Reasoning Beyond the Game

I recently played a little game that talks about the big picture, 'The Evolution of Trust'. Read the original article You can play games, but the load time is a little long, and WeChat is blocked. The PC address is above.

The game explains how interpersonal trust evolves through a variety of characters playing in a variety of settings.

The moral is actually quite simple, but it's even more profound when conveyed through the game.

I'm not going to dramatize exactly what the reasoning is like in this game here, but all in all it's a game worth playing.

Often times, we all understand the axioms, but few of us can actually apply them.

For example, a fable like 'The Little Horse Crosses the River' is a very straightforward story about how the experiences of others cannot be directly applied to oneself.

However, when playing the game, you often hear the question, "Wow, why did you put out this equipment, the pros don't.


So you think so highly of me ......

So this can arise because the allegory is not good enough at conveying its moral? Of course not, even if you're very blunt about some of the axioms, people who can't really apply them still can't use them, and it's easy to annoy people by being blunt about them.

Recently saw someone explain why he didn't play LOL.

"At first, they told me to hide in the grass, so I did. Then they told me to get on, so I did, then they died and blamed me for getting on, so I hid in the grass again, then they blamed me for not getting on ...... So I'm not playing this game anymore.

Then, someone replied with a divine reply, "This is how the game is played.

'This is supposed to be a dumping game, and if you don't dump it, it's not how good your qualities are, it's that you're the one who's going to be positioned to take the fall ......'

Blame your teammates when you have them, blame your luck when you don't have them, blame your equipment when you don't have luck, in short, the whole world can go wrong, only I am like a lotus in the mud ......

For a long time wanted to be sarcastic about this phenomenon, however it would be easy to hit a lot of people with a direct statement because that's how this game is, and that's how most players are. That's when reasoning ceases to be reasoning and is 'looking for a fight' and needs to be prepared to face being sprayed.

But if you change it to a story, it's much more relaxed, you understand the reasoning, but it's not about me anyway~

Two students, A and B, were late to class and stood at the door for a penalty. B looked at A and said with contempt, "Tsk, it's a shame to be punished for standing, if I were you, I wouldn't come to class today.

Anyway, this is not a story, let's talk about why team-type games are so easy to argue with.

In fact, compared to LOL such a game that requires a certain amount of game technology support, this phenomenon and the mitigation, such as brass spray brass, who is not convinced, but the king spray gold, everyone a word of skill is not as good as the original sin, the dish is the original sin, playing rounds on the pass.

And it's the genre of werewolf killing that's really scary. Everyone has their own ideas, and not alike, so the more explosive temperament of the party all kinds of paste face, quality, the key is the party is also a state of their own completely right smug ...... Is this still a game?

Under what circumstances do humans experience this state of emotional agitation?

It's usually when you feel like you're being invaded into your domain by someone of about the same level as you, or just when you're planning to challenge a higher level domain than you.

As an example, many people will say 'If a dog bites you, are you going to bite back? 』

Most people probably won't bite back, but there will be a corresponding reaction; those who hate the dog will be offended and may hit it, while those who like the dog won't let it bark, and may pull out a bone to appease it and then angrily pet it on the head ......

That said, a dog is actually in about the same class as a human, or at least it has the qualifications to make a human respond in kind.

Someone who thinks they're humorous comes along and asks 'Please, how hard do I have to work to make the game as hot as you guys do? 』

"Why don't you ask the horse that you talk about every day?" Look at people, don't you? 』

When a person comes running like this, it's actually easy to move as a grade that's not good enough. Yet people on another level don't really care at all.

For these types of people, it's earned to hang on to someone of far higher rank as if they know them.

This grade difference is like.

"Hey, there's a fly on the next street that says something bad about you. Should we go fight with him? 』

Would a normal person run a block to destroy a fly who doesn't know exactly where it is? Who cares about you ......

The straightforward axiom is just that, it's very offensive and hits a nerve with others very easily.

Again such a reasoning would actually be different when replaced with a story.

Once upon a time, a mouse challenged a lion, and the lion refused.

The mouse taunted him, saying, Are you afraid to fight me?

"Yes, I'm scared. ' The lion said, 'If I duel with you, you can brag to others that you fought a lion. And me? All the animals would laugh at me for fighting with mice in the future. 』

In the future, it's better to try to be less preachy and post more short stories and mini-games.

1、GLSLBuiltIn Functions
2、What characteristics will the decision tree have
3、InformationAli makes rules on big data for the first time
4、A Peek into Recommender Systems1 Information Discovery2 Recommender Systems3 Classification4 Indepth Recommender Mechanisms5 Applications6 Summary
5、AcademiaIBM makes major breakthrough in technology to identify cancerous cells reinventing pathology with deep learning and neural networks

    已推荐到看一看 和朋友分享想法
    最多200字,当前共 发送