作者：Adrian Lopez

叙事化游戏设计的最高标准是在游戏中精心构建出玩家可以像现实生活中那样对其产生影响的故事。目标就是，游戏中的故事同传统故事一样吸引人，同时实现玩家体验的多样性。

对于内容主要由人类编写的游戏来说，创造出如此灵活的叙事几乎是不可实现的，因为玩家可能做出的选择确实非常多，任何作者都无法做出全面的考虑。对于内容主要由电脑算法动态生成的游戏来说，当前的人工智能方法还不足以制作出极具吸引力的故事。

因而，较为实际的目标是让玩家的选择数量有限但却是很重要：数量有限可以将可能的选择和结果限定在开发者能考虑到的范围内，减轻其工作量，而选择的重要性使得玩家可以感受到自己的选择对游戏环境产生深远的影响。即便如此，将叙事和游戏玩法成功融合起来也是件很难实现的事情。

游戏应当向玩家提供有意义的选择

Too many choices(from dmn3.com)

“做X是否比做Y更好？为什么？”

玩家在做有效决定时，需要提供比该类型游戏平时提供的更多信息。游戏叙事的构建目标是，玩家多数情况下做出的决定都有理有据。这并不意味着需要突出显示最优选择或玩家无需探索思考就可以找到最佳选择，而是游戏必须让玩家预测动作可能产生的后果。需要让玩家明白自己选择的动作会产生何种后果，游戏应当随时提供足够的相关信息。

不可让玩家对做决定感到恐惧

“如果我做出错误的决定又会怎样呢？我能否重新做出决定，抑或这种错误永远无法更改？”

玩家可能对动作带来的后果感到恐惧，产生某些人所称的“分析瘫痪”的情况。出现这种情况的原因可能是玩家缺乏充足的信息来判断选择可能产生的结果，也可能是游戏的设计方式使得玩家期望自己此刻做出的选择能够对随后的体验有所帮助。应当让玩家知道做出“错误”决定不会对他们的游戏体验造成灾难性的影响。要避免使用长期的消极结果，让玩家可以从不如意的结果中恢复过来。

不可让玩家觉得自己被忽视

“如果我选择做Y而不是做X，那么会发生什么事？如果那样的话，结果会不会更好？”

给予玩家多种选择，意味着玩家无法看到全部的故事。虽然这样做的确会提升游戏的重玩价值，但有些玩家不会为了看他们错过的部分而将整款游戏再玩一次。设置多个结局只是一种小花招。可以考虑将玩家未做出的选择路径添加到随后的体验中，狭隘的选择并不能营造出真正的自由感。

避免选择错觉

或许你会给玩家提供大量的选择，但是如果所有选择的结果都是相同的话，那么你提供的就是选择错觉。正如之前已经提过的那样，提供重要选择意味着游戏中玩家的选择会产生不同的结果。不要向玩家提供毫无差别的选择。

叙事谜题

与现实生活相比，玩家在游戏中的选择数量极为有限，避免在“选择你自己的冒险历程”类型的故事中采用肤浅和虚假的个性化叙事，可以将叙事元素整合到游戏谜题中，使其成为游戏机制的一部分。有些游戏要求玩家操控物体来解决谜题，那么带有叙事谜题的游戏就要求玩家操控对话和故事元素来寻求解谜方案。这可以避免故事分支复杂化的问题，同时在游戏叙事背景下提供有意义的选择。

游戏邦注：本文发稿于2006年11月8日，所涉时间、事件和数据均以此为准。（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）

Narrative and Consequences

Adrian Lopez

The holy grail of narrative game design is a game with a carefully constructed narrative that players can influence to the same degree as their real lives. The goal is to have stories that are every bit as engaging as traditional narratives but created in such a way as to enable a rich variety of player experiences.

For games in which content is written primarily by human beings, creating such flexible narratives is almost certainly impossible given the number of potential choices for the player — far too many for any author to account for. On the other hand, for games in which content might be generated dynamically with the aid of computer algorithms, current Artificial Intelligence approaches aren’t advanced enough to produce engaging narratives.

A less ambitious goal, therefore, is to make games in which players’ decisions are limited but significant: limited because the possible choices and outcomes are only a small subset of those that would otherwise be available, and significant because the players’ choices make sense to them and have a perceptible effect upon each game’s environment. Even so, merging together narrative and gameplay is difficult to accomplish successfully.

Players should be offered meaningful choices

“Is doing X a better choice than doing Y? Why?”

For players to make effective decisions they need more information than games of this type typically provide. A game’s narrative should be crafted in such a way that players can, in most cases, make informed decisions. This doesn’t mean that optimal choices should be obvious or require no work to ascertain, but that players should be given the chance to foresee, to a reasonable degree, the possible consequences of their actions. Always provide enough information for players to have some idea of what the outcomes of their actions might be.

Players shouldn’t be afraid to make decisions

“What if I make the wrong decision? Can I try again or am I stuck with it forever?”

Players may fear the possible consequences of their actions, leading to what some people call “analysis paralysis”. It may be that players lack sufficient information as to the possible outcomes of their choices, or it may be the game is designed in such a way that players expect the consequences of their actions to follow them for the rest of the game. Players should have enough confidence in the game’s design to know their experiences will not be ruined by making the “wrong” choices. Avoid long-term negative consequences and allow players to recover from undesirable outcomes.

Players shouldn’t feel like they’re missing out

“What would’ve happened if I’d done Y instead of X? What if the alternate ending was better?”

Having multiple paths for players to follow means players don’t get to see all of your story. While this conceivably adds to the game’s replay value, there are players who would rather not play through the entire game a second time just to see the parts they missed. Alternate endings are often little more than a gimmick, a testament to the narrow set of choices offered to players. Consider whether paths not chosen really add to the player experience and keep in mind that a narrow set of choices does not truly afford a sense of freedom.

Avoid the illusion of choice

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

It may be tempting to have a large number of alternatives for players to choose from, but if all the alternatives lead to the same outcome then all you’re doing is providing the illusion of choice. As already stated, providing significant choices means that players’ choices actually make a difference in the game. Avoid offering choices that don’t make any difference.

Narrative puzzles

In light of the fact that players’ choices are severely limited compared to real life, avoid shallow, falsely personalized narratives in the style of “Choose Your Own Adventure” stories and instead make your narrative elements integral parts of your games’ puzzles — into parts of the games’ mechanics. Just like some games call for the manipulation of objects in solving puzzles, games with narrative puzzles call for the manipulation of dialogue and story elements in pursuit of each puzzle’s solution. This avoids the problem of complicated branching while still providing meaningful choices in the context of each game’s narrative. (Source: Theory and Principles of Game Design)