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

阐述“游戏”与“游戏体验”定义及区别

发布时间:2012-09-03 10:47:36 Tags:,,,

作者:Douglas Lynn

我曾在博客中花了大量时间在阐述游戏相关理论。我谈及了游戏设计过程,对于个人和社会来说游戏的意义是什么以及创造一款优秀游戏需要哪些元素等。而最近我又开始研究一个更大的问题,即游戏到底是什么——特别是当电子游戏正逐渐模糊游戏定义之时。虽然我也曾经思考过如何为游戏下定义,但是最终我还是将问题归结为有关语义的讨论——即相对于我所说的“游戏体验”去定义“游戏”。

什么是游戏体验?

游戏体验不只包含游戏玩法,同时还涵括了游戏定义和影响。它既是游戏本身,游戏描述,风格,社区互动,社区性质的表现,同时也是游戏影响玩家对其它游戏,媒体以及整个世界理解的重要方法。与游戏评估不同的是,在发行当天我们并不能明确游戏体验的质量。从三四十年前起我们便一直在创造着各种游戏体验。

这些因素与我最近提到的关于游戏定义的演变原理是相互联系着的。我们发现许多电子游戏都不能称得上是“游戏”,但是我们也没有其它更合适的描述词语了。也许这是描述这类游戏的另一种好方法——不再将其当成“游戏”,而以游戏体验去定义它们。

老实说,“体验”应该说是描述这些“非游戏”游戏的最佳术语。它们拥有某种程度的互动玩家控制形式,所以在此玩家会觉得自己好像在玩电子游戏一样——但这也是基于连接而言。剩下的便是围绕着互动属性创建世界。这是一种体验故事,观看图像,或坐着、盲目闲逛,忘却烦恼的互动方式。其中当然也不乏游戏元素,但是我们真正融入的是游戏体验。

例子—-游戏vs.体验

当然了,“游戏体验”并不能完全定义准游戏。每个游戏系统都拥有自己的游戏体验。而我认为最重要的便是强调什么才是真正吸引我们融入游戏的关键元素。

俄罗斯方块(from takegame.com)

俄罗斯方块(from takegame.com)

如此,游戏的定义到底是什么?让我们以《俄罗斯方块》为例。这款游戏只是更大的游戏体验中的一部分,但是当你坐下开始玩游戏时,真正吸引你融入其中的便是游戏本身。旋转砖块,小心放置并丢下砖块这一系列动作便是《俄罗斯方块》的游戏过程。而你之所以会在游戏中继续前进并不断回到游戏中便是受到这一过程的驱使。当你在玩《俄罗斯方块》的时候,你已深深陷入游戏世界中。

对于游戏体验我们还有很多需要阐述的内容。这时候就不得不提《暴雨》了。虽然玩家将将经历各种游戏事件并积极融入游戏过程,但是真正起推动作用的还是游戏故事。很有可能你玩游戏并不是为了完成任务或穿越游戏世界,而只是为了搞清楚游戏故事的最终发展走向。故事是游戏的最大组成部分,并直接连接着游戏玩法,但是这时候吸引玩家融入游戏的关键便不再是游戏玩法了。此时玩家融入的是游戏体验而非游戏。就像在《Proteus》中,玩家只需要从一处走到另一处。游戏目标则是由玩家的任何行动所决定。除非玩家真的非常好奇整个行走的过程,否则他们便不会愿意融入《Proteus》中。而当你在游戏中行走并创造着自己的动机,或者你融入游戏过程中并好奇道“游戏世界中有什么,而我又为何要将时间浪费于此”时,你便是在经历一种游戏体验。

proteus-beta(from shacknews.com)

proteus-beta(from shacknews.com)

当我们基于这种方式去理解“游戏”和“游戏体验”时,我们便表现出了一种高度的主观性。你是否融入于游戏或游戏体验中主要取决于你是如何看待游戏的。让我们以《合金装备》为例。许多人都将它当成是一款游戏看待。他们在游戏中拥有主要动机,也就是完善技能,掌握机制并努力成为最出色的Solid Snake。而我则属于那种只有在想要看电影的时候才会去玩这款游戏的玩家。游戏故事推动着我继续前进,这也是我愿意融入这种互动体验的主要原因。也就是我将游戏当成是游戏体验去看待。在《时空幻境》中亦是如此。很多人都将这款游戏当成是一件艺术品—-一种结合了游戏玩法,故事,视觉效果和音乐的出色体验。如此,《时空幻境》便是以游戏体验的身份存在着。我便是纯粹为了搞清楚那些讨厌的谜题才去玩这款游戏。

我曾经讨论过电子游戏中的故事设计,特别强调了这一设计是如何与《银河战士:另一个M》中备受争议的环境连接在一起。所以我就不在此白费口舌了,今天我将讨论另一个要点。在游戏发行之前,任天堂以《另一个M》打着“终极的《银河战士》体验”这样的口号去宣传这款游戏。但是最终游戏是否为我们带来了这种体验呢?绝对没有。那终极《银河战士》体验是怎样的?这个还有待讨论。越过游戏玩法而着眼于纯粹的游戏描述,你便能够基于一个新的视角去看待游戏。越过游戏本身而着眼于备受争议的环境(游戏邦注:忠实玩家基础间的巨大分裂),你便能够进入游戏中的另一个层面——无论好坏。简单地说,如果你是《银河战士》的忠实粉丝,你便能够经历这一过程。

联系

根据我的定义,游戏体验总是大于游戏;而游戏也总是涵括于游戏体验中。但是这时候你将注意到一个关键术语——动机。动机是藏在游戏前进过程背后的推动力量。推动着玩家从一个事件跳跃到另一个事件的动机是游戏玩法中的关键元素。如此便出现了一个有趣的问题——如果你是受到游戏体验的推动而非游戏本身,那么游戏体验是否算是游戏玩法的一大组成部分?随后还会引出一系列问题,如这是否就意味着比起游戏体验你更应该算是受到游戏本身的推动?是否意味着游戏体验拥有较大的分量?是否意味着你将受到游戏或新的游戏体验的激励?但是如果你是受到新的游戏体验的激励,喔,等一下,我想我们扯太远了。

基于这种意义,游戏与游戏体验间的关系具有循环性。如果你是为了感受怀旧之情而去玩一款游戏,那么你便是受到游戏体验的驱动才去追求游戏目标。如果你只是为了在别人面前炫耀自己而去玩一款很出名的游戏,那便是游戏本身推动着你这么做的。这是一种糟糕的游戏动机,我从未这么做过。

体验即产品

这是否能够用于定义游戏和准游戏?尽管游戏体验中的某些部分是发生在软件之外,但是其中一些体验也可以作为游戏玩法中的完整组件并作为程序包中的一份子。当我们在玩《失忆症:黑暗后裔》时,会看到一块文本提示说不要为了获胜而去玩游戏,应该真正融入游戏故事和环境中。忠实粉丝不会为了游戏的挑战性或乐趣去玩游戏,而会因为游戏所带来的直达内心的恐怖感选择游戏。所以说《失忆症》是将自己当成游戏体验进行推广(而非游戏)。

有些设计师会注重突出游戏玩法,也有些设计师看得更远些。但是不管是注重哪一点都没有好与坏之分,这些游戏中也存在着共享元素。它们具有相同的传统以及相同的开发者动机,能够进一步推动玩家选择游戏。尽管如此我们却不能将这些游戏归为相同的类别。我发现打着游戏体验的招牌去销售一款边缘游戏是合理的,因为事实上它就是在强调游戏体验。但是如果游戏中的“游戏元素”并不非其卖点,它就不应该被称为“游戏”。

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

What Is ‘The Game Experience’?

by Douglas Lynn

Introduction

In my blog, I’ve spent a lot of time on the subject of game theory. I’ve discussed the process of game design, what games mean to us as individuals and as a society, and some of the qualities that mark a great game. Most recently, however, I took a look at the larger question of just what games are, especially in a time when we see video games further and further blurring the lines of exactly what a game can be. As I’ve thought about exactly how games can be defined, I’ve reduced the question down to a terrible argument of semantics – defining the “game” as opposed to what I call the “game experience”.

What is the Game Experience?

The concept of the game experience encompasses not just gameplay, but the total package of what the game is and what it affects. It’s the game itself, its presentation, its style, the interactions within the community, the nature of the community itself, and the way a game impacts your interpretations of other games, other media, and the rest of the world. The quality of the game experience isn’t something that can be determined and broadcast on release day like a game’s review scores. The experiences of games from 30 and 40 years ago are still being written today.

This all factors in with another point I recently raised about the evolving definition of games. We see a lot of video games out there that can’t really be called “games”, but we don’t have any other good way to describe them. Perhaps this is another way to look at such games – not as “games” per se, but as game experiences. If nothing else, we can use this expression in the same way we refer to Velveeta as an “American cheese food product”.

In seriousness, though, an “experience” may be the most reliable term for these non-game games. They possess some level of interactive player control, so they play something like video games, but that may be as far as the connection goes. The rest is simply a world built around that interactive nature. It’s an interactive way to experience a story, an interactive way to view art, or an interactive way to sit and mindlessly roam around, forgetting your troubles. There’s some element of a game in there somewhere, but what you’re really engaged in, more than anything, is a game experience.

Examples – Game vs. Experience

Of course, “game experience” isn’t an entirely fair definition for quasi-games. Every game system has its own game experience. I think the key is in placing emphasis on exactly what it is we’re engaged with.

In this case, what would be the definition of a game? Think of something like Tetris. The game is part of a larger game experience, sure, but when you sit down to play Tetris, what keeps you engaged is the game itself. The process of rotating pieces, carefully placing them, and dropping them down is a gameplay process. That’s what pushes you forward, and that’s what keeps you coming back. When you play Tetris, you’re engaging, primarily, in a game.

Then there are the games we might describe more as game experiences. Something like Heavy Rain qualifies more in this sense. You play through game events and participate actively in the process, but the primary driving force behind Heavy Rain is its story. More than likely, you don’t play it primarily to complete tasks or move through the game world. You play it to see where narrative events are leading. The story is a big part of the game and is directly connected to the gameplay, but the primary engagement of the player is not with the gameplay itself. The player is engaging in a game experience, rather than a game. Proteus, as I’ve discussed previously, only deals with walking from place to place. Goals are whatever you make of them. Now, unless you’re immensely intrigued by the process of walking, Proteus isn’t engaged with as a game. As you walk and create your own motivations, or even if you engage in the process and simply wonder “What in the world is this and why would I waste my time playing it?”, you’re participating in a game experience.

When we look at the concept of “game” and “game experience” in this way, we begin to run into a high degree of subjectivity. Whether you engage in a game or a game experience depends greatly on how you approach the game. Look at Metal Gear Solid. Many people play it as a game. They have key motivations to improve their skills, master the mechanics, and be the best damn Solid Snake they can be. I’m the type who plays it when I feel like watching a movie. The story drives me forward, and that’s the main reason I engage in the interactive portions. I approach the game as a game experience. Something similar could be said of Braid. Many people seem to view Braid as a work of art – an elegant experience that is a combination of gameplay, narrative, visual art, and music. In this case, Braid is enjoyed as a game experience. I’m the type that plays it purely to beat those pesky puzzles.

In one of my very first posts, I discussed (at great length) narrative design in video games, but specifically, how it tied into the controversy surrounding Metroid: Other M. Not to beat a dead horse, but there’s another point I’d like to bring up. You see, leading up to the game’s release, Nintendo touted Other M as “the ultimate Metroid experience”. Now, did it prove to be the ultimate Metroid game? Absolutely not. By no means. But the ultimate Metroid experience? There’s actually room for argument. (The answer is still no, but it’s at least a much more accurate assessment.) Looking beyond the gameplay to the sheer spectacle of the presentation offers a new view on the title. Looking beyond the title itself to the insanely overblown controversy surrounding it which drew a great schism through a devoted fan base – that provides another layer to the mix, for better or for worse. Simply put, if you were a Metroid fan, it was quite the thing to live through.

Connections

By my definition, the game experience is always larger than the game; the game is always contained within the game experience. But you may have noticed a key term popping up – motivation. Motivation is the driving force (the motivating force, I suppose) behind progression through a game. Motivation to progress from one event to another is a key element of gameplay. Thus, we’re left with an interesting question…if you’re motivated by the game experience more than the game itself, isn’t that game experience now a part of the gameplay? But then doesn’t that mean you’re more motivated by the game than the experience? But then doesn’t that just mean the game experience is larger? But then are you more motivated by the game or this new game experience? But if you’re more motivated by the new game experience, then y—oh no, I’ve gone cross-eyed.

In this sense, the relationship between the game and the game experience is somewhat cyclical. If you’re drawn to play a game for the sake of nostalgia, that’s the game experience drawing you along towards the game’s goal. If you play a popular game in front of people to make yourself look cool, that’s the game experience propelling you along. It’s also terribly sad. I’ve never done this, of course.

Experience as Product

So how, then, does this help us define games and quasi-games? While it’s true that a certain part of the game experience takes place outside the software, some of it can be created as an integral piece of the gameplay and included as a part of the package. When you first begin a playthrough of Amnesia: The Dark Descent, a block of text prompts you not to play the game to win, but to get involved in the story and environment. Fans will instruct you to play the game not because it’s challenging or fun, but because it’s scary, visceral, and just generally engaging. In this sense, Amnesia is marketing itself directly (and indirectly) as a game experience, not a game.

Some games are crafted for the gameplay. Others are crafted to look beyond it. Neither is necessarily better than the other, and they both contain shared elements. They share the same heritage and the same developer motivations to engage and entertain the audience. However, placing these titles in the same category is proving to be a bit inaccurate. The way I see it, there’s nothing wrong with marketing a fringe game as a game experience, because that’s what it is. If the “game” aspect of a game isn’t what’s being sold, it probably shouldn’t be called a game.

But really, you can call it what you want. I’m not in charge here.(source:GAMASUTRA)


上一篇:

下一篇: