作者：Warren Spector

如果说有什么是每次关于游戏叙述讨论中都会出现的内容，那便是玩家的选择。

有时候，如果游戏是基于分支故事结构，那么选择可能会取决于游戏系统或机制（就像Telltale和Quantic Dream等公司采取的做法）。

有时候，在一款带有更加开放结构的游戏中，选择可能会通过玩家与模仿元素，系统和机制间的互动进行传达（就像Bethesda和Bioware等公司采取的做法）。

幸运的是最终所有人都能够沉浸于游戏中—-特别是叙述游戏。

几乎所有人都同意选择作为定义游戏玩法特征的重要性，但是也存在一个陷阱在引诱着我们：

简单地说来，游戏不是，更确切地说是不应该是关于选择。

更具体地来说是，我们应该把握两大理念：

首先，选择理念是最重要的，不管是就其本身而言还是基于媒介的本质。

其次便是选择所蕴含的理念，这甚至要求我们基于奖励和惩罚，更好与更糟，正确和错误，明亮与黑暗，好与坏等角度进行思考。

我并不是只有这种想法。我并未只是专注于选择。我也未沉迷于受选择所推动且带有相对关系的游戏。

选择。并不。重要。

相对关系是无聊的。

没有结果的选择是无意义的。如果它们并不会创造出不同的结果（游戏邦注：即从根本上看来完全不同的结果），那又有啥意思呢？

鼓励玩家基于对与错进行思考的游戏其实是在鼓励玩家“按照标准游戏”—-就像“喔，我是坏人，现在的我拥有一些恶魔的标志！”或者“喔，看到了吗？我带有天使的翅膀和光晕！”而这一切都非常荒谬。

你可能会想：“等等，你是不是那个已经抱怨着玩家选择好几十年的人？”

不，我并不是这样的人。如果你仔细思考我所说的，你便会发现选择并不是一切。它并非我们中的某些人所谓的“共享资源”的关键。

所以我到底是在抱怨什么呢？

玩家选择的有趣方面并不是关于选择本身。真正有趣（也是唯一有趣的点）的是结果所揭露的内容。所以说没有结果的选择都是在浪费时间，努力和金钱。

right-wrong(from dreamstime)

但等等，“结果”这个词难道不代表惩罚吗？即将我们带回更好/更糟，好/坏，对/错的选择中？难道结果不会要求设计师去利用价值判断或提供好/坏的指标从而让玩家清楚自己的立场？

并不是这样的。

我为我们团队所列出的一个固定规则便是“永远不要去判断玩家。”玩家永远不会知道你是如何思考一个问题或者问题的答案。你并不是为了回答你让玩家去考虑的问题而存在。我让我的设计师们清楚地告诉玩家“什么是对的以及什么是错的”。设计师的存在是提供给玩家测试行为的机会然后去观察这些行为的结果。基于机会，玩家会自己判断做出特定选择的利益是否有价值。

根据我的经验，有一些问题或情况通常是基于正确或错误的答案或解决方法进行定义。即使你不认同，我也会说最有趣的情况便是在对与错之间的差别不明显的时候。我并不理解为什么越来越多游戏开发者不承认这点并沉迷于我们的媒体对于我们所生活的奇妙且缺少透明度的世界的反应能力。

完整的循环

让我们尝试着将这两部分内容带到完整的叙述循环中。让我们假设这是关于问题，选择和游戏叙述的本质：

一款成功游戏的叙述并不是在讲述一个吸引人的故事（尽管这很明显是可取的！）。

一款成功游戏的叙述是会询问问题的。

一款成功游戏的叙述会提供给玩家回答局部（当下）和全局（整体故事的发展）问题的工具。

一款成功游戏的叙述会呈现给玩家他们局部和全局决定的结果，并且不会判断玩家为何会做出这样的决定。

所有的决定都有其代价和利益。这里不存在绝对的对与错。即使你不认同，能够反应人们意愿的游戏都能够让玩家基于其它媒体所做不到的方式进行思考。

一款成功游戏的叙述能够创造不只是关于每个玩家如何解决一个游戏问题，还关于为何这么做的对话。我们在游戏中所听到的大多数对话都是关于最佳策略或者如何移动一个过场动画。想想都觉得这很无聊。

我希望（并且也希望你们希望）听到玩家去讨论他们的决定的对与错。我希望听到一个玩家说：“你怎么能够偷窃？”而另一个玩家在描述他的心理过程。我希望听到一个玩家问：“为什么你在那个人那么做之后还留给他生路？”而另一个玩家列举了像甘地和平主义例子进行说明。我希望听到因为自己的选择而到达最终游戏的玩家能够问另一个玩家：“你怎么能认为解决方法是适当的，正确的或者符合道德的？”

“适当的”，“正确的”和“符合道德的”都是一些神奇的词。其它媒体可以宣称它们也能够处理这些概念，但在那些媒体中，这些词是属于作者，而在游戏中，这些词则是属于玩家。

综合上述所有内容，我们将逐渐意识到游戏作为一种独特的叙述形式所具有的潜能。显然我们对于早前的叙述模式有所亏欠，但现在我们可以也必须基于所学到的内容去创造比其它媒体更协调，更感人且更加吸引人的内容。

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转发，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Another Narrative Fallacy: Games are About Choice

by Warren Spector

If there’s one thing that comes up in all discussions of game narrative, it’s the desirability of player choice.

Sometimes, if a game is built on a branching story structure, choices may be offered independent of game systems or mechanics. (See Telltale, Quantic Dream and others.)

Sometimes, in a game with a more open structure, choices may be expressed through a player’s interaction with simulation elements, systems and mechanics. (See Bethesda, Bioware and — finally… thankfully… – many more).

Happily, finally, everyone involved in games – especially narrative games – gets all that.

However, even with nearly everyone agreeing on the importance of choice as a defining characteristic of gameplay, there’s a trap waiting to ensnare the unwitting:

Simply put, games aren’t, and shouldn’t be, about choice.

To expand on that a bit, it’s important, I think, to get past two widely held beliefs:

First is the idea that choices are of paramount importance, in and of themselves, and by virtue of the nature of the medium.

Second is the idea that choice implies, even requires us to think in terms of, reward and punishment… better and worse… right and wrong… light and dark… good and evil.

I simply don’t get this kind of thinking. I don’t get the exclusive focus on choice. I don’t get the seeming obsession, in choice-driven games, with binary opposition.

Choice. Doesn’t. Matter.

And binary oppositions are boring.

Choices without consequences are meaningless. If they don’t lead to different outcomes – preferably radically different outcomes – what’s the point?

And games that encourage players to think in terms of right and wrong ultimately encourage players to, as I put it, “play the meter” – “Ooh, I’m evil and now I have horns and a bunch of demon tattoos!” or “Ooh, I’m good – see? I have angel wings and a halo.” It’s just ridiculous.

“But wait a minute,” you may be thinking. “Aren’t you one of the guys who’s been screaming about player choice for a couple of decades?”

No. I’m not. If you look closely at what I’ve been saying, choice isn’t the be all, end all. Not at all. And it isn’t the key to what some of us have been calling “shared authorship” all these years.

So what the hell have I been screaming about?

Here it is: The interesting aspect of player choice isn’t the choice itself. The interesting thing – the only interesting thing, really – is the revelation of consequences. Choice without consequence is a waste of time, effort and money.

But wait, you say. Doesn’t the word “consequence” imply punishment, which sends us right back to better/worse, good/evil, right/wrong? Doesn’t consequence require designers to impose a value judgment and maybe even provide a good/evil meter so players know where they stand?

Not at all.

One of the hard and fast rules I lay out for my teams is “Never judge the player.” Never. Players should never know what you think about a question or its answer. (See, this is where my last blog post about about questions comes in.) You’re not there to answer the questions your game asks players to consider. You’re most assuredly not there, I tell my designers, to say to players “this is right and that is wrong.” Designers exist to provide opportunities for players to test behaviors and then see the consequences of those behaviors. Given the chance, players will judge for themselves whether the benefits gained by making a particular choice were worth the cost of making it.

It may just be me, but in my experience, there are few, if any, questions or situations that lend themselves to clearly defined, universally agreed upon right or wrong answers or solutions. In most real world cases, there are only shades of gray. Even if you disagree (as extremists and believers of all stripes might) I’m comfortable saying that the most interesting situations are the ones where right and wrong are not readily apparent. I don’t understand why more game developers don’t acknowledge that and revel in our medium’s unique ability to reflect the wondrous, complex lack of clarity of the world in which we live.

FULL CIRCLE

Okay, so let me try to bring the two parts of this trip down narrative lane full circle. Let me close by saying this about questions, choices and the nature of game narrative:

A successful game narrative isn’t one that tells a great story (though that’s obviously desirable!).

A successful game narrative is one that asks questions.

A successful game narrative gives players the tools to answer those questions both locally (in the moment) and globally (in how the entire story plays out).

A successful game narrative is one that shows shows players the consequences of their local and global decisions, without judging players for making those decisions.

There are only shades of gray and, that being the case, all decisions have costs as well as benefits. There is no absolute right or absolute wrong. (And, yes, I’m a moral relativist at heart…) Even if you disagree, games that reflect that will get players thinking in ways no other medium can match.

A successful game narrative is one that engenders conversations not only about how each player solved a game problem, but also why. Most of the dialogue we hear around games is about optimal strategies or about how moving a cutscene was. How limited and dull that is.

What I want – and hope you want – is to hear players debating the rightness or wrongness of their decisions. I want to hear one player say, “How could you have stolen that?” and another player describing her thought process… I want to hear one player ask, “Why did you leave that guy alive after what he did?” and another make a case for Ghanndi-like pacifism… I want to hear players who reach an endgame driven by their choices ask one another, “How could you think that solution was appropriate or right or ethical?”

“Appropriate,” “right” and “ethical” are magic words. Other media can make the claim that they deal with those concepts, too – and they do – but in those media, the words belong to authors while in games, those words can and should belong to players.

Wrap your mind around all this, and we’re on our way to realizing the potential of games as a unique narrative form. Clearly, we owe something to earlier narrative models, but we can and must build on their teachings, maybe even leave those teachings behind to create something more collaborative, more moving and more compelling than any other medium can be.

Embracing choice means we’re halfway there. What do you say we go the rest of the way?(source:gamasutra)