作者：Raph Koster

【在游戏圈内，极端的程序型游戏制作人和极端的艺术型游戏制作人之间出现了一道裂缝。资深游戏人Raph Koster认为，两极分化不能促进游戏行业发展。】

在这场两个极端派的论战中，我就像个把小孩子从草坪上骂走的怪老头。

Raph Koster(from flickr.com)

看了Neils Clark的《Fun is Boring》（特别是Keith Burgun的评论）和让我眼前一亮的《Designing for Grace》两文后，我又一次卡在两种游戏设计文化之间的缝隙里，这两个极端使得圈内争论不断。先看看Jonas Kyratzes在《Designing for Grace》中说的话：

说剧情是一种反馈形式而不是一种游戏机制，与其说是发表错误的论断不如说是在不同时空不同星球用不同语言发表一个关于不同事物的论断。

不会吧！都把文化差距说到这份上了。现在，他继续讨论他的游戏宗旨就是“优雅”，他将其定义为一种非常真实东西，但怀有程序员心态的人是无法理解的。

这真让我恼火，因为我从事艺术工作的时间相当于Jonas Kyratzes的年龄。

但我完全没有朝他抱怨，真的，因为Jonas Kyratzes正在寻找游戏的价值。但等等，我们再看看Keith Burgun的评论：

Raph的乐趣理论不是理论，就像我们这个可悲年代里的如此之多的游戏设计书，这个所谓的理论只是试图将所有电子游戏都打包成某个全面包容的“概要”。

所有这些设计书的问题在于，它们根本就不是理论，且基本上是这么说的：“有时可以这样做，有时可以那样做，有时还可以这样做，我也不知道，总之多试试吧。”……

不可能有什么真正的游戏设计理论，除非我们能将“电子游戏”划分成更小的实用类别。也就是说，竞赛不同于幻想模拟游戏；益智游戏不等于互动式小说（游戏邦注：互动式小说，是以文字输入输出为主的一种游戏类型。此游戏以软体模拟环境，令玩家使用文字指令控制角色，以影响周边的情景。其运作方式可以理解为用电脑来进行文学叙事。）；玩具不是游戏。

乐趣理论提出已有十年之久。我当然希望这个领域自那以后有所发展。但显然，我的程序心态还不够。看到这某些人利用一篇几乎只是在重述Chris Crawford三十年前就说过的东西的文章引发争议，却说出这样的话，让我有些愤怒。

好吧，我忍了，至少Keith Burgun在很努力地寻找游戏的真谛。

所以看吧，我不只是在说那些挑我话茬的人。这不是自卫行为，而是指出越多人无法摆脱他们根深蒂固的观念，我们就越没可能得到真理或有价值的东西。

我想问题在于，有一些设计师认为另一些设计师怀的纯粹是程序心态，而另一些设计师又把某些设计师视为艺术疯子。

（值得指出的是，这场论战，相对于整个基本上只关心在经济萧条时期捞足钱付房租的游戏产业，也就是茶杯里的一场暴风雨。）我不认识任何“纯程序心态的设计师”，至少我绝对不知道哪个“纯工程心态的设计师”是成功的。我严重同意Keith的说法，当我们指出什么东西不是游戏时，主张那东西的人好像就生气了。

我喜欢Anna Anthropy的作品，但我也擦亮眼看到这么个真相，许多用PPT就能完成的《Dys4ia》（游戏邦注：《Dys4ia》是由Anna Anthropy制作的一个自传性游戏，讲的主要是作者开始激素取代疗法的生活）确实不是游戏。这不是价值判断。我对一件作品是否有艺术表现力的价值判断可是相当高的。

就文化来说，时代观念变了。所以，我们这些努力追求艺术心态的人却被告之我们是怀有机械式程序心态的人。对那些艺术主张更激进的人来说，这是他们得胜的信号。

当然，这也意味着我们现在到处有赶时髦的、自我放纵、艺术的、自恋的、怠慢的、自命不凡的作品，而人们认为这就是推动游戏领域发展的一种真实的或最好的方法。

我们的科技比以前进步了，让我们可以更好地理解游戏机制和玩家心理。当然，这也意味着游戏不道德地利用玩家的心理，牺牲了我们的玩家换取万能的金钱。

站在这一极的每个人都对自己的观点热情澎湃，而总是视相反的那一极为幼稚和邪恶观点。是啊，两极各有过失。

我认为应该有更多人站在中间，两头关注。剧情设计者应该用计数器、骰子而不是故事来做游戏。系统设计者应该制作有情节的游戏。营销人员应该做一些人们真正关心的事。最后，所有理论家都应该真正地去读读已经存在的理论。（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）

Opinion: Two cultures and games

by Raph Koster

[There is a rift in the game development community between the extremely engineering-focused game makers, and the ones who are extremely art-focused. That divide isn't helping the craft advance, says industry veteran Raph Koster. (Reprinted with permission.)]

In which I act like a crotchety old man urging the kids off my lawn.

Between this piece at Gamasutra by Neils Clark (and especially Keith Burgun’s comments in the discussion thread), and this blog post that caught my eye, “Designing for Grace,” I am struck once again by the way in which the gap between two cultures is causing strife in the game design community. I mean, take a look at what Jonas Kyratzes says in “Designing for Grace”:

To say that story is a form of feedback rather than a game mechanic is not so much to make an incorrect statement (well, it is, but let’s not go there now) as to make a statement about a different matter in a different language on a different planet in a different universe… [emphasis mine]

Holy Cow. Talk about a culture gap. Now, he goes on to discuss what it is he aims for, which is “grace,” and which he defines as something very real, but that the engineering-minded cannot grasp.

This is temper-tantrum-inducing for me, because I have been working hard on being an artist for a period approximately equal to the time that Jonas Kyratzes has been alive.

But I have no beef with him overall, really, because Jonas Kyratzes is reaching for the value of games. Oh but wait, let’s look over at Keith Burgun’s comments:

Raph’s theory of fun is not a theory. It’s an attempt, like so many game design books of our sad time, to wrap up the totality of video games into some kind of all-inclusive “summary.”

The problem with all of these design books is that they are specifically NOT theories. They basically all say the same thing: “sometimes this works, sometimes this works, sometimes this works, I don’t know, just try some stuff.” …

There can not be any real game design theory until we’re prepared to divvy up “videogames” into smaller, useful categories. A contest is not the same as a fantasy simulator. A puzzle is not the same as interactive fiction. A toy is not a game.

Theory of Fun is ten years old. I would certainly hope that the field has developed since then. But clearly, I am not being engineering-minded enough. It’s also a little grump-inducing to see this coming from someone who caused quite a stir with an article that essentially restates almost exactly something that Chris Crawford said thirty years ago.

But that’s OK, really, because at least Keith Burgun is trying hard to reach for the truth of games.

So look, I am not just trying to call out people who are poking at things I have said. This isn’t an act of defensiveness. It’s to point out that the more people fail to look beyond their entrenched viewpoints, the less likely we are to get at the truth or the value of things.

I submit that the issue is that some designers are thinking in terms of some fellow designers as “purely engineering-minded” and other designers are thinking of fellow designers as artsy freaks.

(And it is worth pointing out that this entire debate is also a tempest in a teacup as regards the larger game industry, which is mostly trying to just make enough money to pay the rent during a recession.) I don’t know any “purely engineering-minded designers.” I definitely do not know any successful ones. If anything, design happens to be a profession that very strongly favors people who straddle disciplines, who can have an engineering mindset and an artistic one. I also strongly agree with Keith’s statement that people seem to get offended when we point out that something is not a game.

I like Anna Anthropy’s work, but I also try to be clear-eyed about the fact that a lot of Dys4ia could be built in PowerPoint and isn’t a game. That’s not a value judgement. My value judgement of the piece as a work of expressive art is pretty high.

The pendulum swings, in terms of culture. That results in those of us who have pushed for the artistic mindset getting told that we are mechanistic engineering-mindset people. This is a sign of success for those who advocated for more art.

Of course, it also means that now we have hipstery, self-indulgent, artsy, self-referential, slight, pretentious work all over the place that people are claiming as the One True Way or the best way to push the boundaries of the field.

We’re also getting more done on the science front than ever before, leading to greater understanding of game mechanics and player psychology than ever before.

Of course, this also means unethical exploitative mindgames that sacrifice our audience to the almighty dollar.

Everyone is passionate about their poles, and from the opposite side the other end always looks like something puerile and evil. And yup, both ends have excesses.

I suggest that what needs to happen is that more people need to stand in the middle, a foot on each side. Narrative designers should try making a game with nothing but counters and dice and no story. System designers should try making a game that is about telling a story. Monetizers should try making something that people care deeply about. And (grump grump) all the theorists should try actually reading the theory that is already out there.(source: gamasutra)