作者：Bernardo Del Castillo

交互性是游戏支持者用于区分电子游戏与其它普遍的文化产品的一个单词。虽然我也曾多次提及这一话题，但是随着大众对交互性的争论越来越激烈，我想是时候进行更深入的探索了。

不管是Phil Fish（游戏邦注：加拿大游戏制作人）还是你那爱玩游戏的堂兄弟，他们都会认为交互性是自己所喜爱的媒体的特性，从表明上看这种想法是可被理解的，但是我们却很少会去分析其内在意义。近来随着一些非传统游戏的出现，开发者似乎越来越搞不清楚这一术语的真正含义了。

interactive(from gamasutra)

（看看图上那些闪光信号灯，我们便清楚游戏具有高度交互性！）

我们必须明确交互性是基于信息交流的一种信息理论概念。在计算机科学中，交互性是回应输入内容的一种系统，笼统地说它是指“两个以上的对象或事件彼此作用而产生一个新的效果；或源自这种情况或事件的效果。”

交互性的定义非常模糊。我们总是认为人与人之间的交流是一种双边的互动。但是当我们在阅读好友的电子邮件或评价别人的Facebook状态更新时，这种定义便不那么清晰了，因为我们在此的回应多半会延迟。大多数人认为看着墙上的画并不属于交互行为——尽管这种行为在某种程度上也符合我们对于交互性的定义。

当我们在观察一件雕塑或画作时，这种交互系统并不平衡，因为我们是单向了解了观察对象的特性并对其内在含义做出了评价。观看电影也是如此，电影为拥有各种知识水平的观众呈现出各种场景，并使用大量的说明，细节描写去解析这些场景。而观众则会通过自己特定的心态对各个场景做出相应的回应。

纵观历史，表达和交流所具有的不同含义衍生出了这些思考。书面文字能从不同程度影响读者的心情，书信之间的互动总会延迟发生，而非小说作品则更强调告知，讨论和呈现等行为。小说总是会为我们呈现出第三人称故事，而现在的作者们也逐渐意识到提高内容与读者间的互动性对于完成一部作品来说有多重要。Cortazar在《Hopscotch》中与读者展开了积极地交流，《Catch 22》希望读者能够基于不同视角将各种事件拼凑起来，而David Mitchell的《云图》以及马尔克斯的《百年孤独》都阐述了半现实半虚构的故事，让读者在内心进行揣摩。

fura-opera(from gamasutra)

（虽然存在各种各样的例子，但是来自西班牙的互动戏剧公司La Fura dels Baus应该算是体验化设计发展中最具影响力的一份子吧。我想知道是否存在缺少交互性的戏剧？）

这种互动行为不如按压按钮那般直接，但是却更加深刻，观看者为了更好地理解其中的内容便需要回答一些有意义的问题，从而衍生出一些无可争辩的“对话”（比起被动观察而言）。在最佳情况下，问题将次于信息，而这也是交流的要旨。

电影也是通过这种方法去分享信息。不管是角色，开篇，结局还是隐喻式故事。如今的观众不再只是被动接收故事的那种“水桶”。有些导演，尤其是David Lynch便致力于分解观众对于电影的期望值，甚至让观众也能够扮演编辑的角色。

文化和哲学的发展让观众开始扮演起主角的角色，而这对于艺术领域更是带来了深刻的影响。经典艺术理念认为绘画和雕塑必须呈现“正确的”非风格化现实（在某种程度上，戏剧可以说是最抽象的一种艺术类型）。从文艺复兴再到浪漫主义时期，宗教主题逐渐被抛弃，艺术家们开始强调在作品中体现世俗个性和个人的情感。艺术品不再只是供人欣赏的玩物，它们慢慢渗透进了实践性和情感反应。不管是莫奈，梵高，毕加索还是后来出现的鲍豪斯（游戏邦注：一种曾风靡全世界的设计体系，在现代工业设计领域中，其思想和美学趣味可以说整整影响了一代人），其目的都是创造出一些能够与观众进行对话的作品。不管是杜尚的“Urinal”还是玛格丽特的《形象的叛逆》都不是从表面便能够参透其意的艺术品，它们可以说与传统艺术概念背道相驰。

可以说现在的艺术变成了一种体验和探索，讨论与情感的对象。

艺术(from gamasutra)

(尽管仍然饱受争议，但是我们可以明确的是艺术不再只是美丽的代表，它更加趋于触动观者的情感。)

不管是发送者还是接收者都改变了人们对现代信息交流的理解。我们可以认为，人们现在所侧重的是让人体验到信息而无需察觉到媒体的存在。因为信息具有意外的本性。

而从许多方面看来，游戏总是走在这种发展道路的前列——因为它们的结构非常适合去展开创造者与观众间的对话。但是这种默认条件其实也是一种语义陷阱。玩家不能完成某个关卡或死去，或者选择射杀一个敌人等都是游戏中最基本的互动形式。而这与微软文字处理软件的交互性其实是一样的：尽管用户能够获得即时反馈，但是这却不带任何特殊意义。随着系统规模的扩大，对于行动的越少限制以及越快回应不再意味着更多交互性了。实际上交互性也并非最重要的元素，因为观众对于交互性的接受度很大程度上取决于他们的参与性。

近来我们已经经历了许多关于这一话题的争论。虽然我不是很喜欢《亲爱的艾斯特》，但是我却坚信它足以称得上是一款非常成熟的电子游戏。因为它并未遵循传统的电子游戏模式，突破了世人对于电子游戏的看法，能够不带传统标签而清晰地呈现出所有游戏内容。虽然这款游戏也因为“缺少交互性”而饱受争议，但是我却认为其限制情感表达的方法非常明智。

还有一些其它游戏，如《寂静岭》便呈现出不重要且疯狂的战斗。但是也有些游戏像《超级食肉男孩》便通过要求玩家输入一些简单的内容而实现交互性体验，并告诉玩家要想获得生存就必须尽全力快速奔跑。《旅程》，《旺达与巨像》以及《现代战争》便在这点上都做得非常出色，与其它许多媒体一样，我们在此也忽视了技术的限制，并绕过了互动的局限性，让自己感觉所有的一切好像都是真实地存在着。

而对于所有虚构内容的看法及其最大优势所存在的悖论则是：只要我们相信它是存在的，它是不是真实的都不重要了。（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）

When it loses meaning: Interactivity.

by Bernardo Del Castillo

Interactivity is one of those words Game enthusiasts seemingly throw around to differentiate videogames from the rest of the universal cultural production. I’ve commented a few times on different places about the subject, but I think it’s an extremely interesting debate now, and it’s a good time to explore it a bit further.

From Phil Fish, to you CoD playing cousin, everyone seems to think that interactivity is a trait unique to this medium we love, and that is understandable on a surface level, but we rarely seem to analyze the implications this has. Lately, with the rise of some unconventional games, the senseless use of the term seems to have gone out of hand.

Look at all those blinking lights, this game must truly be highly interactive!

To get our bearings straight away, Interactivity is an information theory concept, based around the exchange of information (duh?). In computer science it refers to a system responding to an input, but in general terms it refers to “the situation or occurrence in which two or more objects or events act upon one another to produce a new effect; or the effect resulting from such a situation or occurrence”.

The real lines that define interactivity are blurry at best, We normally consider any sort of transmission between people as an obvious two sided interaction. But when we read a friend’s e-mail, or comment on someone’s facebook update the definition is less clear, the response time is delayed. Most people would consider looking a painting on a wall as non interactive, although in many levels it fits the definition too.

When we observe a sculpture or painting, the system is generally not balanced, we learn individually the object’s formal qualities, and then we generate an assesment of the meaning of it. Same happens with a movie, we are presented with a situation that explains itelf to us as an audience with variable levels of knowledge and using a range of degrees of exposition, detail and clarity. We learn about the situations through our particular mindset and respond to it accordingly.

Throughout history the different means of expression and communication have evolved with these considerations. Written word has had various degrees of audience involvement, letters have always had a delayed interactive intention, while non-fiction writing often emerges of a need to inform, discuss and present. Novels generally present a third person’s story for us to follow. But it has become more and more evident to writers how the reader’s create involvement is needed to complete the purpose of the book.
Cortazar in Hopscotch actively plays with the reader, Catch 22 expects the us to piece together events from different perspectives, and David Mitchell’s “Cloud Atlas” (please let the movie not be terrible) or “100 years of solitude” by Gabriel García Márquez present parallel narratives that are often half-real, and we have no choice but to assess internally.

There are many examples, but the Spanish interactive theater company “La Fura dels Baus” was quite influential in the rise of experiential design.
My question is, was there ever non interactive theater?

These interactions may not be as direct as pushing a button, but they can run much deeper, as they request the viewer to answer meaningful questions in order to understand, it generates an undeniable dialogue far beyond passive observation. In the best of cases, the shape of the question becomes secondary to the message, and this is the gist of the exchange.

Along this lines, Movies have done their share too. From grey characters, to open endings and abstract metaphoric narratives. Today the audience is considered as much more than the bucket where to dump the story (Ok maybe not you, Michael Bay). Some directors, notably David Lynch purposely aim for deconstructing the expectations of what a movie should be and forcing the audience to play editor.

Cultural and philosophical evolutions have shifted the protagonic role to the audience, and this has had a profound impact in art. Classic concepts of art considered that pictoric and sculptural art had to representation of “correct” unstylized reality (In a way, Theater has always been the most abstract audience welcoming side of art). The gradual disappearance of religious themes, and the growing focus on secular individuality and personal emotion from The Renaissance to The Romantic period, started changing the objective of art itself. It ceased to be ornamental, and moved to an experimental, emotional realm.From Monet, to Van-Gogh to Picasso, and later the Bauhaus, the purpose was to create objects that spoke to the people about people. Duchamp’s Urinal, or  Magritte’s “The treachery of Images” was obviously not a literal sculpture, but more a metaphoric slap in the face to the expectations of art.Art becomes the experience and exploration, the discussion and the feeling.

although it still provokes some controversy, we can agree that art has been progressively less about the representation of beauty, and more about provoking sensations in the viewer.

Modern views of communication understand that message is modified by both emitter and receiver. We could argue that the current focus is aimed at making the person experience the message, and NOT necessarily sense the medium. Since the shape the message takes is an accident for it’s nature.

In many ways, games are ahead of the curve, because their structure is perfectly adecuate for this Creator / Audience dialogue. But this default condition is also a semantic trap. The ability to not complete a level or die, or choose in which order I Shoot an enemy are some of the most basic forms of twitch conditioned interaction. These examples are as interactive as Microsoft Word: although they give us immediate feedback, they don’t carry any particular meaning. As the scale goes, less constraints and more immediate response to actions don’t automatically mean more interactivity, In fact interactivity is not the important factor, since the appreciation of interactivity greatly depends on the level of the spectators engagement.

We have seen quite a bit of this debate lately, and while I’m not in love with Dear Esther. I believe it is an excellent example of a mature videogames, since it doesn’t follow the formal conventions of videogames just because it has to. It moves beyond common judgements of what videogames -should-  be, and it speaks clearly of what it is without labels. It is often criticised for the “lack of interaction” but I believe the use of confinement to express the emotional state of a game is brilliant. The player’s input is purposely limited as a direct reflection of the game’s message.

“my body is a cage”

Others, like the old Silent Hill, make combat uncomfortable futile and frantic. But also, games like Super Meat Boy make the interaction meaningful by requiring extremely simple inputs, but teaching the player that survival requires lightning fast precision. Journey, Shadow of the colossus, and even Modern Warfare often succeed in this, like many other mediums, in which we are ignoring the limitations of the technology, bypassing the limitations of the interaction, and we feel as if it was real.

And there lies the paradox of perception and the biggest advantage of all fiction: It doesn’t need to be real if we believe it.(source:GAMASUTRA)