学习你将会知道什么样的机制才能够创作出吸引人的游戏设置。也许这正是你们所想要的,即为了成为一名优秀的设计者,你可以参照一些已经建立的有趣类型而制作出属于自己的有趣游戏。

但是如果你着眼于过去,你也许会问:这些类型来自于哪里?是谁决定特定的核心机制可以在游戏内部进行相互仿效,难道只有这样才能创造出优秀的游戏设置?如何才能创造出新的类型?是否这是一个前人从未尝试过的过程以及前人从未发现的优秀机制?而你可以创造出一个甚至是多个新游戏类型。也许你可以或者不能够创造出这种类型并尽可能地完善它们,但是你的创造却能够让更多人参考你的作品外观,使用你的核心理念并不断进行完善。

你能做的就只有这些?当然远远不止了。你肯定会好奇还有些什么,首先你可以从两方面进行摸索:观点和形式。

当你在探索形式内容时,你将会触及媒介的界限。游戏能够做些什么?它们是否能够影响玩家的情绪(除了让他们感到兴奋并带给他们幻想)?比起其它艺术媒介什么内容更适合在游戏中得到体现?你要如何使用之前从未被使用过的媒介(不只是新的游戏类型或者新的有趣的方法)去表现游戏?你是否能够改变别人的想法?是否能够改变别人的生活?你是否能够做到图画或者电影所做不到的触动?怎么做?随后你可以创造一件实验作品,可以说一款非常小的游戏,然后借此探索游戏作为一种媒介可以做什么以及不可以做什么。也许这些实验游戏并不有趣或者不能够吸引广大的用户,但是对于那些在形态游戏媒介中工作的人们来说,这却有很大的帮助,因为他们以你的实验作品为参考,并进行适当修改而用于表达他们自己的观点。

而如果你在探索观点或目的,比起向世界传达一则信息,你必须选择游戏作为你的最佳表达方法。在此,你所面临的挑战是传达媒介是玩家所控制的体验而非设计者。为了让游戏设置更有意义,你应该尝试一切可能的方法。我们想要表达哪些观点?在你的生活中存在着哪些深层意义是你想要与别人进行分享的?

问题很多,答案却很少…

如果关于上述的那些问题我都能够答出详细的答案,那么你肯定会惊讶不已。但是事实上我并未这么做,一方面也是受到艺术本身的性质所影响。

这个课程主要是关于游戏设计艺术的外部三层内容:Mechanics,Dynamics以及Aesthetics(如果你愿意的话,也可以说是结构,工艺和外观)。教授你如何通过创造规则去制作出吸引人的游戏这方面内容已经花费了我们大量的课程讲述了;而教会你如何创造出新类型或者触及媒介边界这些内容仍将需要我们投入更多的时间。

但是除此之外,就像McCloud所说的,关于内部三层内容我们并不能简单地从课堂上或者书籍上学习到。为了能够理解艺术形式中的内部核心,你将需要花费你的整个职业生涯,也许是20年或者30年或者更多,独自进行研究。但是前提是你愿意这么做。如果你没有兴趣,也没关系。这个世界需要更多人去实现游戏变成艺术媒介的这一过程,但是这个世界上也仍需要优秀游戏的存在。而你必须知道到底需要花多少时间才能实现艺术目标。虽然我没有义务去告诉你们答案,但是你自己必须对此有所规划,才能在未来的前进道路中更加顺畅。

艺术的历史

这个部分总是让我很烦躁,因为很多人对当代艺术持着怀疑的态度。一些人只是捣鼓着一些自认为是艺术品的垃圾,就大言不惭地称自己为“艺术家”,并且将所谓的“艺术品”卖给美术馆而挣得2千欧元。这就是艺术?如果是,难道这就是游戏所追求的目标?这样做能够帮助我们退一步看待问题,并衡量我们是如何走到这一步,因为游戏很好地适应了当代艺术,而我们也应该理解其中的原因。

让我们穿越回文艺复兴时期,而油画也正是在这个时期开始被当成一种艺术形式。那时候,艺术被认为是对于世界的真实表示;而图画则是一个窗口能够帮你找到现实的归宿。如果一名艺术家能够更接近现实地去描述一个场景,那就说明他足够优秀。判断艺术的标准就是判断一幅画是否逼真,所以很简单!随后,大约在20世纪90年代的时候,照相机出现了,也因此破坏了这种判断标准。

现在,因为照片可以100%原景再现,所以过去的艺术形式也就逐步被淘汰了。对于画家来说,他们不得不问自己一个问题,也就是现在的艺术形式到底是什么?

Wassily Kandinsky(游戏邦注:俄国画家,表现主义的创始人)也开始自问,艺术对于自己来说是一个目标,还是只是某些事物的代表:帆布只是一个“屏幕”而不是“窗户”或者“镜子”?而因此出现了我们现在所说的抽象艺术,这时候艺术不再是代表自己的一种标志了。

你要如何判断这种类型的艺术?这时候你应该如何去告诉那些充满才能和灵感的艺术家这个现实,那些只会随意地在帆布上涂鸦的装腔作势者甚至也能够得到许多没有道理的赞许。

具有影响力的批评家Clement Greenberg提供了一个解决方案,即单纯依据审美价值去判断艺术。技术执行是真理。艺术家是创造者,而一部好的艺术作品将会提供给任何人相同的审美价值。Greenberg将所谓的“现代艺术”进一步现实化(游戏邦注:这里所说的现代是指从1910年到1950年期间这一特定年代,而不能与现今的当代艺术相混淆)。

在未来十年里,艺术世界将会脱离Greenberg口中的形式主义,而坚持艺术将从被动转变到互动;变成艺术家与观众之间的对话;艺术将会做出更多的诠释;艺术将会带有实在的意义。而这个时代的艺术被称为“后现代”艺术。

特别是在20世纪6,70年代期间,艺术碰到了一个潜在的问题:艺术变成了最热门的商品,而艺术家的身价也瞬间暴涨。仍然还有很多艺术家认为自己的艺术品大大贬值了,因为比起交易,他们创造那些艺术品是出于其它目的,没想到却被当成了商品进行销售。反倒是艺术品的含金量远远低于创造者的名字了。虽然这种情况能够帮助那些艺术家们赚到更多钱而过上更高质量的生活,但是这其中的代价却是“出卖”他们的作品……但并不是所有艺术家愿意向这种情境妥协。

那么游戏呢?是否这些内容听起来都似曾相识?我们又该如何判断游戏?如果用数字作为评价标准,按照技术执行来看,对于音频或者图像的临界赞许,游戏的乐趣可以按照1至5的分数进行评判,而预示着那些对于观众来说有趣的内容对于所有读者来说也很有趣。如果按照游戏评判的现实状况来说,其实也就等同于Greenberg的形式主义。好像我们陷入了一个诡异的时空隧道中,被带回1930年的那个时代里。那么游戏是更偏向于现代艺术还是后现代艺术?是被动还是互动?游戏会针对于不同的个人而创造不同的游戏体验还是提供相同的游戏体验给所有人?游戏只能体现出视觉效果还是能够在机制中嵌入更多深层次的意义?也许你有不同的见解,但是在我眼中游戏更像是后现代艺术形式。我希望在不久的将来,游戏观众们能够从这个视角去看待游戏。

收益又是怎么样的一种情况?游戏完全陷入了我们所说的商品化“问题”中了。每年电子游戏产业的盈利都会增长近2百亿美元。虽然在桌面游戏产业我找不到相关数据,但是以《Scrabble》和《大富翁》每年的销量来看,我们不难想象这也是个丰收的产业。如今,绝大多数游戏工作室制作游戏的目的都是为了赚钱,而有时候开发者便不得不在制作独特游戏与制作有利可图的游戏之间相互妥协了。

简单地来讲,如果你对这个领域感兴趣,那么你便可以花点时间来了解艺术历史。艺术评论家以及艺术历史学家的世界中已经明确了如何去判断“艺术”,追溯到1917年,当杜尚(游戏邦注:法国艺术家,被誉为“现代艺术的守护神”)在一个尿壶上签上自己的假名后,他便称其为一件艺术。事实上,很多开发者都认为艺术世界太过势力,所以拒绝承认游戏属于艺术范畴,但是这只是他们的片面想法;实际上,游戏被艺术评论家所注意到了。我自己的首部文献研究出现在1994年(而这一年刚好是PlayStation问世的前一年)。在我能够找到的所有案例中(也就是所有同行评议的学术文章),不仅对电子游戏进行了分析,而且也含蓄地暗示了游戏是一种艺术形式。我也未曾找到一篇文章会浪费大把时间去捍卫游戏的艺术表达形式,所以这只是一种先验假设。让我们克服这种迫害妄想,然后开始制作艺术游戏。

什么是艺术游戏?

要如何才能制作出一款以艺术表达为目的而非趋于娱乐的游戏?这就必须取决于“艺术”的含义了,而显然已经有许多游戏已经处于一种表达形式中了。你将会看到,这些游戏会分为几个类别。也许还有其它类别我未在这里提及,可能因为那些游戏的艺术性受到质疑,或者因为那是未被触及的一些领域。但是我所列出的这些类别将帮助你更好地认识所谓的艺术游戏。

我将列举出一些典型的游戏。如果条件允许的话你可以尝试看看。然后再做进一步讨论。这些游戏的游戏时间都很短,一般维持在几分钟之内,5分钟或者更短。也有一些较长的游戏,能够让你马上意识到游戏的大意,然后你便可以判断是否继续游戏。如果你有足够的时间,请试试这些游戏。

体验游戏

Jason Rohrer的《Passage》以及/或者《Gravitation》(分别游戏时间是5分钟和8分钟。)

Rod Humble的《The Marriage》(只需要几分钟游戏时间。)

Rod Humble的《Stars Over Half-Moon Bay》(只需要几分钟的游戏时间。)

Gonzalo Frasca的《September 12》(游戏时间不确定,但是玩家可以在短短1,2分钟内就知晓游戏机制。)

Amanita的《Samorost》(游戏时间很短。)

Jenova Chen的《Cloud》(游戏时间很短,但是在第一个关卡你便能够知晓主要的游戏机制,或者只需花费你几分钟的时间。)

经验教训

我想,关于游戏是否是“艺术”这一争议还会持续很长一段时间。对于我们而言,这是一种无意义的争论,但是如果你很想要通过游戏媒介而进行艺术表达,那这种争论对你来说就非常有意义了。

对于游戏设计者来说,学习艺术和艺术过程非常有用。如果你想知道在这个课程结束后你还可以做些什么,一个潜在的方法便是你可以进一步探索设计的内在意义。

尽管你并不是所谓的大师级人物,你也能够创造出具有艺术感的作品,并且通过创造过程更清楚地理解艺术和艺术家的定义。就像Koster在《Theory of Fun》中所说的:

“最重要的是,游戏和它们的设计者必须认可艺术和娱乐的相互联系,所有的艺术和所有的娱乐都在给观众出难题。但是所有的艺术和所有的娱乐也都在帮助我们理解一些混乱的局面。艺术和娱乐不应该用‘类型’区分,而应该用‘强度’进行识别。”

关于那些游戏……

我们可以从一些关于艺术的讨论中找到游戏的影子,因此我们能够从中找到一些线索而通过游戏设置去创造属于我们自己的艺术表达。我想在此陈述,以下内容都是我的个人见解,而你们也许会有不同的观点。我不认为意见不同有什么不好,因为后现代艺术允许我们从不同层面不同角度进行理解。

samorost 2(from samorost2.com)

samorost 2(from samorost2.com)

《Samorost》从视觉上看来就是一种“艺术”。它就像是一种具有交互性的画作:非常欢快的图像以及很棒的探索模式。创造者希望能够得到来自于玩家们的特别视觉反馈。

而《Cloud》进一步落实了这一点,它故意在观众的心里创造出一种情感回应(特别是当玩家们在盯着云朵时的那种天真烂漫)。我的一些学生发现这个部分实践起来过于困难,所以我便告诉他们,这是一个探索的过程,只是在尝试着回答游戏是否能够引起情感反应而已,所以不用太过执拗于这个过程而将其过于夸张化。

《Passage》和《Gravitation》都传达出了一种特别的观点或者感觉(。Rohrer尽最大的努力将自己的情绪直接体现在游戏设置中。而这两款游戏与《Cloud》的区别就在于后者的目标是创造一种情感,而前者则是创造者情感的自我表现。

《The Marriage》与Rohrer的游戏一样,但是前者比起情感,更侧重于表达观点(特别是Humble总是花大把的时间去刻画游戏机制)。

《September 12》同样也在传达一个观点(主要在说明残酷的战争是错误的),但是它却未进一步拓展这个观点。当Humble和Rohrer都在用游戏表达艺术家的观点和情绪的同时,《September 12》则在尝试着说服自己的观众。所以这不是一种探索,而是一种修辞,着重在目的上凸显于其它作品。

《Stars Over Half-Moon Bay》与《The Marriage》一样也是在表达一种观点(它是在陈述一个创造性的过程,即当一开始是晴空万里,但你进入这个神秘的创造过程后所有的一切是如何瞬间阴暗下来,最后当一切都再次明朗之后你又是如何创造出永恒。)游戏设计者和艺术家都在为了创造过程而努力,《Stars Over Half-Moon Bay》比起《The Marriage》更加“多元化”。理论上《The Marriage》会帮助那些想要了解长期关系的玩家解答答案,而《Stars Over Half-Moon Bay》则会直接告诉玩家其他设计者正在挑战他们的游戏。

如果按照McCloud的6大步骤去理解这些游戏,我们可以看到一些新型模式。以下是关于艺术游戏的一些潜在出发点:

把游戏当成是自我表现(“观点/目的”)的一种媒介。你也许是在表达一种感觉,一个观点或者一种意识形态。或许你只是想借此表达你自己,或者说服观众认可你的某些看法。对于情绪表达,从MDA中的“Aesthetics”说起,逆向来看:你希望玩家感受到何种情感,什么样的“Dynamics”能够诱发这种情感,以及最后什么样的“Mechanics”能够创造这种情感?对于观点表述,你要始终记得游戏是一种系统,所以你需要找到你想要表达的观点背后的那些系统,然后找到这些系统内部的游戏设置。

利用游戏去探索“游戏作为艺术媒介”的局限性(“形式”)。我们先从一个问题说起:游戏能否做到X?(不论所谓的“X”是什么)然后去设计一款游戏并尝试着做X,以回答这个问题。

创造一件传统的艺术品,带有交互式游戏因素(“外观”)。在这里,你的创造过程也许与游戏设计不同。

是否还有其它艺术品能够实践其它步骤?我认为答案是肯定的,但是我们还未完全找到它们。

家庭作业

今天我提供了一个关于设计的选择,但却不是基于体验级别(我不得不承认,我们中的许多人在这个领域还是新手,尽管我们的身份是游戏设计者),而是出于兴趣。这里有四个选项,是受到《Challenges》章节末尾的“非数字短游戏”的启发:

选项1(创造情感):设计一款非数字游戏将能够帮助儿童理解什么是悲伤。同样也带有规则和游戏所需组件。如果需要的话,也必须包含你是如何解决这个问题以及为何你认为你的游戏能够(或者不能)获得成功。

选项2(劝导):修改桌面游戏《RISK》而进一步倡导世界和平。按照最初所确立的规则去看待你所做的改变。如果需要的话,也可以适当评价你所付出的努力,不论它们是否成功,并思考原因。

选项3(探索游戏的界限):故意设计一款规则不完全的游戏,并要求规则制定者在游戏期间不断完善规则,从而让游戏实现可玩性。公开你的(不完整)规则。

选项4(探索媒介的本质):选择一款你认为具有艺术性或者能够鼓舞人心的数字游戏。为一款非数字版本游戏创造规则。注意不同的媒介会如何影响游戏体验,思考什么样的艺术观点是数字或非数字形式的最好表达方法。公开你的规则和评论。

游戏邦注:原文发表于2009年7月16日,所涉事件及数据以当时为准。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,拒绝任何不保留版权的转载,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

Level 6: Games and Art

At this point I’d like to take a brief diversion to go into the whole “can games be art?” thing. This may seem like a strange topic to cover in the middle of some heftier design principles. It’s also one of those tired old arguments that have been going on for years now, so why waste our time retreading old ground? I have a few reasons for including this in the syllabus, and you are free to debate the merits and drawbacks of its inclusion in this course.

The first reason for this topic is that for the next few weeks we’ll be talking about the whole concept of “fun” and how to make games more enjoyable. For most practicing game designers, this is their prime directive: Take This Game And Make It Fun. Before we go down that road, I want to make it clear that fun is not the only purpose of game design, and in fact that some games can be critically successful in their design goals even if they are not particularly “fun” in the way that most games are.

Second, as a debate that has been going on for ages, I want those who are new to the party to get a basic grounding in the debate. It’s one of those things that will certainly come up in conversation among designers from time to time, and I want the novices among you to be prepared to enter that discussion. For those of you who are quite familiar with this already, I hope to up the ante so that we can all proceed in these discussions at a higher level of discourse.

Third, so-called “art games” – that is, games that are made primarily for the purpose of artistic expression (as opposed to entertainment) – are reaching a critical mass. There are a lot of very talented people doing very interesting things in this space right now. A lot of art games are very simple and small in scope, made by a single person in a relatively short period of time. A lot of potential avenues are yet to be explored. This makes art games a wonderful opportunity for those who are looking to establish themselves as game designers.

And finally, I know just enough about art history and art criticism to be dangerous. I am therefore driven, to an extent, to talk about an area of personal interest… even though I acknowledge that it will undoubtedly get me into trouble at some point.

Course Announcements

For those paying close attention, I recently changed my Twitter username from @ai864 to @IanSchreiber, after urging from co-author Brenda Brathwaite (@bbrathwaite). The theory is that my actual name will be easier to remember… provided people learn to spell it correctly. Keep in mind, for those of you who tweet about this course regularly.

Mini-Challenge Results

Here are a small selection of the answers to the mini-challenge from last time (identify a physical sport with a feedback loop, and propose a rule change to eliminate it):

?8-ball (pocket billiards): Negative feedback loop is that the more of your own balls you sink, the fewer legal targets you have. Rule change: sunk balls are reset on the table, first to sink any seven of their balls can attempt to sink the 8-ball for the win. Alternate rule change: after failing to sink a ball, opponent automatically gets a point.

?Martial arts, boxing, and similar: Positive feedback loop is that the more you injure your opponent, the less likely they are to retaliate. Rule change: wait a day between rounds. (Impractical perhaps, although it would probably cut down on serious injury.)

?Soccer, Basketball, and most other team sports: Negative feedback loop where after scoring, the ball is given to the other team. Rule change: after scoring, use a “jump ball” or equivalent to give both teams an equal chance to reclaim the ball.

?Croquet: Positive feedback loop is that you get bonus swings for hitting wickets. Rule change: make the bonus swings optional, keep track of total number of swings throughout the game, lowest number of swings wins.

?Most professional sports: Positive feedback loop is that a team that wins a lot gets more money (from fans, sponsorships, etc.), which lets them buy better players, which makes it more likely they will continue to win. Rule change: not given. (This is actually a real struggle with some professional sports, because it is more exciting to watch a game if you feel like both teams have a chance to win. In the real world, some proposals to fix this include drafts and salary caps. Sports that don’t do something to prevent this feedback loop tend to lose popularity. I’m looking at you, American Baseball.)

?Cycling, auto racing, and similar: Negative feedback loop is the ability to draft behind the person in front of you, letting you save energy so that you can overtake them later. Rule change: race in a vacuum. (Very funny, wise guy.)

Readings

Due to the positive response from Monday, I’ll continue putting the readings up front. Go do these now:

?Challenges for Game Designers, Chapter 17 (Games as Art)

?A Theory of Fun for Game Design, Chapter 12 (Taking Their Rightful Place), if you chose to acquire this book.

?Understanding Comics, Chapter 7 (The Six Steps), if you chose to acquire this book.

What is Art?

Understanding Comics is, as you may have seen, a comic book about the art form of comic books. If you have read Chapter 7, you will immediately see a number of parallels between comic book art and game design… aside from the public image problem that both have of being “not serious” and “just for kids.”

McCloud starts off by making an attempt to define “art” as anything that is not done for the intent of survival or reproduction. Most students I’ve talked to think this is an overly broad definition, but of course few can offer anything better. For what it’s worth, if you accept this definition, then “games are art” is not a difficult leap – after all, when you’re deeply concentrating on clearing the next Left 4 Dead level, or considering your next move in a game of Chess, you are probably not doing much to aid in either your real-world survival or reproduction (unless you play Chess in a uniquely erotic way, in which case I really do not need to hear about it).

I’ve heard the definition of art as something that is communicative and transformative. This is also overly broad, but also clearly includes games.

Dictionary.com defines art as the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. By that definition, a game with lots of “eye candy,” or a game that is more than “just a game” for any reason, can be considered art.
Wikipedia defines art as the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. Games have formal elements that can be deliberately designed. Games can appeal to senses, obviously, through their visual properties if nothing else. Games can also appeal to emotions – two oft-cited examples from the video game world are the death of Floyd in Planetfall and the death of Aerith in Final Fantasy VII, although notice how emotional some people can get even by watching a sports game on television, or how many friendships and romantic relationships have ended over a game of Diplomacy.

My intent is not to define the term art; it is about as difficult and about as fruitless as the quest to define the word game. Rather, my point is that no matter what definition of “art” you find, it does not seem particularly difficult to include games within that definition.

Why the problem, then?

If games fit any reasonable definition of “art” that we can think of, you might wonder why this is even a debate. Why the claims, real or imagined, that “games cannot be art”?

Here it is useful to make a distinction between just plain old “art” and the more highbrow “fine art” or “high art” – the kind of timeless art that captures and communicates the essence of the human experience. Shakespeare. Da Vinci. Monet. That kind of thing. The argument, then, might not be that games are not “art” in the sense that they can be purposefully and deliberately crafted, but rather that games cannot reach the status of “high art” due to something inherent in the medium.

I won’t say much about this because it is largely covered in Clint Hocking’s essay On Authorship in Games, which he generously gave permission to reprint in the Challenges text.

At any rate, if you’re noticing a theme in the readings, you can see where I personally stand on the issue. We may not have the game equivalent of Mona Lisa or Citizen Kane yet, but that just means an opportunity. So, let us move past this. Let’s assume for the moment that games can be a valid medium for artistic expression, and start talking about how one might go about doing so.

Six Steps

I wanted to make two key points in reference to the reading in Understanding Comics. The first was McCloud’s definition of art, above. The second is the six layers of art:

?Idea/Purpose. What is the message to be expressed, the seed of an idea for a story that must be told? Why are you creating a work of art at all?
?Form. What artistic medium will you use to express your message? Oil paints? Sculpture? Interpretive dance? Comic books? Games?

?Idiom. What McCloud calls idiom is more commonly called genre when referring to games. First-person shooter, real-time strategy, vehicle simulation, MMORPG, and so on (or for board games: resource management games, roll-and-move track games, trivia games, dice games, tile-laying games, gambling games…).

?Structure. In stories, this is the basic plot arc, characters, and other building blocks. In games, we might call this the “core mechanics” of the game. What are the structural components that form the core of the user/viewer/player experience?

?Craft. In comic books, this includes how well a story is told. With games, it is the ability to make your rules and play experience streamlined and natural, so that the players are not struggling with the rules but rather enjoying the play.

?Surface. This is the outer-layer experience: the colors, sounds, visuals, beauty, attention to the details that are immediately sensed. The “eye candy” of the piece.

McCloud notes that a typical comic book viewer experiences a work from the surface inward. First you see the surface; then, looking deeper, you enjoy the story. Looking even further, you can see the ideas behind the story, and perhaps appreciate a groundbreaking artist even if their drawing quality isn’t as high as you’d like. With even more study, you can see divisions between different genres and styles, and even understand the reason why certain story elements or other conventions occur within a genre. Looking ever deeper, you can eventually gain an appreciation for the medium of comic books, understanding the ways that make it unique as an art form; and, you can see the ideas behind a work, the purpose behind what is essentially timeless literature.

You might notice that this all applies to games as well.

McCloud also notes that, while a work is encountered from the “outside in” it is still created from the “inside out” – the creator must first choose an idea and a form and then choose an idiom within that form, before ever putting pen to paper. These choices might be deliberate or they might be made rashly or emotionally, but they must be decided first. Then the structure must be defined; then the details fleshed out in craft; and finally the surface must be created.

Does this sound familiar? It should. It is, for the most part, a restatement of the MDA Framework.

Actually, I think of McCloud’s six steps as an extension of MDA. Mechanics are roughly equivalent to McCloud’s Structure; Dynamics are analogous to Craft; and Aesthetics are similar to Surface. It’s not a direct parallel, but it is close. In both cases, the consumer is concerned with the surface, while the true artist looks toward the inner core of the artistic process.

Towards an Artistic Process

If MDA represents the outer three layers of a piece of art, how do we represent the inner three layers? To answer this, we again turn to McCloud’s model.

McCloud takes one additional, important step behind LeBlanc et al. He states that while works are experienced from the outside in and created from the inside out, artists and other creators follow a process of learning from the outside in.

Think about it. What was your first “Great Idea” for a game? It probably concerned the surface characteristics of a game that you liked. “It’ll be just like Pac-Man meets Space Invaders. Only better!” Many people start out by “modding” a game that they like, taking existing gameplay and simply changing some of the surface characteristics – changing the appearance of characters in a game, reskinning everything so that instead of Marines Shooting Aliens In Space, the game now looks like Wizards Battling Dragons In The Mountains. Same mechanics, same dynamics, different surface.

And then what happened? Maybe you played enough games to see past the surface, to see that some games with dragons and fireballs and wizards are fun but others are not, and that the difference comes not from the story or the genre but from the gameplay. And you start to see the different types of play, and which types are and aren’t fun. With further experience and study you can get a good feel for what kinds of mechanics lead to compelling gameplay. And maybe that’s all you want or need, to become an established designer who is known for making games in established genres that are fun.

But if you look a little past that, you’ll start asking: where do genres come from? Who decides that a certain set of core mechanics can be copied from game to game, with variations, and that this particular set of mechanics creates good gameplay? How are new genres created? Is there a process for doing what no one else has done before, finding an elusive set of compelling mechanics that have not been discovered yet? And you could become renowned for creating one or more new genres of gameplay. You may or may not be able to take those genres and polish them as far as they can go, but you can create something that other people can take, those who work closer to the surface, who can then use your core ideas and perfect them.

Is that all you can do? It is probably more than any of us would aspire to in our lifetimes. And yet, you might wonder if there is something more. And there are two paths to explore: Idea and Form.

If you explore form, you can push the boundaries of the medium. What are games capable of? Can they generate emotions in the player (other than adrenaline rush and power fantasy)? What kinds of things can be expressed through games better than any other artistic medium? How can you use games in ways that the medium has not been used before – not just new gameplay styles, and not just new ways to have fun, but as a means of expression or transformation in the player? Can you change someone’s mind? Can you change their life? Can you touch them in ways that a painting or movie cannot? How? And then you create experimental work, probably very small games, that explore some aspect of what games as a medium can and can’t do. These games might not be particularly interesting or compelling to a wide audience, but they will give a lot of ideas to others who work within the medium, who can then use your experiments and modify them to express their own meaningful ideas.

If you explore idea/purpose, you instead have a message you want to communicate to the world, and you have chosen games as your preferred method of expression. Here, the challenge is to communicate in a medium where the player, and not the designer, is in control of the experience. You must use every trick you know in order to provide meaning through gameplay. What ideas do you want to express? What deep meaning exists in your life, that you want to share?

Lots of questions, few answers…

You might be wondering at this point if I have any answers at all about how to do this. I do not, but this is because of the nature of art.

This course is concerned primarily with the outer three layers of the art of game design: Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics (or if you prefer, Structure, Craft and Surface). Teaching you how to make compelling games by creating their rules is already a daunting task for a ten-week course; teaching you to create new genres or to push the boundaries of the medium are a bit much.

But beyond that, as McCloud says, the inner three layers can’t be learned from a class or a book. To reach an understanding of the inner core of an art form, you will have to spend your entire career, maybe 20 or 30 years or more, working towards this on your own. And that’s only if you want to. You may have no interest in this, and that is perfectly okay. The world may need more people pushing the boundaries of games as an artistic medium… but the world still needs some good games, too. Only you know how far you can or want to take your art. It is not my place to tell you, but rather to point you to a road map that will let you get where you want to go.

And now, a little art history.

This is the part that always gets me into trouble, because a lot of people are mistrustful and cynical of contemporary art. Some guy calling himself an “artist” can poop in a tin can and sell it to an art gallery for 20,000 Euros, and the rest of us wonder how we can get people to pay us that much for our own excrement. This is art? And if so… is this what games aspire to be? It helps to take a step back and look at how we got this way, because games fit in quite nicely with contemporary art, and we should really understand why.

Let’s take a trip back to the Renaissance, when painting was elevated to an art form. At that time, art was supposed to be a faithful representation of the world; the picture frame could be thought of as a window through which you could view this other reality. The more realistic a piece of art depicted a scene, the better the artist. Judging art was as simple as seeing how lifelike it was – simple! And then around the 1890s, the photographic camera was invented and it ruined everything.

Now, with photographs being able to create a 100% perfect reproduction, the old form of art suddenly became obsolete. Painters had to ask themselves the question: what now?

The artist Wassily Kandinsky, followed by many others, started by asking if art could be its own object, rather than a representation of something else: what if a canvas is a “screen” rather than a “window” or “mirror”? And thus came what is now called abstract art, art that is not symbolic or representative of anything except itself.

How do you judge this kind of art? How can you tell an artist that is genuinely talented and inspired, from a poser who just flings paint randomly at a canvas and waits for undeserved accolades?

The influential critic Clement Greenberg offered a solution: judge art purely on its aesthetic value. Technical execution is king. The artist is the creator, and a good artwork should provide the same aesthetic value, regardless of who, if anyone, is viewing it. Greenberg formalized what is now referred to as “modern art” (modern here refers to a specific time period in the general range of 1910 through 1950, and is not to be confused with contemporary art which is the art of today).

Over the next few decades, the art world experienced a rejection of Greenbergian formalism, insisting that art should not be passive but interactive; it should be a dialogue between artist and viewer; art is allowed to have multiple interpretations; art should carry meaning. This era was referred to as “postmodern” art.

During the 1960s and 70s especially, art ran into a potential problem: it became a hot commodity and suddenly big-name artists were worth a lot of money. (I hear you saying: gosh, we should all have such “problems.”) Still, a lot of artists felt their work was being devalued in the sense that they made it for a purpose and instead it was being treated as a commodity. The work is not as important as the name attached to it. And while it was nice for some artists to earn a healthy living, it was at the cost of “selling out”… something that no all artists were willing to compromise on.

Now look at games. Does any of this sound familiar?

How do we judge games? Numeric review scores. Technical execution. Critical praise for the audio or graphics. Game reviews give “fun” a rating from 1 to 5, implying that what is fun for the reviewer will be equally fun for every reader. The current state of game critique is the equivalent of Greenbergian formalism. We are, apparently, stuck in an odd time warp that takes us back to 1930.

Are games more Modern or Postmodern? Are they passive, or interactive? Do games produce different play experiences for different individuals, or does a game provide the same experience for everyone? Do games simply carry visuals, or are they capable of carrying a greater meaning embedded in their mechanics? You may disagree, but I see games as very much of a Postmodern art form. I hope that some day, game reviewers start looking at games in this light.

What about money? Games are definitely suffering the “problem” of being commoditized. The video game industry exceeds $20 Billion per year these days. I don’t have any figures for the board game industry, but given how many millions of copies of Scrabble and Monopoly are sold each year, I’d imagine it is significant. Most major studios exist to make games that make money, and sometimes developers must compromise between their desire to make something unique and something that will sell.

What is the point of all of this? Simply that if this is an area of interest for you, it is worth your time to study art history. The world of art critics and art historians already figured out how to judge if something is “art” or not, back in 1917 when Duchamp signed a pseudonym to a urinal and called it art. In fact, while many developers imagine the art world snobbily refusing to acknowledge games as worthy of attention, this is just fantasy; the reality is that games have been on the radar of art critics for awhile now. My own literature search turned up articles as early as 1994 (this was a year before the first PlayStation was released, mind you). In all of the cases I could find – and I’m talking peer-reviewed academic art journals – not only are video games being analyzed, but there is an implicit assumption that games are art. I did not find any articles that wasted any time defending games as a means of artistic expression; it was an a priori assumption. Let’s get over our delusions of persecution, then, and make some art.

What are Art Games?

How does one go about designing a game that is artistic in its purpose rather than purely entertainment-driven? This really depends on what counts as “art,” as there are many games out there already that are primarily made as a form of expression. As you’ll see, they fall into several categories. There may be other categories I am missing here… partly because there are undoubtedly games that could be called “art” that I have not yet seen, and partly because this is a largely unexplored space. But these should give you some starting points.

I’ll give you a few games to play. Go ahead and play them first, if you can. Then, read down for further discussion. The following games are all playable in just a few minutes, usually five or less. Those that take longer, will at least give you the general idea of gameplay right away, and you can play them for longer or not. Play some or all, as your time allows.

Playings

?Passage and/or Gravitation, by Jason Rohrer. (5 and 8 minute play times, respectively.)

?The Marriage, by Rod Humble. (Playable in just a few minutes.)

?Stars Over Half-Moon Bay, by Rod Humble. (Playable in just a few minutes.)

?September 12, by Gonzalo Frasca. (Plays indefinitely, but the mechanics are simple and immediately apparent within the first minute or two.)

?Samorost, by Amanita. (Takes awhile to play through completely.)

?Cloud, by Jenova Chen. (Takes awhile to play to completion, but it shows you the major mechanics in the first level, which only takes a few minutes)

Lessons Learned

The question of whether games can be “art” will continue to be debated for some time, I’d imagine. For our purposes, it is a rather fruitless debate; if you are interested in making an artistic expression through the medium of games, then do so.

Studying art and the artistic process further can be useful to game designers. If you’re wondering what to do after this course ends, that is one of many potential avenues you can explore to deepen your understanding of design.

Even if you are not looking to be an artiste, you may still be creating art in a sense, and it is good to understand a little bit of what art is and what artists do. As Koster says in today’s Theory of Fun reading:

“Most importantly, games and their designers need to acknowledge that there is no distinction between art and entertainment… all art and all entertainment are posing problems to the audience. All art and all entertainment are prodding us toward greater understanding of the chaotic patterns we see swirl around us. Art and entertainment are not terms of type – they are terms of intensity.”
Now, About Those Playings…

By looking at some of the games that seem to be referenced a lot in discussions of art, we can get some clues about how we might go about creating our own artistic statements through gameplay. I should be clear that what follows are my own personal interpretations of these works, and your experiences (and the artists’ intent) may vary. I do not see this as a problem; Postmodern art allows for multiple interpretations and multiple layers of meaning.

Samorost is “art” mostly in the visual sense. It is like an interactive painting: very pleasant graphics, and a nice form of exploration. The creators are going for a particular visual reaction in the player.

Cloud takes this a step further, deliberately trying to create an emotional response in the viewer (specifically, the emotion of childlike wonder when gazing up at the clouds). Some of my students have found it coming off a bit heavy-handed in this department, and I remind them that this was an exploratory work that was trying to answer the question of whether games could induce emotion at all, so one can expect it to be a little wide of the mark.

Passage and Gravitation both express a specific idea or feeling (that of death and dying, or parenthood, respectively). Rohrer took his own emotions and did his best to translate them directly into gameplay. The difference between these games and Cloud is that Cloud’s goal is to create an emotion; with Passage and Gravitation, the goal is self-expression of the creator’s emotions.

The Marriage is similar to Rohrer’s work, but The Marriage is expressing an idea rather than an emotion (specifically, Humble is attempting to detail the mechanics behind a long-term relationship, hence the title).

September 12 also expresses an idea (mainly, that declaring war on terror is a flawed concept), but it takes things one step further. While Humble’s and Rohrer’s work is simply an expression of the artist’s ideas and emotions, September 12 is an attempt to persuade the audience. This is not exploration, but rhetoric, making it slightly different in purpose than the others.

Stars Over Half-Moon Bay is similar to The Marriage in that it is expressing an idea (in this case, it is making some statements on the creative process and how you start with an open sky of possibilities, then things get cloudy as you enter this mysterious process of creativity and innovation, and at the end things crystallize and you put together the pieces to make something permanent. As game designers and other artists struggle with the creative process, Stars is a bit more “meta” than The Marriage. While The Marriage could theoretically speak to an audience of anyone who wants to understand long-term relationships, Stars is speaking directly to an audience of other game designers on the challenges of their medium.

Looking at these in the context of McCloud’s six steps, we can see some patterns emerging. Here are some potential starting points for art games:

?Use games as a medium of self-expression (“Idea/Purpose”). You might express a feeling, an idea, or an ideology. You may simply be presenting your expression, or actually persuading the audience to your point of view. For emotional expression, start with the Aesthetics (in the MDA sense) and work backwards: what emotion do you want the player to feel, what Dynamics would cause that emotion, and finally what Mechanics can create that kind of play? For expression of ideas, remember that games are systems; find the systems behind the ideas that you want to express, and then find the gameplay inherent in those systems. (I should mention my co-author’s series of games in progress, including Train, which are exploring the systems behind human atrocity. Unfortunately these games are non-digital and therefore I cannot simply give you a link to play them. But I did want to point them out, lest anyone think that only video games are capable of being artistic.)

?Use games to explore the limitations of games-as-artistic-medium (“Form”). In this case, start with a question: can games do X (whatever “X” is)? Then, try to answer that question by designing a game that tries to do X.

?Create a traditional work of art, with interactive game-like elements (“Surface”). In this case your creative process may be different than that of game design.

Are there other artistic works you can do in the other steps? I think there are, but we have not heavily explored them yet.

Homeplay

Today I offer a choice of designs, based not on experience level (I must admit that most of us are novices in this area, even if we are experienced game designers) but on area of interest. Here are four options, all inspired by the “non-digital shorts” at the end of the Challenges chapter:

Option 1 (Creating emotions): Design a non-digital game that introduces children to the concept of grief. Post the rules and required components. If desired, also include commentary on how you approached this problem and why you think your game does (or does not) succeed.

Option 2 (Persuasion): Modify the board game RISK to advocate world peace. Post your changes to the original rules. If desired, also include commentary on what you were trying to do, whether you think you were successful, and why or why not.

Option 3 (Exploring the boundaries of games): Design a game that has intentionally incomplete rules, requiring player authorship of rules during the play of the game in order for it to be playable. Post your (incomplete) rules.

Option 4 (Exploring the nature of the medium): Choose a digital game that you consider to be artistic and inspiring. Create the rules for a non-digital version of it. Note how the difference in medium affects the experience; think about what kinds of artistic ideas are best expressed in digital or non-digital form. Post your rules, plus commentary.(source:gamedesignconcepts)

http://gamedesignconcepts.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/level-6-games-and-art/


上一篇:

下一篇: