![]()
这是一篇老文章，时间久远到20年前。2001年，《游戏研究 GameStudies》这一学术期刊被创立，而其主编，也是《Cybertext: Perspective on Ergodic Literature（制动文本:遍历文学观）》的作者，挪威学者Espen Aaserth在第一期的卷首写下的这篇文章。这被看做是游戏研究的开始，而2001也被称作游戏研究元年。且不说随后的二十年里发生了什么，就单纯在今天的汉语世界中发生的情形，这文章或许再合适不过。我开始关注的这六年中的变化十分明显：从零星的、在不同领域由个人兴趣而推动的关于电子游戏的研究，媒体与玩家、开发者自发进行的思考与搜集，到企业介入引导，邀请与试图推动与建设，再到后疫情的今天，伴随着元宇宙的糟糕关键词，在当代艺术，媒介研究，哲学，社会学，人类学，数字媒体，文学，行业内等等不同的领域所兴起的开始对于电子游戏研究的尝试与讨论。而我也意识到我们确实就如同文中二十年前的起步阶段，中国本土的研究生态与国外与电子游戏研究的差异性让状况会比当时更加复杂，而游戏经验的缺失，文化对游戏的失语，电子游戏深入和广泛地发展使得沟通交流之间有很大的鸿沟。而今天看Aaserth的这篇文章，他所谈论的审美与社会的结合，游戏与超文本的不同以及模拟（simulation）的本质，作为物与过程的双重体，游戏作为多种媒介（media）的集合的媒介差异性使得我们并不能将其作为单一媒介去进行一般性的断言的提醒，学界在旧有和新学科之间的两难境地，研究与文化对行业改变的渺茫希望等等。而即便你并非研究者，或许也可从中看到一个新学科的发展和一种对于新事物的思考的艰难的、但却也十分有趣的创生过程。Computer Game Studies, Year Oneby Espen Aarseth, Editor-in-Chief![]()
欢迎来到这致力于电子游戏研究的首份学术化的，同行评议的期刊的第一期。这是一个值得注意的时刻，并且最特殊的或许是，过去从来就没有过这样的一份期刊。众所周知，几乎是在电脑刚出现的时候，电脑游戏就出现了，可以说是第一个「现代」游戏的 Spacewar！，今年已经四十岁，而作为商业的品类也有了三十多年的历史。那么为什么之前没有这样的东西呢？2001年可以被看作是计算机游戏研究作为一个新兴的、可行的、国际性的学术领域的第一年。今年3月在哥本哈根举行了第一次关于计算机游戏的国际学术会议，其他几个会议也将陆续举行。01-02年也可能是大学首次提供计算机游戏研究的正规研究生课程的学术年。而且这可能是学者和学术界第一次认真对待计算机游戏，将其作为一个对价值难以给予厚望的文化领域。对我们中的一些人来说，计算机游戏已经是一种比电影或甚至体育更重要的文化现象。从2001年来看，电脑游戏在未来的潜在文化作用实际上是不可估量的。很明显，这些游戏，尤其是多人游戏，以旧的大众媒体，如戏剧、电影、电视节目和小说所做不到的方式，将审美（aesthetic）和社会（social）结合起来。旧的大众媒体创造了大众观众（mass audiences），他们分享价值观并维持了市场，但大众媒体社区仍然是想象出来的（在本尼迪克特-安德森的意义上（译注：这里指《想象的共同体》中描述民族的想象由报纸等大众传媒建构）），参与者之间很少或近乎没有直接的交流。而显然，多人游戏不是这样的。在像《MUD 1》（多用户地下城，Multi-User Dungeon，1978）、《网络创世纪》（1997）或 《雷神之锤：竞技场》（1999）这样的游戏中，审美和社会被融为一体，这可以被认为是自几千年前唱诗班（choir）发明以来的观众结构最伟大的创新。如果像有些人那样，把电脑游戏仅仅看作是好莱坞最新的自我革新，那也就无视了这些社会审美（socio-aesthetic）方面，把过时的范式（paradigms）强加给一个新的文化对象。诚然，目前游戏行业有相当大的好莱坞化（Hollywoodisation）的情况，这始于90年代初的 "互动电影 "的失败，但也有一个世界范围的、非商业的、集体性的游戏运动（games movement），它有比之前任何业余爱好者的运动都更好的基础设施。好莱坞，就像唱片业一样，都是关于分销的（distribution），现在有一种分销机制，可以与摊位（booth）相媲美：互联网。连比尔-盖茨三世都没能吞掉互联网，那就更没有理由相信好莱坞会成功。从任天堂的封闭生态系统到网络上的开源游戏社区；游戏研究必须研究这两者；我们不能错误地假设 "任天堂-好莱坞 "工业综合体将统治，并消除其他可选择的道路（alternative）。作为一种文化研究策略，这就像为先前的战争做准备。A cognitive, communicative revolution? 一场认知的，交流的革命？
关于新技术煽动新的思维和交流方式的能力，已经产生了很多的炒作。以超文本（hypertext）为例，它被认为会给我们带来更接近我们大脑工作方式的写作技巧，一种更 "自然（natural） "的文本交流方式。然而，到目前为止，万维网（World Wide Web），这个迄今为止最成功的超文本系统，只产生了一个更好的分发机制，很少有文本真正使用该技术的非线性可能性（nonlinear possibilities）。而游戏往往是*模拟（simulations）；它们不像超文本或文学小说那样是静态的迷宫。而模拟这一方面的是至关重要的：它与作为认知和交流结构的叙事（narratives）完全不同。模拟是自下而上的；它们是基于逻辑规则的复杂系统。游戏既是物（object / 对象）又是过程（process）；它们不能像文本一样阅读或像音乐一样聆听，它们必须被玩（played）。玩是不可或缺的，而不是像欣赏的读者或听众那样巧合性的。创造性的参与是游戏使用（uses）中的一个必要成分。模拟的复杂性质决定了结果是无法事先预测的；它可以根据玩家的运气、技巧和创造力有很大的变化。在多人游戏中，社会技能是需要的，或说是必须被培养的。任何在多人游戏上花上一段时间的人都知道这一点。然而，许多行业和学术评论家认为需要 「叙事」 结构（narrative struture），以便理解游戏并使游戏 「更好」。在这个问题上，关于叙事和叙事学（narratology）与游戏研究的相关性的辩论清晰可见。这场辩论表明我们仍处于非常早期的阶段，控制和塑造理论范式的斗争才刚刚开始。我们希望这场辩论能够继续下去，不管是在这里还是在其他地方，但希望未来的贡献能够解决已经提出的观点，而不是简单地重复同样的主张。这就是学术期刊的作用。Creating a New Discipline 创建一个新的学科计算机游戏研究的最大挑战无疑来自于学术世界内部。为一个新的领域腾出空间通常意味着减少现有领域的资源，而现有的领域也往往会通过试图将新的领域作为一个子领域（subfield）来应对。游戏不是电影或文学的一种，但来自这两个领域的殖民化（colonising）尝试已经发生了，而且毫无疑问会再发生。直到计算机游戏研究作为一个明确的自我维持（self-sustained）的学术领域出现。让事情变得更加混乱的是，目前的 「新媒体」（主要是一种为了视觉媒体研究而需要提出基于计算机的沟通（computer-based communication）的策略）的伪领域（pseudo-field），想要将计算机游戏归入其对象之一。这种策略有很多问题，就像整个「新媒体」的概念一样，其中最显著的一点事实是，电脑游戏不是一种媒介（medium），而是许多不同的媒介（media）。从像菲比精灵Furby这样的电脑玩具到奔迈（Palm Pilot，一种掌上电脑PDA）上的游戏《毒品战争》Drug Wars，更不用说像《无尽的任务》Everquest 这样的大型多人游戏，或者最近的《混乱 Online》Anarchy Online，它有40.000名游戏测试者同时进行测试，电脑游戏领域内广泛的媒体差异使得传统媒体的观点几乎没有用。我们最终得到了媒体理论家Liv Hausken所说的媒体盲（media blindness）：没有看到具体的媒体差异如何导致了一种根本并不中立的 「媒体中立」（media-neutral）的媒体理论。这显然是很危险地：无论是我们把游戏看成电影或故事，还是对游戏进行一般性的断言（general claims），就好像它们都属于相同的媒体格式并有相同特征。计算机游戏也许是我们所见过的最丰富的文化体裁（cultural genre），这对我们寻找合适的方法论进路提出了挑战。我们都是从别的地方（somewhere else）进入这个领域的，从人类学、社会学、叙事学、符号学、电影研究等等，而我们从旧领域带来的政治和意识形态的包袱不可避免地决定并推动我们的研究进路。而更重要的是，我们是留下还是回去？我们是想要一个独立的、被称之为计算机游戏研究的领域，还是想要为我们的旧学科占据这个领域？这是任何一个新领域的学者都会遇到的两难；以数字文化研究为例。今天，每一种现代文化也都是数字化的，所以人文和社会科学的每一个部门都必须把数字化看作是自己领域的一部分。因此，一个单独的数字文化（研究）的领域很难构建，而且可能（在现有的领域对其重要性开始感兴趣后）完全没有必要。数字理论家最终会在旧有的学科中得到兴趣和接纳，因此，跨学科团体（如互联网研究协会）提供的研究职位虽然仍有价值，但对于职业生涯的建设上已不再关键。
在电脑游戏方面，情况则不同。旧的游戏研究领域几乎不存在（见Jesper Juul在本期的评论），而且似乎也丝毫没给计算机游戏学者一个安全的避难所。有人会说，游戏研究的明显位置是在媒体系，但鉴于那里对大众传媒和视觉美学的强烈关注，游戏具有根本性的独特面向很容易被丢弃。今天，我们有可能建立一个新的领域。我们有一个价值数十亿美元的产业，但几乎没有基础研究，我们有很长一段时间内出现的最为迷人的文化材料，我们有机会将美学、文化和技术设计方面统一到一个学科中。这不会是一个无痛的过程，并且在这个过程中会犯很多错误。但是如果我们成功了，我们可以真正地做出建设性和批判性的贡献，并在学术界之外（outside the academy）有所作为。我对影响一个数十亿的产业这事并不太乐观。但从长远来看，谁知道呢？当然，游戏也应该在现有的领域和科系中进行研究，如媒体研究（Media Studies）、社会学（Sociology）和英文等等。但游戏太重要了，不能留给这些领域。(而他们确实有三十年的时间什么都没做！）就像建筑学包含但不能简化为艺术史一样，游戏研究应该包含媒体研究、美学、社会学等等。但它应该作为一个独立的学术结构存在，因为它不能被简化为上述任何一个。这是一个有趣的时代。
Welcome to the first issue of the first academic, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to computer game studies. This is a noteworthy occasion, and perhaps the most remarkable aspect is that such a journal has not been started before. As we know, there have been computer games for almost as long as there have been computers: SpaceWar, arguably the first modern game, turns forty this year, and commercially the genre has existed for three decades. So why not something like this before?2001 can be seen as the Year One of Computer Game Studies as an emerging, viable, international, academic field. This year has seen the first international scholarly conference on computer games, in Copenhagen in March, and several others will follow. 01-02 may also be the academic year when regular graduate programs in computer game studies are offered for the first time in universities. And it might be the first time scholars and academics take computer games seriously, as a cultural field whose value is hard to overestimate.To some of us, computer games are already a phenomenon of greater cultural importance than, say movies, or perhaps even sports. Seen from 2001, the potential cultural role(s) of computer games in the future is practically unfathomable. It seems clear that these games, especially multi-player games, combine the aesthetic and the social in a way the old mass media, such as theatre, movies, TV shows and novels never could. The old mass media created mass audiences, who shared values and sustained markets, but the mass media communities remained imagined (in Benedict Anderson’s sense), with little or no direct communication between participants. Clearly, multi-player games are not like that.In games like MUD1, Ultima online, or Quake Arena, the aesthetic and the social are integrated parts, and this could be regarded as the greatest innovation in audience structure since the invention of the choir, thousands of years ago. To see computer games as merely the newest self-reinvention of Hollywood, as some do, is to disregard those socio-aesthetic aspects and also to force outdated paradigms onto a new cultural object.True, there is a considerable Hollywoodisation of the games industry at the moment, that started with the "interactive movies" failures of the early nineties, but there is also a world wide, non-commercial, collective games movement that has a better infrastructure than any amateur movement before it. Hollywood, like the record industry, is all about distribution, and now there is a distribution mechanism that rivals booth: the Internet. Even Bill Gates III failed to swallow up the Internet, and there is much less reason to believe that Hollywood will succeed. From the closed ecosystem of Nintendo to the open source games communities on the Net; game studies must study both; it would be a mistake to assume that the "Nintendo-Hollywood" industrial complex will rule, and eliminate the alternative. As a cultural studies strategy, this would be like preparing to fight the previous war.A cognitive, communicative revolution?Much hype has been produced about the ability of new technology to instigate new ways of thought and communication. Take hypertext, which was supposed to give us writing skills that adhered much closer to the way our brains worked, a more "natural" way of textual communication. So far, however, the World Wide Web, the must successful hypertext system by far, has only produced a better distribution mechanism, and very few texts actually use the nonlinear possibilities of the technology. Games, however, are often simulations; they are not static labyrinths like hypertexts or literary fictions. The simulation aspect is crucial: it is radically different alternative to narratives as a cognitive and communicative structure. Simulations are bottom up; they are complex systems based on logical rules.Games are both object and process; they can’t be read as texts or listened to as music, they must be played. Playing is integral, not coincidental like the appreciative reader or listener. The creative involvement is a necessary ingredient in the uses of games. The complex nature of simulations is such that a result can’t be predicted beforehand; it can vary greatly depending on the player’s luck, skill and creativity. In multi-player games, social skills are needed, or must be developed. Anyone who has spent some time in a multi-player game knows that. Yet much of the industry and the academic commentators see the need for "narrative" structures in order to understand games and make games "better." In this issue, the debate about narratives’ and narratology’s relevance to game studies is clearly visible. This is a debate that shows the very early stage we are still in, where the struggle of controlling and shaping the theoretical paradigms has just started. We expect the debate to continue, here and elsewhere, but hope that future contributions will address the points already made, and not simply make the same claims over and over again. That is what an academic journal is for.Creating a New Discipline The greatest challenge to computer game studies will no doubt come from within the academic world. Making room for a new field usually means reducing the resources of the existing ones, and the existing fields will also often respond by trying to contain the new area as a subfield. Games are not a kind of cinema, or literature, but colonising attempts from both these fields have already happened, and no doubt will happen again. And again, until computer game studies emerges as a clearly self-sustained academic field.To make things more confusing, the current pseudo-field of "new media" (primarily a strategy to claim computer-based communication for visual media studies), wants to subsume computer games as one of its objects. There are many problems with this strategy, as there is with the whole concept of "new media," and most dramatically the fact that computer games are not one medium, but many different media. From a computerized toy like Furby to the game Drug Wars on the Palm Pilot, not to mention massively multi-player games like Everquest, or the recent Anarchy Online, which was tested by 40.000 simultaneous playtesters, the extensive media differences within the field of computer games makes a traditional medium perspective almost useless. We end up with what media theorist Liv Hausken has termed media blindness: how a failure to see the specific media differences leads to a "media-neutral" media theory that is anything but neutral. This is clearly a danger when looking at games as cinema or stories, but also when making general claims about games, as though they all belonged to the same media format and shared the same characteristics.Computer games are perhaps the richest cultural genre we have yet seen, and this challenges our search for a suitable methodological approach. We all enter this field from somewhere else, from anthropology, sociology, narratology, semiotics, film studies, etc, and the political and ideological baggage we bring from our old field inevitably determines and motivates our approaches. And even more importantly, do we stay or do we go back? Do we want a separate field named computer game studies, or do we want to claim the field for our old discipline? This is a common dilemma for any scholar in a new field; take for example digital culture studies. Today, every modern culture is also digital, so every sector of the humanities and social sciences must see the digital as part of their own territory. Hence, a separate field of digital culture is difficult to construct, and probably (after the existing fields warmed to its importance), completely unnecessary. The digital theorists will finally have found interest and acceptance back at the old discipline, and so the fellowship offered by interdisciplinary communities (such as the Internet Research Association) while still valuable, is no longer crucial when building a career.In computer games, this is different. The old field of game studies barely exists (see Jesper Juul’s review in this issue), and seems in no shape to give the computer game scholars a safe haven. Some would argue that the obvious place for game studies is in a media department, but given the strong focus there on mass media and the visual aesthetics, the fundamentally unique aspects of the games could easily be lost.Today we have the possibility to build anew field. We have a billion dollar industry with almost no basic research, we have the most fascinating cultural material to appear in a very long time, and we have the chance of uniting aesthetic, cultural and technical design aspects in a single discipline. This will not be a painless process, and many mistakes will be made along the way. But if we are successful, we can actually contribute both constructively and critically, and make a difference outside the academy. I am not too optimistic about influencing a multibillion industry. But in the long run, who knows?Of course, games should also be studied within existing fields and departments, such as Media Studies, Sociology, and English, to name a few. But games are too important to be left to these fields. (And they did have thirty years in which they did nothing!) Like architecture, which contains but cannot be reduced to art history, game studies should contain media studies, aesthetics, sociology etc. But it should exist as an independent academic structure, because it cannot be reduced to any of the above. These are interesting times.来源：http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/editorial.html#top
日 | 落译介计划是媒体实验室落日间对一些有助于思考游戏/电子游戏的外文文本翻译和推荐/索引计划。
译介：Brian Eno 生成性音乐 Generative Music
译介：Chris Bell 面向友情的设计 Designing For Friendship
感谢大力支持落日间的朋友：@昕仔 @某小熊猫猫 @少楠 @Bob傅丰元 @小河shan @希辰Xichen @小乐 @DC @Bynn @webber @绅士凯布雷克 @Minke @Roam @兜&敏 @KIDD @菲兹 @喵呜 @李喆 @特特 @Skellig @阿和 @某大王akak1dD @solsticestone @鱼片与花卷 @Stoney @树袋熊 @MrNewton @鸭脖拉罕 以及所有关注者的支持！：）