作者：Kars

游戏设计领域与交互设计有何直接联系？我发现自己经常在这两者的界线间来回徘徊。我所好奇的是：游戏设计能否被当成交互设计的一个特殊的副学科，或者说它们之间存在着一些重叠内容？（或者甚至有人认为交互设计是游戏设计中的一部分？）

下图是我眼中这两个领域之间的关系：

interaction design & game design(from leapfrog)

如此看来，交互设计和游戏设计既有属于自己的专业知识，也有着与对方相融合的内容。从这个角度看来，某些信息完全可以在这两个领域之间通用。假设我是位于交互设计圈里，那么我会偶尔进入游戏设计领域并带回一些我认为有趣的内容。

但是，我们至少还可以从一个不同的角度去看待这两个领域：

interaction design & game design(from leapfrog)

我曾经接受交互式设计的培训。但是其中也有部分课程是关于游戏设计。但是因为近来交互设计过多地强调效能，所以开始逐渐偏离与游戏设计之间的交集。在乌特列兹艺术学院（游戏邦注：欧洲中大型艺术与文化导向型学校）中，这两个领域则未存在任何差异。有人会认为这是一种较大的疏忽，也有人觉得这是一种很有远见的看法。

不管怎么样，也有人会认为游戏设计只是交互设计的一个特殊的副学科，但是这也不是说游戏设计比“有规律的”交互设计价值更低。只要人们合理地看待两个领域之间的关系，便能够同时在两边更好地进行自己的实践。

但是事实却并非如此，这两个领域，或者更切却地说是两个实践学科之间已经越来越独立了。而我也一直在尝试着用自己的方法去改变它们。

但这也许只是我作为一名交互设计者想要证明自己对于游戏设计感兴趣的一种手段罢了。

不过这也许并不全是一些专业观点。虽然我也不是很确定，但是有一些观察结果也许可以用来证实某些非专业观点：

尽管Salen和Zimmerman已经对游戏做出了足够明确的定义，但是他们对于“玩”游戏的定义却非常广泛：“玩是刚性结构框架里一种非常自由的活动。”难道这不就是关于人们交互式活动一个恰如其分的描述？

交互设计协会（Interaction Design Association）在其网站上宣称他们关注：“交互式产品和服务的结构和行为。”说实在的这是否也包含了数字游戏？

我曾经记得Koster关于游戏设计的描述，他认为游戏是让人们与他人进行接触。而在我心中，这种定义就是交互设计。

游戏邦注：原文发表于2008年1月4日，所涉事件和数据均以当时为准。（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）

Game Design Is ‘Just’ Specialised Interaction Design

By Kars

How exactly do the fields of game design and interaction design relate? I’ve found myself straddling the line between the two more and more often. And what I’ve been wondering: Can game design be considered a specialised sub-discipline of interaction design, or are the two equals with some overlap? (Or can interaction design perhaps even be considered part of game design?)

Here’s a diagram of how I tend to think of the relationship between the two fields:

Seen this way, interaction design and game design each have their own body of knowledge with some overlap. From this perspective you could consider my work to be brokering of some sort—passing information back and forth between the two. I tend to place myself in the interaction design circle, making the occasional foray into game design territory and bringing back interesting stuff I find.

But there’s at least one other way of looking at these two fields:

I was trained to be an interaction designer. But part of the curriculum consisted of game design. Nowadays interaction design’s emphasis on efficiency naturally makes it irreconcilable with game design. At the Utrecht School of Arts, these two were not seen as being at odds with each other. You can consider this a gross oversight, or alternatively as proof of a far-reaching vision. Whatever.

In any case, it can be argued that (digital) game design is simply a very specialised sub-discipline of interaction design. This is not to say it is in any way less valuable than ‘regular’ interaction design. However, it might help people in both fields to advance their practice if they look at each other this way.

The problem is of course that in reality the two fields—or to be more exact the two communities of practice—are very much separate from each other. I’ve been trying to make some change there, in my own little way.

On the other hand this might just be me trying to justify my interest in game design as an interaction designer…

But perhaps there’s something more than just professional guilt at play here. I’m not sure yet. Some observations that might support one or the other view:

Although their definition of games is very exact, Salen & Zimmerman‘s definition of play is broader: “Play is free movement within a more rigid structure.” Isn’t that an apt description of what people do with anything interactive?

The Interaction Design Association defines interaction design on their site and says it concerns: “the structure and behavior of interactive products and services”. Surely that includes digital games?

I don’t have the book with me at the moment, but I seem to remember Koster mention something about game design ultimately being about putting people in touch with each other. Sounds like interaction design to me. （source:leapfrog）