Mr.Chris Crawford的游戏策划设计文档

乐天灵魂

Chapter 6: Interactivity

Low-Interactivity Entertainment Designs
Let me now turn to low-interactivity products.

They have a dismal history. Low-interactivity

entertainment is not a new idea. In the first big

boom of computer games, from 1981 to 1984, a

number of low-interactivity games were attempted.

One of these was Alien Gardens, published by Epyx.

You were a kind of alien bee flitting through a

garden of alien flowers, trying to pollenize them.

It was a very low-key game, definitely low in the

interactivity department. All you could do was

buzz around and, every now and then, try to touch

a flower, which might kill you or reward you.

Unfortunately, the difference between flowers was

arbitrary. The game made no sense and ranks as one

of the great turkeys of computer game history.

1985 saw another low-interactivity product: Little

Computer People, from Activision. This odd product

created a small family on your screen, moving

around their dollhouse in the course of their

daily activities. You the player watched them. The

product attracted much attention from the press,

but it was not, I believe, much of a commercial

success, largely because the player didn't do very

much. Much later, Will Wright came up with a much

better implementation of the concept with The

Sims. The Sims offered the player more

interactivity than Little Computer People, and was

accordingly a great success.

Epyx roared back in 1988 with more

low-interactivity products: its line of VCR games,

released with much hype and excitement. Realizing

the clumsiness inherent in the serial format of a

videotape, the designers rightly limited

interaction to the bare minimum, focusing most of

their attention on providing interesting footage

for the player, who would occasionally fast

forward or rewind. Here was the ultimate couch

potato game. You didn't need a computer to play it

and you didn't have to do much work. All you did

was sit back and watch the tape and occasionally

push a button on your remote control. Sounds

great, right? It sounded great to a number of

publishers, who frantically put together their own

VCR products. Yet, despite some expensive

marketing campaigns, VCR games bombed. They were a

total disaster. Mindscape shipped one product and

cancelled the second one, even though it was ready

to ship, because the first game had failed so

completely.

Another experiment in this direction was the

CinemaWare line of games. These games were strong

on spectacle and weak on interaction. The

marketing thrust of the CinemaWare line was that

these games were just like movies, except that you

could play with them. Most of the design effort

was put into making lots of pretty pictures and

animated sequences. The gameplay itself was weak.

The first line in the series, Defender of the

Crown, by Kellyn Beeck, created quite a sensation

and sold very well. But after that, it seemed to

be all downhill. CinemaWare went bust a few years

later.

Another good example is the experience of Cyan, a

game developer. Cyan's first game, The Manhole,

was a low-interactivity adventure game for

children. It sold enough copies to keep Cyan

alive, but little more. Then they came up with

Cosmic Osmo, sporting the same low interactivity

but better cosmetics. Again, they made enough

money to stay alive, but not much more. The big

hit came with Myst, another adventure game. This

time, however, the interactivity was more involved

and the cosmetics were sensational. Myst sold like

hotcakes, Cyan got filthy rich, and all seemed

bright. Then they released a sequel to Myst,

entitled Riven. It sold moderately well. A third

game in the series, Exile, also did reasonably

well, but again did not approach Myst in sales.

Cyan continued in business by developing and

licensing the Myst brand.

The same pattern shows up over and over. Laserdisc

games made a huge sensation, but then faded away

almost as quickly as they burst upon the scene.

They were low-interactivity games. The 7th Guest,

by Rob Landeros and Graeme Devine, was a huge hit

in the early 1990s, sporting low-interactivity

puzzles mated with glorious animations. Their

sequel, The 11th Hour, sold reasonably well, but

not sensationally well. And there were no further

games in that series. Cliff Johnson made a minor

splash with a brilliant collection of puzzles,

followed it up with a sequel that didn't sell

well, and then disappeared.

Low-interactivity games sound like a great idea,

such a great idea that people keep going back and

doing them over and over. And, in pure Darwinian

fashion, the companies that have cast their lot

with low-interactivity games have suffered

extinction. Epyx, CinemaWare, and Mindscape were

all reduced to ashes; only Cyan broke the curse.

But the survivors seem unable to learn from their

competitors' failures; low-interactivity games

keep popping up like some time-hopping Sisyphusian

dodo bird bent on repeating its extinction in as

many eras as possible.

Why have low-interactivity games been such a

dismal failure? One would think that there should

be some small fragment of a market for them. Why

is the historical experience so decisively

negative in defiance of common sense?


第六章：交互性

   让我现在转向低交互性处理的游戏。它们有着一段凄凉的历史

。低交互性娱乐并不是一个新主意。在计算机游戏第一次冲击世

界中，在1981年到1984年中，有不少低交互性的游戏被尝试过了

。其中的一个叫做Alien Garden，是Epyx发行的。你是一只异

种蜜蜂，在花园的花朵之中飞来飞去采蜜。那是一个不怎么需要

按键的游戏，尤其在交互性上。你所有要做的事情就是嗡嗡地飞

来飞去，每一次都试图接触一朵花，那花可能会杀了你或者给你

蜂蜜。不幸的是，花从外表看起来毫无分别。这个游戏被评价为

电脑游戏历史上最差劲的一个游戏。

    1985年我看到了另外一个低交互性的游戏：Activision公

司发行的“小电脑人”。这个老产品在你的屏幕上制作出了一个家

庭，他们日常生活就是在他们的房子里面发生的。你就是他们的

观察者。这个游戏在过程上吸引了很多注意力，但是它并没有取

得商业的成功，因为玩家做得不多。过了二十年，Will Wright

的虚拟人生使用这个概念取得了更大的成功。虚拟人生比“小电脑

人”为玩家提供的交互性更多，因此它取得了一个伟大的胜利。
   Epyx公司在1988年重新制作了低交互性的游戏：VCR游戏系

列，伴随着铺天盖地的广告。伴随着使用标准录像带特有的笨拙

，游戏设计者把交互性降低到了能够忍受的最低程度，让大多数

的玩家注意力集中到了有趣的电影胶片上，这些胶片可以快放或

者慢放。这就是最后的糟糕的游戏。你不需要电脑就能玩因为你

不需要做太多的工作。你做得仅仅是坐在那里看录像，偶尔按一

个按键来遥控。听起来很不错，对吗？很多发行商都认为那很好

，这些人经常在一起欣赏VCR游戏。然而，不考虑昂贵的市场广告

，VCR游戏被抛弃了。它们是一场真正的灾难。Mindscape发行了

一个游戏然后取消了第二个即将发行的，因为第一个败的如此彻

底。

    这个方向的另外一个试验就是电影游戏系列。这些游戏看上

去很棒，但是却缺乏交互性。市场接受了电影游戏，仅仅是因为

这些游戏看上去像电影，而不是你能玩这些游戏。大多数设计只

是制作了一些美丽的图片和动画场景。游戏性很差劲。在这个系

列的第一个，Kellyn Beeck发行的王冠防御者，引起了轰动，并

且卖得很好。但是之后呢，这类系列每况益下。电影游戏在几年

前就不行了。

    另一个很好的例子是Cyan的经验，他是一位游戏发行商。

Cyan的第一个游戏，Manhole，是一个为孩子们制作的，低交互

性的游戏。它卖的还不错，不但让Cyan活下来了，而且还能有点

小收入。接着他们发行Cosmic Osmo，它具有同样的低交互性，

并且有更好的画面。同样地，他们得到的钱刚好维持生活。另一

个传奇般的游戏是Myst。这时，交互性做得更好，画面也更好了

。Myst卖得像热蛋糕一样快，Cyan成为了大款，一切看起来很好

。接着他们发行了一个Myst的系列，叫Riven。它卖起来还不错

。这个系列的第三个游戏叫Exile，卖得也不错，不过始终比不上

Myst。于是Cyan就继续代理Myst来赚钱。

    同样的事情发生了一次又一次。VCD游戏卖的非常好，但是

很快就以它们进入市场的速度退出了市场。它们是低交互性游戏

。Rob Landeros 和 Graeme Devine制作的第七位访客，是

1990年初期的一次成功，它使用低交互性的解谜和耀眼的动画。

他们的系列，第十一个小时，卖得也不错，不过没有引起轰动。

接着这个系列的其它游戏，Cliff Johnson用一些机智的解谜来

微弱地挽回了一下局势，接着就卖不出去，从市场上消失了。

   低交互性游戏听起来很不错，于是有很多人前赴后继地去做它

。用达尔文的进化论来说，那些发行低交互性游戏的公司应该早

就灭亡了。Epyx，CinemaWare，Mindscape都随风而逝；只有

Cyan公司活下来了。不过这位幸存者看起来并没有从这场竞争淘

汰中学习到什么；低交互性游戏总会在一段时间的消亡之后，被

一些自以为聪明的天才继续推向市场。

    为什么低交互性游戏的前景黯淡？有些人可能会认为，它们

还是有些市场的。为什么历史却无情地粉碎了人们的梦想？

下回分解^^  atian.dpnet.com.cn------welcome!

   

乐天灵魂

这是Gamasutra网今天报导的对Ubisoft首席游戏剧情作家

Nolent的采访。在这则采访中，Nolent也谈及了交互性的重要性，
以至于Ubisoft要和“电影游戏划清界限------新闻标题就是‘电影之死’”。
我们还可以看到这几点：
1 关卡设计师的职责之一是把游戏剧情作家的对话插入到关卡之

中。
2 游戏剧情作家往往需要反复地考虑他的作品的表现方式，当然

这是游戏工业的特点，这点电影工业在某种程度上是很类似的。
3 游戏剧情作家必须深入到游戏制作之中。
4 交互性是非常必要的。我们可以从倒数第四段中间看到：
“Nolent says Ubisoft is trying to get rid of

cinematics entirely, but they do sometimes sneak

back in when a map has to be scrapped or there's

some other unexpected problem. Nolent expects to

see more "playable cut scenes" or scripted events

where the story moves ahead, but players still

have opportunities for interaction.
”
翻译：“Nolent说道，Ubisoft在试图摆脱电影行业的束缚，但

是有时也许会走一点回头路，如果一个地图需要被敲碎或者有一

些意外的问题发生。Nolent希望能够看到更多‘可以玩的过场动

画’或者对话情节，来延续整个故事。但是，玩家仍然有很多的机

会来保持交互性。”
   
   
以下为原文：

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?st

ory=10774

September 6, 2006

AGC: Ubisoft's Nolent Talks 'The Death Of

Cinematics'
Alexis Nolent is the Editorial Story Design

Director for Ubisoft, responsible for titles such

as King Kong and Far Cry: Instincts, and he kicked

off the Game Writers Conference in Austin

discussing narrative design, the art of combining

story with gameplay.

Tackling the question head on, Nolent asked: does

story even matter in games? Many hardcore gamers

claim they don't care about stories in games; they

skip story elements whenever they can, and story

just gets in the way of the experience. "But

whatever they say, they complain about it most of

the time," said Nolent. "They say the plot sucks,

the dialog sucks. So they must care at least a

little bit." So according to Nolent, the problem

may not be story itself, but the current quality

of stories in game.

Getting Everybody On Board?

He said the first way to tackle the problem is to

acknowledge that building games is a team effort,

and to achieve high quality writing and narrative,

everyone on the team needs to be on board with the

idea of story incorporated with gameplay. He said

game designers in particular need to work closely

with the writers, and writers need to leave their

ego behind and be a team player.

His advice to writers was to think of their job as

generating lots of good ideas. They can't afford

to hang on to any one idea, especially if that

idea gets in the way of gameplay or other

constraints of the game. A good game writer needs

to be humble. When one of their ideas gets dropped

or changed, they need to have a thick skin and

move on, coming up with another good idea.

Nolent says the ideal working situation for great

narrative design is to have the writer "embedded"

in the development team full-time. A writer in the

trenches can keep an eye on story, defending it

when necessary. With everyone creating together,

problems can be solved immediately.

As an example of where this could have been

helpful he described a scene in a game where the

story needed to deliver the news that the

President of the United States had been kidnapped.

The writers intended this to be a big deal where

the player would stop other interactions and pay

close attention to the news. However, the way the

level designer implemented the dialog, the player

only heard the news in the background and had to

continue with other tasks.

Ways to Improve the Quality of Game Writing

Nolent said there's a battle to be fought for

higher quality game writing and he gave a list of

ways to focus our efforts.

- Storyline - keep it coherent so it doesn't

wander and it doesn't get confused
- Material you start with - licenses or original

IP, the core needs to be good
- Sequels - he says we're doing too many of these,

but that's not going to change anytime soon, so

don't fall into the trap of being repetitive
- Situations created within the plot - make the

individual scenes compelling
- Characters - make characters distinct and

unusual
- Dialog - including having the voice director

know all about the game and having the writer in

the room when it's being recorded

As writers work to improve in these areas, he said

to keep in mind nobody can please everyone. So,

games should have a style and point of view.

Writers should write to a particular audience.

Otherwise the story gets watered down into

blandness. Nolent blamed the marketing department

as a frequent roadblock in giving games a unique

voice, because they want to reach a mass audience

and get nervous about aiming at any niche.

Trends in Writing and Technology

Nolent identified several trends coming down the

line in game writing.

First, he saw a trend toward fewer cinematics, and

more scripted events. Nolent says Ubisoft is

trying to get rid of cinematics entirely, but they

do sometimes sneak back in when a map has to be

scrapped or there's some other unexpected problem.

Nolent expects to see more "playable cut scenes"

or scripted events where the story moves ahead,

but players still have opportunities for

interaction.

The next trend he saw was fierce competition along

tight genre guidelines. He thinks soon every

studio will have a shooter, every studio will have

an RPG, every studio will have an MMO, with story

and writing one of the ways individual games will

stand out.

He also saw the technical side of games presenting

new challenges with the next generation of

consoles opening opportunities for deeper settings

and larger worlds with more detailed character

animation.

Nolent concluded by saying that in spite of all

these areas he highlighted as needing improvement,

he felt the level of game writing has been

steadily improving and sees further improvement in

the future. He also sees games tapping into wider

audiences with new demographics, presenting new

opportunities and challenges.

Gamasutra will continue to present write-ups from

the Austin Game Conference and the Games Writers

Conference throughout this week.

POSTED: 03.39PM PST, 09/06/06 - Wendy Despain, Austin - LINK

atian.dpnet.com.cn------welcome!

乐天灵魂

乐天灵魂: Re: Chris Crawford on game design(translate by Letian)

    为什么低交互性游戏的前景黯淡？有些人可能会认为，它们

还是有些市场的。为什么历史却无情地粉碎了人们的梦想？

        Chapter 6:Interactivity

There are two answers, I think. The first is that the available hardware is not up to the task. We have not yet hit the right combination of ingredients to build good low-interactivity games. The VCR gives lots of imagery, but its access times are so slow that even low-interactivity games suffer. The computer itself simply cannot generate or maintain images of enough variety and quality to entertain the player by themselves. The DVD should solve both problems. It offers faster access times than videotape, yet much greater image capacity than the computer. Whether the combination will be fast enough and visually rich enough to overcome the inherent weakness of low interactivity, I cannot say.

The second answer is more pessimistic. I have long maintained that interactivity is the essence of the gaming experience, and that the quality of the interaction determines the quality of the game. If this be true, then the very notion of low-interactivity games is intrinsically wrongheaded, and such products will inevitably fail.

An Interesting Exception
There is a small group of low-interactivity games that have been somewhat successful. These are the games produced by Cyan (Manhole and Cosmic Osmo) and Amanda Goodenough (Inigo Gets Out, Your Faithful Camel, et al), and a number of products from Broderbund. They are low-interactivity games, really more like vaguely linear stories with some buttons to press. They have been moderately successful. What is striking is that all of these products are designed for young children. It appears that our industry's Darwinian methods have at last found a suitable habitat for this otherwise less-than-fittest species of game.

Why is it that low-interactivity products are successful with young children when they don't seem to work with older players? I think that the answer can be found by asking another: Why don't high-interactivity products work with young children? Try foisting SimCity, Robotron, or Half-Life on a five-year-old, if you're willing to risk accusations of child abuse. The poor kid will be overwhelmed by such games. He just doesn't have the perspicacity to handle such a game. What's left for him but the low-interactivity games?

Workload Versus Payoff

Some thinkers have observed that many of the highly interactive games impose a large workload on the player. To master a fast-paced action game, you've got to practice, practice, practice. To make sense of a big strategy game like Civilization, you've got to study a heavy manual. Lower interactivity games, they note, impose less work on the player. Taking full advantage of this property of low-interactivity games should yield viable products—or so they argue.

To evaluate this line of reasoning, I suggest that we start with high-interactivity games and then move toward lower interactivity. What do we gain and lose as we move in this direction? As we lose interactivity, we reduce the total quantity of decision-making that the player must perform. This reduces his workload. It also reduces his ability to creatively influence the outcome of the game. In other words, as we reduce the interactivity of the game (its gameplay), the player's degree of participation in the outcome is diminished and he therefore becomes less involved in the outcome, which becomes more predetermined.



第六章：交互性

     这里有两个原因。第一个可能的原因是，硬件发展的速度没有跟上

软件。我们还不能使用正确的合成因素来制造好的低交互性游戏。VCR游

戏给我们很多影像，存取的是那么的慢以至于低交互性游戏可以忍受。电

脑本身并不能产生或者保持足够多的变化或者好的影像来娱乐用户。DVD

应该能够解决这些问题。它提供比磁带快得多的存取速度，而且比电脑的

作图能力要好得多。这种合成的速度将是不是会足够快，是否能在视觉上

战胜那种低交互性带来的不良影响，我不知道。

      另外一个原因更加悲观。我很久以来都抱这种观点，交互性才是游

戏体验的核心，交互性的质量决定了游戏的质量。如果这个观点是对的，

那么低交互性的游戏方向就完全地错了，而且这些产品会不可避免的失败

。

有趣的例外

    有很小的一部分低交互性游戏在某种程度上面取得了成功。这些游戏

有Cyan公司制作的Manhole和Cosmic Osmo，还有Amanda Goodnough

公司制作的Inigo Gets Out，Your Faithful Camel，等等，还有一

些Broderbund公司制作的低交互性游戏。它们有点像一个有着分支的故

事，分支路口有一些可以按的按钮。它们曾经小小地成功过。但是很显然

，这些产品都是制作给小孩子们玩的。它出现就像证明了我们的游戏产业

达尔文进化论为低交互性游戏最后发现了一个再合适不过的地方。

     为什么低交互性产品在孩子们身上取得了成功，而在成年人身上却

没有效用？我想这个答案可以用问一个问题来回答：为什么高交互性的产

品没有在孩子们身上取得成功？想想看把模拟城市，机器人，半条命这样

的游戏塞给一个五岁的孩子，当然你需要冒着虐待孩子指控的危险。可怜

的孩子会对这样的游戏完全不知所措------他完全处理不了这样的游戏。

那么除了低交互性游戏之外，孩子们还能玩什么游戏？

工作量和报酬的对比

     有些思考者会发现很多高交互性的游戏强加给玩家很多工作量。为

了在一个快速反应的游戏中间生存，你必须要练习，练习，练习。为了掌

握一个像文明这样的游戏，你必须要学习一本厚厚的攻略手册。低交互性

游戏，他们认为对玩家的工作量更少。他们为了找到低交互性游戏所有的

优点不遗余力，所以他们这样说。

     为了解释这条原因，我建议我们从高交互性游戏开始，然后渐渐地

走向低交互性游戏。我们向这个方向走的时候得到什么，又因什么而失败

？我们降低了玩家必须遵守的问题数量。这就降低了工作量。而且也降低

了他能够产生游戏创造性成果的能力。用别的话来说，当我们降低了游戏

的交互性的时候，也就是游戏性的时候，玩家能够作出的成果参与度也被

降低了。因此他更少地参与游戏，这个游戏更加变的不可改变。

     
atian.dpnet.com.cn------welcome!
     

nofear

看楼主翻译得那么辛苦，不得不出来说两句：这本书有中文版的。

乐天灵魂

今天我在我的主页上还发布了一些外国人对孙子兵法在游戏中的应用的文章翻译。欢迎访问！-------atian.dpnet.com.cn

Chapter 6：Interactivity

But there's a catch: The player's workload is not proportional to the quantity of decision-making. Decision-making consists of two parts: a laborious process of learning the basic parameters for making the decision, and a faster process of applying those parameters. The player must go through the first process whether he makes one decision or a hundred. Thus, his workload is equal to a fixed quantity (learning the rules) plus a variable quantity (playing the game).

An example might help here. Suppose I present you with two games. The first is a truly minimal-interactivity game. You will be asked to make one decision during the entire game. It is a murder mystery game, the climax of which places you in a room with the six main suspects and a gun. You must decide whom to shoot. That's exactly one decision—about as little interactivity as you can get. Yet you will likely ask a great many questions before making your decision. Can I shoot more than once? Can somebody else shoot me? May I choose not to shoot anybody? (True gamesters will note that the problems are trivially solved by playing the game several times, experimenting with each of these options in turn. While entirely possible, this flies in the face of the stated intent of the low-interactivity game.) Note that these questions are really questions about the rules of the game. You will have a considerable workload just learning the context for your single decision, and inasmuch as the outcome of the game rides on your single decision, you had damn well better learn the rules thoroughly.

The second game is a more conventional game with many decisions. Once again you will have the workload of learning the rules of the game, and in addition to that you will have the workload of making all those decisions. Yet the workload of learning the rules is most likely the more substantial of the two. In other words, if you end up making a hundred decisions during the course of this game, your total workload will not be 100 times greater than your workload with the minimal-interactivity game. It might not even be twice as great.

Thus, as we move from the higher-interactivity game to the minimal-interactivity game, two factors are reduced: the player's workload and his ability to influence the outcome of the game. But—and this is the key point—the latter falls faster than the former. Reducing interactivity gains us only small benefits in terms of reducing workload but costs us heavily in terms of the player's ability to creatively influence the outcome of the game.

This, I think, is the real reason why low-interactivity games have been such failures. Diminishing the interactivity just makes the game less fun faster than it makes the game easier. What we gain in terms of reduced workload we more than make up for in terms of diminished fun.




第六章： 交互性

    但是，这里有一个交集：玩家的工作量和他所做的决定数量并不成正比。玩家所做的决

定的工作量由两个部分组成：一部分是费力地去学习游戏中的信息以作出决定，还有一部分

就是快速地对这些信息作出反映。玩家一定要学习游戏中的信息，不论他是要做出一个决定

，还是一百个决定。因此，他的工作量包括一个确定的部分（学习规则）加上一个可变的部

分（玩游戏）。

    一个例子可以帮助理解。我给你看两个游戏。第一个游戏是一个低的不能再低的交互性

游戏。你在游戏的整个过程中，仅仅只要作出一个决定就可以了。这是一个侦探解谜游戏，

给你一个房间，有六个人是嫌疑犯，还有一支枪。你必须决定向谁开枪。这就是一个明显的

例子------你和游戏仅仅有一点的交互性而已。然而，你在作出决定之前要问很多个问题。

我能多开几枪吗？有人会对我开枪吗？我可以不可以不向任何人开枪？（真正会投机的人会

说，你只需要多玩几次游戏，依次进行一些试验就可以了。如果这样是可行的话，这就变成

了一个低交互性的游戏了。）注意这些问题是关于游戏规则的。你将会为了作出一个简单的

决定而作很多的准备了解工作，这是一个可观的工作量。为了这一个简单的决定，你需要了

解那该死的游戏规则越多越好。

    第二个游戏是一个更传统一些的游戏，需要做很多次决定。又一次你将会学习游戏规则

，加上另一个工作量是作出这些决定的工作量。学习游戏的规则看起来更为具体一些，用别

的话说，如果你在这次的游戏中要作出很多决定，你的工作量将并不是比刚才那个游戏多了

100倍。也许还没有两倍。

    因此，如果我们从高交互性游戏走向低交互性游戏，有两个因素被降低了：玩家的工作

量，和他影响游戏结果的能力。但是-----这是关键------后者比前者的减少要快。降低交

互性，工作量降低了没多少，但是却大大地降低了玩家影响游戏结果的能力。

    这就是我所认为的，为什么低交互性游戏经历了这么多失败的真正的原因。逐渐缩小的

交互性仅仅让游戏快了一些或者慢了一些。我们在这个过程中，减少工作量给我们带来的快

乐并没有弥补我们对游戏结果较少影响的损失。

乐天灵魂

今日翻译的经典句子：
“我的方法只适用于我自己；他们的方法适用于他们。你需要从所有的方法中学习，才能找到你自己的。”
“My method worked for me; their methods worked for them; you must learn from all of these examples to decide your own strategy。”

Chapter 27. Themes and Lessons

Over the course of my career as a game designer, a number of ongoing

themes have played out. In this chapter, I shall summarize those themes

and present some of the fundamental lessons I have learned.

Art Over Money
I've never been much of a businessman; that doesn't make me an artist,

but the choices I have made over the years certainly indicate as much.

My failure to make sequels to my games (with the exception of Balance

of Power, which I did as penance for Siboot, which bombed and cost the

publisher, Mindscape, a pretty penny). Time and again, I have chosen

the noble artistic road, forsaking the path of wealth. I'm sure that,

had I been more receptive to my publishers' importunations, I could

have made more money than I actually did. In the nearly two decades

that I have been a freelance computer game designer, I have earned

about as much as I would have earned as a schoolteacher. In the

process, I have explored more game design concepts and made more

mistakes than any other game designer. All that creative effort, I

suppose, uniquely qualifies me to write this book. So go buy some extra

copies.

LESSON 85
A more artistic strategy does not obviate commercial success.



This does not mean that my artistic approach has made me a commercial

failure. On the contrary, my commercial track record easily beats the

industry average. I have published 13 computer games in my career; of

these, two (Eastern Front (1941) and Balance of Power) were hits; two

(Trust & Betrayal and Guns & Butter) lost money. The other nine were

middling; they made some money and so were worthwhile projects, but no

more. That's a hit rate of about 15% and a failure rate of about 15%.

Industry average during the same period was about 1% hits and 30%

failures. In other words, I did MUCH better than the industry as a

whole. Another way to evaluate my overall commercial success is to look

at my bottom line: Did I make money? If we confine the discussion to

the period of my work on computer games, spanning 1979 to 1992, my

earnings during that time average out to what any senior professional

technical worker would have earned. In other words, I didn't get

wealthy, but I made a comfortable living. If we define success to be

the ability to earn a living while doing what you think is important,

then my career path has been a great success.

There are, of course, other designers who have been even more

successful. Their success surely deserves our admiration, and I

heartily endorse any personal approach that emulates their strategy. My

method worked for me; their methods worked for them; you must learn

from all of these examples to decide your own strategy.

The Harsh Realities of Business
I must counterbalance my enthusiasm for the artistic strategy with a

warning about the ugliness of business practices in the games industry.

It's a brutal, ugly business, and in your business dealings, you must

keep one rule above all others (Lesson 86).

There have been, and still remain, some truly honest people who conduct

themselves with honor and good will. A few of these people have even

risen to positions of power in the industry. Over the years, however, I

have seen a steady decline in the number of such people; they are

slowly being replaced by people who place little value on long-term

relationships or personal integrity. I won't go so far as to say that

the industry is full of crooks (although there are plenty of game

designers who will enthusiasti cally endorse that notion). Instead, I

suggest that, in your dealings with people in the games biz, that you

assume that they will not hesitate to screw you if they find it in

their own interests to do so. If they figure out a ploy that will cost

you ten thousand dollars and make them an extra two thousand, they'll

use it. If you protest, they'll shrug their shoulders and say, "Hey,

it's just business."

If you are lucky enough to establish a relationship with one of those

rare birds with a reputation for integrity and good will, cling to that

relationship like a life raft in a stormy sea. Sure, the deal you get

probably won't look as good as the deal offered by some shyster, but

that is to be expected: An honest person will offer reality, which

never looks as good as a gilded swindle.

Do not underestimate the degree to which most businesspeople engage in

deception. They have developed a litany of euphemisms to anaesthetize

their underdeveloped consciences. They deliberately misrepresent the

truth and then call it "putting my best foot forward"; "emphasizing the

positive"; and "painting the picture in the brightest colors." This, of

course, means that they'll put their worst foot where you can't see it,

they won't mention the negative, and the picture they paint won't

include any of the darker colors that are really there. This is

intrinsic to American business culture. As they say, "Everybody does

it." You'll fit in just fine if you do it, too. But if your standards

of integrity do not draw a line between active lying and passive

deception, then you'd better watch out!




第二十七章 经验和教训
在我的游戏设计师生涯中，发生过很多事情。在这章中，我将会把它们总结一下，写一些我

曾经学到的基本经验和教训。

艺术比金钱重要

   我似乎从未成为一个成功的商人；但是并不妨碍我成为一个艺术家。但是我曾经在很多

年前就已经声称过我要做的事情。我的失败的结局归于我的游戏（均势这个游戏例外，我已

经为它赎罪了，这是由Mindscape发行的游戏），一次又一次，我选择了高尚的艺术之路，

而不是财富之路。我确信，如果我多听听我的出版商的话，我会有比现在多的多得钱。在早

一些的二十年中，我是一个自由电脑游戏设计师，我在游戏设计行业赚的钱和我作为一个教

师赚得钱一样多。在这个过程中，我学会了更多的游戏设计概念，并且比其他任何一个游戏

设计师出的错都多。我从中得到的创造性的启发，不同寻常的力量让我来给你写这本书。所

以去多买几本吧。

第85课
艺术并不妨碍商业上的成功

    这并不意味着我的艺术之路给我的是一个商业上的失败。与此相反，我的创作比行业平

均水平要高。我在我的职业生涯中设计了13个电脑游戏；有两个（Eastern Front1941和

Balance of Power）卖得相当好；还有两个（Trust&Betrayal和Guns&Butter）赔了钱

。剩下的九个不好也不坏；它们是一些有价值的项目，不过仅此而已。即我的创作中有百分

之十五的好产品，百分之十五的次品。而游戏行业仅仅有百分之一的好产品，却有百分之三

十的次品。用另一句话说，我在整体上做得比整个行业好的多。另外一个让我评估自己是否

在商业上成功的是问问自己：我是不是挣钱了？如果你看看我职业的生涯，从1979到1992年

，我的收入比当时别的职业技术人员的平均收入要高。用另一句话说，我没有发大财，但是

我过得很好。如果我们把成功定义为你过着自己想要的那种生活，那么我的职业生涯就是成

功的。

    当然还有其他的设计者更加的成功。他们的设计应该让我们羡慕，并且我非常希望别人

模仿他们的策略，并且成功。我的方法只对我有效；他们的方法对他们有效；你必须去学习

所有的这些例子，那么你才能找到适合你自己的方式。

游戏行业的现实部分

    我必须把游戏工业的现状告诉你们，不要沉浸在我对于艺术高于赚钱的描述中。游戏工

业，这是一个肮脏，丑陋的行业，在你的职业生涯中，你必须学会，不要相信任何人。

    曾经那里有过一些真正诚实的人，他们有信仰，有着美好的愿望，领导着这个行业；但

是近年来，我看到的是这样的人越来越少了；他们被那些骗子和不讲究团队合作的人所取代

。我并不是说整个行业的人全都是骗子（尽管很多游戏设计师坚持这么认为），我建议，如

果你和任何游戏行业的人合作，你最好假定他为了利润会毫不犹豫地欺骗你。如果他们发现

一种方法，能够让你损失1万美金而让他们得到额外的二千美金，他们会毫不犹豫地去做的。

如果你质问，他们会耸耸肩膀说：“嘿，这就是交易。”

    如果你很幸运，和某些真正诚实，有信仰的人建立起了关系，那么你就要像在水中抓住

一根稻草那样牢牢地抓住他。也许你得到的承诺不会那么的好，但是那是真实的；一个诚实

的人会提供真实的东西，而不是像镀金的东西那么不可靠。

    不要低估了那些惯于欺骗的商人的手段。他们通常会用一大套委婉的说法来麻痹他们本

来就不健全的良心。他们故意误导你，把你最想要的东西形容出来，着重地强调正面部分，

并且勾画的尽善尽美。这当然意味着，你看不到他们最为糟糕的一面，他们从来不提负面。

他们描绘的画面中从来就不包括不好的部分，这就是美国商业文化的阴暗面。如果他们说：“

每个人都会做这个。如果你做这个，你也会成功。”但是你的良心在事实和原则之间挣扎的时

候，你就要小心了！


atian.dpnet.com.cn------welcome！

   

     

乐天灵魂

Chapter 6. Interactivity

Weird Ideas
Lastly, there are the blue-sky concepts for low-interactivity games.

Most of these center on some form of storytelling. In one approach,

the computer tells the player a story, with the player somehow

providing cues that the computer uses to adjust the story to suit

the player's interests. For example, if the computer mentions an

encounter with a beautiful girl, and the player so indicates, the

computer could proceed to describe a sexual liaison. If the player

is female, it might tell of a friendship developing between the two.

The problem with this lies in the nature of the cues provided by the

players. Exactly how do the players communicate their desires to the

computer? If we use a series of predetermined branchpoints (a

branchpoint is a point reached during the play of a game, at which

the player must make a decision that will take him down one of

several paths), the game has reverted to a conventional adventure

game, and the players still must learn the language of expression

for the adventure. Proponents of such schemes often fall back on

deliberately vague for mulations. The computer will "sense" the

player's mood, they claim. I find it difficult to imagine just how

this sensing will take place, and how the computer will interpret

whatever it senses.

A variation on this scheme makes reference to the manner in which

performing artists sense the mood of their audiences and adjust

their performance accordingly. This, it is asserted, constitutes an

advanced form of low interactivity that could be harnessed for new

types of games. The problem lies in the input and processing

required to accomplish this. The performing artist is analyzing fine

shades of voice intonation and subtle nuance of facial expressions.

This type of processing is way beyond anything we can process on a

personal computer, even assuming that we could equip our games with

microphones and television cameras to provide the input.

There is a second and more powerful argument against such schemes.

Even if we could implement them, they would still be inappropriate.

The performing artist who makes adjustments in response to the

audience's feedback does so on a very gross average of the audience

feedback. Some people will be screaming "Faster!" as others are

yelling "Slower!" The artist can't do both, and so responds to the

majority. What's more important is the fact that the audience

understands this. We can't all have our way, so we accept the

situation. But when I am the only user of a computer game, I am

completely justified in expecting that I can have my way. I expect

the computer to respond to my wishes. If the computer fails to

understand my wishes or is incapable of executing my desires, I will

be dissatisfied. So if I grunt or laugh or scowl or drum my fingers

and the computer fails to get my message, the product will have

failed.

Conclusions on Low-Interactivity Designs
The concept of low-interactivity entertainment is a ghost that we

will never exorcise from this industry. The concept just keeps

popping up like an annual flu bug. Some naïve fool will come forward

with "this great new idea that nobody has ever thought of before."

As I discussed, the concept seems sound on first examination, so

people will probably give it credence. Who knows, some credulous

publisher might be persuaded to part with development dollars to

explore the idea.



第六章 交互性
异想天开的主意

    最后，关于低交互性游戏还有很多天马行空的概念。大多数这些概念基于故事讲述

的形式。一种方法是电脑给玩家讲述一个故事，这个故事在某种程度上迎合玩家的兴趣。

比如，如果电脑提到了一个美丽的女孩的出现，玩家暗示如何进展，那么电脑就继续来描

写他们上床的细节。如果玩家是女的，那么电脑将会讲述一些关于两者如何发展友谊的细

节。
  
    问题在于，玩家如何自然而然地给计算机暗示。玩家怎样把自己的愿望精确地反映

给计算机呢？如果我们用一个预先定好的分支点，（这个分支点是在游戏进行到一定程度

出现的，这时玩家必须决定在数个分支之中走哪条路），那么这个游戏就变成了一个传统

的冒险游戏，并且玩家必须学会冒险游戏需要的表达语言。用这些理念作游戏的人的表达

通常很不清晰。电脑将会“感受”玩家的心情，他们这么宣称。我发现很难想象那种感受能

够发生，还有电脑是如何能够表达它的感受。

    这种概念的一个变种给玩家的情绪中加入艺术感觉，并且根据这个来调整他们的行

为。以下这一点并没有被证实，制作一个更好的低交互性的游戏能够制作出一种全新的游

戏类型。问题在于需要完成的输入过程。行为艺术包含声音的细节，还有表情敏感的变化

。这种过程超出我们能够在个人电脑上能够表达的一切，甚至包括我们用麦克和视频头能

够做的输入。

    这里有第二种，也是更强大的论点。即使我们能够实现它们，它们还是不恰当的。

行为艺术家需要对观众进行回馈，他根据的是观众的一种平均要求速度。一些人会尖叫“

快点”，同时另外一些人喊“慢点！”行为艺术家并不是执行两者的命令，而是按照大多数

人的反映。更为重要的事实是玩家懂这个。我们不能走所有的路，所以我们接受这种情况

。但是当我们是一个电脑仅有的用户的时候，我应该完全地决定我自己的速度。我希望电

脑按照我的意愿来反应。如果电脑不能理解我的愿望或者对我的愿望无能为力，我会很失

望。所以如果我抱怨或者笑或者皱眉头，或者把我的手指敲击，如果电脑没有接收到我的

信息，那么产品还是失败的。

对于低交互性设计的总结

   低交互性设计娱乐概念是我们永远不能从游戏行业驱除的一个幽灵。这个概念就像一

场流行性感冒。一些自以为是的家伙会这么说：“阿，以前从来没有人发现过这样一个伟

大的主意！”如我所说，这个概念看起来就像第一次被发明出来，于是人们会信任那些发

明家。谁知道哪些轻信的出版商们会把他们的钱投进去来实现这个主意。

atian.dpnet.com.cn------welcome!

乐天灵魂

译者注：
     为什么那么多人喜欢足球，篮球，乒乓球？因为它们都是抛掷出去的物体，所有的动物都

做不到像人类那样，能够运用大量的神经元处理来实现自己的这种抛掷行为。这就是Chris

Crawford告诉我们的，“挑战”的过程。我们在生物学上了解了“玩”的核心“挑战”，对于我们设

计一个游戏，是有所帮助的。就像你在中学学习的牛顿定律，是否在你考虑一件物体的时候，你

都因此知道它为什么具有重力呢？
     
     提到牛顿定律，我突然发现我们学过的那么多物理定律，数学定律都是外国人发明的。因

为那是针对事实的研究------针对事实的科学是没有国界的。在游戏这个领域，几乎所有的精

品游戏都是外国产的。在这种情况下，我们有什么理由不去学习他们的理论呢？科学研究是没有

国界的，游戏设计是综合了许多学科并包含最为尖端的电脑技术，和最为复杂的玩家心理的科学

，不是一朝一夕就能够学成，我们需要大量的时间，大量的工作。   
   
     atian.dpnet.com.cn------welcome!  

Chapter 4 Challenge

Dimensions of Challenge

Every challenge forces us to bring to bear some combination of skills. In many recreational challenges, that combination tends to zero in on particular skills. The primary challenge for a competitor in a ski race is a matter of physical strength and coordination, but other skills such as reading snow, judging distances, and gauging speeds are also vital.

Most recreational challenges are centered on particular mental skills. It is true that physical sports require superb musculature, but in very few sports—running and weightlifting, for example—is musculature the primary factor in success. In most sports, the precise control of that musculature is more important to success. Thus, we can characterize most challenges by the nature of the mental challenge they offer us. Here are some categories.

Cerebellar Challenges
The cerebellum sits at the base of the brain; the spinal cord enters it. In engineering terms, you could call the cerebellum the control module for motor functions. High-level brain decisions are passed to the cerebellum, which breaks each command down into smaller, precisely timed commands to trigger particular muscle bundles. These commands go down the brain stem to the spinal cord and thence to the muscles in the body (see Figure 4.1).

4.1. The brain.


There are only a few sports that are exclusively cerebellar in nature; the discus, shot-put, and javelin are three. Such sports don't involve much sensory input; they don't require accuracy of aim. The goal is to throw the projectile as far as possible. The thrower can do the job almost with his eyes closed; it's a pure motor-control challenge.

Sensorimotor Challenges
Most cerebellar challenges include a sensory element. You don't just trigger muscles in some predetermined sequence; you must use your senses (most often vision) to direct and control the muscular activity. A simple example of this is throwing a projectile to hit a target. As it happens, the task of accurately throwing an object is not easily handled by neurons. Consider, for example, the mechanics of throwing a balled-up sheet of paper into a wastebasket. The timing of muscle activity, and especially the release of the ball, must be accurate to within about a millisecond. Unfortunately, a single neuron takes a few milliseconds to fire. It's like timing an eyeblink with a stopwatch—the event being timed is faster than the timer. So how do we do it? The trick is achieved by applying large numbers of neurons and using their average value. Statistically, the average time of firing of a hundred neurons is ten times more precise than the timing of a single neuron. Throw enough neurons at the problem, and you can get as much precision as you desire.

And that's what the human brain does. It applies huge numbers of neurons to the task and thereby attains high precision in throwing. In fact, the ability to accurately throw a projectile is the one area of physical action in which human capability bests any other creature on the planet. So the next time somebody tries to humble you with tales of a hawk's visual acuity, a cat's reflexes, a bat's echolocation, or a cheetah's speed, retort by asking, "Yeah, but can they shoot baskets?"

I can't think of any sensorimotor challenges that are explicitly aural; as far as I can recall, all sensorimotor challenges require the integration of visual information with motor response. At its simplest form, we can call this "hand-eye coordination," but in many such challenges, it's not just the hands that are responding. Indeed, here we arrive at one of the most striking distinctions between sports and videogames. In all sensorimotor-challenging sports, even those relying primarily on manual activity, the entire body is involved in the task. Even the trivial task of tossing the paper ball into the wastebasket requires the player to rotate his chair, lean his body, twist his neck, and position his arms. Yet the videogame player seems to work best with most of his body immobile; even the upper arms move but little. It's all in the thumbs.

Pushing the Pathways Down
The neural pathways utilized in such sensorimotor challenges are complex. Preprocessed visual data passes from the retina to the visual cortex at the back of the brain, where it is further processed into visually meaningful components such as walls, floor, targets, and so forth. From there it travels to the cerebral cortex, where it undergoes high-level processing. In other words, the cerebral cortex recalls the rules of the game and its goals, integrates the information from the visual cortex, decides what to do about the situation, and passes those decisions down to the cerebellum, which translates them into muscle action (see Figure 4.2).

As you might imagine, all this processing is quite time-consuming and so the beginning player can be slow and clumsy. The difference between a beginner and a skilled player is that the skilled player has learned to build shorter, faster neural pathways from the visual cortex to the cerebellum (see Figure 4.3).

4.3. Shortened pathways for information flow yield faster responses
第四章 挑战

体育挑战：
   
   大多数挑战包括体育的元素。你不能仅仅以一些预订好的次序来触发你的肌肉；你必须使用

你的感觉（通常是视觉）来直接反应和控制肌肉。一个简单的例子就是把一个物体扔向一个目标

。当这个动作发生时，单个神经元并不能精确地处理一个物体扔出去的过程。想想看，把一团废

纸扔到废纸篓里这个常见的动作是怎么发生的。它包含肌肉收缩动作，尤其是释放球的时间，必

须精确到毫秒。不幸的是，单个神经元需要几十到几百毫秒才能够做出反应。这就好像用时钟来

衡量眨眼的时间一样------在衡量进行之前，事件就已经发生了。那么我们是怎么做到的呢？

窍门就是使用大量的神经元细胞来参与这个运动，并且取它们时间上的平均值。从统计学上讲，

用一千个神经元的平均时间比单个神经元的时间要精确十倍以上。只要调用更多的神经元，那么

你就能更加精确地投掷。
   
     这就是人类的大脑如何工作的。它提供给进程大量的神经元，因此在投掷上具有高度的精

确性。事实上，能够投掷一样物体就是人类在这个星球上，比其它任何的动物作的都好的运动之

一。所以下一次有些人嘲弄你：“人没有鹰那么好的视力，没有猫的迅速反射神经，没有蝙蝠的

夜视能力，或者是豹的速度。”那你可以反问：“是啊，但是它们会打篮球吗？”

     我认为没有任何一个体育运动仅仅地基于听觉；就我能回忆起的来说，所有的体育挑战都

需要把视觉信息和肌肉运动综合起来。以最简单的形式，我们可以叫它“手眼协调”，但是在很多

这样的挑战中，不仅仅是手在反应。事实上，我们找到了一个运动和视频游戏之间的显著区别之

一。在所有的体育运动之中，甚至是那些仅仅需要简单的大反应的运动之中，整个身体都会参与

这个过程。甚至是把球扔到废纸篓里面的这个过程都需要人把椅子转过去，倾斜身体，把脖子伸

长，移动手臂。而视频游戏玩家仅仅是坐在那里，纹丝不动；甚至他的手臂仅仅动一点，动作权

在手指。

造出路径

    在视频游戏中，造出神经传输路径是很复杂的。被眼睛接收的数据从视网膜传送给视网膜，

它位于大脑的后部，在这里这些过程进一步地形成了更为有意义的元素比如墙壁，目标，地板，

等等。接着它们传送到了大脑皮层，在这进行更进一步的处理。用别的话说，大脑皮层回想起游

戏的规则和目的，使得来自视觉皮层的信息结合在一起，决定了如何处理这个情况。然后把这个

决定传递给小脑，小脑把它们转化为肌肉行为。

     和你想的一样，所有的这个过程需要时间，所以游戏初学者看起来反应很慢，笨拙。在一

个初学者和一个有经验的玩家之间的不同就是，有经验的玩家已经学会了制造更短，更快的从小

脑到大脑视觉皮层的神经捷径。

     



        

乐天灵魂

Chapter 4 Challenge

By moving the pathways lower into the brain, the player reduces the amount of processing required to react to events in the game or sport. Decision-making is no longer conscious or deliberate. It is often described as "instinctive." The player sees, and the player acts without conscious thought. There's still plenty of mental processing going on, but it's faster because it is no longer part of the elaborate (shall I say bureaucratic?) structure of conscious thought.

It is one of the wonders of the human brain that we can learn so readily. Any process that we concentrate on repetitively can develop its own custom neural pathways that render its operation faster and smoother, requiring less mental effort. In effect, whenever we learn a task, we reduce the amount of conscious effort required to carry it out. When I first began to use a keyboard, I had to concentrate on the locations of the keys. After literally millions of keystrokes, my brain has burned that information into its neural pathways. I think of a word, my fingers move, and the word appears on the screen. All the mental computations go on in a deeper, lower level of mental processing beneath my conscious awareness.

Even more striking is the ability of the brain to learn different tasks with different degrees of facility. Typing on a keyboard is now a subconscious process for me, while the particulars of my word processor are a little less familiar; some of the commands take a fraction of a second of thought to recall. Commands that I use rarely demand my full attention to recall. My brain's organization of its knowledge is an elegantly proportioned and optimized system; the more often I perform a task, the more deeply it is driven into my subconscious and the faster my execution of the task is.

This ability to drive task execution deeper and deeper can be taken to dramatic extremes. There's no reason why a player cannot learn a task this well (see Figure 4.4).


In such a case, the player is able to attain extremely high levels of performance because the neural pathways are much shorter and lower in the processing hierarchy of the brain. This extreme degree of proficiency is most difficult to attain in sports, because the exercise of these pathways necessarily entails lots of exhausting muscle activity. You can only practice your sport so many hours a day before your aching muscles put a stop to your exercise.

But what if we could invent a sport that didn't involve so much exhausting muscular activity? What if all that mental activity could still be going on, but it used only muscles that didn't require lots of strength, muscles that are used for lots and lots of low-power activity? These muscles wouldn't tire, and so the player could go for hours and hours, attaining previously unheard-of levels of proficiency. This, it would seem, would be the ultimate exercise of this learning capability, and it would surely be an exciting sport, wouldn't it?

Technology has in fact provided us with just such a sport: the videogame. A kid can sit in front of a videogame for hours, working his fingers frantically but never tiring. In the process, he can push those neural pathways down so deep in his brain that his game-reflexes become inhumanly quick. The parent watching a kid playing such a videogame has difficulty keeping up with the action on the screen, so fast are the kid's reflexes. It's truly mind-boggling.

Of course, no videogame is ever mastered; no matter how good the kid is, there's always something new to learn, some reflex that can be made sharper and quicker. So the kid never relaxes


第四章 挑战

    通过使用把路径交给大脑更低级的部分来处理，玩家减少了所需要在一个游戏或者运动中做出反应的进程数。做出决定不再是一个有意识的过程。这通常被描述为“本能”.玩家看到了，并且玩家下意识地做出反应。那里仍然有很多其它的思想进程活动，但是更快，因为不再有详细的考虑（也许我应该用官僚主义来形容？），有意识的考虑被减少了。

    这就是人类大脑的功能之一，我们能够通过读来学习。我们通过反复的学习重复一件事物的一般进程，我们就可以处理的越来越迅速，平滑，不需要过多的精神参与。结果，我们每当学到了一个进程处理，我们就减少了需要去实现它的意识的活动数量。当我第一次用键盘的时候，我不得不专注于看着那些键盘按键的位置。在数百万次敲击键盘之后，我的大脑已经把键盘的信息输入到了神经系统的路径中。我一旦想象到了一个单词，我的手指就移动，然后单词就出现在了屏幕之上。所有的估计都会在一个更深，更低级的潜意识之中进行。

     更为惊人的是，人脑具有学习不同的事情的不同能力。现在对我来说，敲击一个键盘打字仅仅是一件潜意识的事情了，同时我比较熟悉我的字处理器的细节；一些命令仅仅需要几分之一秒我就可以想得起来。我很少全神贯注地去思考某个命令。我的大脑对它得到的知识的组织是具有美妙的比例加速度组成的体系：我越是努力地去学习一个进程，我就越是能把它放到我的潜意识里面，就越能快地把这个过程完成。
   
    这种能力就是为何我们把进程熟练化到极端的时候，我们能够令人难以置信地快速度去完成。毫无疑问，玩家也能够做到这一点。

    在这样的一个例子中，玩家可以通过高难的关卡，因为神经中枢的传输路线被缩短了许多，而且属于大脑低层次处理（即潜意识处理译者注）的范围。这种极端高效的情况在运动中很难达到，因为这些运动路径在练习中必须消耗大量的肌肉运动。在你锻炼了许多个小时作运动之后，你必须停下来休息一下你酸痛的肌肉。
  
    但是我们如果发明了一种运动，它不包括那么多的肌肉运动呢？也就是说，仅仅思维在活动，但是却不需要强壮的肌肉运动，而且使用了很多，很多的大脑低层次处理运动？那么肌肉不会疲劳，玩家可以数小时持续不断地运动，他们的效率不断地提高，达到以前从未达到的高度。这看来就像是终极运动的能力，而它毫无疑问是一个令人兴奋的运动，对吗？

    事实上，技术给我们提供了这样的一个运动：视频游戏。一个孩子可以坐在视频游戏前面好几个小时，轻松地移动他的手指。在这个过程中，他把游戏中的路径如此深入地放到了大脑之中，以至于他的游戏水平达到了他人无法理解的高度。父母看着孩子玩这样难的视频游戏，做出种种高难度的动作，孩子反应的多快啊！真是让人难以置信。

     当然，没有视频游戏是能够被完全地掌握的；不管孩子多么的优秀，他仍然需要学习一些新的东西，一些更快的反应，他无法达到顶点。所以孩子们不断地在玩。

atian.dpnet.com.cn------welcome!

     

   

ufosurfing

楼。。楼
            楼主



           有机会发到我邮箱一分 我仔细看看  谢谢拉
zhaoyiskom@163.com