英文原文
Meaningful Decisions in Branching Narratives
A deep look into how games with branching narratives can build meaningful player choice.
The role of story in contemporary video games is generally a topic of controversy. Regardless of your stance on narrative in video games, we can safely agree that story based games are here to stay. So how then can we elevate narrative in games?
Fundamentally, games are about allowing a player to make meaningful decisions. Applying that statement to story means building systems where a player's decisions affect the narrative outcome. Technologically, we are currently incapable of creating systems where stories can be procedurally generated based on interactions. Until that day of supreme artificial intelligence arrives, we are confined to narratives that branch statically at predetermined paths. Naturally this means that most of these branches must converge at a finite number of leaf nodes so that artists aren't making cut scenes for a single game for the rest of their lives! So how then do we make story decisions feel meaningful?
Most games handle this by making narrative decisions a part of some larger gameplay system. For example, in Mass Effect most decisions are personality classifications that are either 'Paragon' or 'Renegade' and the players decisions adds on to a meter. Based on a player's current level on the meter, different options in the game are unlocked. While this is a fine way of providing a player a goal, it doesn't really create a meaningful decision making system from the story's perspective.
There is one company that strives for this ideal. Its name is Telltale Games. The games produced are simple point and click adventures where players select from a predetermined list of options. Nevertheless, these selections feel meaningful. The player is made to feel the consequence of his/her actions, even though it is an illusion. How?
This illusion is created by forming a basis for players to be making decisions intelligibly and providing feedback mechanisms that convey consequence. This thought process is built into the creation of the story, its characters and gameplay. The following are a few takeaways from 'The Walking Dead' that are fairly generalizeable:
A) PREDICTION OF CONSEQUENCE - The selection of dialog options is meaningful only when the player has a basis to predict the consequence of each option. Giving the player this basis allows him/her the ability to make brief evaluations of the different options at hand, instead of simply selecting by instinct or predisposition.
Example 1: Decisions representing distinct emotional reactions to a situation. This allows the player some authority over the protagonist's personality while also trying to assess the best emotional response to solve the story problem at hand.
Example 2: Decisions that yield answers to different questions. This forces the player to ask himself what he wants to know about a character or situation, to solve the given story problem.
B) PROTAGONIST CONSTRUCTION - ‘The Walking Dead’ establishes consequence based on player decisions masterfully, but unlike ‘Dragon Age’ and ‘Skyrim’, the game is very much Lee Everett’s story; not yours. The main protagonist’s character therefore is an interesting balance between leaving personality gaps for the player to fill in, and establishing a base set of characteristics. This balance is crucial as it directly impacts the mindset of the player. The base set of characteristics needs to be wide enough to:
o Establish character goals that in turn translate into gameplay goals
o Justify moments where player agency is limited to narrow set of options.
However, it is also has to be narrow enough for the provision of meaningful choices where the player believes that he/she is making decisions that fit the character. The premise of The Walking Dead assists in mitigating this problem as many of the decisions to be made are morally ambiguous and under high pressure. Lee’s established character goal is to protect Clementine, and ensure she stands a fighting chance to survive in his absence. In addition, he is dependable, resourceful and is deeply empathetic towards his fellow party members. The gaps the player fills in are:
a. How much of a leadership position he is willing to assume.
b. His mode of communicating the world to Clementine - Does he shield her from the horror of everything unfolding or does he expose her to it?
c. Individual vs Group - How much does he value individual characters when their goals are in conflict with the goals of the group?
C) FOCUSED RELATIONSHIPS - The player’s ability to track relationships are an important part of making informed decisions. The game presents the context of character relationships with laser sharp focus and in their very first meetings. For example, in Episode 1 the player forced to side with either Lilly or Kenny on multiple occasions. In their very first meeting in the pharmacy the two begin a power struggle that is reinforced at every possible juncture.
D) STREAMLINING DECISION TREE - One inevitable challenge that pops up in branching narratives is how to construct story when the plot state is dependent on the player. The game utilizes several techniques to streamline the decision tree and maintain the illusion of consequence:
o Deferred Story Events - It is impossible to deliver a compelling narrative without knowing whether characters are alive or dead. However, death or the possibility of death is the biggest antagonist in the game. The game resolves this by simply delaying character death based on decisions. For example, the option of saving Carly or Doug is ultimately inconsequential as either will die at the hands of Lilly one episode later.
o Manifestation of Consequence - The outcome of a decision does not have to match the exact manner in which the question was presented. For example, there comes a point where the player needs to choose between Shawn and Duck in a walker attack. Regardless of who the player picks, Shawn is killed. Instead the consequence manifests in the character’s reactions to the player’s choice, and their relationship with the protagonist being affected differently.
E) FAVOR EXPLICIT OVER NUANCED FEEDBACK - An interesting mechanic the game employs on occasion is explicit feedback through flashing text on the screen. Example: “Clementine will remember that”. This is clearly a manifestation of a design concern of communicating to the player how their decisions are affecting game/narrative state. Intuitively you would think that all consequence should be communicated visually or within the narrative. This runs the risk of a player who hasn’t fully comprehended the significance of his actions and therefore the mechanic absolutely vital.
中文翻译
分支叙事中的有意义决策
深入探讨具有分支叙事的游戏如何构建有意义的玩家选择。
故事在当代视频游戏中的作用通常是一个有争议的话题。无论你对视频游戏中的叙事持何种立场，我们可以安全地同意，基于故事的游戏将继续存在。那么，我们如何提升游戏中的叙事呢？
从根本上说，游戏是关于允许玩家做出有意义的决策。将这一陈述应用于故事意味着构建系统，其中玩家的决策影响叙事结果。从技术上讲，我们目前无法创建基于交互程序生成故事的系统。直到超级人工智能的那一天到来之前，我们被限制在静态分支于预定路径的叙事中。自然地，这意味着大多数这些分支必须汇聚在有限数量的叶节点上，以便艺术家们不会为单一游戏制作过场动画度过余生！那么，我们如何使故事决策感觉有意义呢？
大多数游戏通过将叙事决策作为更大游戏系统的一部分来处理这一点。例如，在《质量效应》中，大多数决策是人格分类，要么是“楷模”要么是“叛逆”，玩家的决策会增加一个计量表。基于玩家当前计量表的水平，游戏中的不同选项被解锁。虽然这是为玩家提供目标的好方法，但从故事的角度来看，它并没有真正创建一个有意义的决策系统。
有一家公司致力于这一理想。它的名字是Telltale Games。制作的游戏是简单的点击冒险游戏，玩家从预定选项列表中选择。然而，这些选择感觉有意义。玩家被引导感受他/她行为的后果，即使这是一种幻觉。如何做到？
这种幻觉是通过为玩家提供明智决策的基础和传达后果的反馈机制来创造的。这种思维过程被融入到故事、角色和游戏玩法的创作中。以下是《行尸走肉》中一些可普遍推广的要点：
A) 后果预测 - 只有当玩家有基础预测每个选项的后果时，对话选项的选择才有意义。给予玩家这一基础使他/她能够对当前不同选项进行简要评估，而不是仅凭本能或倾向选择。
示例1：代表对情境不同情绪反应的决策。这允许玩家对主角的个性有一定控制权，同时尝试评估最佳情绪反应来解决当前故事问题。
示例2：产生不同问题答案的决策。这迫使玩家问自己想知道关于角色或情境的什么，以解决给定的故事问题。
B) 主角构建 - 《行尸走肉》基于玩家决策巧妙地建立后果，但与《龙腾世纪》和《上古卷轴》不同，游戏很大程度上是Lee Everett的故事；不是你的。因此，主角的性格在留下供玩家填补的个性空白和建立一套基本特征之间取得了有趣的平衡。这种平衡至关重要，因为它直接影响玩家的心态。基本特征集需要足够宽以：
o 建立角色目标，进而转化为游戏目标
o 证明玩家能动性被限制在狭窄选项集的时刻。
然而，它也必须足够窄以提供有意义的选项，使玩家相信他/她正在做出适合角色的决策。《行尸走肉》的前提有助于缓解这个问题，因为许多需要做出的决策在道德上是模糊的且处于高压之下。Lee的既定角色目标是保护Clementine，并确保在他不在时她有生存的战斗机会。此外，他可靠、足智多谋，并对他的团队成员深表同情。玩家填补的空白是：
a. 他愿意承担多少领导职位。
b. 他向Clementine传达世界的方式 - 他是保护她免受一切展开的恐怖，还是让她暴露其中？
c. 个人与群体 - 当个人角色的目标与群体目标冲突时，他有多重视个人角色？
C) 聚焦关系 - 玩家跟踪关系的能力是做出明智决策的重要组成部分。游戏以激光般锐利的焦点呈现角色关系的背景，并在他们第一次会面时。例如，在第1集中，玩家被迫多次支持Lilly或Kenny。在药店的第一次会面中，两人开始了一场权力斗争，并在每个可能的节点得到加强。
D) 简化决策树 - 分支叙事中不可避免的一个挑战是如何在情节状态依赖于玩家时构建故事。游戏利用几种技术来简化决策树并保持后果的幻觉：
o 延迟故事事件 - 不知道角色是生是死，就不可能提供引人入胜的叙事。然而，死亡或死亡的可能性是游戏中最大的对手。游戏通过简单地基于决策延迟角色死亡来解决这个问题。例如，拯救Carly或Doug的选项最终无关紧要，因为两者都会在一集后死于Lilly之手。
o 后果显现 - 决策的结果不必与问题呈现的确切方式匹配。例如，有一个点玩家需要在行尸攻击中选择Shawn或Duck。无论玩家选择谁，Shawn都会被杀死。相反，后果体现在角色对玩家选择的反应中，以及他们与主角的关系受到不同影响。
E) 偏好明确而非微妙反馈 - 游戏偶尔采用的一个有趣机制是通过屏幕上闪烁的文本提供明确反馈。示例：“Clementine会记住这一点”。这显然是设计关注的表现，即向玩家传达他们的决策如何影响游戏/叙事状态。直觉上，你会认为所有后果都应该通过视觉或叙事传达。这存在玩家未完全理解其行为重要性的风险，因此该机制绝对至关重要。
文章概要
本文探讨了分支叙事游戏中如何通过设计机制创造有意义的玩家选择，以《行尸走肉》为例，分析了预测后果、主角构建、聚焦关系、简化决策树和明确反馈等关键策略，这些策略共同作用，使玩家在受限的叙事框架内仍能感受到决策的权重和影响。
高德明老师的评价
TA沟通分析评价：游戏叙事中的禁令（如选项限制）实际上是一种巧妙的沟通框架，它引导玩家在预设的“人生脚本”中探索自我表达。玩家在受限选择中展现的决策模式，反映了他们如何应对生活中的“禁令”和“允许”，这种设计赞美了人类在约束下依然寻求意义和连接的沟通本能。
焦点解决心理学评价：游戏通过“后果预测”和“明确反馈”机制，完美体现了焦点解决的未来导向原则。玩家不是被动接受叙事，而是主动构建“问题解决”的路径，每一次选择都强化了他们的目标感和能动性。这种设计赞美了玩家内在的资源，即他们总能找到适应叙事约束的方式，并朝着更满意的游戏体验前进。
佛学专家角色评价：叙事分支的“有限性”与“收敛性”恰似缘起法中的“因缘和合”，玩家选择虽多，但终归“无常”与“无我”。游戏通过“延迟事件”和“后果显现”揭示了“业力”的微妙运作——决策的果报不一定即时显现，却在关系中流转。这赞美了玩家在虚拟世界中体验“因果不虚”的智慧，为觉悟“中道”提供了现代媒介。