作者：Patrick Miller

我所写的有关GDC Next的系列访问怎么能少了Chris Crawford。他不仅是Balance of Power的创造者，Game Developers Conference（游戏邦注：当时被称为Computer Game Developers Conference，他最初是在自己的起居室创造游戏）的最初创办者；同时他也一直被当成游戏的未来——特别在考虑到媒体在互动故事叙述的潜力上。

通过阅读本篇采访你将知道是什么力量推动着Crawford不断探索真正具有情感吸引力的游戏。

chris-crawford-gdc(from blog.foobt.net)

Patrick Miller：你已经来到游戏产业很长一段时间了，你是否发现人们创造游戏的方式发生了改变？你认为接下来还会发生什么变化？

Chris Crawford：我们已经习惯于一种模式：喜欢玩游戏的年轻人总是会冲进这个产业，渴望在游戏中留下自己的印记。但是因为他们往往只了解自己玩过的游戏，所以关于游戏是什么他们总是不能给出更广泛的答案。相反地，他们只会想着在同样的基础设计中添加一些巧妙的新变化。他们坚持着这一做法，并在最终厌烦时转向其它行业。

玩家也是遵循着同样的曲线：年轻的时候他们投入了巨大精力于游戏中，但是随着年龄的增长他们会逐渐失去对游戏的兴趣，因为他们觉得现在的游戏与自己年轻时玩的并无两样。所以他们便不会再愿意往游戏中投钱了。但是新玩家的数量与离开游戏的玩家数量一样，所以这个产业才能保持稳定。

这里存在两个让人较为困惑的变化：首先，市场继续向海外扩展，人们也因为变得更加富裕所以愿意将更多时间投入游戏中。其次，一小群独立开发者决定想出一些新方法。在其它创造性领域中，他们所创造的99%的产品都是垃圾，但剩下的1%却都非常有趣。

游戏领域所面对的最大挑战是开发互动性故事叙述的问题。产业已经迈进该领域，但到目前为止开发者们所创造的只是对于所谓的“交叉故事/游戏”的精化。他们只是在非互动故事和互动游戏间转变着。

人们总是认为，如果能够做到有效整合，游戏便能够呈现出故事的特色。但这只是一种错觉：在你能够基于一种有意义的方法与角色进行互动前，你并不是真正解决问题。我将强调问题的复杂性：我已经致力于这一问题20多年，但是迄今还未找到真正的解决方法。

PM：你认为什么才是产业中最理想的“管道”——即将推动你所谓的创造性。

CC：Georgia Tech开设了一个很棒的课程，让学生们可以在此玩各种类型的游戏，包括桌面游戏。这真的很有帮助。但是现在的凹槽已经陷得太深了，导致人们很难再挣脱它。从短期看来，我们将只是依赖于Jason Rohrer等人才去打破窠臼。只有在出现足够多真正陌生的游戏后，人们才会开始基于更广的范围进行思考。

PM：对我来说，自从你发表了“Dragon”的演讲以来，产业已经发生了很大的变化。你是否发现哪些游戏执行了你想要看到的变化？最近哪些作品和创造者鼓舞了你（不管是在游戏中还是游戏外）？

CC：在63岁这个年龄层，我已经很难再受到鼓舞了；这个年龄的人总是会觉得自己见过各种事物。的确有些设计在创造性方面非常让人难忘，但是我仅仅专注于社交互动方面，并且未在这里发现太大的发展。Michael Mateas和Andrew Stern所创造的游戏《Facade》是第一个出色的互动故事世界。我非常期待Emily Short的新作品，但是它现在还处于早期开发阶段。

我不希望再看到一些相同且早旧的内容，就像将陈年老酒装载新瓶子中一样。有时候我也会阅读一些游戏访问。也许有些人很难把握这些内容，但是只要你跟我一样在这个产业中待这么久，你便可以通过浏览网页或阅读一两个访问而掌握游戏内部的发展。

PM：我很难理解你所说的“难以再受到鼓舞；一个人觉得自己看过世界上的一切内容。”是什么激励你继续致力于为互动故事叙述创造可行的模型，是不是你所阅读过的书籍或你所交谈过的人？是什么元素让你想到互动故事该如何发展以及玩家该如何沉浸于其中？

CC：在我的持续工作中最重要的一大元素便是固执的性格。现在我意识到了自己所承担的挑战对于其他人来说的确过大了。然而我认为自己不会满足于较低的目标。所以我只能更加吃力地向前走，放慢脚步，一步一步地迈向看似不可能的高峰。我认为自己正在进步着，但是我也知道自己不可能活的那么长寿去解决所有问题；现在我的最大希望便是呈现给人们一条正确的道路。我怀疑许多人并未真正领悟到真正的互动故事叙述有多难。

真正的互动故事叙述是受角色所驱动，而非情节。玩家将基于有效的方式与角色进行互动。现在人们所获得的角色互动非常简单。我们需要不断前进而赋予角色更多情感力量。

PM：你认为游戏当前的故事叙述状态是怎样的？对于我来说，现代AAA级行动游戏被简化到只剩10个小时的内容，并为了更好地阻止叙述而将设置组件作为起始点；你认为这么做是否正确？

CC：就像我之前写到的，我不认为游戏中的故事叙述令人印象深刻。我们可以找到一本关于人们如何将故事整合到游戏中的书籍——《Interactive Storytelling for Video Games》。它详细描述了游戏故事叙述的艺术状态。之后在阅读我关于互动故事叙述的书。比较这两本内容；你将会发现如今的游戏故事叙述有多简单。

主张你可以通过将游戏玩法削减到只剩10个小时的理念真的很荒谬：还有哪些其它故事叙述媒体会要求使用10个小时去叙述故事？我便想到了《战争与和平》。但游戏却绝不是《战争与和平》。故事叙述是关于人与他们的关系。游戏则是关于手眼的协调，谜题的解决，资源的管理以及空间的推理。从根本上看来这是不想干的，这也是为何将故事添加到游戏中等同于将喷射发动机添加到大众汽车——尽管我们这么做了，但这却是一种笨拙的做法。

PM：有时候技术和游戏中的最佳理念并不会在适当的时候出现。你是否会在对的时机重新实践自己想到的理念？

CC：这是个有趣的问题。我的脑子里第一个蹦出的例子便是自己的游戏《信任与背叛》。这是25年前的一款游戏，那时候的它对于硬件充满了熊熊野心。而现在我采取了完全不同的方法重新制作了这款游戏，并将看到我在这一次是否做对了。我不认为其它失败的作品在面对今天更棒的硬件时会取得成功。首先，我们总是很难会记得失败（除非创造者自己）。其次，游戏很少会受到较弱的硬件的影响；就像在80年代的许多游戏也仍然很有趣。而如今基于完善的图像与动画的现代游戏也有可能遭遇失败。

我脑海中的最大疑问便是，互动故事叙述是会独立发展还是会整合到游戏产业中。我更倾向于前者，因为游戏产业拥有定义明确的用户，即并未对故事感兴趣，并且那些会为互动故事叙述花钱的用户也被带有华丽图像的游戏阻隔在外。

PM：就像你所说的，大多数进入这一产业的用户主要是受到他们所尝试的游戏的影响；你是否能给哪些想要在交叉故事/游戏主导产业之前创造出一个互动故事的游戏一些建议？

CC：我唯一能想到的尝试着实现互动故事叙述的游戏例子便是我自己的《信任与背叛》。就像我说的，它的故事叙述非常简单，但是当我回首这款游戏时突然意识到，这是25年前的游戏啊，我并不能改变《信任与背叛》想要传达的感觉。我想那时候应该没有一款游戏的故事叙述复杂度能够与《信任与背叛》相比较。

如今我发现，在人们可以真正“获得”互动性之前必须出现一次根本性的范式转变。如今我正致力于SIEGE大会的演讲准备中，我开始明确这一深刻转变的属性，即思考人们必须经历这种转变才能真正获得互动性。我将自己比喻成拥有能够面对这种情境的精神基因的突变体；如果我出生在20多年前，我便会当成怪人，因为我的古怪的思考方式并不符合当下的知识文化。

我敢保证肯定有许多人也拥有同样的心理变异，而我碰巧是在适当的时间与地点遇到这种变异。如果这未发生在我身上，它也会出现在其他人身上。不管怎样，它都会花好几十年的时间将这种思维真正整合到我们的文化中去。

（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’s Next? Chris Crawford says storytelling is our greatest challenge

By Patrick Miller

I can’t continue this series of GDC Next interviews without including Chris Crawford. Not only was the Balance Of Power creator the original founder of the Game Developers Conference (then called the Computer Game Developers Conference; it started in his living room), but he has been concerned with the future of games – specifically the medium’s potential for interactive storytelling — for a long time.

Read on to find out what keeps Crawford going in the quest for a truly emotionally engaging game.

Patrick Miller: You’ve been in and around the game industry for a good while, now; how have you seen the way people relate to games change? What do you think is next?

Chris Crawford: We’ve settled into a pattern: youngsters who love playing the games charge into the industry, eager to put their own mark on the games. However, because they don’t know much more than the games they have played, they don’t have a broader view of what games could be. Instead, they think of adding clever new tweaks to the same basic designs. They do this for a while, get bored, and eventually move on to another career.

The players follow a similar curve: they play with great intensity in their youth, but lose interest as they age, because the games are really the same as the ones they played in their youth. So they stop spending money on games. But the number of new players is equal to the number retiring from games, so the industry remains stable.

There are two confusing twists on this: first, the market continues to expand overseas as the more people become wealthy enough to spend time on games. Second, there is a small crowd of indie developers who are determined to come up with new ideas. As with every other creative field, 99 percent of what they produce is junk, but the remaining 1 percent is very, very interesting.

The greatest challenge facing the games field is the problem of developing interactive storytelling. The industry has dabbled in the field, but so far all that has been produced is just an elaboration on what I have called the “interleaved story/game.” You alternate between a non-interactive story and an interactive game.

The belief is that if the integration is done well enough, the game takes on the characteristics of the story. This is a delusion: until you can actually interact with characters in a dramatically meaningful way, you haven’t really solved the problem. I’ll emphasize, however, that the problem is immensely difficult: I’ve been working on it for more than 20 years now and I still have not solved the problem.

PM: What do you think would be an ideal “pipeline” into the industry — one that would promote the kind of creativity you’d want to see?

CC: Georgia Tech had a nice program where the students played a wide variety of games, including boardgames. That’s certainly helpful. But the rut is so deep now that people have a hard time breaking out of it. I think that, for the short term, we’ll just have to rely on geniuses like Jason Rohrer who break the mold. After enough of these truly strange games, I think we’ll see people thinking in broader terms.

PM: It seems to me that the industry has changed quite a lot since you gave the “Dragon” speech. Have you seen any games that have done what you wanted to see done then? What works and creators inspire you, these days (both in games and outside of games)?

CC: At 63 years old, it’s hard to be inspired; one really gets the feeling that he’s seen everything. There are some designs that are impressive in terms of creativity, but I have a narrow focus on the aspect of social interaction, which has not seen much progress. A game by Michael Mateas and Andrew Stern, Facade, was the first genuine interactive story world. I have high hopes for Emily Short’s new work, but so far it’s in early stages of development.

I’ll add that I don’t play games anymore; I get too frustrated with seeing the same old stuff over and over; old wine in new bottles. I sometimes look at reviews of games, which is as far as I’m willing to go. This may be difficult for people to appreciate, but when you’ve been doing it as long as I have, you can see inside a game very quickly by looking at a screengrab and reading a review or two.

PM: It’s hard for me to relate with “it’s hard to be inspired; one really gets the feeling that he’s seen everything.” What motivates you to keep working at building a workable model for interactive storytelling if not, at least, the books you’re reading or people you’re talking to? What informs your vision of what an interactive story would look like and how you’d want the player to engage with it?

CC: I suppose the most important factor in my continuing labors is bull-headed stubbornness. I now realize that I took on a challenge much too big for anybody to handle. Nevertheless, I think I’d be dissatisfied with myself if I had aimed lower. So I just have to trudge along, making slow, steady progress up a mountain that now looks impossibly high. I think I’m making progress but I now know that I won’t live long enough to truly solve the problem; the best I can hope for now is to show people the right path. I doubt that many people appreciate just how difficult genuine interactive storytelling is.

True interactive storytelling is character-driven, not plot-driven. The player interacts with characters in dramatically significant ways. Right now the character interaction people have achieved is pathetically primitive. We need to go a lot further before our characters have any emotional power.

PM: What do you think of the current state of storytelling in games? It seems to me that modern triple-A action games are largely streamlined into a length of ~10 hours, minimal wandering, and an emphasis on setpieces as starting points for organizing a narrative; do you think that’s a step in the right direction?

CC: As I wrote above, I don’t think that storytelling in games is very impressive. There’s a good book out there for games people who want to jam a story into a game: “Interactive Storytelling for Video Games”. It describes in great detail the state of the art in games storytelling. Then read my book on interactive storytelling. Compare and contrast the two; you’ll see how primitive storytelling in games is.

The notion that you can get a good story by whittling the gameplay down to ten hours is absurd: what other storytelling medium requires ten hours to tell its story? War and Peace, I suppose. But games are not War and Peace, not by a long shot. Storytelling is about people and their relationships. Games are about hand-eye coordination, puzzle solution, resource management, and spatial reasoning. That’s a fundamental incompatibility, and that’s why stories are tacked onto games the way you’d bolt a jet engine onto a Volkswagen — it’s been done but it’s damned clunky.

PM: Sometimes it seems like the best ideas in tech and games simply didn’t happen at the right time. Is there anything you think we might see come back (perhaps a spiritual successor) once the time is right?

CC: Interesting question. The first example that popped into my mind was my own game Trust & Betrayal. That was 25 years ago, and it was too ambitious for the hardware. I’m redoing the game now in a completely different way, and we’ll see if I get it right this time. I can’t think of any other failures that could now succeed with better hardware. In the first place, it’s hard to remember failures (except one’s own). In the second place, games have never been held back much by weak hardware; observe that many of the games from the early ’80s — the Atari and Apple stuff — are still fun. The modern games do pretty much the same thing with vastly improved graphics and animation.

The big question in my mind is whether interactive storytelling will evolve independently of games or whether it will be integrated into the games industry. I suspect the former will eventuate, because the games industry has a well-defined audience that is not primarily interested in stories, and (more importantly) the people who would pay money for interactive storytelling are put off by the somewhat tawdry image games have with the rest of the world.

PM: As you said, most people get into this industry primarily inspired only by the games they played; got any recommendations for games that tried (successfully or no) to create an interactive story before the interleaved story/game became the dominant paradigm?

CC: I suppose that the only game I can think of that tried to accomplish interactive storytelling was my old Trust & Betrayal. It was, as I say, pathetically primitive, but when I look back on it and realize that I did that 25 years ago, I can’t shake the feeling that Trust & Betrayal was way, way ahead of its time. Certainly there has never been a game, I think, with anything remotely as dramatically sophisticated as Trust & Betrayal — which is a truly sad observation.

I am now coming to the realization that there is a fundamental paradigm shift that must occur before people can “get” interactivity. I’m working on a lecture for the SIEGE conference, and I’m really starting to nail down the nature of this profound shift in thinking that people will have to go through before they get it. I look at myself allegorically as the mutant who just happened to have the right mental gene for the situation; had I been born twenty years earlier, I would have been considered a weirdo, because my oddball way of thinking just wouldn’t have fit into the intellectual culture.

I’m sure that there have been plenty of other people with the same mental mutation, but I just happened to be the one at the right time and the right place. If it hadn’t been me, it would have been somebody else. In any event, it will take decades to centuries for this way of thinking to sink into our culture.(source:gamasutra)