本文底稿来自本人受邀参与上海社科院「水花雅集」青年学术沙龙「元宇宙：理论想象与实践空间?」的分享内容，原视频已经剪辑上传[1]。
The original video has been edited and uploaded by
as part of a sharing that I was invited to participate in the Shanghai School of Social Sciences 'Foundation of Waterflakes' Young Academic Sharon'strong' dollar universe: the theoretical imagination and space of practice'.
本文主要面向学术界的朋友而作。
This paper is aimed primarily at friends of the academic community.
主要的内容不在于调侃「元宇宙」，而希望站在游戏设计师与从业者的视角，为这样的一个公开的讨论场引入一些「游戏设计」「游戏研究」、以及「玩家」的思考维度，我认为这能为我们今天的「元宇宙批评」能提供有益的工具和思考。
The main point is not to nuance the meta-cosmos, but to stand in the perspective of game designers and practitioners, to introduce into such an open discussion room some of the "playing" "research" dimensions of play design and "players" thinking, which I think can provide useful tools and reflections for today's meta-cosm critique.
首先引入游戏设计的视角有助于这种不可避免的但却略显空泛的讨论进入具体和有建设性的共识思索，并揭露目前的技术想象中的几处逻辑断裂与误解；在一味反对，以及无限夸张之间找到合适的位置。并且以游戏研究中对「游戏化」话语的批判作为案例参考来考察今天的「元宇宙」话语。
The first perspective to be introduced into the design of the game helps this inevitable but somewhat broad discussion to enter into concrete and constructive consensus thinking and exposes some of the logic breaks and misunderstandings in the current technological imagination; to find the right place between a single objection and an inexhaustible exaggeration. And to look at today’s meta-cosm language as a case study with the criticism of “playing” in the study of the game.
此外，本文认为玩家作为虚拟世界最大也最久远的消费者身上的对应「元宇宙」的「元系统素养」或许能带我们走出元宇宙叙事的恐慌。
In addition, it is argued that the "metasystem literacy" of the player, as the largest and longest consumer in the virtual world, may lead us out of the panic of the meta-cosm narrative.
如果「元宇宙」在逐渐变为一种公认的对互联网甚至人类未来的代称，那或许我们可以停止谈论「元宇宙是好还是坏」，而是去讨论「怎样的元宇宙是好的」，而「怎样的元宇宙是坏的」呢？
If the meta-cosmos is gradually becoming an accepted alias for the Internet and even for the future of mankind, perhaps we can stop talking about whether the meta-cosmos is good or bad, but rather about what is good and what is bad?
在元宇宙狂放的全民想象中，有东西被忽略了。
In the popular imagination of the meta-cosmos, something has been overlooked.
而游戏设计维度的引入有助于我们发现它们。
And the introduction of game design dimensions helps us find them.
「机械降神」（deus ex machina）这个词的意思是当剧情陷入胶着，困境难以解决时，突然出现拥有强大力量的神将难题解决，令故事得以收拾。常常利用起重机或起升机的机关，将扮演神的下等演员载送至舞台上。
The word "deus ex machina" means that when the drama is stuck and the dilemma is difficult to resolve, a powerful god solves the problem, so that the story can be solved. Often, using cranes or lifters, the lower performers of God are sent to the stage.
这个来自古希腊戏剧手法的名字在今天听来依旧如此 Fancy，并形象生动地展示了人类学所指认的技术与魔法同构性（同济大学艺术与传媒学院张艳）。
This name from the ancient Greek drama still sounds the same today, Fancy, and it is a vivid display of the technical and magical homogeneity (the art and media college of the same university) identified by anthropology.
在这样的来自科技公司的「元宇宙」新宗教与新神话的演出之中，从当前到未来的神话之境的路上，有哪些地方以「机械降神」（deus ex machina）的方式被有意无意地掩盖，或草草地以某种无逻辑的方式跳过了？
In such performances of the new "won cosmos" and myths of technology, from the present to the future, are there places that have been deliberately and unwittingly concealed in the form of 游戏设计维度的引入可以带我们发现它们。 The introduction of dimensions of game design can lead us to discover them. 硬件技术部分在此不谈，感兴趣的朋友可参考友人重轻在《元宇宙批评[2]》中的论述，包括信息传输极限，服务器，副本等一系列对目前顶尖技术的边界与探索的盘点。此外 Stevenma 在复旦大学也有一场关于头显像素、屏幕、反光折叠等等硬件与工业发展边界和判断的分享《为什么说要到2030年才能实现元宇宙？》。 Hardware technology is not discussed here, and interested friends can refer to what was discussed in meta-cosmological criticism [2], including information transmission limits, servers, copies, etc., a series of inventories of the boundaries and explorations of the current state-of-the-art technology. In addition, Stevenma has a sharing of hardware such as head pixels, screens, mirror folds, etc., with industrial development boundaries and judgements. 元宇宙的厕所会堵吗？ Will the toilet in the Won-Cosmos be clogged? 这不是一个调侃。 It's not a tune. 毕竟作为电子游戏最代表性的人物的马里奥就是一位水管工，这个问题或许可以翻译为「元宇宙需要马里奥吗？」或「元宇宙需要电子游戏吗？」。 After all, Mario, the most representative figure in video games, is a plumber, a question that may be translated as "Does Mario need it in the meta-cosmos?" or "Does the meta-cosmos need video games?" 一位在游戏行业拥有15年经验的系统设计师，前育碧多伦多的游戏设计组长 Liz England 在2014年发布了一篇文章《Liz England 「门的难题」 “The Door Problem” (2014)》（本人已翻译）来向他人解释「游戏设计是干啥的」。 Liz England, a 15-year-old system designer in the game industry, formerly a game designer in Bibidolondo, published an article in 2014 entitled "Liz England 'Door Problem' (2014) (which I translated) to explain to others "what game design is." 这是个很好的例子。因为在游戏工业和开发之中，门始终是个难题。一个门看着简单，但却有非常复杂的状态，需要大量的设计决策，并且也会影响到一系列的游戏中的其他事物（可见游研社《为什么在游戏里做一扇好用的“门”这么难？》中各类3A大作从业者的怨声载道）。 This is a good example. Because the door is always a problem in the game industry and development. A door looks simple, but in a very complex state, requires a lot of design decisions, and it also affects other things in a series of games. 后来一位很有趣的游戏设计师 Steven Harmon 就按《门的难题》的写法戏仿写下了一篇《「厕所难题」"The Toilet Problem” (2017)》（本人已翻译）更加强调了这一点。 And then an interesting game designer, Steven Harmon, wrote a copy of "Toilet Problem" & #34; The Toilet Problem (2017) (I translated it). 当我要去跟别人解释什么是游戏设计，游戏设计是做什么时，这两篇文章或许是最好的解答。 These two articles may be the best answer when I'm going to explain to others what a game design is and what a game design is. 比如说，游戏设计师就是要考虑这样的问题： For example, a game designer wants to think about something like this: 游戏中是否会有厕所？? Will there be a toilet in the game …… 所以这是很严肃的问题。「元宇宙中的厕所是否会堵」涉及到，这个所谓的元宇宙的厕所空间是否可互动？是否可以在其中投入其他物件？冲水是仅仅只是粒子效果或动画，还是带有真实的物理计算？是否有连通计算水流和流量的管道？管道的物理碰撞检测是否有效？…… So this is a serious question. "Is the toilet in the meta-cosmos blocked?" involves whether the toilet space in the so-called meta-cosm is interactive? Is there anything else in it? Is the flush merely a particle effect or animation, or is there a real physical calculation? Is there a pipe connected to the flow and flow of water? 在任何元宇宙讨论场中问这样一个问题后，无论收到怎样的回复，如「元宇宙中不会有厕所」，我们都能进入了具体讨论的轨道：元宇宙中没有厕所的话，玩家可以吃饭吗？吃饭有饱腹感和排泄的方式吗？如果没有厕所，那富翁购买的 NFT 金马桶只能用于观赏吗？那没有厕所的话，同类的空间有吗？有厨房吗？需要洗碗机吗？诸如此类 …… After asking such a question in any meta-cosmium discussion forum, whatever response we received, such as, "There will be no toilet in the meta-cosmos," we were able to go into the exact course of discussion: if there is no toilet in the meta-cosmos, can the player eat? Do you eat in a way that is saturated and excreted? If there is no toilet, can the rich buy the NFT gold toilet only be used as a reward? If there is no toilet, is there any room for the same kind of space? Is there a kitchen? Do you need a dishwasher? 谈了这么多，各位应该也理解了我的意思，希望没有影响到大家的胃口。 With all this talk, you should understand what I mean and hope it does not affect everyone's appetite. 游戏设计决定一个游戏「如何」运作。 game design determines how a game works. 我们常常谈技术，但技术只描述了游戏在可能性上的How，即「何以可能」，而游戏设计则是关注另外一个或许更重要的层面，游戏「何以运作」How it works。 We often talk about technology, but technology only describes how the game is possible, that is, "how is it possible?" And game design is concerned with another, perhaps more important, dimension, how it works. 所以刚才朱老师（上海社会科学院文学研究所朱恬骅）的一个结论很有启发：「人们在这个元宇宙之中成为什么样的人，很大一部分是由元宇宙的这个主导者决定的」。这涉及到的便是我想说的，游戏设计的维度。 So one of Mr. Chu's conclusions was very enlightening: "What kind of person are people in this meta-cosm, a large part of which is determined by the dominant character of the meta-cosm." That's what I'm talking about, the dimension of the game design. 一个人在「元宇宙」里如何行事，以怎样的颗粒度，怎样的方式进行交互，这就是游戏设计所关心的。 How a person behaves in the metaspace, how a particle size, how a person interacts, that's what the game design cares about. 有人可能会谈到「自由意志」和控制的问题，但就像先前友人善超谈到的（见《E30 电子游戏作为快感治理术》），我不太喜欢用自由这个词，这个问题就像你在古典音乐演奏会讨论大声打电话的自由一样，很容易滑离重点，因为游戏设计的本质就是一种控制的美学，依此带来特殊的体验（就像善超建议可以用「相互承认」来代替这个问题域） Some might talk about "free will" and control, but I don't like to use the word "freedom," as my friends used to say earlier (see E30 Electronic Game as An E-Governance), as you talk about the freedom to call loudly at classical concerts, and it's easy to slip away from the focus, because the essence of game design is a controlled aesthetic, which brings with it a special experience (like "recognize" instead of the domain). 游戏设计并不是一种阻碍自由的糟糕的控制而要拿去，重点在于要意识到：所有虚拟世界都是有设计的，并且这种设计直接决定了游戏形态，人们大部分的行为，就像建筑（《为什么说游戏设计是隐形的建筑学？》） It's not a bad control that hinders freedom, but it's about realizing that all the virtual world of 元宇宙当前的讨论中，特别缺失游戏设计的维度。 In the current discussions in the meta-cosmos, the dimensions of game design are particularly missing. 大家都确实是在想「元宇宙会怎样」（人会生活在虚拟世界，可以买卖，穿衣，人会失去主体性），但近乎没有人真去尝试去想「它到底是怎样」、具体上怎样，里面有没有厕所。 It's true that we're all thinking, "What happens to the Won Universe?" (Man lives in a virtual world, buys and sells, wears clothes, people lose their personality), but nobody really tries to think, "What happens to it," specifically, whether there's a toilet in it. 涉及到具体想象时，许多讨论者总是以游戏里的场景去拼凑出一个模棱两可语焉不详的未来。但避免了具体的想象，这就是为什么这些作为元宇宙的讨论所引用、谈论的对象的从业者和玩家们，大多对元宇宙的想象嗤之以鼻。 When it comes to specific imaginations, many discussants have always concocted an ambiguous future with the scenes of the game. But they have avoided specific imaginations, which are why these practitioners and players, who are the subjects of the discussions in the meta-cosm, are mostly scorned by the imagination of the meta-cosm. 元宇宙虽然总是举游戏的例子，但这个「如同现实世界一样的、有无穷交互颗粒度的虚拟世界」的想法实际上与整个电子游戏的发展历程完全背离。 While the Yuan cosmos is always an example of a game, the idea of a "virtual world, like the real world, with or without poor interactive particles" is in fact a complete departure from the evolution of the entire video game. 游戏之所以需要设计，之所以有「游戏设计」，就是因为电子游戏永远不是一个「丰饶的经济学 economy of abundance」（与互联网的摩尔定律不同），而是一个经济的（节俭的）经济学「economy of economy」。 The reason why games need to be designed is because `strong' video games are never a `economic of abundance' 什么叫丰饶经济学？就是像说我们可以使用特别暴力的手段，堆量，有无尽的算力，远远超出游玩范围所需要而去生成去设置无尽的事物，比如你要玩一个足球游戏，可以顺便把每根草的动画给做了，还能顺便多做点偶尔会冲上场的球迷还有矿泉水瓶。 What do you mean, rich economics? Just like saying that we can use a particularly violent means, stacking, counting, much more than we need to do in order to create endless things, like playing a football game, making animations of every grass, and doing a little more of those fans who occasionally rush into the field, as well as mineral water bottles. 但实际上电子游戏的整套传统都是关于一种节俭和精耕细作的经济学。电子游戏的早期，创作者发挥各种聪明才智，在16*16的像素框中展示人物动画，努力把一切事物塞进32kb的内存，并以各种方式压榨，优化发挥机能。 But in practice, the whole set of traditions of video games is about the economics of economy and precision. In the early days of video games, the creators took advantage of all kinds of intelligence, displayed animated characters in a pixel frame of 16*16, tried to stuff everything into the memory of 32kb and squeezed everything in a variety of ways to optimize their functioning. 电子游戏的艺术甚至可以说正是欺骗的艺术。在游戏中，如果只需要渲染出这个建筑的正立面，就可以让你觉得这里有个建筑的话，就无需渲染出内部及后立面。将数十万人分开到不同的几千个服务器的副本，各种远程同步传输的解决方式，融合实时计算与预渲染的光照贴图烘焙，所有所有的这些，都是地球上最聪明的人们绞尽脑汁，接力赛式地创造和分享出来的技术与设计所带来的绝妙体验。 The art of video games can even be described as the art of deception. In the game, if only the right side of the building is painted, it makes you feel like there's a building, you don't have to rewrite the inside and the back. 电子游戏提供的是真实感，而不是「真实」。 Video games provide a sense of truth, not "real." 早在2006年，实验艺术游戏开发者 Auriea Harvey 和 Micha?l Samyn 在《实时艺术宣言 REALTIME ART MANIFESTO》一文中就明确了这一点：让体验感觉真实（而并不需要看起来真实）Make the experience feel real. (it does not need to look real) 。 As early as 2006, the developers of experimental art games Auriea Harvey and Micha? l Samyn made this clear in the Declaration of Real-Time Art: Make the experience feel real. (it does not need to look real.) 举个例子。 Let me give you an example. 大家总是喜欢提的《微软模拟飞行》或可代表一种元宇宙无穷真实的想象，这个奢侈的、使用实时云传输，总数据量达到2PB（约等于2000 TB，即200 万GB）的数据地图容量的游戏，简直创造了另外一个地球的另一个数字孪生。 The Microsoft Simulation Flight, which you always like to mention, may represent an inexhaustible, real-time cloud transfer with a total data capacity of 2PB (approximately 2000 TB, or 2 million GB), creating another digital twin of another planet. 但我久仰大名第一次进入游戏后是有些失望的，就像这张图片展示的巴黎，我尝试借此回忆自己的留学时光，上方的是凡尔赛宫，因为是景点地标，地图数据有建模能加载，但实际上，下方这些路面全是模糊的贴图和阴影，一张「敷衍的」、「模糊不清的」，勉强能辨认出汽车的图片被贴在这个无比「真实的」世界中。 But I've heard a lot of disappointment after the first time my name entered the game, as in this picture of Paris, where I try to remember my time in school, which is the Versailles Palace, because it's a landmark, and the map data can be modeled and loaded, but in fact, all these roads down there are blurry stickers and shadows, and a "puzzling" and "puzzling" picture that barely identifies the car has been placed in this incredibly "real" world. 为什么玩家不会想象，我能不能飞机开到这个贴图上，走下来，任意进入其中的一个房间，然后在这个房子的厕所里上厕所。 Why don't the players imagine if I could fly to this sticker, walk down, go into one of these rooms at will, and go to the toilet in this house. 为什么它在这里可以用贴图？ Why does it use stickers here? 因为这个是个飞行游戏。你大部分时间都在天上飞，地上的东西只要给你一种感觉就够了。其实有一种玩家和设计师之中的某种约定俗成，或者「相互承认/怀疑搁置」，我选择性的忽略你这些贴图不看我在这上面飞远远的看地面我就已经足够满足了，我就已经感受到那种真实的体验，就OK了。 Because it's a flying game. You spend most of your time flying in the sky, and there's nothing on the ground that gives you a feeling. There's actually some sort of convention between a player and a designer, or "mutual recognition/doubt setting aside," and I selectively ignore the fact that you're looking at the ground from the distance, and I'm satisfied, and I'm already feeling the real experience, okay? 这就真的只是关于「飞行的」，而不是关于又能飞行又能落地又能开车又能和别人打网球的，这也是这类游戏得以成立并且成为系列的原因。它有一个重点，有设计，有一个主要处理的和忽略的选择，就如同多重不同比例尺的地图叠加在一块。 It's really about "flying," not about flying, driving, driving, and playing tennis. It's a game that's built up and it's a series. It's focused, designed, with a choice of major processing and neglect, and it's like a multi-scale map stacking together. 电子游戏应该是一份份不同比例尺的「地图」的叠加，而元宇宙的质朴想象就像是博尔赫斯小说中的那个国王，想要「要绘制一张和疆域同等比例的地图」。 The video game is supposed to be a stack of "maps" at different scales, and the size of the universe is like the king of the Borges novel, who wants to "develop a map equal to the size of the frontier." 这边推荐下次举例《万物 Everything》，这游戏可以从超行星而到微尘 这类颗粒度/Scale/比例尺的讨论在元宇宙中我很少看到。 This kind of particle size/scale/scale discussion is rarely seen in metacosystems. 很多玩家到今天依旧沉迷《超级马里奥兄弟》，因为它足够真实，但这不是视觉上的真实，而是设计上的。是来自虚拟世界的独特的反馈和宫本茂的天才，让玩家和这个砖块去碰撞会有反馈，蘑菇吃了它会有变化。 Many players are still obsessed with Super Mario Brothers today, because it's enough to be real , but it's not visual, but design. It's unique feedback from the virtual world and talent from Miyamoto, so that the player and this brick will have feedback and mushrooms will eat it and change. 可在玩家看来，左边的这个马里奥，天衣无缝；而右边的这个育碧招牌Bug，即便它的画面如此之好，一旦出了个穿模事件，怕是会瞬间从游戏中跳出，不仅如此，还要美滋滋地截图下来发在群里一块乐。这些跑跑步，做做任务看看风景的游戏尚且如此，更别提一个与任何事物，都进行无限颗粒度的交互会带来多少问题。 In the view of the player, this Mario on the left is seamless; and this Bug on the right, even if the image of it is so good 我打过这样的包票： I've played a ticket like this before: 我们穷尽一切的机能一切的可能性，我们都没办法在数字世界「完整地」还原简简单单的一套扑克牌，这套扑克牌至少要满足： We've done everything we can, and we can't "completely" restore a simple set of poker cards in the digital world, which must at least be satisfied: 将一套扑克「展」开为54张单独的扑克牌 Turn a set of poker "executions" into 54 individual cards. 感受扑克牌面光滑粗糙的质感，通过持续不断的练习做出「花式切牌」 Feel the smoothness of the poker face and make a flower cut through continuous practice. 摊开并搭建一座纸牌建筑物 Spread out and build a card building 将其加水捣成纸浆，重新制作出一张再生纸 We're gonna put it in water and we're gonna turn it into pulp, and we're gonna remake it into a regenerative piece of paper. 在每一张牌面上画上好友的头像做出一份特别的扑克 Draw a friend's head on every card and make a special poker. 将其烧成灰烬放在显微镜下查看 Let's burn it to ashes and put it under the microscope. 用指尖做下小的记号，变个魔术博人一笑 Make a little mark with your fingertips and make a magic man laugh. （见《用虚拟“取代”现实，这场“梦”该醒了吗？》一文） (See "Replace reality with virtual," this dream wakes up?) 你可以有个扑克牌的建模，作为摆设；你在卡牌游戏中可以设置它能展开，显示你有哪些牌并且使用它，但这些都是在不同游戏中服务于不同虚构的设计，我们无法还原出现实世界对于一张牌的能做的所有事，这种丰富的可能性。 You can model a poker game as a setup; you can set it up in a card game to show what cards you have and use it, but these are different myths that serve different games, and we can't restore the rich possibility that the real world can do anything about a card. 现实世界是一个模拟的（Analog）世界，而虚拟世界则是离散和数字的（Digital, 见Galloway），它一定有经济性的考量，而不是照搬式的想象。 The real world is an Analog world, while the virtual world is a discrete and digital world (Digital, see Galloway), and it must have economic considerations, rather than perfunctory imaginations. 如果我们在元宇宙的讨论中能够引入游戏设计的维度，那么我们就能开始思考这个虚拟世界的未来，它到底是好还是坏。 If we can introduce the dimensions of game design in the discussions in the meta-cosmos, then we can start thinking about the future of this virtual world, whether it's good or bad. 只讨论「元宇宙是好是坏」，就像是讨论「游戏是好是坏」一样有些空泛。或许我们应思考和讨论看看「怎样的元宇宙就是好的」，而「怎样的是坏的」。 Just talk about "What's good or what's bad" -- it's like talking about "What's good or what's bad." Maybe we should think about and talk about what's good and what's bad. 如果当元宇宙变成了我们称呼未来的一个名字，那我们就不得不去为「好的元宇宙」据理力争，并努力尝试推动和接近它。 If it becomes a name that we call the future, then we have to fight for the "good meta-cosmos" rationale and try to push it and get close to it. 游戏设计的引入也能帮助我们发现其他的逻辑断裂。 The introduction of game design can also help us find other logical breakups. 常能听到很多人构想，未来我们在元宇宙世界里能有无限的内容消费，因为人工智能可以解决一切问题，每个NPC栩栩如生，整个世界散发光彩。就像《失控玩家 Free Guys》描述的的幻想：人工智能 NPC 有一天突然觉醒，出现了自己的个人意识，大家像《西部世界》那样开始享受。 A lot of people often think that in the future we will have unlimited content consumption in the meta-cosmos world, because artificial intelligence solves everything, every NPC living, and the whole world glowing. As Free Guys describes, artificial intelligence is a fantasy: one day, the NPC suddenly wakes up, comes up with its own personal consciousness, and everybody starts to enjoy it like Western World. 这背后同样是对于游戏设计的藐视。 And behind it is also contempt for the design of the game. 问题在于，目前人工智能最主要的方向发展，即所谓的机器学习（Machine Learning）带来的生成内容不是逻辑性的，也没有语义，而是统计学意义上的。而在这种所谓的多样性与大部分游戏系统中需要的「可理解的，可涌现的多样性」是不同的。 The problem is that the most important development in artificial intelligence today is that the ‘strong’ generated by the so-called Machine Learning is not logical or semantic, but statistically 将AI真正地纳入游戏中是很困难的。在落日间《E32 赛博文本中的幽灵作者》中，在做计算机科研的友人厌氧菌举了一个很好理解的例子，在目前结合地最好的，结合了最强大的GPT-3 模型的AI游戏 AI Dungeon 中，输入「我走进一家旅馆」，它会返回一系列的对旅馆的描述，然后输入「我走出了旅馆」再输入「我又走进了这家旅馆」，你会发现得到了完全不同的描述： It is difficult to really include AI in the game. In Sunset "The Ghost Authors of E32 Cyber Texts", friends in computer science have given a well-understood example of "I walked out of the hotel" and "I walked into the hotel again" in the best game in the current combination of the most powerful GPT-3 models, AI Dungeon, which is a completely different description: (The elves) point down the street and tell you the name of the inn. You thank them and enter. When you walk in, you see that it is a small inn, but they serve good food and you can see a few elves enjoying a drink at a nearby table. You step out of the inn. Outside you notice a group of elves playing a game. They look like they are enjoying themselves. You wonder if you could join the game. You step back into the inn. The guards draw their weapons. You draw your sword and kill the first two. Then the third guard notices your weapon. 这是因为在这个AI这里，它并不能真的理解「旅馆」是什么意思，甚至也没有一个关于旅馆里有什么的模型或世界，它仅仅只是通过你这句话的语词语素等一系列的超多参数输入，去找到了最有可能匹配的上下文。 This is because here in AI, it does not really understand what a "hotel" means, nor does it even have a model or world of what is in a hotel, and it simply finds the most likely matchable context through a series of super-multi-parameters, such as the vocabulary of your words. 这些AI行为和规则AI自己和开发者都不确定是否有意义（meaningful），却要一股脑儿交给玩家去解读，这带来困惑会轻易打破游戏的沉浸，而如果要用几百次的遍历而获得一次巧妙的体验而说「AI真是神了」那更像是随机随出个等差数列而庆祝。 These AI behaviors and rules are not certain by themselves or by their developers whether they are meaningful or not, but they are given a brain to the player to read, which causes confusion that can easily break the immersion of the game, and it is more like a celebration by randomly passing through hundreds of times to get a brilliant experience that says, "AI is truly divine." 这也是为什么目前少有在游戏运用机器学习的AI（除了PVP），而还是使用更传统的行为树或有限状态机的原因。业内确实在推进AI，但那是在一些工业问题（如AI寻路，如跨越箱子的动画）上去有限地使用和辅助设计开发来降低成本（具体可参考《人工智能与游戏[3]》）。 This is why there are currently few AIs (other than PVPs) who learn to use machines in games, but also more traditional behavioral trees or limited state machines. It is true that AI is being promoted in industry, but it is limited in its use and assisted design development to reduce costs in some industrial issues (e.g. AI search, for example, animations across boxes) (cf. Artificial intelligence and games [3]). 不过电子游戏中确实有办法能够生成近乎「无限」的内容——过程式生成叙事。 There are, however, ways in which video games can produce content that is almost "infinite" -- process-formulating narratives . 这个常与《塞尔达传说：旷野之息》一块被提及的词语，但这种过程式生成，或是「涌现式叙事」，这些恰恰是建立在可解释的规则上的，即游戏设计而非统计学上的。这其中需要的是人的劳动与游戏设计的巧思。 This is a term that is often mentioned along with the Legend of Zelda: The Land of Wildness, but it is a process-forming or "surfacing narrative" that is based on the rules that can be explained, i.e., game design, not statistics. What is needed is the imagination of human work and game design. 《矮人要塞》与《Rimworld》或许是世界上最好的涌现式叙事的例子，玩家为这两个世界愿花费成百上千小时，并津津乐道于其中的故事。但《矮人要塞》可能花了可能两个人近乎一辈子的时间在做设计与开发，而《Rimworld》则是来自从《生化奇兵》这样的大作离开并写出最好的游戏设计书之一的《体验引擎》的 Tynan Sylvester。即便这画面如ASCII码一样粗糙，人们依旧觉得它们如此之真实，这正是因为其背后有如此多的设计在其中。 Short Man Forts and Rimworld may be some of the world’s best emerging narratives, with players willing to spend hundreds of hours on these two worlds and sharing stories. But Dwarves Forts may take two people almost a lifetime to design and develop, and Rimworld is Tynan Sylvester from one of the best game designs. 欢迎大家去搜索《RimWorld: Contrarian, Ridiculous, and Impossible Game Design Methods[4]》以及《Breaking Conventions with The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild[5]》从创作者本人那学习而不是听元宇宙专家的说法。 Welcome to the search for RimWorld: Contractor, Ridiculus, and Impossible Game Design Methods[4] with The Building Conventions of Zelda: Breath of the Wild[5] from the creator himself instead of listening to meta-cosmists. 这些令人沉浸的，能涌现的世界需要的是明确的规则与模型。 What is needed in these immersed and emerging worlds is clear rules and models. 要以人工智能以暴力的方式搪塞是不可能的，（除非你像是特德姜的科幻小说《软件体的生命周期》以及莱姆《特鲁尔的电子诗人》那样培养）。 It's not possible for artificial intelligence to jam in a violent way, unless you're raised like Tedgyn's science fiction, the life cycle of the software system, and Lem Troul's Electronic Poets. 其实曾经的计算机写作中也尝试过规则涌现的逻辑，作家艾柯在哈佛的演讲中提到： In fact, the logic of the emergence of rules has been tried in computer writing, and writer Ike said in a Harvard speech: 在他们的“编故事”（Tale-Spin）程序里，他们先从一个小规模的百科全书起步：告诉电脑在一系列问题情境下一只熊如何找到蜂蜜。在电脑初期试运行时，小熊乔问小鸟欧文哪里能找到蜂蜜，欧文回答说：“橡树上有个蜂窝。”电脑最早写出这些故事时，小熊乔以为欧文没有回答它而生起气来，其实是它的百科全书里缺乏某种知识信息，即有时可以利用转喻（metonymy）的方法指示食物所在，也就是说，举出来源而非直指食物本身。普鲁斯特赞美福楼拜写《包法利夫人》时，写她走近壁炉，而不需直接告诉读者她觉得冷。而且，福楼拜理所当然地认为他的读者知道壁炉予人温暖。相形之下，尚克和契德斯则了解他们处理电脑时必须交待清楚，提供给电脑食物和其来源的相关信息。但当欧文重复说“橡树上有个蜂窝”时，小熊乔走过去把整个蜂窝都吃掉了。它的百科全书仍然不够完备，盛装食物的来源和食物本身是不一样的，这点必须做进一步解释，因为“饥饿时找冰箱没有错，但得知道打开它，而不是吃掉它，这些对机器而言都是懵懂无知的”。 In their “Tale-Spin” program, they start off with a small encyclopedia: tell computers how a bear can find honey in a series of problem situations. In the early run of computers, Bear Joe asked little birds where Owen could find honey, and Owen said: “There is a beehive on the oak tree.” When the computer first wrote these stories, Bear Joe thought Owen didn't answer it, but he thought that his encyclopedia lacked some knowledge, meaning that sometimes they could use a metonymy to show where they were, i.e. to cite the source rather than the food itself. But when Mrs. Prust Zamfet wrote, she went near the fireplace, not to tell her readers that it was cold. And Fuku was right to believe that his readers knew that the fireplace was warm to people. In contrast, Shank and Cheddds knew that they could handle the computer and that they had access to computer food and to its sources. 在捕捉现实世界上，计算机是很笨拙的，它完全没有我们这些生活经验所隐含的逻辑，我们看到《包法利夫人》中写走近壁炉，我们知道她冷了，但是在电脑世界中，我们需要定义冷热，定义人的感知方式，设置壁炉为热，并设定人冷时会需要热的一系列逻辑，那么计算机才会「明白」这件事。 Computers are clumsy in capturing the reality of the world, and they have nothing to do with the logic inherent in our life experience. We see Mrs. Bofali's approach to the fireplace, we know she's cold, but in the computer world, we need to define cold heat, define how people feel, set the fireplace to heat, and set a set of logics that people need to heat when they are cold. 许多人在想象AI未来的元宇宙时总是会有意无意地将这「统计学」意义上的人工智能与「基于规则的」过程式生成混淆，幻想出一个NPC在河流上游投毒，下游的人就会全部淹死，就像《矮人要塞》喝醉酒而离奇死亡的猫那样环环相扣的世界。 Many, in their imagination of the future meta-cosm of AI, will deliberately and unintentionally confuse artificial intelligence in the sense of “statistical” with the production of a “rule-based” process, fantasizing that an NPC poisons up the river, and that people downstream drown, as in the case of Dwarf Forts, a world that hangs around drunk and dying cats. 涌现式叙事与AI的机器学习甚至可以说是完全相反的两面。 The emerging narrative is even the opposite of AI's mechanical learning. 除了人工智能，另一元宇宙内容神话便是「UGC-User Generative Content」。 In addition to artificial intelligence, another dimension of the cosmic content myth is "UGC-User General Content". 作为创作者，我始终在比较与衡量不同的「虚构工具」，这些工具以怎样的模块组织？能够满足不同的风格？是否有易用性封装和触及底层的平衡？ As creators, I've been comparing and measuring different "fiction tools." What kind of modules are these tools organized to meet different styles? Is there an easy-to-use envelope and a balance at the bottom? 仅仅举一例，大部分人提到的 Roblox 与Minecraft的例子恰恰是我们先前所提到的，交互的颗粒度被设计和设定好下的再创造，而或许《Second Life》里面那种可以通过各个外部软件制作建模展UV后上传的方式更符合元宇宙一些？ To give just one example, most people refer to Roblox and Minecraft, where the interactive particle size is designed and set to recreate, and perhaps the way in Second Life it can be uploaded after the UV by external software? 这部分的内容先前在《关于元宇宙（Metaverse）的灵魂拷问》已谈过「未来我们将如何创造，并创造什么？」。但我觉得目前许多人谈到UGC，但却没有详细描绘和思考在那个拟真的，跟现实世界差不多的世界中我们到底能如何创作，如何进行设计与开发。 This part of the story has already spoken about "How will we create and what do we create in the future?" In Metaverse's Soul Torture. But I think that many people are talking about UGC at this point, but have not elaborated and reflected on how we can actually create, design and develop in a world that is similar to the real world. （这点甚至不如2018年就已发布宣传片的《Hytale》） 这就是我从游戏设计的透镜所看到的元宇宙的想象中的「机械降神」，在这些地方人们有意无意地进行了概念偷换与逻辑跳跃。 That's what I see from the lens of the game design, the "mechanical descendent" of the meta-cosmos, where people deliberately and unwittingly leap over concepts and logic. 它正是这样得罪了游戏从业者与玩家。 That's how it offends gamers and players. 它想象了一种无限的算力，在这点上它得罪了游戏程序员。 It imagines an infinite measure, and at that point it offends the game programmer. 它想象无限的交互颗粒度与「自由」，在任何情况下，能以任何方式和游戏物互动，这意味着没有任何游戏设计，这点上得罪了游戏设计师。 It imagines an infinite amount of interactive particles with "free" and, in any case, interacting with games in any way, which means that there is no game design, which offends the game designer. 它觉得虚拟世界的画面应像现实一样真实，在这点上它得得罪了游戏美术，因为如果游戏真是如此，那大批游戏美术就会失业，因为现实仅仅只是一种虚拟世界的审美，如果只需要照着现实做，能全部扫描，那就不需要设计了。 It feels that the picture of the virtual world should be as real as reality, and in that regard it offends game art, because if it is, a lot of game art will lose its jobs, because reality is just an aesthetic of the virtual world, and if we just have to be realistic and we can scan it all, there is no need for design. 从这个角度上来说，这种「元宇宙」是混杂着最狂放的技术幻想（想干啥就干啥），以及最平庸的想象力（和现实一样）的奇妙结合，让我想起就那些突发奇想做游戏，然后拍脑袋想需求的煤老板们。 From this point of view, this "megaspace" is a wonderful combination of the most ravishing technical illusions (whatever you want) and the most mediocre imagination (as is the reality) that reminds me of the coal owners who want to play games, and then shoot the need in the head. 它有无限的内容，觉得自己振臂一呼，创作者蜂拥而至。但现在的情况是创作者难寻，平台都想留住创作者而不惜用钱来鼓励。但创作者还是会挑选自己喜欢的工具和喜欢的平台，我没有看到这种想象真正开始解决和构想怎样的工具能够去帮助创作。 It has an infinite content, which feels like it's full of hands and creators. But what's happening now is that the creators are hard to find, and the platforms want to keep the creators at all costs to encourage them. But the creators still choose the tools they like and the platforms they like, and I don't see how the tools that I imagine really start to solve and imagine can help them. 它还渴望统计学意义上的NPC能涌现出一种奇妙的智能在这个虚拟世界中如同「全息甲板」生成无尽的美妙的故事。只要通过大算力、海量的人工标记的数据集，便能暴力地怼出一个美好的未来，取代设计师开发者与玩家之间的相互承认与交流。想象一旦有了AI，玩家就会乖乖被统计生成的对话、事件吸引，沉醉其间，千秋万代。这点上把设计师和玩家都得罪了（目前的多人游戏中的AI已开始惹人厌） It also aspires that statistically, the NPC will be able to produce a wonderful and endless story in this virtual world like a "all-day deck." It will be violent to create a good future by means of data sets that are mathematically and manually marked. It will replace mutual recognition and communication between designers and players. Imagine that once an AI is in place, players will be attracted to statistically generated dialogue, events, intoxication, and in many generations. 纽约大学的游戏设计师与研究者 Eric Zimmerman 十年前写了一篇《游玩世纪宣言》，引起了不少游戏研究者的讨论与思考（如?Ian Bogost?如?DK）。 Eric Zimmerman, a game designer and researcher at the University of New York, wrote a decade ago a Declaration for the 21st Century of Play, which generated a lot of discussion and thinking among game researchers (e.g. Ian Bogost? e.g. DK). 在这篇宣言中，他认为「21世纪将被游戏所定义」（听起来很像元宇宙），并以正面视角提到了玩家和我们所需要的系统素养： In this declaration, he argued that "the 21st century will be defined by the game" (which sounds like a meta-cosmos) and referred in a positive light to the culture of the player and the system we need: We should think like designers.我们应该像设计师一样思考。?在游玩的世纪，我们不能与我们居有的系统是一种被动的关系。我们必须学会成为设计师，认识到系统是如何以及为何被构建的，并努力使它们变得更好。 We should think like designers. We should think like designers. 游戏设计师 Jonathan Blow 在讲座《电子游戏和教育的未来[6]》中也谈到过这种「元知识」: This "meta-knowledge" was also mentioned by the game designer Jonathan Blow in the lecture "The future of video games and education" [6]: 你让玩一个游戏的人非常仔细地观察这个系统一段时间，再玩另一个游戏，观察这个系统，再玩另一个游戏，观察这个系统，我们就能得到这种系统的元知识，你就能理解系统的行为方式，尊重系统，对可能发生的事情有一种感觉，这非常重要。 You let those who play one game look very carefully at the system for a while, play another game, look at the system, play another game, look at the system, we get the meta-knowledge of the system, you understand how the system behaves, you respect it, and it's very important that you have a sense of what can happen. 或许面对「元宇宙」未来，我们需要对应地培育与发展一种「元系统素养」，或者可以叫做「元-元宇宙素养」（meta-metaverse literacy），来判断和审视多种元宇宙可能性，消费、审美、创造，甚至能想方设法修改（mod），破解（hack），反玩（counter-play）的能力。 Perhaps in the future of the meta-cosmos, we need to develop a meta-culture correspondingly, or a meta-metaverse cosmology to judge and examine the possibilities of multiple meta-cosmies, consumption, aesthetics, creation, and even ways to modify (mod), crack (rack), counterplay. 在思考元宇宙的时候请千万不要忽略了玩家。 Don't forget the player when you think about the meta-cosmos. 玩家已接触了太久太多的虚构系统，他们可能是世界上最擅长和各类虚拟世界打交道，拥有消费素养并做出判定的人，更别提那些接触过数千个虚拟世界与系统并整日在持续创造与思考着的游戏设计师们。 Players have been exposed to far too many fictional systems, and they may be the world's best at dealing with all kinds of virtual worlds, with consumerism and judgment, not to mention the game designers who have been exposed to thousands of virtual worlds and systems and who have been creating and thinking all day. 而这种虚拟世界的审美判断的多样性被元宇宙的「大，真，全」的叙事给压制了。于成老师（青岛大学文学与新闻传播学院）谈的很棒，是不是我们可以不要仅仅接受主流的想象，在那之外，有没有玩家的元宇宙？有没有建筑师的元宇宙，而不是商业版本的，投资圈舶来的元宇宙？有没有其他的、另类的元宇宙的版本呢。 And the diversity of the aesthetic judgments of this virtual world is silenced by the "large, true, whole" narratives of the meta-cosm. So what you're talking about is that we can't just accept the mainstream imagination, and there's a player's meta-cosm? Is there an architect's meta-cosm, not a commercial version, an investment cosmos? Is there any other, alternative version of the meta-cosm? 最后谈谈「元宇宙」话语本身。 Finally, let's talk about the term "won cosmos" itself. 与会的各位老师都很准确地观察到了元宇宙的作为话语和想象存在的现状： The teachers who attended the meeting observed accurately the status quo of the use of the Yuan cosmos as a word and imagination: 「元宇宙」本身是资本和权利塑造的文化表达,不仅蔓延在商业广告中，也蔓延在的政府话语、媒体话语甚至学术话语之中。 The Metaspace itself is a cultural expression shaped by capital and rights, spreading not only in commercial advertising, but also in government, media and even academic discourse. 我觉得同样在西方商业话语中出现的「游戏化」Gamification 的概念与话语可以为此提供参考。 I think the concept and language of a "played" Gamiface, which also appears in Western business discourse, can be used as a reference. 简单来说，「游戏化」就是有这么一群商业和咨询人士，他们希望把游戏中「让人上瘾的」，让人觉得欲罢不能的技术，迁移和运用到在非游戏的语境下，使得那些原本「无聊」的事物，比如学习、工作等等能够变得好玩。这在十年前左右在10年前左右风靡美国，宾夕法尼亚大学沃顿商学院为之开课并且办讲座。 Simply put, "playing" is a group of business and consulting people who want to “addict people” in the game, to move and apply to non-playable technologies, and to make things that are otherwise “breathful” – such as learning, work, etc. – fun. This was taught and lectured about 10 years ago in the United States, around 10 years ago at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. 但对此，哲学家与游戏学者 Ian Bogost 批判说，游戏化是扯淡（Bullshit）。（详细的部分可以参考《Ian Bogost 游戏化是屁话 Gamification is Bullshit (2011)》） But in this case, philosophers and game scholars Ian Bogost criticise that is bullshit . (Details can be found in Ian Bogost's Game is Bullshit (2011).) 他揭露出这些「游戏化」的「碰瓷」策略。 He exposes these "played" 他们的方法就是尽可能多地「碰瓷」相关作品，把它们说成是游戏化帝国的一部分。……他们的方法就是尽可能多地「碰瓷」相关作品，把它们说成是游戏化帝国的一部分。 Their approach is to “touch” as much as possible, describing them as part of a game empire. Their approach is to “touch” as much as possible, describing them as part of a game empire. 通过将一切游戏中花费大量创作者心血，不可一概而论的各类作品（传递历史知识的游戏，关于编程的游戏，关于 Vim 快捷键的游戏）全都纳入「游戏化」的范畴，从而使这个概念无限扩张且自我增生。 By including all kinds of works (the game of transmission of historical knowledge, the game of programming, the game of Vim shortcuts) in the "playing" category, the concept is expanding indefinitely and self-empowering. Bogost指出，「游戏化」从游戏中剥离出来「通用的」的并视作游戏本质的部分恰恰最不重要（PBL，Points 分数，Badges 奖牌，Leaderboards 排行榜）。这意味着这完全忽略了游戏的丰富性和游戏设计本身。他建议使用「仪表盘化」或者「剥削软件」来指代这种和游戏实际上没有任何关系的商业概念与话语。 Bogost points out that "playing" is the least important part of the game that strips "universal" out of it and sees it as the essence of the game (PBL, Points score, Badges medals, Leaderboards). This means that it completely ignores the richness of the game and the design of the game itself. He suggests the use of "watching" or "exploitation software" to describe business concepts and discourses that actually have nothing to do with the game. 而回到我们的「元宇宙」的话语和想象中，似乎也能够看到类似的情形。 And to return to our words and imagination of the Woncosmos, it seems that a similar situation can be seen. 鼓吹「元宇宙」的人，他们就算不了解这些游戏业界的常识甚至被业界嗤之以鼻，依旧会选取3A大作等例子来进行描述和想象的建构：元宇宙就是《荒野大镖客》里面这个对话系统，就是你做剧情选择后 NPC 之间丰富的意蕴与因果关联；是Roblox里面的玩家创作；是Fortnite里面的演唱会；是《矮人要塞》之中的涌现叙事；也是《头号玩家》的绿洲，是 Discord的语音聊天；是 Unity 和 Unreal 的引擎等等。 Those who preach the word " metaspace ", even though they are not aware of the common sense of the game industry and even scorned by the industry, will choose examples of 3A masterpieces to describe and imagine: the metacosystem is the system of dialogue in the Wilder Darts, which is a rich causal link between the NPC after you chose the plot; it is a player in Roblox; it is a concert in Fortnitite; it is an emerging narrative in Short Man Fort; it is also an oasis in First Player, a voice chat in Discord; it is the engine of Unity and Unreal, and so on. 在元宇宙的滤镜下，互联网上目前发生的一切都指向着那个未来。通过「碰瓷」各种游戏作品中这些最闪光的、多少人花费大量心血做的事，全纳入元宇宙的大框中，进行话语的膨胀与再生产。 Under the filters of the meta-cosmos, everything that is happening on the Internet is pointing towards that future. Through the most flashy, many people's hard work in all of the porcelain games, it's all in the broad frame of the meta-cosm, expanding and reproducing words. 或许我们可以回头考察一下，「元宇宙」的话语团块中真正属于自身的有多少，而又有多少只是空泛地谈谈？这种想象一个虚构的无限的现实世界的未来图景或许还远不及70、80年代就开始的对未来和虚拟或赛博世界的想象。 Perhaps we can look back at how many of the words of the "won cosmos" really belong to ourselves, and how many of them are just empty talk? The vision of the future of an imaginary, limitless real world may be far short of the vision of the future and the virtual or Sabo world that began in the 1970s and 1980s. 就像是重轻所分析的，Facebook 改名 Meta而大谈「元宇宙」，或许只是面对公司核心广告收入下降以及多种因素构成的发展困境的一记险招；而或许是所有精神分析都能够看出来，「元宇宙」如此庞大的野心和话语背后或许是某种恐惧，就像 Bogost 在《元宇宙不是什么好东西 The Metaverse Is Bad (2021)》的结尾说的那样： It's as if it's an analysis that Facebook has changed its name to Meta and has talked about the metaspace, perhaps in the face of the decline in corporate core advertising revenues and the development dilemmas posed by multiple factors; and perhaps all psychoanalysis shows that the ambition and rhetoric of the meta-cosm may be some kind of fear, as Bogost said at the end of The Metaverse Is Bad (2021): 那些元宇宙、超人（super-man）、亿万富翁们为星际逃亡准备的私人飞船、冰雪消融的黑暗海洋上的方舟都一样：为了假想中的新生活而放弃真正的现世生活，也就意味着放弃自我拯救的所有希望。这或许是一种狂妄，但相应地，梦想不朽就是承认软弱——害怕你自己也会像其他所有东西一样消亡。 Those universes, superman, billionaires, private ships for interplanetary flight, and arks in the dark ocean of ice and ice: to give up a real life for the sake of a new life, it means to give up all hope of saving itself. This may be madness, but, correspondingly, the dream of immortality is to admit weakness — fear that you will die like everything else. [1]上传:?https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1ZB4y1Q7GQ [1] Upload: 落日间是一座有关「何为游戏」与「游戏何为」的迷宫 "Strong" is a maze of "what's the game" and "What's the game" thank you for supporting sunset friends!
为什么有或为什么没有？?如果有，在哪里？
游戏里有多少个厕所？
玩家平均需要多长时间才能到达第一个厕所？
游戏中的厕所是可互动的吗，还是只是展示性的？
如果是，怎么做？你将如何向玩家传达一个厕所是「可互动的」？使用非沉浸式的用户界面（non-diegetic user interface），鼠标悬停时的高亮显示，还是说游戏中的所有东西都是可交互的，通过联想，玩家会知道这也是可交互的？
你可以在厕所里解手或便便，还是厕所有其他用途？例如，《辐射：新维加斯 Fallout: NV》中的饮水，《英雄不再 No More Heroes 》中的保存进度，或者《无主之地 Borderlands》中的抽奖箱。
你能排泄的数量是根据食物摄入量来限制的吗？时间呢？
你是按住一个键/按钮来排便，还是需要按一系列特定的键/按钮或手势？
排泄是否只限于厕所里面？
你能在便便后与你的便便互动吗？例如，在《永远的毁灭公爵 Duke Nukem Forever》中，玩家可以拿起并扔出一个粪便，并由公爵打破第四面墙的声音来给予行动的反馈。
如果厕所在互动时能做不止一件事，那么它在整个游戏中提供这些相同的选择是一致的，还是根据厕所的类型、位置、角色进展或故事情节而有所不同？
AI会上厕所吗？
一个隔间可以容纳多少个AI？
厕所被AI占用时，门是锁着的吗？多长时间？
键盘和游戏手柄上的物理交互是如何映射或代表现实生活中与厕所交互的动作的？
你能抬起马桶座圈（seat）吗，马桶盖（lid）呢？
如果可以，这种打开和关闭是通过输入时的动画切换还是直接物理驱动的？
如果是动画，如果有东西挡住了马桶盖的关闭，或者在马桶盖上而阻止了马桶盖的打开，那么动画会不会被打断而停止，穿过上述物体，或者把它们推开？
你还能与关闭的阀门互动吗？如果是这样，它是否会关闭冲厕所的模拟，或者它是否连接到了其他什么东西？
你能取下水箱的盖子吗？
拿下水箱盖后，是否可以看到一个实时运行的的冲洗机制？
你能冲水吗？
如果可以，冲水是否只是启动一个粒子效果、声音和尿量降低和水变清的动画？
它是否经过物理模拟，如果场景中的其他物体落入其中，是否会发生互动？
当冲水程序在运行时，你再尝试冲水会发生什么？
冲洗的次数达到一定数量是否会触发一个事件。例如，惹恼了AI，或导致马桶堵塞或溢出？
如果溢出了，是否有物理驱动的水模拟，推动接触的物体？
AI会不会在溢出物上滑倒并伤害到自己？
是否会有一个看门的AI来到这里，在被淹没的区域附近挂上 "小心地滑 "的牌子。
其他AI是否会使用寻路技术来避开上述区域？
人工智能会使用什么类型的寻路方式来避免被便便浸泡的溢出物？
在虚拟厕所内便便的行为是否有偏见？
你可以站着排便，也可以坐着排便吗？
你认为厕所在这个游戏中表现了什么价值（文化、政治等）？
这些价值观是通过与这些厕所的互动而有意传达的吗？
厕所在环境叙事方面有什么说法？
厕所的尺寸是多少？
厕所旁边是否有一个辅助性的轨道？
如果没有，你的游戏世界中没有残疾人角色吗？
与厕所互动的用户界面是否用颜色或图案加以区分？
色盲的玩家能否像非色盲的玩家一样轻松地与厕所互动？
你在表现厕所的过程中是否排除了某一类群体的玩家？
是故意的还是无意的？
[3]人工智能与游戏:?https://book.douban.com/subject/34949577/
[4]RimWorld: Contrarian, Ridiculous, and Impossible Game Design Methods:?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdqhHKjepiE
[5]Breaking Conventions with The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild:?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyMsF31NdNc
[6]电子游戏和教育的未来:?https://www.gcores.com/articles/151541
感谢支持落日间的朋友们！
欢迎赞赏或赞助落日间
注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群
打开微信扫一扫
添加客服
进入交流群
发表评论