作者：Mark Filipowich

Jake Rodkin是致力于《行尸走肉：第一季》的开发者和作者，在月初于纽约举办的Practice Conference上他将这系列游戏与其它Twine游戏进行了比较，他称“《行尸走肉》是世界上最昂贵的Twine游戏。”这是言之有理的。与配音和艺术指导对于游戏的重要性一样，其核心吸引力还在于文本内容。这是一款写得很棒的游戏。人们选择它的部分原因便是其出色的文本内容，并且其它设计元素也致力于强化这些内容。然而Twine领域中的游戏，不管它们实现了什么成就，都会遭遇巨大的反弹，因为它们缺少互动性。互动性定义了游戏。电子游戏是即兴互动视频剧场；开发者创造了一个舞台，而玩家在舞台上尽情表演。这种惯性思维的繁殖到达了一个点，即像《行尸走肉》或那些使用twine送创造的游戏因为长得不像其它电子游戏而遭到了玩家的否认（不管它们多出色或多强大）。

The Walking Dead Season One(from theobscuregentlemen)

现在，说视觉小说或Twine游戏缺少互动性，经常包含作者的观点（这不是什么羞耻的标志），并且不可能比AAA级游戏更加满足玩家的需求等观点都是不准确的。将关注点从玩家身上转移经常会让这些游戏缺少互动性，或者它们所提供的互动性是主流用户不习惯或不喜欢的。另一方面，我们很难创造一款与更昂贵的游戏使用同样方法整合满满互动性的文本游戏。AAA级游戏总是很喜欢玩家，并会像对小孩那样溺爱他们。玩家会认为在游戏中，一旦他们停止表演便是在浪费时间。玩家必须持续互动，甚至在这样的互动不存在任何意义时。

有时候，电子游戏最大的失败就在于太像电子游戏了。对于所有说电子游戏是一种被挖掘出来的全新现象的人来说，有许多具体元素能够帮助他们更轻松地进行划分。许多人（不只是那些玩游戏的人）只知道什么是boss，什么是可收集的道具，EXP，HP和神力能做什么，能识别生命条或混战vs远程角色的优势。他们了解成就，类系统，迷你游戏，获取任务以及护航任务。这些内容出现得太过频繁了，以至成为了明显的电子游戏标记。但是单独看来，它们却不具有任何优势或劣势，但只通过这些元素去定义游戏却会伤害到它们。有时候，并不是所有的这些元素都应该出现在游戏中。有时候，所有的这些元素都不需要出现，而强迫它们去适应“电子游戏”的文化标准只会玷污了最终的作品。

像《Remember Me》这样的游戏便被当成是有关人类思维公司化的推理小说，但它却却一直努力成为一款电子游戏，所以便逐渐破坏了自己的唯一乐趣。

同样地，像《Enslaved: Odyssey to the West》是一款改编自中国经典小说且外观华丽的虚构游戏。配音非常逼真，环境设计精细，世界知识巧妙地整合到情节中。其设计目的是“通过故事改变游戏进程”，但是三年后，我们可以清楚地看到基于故事的游戏进程仍保持不变。实际上，《Enslaved》与进程保持着非常紧密的关系，尽管它想要成为史诗小说那般巨作，但却因为依附于众所周知的电子游戏标记而失败。

玩家并未获得足够的信用去专注于角色以及在一个美丽但却充满敌意的世界中旅行。相反地，他们被迫进入微交易去帮助《Enslaved》变成一款缺少有意义体验的游戏。游戏主要关心如何通过欺骗而实现简单且持续的目标。收集橙色魔法球，使用魔法球去升级，通过升级而完善战斗能力，完善战斗能力去进行更有效的打斗，并从死掉的敌人身上收集橙色魔法球。这些活动只会分散玩家的注意力。如果没有它们，《Enslaved》可能会更好地填补其情节洞口，并消除其曲折的角色弧线——它也许能够更准确地到达目标点，但这也意味着在某种程度上删除玩家的体验。这意味着取消货币收集和升级机制，但这却是确保玩家有事做，并提醒它们自己正在玩一款电子游戏的有效方式。

许多游戏因为限制玩家对于周边的影响而获得了有效的完善。有些游戏是关于缺少能量并尝试着传达一些不能由玩家说明并能够直接影响他们环境的内容。对于《现代战争》的所有成功，其最强大的时刻——观察原子能在原爆点爆炸，观看旧政权的领导者所执行的改革，在失去队员时遭遇埋伏，为了潜伏杀掉徒手的百姓等等都是由玩家可能做什么去定义的。限制互动性并不会让一款游戏不像游戏，特别是当这种限制是恰当的。通常只是占用所提供的空间并添加更多输入关卡并不会对作品做出多大的完善，因为其它游戏也有这样的内容。没有目的的互动是无意义的。

甚至当故事从系统中出现时，它可能只表示作者声音所呈现出的环境内容。玩家代理已经有了一席之地，但似乎出现了一种趋势要将其置于其它内容之上。是的，游戏要求互动性，但互动性数量的增加并不会让游戏更像游戏，特别是当互动性并不能为游戏本身提供任何内容时。

如果玩家必须收集货币，升级或打开新的装备才能继续前进，我们便清楚为什么它要巩固游戏始终尝试着去创造的论据。实际上，大多数游戏虽然都带有组合内容，生命条等元素，但这却都不能成为下一款游戏添加这些元素的理由。有时候，所有的玩家需要做的只是简单地面对游戏并轻松地理解其中的叙述内容。Telltale的《行尸走肉》是关于全副武装的幸存者从无数敌人的攻击中获取经验值的故事。前提为传统的游戏设计提供了肥沃的土壤，但是开发者通过使用前提去传达故事（游戏邦注：即通过玩家偶尔能够影响的对话）的做法却彻底改变了这一媒体。Telltale创造了一款高预算的Twine游戏，而玩家也愿意为游戏鼓掌欢呼。

（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）

Who Needs Interactivity?

by Mark Filipowich

Jake Rodkin, a developer and writer who worked on The Walking Dead: Season One, compared the much lauded series to Twine games at the Practice Conference in New York earlier this month, saying that “Walking Dead is basically the world’s most expensive Twine game.” The statement makes sense. As important as the voice acting and art direction are to the game, its core appeal is in the text. It is a well-written game. The reason that people play it is because of how good the writing is and most of its other design elements serve to reinforce the writing. However, games in the Twine scene, regardless of what they accomplish, are met with considerable backlash because they (pause for dramatic effect) lack interactivity (Eric Swain, “The Many Forks in the Road of Twine”, PopMatters, 11 June 2013). Interactivity defines games. Video games are interactive video improv theatre; a developer creates a stage and the player acts upon it. This breed of conventional thinking has been driven to the point that games like The Walking Dead or those made with twine are being disowned by gamers because—in spite of their brilliance or power—they don’t look enough like other video games.

Now, it isn’t accurate that visual novels or Twine games lack interactivity, but they often include an author’s voice—and not as a mark of shame—and they are less likely geared to indulging or satisfying their player than a triple A release might. Shifting focus away from the player often makes these games less interactive, or at least the interactions that they do offer are the kind that mainstream audiences are unused to or comfortable with. On the other hand, it is very difficult to make a text-based game feel bloated with arbitrary interactivity in the way that more expensive games often are. Triple-A games love the player, perhaps a little too much, and dote on them like a spoiled child. There’s a growing cult of the player, one that demands that every moment that the player is not acting is a wasted moment. Players must continue to interact, even when it doesn’t make any sense.

Sometimes the biggest failing of a video game is being too much like a video game. For all the talk about video games being a brand new phenomenon that has only just been discovered, there are a number of concrete elements that make them easy to categorize. A lot of people (and not just those that play games) just know what a boss is, what a collectible is, what EXP, HP, and mana do, can recognize a health bar or the advantages of melee vs ranged characters. They understand achievements, class systems, mini-games, fetch quests, and escort missions (oh my!). These things have recurred enough times to be recognizable videogame-isms. Taken alone, there’s nothing good or bad about any of them, but defining games by the presence of these elements hurts them. Sometimes not all of these things need to be in a game. Sometimes all of them need to be absent and forcing them to fit an understood cultural criterion of “video game” tarnishes the final product.

A game like Remember Me is supposed to be a speculative fiction about the corporatization of the human mind, but in all its effort to be a video game, it undermines the only things that are interesting about it (Leigh Harrison, “Robbing Peter to pay Paul or How Remember Me undermines its story to be a video game”, As Houses, 8 September 2013).

Similarly, a game like Enslaved: Odyssey to the West is a beautiful looking and imaginative adaptation of a classical Chinese novel. The voice acting is incredible, environments are cleverly designed, and the world lore is elegantly woven into the plot. It was designed to “change the course of gaming in terms of storytelling” (Tom Hoggins, ”Enslaved: Odyssey to the West creators interview”, The Telegraph, 5 October 2010.), and three years later, it’s clear that the course of gaming in terms of storytelling has remained exactly the same. In fact, Enslaved stays pretty tight to the course because, despite the wonderful work of epic fiction it clearly wants to be, it fails as it clings to the understood signifiers of video games.

The player isn’t given enough credit to focus on the characters and their common journey in a beautiful but hostile world. Instead, they’re forced into micro-interactions that make Enslaved more of a game but less of a meaningful experience. The game’s main concern is stringing along simple and consistent objectives. Collect the orange orbs, use the orbs to level up, level up to improve combat ability, improve combat ability to fight more efficiently, and collect orange orbs from fallen enemies. These activities are just distractions to keep the player’s attention long enough to proceed. Without them, Enslaved might stand a better chance of filling its plot holes and smoothing out its bumpy character arcs—it might more accurately reach its point—but that would mean removing the player from the experience by several degrees. It would mean taking away coin collecting and leveling up, which are good ways to keep a player busy and reminding them that they’re playing a video game.

Many games would be markedly improved by limiting the player’s influence on their surroundings. Some games are about a lack of power or are trying to communicate something that can’t be illustrated by the player directly influencing their environment (Mattie Brice, “Death of the Player”, Alternate Ending, 29 October 2013). For all the success of the Modern Warfare franchise, its most powerful moments—observing a nuclear strike at ground zero, watching a revolution as the old regime’s leader en route to execution, reeling from an ambush while squadmates are picked off one at a time, attacking unarmed civilians to stay undercover—are defined by how little the player can do. Limiting interactivity does not make a game less of a game, especially when the limitations are appropriate. Often just occupying the space provided is enough and adding more levels of input don’t improve a work just because, well, every other game has them. Interaction is meaningless without a purpose.

Even when a story emerges from a system, it can only mean something when context is given by an authorial voice (Nick Dinicola, “The Problem with Emergent Stories in Video Games”, PopMatters, 30 July 2013.). Player agency has its place, but there is a growing tendency to place it above everything else. Yes, games require interactivity, but increasing the amount of interactivity doesn’t make it more of a game, especially when the interactivity doesn’t offer anything for the game itself.

If the player must collect coins, level up, or unlock new equipment to continue, it must be obvious why and it must reinforce an argument that the game is trying to make. The fact that most games have combos or health bars or any enemies at all is not reason enough for the next one to have them. Sometimes all the player needs to do is sit with the game at the margins with only the loosest grasp on the narrative. Telltale’s The Walking Dead is a story about armed survivors gaining experience against an endless supply of enemies. The premise provides fertile ground for traditional game design, but the developers revolutionized the medium by using that premise to tell a story through conversations that the player could only occasionally influence. Telltale made a big-budget Twine game, and players are right to applaud them for it.（source：gamasutra）