作者：Tadhg Kelly

“没有所谓的玩家角色”这类的标语令我在某些地方陷入困境。还有就是“许多游戏开发者所谓的玩家和角色情感联系其实并不存在”。二者都包含强烈潜台词。质疑许多东西，从玩家的认同感到体验的有效性。这理解错误，仿佛在说，你在游戏体验中的所有情感都是拼凑的。

当然这不是我的意图。当我说“没有所谓的玩家角色”时，我并不是说其中没有什么。同样，当我说通过“玩偶”完成体验时也是如此。我的意图是，在游戏原生的背景中重新诠释情感体验，进而衍生出适用于所有游戏的的有用见解。换而言之，情感是真实的，但我们的讨论方式是破碎的。

本文旨在阐述这一概念，确定当多数玩家在背景中体验游戏时其中进展情况，谈论同一性和自我表达的重要性。

情感体验的个人经历

当我转移到伦敦时，我不知道自己为什么要搬家。我在游戏领域有丰富经验，算是专家级人物，制作过角色扮演游戏、纸牌游戏以及针对Irish convention活动设计的实景真人角色扮演游戏。我还从事过游戏相关的行业，如任职于零售行业，担任Havok的技术文档工程师。但我不清楚自己适合什么领域，所以我移居别处。

幸运的是，这之后我很快就找到自己的第一份游戏设计工作，随后一年是个疯狂旅程。我从关卡设计、编剧及动作设计中学到很多，但工作室最终由于缺乏资金而破产（游戏邦注：很多英国公司当时都遭遇这一情况）。我感到很难过，心情有些沮丧，觉得自己急需找到工作。我欣然接受自己的第一个工作机会，这碰巧是合约测试员。

虽然我的第一年过得很精彩，但第二年非常糟糕。我的雇主秉承这样的文化：发行任何状态的软件，以配合发行日期。所以他们制作出许多粗糙内容，在此要达到高质量水准完全没希望。我的工资非常微薄，终日担心被裁员，我将自己的时间花在测试糟糕程序上。在很长一段时间里，我都非常堕落。

为逃脱糟糕感觉，我们测试员会玩游戏。我们的实验室配有局域网络的PC，所以我们可以在午餐时间玩《使命召唤》。但实验室也有玻璃墙，这带来课堂心理。管理人员坐在外面，看着我们。制作人会四处走动，驻足凝视，查看他们的游戏是否得到测试。各类人员会立即走进房间内，抱怨他们看到的不满现象。这是电影《Brazil》的真实版办公情境。我们是被要求完成作业的学生，我们的管理者是监考人。

说实话，测试并不复杂。我们可以在1小时里完整通过各新建构内容，从中发现漏洞，体验新内容，测试按键和界面等。所以我们有很多自由时间，但必须表现出自己是多产的优秀员工。这指的不是《使命召唤》之类的作品，但我们能够顺利通过模拟GBA ROMs等内容的作品。在此过程中，我深深着迷于足球游戏。

我不是狂热足球迷。Euro 2012之类的全国性比赛到来时，我将支持饱受非议的爱尔兰队，但我对于联盟或转会市场肥皂剧或是某球员辱骂某球员不感兴趣。但这款足球游戏非常吸引我。游戏设置简单控制装置，非常有趣。我总是参与特定球队，因为我喜欢他们的颜色，知道他们会非常优秀。起初我只是体验持续4分钟的单场比赛，但后来发现，模拟器能够保存游戏状态。所以我可以打联赛，参加众多比赛。

我设想我团队中的不同成员有其特性，我开始运用优先技巧，基于我对某玩家的偏好程度。我和这些伙伴建立起情感联系，当我找到获胜策略时（游戏邦注：这通常意味着我以5-0胜出某比赛），我依然持续体验游戏。这是收获成就感的绝佳地点，从中幻想欢呼的人群及奖杯等。我甚至还设想游戏的幕后故事。

当我的事业一度处于停滞状态时，这款小游戏成为我生活的亮点。回过头去看，这是有关游戏的个人经历，我通常将其称作形态例子。

可玩内容的不可避免形态

无论以美妙曲子，基本三幕两情节点脚本开始游戏，还是简单游戏的移动和跳跃，基本因素都至关重要。它们告知我们什么是艺术形式，什么可行，什么不可行。所以从某种意义上来说，所有媒介都可以解读成相同形式的细化。

这还可以被称作“形态论”，它的意思是：定义剩余形式运作规则的最简单形式，因为虽然作品发生改变，但其运用模式没有发生改变。5000年前的雕像和今天的雕像形态基本一致，虽然相比古代雕像，现代雕像同用户之间的沟通也许更复杂，但有些形式原则依然适用。古代诗歌和现代诗歌也是如此，还有Theban戏剧和现代戏剧，Charlie Chaplin电影和后期作品。

游戏开发者通常觉得，游戏违抗这类规则。他们觉得，有天当技术足够先进，或用户足够有教养时，游戏将变成更丰富内容。对此我并不同意。未来游戏作品将和当前游戏，以及初期游戏保持一致。

简单游戏（如我的足球体验）的体验、想象、趣味、流动和惊奇等和丰厚金钱造就的先进作品没什么不同。形态上来说，它们就是本来的样子，即它们是相同的。这不可避免，因为这是源自玩家大脑的限制。形态因用户的接收、诠释和思考方式而形成。

若你涌入有着光亮舞台的黑暗区域，你将会期待看到表演。若这是个礼堂，你将期待看到音乐形态和节奏，也许是歌唱。如果表演围绕演讲和面具，你将期待看到故事。若这围绕规则，你多半会看到运动和公平竞争。这些追溯到世界古代文明的基本认识。它们适用于戏剧、舞蹈、芭蕾、歌剧和电影。若你坐在电话或游戏机（或平板电脑和智能手机）前玩游戏，你期望自己能够从中收获乐趣。

形态并不意味着，我们都有相同品味。你也许喜欢科幻小说巨片或浪漫喜剧。你也许喜欢金属乐队的人浪或是悉尼歌剧院的稀薄空气。你也许喜欢疯狂的射击游戏或是令人费解的探险游戏。这主要围绕把握他们是形态上相同的体验——可行和不可行的形态规则。例如，金属乐队和歌剧受相同音乐结构常量的约束，科幻和浪漫情感电影共享许多情节和角色开发的基本特性。即便射击游戏和探险游戏，虽然表面上截然不同，但依然共享共同清晰、反馈和趣味性原则。

现代游戏只是基于类似模式的更详尽制作内容，就像《普罗米修斯》&《惑星历险》。它们的外观和感觉要比早先作品复杂，但其游戏目的和《Combat》、《大金刚》和《俄罗斯方块》相同。它们唤起相同的愉悦、惊奇、突显、故事、趣味和流动感觉。相同优秀功能游戏设计规则（被称作创意常量）也适用，无论用户群体、美学、文化、市场、简单性或复杂性如何。

其中一个创意常量是：玩家总是他自己。

表演者和玩家

在元层次上，下面是我对于玩耍的看法：

玩耍就是参与自我或群体导向的模拟活动中，以娱乐和启迪为表达目的。玩耍有许多形式，但各种类型都属于如下宽泛分类之一：游戏玩法、玩具玩耍和表演。

表演就是模仿、歌唱、跳舞、变戏法、耍杂技以及以熟练例程娱乐用户等。表演者学习台词、步伐、歌曲及和旋等。他们在戏院的魔法阵中表演，对于表演者来说，这是一种玩耍方式。

表演者和玩家之间存在若干相似性。优化技能就是个例子。荡秋千演员会进行训练，以在大型演出中表演，尝试通过某种方式顺利进行涡轮枪爆头的玩家也是在做类似事情。表演者进行排练，玩家进行练习。表演者喜欢杰出演出带来的成就感，玩家喜欢掌握机制的获胜感觉。二者都在他们的玩耍中富有创造性。但他们并不一样。

诗人斟酌诗歌，吉他弹奏者学习独奏，喜剧演员在舞台上编造煞费苦心的笑话，他们都在积极从玩家身上获得情感反应。无论材料是原始的，还是经过改编，表演者对内容的诠释和掌握旨在娱乐他人，这通常基于假设自己是其他人。

表演者选定一个角色，这也许是照本宣科的Blanche DuBois或是舞台人物。她戴着面具，成为不真实的原型人物。就如Cary Grant（他的真名是Cary Grant）曾说过的：“每个人都想要成为Cary Grant，就连我自己也想要成为Cary Grant。”正是此面具和声音的诠释将表演变得栩栩如生。这个过程对艺术家和用户来说都非常美妙，这也是他们进行表演的原因所在。

另一方面，《摇滚乐团》的持久吸引力存在于获得高分所需掌握的灵活性，而不是娱乐他人。但若你没有体现玩乐队的精神，你也许会遭遇社会的指责，你也可以追逐潮流。即便是在游乐场或足球场之类的公共场合，玩家通常基于职责进行游戏。足球运动员通常会在场地上犯规和作弊，欺骗裁判给予奖励惩罚，许多人对此非常讨厌。但他们会这么做，因为他们想要胜出。

这里无疑存在表演技巧，从舞蹈游戏大师运用的额外杂技到《NFL》外接员在获得触底得分时表演的舞蹈。但是虽然游戏有时融入表演元素，但它们并非真正围绕这些元素。这两种玩耍类型的主要差异是，表演者通过表演娱乐他人，但玩家通过游戏娱乐自己。游戏主要是为了自己，而非他人掌握其中内容。

这就是为什么“玩家角色”是个存有缺陷的构思。

规矩玩家

当Clint Eastwood在《Unforgiven》中拾起枪支时，这在故事背景中富有意义。从形态上来说，这是比莎士比亚时期更久远的同类戏剧，但Clint是资深表演者。他的表演重新诠释故事，这呈现独特风格，和我们深层次的原型自我达成共鸣。

而《荒野大镖客》中的自己动手则就截然不同。这涉及战斗或逃走的直接选择，你选择什么武器或你杀死这6个骑马土匪的战略。这或成功、或失败，或公平 、或欺骗，主要围绕你。你多半会选择John Marsden（游戏邦注：《荒野大镖客》中的主角）作为你的“玩家角色”，但你不是他，你是你自己。

各种形式的玩法总是基于字面意义。这主要围绕清楚选择，资源的创造性处理，掌握内容，技巧及战略。有时写实主义或创造性都无关紧要，例如奖励游戏和赌博，或是出于幽默等其他原因忍受糟糕玩法。跳过预先设定的圆环在特定条件下具有可行性，但未能保证直译及清晰的游戏通常迟早会失败，因为它缺乏趣味性。

虽然所有证据（完成率，参数和用户行为）都表明，玩家为了自己而参与其中，但设计师通常坚持这样的理念：玩家在某种程度上是个表演者，一个“玩家角色”，谈论激发此层次的情感粘性。这是纸笔角色扮演游戏的遗留物。

在《龙与地下城》之类的游戏中，“玩家角色”是玩家控制的虚构实体，其他实体都是游戏管理员控制下的“非玩家角色”。从根本来说，它们的区别主要在于物主身份上，我的&你的。但“玩家角色”的含义不仅仅是类别。

纸笔角色扮演玩家都想要扮演自己的角色，自定义它们的角色，升级且同游戏幻想和架构内容进行互动。他们想要给予照料，获得有意义的体验，做有趣的事情。游戏管理员通常还希望他们的游戏不是紧紧围绕调停战斗和计算魔法伤害。这就是为什么校准之类的机制牢固树立起来。

校准是描述角色的速记法，结合游戏机制效果最显著。若你想要扮演圣骑，那么你需要以愉快方式进行游戏。若你没有，那么你的角色就会丧失他的特殊骑士技能，变成普通战士。类似惩罚适用于其他类型，如游骑兵和德鲁伊教徒，而且存在魔法咒语，这能够探测基准线，《龙与地下城》甚至还引入象限图表，以追踪玩家的位置，游戏管理者需要沿着此图表判断玩家行为。其他角色扮演游戏也包含类似机制，例如《Vampire: The Masquerade》中的Beast/Frenzy机制，或是《克苏鲁的召唤》中的Sanity机制。

游戏电子游戏将此构思同道德机制结合。动作被附上“美好”或“邪恶”标签，若你执行这些操作，游戏就会添加或扣除变量，这将判断你是Jedi，还是Sith。这一概念旨在鼓励玩家本着游戏精神进行体验，进入空间、故事和角色中，成为表演者。

但对于多数玩家来说，这不是他们所进行的操作。在《旧共和国武士》中，做好事和成为好人没有什么关系。这主要围绕消灭正确敌人，换取积分，解锁能量。在《龙与地下城》中，做好事并非出于真正想要这么做。这主要围绕成为骑士所带来的优点。这是个借口，就像是罪人在赌博前念十次玫瑰经，以预先换取上帝的原谅。

为什么？因为校准、道德和行为分级机制被玩家看作是机械杠杆，玩法基于字面意义。它们不过是另一组需要掌握的规则，只是另一种类型的外在奖励。如果他们执行操作，游戏就会轻拍他们的头部，给予他们经验积分之类的回馈。算是规矩玩家。

当然，玩家若知道自己会因此丧失或得到经验或校准积分，也许会选择不杀害村庄中的孩子，但通常不会出于其他原因而做此选择。这部分关于游戏的吸引力，涉及能够进行升级及获得杰出新能量及战利品。这就是为什么《龙与地下城》和《Pathfinder》之类着眼于机制的游戏能够存活下来，而90年代中旬的纯故事叙述角色扮演游戏则纷纷消亡。

在电子游戏中，要让这类机制以预期方式运行则更困难，因为执行操作不涉及来自好友的社交压力。玩家清楚要成为规范玩家的必要最佳操作，他们分批进行处理。例如，这就是为什么电子游戏的会话沟通让人觉得像是在挖掘事实。这也是为什么找到《黑色洛城》的完美按键点击顺序是避开访谈机制的重点。这不过是个文字游戏机制，玩家旨在为了自己而掌握内容，而不是为了表演。所以是规范玩家。

这就是“玩家角色”通常出现的情况。在多数后续时间里，玩家更多受自我表达推动。

表达和映射

当校准机制试图让玩家以特定方式操作时，他们通常会进行反抗。

他们选择扮演《龙与地下城》中的混乱中间角色，然后在各情境中执行破坏性操作。游戏管理者提供一个同他们继续的关卡任务，他们给予否定回应。国王要求玩家拯救公主，他反而杀了国王。随便都可。他们还混淆《Fable》中的道德机制，只是为了看看他们能够将此推进多远。他们通过Twitter抱怨《质量效应》的结局，这试图以特殊方向引导他们。

促使玩家融入角色中揭露一个有趣的分离关系：在游戏开发者看来，玩家玩游戏的原因（游戏邦注：出于故事、个人表现和叙述体验）与玩家真正玩游戏的原因。这其实就是我所谓的“许多游戏开发者所谓的玩家和角色情感联系其实并不存在”的意思。这并非缺乏联系，而只是不同的联系。

一类玩家只会喜欢一类游戏的观点完全是一派胡言。有些玩家只是出于功能目的玩游戏。其他玩家则想要进行探索、放松，或是经历惊喜。有些玩家想要体验幻想世界，例如经营足球团队，成为F1赛车手，或是统治王国。有些玩家喜欢谜题，不关心其他内容。有些玩家只是想在游戏中创造有趣内容。有些玩家则是想要获得奖金。

但所有这些类型都存在共性：都主要围绕玩家操作、成就、存在和胜出元素。被告知以约束方式玩游戏是上述内容的对立面，无论你是谁，你喜欢什么样的游戏。惩罚阻碍自我表达。

在我的角色扮演时期里，玩家几乎总是默认扮演同类角色。但他们的角色也许会有不同背景故事或服饰，他们总是反复扮演同类角色。他们总是扮演坚强者、令人毛骨悚然的家伙、懂得运用魔法的聪明角色或是流氓。即便他们无法直接成为此角色（如在没有魔法的游戏中），他们依然可以高效朝此前进。这促使我开始觉得，玩家并没有采取角色行为，而是他们的角色做出相应调整，变成自我映射。

把握自我映射非常重要：当我说玩家在叙述或模拟游戏中扮演某角色时，我的意思不是说他们在表演。我的意思是，他们看到游戏允诺的职责说明，这也许和自我表达机会相配合。他们变成心中的足球明星，或是愚笨无知的野蛮人，或是吸血鬼，他们秘密幻想成为它们。这也是为什么小精灵、小矮人和半兽人类型的原型幻想竞赛反复在《龙与地下城》、《Shadowrun》及《Warhammer》等游戏中出现。半兽人永远是半兽人。小精灵永远是小精灵。它们是自我映射和自我表达的机会。

游戏通过创造鲜有或没有后果的另一安全世界让我们展现自己的部分个性。它们激发我们的想象，因为游戏空间主要针对我们，基于我们的原则，而且若我们想要跳过高楼或解决谜题，消灭坏人，我们就能够做到。这通过控制器起到媒介作用，但基于这样的意义，透镜效应突出我们本身具有的内部反应。

在电子游戏中，我觉得这也反映在作品忠诚度上。热门游戏角色的复杂性是多方面的，如《黑色洛城》的Cole Phelps，或《Heavy Rain》的Ethan，但很多热门角色引导作品都是空白状态。没有人试图让Mario或Master Chief配合系列外部刺激因素诠释角色，它们非常受欢迎。EA没有规定，你需要基于Rooney风格玩《FIFA》，或是让你因此获得Rooney积分。Rooney是你的，你可以随意支配。Rooney是你玩偶。

我的Niko Bellic和你不同。我们没有以两种不同方式诠释Niko Bellic，针对用户解码人物（游戏邦注：就和表演者一样）。我们将Niko Bellic变成自己的映射，随意打扮他，按照自己的方式驾车，以自己选择的方式解决任务。我的Niko是个残忍的精神病患者，他会伤害行人，你的则非常谨慎，喜欢避开警察。我们所做的就是将Niko Bellic模板转变成自我映射。他只是个玩具。

这或多或少总结所有游戏。它们基于字面意义，自我关注，自我表达，由控制权推动，显现个性的既有元素，而非强制元素，不受外部奖励、训练有素行为主义和自我表达规则的约束。

所以这就带来Leeroy Jenkins。还有就是Soulja Boy就《时空幻境》所做的评论，如《Indie Game: The Movie》所示，在此Jonathan Blow承认，作品发布后他感到非常沮丧，因为几乎没有人理解他所要表达的深层次含义。鄙俗的14岁青年持续在Xbox Live驱使你。

听起来很糟糕，是吧？下面是积极方面：自我表达也是创造性、曝光度、探索、快乐和情感联系的核心。

情感联系

针对我谈论《古墓丽影》的文章，很多评论者回应表示，他们和游戏中的角色建立起情感联系。当我谈及如下内容时，我们的文章也许有些过于直率：

问题如下：许多游戏开发者所谓的玩家和角色情感联系其实并不存在。没有所谓的玩家角色。

也许其诠释方式应该是：

童年时期，我们多数人都有玩偶，我们在其中投入许多时间。即便随着我们逐步长大，我们通常会保留1-2个泰迪熊或是自己喜欢的GI Joes，就成年人而言，人形公仔和雕像依然有广阔市场。

事实上，我们总是和物体建立情感联系。这非常正常，甚至是健康的。我们和汽车、电脑品牌、所喜欢的咖啡、建筑和衣服建立联系。我们给物体命名，有时甚至还和它们沟通（是否还记得《Castaway》的Wilson？）。有时我们出于社会原因同特殊物体产生共鸣，例如珍藏一双Manolo Blahniks鞋子。其他时候则是出于个人意义，例如你已逝世祖父的怀表。也许是出于物体所代表的创造性投入、时间或认同感。

将映射和表达考虑在内，物体联系是把握“玩家角色”含义的正确方式。这也是为什么我将他们称作玩偶，意味着受珍藏的财产。

和Shepard或Link所建立的情感联系来自于他们变成我们，我们对其加以控制、装扮和发展，赋予其认同感。我们对其进行定制，将他们变成我们的资产，通过他们同整个世界进行互动。我们变得越来越喜欢他们。但我们总是清楚他们并非真正活着，我们不是他们。我们是他们的创造者，从某种意义上来说是他们的“父母”。

当融入故事元素时，情感联系变得更加复杂。

这里共有两个Niko Bellic，一个是过场动画的Niko，这是认为自己必须对过去恶行进行复仇的厌战罪犯，会协助其表亲Roman，参与自由之城的事件中。这个Niko沉默寡言，有超越其年纪的聪明才智，歪曲周围的世界。另一Niko是在我控制之下的小型精神病患玩偶，也就是我上面所描述的。他是我通向自由之城的导管，我在选择之后对其加以装饰。此外，还有2个 Lara，2个Mario，2个Shepard，2个Drake和2个Cloud。

有时他们是角色，有时他们是玩偶，二者的分离性也许会有些古怪。例如当游戏显示，我玩偶的角色版本不符合我的预期，他或非常聪明，或完全不相符。当游戏过度刻画我的玩偶，将其变得不讨喜，或不像我映射其中的自我表达时，那么这将带来奇怪感觉。有时是基于积极方式，但通常都并非如此。

角色和玩偶二元性的最佳范例要数《Heavy Rain》。其中有2个Ethan。角色-Ethan是丧失一子的悲伤父亲，他现在的任务是找到另一儿子。他的婚姻支离破碎，他的生活一团糟，他所说或所做的事情都被深深的痛苦所包围。

而玩偶-Ethan则是个机器人。他在自己的屋子里徘徊，逐一打开抽屉，查看里面有什么，和他人沟通，以探究他们是谁。他和孩子玩荡秋千，但这是个移位的体验，因为他不清楚自己和他们的关系。他像个机器般和他剩下的儿子在操场中交谈，向他抛出问题。他甚至还像个机器人般行走，身体非常笔直，在极小空间中顺时针或逆时针打转。

David Cage等游戏开发者认为，戏剧场景和控制的相互作用突出其中联系，以电影外加创建模型的方式，但我认为情况并非如此。内容虽然丰富，但《Heavy Rain》在形态上和《Jet Set Willy》差别不大，二者采用相同的自我创意变量。插入式二元性通常会弱化自我表达玩偶的父母联系，将其移交给游戏时间/故事时间。游戏表示，“这没问题。你只需在收到指令时点击按键。我会处理情感部分。”

这样你就会得到无穷尽的过场动画，这对文字游戏来说似乎并不重要。这就是为什么电影-故事导向模式总是让人觉得有些冷淡。这也是为什么故事感觉具有可行性。

故事感觉方式

“故事感觉”是一种叙述方式，这主要依赖于创造有趣世界，显露系列故事线索和元素，目标指导的极简抽象方式，但它省掉戏剧情节和角色开发。它将故事视作游戏体验的沿路返回，因此玩家可以选择参加或不参加。我们没有时间就玩家扮演游戏角色而给予外部奖励，唯一奖励是字面的——正如游戏。这里没有详尽的特性描述，没有尝试插入不必要含义，没有尝试让玩家感觉到夸张情感表现。

故事感觉是接触纸笔角色扮演游戏的核心，在此优秀游戏管理者清楚，如何在游戏变得乏味时做出改变。故事感觉是《Dear Esther》之类虚拟长廊的核心，在此简单添加不连贯独白能够会提升徘徊在荒岛周围的体验（游戏邦注：无需仔细关注其续发事件）。故事感觉的目标是强化动态世界的感觉。所有表达和判断都留给玩家。

所以这里只有1个Gordon Freeman，只有1个来自《星际争霸》的Executor，《Journey》中只有1个“你”。他们只是你。

在《半条命》中，你可以进行玩耍，会话会发生在你周围，或者你可以投以关注。这取决于你。在《星际争霸》中，你可以秉承游戏空间任务指示和元素的精神，如单元的旁白，或者只是将其当作运动。同样，这也取决于你。在《Journey》中，你可以大方加入旅伴，自己穿过游戏，或是着手收集各个你发现的小型能量。这是你的事情。在《杀出重围》中，你可以停下来阅读书籍或邮件，倾听各个对话内容。或是成为健忘的精神病患者。这是你的任务。

错误之处在于尝试将此变成电影。例如，在《半条命2》中，通过和关键角色的冗长对话（游戏邦注：这跳过乏味内容）将玩家困在房间中。《星际争霸2》采用许多任务之间的激动人心过场动画及对话版块，这对体验帮助不大，无非就是延长时间。《荒野大镖客》趣味横生，但其中包含若干如下场景：角色反思Old West的艰苦生活，画面具有随机性。

虽然过场动画若运用得当能够包含丰富信息，或变得引人注目，但长时间以来，将其用于角色剧情中都鲜少能够带来趣味性，无论文字质量如何（一个例外情况是，场景非常欢乐）。同样，这是由于体验游戏的形态。对于希望将游戏变得和电影一样的设计师来说，这听起来有些令人难以接受，但这是事实情况：制作包含众多夸张情感和故事叙述的大型传奇游戏，但多数玩家都不会费心完成内容。

下面是另一惹恼许多人的标榜论述，但事实就是如此：

在40年的游戏开发中，没有出现过优秀的“讲述”故事，但有许多优秀的“感知”故事。

证据表明，游戏没有杰出讲述故事是因为，它们在形态上缺乏可行性。最终它们都自相矛盾。它们只会带来这样的情况：或容忍游戏因为你喜欢故事，或相反情况。无论如何，我们总是会看到书籍或电影之类的真实故事叙述艺术在表现上远超越游戏，因为从形态上来说，叙述故事是它们的核心内容。即使再多制作预算或技术也不会改变这一情况。

游戏不是要创造戏剧效果，而是存在其他要求：惊奇效果。故事感觉具有可行性因为它将你的玩偶视作玩偶，作为进入游戏世界的界面或导管。这具有可行性，因为它让玩家进行充分的自我表达。这具有可行性因为它通过文字叙述目标。接受这点涉及一个较大牺牲：这意味着放弃正式故事叙述，将其缩小至设定目标的角色。

告知“来自这里，进行此操作”的简短过场动画就是个例子。你接收的关卡任务是另一例子，这通常是留言板上的一行文字。还有就是源自于游戏压力的内在目标，例如boss瞬间。想要逃离黑暗走廊可怕噪音的欲望。体验小型GBA足球游戏，进入游戏空间中感受成功。从最小型到最庞大的游戏，这是具有可行性的方式，因为这衍生自游戏。

优秀故事感觉需要优秀玩偶和优秀空间，自我表达的绝佳机会及清晰文字任务。然后游戏就能够获得合法性，创造悲惨瞬间。你在《Journey》中登上荒凉的雪山就是个例子：这是你通过长袍娃娃创造的旅程，你会看到他逐步减缓，丝带收缩。你会看到冰，预见结局，惊奇感觉日益强化：你就在那里。你觉得寒冷，这也许是结局。

若这转变成过场动画模式，开始和你交谈，会有多糟糕？

孩子和自我选择

谈及上述观点我们经常谈到两个反面例子。第一个就是孩子如何游戏。

我们经常以角色扮演说明创造故事的体验。孩子会通过玩偶或其他游戏构建故事。即便是诸如纸牌之类的简单东西也能够也能够成为传播意思的媒介，例如和我的3岁侄儿玩Snap游戏，在此她不让我将黑桃J放在红桃J上，因为它们显然不是朋友。7和3可以说Snap，因为它们已经结合。孩子们总是玩这类东西。在游戏过程中，大脑学会着眼于狭隘和具体问题，艺术头脑学会将空间看作是幻想中的故事和情境。

即便步入成年，我们也继续将事件分类成我们所理解的模式，删除不重要的元素，将真实记忆变成叙述故事。但这不同于孩子的体验。孩子不一定理解真实和不真实之间的差异，但成年人知道。

虽然成年人将角色和附件归类到物件中，他们还知道事物只是事物，他们是他们自己。他们不会认为自己喜欢的汽车具有人格，其祖父的表也不会有魔法联系。孩子也许会相信有圣诞老人，但成年人不会上当。和孩子不同，成年人的艺术大脑已经成熟。

你也许会玩《太空战舰》，想象若干模糊的幕后故事变成游戏活动，但你多半不会觉得游戏内容处于超自然状态。游戏开发者需要积极促使“蛋糕是谎言”瞬间达到预期效果，因为成年人不会像孩子那样发挥那么多想象力，不会像孩子那么容易受到鼓舞。因为成年玩家是在表达自我，而不是成为他人，《Portal》需要记住这点。所以在你看来，蛋糕是谎言。它代表着危险，带来周围世界更庞大的印象。

第二个例子就是尝试进入角色的玩家。

在各角色扮演游戏中，总是有少部分玩家尝试实现此目标。例如《魔兽世界》有57个“RP”和“RP-PVP”服务器，在此内部规则是，玩家应该融入角色中。但不同的是，465个“PVE”和“PVP”服务器没有规定这类要求。

这和我的体验相符合。约有1/10玩家想要进入游戏的角色层面。其余9位玩家则主要玩文字游戏。所以包含10%用户在内，角色体验包含离群行为元素，这表现在许多方面。例如，古老的MUSH场景是针对少数群体的活动，通常只是个虚拟性爱论坛。《第二人生》同上。

广泛来说，融入角色的体验可以分成两类阵营。有些主要围绕模仿。所以当玩《英雄之城》时，他们也许会创造自己的绿巨人，或是在《星际迷航OL》创造他们自己的Picard。这一类型更具冒险性的代表要数角色扮演之类的活动。他们融入游戏角色中，通常利用来自其他资源的名称和身份，如托尔金、日本动漫、《超级英雄》或《星际迷航》。他们通过英雄崇拜自我表达，称Legolas或Naruto或Commander Data是他们的。

另一类角色扮演玩家是宣称自己积极诠释角色的玩家。这些是认为游戏会变成不同形态内容的游戏开发者所寻找的玩家类型。开发者希望玩家会由少数人变成多数人，以验证游戏和故事叙述。

这类玩家（我们将其称作“戏剧性玩家”）试图体验《英雄本色》，同时尝试成为Max。他通常会说自己如何参与至角色中，摸索斗争过程，如何引导角色通过关卡任务。他很可能会玩《生化奇兵》，觉得游戏的道德选择令人感动，或者想要玩《杀出重围》，无需杀害任何人，诸如此类。

我不确定他是否真的这么做。在纸笔和实景真人角色扮演游戏中，戏剧性玩家通常会扮演角色，在此熟练玩法无关紧要（例如展开愉快的谈话）。但当需要推动游戏杠杆时，他们会和其他人一样变成靠胜利推动。从某种意义上说，在凶恶之人面前学贵族说话没什么问题，但当凶恶之人死去后，这通常主要围绕战利品。

戏剧性玩家想要进行持续的角色内互动，希望内容富有意义，希望体验和莎士比亚著作一样有深度的内容。但融入角色通常只是个瞬间事件，即便如此，它们依然反复默认相同的自我表达模型，总是扮演小精灵、小矮人和混乱的好人等。我只有在很少情况下看到玩家完全融入戏剧性模式。即便是在角色扮演的社交场合中，这也很少见。在电子游戏中，若有超过1/1000的玩家经常这样玩游戏，我会因此感到非常惊讶。

因此，我觉得戏剧性玩家会自我选择。作为觉得这类内容福有意义的玩家，他们合理说明其游戏体验的二元性。他们会撰写游戏应该如何富有意义的文章，将其称作电子游戏的《公民凯恩》，或是详细说明玩家和角色之间应该具有的情感联系。他们通常会畅所欲言，但他们背后隐藏的是缺乏真实性的缝隙。

《质量效应》不是新世纪最重要的科幻作品。《LA Noire》并不代表游戏&电影的成熟阶段。冷静思考会发现，它们都是企图变成超出形态允许范围之外内容的拙劣作品。

所以我积极避免过度诠释孩子或自我选择戏剧性玩家的体验。相反，我留心中间成年玩家的体验。他们觉得什么元素特别？他们反复体验什么内容？他们在何处找到自己的100小时玩法？

你的思想头一次被游戏扩充是个充满想象力的感觉。这就是像是你头一次看到《星球大战》，你头一次真正理解蒙娜·丽莎的含义，或是头一次听到Pink Floyd的演奏。但和所有创新和启示形式一样，这不是个普遍的游戏体验。

《星球大战》影迷最终会非常熟悉电影的语言，基于成熟角度认为电影非常有趣。他们并不期望所有电影都和《星球大战》一样别出心裁，且意识到其形式更有深度，即便这从形态上来看大同小异。艺术粉丝也是如此，还有就是音乐粉丝。电影、艺术和音乐等内容同其成熟粉丝的沟通要比新手更加复杂，且遵循相同的模式理论。

游戏也是如此。充满游戏的独立游戏情境与专注PAX的粉丝有更复杂的会话，他们知道平台游戏和roguelike内容是什么。他们是快速看穿Facebook游戏面纱的玩家，他们形成特定游戏类型的细分市场，有时甚至形成部落。他们是玩过100款游戏的成熟玩家。

对于用户来说，他们通常会在自己喜欢的游戏中表现不错。他们并没有解释孩子如何体验游戏，也没有阐述极端的创新性，或是游戏应该或不应该建立在什么内容的基础上。他们并不总是转投《Wired》，寻找了解游戏甚少的玩家，这有可能得到其创新性的强化。瞄准这些用户的游戏就是它们原本的样子，他们之间存在复杂会话。它们是成熟文化的代表，他们的兴趣范围并不局限于第一个例子，在他们看来，其中形态非常不错。

戏剧性玩家希望形态发生改变，会话能够有所不同，角色扮演-文字游戏玩家的比例能够从1:9转变成9:1。遗憾的是，这种情况不会出现。至于其他内容，那就是，游戏是包含自身内在价值的艺术和文化，是游戏，而不是表演。

游戏，而不是表演

电影行业的一个重要经验是，“展示，而不要叙述”，这需要一代人去学习。

最早期的无声电影通常利用提示卡片和场景&道具布置叙述故事。当有声电影出现后，卡片尝试了舞台表演所没有的感觉。事实上，“表演电影”依然存在于情景喜剧和宝莱坞之中。舞台表演电影设计精致，注重会话，过渡至影片娱乐并非一蹴而就。

这最初始于《公民凯恩》及其作品，然后逐步发展至新浪潮阶段，电影制作人开始意识到，他们制作的不是记录性戏剧。凭借少许技术变革，批判性思维及Welles作品等若干旗帜作品，这些电影制作人逐步受到追捧。战斗类型的史诗故事或西部片依然继续出现，直到70年代，但之后就逐步消亡。Kubrick、 Scorsese、Coppolla和Lucas等导演充分展示出电影的发挥空间，之后情况就不大相同。

游戏领域也出现类似情况，唯一不同之处是，电影采用许多戏剧会话，游戏运用许多电影会话。我们经历的是“拍摄式游戏”时代，就像电影行业经历其“舞台表演电影”时代一样。和电影行业的“展示，而不要叙述”经验一样，游戏领域的经验是“游戏，而不要展示”。

过去5年来，什么是设计最佳的游戏作品？大家对此都会有不同的答案，但在我看来，这款作品是《求生之路》。《求生之路》巧妙把握紧迫性和代理关系，清晰目标和简单任务，以及多样性。不仅如此，它融入奇妙的故事感觉，挖掘《活死人黎明》的启示僵尸基因，这当前非常热门。更突出之处体现在它通过有限简单元素（游戏邦注：例如，被撞翻后站起来的能力）将玩法同其故事感觉结合起来。玩过1-2个回合之后，你很快会意识到，你无法超越他人，你将遭受打击。

进行游戏，而不是表演。描绘游戏世界，让我在其中玩游戏。让我机械能自我表达。让我能够忽略你的故事。让我在同个地方体验到画面和幻想的协同作用。让我相信内容。你给予精心设计问题的答案将有所不同，但你追求的质量水平将始终一致。游戏魔法，多年前你初次遇到的游戏魔法，就是你想要寻找的避难所，你想要置身其中，你希望玩家来到此处。

意义是通过创造的，而非赋予的。信任形成于当你的游戏完成任务时。语境没有关联性。特征说明没有关联性。生成的情感没有关联性。无论何种题材或小说形式，规则或角色，突现或体验，策略或技能，让自我进行体验，受到启发是游戏最擅长的东西。从形态上来看，玩家根据自己的条件。

我希望看到Bioware基于《质量效应》的宇宙空间制作一款角色扮演游戏，《质量效应》对于形态的把握和《Elite：Frontier》一样杰出。我想要看到Quantic Dream接受《Kara》的机器人构思，意识到，空白状态能够造就更强有力的游戏作品。我希望两家工作室都这么做，不依靠电影，或是将自己困在不必要的“展示”中。《Ben Hur》之类的舞台表演电影在现代影迷看来似乎有些古怪和夸大，电影式游戏也是如此。

总结

玩偶（头像、玩家角色等）是体验、自我和自我表达的导管。它们是你，你诠释它们。有时它们变成你的“孩子”。它们非常珍贵。它们不是角色。

作为游戏开发者，你需要将玩家带入能够自我表达的世界中。你向他们抛出构思，创造意义，协助他们发现内容。但你无需告诉他们思考什么及感受什么，因为其中关系并非如此。你并非让他们受到惊吓，认为这会被当作艺术。

玩家不是表演者。他并非在诠释你的故事，或在脑中根据你的指示构思故事。相反，他是个探索者，“父母”和艺术家。游戏世界靠他的游戏大脑掌握，“蜥蜴大脑”会产生忧虑，艺术大脑会感受到其中意义。通过向他提供玩偶，你将他转移到另一地点和时间，在此规则截然不同，结果比生活更加确定，在此魔法空间内容，很多事情都能够发生。

从最简单的足球游戏到大型复杂世界，他能够胜出，进行创造和自我表达。

他会相信其中内容。（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）

On Player Characters and Self Expression [Game Design]

By Tadhg Kelly

“There is no such thing as a player character” is the kind of tagline that gets me into trouble in some places. So is “the emotional connection between player and character that many game makers believe exists in fact does not”. Both contain a powerful subtext, questioning everything from a player’s sense of identity to the validity of their experiences. Read the wrong way, they can seem to say that all the emotion you feel in playing games is made up.

Of course that’s not my intent. When I say “there is no such thing as a player character” I don’t mean that there is nothing. When I say play occurs through “dolls”, likewise. My intent is to reinterpret the emotional experience of play within a game-native context, and so derive useful insight that could apply to all games. In otherwords, the emotions are real but our way of talking about them is broken.

This is an essay to fully explain this concept, to set what’s really going on when most players play games in context, about the importance of identity and self expression. (Warning: this article is over 8000 words in length.)

A Personal Story of Emotional Experience

When I moved to London I didn’t really know why I was moving. I had had a long background in games at a kind of pro-amateur level, creating roleplaying games, card games and live action roleplaying games for the Irish convention scene. I had also had some experience in the industries surrounding games, such as working in the retail sector and as a technical writer at Havok. However I didn’t really know where I fit in. So I emigrated.

Luckily I landed my first game design job soon afterward, and the following year was a wild ride. I learned and did so much, from level design to scriptwriting to action design, but – as happened to many others in the UK at that time – ultimately the studio collapsed through a lack of funds. I took it hard, became depressed and needed to find a job. I was willing to take the first thing that came along, which happened to be a contract tester position.

Where my first year had been amazing, my second was miserable. My employers seemed to have a culture of shipping software in whatever state it happened to be in to meet release dates. So they produced a lot of churn content, and it was the sort of place where issues like quality were a non-starter. I was paid little, lived in fear of redundancy (testers are often only hired on rolling contracts), and spent my days testing crapware. For a long time I wallowed.

To avoid feeling that funk, we testers played games. Our lab had a local network of PCs, so we might play Call of Duty at lunch. However the lab also had glass walls, which bred a classroom mentality. Management sat outside and looked in on us. Producers wandered by and stared into see if their game was being tested. Various people came in at the drop of a hat and complained over what they saw being done (or not). It was like a real world version of the office in the movie Brazil. We were the students being made to do our homework and our managers were essentially invigilators.

The truth was that testing was not difficult. We could go through each new build in about an hour to verify fixes, play new content, button-bash the interface and so on. So we had a lot of free time, but had to appear as good workers being productive. This meant no Call of Duty, but we could get away with smaller and more hideable games such as emulated GBA ROMs. In so doing, I got surprisingly hooked by a soccer game.

I’m not an avid fan of soccer. When national competitions like Euro 2012 roll around I will cheer for my beleagured Irish team, but I have no interest in leagues or the soap opera of the transfer markets or which player insulted who. However this soccer game caught me. It had simple controls. It was fun. I would always play as a particular team because I liked their colour and knew that they were supposed to be good. At first I played just single matches lasting 4 minutes, but later realised that the emulator could save game states. So I could play leagues, and I did. Hundreds of them.

I imagined that the different players on my team had identities, and I started playing preferential tactics on the basis that I liked one player over another. I became emotionally connected to these little dudes, and when I developed a winning strategy (which usually meant I won a match by 5-0 or more) I kept playing anyway. It was a wonderful place to go and to feel success, to imagine cheering crowds and trophies and so on. I even imagined a sort-of backstory to what was going on behind the game.

At a time when my career felt like it had stalled, that little game became the highlight of my day. In retrospect it also proved to be a personal example of everything that games are and I often look back on it as an example of modality.

The Ineluctable Modality of the Playable

Whether starting with a great tune, a basic three-act-and-two-plot-point script or move-and jump in a simple game, the fundamentals matter. They teach us a great deal about what an art form is and what tends to function well versus what does not. So in a sense, all media can be interpreted as elaborations of the same forms over and over.

It could be called “modalism”, and what it means is: The simplest form defines the rules by which the rest of the form operates because, while the work changes, the mode of use does not. A statue from 5000 years ago and a statue from today are modally identical, and while the modern statue may be part of a more complicated conversation with its audience than the ancient one, there are principles of form that hold true. The same is true of ancient poems and modern poems, of the Theban plays and modern drama, of Charlie Chaplin films and The Descendants.

Game makers often feel that games defy this kind of rule. They think that one day, when the technology is good enough or the audience is educated enough, games will become something more. I disagree. Games as they will be in the future will be the same as games as they are today and the same as games when they were first invented.

The play, imagination, fun, flow, thauma and so on of the simplest game (such as my soccer experience) is no different from that of the most advanced production that money can build. Modally, they are what they are, which is to say they are identical. And this is ineluctable (meaning inescapable, inevitable or unable to be resisted) because it’s a limit stemming from the players’ brains. Modality arises because of how people perceive, interpret and think.

If you are crowded into a darkened area with a lit stage, you’ll expect a performance. If it’s auditory you will expect musical pattern and rhythms, and perhaps singing. If the performance involves speech and masks, you’ll expect a story. If it involves rules, you’ll expect a sport and fair play. These are basic understandings which stretch all the way back to ancient civilisations in cultures all around the world. They apply to plays, dance, ballet, opera and cinema. And if you sit down at a computer or console (or tablet or smartphone) and play a game, you expect fun.

Modality does not mean that we all have the same tastes. You may love science fiction spectaculars or romantic comedies. You might love the mosh pit of a Metallica concert or the rarefied air of the Sydney Opera House. You might love frenetic shooters or intellectually puzzling adventure games. It’s just about understanding how they are modally the same sorts of experiences – and how modality rules what does and doesn’t work. Metallica and the opera are bound by the same constants of musical structure, for example, and sci-fi and romcom stories share many fundamental traits of plot and character development. Even shooters and adventures, seemingly wildly different, share common roots of clarity, feedback and fun.

Modern games are simply more elaborate productions based on familiar modes, like Prometheus compared to Forbidden Planet. They look and sound far more sophisticated than their forebearers but are played for the same reasons as Combat, Donkey Kong and Tetris. They evoke the same sorts of pleasures and the same sense of thauma, emergence, story, fun, flow and so on. And the same rules of good functional game design (called creative constants) apply throughout regardless of audience, aesthetic, culture, market, simplicity or complexity.

One of those creative constants is this: the player is always herself.

Performers And Gamers

At the most meta level, this is what I think play is:

To play is to engage in self- or group-directed mock activity, with the express purpose of entertainment and enlightenment. There are many forms of play, but each belongs to one of three very broad groupings: gameplay, toyplay and performance.

To perform is to act, sing, dance, juggle, perform acrobatics and otherwise entertain an audience with practised routines. Performers learn lines, steps, songs, chords and so on and they perform in the magic circle of the theatre. For the performers this is a kind of play.

There are some similarities between performers and gamers. Perfecting skills is one example. A trapeze artist training for the big show and a gamer trying to get really good with railgun headshots are in some ways doing similar things. Performers rehearse, gamers practise. Performers love the feeling of achievement that comes with a great show, and gamers love the feeling of winning while mastering a dynamic. Both are also very creative in their play. Yet they are not the same.

The poet wrestling with verse, the guitarist mastering a solo and the comedian weaving elaborate jokes on stage are all attempting to draw an emotional reaction from an audience. Whether the material is original or adapted, performers interpret and master for the entertainment of others and this often involves pretending to be someone else.

A performer adopts a character, which might be a scripted Blanche DuBois (from A Streetcar Named Desire) or a stage persona. She wears a mask (figuratively or literally) and becomes someone both archetypal and unreal. As Cary Grant (real name Archibald Leach) once said:  “Everyone wants to be Cary Grant, even I wish I could be Cary Grant.” It is this wearing of masks and adopting of voice that brings something about performance to life. The experience is joyful both for artist and audience and it’s why they do what they do.

On the other hand, Rock Band’s lasting appeal lies in mastering the dexterity required to get great scores, not the entertainment of others. Though you might enoucnter social disapproval if playing in a group for not getting into the spirit of it, you can play it in a totally literal manner (follow pattern, earn points) if you wish. Even in public arenas like arcades or football stadiums, gamers often play functionally. Footballers often foul and cheat on the pitch to fool the referree into awarding penalties, and the crowd hates it. Yet they do it anyway because they want to win.

Showmanship exists of course, from the extra acrobatics that dance game masters perform to the NFL wide receiver doing a dance when scoring a touchdown. Yet while games sometimes incorporate aspects of performance, they are not really about it. The key difference between these two types of play is that performers do what they do to entertain others, but gamers do what they do to entertain themselves. Games are about mastering for the self, not for other people.

This is basically why the “player character” is a flawed idea.

Good Dog

When Clint Eastwood picks up the gun in Unforgiven, it is meaningful in a story context. Modally it is the same sort of drama that goes back further than Shakespeare (“Is this a dagger I see before me?”), but Clint is a master performer. His performance interprets this moment anew, for this story, and is of characterful signficance which resonates with our deepest archetypal selves.

Doing it yourself in Red Dead Redemption, on the other hand, is very different. It’s a straight choice of fight or flight, which weapon will you choose and what’s your strategy for killing these six bandits approaching on horseback. It’s win or lose, fair or cheat and all about you. You would probably refer to John Marsden (the protagonist of Red Dead Redemption) as your “player character” but you are not him. You are you.

Gameplay in all forms is always highly literal. It’s about clear choices, the creative manipulation of resources, mastery, tactics and strategy. Sometimes literalism or creativity don’t matter, such as with prize games and gambling or tolerating bad gameplay for other reasons like humour. Jumping through pre-ordained hoops can work under certain conditions, but the game that fails to be literal and clear is usually a failure sooner or later because it’s simply not fun.

While all the evidence (completion rates, metrics, player behaviour) indicates that players are in it for themselves, designers commonly stick with the idea that the player is in part a performer, a “player character” and talk about eliciting emotional engagement on that level. That’s because of the legacy of pen and paper roleplaying games.

In games like Dungeons and Dragons the “player character” is an imagined entity that a player controls, and every other entity is a “non-player character” under the control of a game master. Fundamentally the difference between them is one of ownership, a way of saying mine versus yours. However “player character” has acquired more meaning than just classification.

Pen and paper roleplayers commonly want to play their part, customise their character, level up and engage with the game’s fantasy as well as its frame. They want to care, to have meaningful experiences and do exciting things. Game masters also usually want their games to be about more than just refereeing combats and calculating spell damage. This is why systems like alignment have taken root.

Alignment is a shorthand to describe persona, and is most successful when welded into a game system. If you want to play a paladin then you have to play in a lawful good fashion. If you don’t then your character loses his special paladin abilities and becomes an ordinary fighter. Similar penalties apply to other classes like rangers and druids, and magic spells exist which can detect alignments. Dungeons and Dragons even includes a quadrant graph to track player alignments, and the game master is encouraged to judge the behaviour of the player along this graph. Other roleplaying games have similar systems, such as the Beast/Frenzy system in Vampire: The Masquerade or the Sanity system in Call of Cthulhu.

Some video games have adapted this idea with morality systems. Actions are tagged as “good” or “evil” and if you commit them then the game adds or subtracts from variables that determine whether you are Jedi or Sith. The notion is to encourage the player to play in the spirit of the game, to get into the world and the story and the character and become a performer.

For the vast majority of players, however, this is not what they do. Doing good in Knights of the Old Republic is nothing to do with actually being good. It’s about killing the right sort of enemy in order to earn points and unlock powers. Being lawful good in Dungeons and Dragons is not about actually feeling that way. It’s about the benefits that come with being a paladin. It’s a pretense, like a sinner saying the Rosary ten times to stock up some forgiveness from God before going out to gamble.

Why? Because alignment, morality and behavioural grading sytsems are treated by players as mechanistic levers and gameplay is highly literal. They are just another set of rules to be mastered, and just another type of extrinsic reward. And if they behave, then the game (be it the game master or the rules or whatever) pats them on the head and gives them treats like experience points. Good dog.

Sure, a player might put on a voice or choose not to kill the children in the village if they know that they’ll lose or gain experience or alignment points for doing so, but not generally for reasons beyond that. It’s just part of the attraction, of being able to level-up and get cool new powers and loot. And it’s why system-focused games like Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinder survived while pure storytelling roleplaying games of the mid-90s commerically died.

In video games it is even harder to make this sort of system work as intended because there is no social pressure from friends to behave. Players grok the optimal actions required by the game to be a good dog and they batch them. This is why conversation dialogue in video games often feels like strip-mining for facts, for example. It’s also why finding the perfect sequence of button presses for LA Noire sidesteps the whole point of the interview system. It’s a literal system like any other and the gamer acts to master for self, not to perform. So, good dog. Have a treat.

That’s all that’s usually going on with the “player character”. Most of the rest of the time, play is driven more by self-expression.

Expression and Projection

When alignment systems try to force players to play in certain ways, they often revolt.

They choose to play chaotic neutral characters in Dungeons and Dragons and then act disruptively in every scene. The games master presents a quest that they could go on and they say no. The king asks the player to save the princess and instead he kills the king. Whatever. They also mess with the morality system in Fable to see just how far they can push it. They take to Twitter to complain about the ending of Mass Effect, which tried to channel them in specific directions.

Pushing players to act in-character reveals an interesting disconnect between why the game maker thinks they play (for story, for personal performance, for narrative experience perhaps) and why they actually play. This is what I meant when I said “the emotional connection between player and character that many game makers believe exists in fact does not.” It’s not a lack of connection. It’s a different connection.

The idea that there is just one type of player who only likes one type of game is, of course, nonsense. Some players play just for the functional. Others want to explore, relax or experience wonder. Some want to live a fantasy, such as running a football team, being a Formula One driver or commanding a kingdom. Some just like puzzles and don’t care otherwise. Some just want to make cool stuff in the game. Some just want to win prize money.

All of these types have something in common though: It’s about them doing, achieving, being and winning. And being told to play in one regimented way is simply the antithesis of all that, regardless of who you are and what kind of game you like. Impositions get in the way of self expression.

In my roleplaying days, players almost always defaulted to playing the same kind of persona. Though their characters may have had different backstories or costumes, they invariably became the same type over and over. They always ended up playing the tough guy, the creepy guy, the smart magic-using guy or the rogue. Even if they couldn’t literally be that person (such as in a game without magic) they still effectively carried on that way. This led me to think that players were not adopting in-character behaviour (like an actor might), but rather that their character altered to become a projection of self.

The projection of self is very important to understand: When I say that a player adopts a role in playing a narrativist or simulationist game, for example, I don’t mean they are performing. I mean that they see the job description that the game promises and that either tallies with an opportunity to self-express or not. They get to be the inner star footballer or knuckleheaded barbarian or vampire that they secretly fantasise about being. This is also why archetypal fantasy races like elves, dwarves and orcs feature repeatedly in games from Dungeons and Dragons to Shadowrun to Warhammer. Orcs are always orcs. Elves are always elves. They are signifiers of the opportunity to ego-project and to express self.

Games enable parts of our personality to come out by creating a safe other world iwith little or no consequence in this one. They engage our imagination because the world is there for us, on our terms, and if we want to leap tall buildings or solve puzzles or mow down bad guys we can. It’s always intermediated through a controller of some kind (another creative constant that I call lensing), but in a sense that lensing heightens certain kinds of internal responses that we already carry with us. (A bit like how some people become different when driving a car).

In video games I think this is also reflected in franchise loyalties. Much is made of the inferred complexity of popular game characters like Cole Phelps from LA Noire or Ethan from Heavy Rain, but many of the really popular character-led franchises are blank slates. Nobody tries to make Mario or the Master Chief play “in character” with sets of extrinsic motivators, and they are hugely popular. EA does not mandate that when playing FIFA you play in the Rooney style, or give you Rooney points (good dog!) for doing so. Rooney is yours to do with as you will. Rooney is your doll.

My Niko Bellic is different to yours. We are not interpreting Niko Bellic in two different ways to try and decode him for an audience, like performers. We are turning Niko Bellic into projections of ourselves, dressing him as we like (or not) driving the cars we like and solving missions in the way that we choose. My Niko is a murderous psychopath who mows down pedestrians, yours is careful and likes to avoid the police. All we are doing is turning the template of Niko Bellic into projections of our selves. He’s just a doll.

This, more or less, sums up all games. They are literal, self focused, self expressed, mastery driven and bring out existing parts of our personality rather than imposing one. Unrestrained by extrinsic rewards and good-dog behaviourism, self expression rules.

So you get Leeroy Jenkins. You this Facade video showing how it’s often actually played rather than how its makers hope it was played. You get Soulja Boy’s review of Braid as shown in Indie Game: The Movie, which Jonathan Blow admitted he found very depressing post launch as almost nobody understood the deeper points he was trying to make. You get profane 14 year olds goading you on Xbox Live.

Sounds bad, doesn’t it? Here’s the good: Self expression is also at the heart of creativity, discovery, exploration, delight and emotional connection.

Emotional Connections

In response to the piece I wrote about Tomb Raider, many commenters on Gamasutra responded that they have experienced emotional connection to their avatar in a game. My post was perhaps overly blunt when I said:

The issue is simply this: the emotional connection between player and character that many game makers believe exists does not. There is no such thing as a player character.

Perhaps how it should have been phrased was:

The issue is simply this: the emotional connection between player and character that many game makers believe exists does not. It is different. There is no such thing as a player character, but rather the player maker.

In childhood most of us own dolls and we invest a great deal of time in them. Even as we grow up we often hold onto one or two teddy bears or favoured GI Joes, and for adults there is a considerable industry in action figures and figurines.

In fact we develop emotional connections with objects all the time. It’s normal, even healthy, to do so. We connect with cars, computer brands, favoured cups for coffee, buildings, clothes and so on. We name things, sometimes even talk to them (remember Wilson from Castaway?). Sometimes we identify with special items for social reasons, such as treasuring a pair of Manolo Blahniks. Other times it’s because of personal significance, like your dead grandfather’s pocket watch. Perhaps it is because the object represents an investment of creativity, time or identity.

Taken in combination with projection and expression, object connection is (I believe) the correct way to understand what “player characters” really are. It’s also why I call them dolls, meaning a treasured possession.

The emotional connection to a Shepard or a Link comes from the way that they become us, we manipulate them, we dress them and grow them and we invest identity in them. We customise them, make them our own and interface with a whole world through them. And we grow fond of them. Yet we are always aware they are not actually alive and we are not them. We are their makers, their parents in a sense.

Emotional connection becomes even more complicated when story is involved.

There are two Niko Bellics. There is the Niko of the cut scene, the war-weary criminal who feels that he must obtain revenge for a past wrong, help his cousin Roman and get involved in the happenings of Liberty City. This Niko is taciturn, wise beyond his years and wry about the world around him. The other Niko is the little psychopath doll that I control, the one I described above. The one who is my conduit to Liberty City and whom I attire as I choose. There are also two Laras, two Marios, two Shepards, two Drakes and two Clouds.

There are times when they are characters and others when they are dolls, and the disconnect between the two can be quite odd. When a game reveals that the character version of my doll is not who I thought he was, for example, that can either be very clever or totally inappropriate. When the game over-characterises my doll (perhaps with ambient audio) to make him or her unlikeable, or unlike the self-expression that I project into it then that can feel strange. Sometimes in a good way, but often not. (Which is where my post on Tomb Raider came from.)

The duality of character and doll is perhaps most starkly illustrated by Heavy Rain. There are two Ethans. Character-Ethan is the grieving father having already lost one son, now tasked to find the other. His marriage is broken down, his life is a mess, everything he says or does is affected by a deep and painful sadness.

Doll-Ethan, on the other hand, is an android. He (you) wanders around his own house opening drawers to find out what’s in them and talking to people (such as his wife) to find out who they are. He plays swings with his children, but it’s a dislocated experience because he has no idea of his relationship to them. He talks to his remaining son in a playground like a machine, polling him with questions for answers. He even walks like an android, perfectly straight and turning clockwise or counter-clockwise on a dime.

Game makers like David Cage believe that the interplay between dramatic scenes and control strengthens the connection, in a kind of movies-plus-doing model, but my contention is that this is not so. Though lavish, Heavy Rain is modally no different to Jet Set Willy, and the same creative constant of self applies. Interposing duality mostly weakens the parental connection with the self-expressed doll and relegates it to play-time/story-time. “It’s okay,” says the game. “You just press buttons when you’re told. I’ll handle the emotional part.”

And so you get interminable cut scenes which just don’t seem to matter to the literal game. That’s why (no matter how well written) a cinematic-story led approach to games always feels oddly cold. It’s also why storysense works.

The Storysense Way

“Storysense” is an approach to narrative which relies on the creation of an interesting world, a discoverable set of threads and bits of story, a minimalist approach to goal direction, but dispenses with dramatic plot and character development. It treats story as a backing track to the play of the game, and so the player can participate or not as he likes. There is no time given over to extrinsically rewarding the player for being in-character, and the only rewards are literal – just as the game is. There is no elaborate characterisation, no attempt to insert unnecessary meaning, and no emoting at the player to try and make him or her feel.

Storysense is at the heart of successful pen and paper roleplaying games, where a good game master understands how to change up if the game is getting boring. Storysense is at the heart of virtual promenades like Dear Esther, where the relatively simple addition of a disconnected monologue elevates the experience of wandering around a desolate island without needing to pay exact attention to its sequence. The objective of storysense is to enhance the sensation of a world in motion. All expression and judgement is left to the player.

So there is only one Gordon Freeman, only one Executor from Starcraft and only one “you” in Journey (although there are cut scenes, your nameless adventurer simply watches them). They are all just you.

In Half Life you can lark about while conversations go on around you, or you can pay attention. It’s up to you. In Starcraft you can get with the spirit of the mission briefings and elements in the world like the alongside dialogue of the units, or just play it as a sport. Again, it’s up to you. In Journey you can participate with a fellow traveller generously, run through the game by yourself, or go about collecting every little power-up you can find. It’s your business. In Deus Ex you can stop and read every book or email and listen to every conversation. Or be an oblivious psychopath. It’s your call.

The mistake is to then try and turn that into a movie. Half Life 2, for example, traps the player in rooms with over-long conversations with key characters that go past the point of dull. Starcraft 2 employs many meant-to-be-stirring cut-scenes and dialogue sections in between missions which add little to the experience other than time. Red Dead Redemption is plenty of fun, but then there are some scenes where it’s all about characters reflecting on the hard life of the Old West, and they’re all a bit random really.

Though cut scenes can be informative or visually arresting when used well, using them for character drama is almost never interesting for very long regardless of the quality of writing (The one significant exception to this is if the scenes are hilarious). Again, it’s because of the modality of playing games. That’s tough to hear for designers who want games to be like movies, but it’s just the reality: Create a big saga game with lots of emoting and storytelling, and most players will not bother to finish it.

Here’s another tagline that annoys some people, but is true:

In 40 years of making games there has never been a good “told” story, but thousands of great “sensed” stories.

I believe that the evidence shows that there will never be a great told story in games because they modally do not work. Ultimately they are paradoxical. They only ever produce the need to either tolerate the game because you like the story, or vice versa. Either way we will always see actual storytelling arts like books or films streak very far ahead of games because telling stories is what they are all about, modally speaking. No amount of production budget or technology is ever Ever EVER EVER going to change that.

Rather than being dramatic, games demand to be something else: thaumatic. Storysense works because it treats your doll as a doll, as an interface or conduit into the world. It works because it allows the players to fully self-express. It works because it keeps the goals literal. Accepting that involves a big sacrifice: It means giving up on formal storytelling, and reducing it to the role of setting objectives.

The short cut-scene that says “go here, do this” and nothing more is one example. The quest which is one line on a message board that you accept is another. The inherent goal that arises from the pressures of the game, such as a boss moment. The urge to run away from a scary noise down a dark corridor. The experience of playing a small GBA soccer game and going into that world to feel success. From the smallest to the largest games, this is the approach that works because it is game-native.

Great storysense requires a great doll and a great world, great opportunities for self expression and clear literal tasks. Then the game can earn legitimacy to create poignant moments. The moment in Journey when you are walking up the side of the bleak snowy mountain is one example: It’s a journey you have made with your robed doll, you see it slowing down and the shrinking of its ribbon. You see the ice, foresee the end and that thaumatic feeling grows: You are there. You feel cold. It is perhaps the end.

How much worse would it have been if it had transitioned into cutscene mode and started talking at you?

Children And The Self-Selected

Two counter-examples are often raised to the above points that should be addressed. The first is how children play.

Let’s Pretend is a common example used to illustrate a storymaking experience. Kids will, through dolls or other games, construct stories. Even something as simple as a deck of cards can be a vehicle for meaning, such as playing Snap with my 3-year-old niece wherein she would not let me play the Jack of Spades on the Jack of Hearts because they apparently weren’t friends. And a 7 and a 3 could snap because apparently they had been married. Children do this sort of thing all at the time. While the play brain learns to focus on narrow and specific problems, the art brain learns to see the world as story and situation through fantasy.

Even into adulthood we continue to sort events into patterns that we understand, editing out the unimportant parts and so render factual memories into narratives (this is why witnesses in court cases are often unreliable). However this is different from a child’s experience. Children do not necessarily understand the difference between reality and unreality, but (sane) adults do.

Although adults attribute character and attachment to objects (see above), they also know that a thing is just a thing and they are themselves. They do not actually think their favourite car has a personality, nor that their grandfather’s watch is capable of magical connections. Children might really believe in Santa Claus, but adults know better. Unlike a child, an adult art brain is developed.

You might play a game of Space Hulk and imagine some vague back story going to the events of the game but it’s unlikely that you find everything in the game numinous. Game makers have to work hard to make a “Cake is a Lie” moment have its intended effect precisely because adults will not invest as much imagination as children do, and are not as easily inspired as children are. Because the adult gamer is expressing himself rather than becoming someone else, Portal has to work with that. So the cake is a lie to you. It signals danger to you. It creates the impression of a larger world around you.

The second example is the gamer who tries to play in character.

In every roleplaying game there are a small contingent of players who try to do this. In World of Warcraft, for example, there are 57 ‘RP’ and ‘RP-PVP’ servers where the house rules maintain that players should act in-character. However that compares to 465 ‘PVE’ and ‘PVP’ servers where no such requirement applies. (source: Wowwiki.com)

Anecdotally this tallies with my experiences. About one in every ten players wants to get into the persona side of the game. The other nine play literally. So, without dismissing the 10%, there is an element of outlier behaviour to in-character play, and this is reflected in many arenas. The old MUSH scene, for example, was always an activity for tiny minorities and usually little more than a cybersex forum. Ditto Second Life.

Broadly speaking in-character play falls into two camps. There are those for whom it is about mimicry. So when playing City of Heroes they might create their own Incredible Hulk, or their own Picard in Star Trek Online. The more adventurous types in this category might even be into activities like cosplay. They are the people who’s in-game characters often take names and identities from other sources like Tolkien, anime, superheroes or Star Trek. They self-express through hero worship, saying that Legolas or Naruto or Commander Data is them.

The other kind of in-character players are those who maintain that they do in fact try to act as the character. These are the kind of players that game makers who believe games will become something modally different look for. It is the makers’ hope that those players will one day go from being the tiny minority to the large majority, and so validate games and storytelling.

This kind of player (let’s call them “dramatic players”) tries to play Max Payne while trying to be Max. He often says something along the lines of how he identifies with the character, feels for his struggle and that he is guiding the character through the quest. He likely plays Bioshock and finds the moral choices of the game affecting, or wanted to play Deus Ex without having to kill anyone at all. Or so he says.

I’m not sure he really does. In pen and paper and live action roleplaying games, dramatic players tend to act in character during moments where skilful play doesn’t matter (such as having an enjoyable conversation). However when the levers of the game need to be pushed, they become just as win-motivated as everyone else. In a sense it’s all well and good to speak like a noble in front of a dragon, but when the dragon is dead it’s usually all about the loot drop.

The dramatic gamer wants constant in-character interaction to take place, wants to find it meaningful and wants for their experience to be as deep as Shakespeare. However being in-character is often only a momentary thing, and even at that defaults to the same self expressed archetypes again and again of always playing the elf, the dwarf, the chaotic good guy and so on. Only rarely have I ever seen a player who fully gets into dramatic mode (such as making choices which disadvantage them because they’re in-character). Even in the relatively social setting of roleplaying this is uncommon. In video games I’d be amazed if more than 1 in every 1000 players regularly plays that way.

As a result, I think dramatic gamers (who exist for most kinds of game) self-select. As the people who are supposed to find this kind of thing meaningful, they rationalise away the duality of their game experience. They’ll write articles about how meaningful a game is supposed to be, calling it the Citizen Kane of video games or expounding upon what the emotional connection between the player and the character should be. They are often very vocal but behind them is a gaping void of reality.

No, Mass Effect is not the most important science fiction work of the new millennium. No, LA Noire does not represent a coming of age for games-vs-movies. In the cold light of day they’re ham-handed games trying to be something other than their modality allows. (And secretly I think even the most ardent dramatic gamer knows this).

So I’m wary of over-interpreting the play of children or the self-selected dramatic gamer. Instead I look to the experience of the median adult who plays games. What does he or she find special? What does he or she come back to and play again and again? Where does she find her 100 hours of gameplay?

The first time your mind is expanded by a game is a powerfully imaginative sensation. It’s like the first time you see Star Wars, the first time you really understand the Mona Lisa or the first time you hear Pink Floyd play. However, as with all forms of novelty and revelation, that is not the common experience of play.

The cinephile whose mind was blown by Star Wars eventally becomes conversant in the language of film and so finds them interesting in a mature way. He doesn’t expect all films to be as inventive as Star Wars, and realises that there is more depth to the form even if it is modally always the same. The art fan does likewise, as does the music fan. Cinema, art, music and so on have more complicated conversations with their matured fans than with their neophytes, again along those same modal lines.

So to with games. The indie game scene is full of games which have a complex conversation with the kind of PAX-attending fans who know what platformers and roguelikes are. They are the sort of people who see through the veils of Facebook games quickly, who form niches around specific types of game and occasionally even becom tribes. They are the matured played-100-games-already players.

For these audiences, all of the games they enjoy tend to play well. They are not reaching for explanations of how children play, nor extreme movelty, nor rationales on the basis of what games should or should not be. They are not always reaching out to the pages of Wired to find players who know little of games and so are likely to be enchanted by their novelty. Games for this audience are as they are, and they have complicated conversations with them. They are examples of a maturing culture, for whom there is a steady stream of interest beyond the first example and for whom the modality is just fine.

The dramatic player wants that modality to change, for the conversation to be different, and for the ratio of roleplayers to literal-players to change from 1:9 to 9:1. Sadly, it won’t. For the rest, games are already an art and a culture as they are with their own internal values, such as play rather than show.

Play, Don’t Show

One of the great lessons in film, which took a generation to learn, is “Show, Don’t Tell”.

The earliest silent movies often used prompt cards and staged sets to tell stories. When talkies came along the cards went yet the sense of staging did not. In fact “staged film” still survives in sitcoms and Bollywood. Staged films were choreographed and dialogue-heavy, and the transition into cinematic entertainment didn’t happen all at once.

Starting with Citizen Kane and some others and then evolving into the New Wave, film-makers started to realise that they weren’t making recorded theatre. With little changes in technology, critical thinking and some banner examples like Welles’ work, they gradually came into their own. Staged films like sword-and-sandal epics or westerns continued to be made right up to the 70s, but by then were dead. Directors like Kubrick, Scorsese, Coppolla and Lucas showed what cinema could really do, and everything was different after that.

I see a similar situation in games, except where cinema used many of the conventions of theatre, games use many of the conventions of cinema. We’re passing through an era of “filmed games”, just as film passed through its era of “staged films”. And just as the lesson to learn in film was “Show, Don’t Tell”, the lesson in games is “Play, Don’t Show”.

What’s the best-designed game of the last five years? Everyone will have a different answer, but for me it’s Left 4 Dead. Left 4 Dead understands urgency and agency, clear goals and simple tasks, and variety. More than that, it has fantastic storysense, tapping right into that Dawn of the Dead apocalyptic zombie meme that is so popular these days. Even better is the way that it ties its gameplay into its storysense through limiting simple things like your ability to stand up when knocked over. And after playing a session or two you soon realise that you can’t leave a man behind. You will be overwhelmed.

It’s play, don’t show. Paint the world and let me play in it. Let me self-express. Let me ignore your story if I want to. Let me experience the synergy of frame and fantasy all in one place. Let me believe. Your specific answer to that best-designed question will vary (another recent candidate for me is Journey), but I’ll bet the quality of the experience you’re looking for doesn’t. That magic of games, the one you first encountered all those years ago is what you want to escape to, where you want to be and where you want your players to be.

Meaning is made rather than given. Belief happens when your game gets out of the way. Context is irrelevant. Characterisation is irrelevant. Authored emotion is irrelevant. Regardless of genre or fiction, rule or role, emergence or experience, strategy or skill, enabling the self to play and be inspired is what games are best at. On their own terms, modally, for the player.

I would love to see Bioware build a roleplaying game in the Mass Effect universe which understands modality as well as Elite and Frontier did. I would love to see Quantic Dream take the android-idea of Kara and realise that that kind of blank slate would lend itself to a much more powerful game. And I would love to see both studios trying to do that without resorting to cinema or miring themselves in unneeded “Show”. Staged films like Ben Hur seem quaint and bombastic to the modern cinematic audience, and filmed games are going that way too.

Conclusion

Dolls (avatars, player characters or whatever you prefer) are conduits of experience, of self and of self expression. They are you, you act through them, and sometimes they become your children. They are precious. They are not characters.

As a maker of games, you get to pull a player into a world in which they can self-express. You get to sling ideas at them while you do, inspire meaning and help them discover. You don’t get to tell them what to think and feel though, because the relationship is not really like that. You don’t get to creep them out and then expect that to be regarded as art either.

The player is not a performer. He’s not interpreting your tale or making up a story in his head at your direction. He is instead a seeker, a parent and an artist. The world is there for his play brain to master, his lizard brain to fear and his art brain to find meaningful. In providing him a doll, you transport him to this other place and time where the rules are different, the outcomes are more certain than life and within that magical space things can happen.

From the simplest soccer game to the most massively complex world, he can win. He can create. He can self-express.

He can believe.（Source：whatgamesare）