ch1.mht

游戏设计大师Chris Crawford的大作《The Art of Game Design》唯一不足的是英文版的

solved.</P>
  <P><B>Games versus Stories</B></P>
  <P>Another way to illustrate the role of interaction is to compare =
games with=20
  stories. A story is a collection of facts in time sequenced order that =
suggest=20
  a cause and effect relationship. Frequently, the facts presented are=20
  deliberately fictitious, because the facts of a story are =
intrinsically=20
  unimportant. Indeed, the entire concept of fiction (=93an untruth that =
is not a=20
  lie? only makes sense when one realizes that the facts presented in =
the=20
  fiction are themselves unimportant. The cause and effect relationships =

  suggested by the sequence of facts are the important part of the =
story. For=20
  example, we care not whether Luke Skywalker and the Death Star really =
existed.=20
  We saw that Luke Skywalker was good and pure, and that the Death Star =
was=20
  evil, and that Luke Skywalker destroyed the Death Star. The cause and =
effect=20
  relationship suggested by the story was that good overcomes evil. =
Thus, a=20
  story is a vehicle for representing reality, not through its facts per =
se, but=20
  through the cause and effect relationships suggested by the sequence =
of=20
  facts.</P>
  <P>Games also attempt to represent reality. The difference between the =
two is=20
  that a story presents the facts in an immutable sequence, while a game =

  presents a branching tree of sequences and allows the player to create =
his own=20
  story by making choices at each branch point. The audience of a story =
must=20
  infer causal relationships from a single sequence of facts; the player =
of a=20
  game is encouraged to explore alternatives, contrapositives, and =
inversions.=20
  The game player is free to explore the causal relationship from many =
different=20
  angles.</P>
  <P><IMG height=3D274=20
  =
src=3D"http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/story-game.JPG"=
=20
  width=3D442></P>
  <P>Indeed, the player expects to play the game many times, trying =
different=20
  strategies each time. A story is meant to be experienced once; its=20
  representational value decreases with subsequent retellings because it =

  presents no new information. A game=92s representational value =
increases with=20
  each playing until the player has explored a representative subset of =
all of=20
  the branches in the game net.</P>
  <P>This does not mean that games are better than stories. Although =
stories=20
  trace only a single sequence of causal development, they do so with =
greater=20
  intricacy and detail than games. Detail is crucial to the creative =
success of=20
  a story, for it provides the texture, the feel of reality that makes a =
story=20
  compelling. The story writer unleashes a mighty swirling torrent of =
facts that=20
  sweeps the audience to its predestined conclusion. The game designer =
creates a=20
  complex network of paths cunningly crafted to show the player all =
possible=20
  facets of a single truth. In this respect, a story is like a statuette =
where a=20
  game is like a jewel. The statuette=92s value arises from the fineness =
of detail=20
  and intricacy of construction. A jewel, by contrast, has no detail; =
its faces=20
  must be absolutely smooth. The jewel=92s value arises from its ability =
to refract=20
  light into many different angles. A statuette is meant to be =
stationary; a=20
  jewel is meant to be moved. So too, is a story <I>static</I> where a =
game is=20
  <I>dynamic</I>.</P>
  <P>Stories enjoy a particular advantage over the current generation of =

  computer games: the element of surprise. A good story boasts an array =
of=20
  interesting plot twists. The storyteller leads us into a set of =
expectations=20
  and then cleverly inserts a new factor that creates a disjunction, a =
new and=20
  dramatically different situation. This process can be repeated many =
times=20
  during the course of the story. Among computer games, only adventures =
provide=20
  this element of surprise. Unfortunately, the surprise can only be =
created by=20
  limiting the player=92s freedom of action so as to guarantee that the =
player will=20
  encounter the surprise under the proper circumstances. After a while, =
all=20
  adventures begin to smell like primrose paths. The really exciting =
possibility=20
  offered by computer games is the prospect of formulating a plot twist =
in=20
  response to the player=92s actions, instead of merely dragging him =
down a=20
  pre-ordained primrose path. However, the ability to formulate surprise =

  requires an ability to analyze the player=92s actions, deduce his =
expectations,=20
  and generate a believable plot twist that confutes his expectations =
without=20
  frustrating him. Artificial intelligence that advanced has yet to be=20
  created.</P>
  <P><B>Games versus Toys</B></P>
  <P>Games lie between stories and toys on a scale of manipulability. =
Stories do=20
  not permit the audience any opportunity to control the sequence of =
facts=20
  presented. Games allow the player to manipulate some of the facts of =
the=20
  fantasy, but the rules governing the fantasy remain fixed. Toys are =
much=20
  looser; the toy user is free to manipulate it in any manner that =
strikes his=20
  fancy. The storyteller has direct creative control over his =
audience=92s=20
  experience; the game designer has indirect control; the toymaker has =
almost=20
  none.</P>
  <P><B>Significance of Interaction</B></P>
  <P>Interaction is important for several reasons. First, it injects a =
social or=20
  interpersonal element into the event. It transforms the challenge of =
the game=20
  from a technical one to an interpersonal one. Solving a cube puzzle is =
a=20
  strictly technical operation; playing chess is an interpersonal =
operation. In=20
  the former, one plays against the logic of the situation; in the =
latter, one=20
  uses the logic of the situation to play against the opponent.</P>
  <P>Second, interaction transforms the nature of the challenge from a =
passive=20
  challenge to an active challenge. A puzzle will always present the =
player with=20
  exactly the same challenge. But a game opponent reacts to player=92s =
actions, and=20
  presents different challenges in each game. This difference has major=20
  emotional significance. The person solving the puzzle must somehow =
divine,=20
  guess, deduce, master, or discover the key trick built into the puzzle =
by the=20
  designer. Emotionally, the puzzle player is working against the puzzle =
or its=20
  designer to unmask its secret. Once the secret is known, the puzzle is =
no=20
  longer interesting. The game-player, by contrast, faces different =
challenges=20
  each time she plays the game. Where a puzzle is dead a game is alive; =
the=20
  player must create her solution to the game in a manner best suited to =
her own=20
  personality and that of her opponent. The key distinction between a =
game and a=20
  puzzle is the difference between creating your own solution and =
discovering=20
  the designer=92s solution. A game acknowledges the player=92s =
existence and reacts=20
  to the player=92s personality; a puzzle lies down like a dead =
fish.</P>
  <P>Computer games seldom provide a human opponent, and so they lack =
the social=20
  element that other games offer. They can, however, present an illusory =

  personality against which the player must work. This is one of the =
most=20
  exciting and least developed potentials of the computer as a game =
technology.=20
  And regardless of the computer=92s success or failure in synthesizing =
a social=20
  element, the computer can readily make the game a highly interactive=20
  experience for the player. It can react to the player=92s moves with =
speed and=20
  thoroughness.</P>
  <P><B>Nature of Interaction</B></P>
  <P>Interactiveness is not a binary quantity; it is a continuous =
quantity with=20
  a range of values. Puzzles have little or no interactiveness, while =
games have=20
  more interactiveness. This suggests that interactiveness is an index =
of=20
  =93gaminess? Some games, such as blackjack, tag, or PONG provide very =
little=20
  interaction between the players. Although the players may wish to =
interact,=20
  the games provide very limited modes of interaction (binary decision =
to stand=20
  or hit, running, and twisting paddle). The games do not allow players =
to=20
  invest much of themselves into the play, or to react in a rich way to =
their=20
  opponents. Other games, such as bridge, football, and LEGIONNAIRE =
(trademark=20
  of Avalon Hill Game Co.) allow a far richer interaction between =
players.=20
  Players can grapple with each other at a variety of levels. The first =
group of=20
  games is generally acknowledged to be dull, while the second group of =
games is=20
  generally regarded as more interesting. What is important about the =
modes of=20
  interaction is not their mechanical quality but their emotional =
significance.=20
  PONG is insipid because I can=92t express much of my personality =
through the=20
  medium of a bouncing ball. Bridge is better because it includes within =
its=20
  interaction elements of teamwork, deception, and cooperation. I can =
better=20
  imprint my personality traits onto a game of bridge. Thus, degree of=20
  interaction provides a useful index of =93gaminess? <FONT size=3D-1><A =

  =
href=3D"http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Chapter1.html#=
top">Top</A></FONT></P></UL>
<P><A name=3DCONFLICT></A><B>CONFLICT</B></P>
<UL>
  <P>A third element appearing in all games is conflict. Conflict arises =

  naturally from the interaction in a game. The player is actively =
pursuing some=20
  goal. Obstacles prevent him from easily achieving this goal. If the =
obstacles=20
  are passive or static, the challenge is a puzzle or athletic =
challenge. If=20
  they are active or dynamic, if they purposefully respond to the =
player, the=20
  challenge is a game. However, active, responsive, purposeful obstacles =
require=20
  an intelligent agent. If that intelligent agent actively blocks the =
player=92s=20
  attempts to reach his goals, conflict between the player and the agent =
is=20
  inevitable. Thus, conflict is fundamental to all games.</P>
  <P><B>Games without conflict?</B></P>
  <P>Some people shrink?from this aspect of games. A number of attempts =
have=20
  been made to design =93nice?games cleansed of conflict. Such games =
emphasize=20
  cooperative efforts rather than conflict. They have not been =
successful=20
  commercially; this suggests that few people enjoy them.</P>
  <P>More importantly, these games are failures because they are not =
games in=20
  the first place. Conflict can only be avoided by eliminating the =
active=20
  response to the player=92s actions. Without active response, there can =