作者：Tielman Cheaney

如今电子游戏中的最佳故事在面对书籍，电影和戏剧中的故事时只能说是影子般的存在。为什么呢？

游戏包含了巨大且不可避免的障碍，会阻碍传统的故事叙述。

以下是游戏故事所面对的三大问题：

1.系统问题

系统创造了游戏乐趣，但对于其它媒体来说却是无聊的存在。玩家喜欢学习，游戏并精通系统。

游戏是如何使用系统：

游戏会花费时间去记录每一步并在双方交战时重新加载士兵的步骤。没有一部电影会这么做。复杂的战斗系统会使内容变得有趣。管理弹药，衡量前进的风险，使用遮盖物，然后发射子弹并射中敌人等等都是有趣的。如果不能有效使用系统便会造成暂时撤回。枪战是战斗游戏的乐趣元素之一。“闪光雷击中地堡派的人的时间是否足以让我朝坦克发射两枚火箭弹？”

电影是如何使用系统：

但是在电影中，枪战只有在我们与角色产生情感共鸣后才会有趣。在《现代启示录》，《黑鹰降落》，《拆弹部队》，《全金属外壳》等等战争电影中，呐喊与射击出现的时间还不到片长的一半。电影的乐趣主要来自角色的互动性。“Jeff是个可靠的士兵，但他却疯了。他是否能在下一次突袭中杀掉所有人？”

书籍更不会侧重行动，就像《丧钟为谁而鸣》，《杀手天使》，《红色英勇勋章》便侧重于讨论角色的想法和感受。“我自愿参加，但我认为自己却是个懦夫。”

以不同形式讲述同样的故事：

书籍，电影和电子游戏可以讲述同一个故事。但是游戏中的乐趣却是源自与书籍或电影不同的方面。

在电影中，学习如何战斗只需要2分钟。而在游戏中学习如何战斗则需要好几个小时。这其实是一个完整的体验。

同样地，电影会花较长时间去描述角色发展。而在游戏中可能只会出现2分钟的过场动画进行描述。

是的，这的确太过简单化。你可以将行动与角色发展相结合，大多数故事都是这么做的。我们是为了清楚地呈现每种媒体的优势与劣势才这么区分。

这对于游戏中的故事叙述是个大问题。在这里传统的写作方法是无效的。当我们在玩游戏时，我们便会变成目标导向型，并且想要融入系统中。任何将我们带离系统的内容便是我们与目标之间的障碍。甚至连死亡都是系统中可察觉的元素。换句话说，传统的故事并不是这样。

过场动画：比死亡还糟糕？

在游戏中，死亡只是阻止我们在固定时间内靠近目标的暂时挫折。我们能够快速察觉到需要花费多长时间，然后按压“重载”按键并回到行动中。

而在游戏中，过场动画却是阻止我们在未知时间内靠近目标的暂时挫折。我们不知道这些角色要交谈多久，他们将会聊些什么，或者这是否会有趣。在游戏中，过场动画可能比死亡还糟糕。

我喜欢一定数量的过场动画，但我个人的忍耐度总是不到5分钟。当游戏强迫玩家长时间不能玩游戏时，它们将遭遇大麻烦。

游戏的成败取决于它们的系统。而传统的故事叙述却不适合当前的系统。

这种情况是否能够得到解决？

也许吧。

培养情感投入的最佳方法便是角色发展与互动。

在现实生活中，我们会进行许多基于目标的对话，即根据我们对于其他人的了解以及如何使用措辞。对话便是一种系统。

从理论上看，对话式互动系统可以是游戏的基础。如果玩家在靠近一个NPC时知道自己要的是什么，如果他们操纵对话系统的技能能够影响结果，如果系统是有趣的，那么这便是全新的游戏水平。角色发展与情感投入是不同步的。这是需要不断升级的。但事实上却不是那么简单。

游戏拥有神奇的力量能够控制玩家与游戏世界，敌人及其工具互动的能力。但是能够探索人类与人类间的情感互动系统却还未出现。

电子游戏中的枪支是一种简单，有趣且具有奖励性质的互动工具。而“按压A”开始进行对话却不是如此。枪战能够基于技能以及科学系的惩戒创造一个系统。但是分支对话树却不行。

在《模拟城市》中破土动工并观看着自己的体育场不断壮大是有趣且具有奖励性的。在《植物大战僵尸》中收集足够的太阳去设置你的第五个Melon Pult是有趣且具有奖励性的。在《极速快感》紧凑的回合中漂移是有趣且具有奖励性的。而选择“礼貌”或“粗鲁”的回应却不是。

如果缺少能够学习，操控与精通的系统，人类互动将继续作为游戏障碍存在着。

2.《偷天情缘》的问题

玩家总是会重新玩游戏直至得到自己想要的结果。

在电影《偷天情缘》中，Bill Murray所扮演的角色因为一些不明原因将反复在同一天复生。每一天他都会尝试一些新事物，但每天早上他都会在同一天同一座城镇的同一张床上醒过来。在某种意义上来看他是被困了，但是他却可以做任何自己想做的事。

而电子游戏玩家却可以重玩任何情节直至获得自己想要的结果。设计师不会强迫玩家做出特定的决定。

重玩性非常强大。在游戏中我们可能永生不死，可以进行无数次的尝试。我们会利用每一条生命创造一个平行宇宙，而待得最常的那条生命便是能够带我们走向胜利的对象。第8个关卡中的boss可能会像房子那么大，并且还带有爪子，但是在游戏中并不存在任何能够与永恒的玩家进行对抗的事物。

Bill Murray说道：“我是God。”

Andir MacDowell说道：“你是God。”

“我想我是god，我不是God。”

“因为你从一次车祸中存活下来吗？”

“我不只是从一次车祸中存活下来。昨天我不只遭遇了爆炸。我还被刺伤，射伤，中毒，冻结，悬挂，电击，烧伤。但是每天早上醒来后我都安然无恙。如此看来我是神仙吧。”

在游戏中我们就是如此。而这便是一个巨大的故事叙述问题。

那些在其它媒体中影响着角色同时也在现实生活中影响着我们的恐惧与动机并不会影响我们的游戏角色。我们通常都会闯进一间陌生的方子，然后跳到20英尺高的屋顶并且未多加思考而向恶魔发动攻击。但是《偷天情缘》问题却会破坏紧张感，可信度，并造就玩家的能力与开发者所阐述的故事之间的矛盾。

如果故事中具有必然事件，玩家便不能具有关于这些事件的任何选择。玩家将选择他们想要的而不是故事叙述者想要的，他们并不是基于正常人的思维进行选择，而是基于神仙的角度做出选择。开发者必须仔细判断提供给玩家的自由度。

这种情况是否能够得到解决？

可能吧。

解决系统和《偷天情缘》问题是一条漫长的道路。如果NPC能够推动故事的完整，玩家的选择便不再能够影响主要的情节点，如此设计师便可以随意编写内容了。那么剩下的便是连接玩家动机与游戏世界了。

3.恐怖谷理论问题

如今的艺术和技术还不够先进，不足以帮助设计师在游戏中创造真实可信的角色。

存在一种情感动力是游戏优于其它媒体的：沉浸感。没有一种体验像《Thief》，《迷雾之岛》，《质量效应》，《Rage》或《魔兽世界》所呈现的游戏世界那般深入。电影通常只有3个小时，而书籍只会让你不断幻想而不是真正将你置于故事世界中。相反地，游戏创造出了能够长达好几周时间吸引你的注意力的世界。

但是当你接近那些华丽且精心勾勒的NPC时，所有的幻想都会破灭。那些控制思维的简单脚本是不能与能够控制行动的复杂脚本进行比较的。Alex Vance可能拥有一个能够不断改变目光交流层面的程序，但是如果你想听听她说什么，你就要做好听一些她对于你的钦佩之语的准备。虽然外观发生了巨大的变化，但是如今的NPC的内部结果却与1995年的没有多大区别。

我们非常了解人类。但是在游戏世界中最出色的NPC将会在30秒互动中表现出他的非人性。

恐怖谷理论是情感投入的巨大障碍。每次当Alex Vance重复一句话，或挡住你前进，或目光呆滞地站在远处时，你便会清楚他不是真人。她只是一个程序。

玩家已经适应了这种情况。我们能够创造与游戏中的神秘军团的情感联系。但是非玩家却能够比我们更清楚地看到一些更深入的内容。

我向妻子展示了《质量效应2》，但是比起被科幻般的声音与动画所吸引，她反而说道“对话好像不是很同步，是吧？”的确是这样的。对于一个看惯了Pixar那般高品质作品的人来说，《质量效应2》的确显得粗糙了。我们是来自一个按压X便能够看到Cloud做出回应的世界，而她却是来自一个无数团队将投入好几个月去调整巴斯光年脸部表情的世界。

如果没有了情感联系也就不存在故事了。

这种情况是否能够得到解决？

是的。我们正在解决这一问题。美术师通过讲述关于动物，漏洞，玩具，机器人或外星人的故事去避免这一问题。或者他们会围绕媒体的局限性而风格化游戏角色。再或者他们会使用无线传播和录音的形式将角色移到屏幕外部。所以在技术受限的时候，开发者也能够使用一些小技巧去更好地讲述故事。

结论：

游戏拥有讲述带有沉浸感，吸引力并且能够改变生活的故事的潜能，这是远超于其它媒体所讲述的故事。而在此之前我们只需要解决一些问题。我知道你们中的许多人正努力致力于解决这些问题。我也期待在不远的将来能够看到你们的创造性表现。

（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）

3 Massive Problems Confronting Storytelling in Games

by Tielman Cheaney

The best stories told in video games today are pale shadows of the best stories told in books, movies, and the stage today. Why?

Games contain huge, unavoidable obstacles that prevent traditional storytelling.

Here are the three problems of game stories, in order of severity:

1: The Problem of Systems

Systems make games fun, but other media boring. Players enjoy learning, playing with, and mastering systems.

How games use systems:

Games spend hours chronicling every footstep and reload that a soldier makes during a firefight. No movie would ever do that. Complex combat systems make it fun. It’s fun to manage ammo, weigh the risks of advancement, use cover, then pop out and get those headshots. Failure to use the system well results in a short backpedal and a lesson about how the system works. The interesting part of a war game is the gunfight. “Will a flashbang stun the guys in the bunker long enough for me to fire two rockets at the tank?”

How movies use systems:

But in movies, gunfights are only interesting after we’ve formed an emotional bond with the characters. Fantastic war movies like Apocalypse Now, Black Hawk Down, The Hurt Locker, or Full Metal Jacket spend far less than half their running time on yelling and shooting. The fun comes from characters interacting. “Jeff has been a reliable soldier, but he’s going crazy. Will he get everybody killed in the next raid?”

Books are even less action-focused, with For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Killer Angels, and The Red Badge of Courage spending pages and pages on the thoughts and feelings of their characters. “I volunteered for this, but I think I might be a coward. Whoops.’”

The same story, told differently:

A book, a movie, and a video game can all tell the same story. But the fun in a game comes from the opposite place than it does in a book or a movie.

Learning how to fight in a movie is a two minute montage. Learning how to fight in a game is hours and hours. It’s practically the whole experience.

By the same token, character development in a movie is hours of talking. Character development in a game is a two minute cut scene.

Yes, this is an oversimplification. You can combine action with character development, and most stories do. But we can make a clear divide between “Sitting and Talking” and “Running and Shooting,” to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of each medium.

This is a huge problem for storytelling in games. Conventional writing does not work. The itch to get back to the action, to the system, overpowers most of the character development and plot a writer would want to present. When we play a game, we become very goal-oriented, and we want to live in the system. Anything that takes us out of it is an obstacle between us and our goal. Even death is a known, measurable part of the system. Story, on the other hand, usually isn’t.

Cutscenes: worse than death?

Death, in a game, is a temporary setback that keeps us from our goal for a set amount of time. We quickly learn exactly how long it takes to watch the death animation, hit the “reload” button, and get back to the action.

A cutscene, in a game, is a temporary setback that keeps us from our goal for an uncertain amount of time. We don’t know how long these characters are going to talk, what they’re going to talk about, or if it’s going to be interesting. In games, cutscenes can be worse than death.

I enjoy a certain amount of cutscenes, but my personal tolerance hovers around the < 5 minute mark. Games face an uphill battle when forcing the player to stop playing long enough to become emotionally invested.

Games live or die by how great their systems are. Traditional storytelling doesn’t work with current systems.

Can it be solved?

Maybe.

The best way to cultivate emotional investment is character development and interaction.

In life, we have many goal-oriented conversations, based on what we know about the other person and how to use words. Conversation is a system.

Theoretically, a system for conversational interaction could be the basis of a game. If players know what they want when they approach an NPC, if their skill at manipulating the conversational system impacts the results, and if the system is fun, then a whole new level of gaming is in reach. Character development and emotional involvement unlocked. Level up. But it’s not going to be that easy.

Games have made fantastic strides in a players’ ability to interact with the world, enemies, and their own gear. But systems to explore the emotional core of humans interacting with humans still seems miles away

A gun in a video game is a simple, fun, rewarding tool for interaction. The “press A” prompt to start a conversation is not. A gunfight creates a system based on skill, with learnable punishments and rewards. A branching dialogue tree does not.

Breaking ground and watching your stadium go up in Sim City is fun and rewarding. Collecting enough sun to place your fifth Melon Pult in Plants Vs. Zombies is fun and rewarding. Drifting past the Ferrari on a tight series of turns in Need for Speed is fun and rewarding. Choosing the “polite” or “rude” response is not.

Without a system of interaction that can be learned, manipulated, and mastered, human interaction will continue to be an obstacle.

2: The problem of Groundhog Day

A player will always be able to replay events until he gets what he wants.

In the movie Groundhog Day, Bill Murray’s character is forced, for unexplained reasons, to relive the same day over and over, tens of thousands of times. Every day he tries something new, but every morning he wakes up back in the same bed in the same town on the same day: Groundhog Day. In one sense he’s trapped, but he can do anything he wants, all the time.

Video game players can replay any scenario until they get the outcome they want. The designer can’t effectively force the player to make a certain decision.

Replayability is a superpower, probably the best superpower. We can be immortal. We can be infallible. We can try infinity times. With each life, we create an alternate universe, and the one we stay in the longest is the one that brings us to victory. The level 8 boss might be as big as a house and have claws for hands, but nothing can stand against an infinite, immortal, infallible gamer.

“I’m a god,” says Bill Murray.

“You’re God.” Says a sarcastic Andie MacDowell.

“I’m a god, I’m not the God. I think.”

“Because you survived a car wreck?”

“I didn’t just survive a wreck. I wasn’t just blown up yesterday. I have been stabbed, shot, poisoned, frozen, hung, electrocuted, and burned. And every morning I wake up without a scratch on me, not a dent in the fender… I am an immortal.”

In games, so are we. And that’s a big storytelling problem.

The same fears and motivations that affect characters in other media, and affect us in real life, don’t work on our game avatars. We routinely barge into stranger’s houses, attempt 20-foot roof leaps, and charge demon platoons without a second thought. The problem of Groundhog Day ruins tension. It ruins believability. It creates dissonance between the abilities of the gamer and the story told by the developer.

If certain events need to happen in the story a developer wants to tell, the player can’t have any choice at all regarding those events. The player will choose what they want, not what the storyteller wants, and they’ll choose based not on normal human wants and needs, but on the wants and needs of an immortal. A developer must choose carefully what freedoms to give the player.

Games create immortal characters with unusual motivations. Traditional storytelling doesn’t work with such superhumans.

Can it be solved?

Probably.

Solving the Problem of Systems and the Problem of the Uncanny Valley would go a long way. If the NPC’s are allowed to drive the story, and player choice does not affect major plot points, then the designer is free to write anything. Then it remains to align player motivation with the game world.

3: The problem of the uncanny valley

Art and technology have not advanced far enough for designers to be able to create realistic, believable characters in a game.

There is one emotional driver that games do better than any other media: immersion. There is no other experience like being in the world of Thief, Myst, Mass Effect, Rage, or WoW. Movies cap out at three hours and books place you inside heads better than inside worlds. Games create environments that captivate you for weeks.

But the illusion falls apart when you approach one of those beautifully rendered, carefully-animated NPCs. The simple scripts that run their brains can not compare with the elaborate scripts that generate the shadows under their noses. Alex Vance may have a great program that dynamically alters her level of eye contact from moment to moment, but if you want to hear what she has to say, you’d better be ready to listen to a canned phrase about her admiration for you. The innards of an NPC now are about the same as they were in 1995, while the outsides have undergone a massive makeover.

We know humans too well. The best NPC human in the world will reveal its inhumanity within 30 seconds of interaction.

The uncanny valley is a huge obstacle to emotional engagement. Every time Alex Vance repeats a phrase, or blocks your passage through a doorway, or stands too long staring at nothing, you are reminded that she is not real. She’s just a program. You don’t need to care about about a string of ones and zeros.

Gamers adapt. We’re able to develop some emotional connections with our uncanny cohorts in games. But non-gamers see the creepiness much more clearly than we do.

I was showing off Mass Effect 2 to my wife, and instead of being impressed by the fantastic voice acting and animation, she said “the dialogue doesn’t sync up very well, does it?” And she was right. For a person used to Pixar’s levels of quality, Mass Effect 2 looks kind of sloppy. We’re coming from a world where pressing X to watch Cloud say “…” is emotionally resonant, and she’s coming from a world where teams of hundreds invest months tweaking Buzz Lightyears’ facial expressions.

Without emotional connection, there’s no story.

Can it be solved?

Yes. It’s being solved. Artists avoid the problem by telling stories about animals, bugs, toys, robots, or aliens. Or they stylize the characters in a way that works around the medium’s limitations. Or they use radios and recordings to move the characters off-screen. So while technology catches up, developers are able to use tricks to tell better stories.

In Conclusion:

Games have the potential to tell immersive, compelling, life-changing stories that rival or surpass the stories told by other media. We just need to solve a few problems. I know that many of you are hard at work right now trying to work around or fix these issues. I look forward to seeing your creativity and intelligence on the market soon!(source:gamasutra)