游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

为什么游戏不能在其它领域立足?

发布时间:2014-06-23 16:25:13 Tags:,,,,

现在我正坐在伦敦设计博物馆的咖啡厅里编写自己关于年度设计展的2个提名的解释文本。

我提交了3个提名。而未被接受的第3个设计是一款游戏。这是我受邀进行推荐的第3年,也是我将主机游戏作为一种特别的设计工作进行提交但却被拒绝在外的第3年。

前几年,Wii达到了标准—-虽然是属于产品设计类别,但是对于 Media Molecule的《小小大星球》以及Area/Code的教育类Flash游戏《Sharkrunners》能够在过去获取荣誉我真的很自豪。但这却远不足以代表21世纪最大的文化形式之一。

LittleBigPlanet(from bbzhi)

LittleBigPlanet(from bbzhi)

为什么会这样?是因为主题吗?我的意思是我提交了《求生之路》和《生化奇兵》,即我认为有点黑暗的游戏。这在在图像设计和时尚提交中的成人主题和内容通常都很显著。

这可能是早前对于游戏和玩家的偏见—-即认为它们是“不利于青少年”的因素?我想并不是这样—-关于设计产业/玩家的维恩图中,比起其它领域拥有更多的健康重叠部分。

我认为这一问题有点微妙。我认为这是因为游戏被当成一种“媒体”,而不是设计目标。它们被当成是用于体验的商品—-就像电影,唱片或书籍一样,而不是用于体验的装置或容器。

我想这可以看成是用于抱怨的一种反常事物。

毕竟,玩家和游戏产业中的重要人士似乎并不想要电子游戏被当成与其它已建立的媒体一样的情感和体验同辈?尽管从复杂性和商业吸引力来看,游戏超越了其它媒体,但是那样的呐喊仍然是能够听得到的。游戏应该获得来自BAFTA所授予的荣耀,而不是来自年度英国保险设计的荣耀。

关于游戏作为一种形式的丰富,独特且有趣的内容是因为它们同时也是一些世界,故事,建筑和冒险的组成。这是一种设计壮举—-伴随着设计,工程和美学的平衡。壮举至少要像Jonathan Ive的笔记本电脑或外交部的建筑那样复杂且和谐。

我必须承认当提到欣赏游戏时,我便成为了一名硬核“游戏学家”。对于我来说场景和背景故事次于游戏世界中的物理元素,机制和“玩具元素”(游戏邦注:Gary Penn提出了这一词)。所以结果便是,比起作为“互动故事”,游戏其实是一种乐趣框架。

我想看到它们能够带有更多建筑师或园林设计师在创造乐趣的流,汇合点和可能性时所使用的方法。不管是Molyneux,Wright还是游戏领域中的其他人,它们用于描写自己尝试着去设计的内容的语言和暗号总是倾向于建筑风格—-当然了,设计师也经常参与游戏世界的建造,概念艺术的开发甚至是一些关键设计中。所以我真的认为来自建筑世界和设计的关键欣赏与评论具有启示性与推动力量。

与建筑评论的另一个平行点便是那些精通于建筑学的人可以着眼于建筑计的绘制,并能够看得懂它,如此他们便可以无需了解构造形式而对建筑师的目的和建筑的可能质量做出评论。

同样地,经验丰富的玩家或游戏评论者也许能够非常快速地了解一款游戏—-即通过观看设计师所提供的机制和动态系统中的模式,参考内容等等。但对于没有多少经验的人来说,如果不尝试着玩游戏并感受游戏所呈现的物理元素和世界法则,他们便很难去欣赏一款游戏。如果游戏中不具有扫盲元素,并且不能让玩家简单地尝试游戏,那么主流设计评论者可能会忽视掉游戏的魅力。

这可能是维系主要的主机游戏的三维世界与各种建筑之间的桥梁。这将帮助你更轻松地鉴定游戏的可能结构。但我认为所谓的休闲游戏所具有的优雅简洁,无穷的乐趣以及精巧的宇宙也应该获得这样的赞许。

毕竟,我们可以看到每天所接触的物体(包括汤匙,椅子,订书机和水壶等等)物体化于设计中,并呈现出完美的平衡,简洁,巧妙的细节设计以及无尽的乐趣。就像为什么袖珍计算器是置于一个基座上而不是《幻幻球》中?

在过去几年里,游戏将一些偶然的招数带进了像《Blueprint》或《Icon》等设计杂志中,但它们作为设计目标(就像建筑,技术和绝对的审美追求等成就)却未曾在游戏产业以外的领域拥有真正的立足之地。所以,我想在下一年我仍会继续尝试。

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

Are Games Design?

By Edge Staff

I’m sitting in the cafe of the Design Museum in London, writing explanatory text for my two accepted nominations for its Designs Of The Year exhibition.

I had put forward three nominations. The third, unaccepted, design was a game. It’s the third year that I’ve been asked to nominate and the third year that the console game I’ve submitted as an exceptional work of design has been left off the long-list.

Previous years have seen the Wii make the grade – albeit in the product design category – and I’m proud to have managed to get both Media Molecule’s digital toybox, LittleBigPlanet, and Area/Code‘s educational Flash game, Sharkrunners (in which players track actual GPS-located sharks in the Pacific), into the honours in the past. But it’s meagre representation for one of the biggest cultural forms of the 21st century.

Why is that? Is it the subject matter? I mean, I’ve nominated Left 4 Dead and BioShock, which I guess could be seen as a little… dark. But I don’t think so – adult themes and content in the graphic design and fashion submissions are often notable.

Is it perhaps the old prejudice against games and gamers – the view that they are marginal ‘spotty teenager’ preoccupations? I think not – the design industry/gamer Venn diagram probably has more of a healthy overlap than most other sectors.

I think the issue’s a little more subtle. I think it’s that games are seen as ‘media’, rather than designed objects. They are seen as a commodity to be experienced – like a movie, an album or a book – rather than an apparatus or container for experiences.

Which I guess can be seen as a perverse thing to complain about.

After all, haven’t gamers and game industry grandees alike wanted videogames to be seen critically as an emotional and experiential peer to other, more established, media? And, despite games overtaking other media in both complexity and commercial appeal, those cries can still be heard. So, a good thing, right? Games should be honoured with BAFTAs, not Brit Insurance Designs Of The Year gongs.

Well, I’d love to think it’s both/and not either/or. The rich, unique and intriguing thing about games as a form is that they are both worlds and stories, architectures and adventures at the same time. This is a feat of design primarily – of design, engineering and aesthetic attainment balanced. A feat at least as complex and coordinated as that of a Jonathan Ive laptop or a Foreign Office Architects building.

I must admit to being a fairly hardcore ‘ludologist’ when it comes to appreciating games. The scenery and backstory come a very poor second to the physics, mechanics and ‘toyetics’ (as Gary Penn has dubbed it) of the world I get to play in. So as a result, for me, games really are frameworks for fun, rather than ‘interactive stories’.

I tend to see them as having much more in common with the approach of an architect or landscape designer in terms of shaping and creating flows, confluences and possibilities for enjoyment. Whether it’s Molyneux, Wright or another guru of gamespace, the language and argot used to describe what they are trying to design often leans heavily on that of architecture – and of course architects have often been involved in or crossed over into world-building, concept art development and even level design. As a result I really do think that critical appreciation and commentary from the world of architecture and design could be illuminating and progressive.

Another parallel with architectural criticism is that those versed in architecture can look at a drawing of a building plan and section, and be able to read it – allowing them to comment on the intention of the architects, and the possible qualities of the building without experiencing its constructed form.

Similarly, a seasoned gamer or game critic might be able to read a videogame in abstract very quickly – seeing patterns, references or even clichés in the mechanics and dynamics offered by its designers. But to a less familiar eye, games are hard to appreciate without playing them and experiencing the physics and laws of the world they present. Without such literacy in games, and without the prompting to simply play games, it’s little wonder that mainstream design critics tend to ignore their charms.

It might be quite an easy bridge to build between the lush three-dimensional worlds of leading console games to those of architecture. It’s perhaps easy to cast a more esoteric critical eye over the possibility-sculptures of god games. But I’d also argue that the same critical appreciation should be given to the elegant minimalism, the exuberant joy-giving and often beautifully crafted bottle universes of so-called casual games.

After all, one can see their analogue in the everyday objects – spoons, chairs, staplers, kettles – reified in design museums the world over for their immaculate balance, simplicity, deft detailing or just whacked-out joyfulness. Why should pocket calculators be put on a pedestal, and not Peggle?

Games have made occasional in-roads into design magazines such as Blueprint or Icon in past years but their place as designed objects – as achievements of architecture, technology and sheer aesthetic gonzo awesomeness – has yet to have a real critical footing outside of the games industry itself. So, I guess I’ll try again next year.(source:edge-online)

 


上一篇:

下一篇: