作者：Thomas Grip

前言

过去几年，我越来越觉得，电子游戏的故事没有成为它本来应该成为的样子。关键问题不是出在文字、主题、角色之类的东西上，而是在于整体表达上。当我玩游戏时，总是有些东西阻止我真正地体会游戏剧情。思考了这个问题相当长一段时间后，我想到了5个元素，我认为是它们是优秀的交互式故事的核心所在。

以下是我对这个问题的看法，只是个人观点，绝对算不上什么严谨的科学理论。也就是说，我认为我提出的5个核心元素不是浅薄的原则也不是小众美学的总结。我确实认为，它们可以成为改进游戏故事的一个理想的基础框架，体现了大部分人对交互式故事的期待。

另外，以下所列元素都是必须的，丢掉任何一个都会破坏故事体验。

1、剧情是焦点

这是非常简单的一点：游戏必须从头到尾叙述故事。不一定是关于谜题、收集宝石或射击移动目标的游戏。游戏可以包含各种特征，但这些都不能成为体验的核心。游戏存在的原因必须是让玩家沉浸于故事中；其他特征的地位都不能高于这一点。

为什么？理由是显而易见的。希望表达故事的游戏当然必须专注于这一点。下文中提到的几个问题就是直接由于不重视这个元素导致的。

这个元素的关键方面是，故事必须是具体实在的。它必须包含可信的角色和背景以及一定的戏剧性。游戏的故事不能太抽象、太简单或缺少有趣的、故事相关的事件。

2、大部分时间是在玩游戏

电子游戏是一种互动媒体，因此体验必须包含某些形式的互动作用。游戏的核心不应该是阅读或观看过场动画，而应该是玩这个行为本身。这并不是说互动活动必须是持续不断的；仍然必须有一些中断时间，甚至非连续性也可能是必要的。

以上说法听起来相当简单，简直是游戏设计的基础，但并不明显。游戏设计的一个普遍法则是，选择是王道，正如Sid Meier曾经精辟地总结道：“游戏是一系列有趣的选择。”然而，我不认为这对于交互式故事也是完全适用的。如果选择就是一切，那么“选择你自己的冒险”系列丛书不就是终极交互式小说了吗？—-然而它们并不是。某些以剧情为主的知名游戏甚至完全没有任何与故事相关的选择（游戏邦注：《末日余生》就是一个例子）。鉴于这一点，我不禁怀疑：交互性真的那么重要吗？

The Last of Us(from nerdsraging)

交互性确实重要，但不是指做选择。我的观点是，交互性在故事中的主要意义是创造一种存在感，一种置身于游戏世界的感觉。为了达到这个目标， 必须有一个稳定的主动操作（玩游戏）的过程。如果玩家太长时间处于被动状态，那么他们就会脱离体验，特别是在当玩家感觉他们应该有控制权的环节的时候。游戏必须总是致力于保持和强化“存在感”。

3、交互活动必须有剧情感

为了让玩家融入故事，他们的行动必须与重要的事件有一定相关性。玩法一定要与故事相关，哪怕是一点点相关。原因有二：

第一，玩家必须觉得他们是故事的主动参与者而不只是一个被动观察者。如果故事没有任何重要事件与玩家相关，那么他们就会变成被动的参与者。如果游戏的玩法基本上就是匹配消除宝石，那么玩家是否花99%的时间与游戏产生交互作用，也就不重要了；他们不是重要事件的一部分，所以他们的行动是无关的。玩法必须成为故事的基础，而不只是一种用于等待下一个场景的辅助活动。

第二，玩家必须能够从行动中理解自己的作用。如果玩家扮演的是一名侦探，那么这一点必须从玩法中体现出来。需要借助过场动画之类的东西来解释玩家的作用的游戏，其实就是没有把故事讲好。

4、无重复性行动

许多游戏的核心沉浸感来源于精通系统。玩家在游戏中花的时间越长，他们就会对游戏越熟悉。为了使这个过程生效，玩家的行动必须是重复的。但优秀的故事中不应该出现重复性活动。相反地，我们希望活动持续的时间符合游戏节奏的需要。玩家玩游戏不是为了精通某些机制，而是成为好游戏中的一个角色。当一个活动已经完成它的目标，希望把故事讲好的游戏就必须继续进展。

重复性的另一个问题是，它破坏了玩家的想象力。许多媒体依赖受众的想象力来填补故事事件之间的空隙。电影和小说就非常依赖受众的个人解读。但如果相同的活动反复发生，想象的空间就会越来越小。最终，玩家再也无力填补这些空隙，于是就觉得故事太死板。

这并不意味着核心机制必须不断改变，而是说机制的使用方法必须有所变化。《地狱边境》和《时空幻境》都是突出的例子。在这些游戏中，玩家可以很快学会基本的玩法，但在整个体验过程中，游戏仍然不断变化机制的表现形式。

5、主进程无阻塞点

为了把玩家留在故事中，他们的注意力必须始终停留在故事事件上。这当然不是说不应该遇到挑战，但必须保证这些阻碍不会太占用玩家的注意力。务必记住，玩家玩游戏是为了体验故事。如果他们卡在某个点上，他们的注意力就会从故事转移到单纯地通关上。进而，玩家会开始挖掘游戏的深层机制。这两种情况都会严重破坏故事体验。

造成这个问题的主要有三个原因：谜题太复杂或含糊、对技术要求太高或环境如迷宫般曲折。许多游戏都在这三点上犯了错，玩家进展不下去也往往是因为它们，要么是不知道接下来应该干什么，要么是不具备继续进展所需的技术。不是说不能使用谜题、迷宫或技术性挑战，而是必须保证它们不会阻碍体验。如果这些挑战会阻碍玩家体验故事，那么就必须剔除。

什么游戏达到以上所有要求？

这5个条件似乎是很明显的。当我写这篇文章时，我经常觉得我所写的东西已经是常识了。但为什么还有那么多游戏达不到要求呢？想到这一点，我觉得很是吃惊。这些元素提出的条件是相当普遍的，但全部满足的游戏却非常罕见。

纯故事性游戏的最佳代表似乎就是视觉系小说。但这类小说在第2个元素上失败了；它们的交互性太低，玩家基本上沦为读者。它们在第3个元素上也做得不好，因为它们给玩家提供太多与故事相关的活动（基本上是以被动方式展示出来）。

动作游戏如《末日余生》和《生化奇兵之无限》在第4和第5个元素上表现不佳。此外，这些游戏在很大程度上也达不到第3个元素的要求。它们经常用过场动画来表现故事内容，这意味着它们中有些也不满足第2个元素的要求。RPG类游戏也不能幸免，因为他们通常包含太多重复性元素。它们往往有太长的中断时间，因为过场动画和对话太多。

游戏如《暴雨》和《行尸走肉》让人觉得非常接近于交互式故事，但在第2个元素上达不到预期效果。这些游戏基本上是带有交互性的电影。虽然交互性是体验不可分割的一部分，但还发挥不了主要作用。另外，除了少数要求反应能力的玩法，确实比其他游戏更讲究思考和计划。这就大大损害了游戏本应该有的沉浸感。

那么，到底有什么游戏完全具备以上5点元素呢？因为各个元素的要求都不是非常具体，所以有没有满足条件取决于评估方法。我认为最接近要求的游戏是《Thirty Flights of Loving》，但它有一个小问题，那就是故事太奇怪太零碎了。所以，它仍然不是具备5点元素的游戏。另一个比较接近的是《The Moon》，但它的对话和过场动画太多。《Gone Home》也比较接近，但玩家活动和核心故事之间的关联性太弱，操作的时间太少，阅读的时间太多。

无论你是否认为这些游戏满足5大元素的要求，我觉得它们多少是有突破的。如果我们想改进故事，可以从它们当中汲取灵感。另外，我想指出，这些游戏在评论和商业上都收获成功了，所以显然它们有值得借鉴和欣赏的地方。

总结

这些元素与游戏的品质无关。达不到以上任何一点要求的游戏仍然有可能是一款出色的游戏，但不能标榜它的故事具有丰富的可玩性和交互性。同样地，完全满足以上要求的游戏也可能是劣质品。这些元素只是描绘了某种体验的基础轮廓。我认为，那种体验在今天的电子游戏中几乎是不存在的。

我希望开发者在计划和评估自己的项目时能考虑到这5点。能不能按这条思路做出游戏还是一个有待解答的问题，毕竟在这方面的探索还不多。但接近具备所有这些元素的游戏确实包罗了多种体验。我毫不怀疑，这是一条非常有希望的探索道路。

注：

我漏掉的交互性的另一个重要方面是计划的能力。当以《行尸走肉》和《暴雨》为例子时，我稍微提到了这一点，但它还值得进一步挖掘。优秀的玩法交互活动不是要求玩家按各种键，而是玩家活动对游戏的未来状态有影响。当玩家执行输入时，玩家应该是在模拟他们头脑中想到的结果。即使玩家的想象只持续相当短的时间（如“现在必须射击飞来的小行星了”），但效果是大不同的，因为现在玩家的输入已经不是单纯的条件反射了。

什么叫作重复性？这个问题很值得讨论。例如，游戏如《Dear Esther》只有两种玩家动作：走和看；实在没什么变化性可言。但因为场景是不断变化的，所以不会有人说活动太重复。有些游戏虽然提供了非常丰富的、复杂的动作，但如果游戏要求玩家在类似的场景中不断执行这些动作，玩家仍然会觉得重复性太高。我认为可以说，重复性基本上是一个资源问题。用有限的资源做出无重复性的游戏是不可能的。这也意味着能把故事讲好的游戏必然是要求大量资源的。

我认为还有一些游戏也接近于具备所有元素的：《The Path》、《Journey》、《Everyday the Same Dream》、《Dinner Date》、《Imortall》和《Kentucky Route Zero》。它们是否成功，取决于不同的解读，因为它们都比较小众。它们仍然是值得关注的游戏。毕竟有了它们，我所认为的满足或至少接近满足上述五个元素的游戏列表才能完整。

（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）

5 Core Elements Of Interactive Storytelling

by Thomas Grip

Introduction

Over the past few years I have had a growing feeling that videogame storytelling is not what it could be. And the core issue is not in the writing, themes, characters or anything like that; instead, the main problem is with the overall delivery. There is always something that hinders me from truly feeling like I am playing a story. After pondering this on and off for quite some time I have come up with a list of five elements that I think are crucial to get the best kind of interactive narrative.

The following is my personal view on the subject, and is much more of a manifesto than an attempt at a rigorous scientific theory. That said, I do not think these are just some flimsy rules or the summary of a niche aesthetic. I truly believe that this is the best foundational framework to progress videogame storytelling and a summary of what most people would like out of an interactive narrative.

Also, it’s important to note that all of the elements below are needed. Drop one and the narrative experience will suffer.

With that out of the way, here goes:

1) Focus on Storytelling

This is a really simple point: the game must be, from the ground up, designed to tell a story. It must not be a game about puzzles, stacking gems or shooting moving targets. The game can contain all of these features, but they cannot be the core focus of the experience. The reason for the game to exist must be the wish to immerse the player inside a narrative; no other feature must take precedence over this.

The reason for this is pretty self-evident. A game that intends to deliver the best possible storytelling must of course focus on this. Several of the problems outlined below directly stem from this element not being taken seriously enough.

A key aspect to this element is that the story must be somewhat tangible. It must contain characters and settings that can be identified with and there must be some sort of drama. The game’s narrative cannot be extremely abstract, too simplistic or lack any interesting, story-related, happenings.

2) Most of the time is spent playing

Videogames are an interactive medium and therefore the bulk of the experience must involve some form of interaction. The core of the game should not be about reading or watching cutscenes, it should be about playing. This does not mean that there needs to be continual interaction; there is still room for downtime and it might even be crucial to not be playing constantly.

The above sounds pretty basic, almost a fundamental part of game design, but it is not that obvious. A common “wisdom” in game design is that choice is king, which Sid Meier’s quote “a game is a series of interesting choices” neatly encapsulate. However, I do not think this holds true at all for interactive storytelling. If choices were all that mattered, choose your own adventure books should be the ultimate interaction fiction – they are not. Most celebrated and narrative-focused videogames does not even have any story-related choices at all (The Last of Us is a recent example). Given this, is interaction really that important?

It sure is, but not for making choices. My view is that the main point of interaction in storytelling is to create a sense of presence, the feeling of being inside the game’s world. In order to achieve this, there needs to be a steady flow of  active play. If the player remains inactive for longer periods, they will distance themselves from the experience. This is especially true during sections when players feel they ought to be in control. The game must always strive to maintain and strengthen experience of “being there”.

3) Interactions must make narrative sense

In order to claim that the player is immersed in a narrative, their actions must be somehow connected to the important happenings. The gameplay must not be of irrelevant, or even marginal, value to the story. There are two major reasons for this.

First, players must feel as though they are an active part of the story and not just an observer. If none of the important story moments include agency from the player, they become passive participants. If the gameplay is all about matching gems then it does not matter if players spends 99% of their time interacting; they are not part of any important happenings and their actions are thus irrelevant. Gameplay must be foundational to the narrative, not just a side activity while waiting for the next cutscene.

Second, players must be able to understand their role from their actions. If the player is supposed to be a detective, then this must be evident from the gameplay. A game that requires cutscenes or similar to explain the player’s part has failed to tell its story properly.

4) No repetitive actions

The core engagement from many games come from mastering a system. The longer time players spend with the game, the better they become at it. In order for this process to work, the player’s actions must be repeated over and over. But repetition is not something we want in a well formed story. Instead we want activities to only last as long as the pacing requires. The players are not playing to become good at some mechanics, they are playing to be part of an engrossing story. When an activity has played out its role, a game that wants to do proper storytelling must move on.

Another problem with repetition is that it breaks down the player’s imagination. Other media rely on the audience’s mind to fill out the blanks for a lot of the story’s occurrences. Movies and novels are vague enough to support these kinds of personal interpretations. But if the same actions are repeated over and over, the room for imagination becomes a lot slimmer. Players lose much of the ability to fill gaps and instead get a mechanical view of the narrative.

This does not mean that the core mechanics must constantly change, it just means that there must be variation on how they are used. Both Limbo and Braid are great examples of this. The basic gameplay can be learned in a minute, but the games still provide constant variation throughout the experience.

5) No major progression blocks

In order to keep players inside a narrative, their focus must constantly be on the story happenings. This does not rule out challenges, but it needs to be made sure that an obstacle never consumes all focus. It must be remembered that the players are playing in order to experience a story. If they get stuck at some point, focus fade away from the story, and is instead put on simply progressing. In turn, this leads to the unraveling of the game’s underlying mechanics and for players to try and optimize systems. Both of these are problems that can seriously degrade the narrative experience.

There are three common culprits for this: complex or obscure puzzles, mastery-demanding sections and maze-like environments. All of these are common in games and make it really easy for players to get stuck. Either by not being sure what to do next, or by not having the skills required to continue. Puzzles, mazes and skill-based challenges are not banned, but it is imperative to make sure that they do not hamper the experience. If some section is pulling players away from the story, it needs to go.

Games that do this

These five elements all sound pretty obvious. When writing the above I often felt I was pointing out things that were already widespread knowledge. But despite this, very few games incorporate all of the above. This quite astonishing when you think about it. The elements by themselves are quite common, but the combination of all is incredibly rare.

The best case for games of pure storytelling seems to be visual novels. But these all fail at element 2; they simply are not very interactive in nature and the player is mostly just a reader. They often also fails at element 3 as they do not give the player much actions related to the story (most are simply played out in a passive manner).

Action games like Last of Us and Bioshock infinite all fail on elements 4 and 5 (repetition and progression blocks). For larger portions of the game they often do not meet the requirements of element 3 (story related actions) either. It is also frequently the case that much of the story content is delivered in long cutscenes, which means that some do not even manage to fulfill element 2 (that most of the game is played). RPG:s do not fare much better as they often contain very repetitive elements. They often also have way too much downtime because of lengthy cutscenes and dialogue.

Games like Heavy Rain and The Walking Dead comes close to feeling like an interactive narrative, but fall flat at element 2. These games are basically just films with interactions slapped on to them. While interaction plays an integral part in the experience it cannot be said to be a driving force. Also, apart from a few instances the gameplay is all about reacting, it does have have the sort of deliberate planning that other games do. This removes  a lot of the engagement that otherwise come naturally from videogames.

So what games do fulfill all of these elements? As the requirements of each element are not super specific, fulfillment depends on how one choose to evaluate. The one that I find comes closest is Thirty Flights of Loving, but it is slightly problematic because the narrative is so strange and fragmentary. Still, it is by far the game that comes closest to incorporating all elements. Another close one is To The Moon, but it relies way too much on dialog and cutscenes to meet the requirements. Gone Home is also pretty close to fulfilling the elements. However, your actions have little relevance to the core narrative and much of the game is spent reading rather than playing.

Whether one choose to see these games are fulfilling the requirements or not, I think they show the path forward. If we want to improve interactive storytelling, these are the sort of places to draw inspiration from. Also, I think it is quite telling that all of these games have gotten both critical and (as far as I know) commercial success. There is clearly a demand and appreciation for these sort of experiences.

Final Thoughts

It should be obvious, but I might as well say it: these elements say nothing of the quality of a game. One that meets none of the requirements can still be excellent, but it cannot claim to have fully playable, interactive storytelling as its main concern. Likewise, a game that fulfills all can still be crap. These elements just outline the foundation of a certain kind of experience. An experience that I think is almost non-existent in videogames today.

I hope that these five simple rules will be helpful for people to evaluate and structure their projects. The sort of videogames that can come out of this thinking is an open question as there is very little done so far. But the games that are close to having all these elements hint at a very wide range of experiences indeed. I have no doubts that this path will be very fruitful to explore.

Notes

Another important aspects of interaction that I left out is the ability to plan. I mention it a bit when discussing Walking Dead and Heavy Rain, but it is a worth digging into a little bit deeper. What we want from good gameplay interaction is not just that the player presses a lot of buttons. We want these actions to have some meaning for the future state of the game. When making an input players should be simulating in their minds how they see it turning out. Even if it just happens on a very short time span (eg “need to turn now to get a shot at the incoming asteroid”) it makes all the difference as now the player has adapted the input in way that never happens in a purely reactionary game.

The question of what is deemed repetitive is quite interesting to discuss. For instance, a game like Dear Esther only has the player walking or looking, which does not offer much variety. But since the scenery is constantly changing, few would call the game repetitive. Some games can also offer really complex and varied range of actions, but if the player is tasked to perform these constantly in similar situations, they quickly gets repetitive. I think is fair to say that repetition is mostly an asset problem. Making a non-repetitive game using limited asset counts is probably not possible. This also means that a proper storytelling game is bound to be asset heavy.

Here are some other games that I feel are close to fulfilling all elements: The Path,Journey, Everyday the Same Dream, Dinner Date, Imortall and Kentucky Route Zero. Whether they succeed or not is a bit up to interpretation, as all are a bit borderline. Still all of these are well worth one’s attention. This also concludes the list of all games I can think of that is have, or at least are closing to having, these five elements.（source：gamasutra）