游戏意义与玩法编辑本段回目录
（一直以来，给游戏下定义总被当作敏感话题，以故事情节为主的游戏崛起更是加大定义的复杂性。这让我不禁质问：你能定义电子游戏吗？）
最近我玩了两款完全不同的冒险游戏：《To The Moon》与《行尸走肉第五章》。它们的故事与设计完全不同，但却都建立在玩家视角与有限玩法基础上；它们还常被称为“艺术游戏”。
虽然我喜爱它们的故事，但我总觉得从游戏设计角度看它们有点扯了。因为从玩法角度看，它们不足以归为“游戏”类中。为此，本文将从另一角度发问：交互式故事属于游戏吗？
游戏玩法
在本文中，我不会剧透这两款作品的任何情节。但我将探讨它们的玩法。其中涉及到的情节均是游戏描述中提到的内容。
《To The Moon》与《行尸走肉》的玩法均关于冒险游戏的基本机制：即寻找互动式区域。在前者中，玩家主要操控两位医生，他们的职责是进入绝症患者头脑中，改变他们的记忆，满足其最后请求。
在此，玩家需游走在各段记忆中，寻找可用于访问以前记忆的记忆链。而解决基本谜题是通过找到解读一幅图画与两个特殊片段的方式实现（在此不方便剧透）。
在《行尸走肉》中，玩家主要挑选对故事产生些微影响的对话选项。其中设置的谜题要求玩家在普通区域中找到用于前进的道具。而QTE系统主要用于作战回合与危险情境。
由此可见，这两款游戏内容简短，鲜少有玩家沉迷其中。现在，如果我在大街上根据这些玩法描述向你介绍这两款作品，有多少玩家会进行尝试，并将它们归为游戏类型？
各类定义
微软百科全书Encarta中提到了一个符合电子游戏的定义：游戏是指类似比赛的活动，其中包括紧张氛围与竞争模式，通常依赖一套具体书面规则实现。
由此可知，电子游戏也可以定义为一系列规则与游戏系统。最重要的是，其中应设置输赢模式。
To The Moon(from tech.co)
（《To The Moon》采用复古外观与效果讲述了一个深奥的故事。即使没有任何声音元素，该作仍能探究某些成型内容。）
无论是《行尸走肉》，还是《To The Moon》都未设置失败模式。前者中的死亡仅仅意味着重设游戏进程，回到QTE支持玩家无尽尝试之前。
而后者从未表明玩家将处于失败境地。
目前，不仅这两款作品未设置这种条件，那些所谓的“艺术游戏”（游戏邦注：比如Tale of Tales推出的《The Path》）同样不满足游戏的输赢模式。
但它们都共享一个主要元素：即玩家是事件的观察者。他们的行为不会直接影响游戏结果，但主要扮演故事讲述一角。与《Amnesia》这类游戏不同的是，即使玩家不会失败，他们仍会遭到谜题与某些内容的考验。
“游戏一词适用多种不同活动，因此我们不必拘泥于任何既定定义。总之，我们难以把握该词汇，它涉及多个领域。”
——David Parlett的《The Oxford History of Board Games》
艺术游戏会遭到讽刺与审查的一个原因是，它们是行业中的新兴类型。曾经，游戏行业看重的是动作与玩法，这既是因为硬件的局限性，同时也是为了吸引玩家。
大多数玩家并不认同游戏体验如同一场“虚拟观光旅程”。
也就是说，我不会基于基本定义便将它们归为游戏类。然而在谈及游戏时，人们更看重的是游戏本身，而不是玩法。而且游戏如同电影流派与书籍般存在多种类型。
虽然《To The Moon》与《行尸走肉》无法传递出色玩法，但其中均设置精彩的故事发展线路。我承认只有三款电子游戏令我感动，它们分别占据第2与第3位。
journey(from nerd4sure.com)
（《Journey》中独特的视觉与听觉设计创造了一个不同以往的游戏世界探索模式。）
称它们为游戏是种不敬行为吗？为其贴上“交互式故事”的标签更会贬损它们吗？我不清楚确切答案，网上也未提供直接答案。
我们难以为游戏找到一个结论性定义，更别提电子游戏。韦氏词典表示，电子游戏是指借助电视屏幕图画体验的电子化比赛，且强调采用快动作。而游戏是指为了消遣娱乐而参与的活动。实际上，上述说法对游戏的真正定义毫无作用。
如果实在迫不得已，我会将游戏定义为一种软件设计，即让用户根据一系列既定规则与系统历经一个独特场景，而且通常是有意义的经历。但我并不清楚是否有人接受该定义。甚至有些人争辩道一开始我本不该为游戏下定义。
但给游戏设计下定义则更为简单。Katie Salen与Eric Zimmerman编写的《 Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals》一书中便指出基本定义：
“设计是指设计师创造参与者历经的游戏环境的过程，且具有一定意义。”
如果我们将此定义延伸到艺术游戏或交互式故事中，即使它们并未包含有意义的玩法，但却讲述了有意义的故事。出色的游戏设计师不仅会考虑到游戏玩法，而且还会考虑到游戏的外观与声效。
除了玩法，电子游戏中还囊括大量元素，但这便足以定义它们为电子游戏了吗？
对此你又有何看法？明确游戏定义是种徒劳举措吗？与玩家没有任何互动的游戏还具有意义吗？（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，作者：Josh Bycer）
What Defines a Game: Meaning Vs. Action
by Josh Bycer
The following blog was, unless otherwise noted, independently written by a member of Gamasutra’s game development community. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Gamasutra or its parent company.
Defining a video game has always been a touchy subject, and the rise of games focusing on storytelling first has only made it more complicated. Leading me to ask: Can you define a video game?
Recently, I played two very different adventure games: To The Moon and The Walking Dead episode 5. Both titles are completely different from each other in terms of story and design except for one area. They are both built around the player being an observer with limited game play; another commonly used name for these types of titles is “art games.”
While I enjoyed both titles for the stories they represent, however I feel torn as someone who studies game design. Classifying both titles as “games”, they would be rip apart in any examination that focuses on gameplay. And because of that, for today’s post I’m going to take the role of the contrarian and ask: should interactive stories be called games?
Pointing and Clicking Around:
For this post I’m going to avoid any plot related spoilers about either game. But I will be talking about examples of gameplay for each. The only plot points I will mention are the basic ones that are mention in the game’s description.
Both the gameplay of To The Moon and The Walking Dead are about the basic mechanic of adventure titles: hunting for interactive areas. In To The Moon, the player controls a duo of doctors whose job is to enter the mind of terminally ill patients and alter their memories to fulfill their last request.
The gameplay involves walking around each memory looking for memory links that can be used to access the next earlier memory. There is basic puzzle solving in the form of figuring out how to unscramble a picture and two special segments that I won’t talk about for spoiler reasons.
In The Walking Dead, the player’s time is mainly spent deciding what dialogue options to pick from which in turn affect the story in subtle ways. There are puzzles here and there requiring the player to look around in the general area for items needed to progress. QTEs are mainly used for combat sections and dangerous situations.
And that’s it, neither title is very long and it’s very hard to get hopelessly stuck at either. Now, if I were to walk up to you on the street and tell you about either game using the gameplay descriptions, how many of you would actually play these games, or even classify them as a game?
The Game of Trying to Define a Game:
One of the definitions of a game according to Encarta that fits with a video game is: An activity that resembles a game, e.g. one that involves intense interest and competitiveness and is carried out by its own specific and often unspoken rules.
Building off of that, video games are also defined by a series of rules and game systems. Most importantly, one of the basic elements of a game is that there has to be a win and a lost state.
In both The Walking Dead and To The Moon, there are no real lost states. With the former, death simply resets the game to before the QTE allowing the player to try again infinitely.
And in the latter, there is never a point where the player is in any danger of failure.
Now these two games aren’t the only ones who don’t have this condition. Titles that are considered “art games”, such as The Path from Tale of Tales also don’t satisfy the win/lose state of a game.
These types of games share one major element: the player is an observer to the events. Instead of directly influencing the outcome of the game, they are mainly taken on a ride in favor of telling a story. Unlike a game like Amnesia where even though the player can’t fail the game, they are still tested by puzzle and stealth sections.
“The word [game] is used for so many different activities that it is not worth insisting on any proposed definition. All in all, it is a slippery lexicological customer, with many friends and relations in a variety of fields.”
- David Parlett, The Oxford History of Board Games.
One of the reasons why titles where the mechanics are downplayed and scrutinized is that these types of games are fairly new to the industry. The industry was built on games about action and gameplay, both due to wanting to attract people to play and due to the limitations of the hardware.
The idea of playing what could be considered a “virtual sightseeing tour” doesn’t still well with a lot of gamers.
With all that said, I would not classify either title as a game using the basic definition. But when we talk about games, there is more to judge a game than just the gameplay. And there are as plenty of different types of games as there are movie genres and books.
While To The Moon and The Walking Dead may not deliver on amazing gameplay, they both feature great story lines. And I will admit that that there are only three times where I cried playing a video game, and these two games are #2 and 3 on that list.
Are we doing these titles a disservice by calling them games? Or is it more of a disservice to label them “interactive stories?” I don’t completely know the answer, and looking around online, there isn’t a straight answer.
It is very difficult to find a conclusive definition of a game, much less a video game. According to Merriam Webster- a video game is an electronic game played by means of images on a video screen and often emphasizing fast action, and a game is: an activity engaged in for diversion or amusement. Neither of which actually assist us with a true definition of a game.
If push came to shove, I would define a video game as: software designed to let a user experience a unique scenario with its own set of governing rules and systems, and to experience meaningful game design. But I don’t know how well that would be received by people. Some even argue that we shouldn’t even begin to define a game.
But if we were to define game design, that becomes easier. In the book, Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman, they offered the following basic definition:
“Design is the process by which a designer creates a context to be encountered by a participant from which meaning emerges.”
If we extended this to art games or interactive stories, these titles don’t have any meaningful gameplay, but do elicit meaning in the stories they are trying to tell. What makes a good game designer is not just thinking about how the gameplay would work, but how the game would look, sound, and play as well.
As there are more elements to a video game then just playing it, but are these significant enough to label something a video game?
What do you think? Is defining what is or is not a game a fool’s errand? And is there any meaning in a title where the player’s interaction has none?(source:gamasutra)
