作者：Dant Rambo

迪士尼前幻想工程师以及现卡耐基梅隆大学教授的Jesse Schell便是我们口中的先锋思想家。近几年他所做出的每一场演讲都是关于游戏的发展方向以及它们将如何影响我们的世界。他在今年GDC上的演讲也不例外。即阐述了游戏故事在未来的发展。

根据Schell：“如何才能创造出一款让玩家感动的游戏？”这是艺电在30年前所思考的一个问题，而在今天我们也仍然在找寻问题的答案。不管怎样，在这个领域中还有许多事需要做。从情感影响来看，游戏始终不及书籍和电影。。

紧接着，Schell提出了另一种重要问题：“我们是否能够创造一款如莎士比亚作品般的游戏？”他认为，动词的使用是主要的限制因素。开发者已经很擅长奔跑，跳跃和爬下等动词，但是他们应该将更多侧重点放在交谈，询问，协商等等讲故事元素中。“我们好像真的非常擅长脖子以下的肢体语言。”

另外一个问题便是悲剧。我们的互动能力以及对于故事结果的影响经常创造出一种带有双刃剑的悲剧。“如果我们正在创造互动式的《罗密欧与茱丽叶》，那会出现什么情况？当朱丽叶死后，我最好能够回到检查点上。”

verbs（from gamezebo）

最后便是统一性的问题。或者更确切地说是游戏故事缺少统一性。“我们创造的是带有僵尸，怪物和时间机器的可笑故事，并且从不在乎是否拥有一个愉快的结局。”许多游戏都突出了带有可预测结果的故事，而如果我们是想讲述一个吸引人的故事，这便不是最佳组合。

讲述更棒的故事

Schell继续讨论游戏组件（美感，故事，技术和机制），以及将它们整合在一起的难度。如果你玩过一款故事和游戏玩法完全脱节的游戏（游戏邦注：《Uncharted》便是一个典型的例子），你便能够理解Schell所说的。这是创造者所面临的最大问题之一，而Schell认为一种解决问题的方法便是改变机制或技术。

技术的改变将以情感检测形式体现出来。Schell表示，一旦我们解决了这一问题，角色便能够理解我们在玩游戏时的感受，如感到吃惊，受挫或惊吓。

Hey You! Pikachu（from gamezebo）

此外，Schell还讨论了在游戏中与角色互动水平的增强。在此他列举了《你好！皮卡丘》。这款游戏的技术并不完美，但却是合理的，“因为皮卡丘是只不听话的小坏蛋。”Siri提供了相同的互动形式，并拥有可识别的个性。“这将成为一种更有效的游戏互动方式。”

改变

“马里奥是个很酷的角色，但却让我很受挫。”他总是要求我们在开始玩一款新游戏时输入名字，但事实上我们已经认识他30多年了。这让我们很难真正与他维系在一起，尽管对于大多数玩家来说这个角色能够带来浓厚的怀旧感。Schell坚信这种情况会随着时间的发展而发生改变，即我们终将能够与不同游戏中的角色维持一种持续的关系。为了回应这种改变，“角色”有可能转变成像“虚拟伴侣”之类的词。

mario（from gamezebo）

对于这种改变以及整体游戏的未来，Schell充满了乐观。他坚信我们一定能够创造出莎士比亚作品般的游戏，但却不可能以精巧的故事形式体现出来。“我们的莎士比亚并不是故事的讲述者，而是角色的创造者。”这些角色将携带着必要的戏剧元素去创造真正吸引人的故事，甚至他们还有可能成为我们的长期伴侣。“就像在我们所生存的世界中，了解祖先的最好方法便是继承他们的‘虚拟伴侣’（也就是某种精神）。”

（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）

Jesse Schell on the future of storytelling [GDC]

By Dant Rambo

Jesse Schell, former Disney Imagineer and current professor at Carnegie Mellon University, is what you call a forward thinker. Nearly every talk he’s given in recent years has been about where he thinks games are headed, and how they’ll influence the world around us. His talk at this year’s GDC was no different. He discussed, amongst other things, what he considers to be the future of storytelling in games. In typical Schell fashion, it was compelling, it was optimistic, and best of all, it was bold.

“What would it take to create a game that would make people cry?” According to Schell, this is a question EA asked themselves 30 years ago, and one we still ask ourselves today. In all, there’s still a lot of work to be done in this area. In terms of emotional impact, games are quite a ways behind books, films, and plays.

To follow up on that, Schell posited another important question: “Are we going to have a Shakespeare of games?” In his opinion, the medium’s problem with verbs is what’s holding us back from that. Developers have running, jumping, and climbing down, but more focus should be placed on talking, asking, negotiating, and other such elements of storytelling. “We’re really good at the below the neck verbs. We got those.”

The other issue is tragedy. Our ability to interact with and often affect the outcome of a story puts us in a position where tragedy is certainly possible, but it’s kind of a double-edged sword. “If we’re doing interactive Romeo and Juliet what happens? She dies. Well I better go back to the checkpoint…”

Lastly, in Schell’s opinion, is the problem of unification. Or, more specifically, the lack thereof in game stories. “We create ridiculous stories with zombies and monsters and time machines and we always set it up that no matter what there’s gonna be a happy ending.” A lot of games feature stories that are simultaneously nuts and predictable, which isn’t exactly the best combination when it comes to telling a captivating story.

Telling better stories

Schell went on to discuss the components of a game – aesthetics, story, technology, and mechanics—and the difficulties of weaving them together in a meaningful way. If you’ve ever played a game with a severe disconnect between its story and gameplay (Uncharted is a good example), you know what he’s talking about. It’s one of the biggest issues creators face when it comes to telling a good story in a game, and Schell thinks one possible solution would be a change in mechanics or technology.

One such shift in technology could come in the form of emotion detection. This is something we’re on the verge of figuring out, according to Schell, and once we get there characters will be capable of figuring out how we feel while playing a game, such as whether we’re surprised or frustrated or frightened.

To broaden things a bit, Schell discussed an increased level of interaction with characters in games. Here he cited Hey You! Pikachu. The technology wasn’t perfect, but that was fine “because Pikachu was a disobedient little cuss.” Siri offers a similar form of interaction, and also has a distinguishable personality.”We are just at the cusp where this is going to start to be a useful way to interact with games.”

The story so far

“Mario’s a cool character, but he frustrates the hell out of me.” He frequently asks us to enter our name at the start of a new game, despite the fact that we’ve been playing with him for 30 years. This makes it hard to feel truly connected with him, despite how nostalgic of a character he is for most players. Schell is confident this will change in time, and that we’ll reach a point where we maintain an ongoing relationship with a character across several games. In response to this change, Schell mentioned, the term “avatar” will likely shift to something like “virtual companion.”

Schell sounded extremely optimistic about all of this, as well as the future of games in general. He’s certain we’ll have a Shakespeare of games, but that it probably won’t come in the form of a well-told story. “Our Shakespeare is not gonna be so much a teller of tales… but a crafter of characters.” These characters will bring the drama necessary to create a moving story, and possibly even become our life-long companions. “Think of a world where the best way to get to know your ancestors is by inheriting their virtual companions.”

And now that I (or really Schell) have blown your mind, I’ll leave you alone so you can process everything.(source:gamezebo)