作者：Raph Koster

本文将阐述我从GDC中注意到的一个趋势。去年，人们都说《Farmville》不是款游戏，但我却坚持认为它是游戏。今年，我写了点有关叙事并非游戏机制的文章，就在由此引发的论战中扩展了自己的观点。Tadhg Kelly表示：“《Dear Esther》不是款游戏。”在GDC上，Manveer Heir认为应当将其视为游戏，而且辩解称游戏的界限应当更大更宽容。随后，Frank Lantz发表观点，以广义的运动来作为游戏的范例。

对于游戏的定义，多数人认为是“一种带有规则和目标的娱乐形式”。许多从业者也尝试进一步发掘。我过去也给出了自己对游戏的理解：

玩游戏是种应对各种挑战情境的行为，挑战来源于对手，而其对手在明确系统模式的框架中可能存在也可能不存在某种算法规则。

有些人认为，这种定义方法显得过于“正统”。但是，我认为这个定义极具包容性。在这种定义背景下，我可以将玩具转变成游戏，只需要自行添加挑战即可。比如，一个球是个玩具，但是如果努力接过抛到墙上弹射回来的球，那么这就是种游戏，而游戏的简单规则正是我自行确定的。它能够包容运动，包括所有能够将人际关系和股票市场转变成“游戏”的做法。

game definition(from raphkoster)

从根本上来说，以上的维恩图可以表达我对整个问题的看法。我将运动、桌游和电子游戏归入“游戏”的类别，因为这些东西都可以被分解和分析出游戏语法。它们都含有规则。它们都含有给玩家带来各种挑战的“对手”元素。它们都含有反馈循环。它们都会向玩家呈现动作。它们都含有目标。区别在于，有些使用的对手是现实世界中的物体，有些使用的是人体，有些使用骰子或棋盘，有些使用电脑。我能够很容易地看清楚这些东西属于同一个组，因为我对它们有过深层次的研究，我知道它们之间存在共同点。

但是，这并不是说游戏就只有这些类别。我曾经也写过属于这个范围但却不含有目标的游戏，我仍然将它们归入游戏类别。

使用此维恩图并不代表我完全忽略图表外的强大潜力。相反，《Andean Bird》正是从图表外开始，比图表内的游戏获得了更大的成功。而且，所有看过我博文的人都会知道，我一直认为游戏是种艺术。

问题在于，是否应当将整片红色区域的名称定为“电子游戏”，许多人同意这种看法。但是，我对这种观点持怀疑态度，部分原因是我怀疑Powerpoint幻灯片能够算是一种电子游戏。前后两者的共通点似乎只是“在电脑上呈现”。

所以，我们可以把那些东西都称为“游戏”。或者，我们需要另外找个名称来指代《Dear Esther》，而这对我来说，似乎比重新命名包括棒球和小圆片游戏（游戏邦注：这两者一直被称为“游戏”）的类别更为简单。

很长时间以来，电子游戏设计师被视为数字化艺术师，从Zach Simpson的作品就可以看出这一点。我觉得，游戏开发者社区也会很欢迎所有介于游戏或互动艺术范围的内容。

简单地说，尽管命名是毫无道理的做法，但依然有一定的价值。我不喜欢在明明可以最终确定的事情上显得模棱两可。（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）

“X” isn’t a game!

Raph Koster

I called this out as one of the trends I saw at GDC. Last year, people were saying that Farmville was not a game, and I argued that it was. This year, I wrote about narrative not being a mechanic and had to extend my comments on it because of the controversy, and Tadhg Kelly bluntly said “Dear Esther is not a game.” At GDC, the rant session featured Manveer Heir saying that it was arrogant and exclusionary not to consider it a game, and arguing that the boundaries of “game” needed to be large and porous. Immediately after, Frank Lantz gave his own rant, which used sports extensively as examples of games.

The definition of game that most people – and I am particularly thinking here of the layman’s use of the term – is basically something like “a form of play which has rules and a goal.” Lots of practitioners and academics have tried pinning it down further. I’ve offered up my own in the past:

Playing a game is the act of solving statistically varied challenge situations presented by an opponent who may or may not be algorithmic within a framework that is a defined systemic model.

Some see this as a “fundamentalist” approach to the definition. But I use it precisely because it is inclusive. It admits of me turning a toy into a game by imposing my own challenge on it (such as a ball being a toy, but trying to catch it after bouncing it against the wall becoming a game with simple rules that I myself define). It admits of sports. It admits of those who turn interpersonal relationships, or the stock market, or anything else, into “a game.”

Basically, I see this whole issue as this Venn diagram. I group sports, boardgames, and yes, videogames under “game” because all of them are susceptible to being broken down and analyzed with game grammar. They all have rules. They all have an “opponent” that presents varied challenges to the player. They all have a feedback loop. They all present verbs to the player. They all present goals. The fact that some use real-world physics as the opponent, some use the human body, some use dice or boards, and some use a computer is not even relevant when you break down the game atoms. I can group these easily because I’ve dug into them so much that I know there is something there in common.

That isn’t to say it isn’t a very wide net – I wrote about games that fall on the boundary and seem lacking in goals altogether years ago, and still lumped them under game.

This doesn’t mean I dislike all the huge potential that is in the other side of the diagram. On the contrary – Andean Bird began over on that side, and arguably was more successful there than as a game. And anyone who has followed what I’ve written over the last fifteen years knows that I believe that games can be art.

The question is whether that entire red area should have the name “videogame,” which is what some are advocating. And I am resistant to that, in part because I suspect a Powerpoint slide deck could live over there. The unifying factor seems to simply be “displayed on a computer” to me. Mind you, I have great sympathy for the notion that a digital platform enables great new things for art! On the other hand, I also know that computers are not solely electronic, so even that boundary line feels a bit awkward.

So we could call all that stuff “game.” Or alternatively, we need a name for what Dear Esther is, and that seems to me a simpler problem than renaming the category that encompasses baseball and tiddlywinks, which have both been called games for a very long time.

That said, I don’t see any reason why that should be regarded as dismissive, exclusionary, or derogatory. Videogame designers have been crosspollinating with digital artists for a loooong time now – I think for example of Zach Simpson’s work – and I think that the game developer community is certainly welcoming enough to things that live at the boundaries of either game or interactive art.

In short – there’s no reason to call each other names. But naming things is still a valuable exercise, and I’d hate to lose precision on something that we are finally able to pin down. (Raph Koster’s Website)