游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

以六款产品为例谈:游戏的成功不在于好玩,而在于有意思

发布时间:2017-09-11 14:52:48 Tags:,,

本文原作者:Jord Farrell 译者ciel chen

想象一下,如果你设计自己游戏的时候希望它有意思,而不仅仅是好玩。这听起来可能有点违反语感;你也许会说,“如果一个游戏好玩,从某方面来说不就是说它有意思吗”?确实,不过我所想说的是——要给玩家一个除了完成你所设定的目标以外,来去玩游戏的动力。这样玩家同时还可以对游戏本身进行体验和探索,他们也想看看你所创造的世界里有些什么。

有意思比纯粹的娱乐更有留存力,而且当它与娱乐结合在一起时的效果则更是惊人。(游戏邦注:多亏了强大的协同效应)

要掌握“有意思”这个模糊的概念是很困难的,所以与其费力去定义它,不如让6个优秀的游戏范例来告诉你什么是“有意思”,并且我们可以了解它们是如何利用“有意思”来驱动并支撑起游戏的。

注意:这篇文章含以下游戏的内容剧透

《史丹利的寓言(The Stanley Parable)》(非免费,不过有免费版本;Windows/Mac平台可玩)

《高分青蛙(Frog Fractions)》(免费网游)

《旺达与巨像(Shadow of the Colossus)》(非免费;只限在PlayStation平台可玩)

《Corrypt》(免费;IOS/Windows/Mac平台可玩)

《请出示文件(Papers, Please)》(非免费;Windows/Mac/Linux平台可用)

《冷静时刻(Calm Time)》(免费,只限Windows平台可玩)

如果你还没玩过这些游戏,我建议你在读这篇文章之前去玩一下;这些游戏全部都有值得一玩的超新鲜体验——而且他们是游戏设计者非常值得学习的范例。

Shadow of the Colossus(from tutsplus.com)

Shadow of the Colossus(from tutsplus.com)

《史丹利的寓言(The Stanley Parable)》

《史丹利的寓言》,乍一看,好像不是个“好玩”的游戏。你要穿过走廊,你一直都在说话,根据你是走在这个走廊还是另一个走廊决定了你的不同结局。然后你再玩一遍,走一条你没走过的走廊。这听起来挺无聊的。

然而,设计者使用了一个强大的工具来保持玩家对游戏的兴趣:玩家群体的好奇心——这产生了关键性的影响。

玩家群体好奇心

这里指的是玩家沉浸在对游戏戳戳碰碰的探索中——有时是想看看能不能打破游戏规则,有时是想看看游戏会有什么样的反应,有时是想找点系统的局限性或者漏洞等等。

当你试图主打这种游戏风格的时候,你必须能够预测玩家下一步会想试图做什么以及洞察玩家的想法。当他们想做些什么的时候,你的游戏必须做出相应的反应,并且这些反应要激起玩家的某种反应:恐惧,笑声,神秘,线索,甚至只是一个小小的复活节彩蛋。

《史丹利的寓言》将这种风格使用得惟妙惟肖。其设计严格地限制了玩家之间的交互作用,所以设计者能够预测玩家任意时刻将做的下一件事是什么。因此,他们能够做到积极主动地去对玩家的选择做出回应。

最好的例子就是玩家在游戏开始时所展示的标志性的两扇门房——游戏试图通过如此讲述——“当两扇门出现时,Stanley走了左边这扇门。”的这么一个“故事”。玩家也许会说“啊哈——这个游戏很厉害嘛,不过我不会让你控制我的!”然后就走了右边那扇门。然而,游戏可以察觉到这种心理活动而对这种反应做出识别和回应——告诉玩家:你从游戏主线上走偏了。

这只是件小事,但是这让玩家想要看看游戏在这方面能做到多少程度:如果我这样做,会发生些什么?如果我那样做又会发生什么呢?

《高分青蛙(Frog Fractions)》

《高分青蛙》是一款有关分数的教育类游戏….应该可以这么说吧。它看上去跟你所看过的任何游戏都不一样。这个游戏的玩法是可预测的;你一开始玩的时候就知道你将会得到什么。你在游戏里就是一只青蛙,一只需要吃虫子的青蛙。很简单对吗?不过游戏也知道它自己很简单,所以它会通过游戏的展开式玩法,用尽你能想到关于游戏玩法的一切假设,用一种绝妙的方式来对付你。

游戏玩法的展开

这是一种不断向你的游戏引入新的概念和机制的行为,从而使玩家更深入地投入到游戏当中——这是因为当玩家处于无聊状态时,他们会对任何新鲜以及不寻常的事物感到振作。一旦玩家能看到游戏的扩展,他们会开始好奇游戏接下来还有什么内容会出现。他们会想去探索这个世界更多的奇妙与不同。这样一来,即使游戏的一开始平庸又无聊,但随着游戏世界更多的展现,他们所看到的会跟之前玩过的游戏形成很大的对比——这使得游戏玩法变得不再平凡,因为每种新玩法都是新鲜、闪亮而有趣的。

我真的很希望你能在我说这点之前玩过这个游戏,因为你知道了就没有惊喜了。

在《高分青蛙》中,我们举例游戏的第一个展看,游戏这个展开放置在了最合适的时间点。游戏让玩家吃小虫、吃水果、解锁能力提升变得更厉害,好像已经没什么新鲜的东西了,而且极其容易理解(除了游戏里一些莫名其妙的幽默让人难以理解以外……)。然而,就在玩家以为自己已经掌握了游戏的玩法的时候,只要他们在继续玩下去,游戏很快会让他们明白并非如此——居然在水底下还有好多水果!这立刻让玩家明白,“这个游戏原来不只是能力提升这么简单,我小看它了。”于是,游戏创造了新的有趣冲击,因为现在游戏已经今非昔比了——不是吗?这个游戏想要达到的目的是什么?玩家想要通过继续游戏来找到问题的答案。

《旺达与巨像》

《旺达与巨像》这个游戏的背后有很多可以讲述的内容。这是一个有关穿越巨像(游戏邦注:敌对的巨兽)的家园——辽阔的大地上的游戏。这个游戏没有存在很多的冲突;整个游戏里就16个敌人。对每个敌人你都有同一件事要做:翻山越岭找巨像——想办法跑到巨兽的头顶上,找弱点,然后使劲打。

现在,尽管我写下来很简单的样子,但是游戏的内容不同类型的拼合方式让它变得特别的有意思。游戏类型多样化

这是我从可爱的Extra Credit(讨论电子游戏和其他游戏相关内容的系列视频)团队那里学来的术语。它指的是一种游戏全程都在变换格调的概念,这是为了突破千篇一律的游戏玩法,为了确保玩家不对游戏产生疲惫感——也为了给他们一丝喘息的机会。同样地这种概念也是为了让游戏的某些方面变得更有效果。比如说游戏中的行动方式——当游戏不再让玩家持续不断、没有尽头地战斗时,能够休息会让玩家对游戏保持更多的新鲜感。

《旺达与巨像》正是漂亮地利用了游戏类型多样化。由于每场和巨像的战斗都是一场恶斗,充满了激烈的打斗行为,所以如果玩家持续地玩这个打斗部分,他们很快就会变得疲倦。为了防止这样的事情发生,打斗会被平静而充满冥想的旅行部分间隔开——这让玩家从打斗中得以喘息,同时还创造了一种激动人心的感觉——这些旅行赋予了每一场战斗意义。

这和惊险、激烈的解谜动作类游戏完全相反。

类型差异如果合理利用的话也可以创造出游戏不同的“镜头角度”。在《旺达与巨像》中,你看到的游戏就是动作与冥想结合的镜头。这种感觉很难描述,但是通过多个镜头看一款游戏会给人以更饱满的感觉,游戏世界会感觉更完整。只有单一镜头角度的游戏更倾向于让人有更像传统游戏的感觉。

尽管没有游戏类型差异并不是件坏事,不过知道这点对你而言只会是有百利而无一害。

《Corrypt》

《Corrypt》是一款很奇葩的游戏——一开始都很正常:就是一款踏踏实实的Sokoban box(推箱子)游戏,没什么特别的。但是一旦你深入进去,你会觉得这是个神奇的游戏。然而,这种神奇确实毁了这款游戏,从某种程度上这款游戏已经丧失了其可玩性。这让玩家做出的选择有了不同的影响效果。

对玩家选择施加影响效果

对我来说,这款游戏的绝佳出彩点在于它用的简单机制,却创造了很多种我以前从没玩过的玩法。你可以用魔法来永久冷冻瓷砖,而你无论到了其他房间还是哪里,那块瓷砖仍旧保持着你冷冻它时的样子。

对我个人来说,我很在意我作为玩家所决定要做的事情会造成怎样的影响后果。玩家自己要投入到自己所做的决定中,而不是做出非此即彼的“杀他还是救他”这种被动性抉择(这种情况下,不同选择会引向不同的结局)——这是极其重要的。然而,这款游戏会让我停下来思考:“我冻了这块砖之后会咋样?我这样的做法是不是很机智?这种做法不能用来通关别的哪个房间?”

我在游戏中做过的一些最让人神经崩溃的决定。

然而还是有必要让玩家自己能做出一些对其本身很重要的抉择,要知道没有什么比这些能对游戏本身产生影响的决定更重要的了。在这款游戏中,玩家的选择会改变之后的每个房间布局。然而这种影响并非一直那么突出。比如说,假设在“杀了他还是救他”的情景里,如果选择“杀了他”,也许玩家的角色可以在精神上会收到床上,而这反过来会降低他们的行动准确性,从而达到赋予这个选择意义的游戏效果。如果玩家选择“救他”,该角色可以变成一个商人卖你有价值的东西——这些效果影响很简单,但是对于玩家来说这可比最后只是两种不同的过场动画来的有意义多了。

《请出示文件(Papers, Please)》

在《请出示文件》中,你会扮演一个整天检查护照真实可靠性的边境管理人员——这就是游戏的内容。如果开发者没有投入太多精力来确保游戏能持续发展,那这款游戏很可能会变得非常平庸,因此这需要玩家对系统进行永久性的掌握。

对系统的永久掌控

就是指一款游戏在游戏玩法上持续地发生改变。这里跟“游戏玩法的展开”不同的地方在于,这里的游戏类型和风格不会发生改变。实际变化的是一些对已经建立的机制进行的小补充,使玩家可以使用他们所学到的知识,并将其应用到不同的情境中。尽管他们已经掌握了确切的游戏机制本身,但当这些知识要应用到不同场景中时,这种已掌握的知识就会发生改变。

这不是新概念了。几乎任何体面的游戏都会用到这个概念:《马里奥》、《黑暗之魂》还有《最后生还者》都是很好地例子。然而,这并不是每个开发者都能搞定的东西——通过增加某些数值来进行人工难度干预并不会让玩家具备永久掌握游戏系统的能力;这些情况下,玩家即使掌握了系统知识,但是不得不将他们所学的知识持续地投入到执行当中——这样他们很快就会觉得无聊,这也是很多游戏失败的原因。

在《请出示文件》中,游戏通过变化各种不同的通关文件来要求玩家永久性的掌握游戏。通关文件会根据国家的不同、职业的不同等等因素而发生改变。一旦玩家掌握了新的辨别技巧,游戏机制就会给出新的内容让你去练习掌握这种技巧。除此之外,游戏里还会有一些特殊的角色来以防玩家陷入千篇一律的死循环里,变得能够轻松地“玩转”游戏。

《冷静时刻(Cold Time)》

《冷静时刻》是一款恐怖游戏,它有着独特之处——它不属于我们通常意义上的那种恐怖游戏。它是慢节奏的、扭曲而有条理的;它让玩家扮演的是去制造恐惧的游戏角色:一个假装办晚餐聚会来聚集受害者的杀人狂。整个游戏里,你必须一个一个地杀死所有客人,他们会向你求饶救命,会拼命逃跑可能只为了多活一秒。这个游戏是一个“被迫式故事叙述角度”的很好范例。

被迫式故事叙事角度

这个概念指的是你——作为玩家,要受到游戏机制逼迫来展开游戏故事。这意味着它的游戏机制和玩家对这些游戏机制的使用会使玩家处于这样一种心态——玩家的目标和角色目标达成了一致。

在《冷静时刻》里,这种一致性会让人感到不安——不是因为角色的行为,而是因为玩家的目标——玩家目标成了要杀死邀请来做客的客人。随着游戏的继续进行,游戏会变得好玩、乏味、或者只是为了完成游戏的盲目行动。但是正是这样我们也完全体现了角色心态,角色成为了我们自身的映射——该主角他很明显是疯了的,因为他发现这种谋杀的行为是好玩的、无聊的或者只是盲目的行动。

我从没有真的完成过这个游戏;我都吓尿了。

这是与众不同的角色扮演游戏,因为我们不是根据我们想要的角色来做出行为的选择,而是通过我们所采用的行动和采取这样行动的理由来定义我们所扮演的角色。

无目性的娱乐

有很多游戏表面上看都应该是挺好玩的,但是真正玩起来并非如此。我们看到很多类似的游戏,它们只是复刻了那些“好玩”的游戏玩法而没有什么原创的有趣内容。那款游戏明明有相同的概念,但玩起来却很无聊,为什么呢?

那是因为这些游戏大部分都是在游戏机制层面上的复刻品,但是他们没法理解这些机制要怎样使用才能变得有吸引力。

如果你想试着重制一款游戏,你不知补习重新创作游戏机制,你还得重新做游戏设计。由一堆游戏机制堆积而成的游戏是不存在的——是游戏设计让这些机制在一起有了意义,让玩家有了游戏目标,这样玩家才有理由玩你的游戏。

总结

游戏当然可以好玩,别理解错我的意思,但是中的事要记住,好玩不是所有游戏都能做到的。游戏通过别的方式也可以变得有吸引力——比如通过奇妙的设计。游戏不需要用一些爆炸之类的东西来刺激玩家照样也能有意思。

很多方法都行得通的;我只是列举除了游戏可以利用一小部分内容。别再思维上限制了自己,“人们不会玩我的游戏的,因为它又不好玩。”其实如果你的游戏有意思,人们会很乐意玩它的。

本文由游戏邦编译,转载请注明来源,或咨询微信zhengjintiao

Imagine if you designed your games to be interesting, rather than fun. That might sound a little counter-intuitive; you might say, “if a game is fun, wouldn’t that already make it interesting, in some respect”? That’s true, but I’m talking about giving the player a drive to play the game outside of simply completing the goals you have set. The player also plays to experience and explore the game itself, to see what the world you have created has to offer.

This has far more retaining power than straight up fun, and is amazing (thanks to the huge synergy bonus) when combined with fun.

It’s hard to get a grasp on the fuzzy concept of “interesting”, so rather than try to define it, let’s look at six great examples of games that are “interesting”, and at how they used “interest” to drive and support the game.

Note: This article contains spoilers for the following games:

The Stanley Parable (not free, but has a free demo; available on Windows and Mac)

Frog Fractions (free online)

Shadow of the Colossus (not free; available on PlayStation only)

Corrypt (free; available on iOS, Windows, and Mac)

Papers Please (not free; available on Windows, Mac, and Linux)

Calm Time (free; available on Windows only)

If you haven’t played them yet, I recommend you do so before reading on; they’re all excellent experiences that deserve to be played through with fresh eyes—and they have plenty of lessons to teach any game designer.

The Stanley Parable

The Stanely Parable, on paper, is not a “fun” game. You walk through hallways, you get talked at the whole time, and you get different endings based on whether you walk down one hallway or another. Then you play again and walk down the hallway you didn’t walk down before. Sounds boring.

However, the designers used a powerful tool to keep the player interested in the game: player agency curiosity. It makes all the difference.

Player Agency Curiosity

This refers to the state where the player is engaged with the game by poking and prodding it—sometimes in hope of breaking the game, sometimes to see how it reacts, sometimes to find the limits or seams of the system, and so on.

When trying to harness this style of engagement, you must be able to predict what the player will try to do and what they are thinking. When they try to do something, your game must react to it, and these reactions must also provoke some sort of reaction from the player: fear, laughter, mystery, a clue, or even just a little Easter egg.

The Stanley Parable makes amazing use of this. The design tightly restricts the possible interactions for the player, and so the designers are able to predict what the player will do at any point. Because of this, they are able to be proactive in their reactions to player choices.

The best example of this is in the iconic two door room the player is presented with at the start of the game. The game tries to tell you the “story” of the game by saying “Stanley, when presented with two doors, walked through the left door.” A player might say “Aha—nice try, game, but I won’t let you control me!” and walk through the right door. However, the game recognizes this mindset and both acknowledges and responds to this by telling the player that they aren’t following the proper story.

It’s a small thing, but it makes the player want to see how far they can go: if I do this, what will happen? If I do that, is anything going to happen?

Frog Fractions

Frog Fractions is an educational game about fractions… sort of. It doesn’t look like anything you haven’t seen before. The gameplay is predictable; you know what you’re getting as soon as you start playing it. You’re a frog that needs to eat some bugs. Simple. But the game knows this, and it uses whatever assumptions you may have made about its gameplay against you in a brilliant way, through its unfolding gameplay.

Unfolding Gameplay

This is the act of constantly introducing new concepts and mechanics into your game the farther into your game the player gets. Games that use this device generally start out boring or mundane or predictable, but they need to. This is because when the player is in that state of boredom, they will perk up to anything new, and anything unusual.

Once the player starts to see the game expanding, they begin to wonder what else it has to show them. They want to know where this rabbit hole of a game leads. And since the game starts out as mundane, stale, and boring, when more of the game is revealed it’s a big juxtaposition against what they were playing previously. This allows mediocre gameplay to become so much more, because each new gameplay element is new, shiny, and interesting.

I really hope you played the game before you read to this point. This is a one-time surprise.
In Frog Fractions, this first instance of unfolding generally happens at the perfect moment. The gameplay mechanics seem to boil down to eat some bugs, catch some fruit, unlock new power-ups so you can be more efficient at the process. It’s nothing new and is easy to understand (aside, perhaps, from the quirky humor the game has).

However, that idea of the player having a full grasp on what the game is is quickly turned on its head as soon as the player moves downward just a little too far and bam. There are infinitely many pieces of fruit underwater! This immediately tells the player, “this game isn’t about upgrading; it isn’t about what you thought it was.” Through this, the game creates a new rush of interest because now the game is broken—or is it? What is this game trying to do? The player continues to play to answer these questions.

Shadow of the Colossus

Shadow of the Colossus has a lot going on under the hood. Its a game about traversing over expansive lands that is home to the colossi (giant enemy beasts). The game doesn’t have a lot of conflict; there are only 16 enemies in the whole game. For each enemy, you must do the same thing: travel to the colossus, figure out how to get on top of the beast, find its weak points, kill, repeat.

Now, while that is simple when written, the game and how it was pieced together makes it insanely compelling because of differences in kind.

Differences in Kind

This is a term I picked up from the lovely Extra Credits team. It refers to the concept of a game changing tones throughout, in order to break up similar gameplay, to make sure that the player doesn’t get fatigued from the gameplay—to give them a break of sorts. It is also used to make certain aspects of the game more impactful. Action, for instance, is much more refreshing when you are able to take a small break instead of having a constant barrage of endless fights until the game ends.

Shadow of the Colossus uses differences in kind beautifully. Since each of the battles with the colossi are intense puzzle/action segments, the player would quickly become tired if they were constantly playing this segment of the game. To prevent this, the fights are separated by calming, meditative traveling segments. These allow for the player to take a break from the action while also creating a sense of anticipation, adding additional value to each of the fights.

This is the absolute opposite of high stakes, intense puzzle-solving action.

Differences in kind, when used properly, can also create different “lenses” through which to view the game itself. In Shadow of the Colossus, you view the game through both the lenses of action and calm. It’s a hard feeling to describe, but a game that can be viewed through multiple lenses feels fuller, like more of a complete world. Games that have one lens tend to be games that feel more traditionally game-like.

While it’s no bad thing to not have differences in kind, just know that it is a tool in your arsenal that won’t (in most cases) diminish, only create additional value.

Corrypt

Corrypt is a weird game. It starts out normal enough: it’s a down-to-earth Sokoban box game. Nothing special about that. But once you get far enough, you obtain magic. However, this magic actually ends up breaking the game, in some ways making it unplayable. This gives the player repercussions for agency.

Repercussions for Agency

What made this game absolutely brilliant for me was how it used a simple mechanic to expand the game in ways I didn’t even know were possible before playing. You can use magic in order to permanently freeze a tile; when you go to any other room that tile will stay as what it was when you froze it.

This made me personally care about the repercussions of what I decided to do as a player. That is extremely important: the player themselves is invested in the decisions they make, but not through a binary “kill him or save him” situation where the outcome changes one ending to a different ending. No—this game made me stop and think, “if I freeze this tile what will happen? Is this smart? What rooms are going to be impossible to solve because of this?”

Some of the most nerve-wracking decisions I’ve ever made in a game.

While having the decisions themselves be important to the player is significant, nothing is more essential than having those decisions impact the gameplay itself. In this game, the player’s choices can change the layout of every room from then on. However, the effects doesn’t always have to be as prominent. For example, in that hypothetical “kill him or save him” scenario, perhaps the player’s character could be mentally scarred if they were to choose to kill, which in turn could make their accuracy go down, giving the choice a meaningful gameplay repercussion. If the player chose to save him, he could become a merchant that sells you some valuable items. These repercussions are simple, but far more meaningful to a player than a selection of two cut scenes.

Papers, Please

In Papers, Please, you play as a border control worker who spends their days checking passports for authenticity. That is the game. It would have probably been completely mundane as well, if the developer hadn’t put such care into making sure the game was constantly evolving, thus requiring perpetual mastery of the system from the player.

Perpetual Mastery of the System

This is when a game constantly changes how it is played. What makes this different from unfolding gameplay is that the genre and style of the game never changes. The actual changes are small—little additions to already established mechanics that make the player use what they’ve learned and apply it to different situations. Although they have mastered the actual mechanic itself, by being used in different situations the application of that mastered knowledge will change.

This isn’t a new concept. Nearly any decent game uses this concept: Mario, Dark Souls, and The Last of Us are all good examples. However, this isn’t something that every developer grasps. Artificial difficulty by way of increasing numbers does not create perpetual mastery; in these cases, the player has mastered the system but just has to continue executing what they have learned. This quickly becomes boring, and is a large part of why many games fail.

In Papers, Please the game requires perpetual mastery by changing how documents work. There’s different paperwork for different countries, different occupations, and so on. As soon as the player has a grasp on the most recent twist on the mechanic, something new is thrown in. On top of that, there are a few special characters thrown in to make sure that the player never falls into a routine and can easily “game” the game.

Calm Time

Calm Time is a horror game with a unique twist. It isn’t scary, in a normal sense. It’s slow paced, twisted, and methodical. It places the player into the shoes of what would normally be the object of fear: a killer who has gathered their victims under the pretense of a dinner party. Throughout the game, you must kill each guest one by one, as they plead for their lives and run to live maybe just a second longer. It’s a great example of forced perspective storytelling.

Forced Perspective Storytelling

This concept refers to when the game forces you, as the player, to tell the story of the game through the mechanics. This means that the mechanics and the player’s use of them places the player in a certain mindset. Their goals align with the character’s goals.

In Calm Time this becomes unsettling—not because of the actions of the character, but because of the goals of the player. The player’s goal is to kill all the guests they have invited to their home. As the game goes on, it might become fun, tedious, or just a mindless action to complete the game. But through this we also come to completely embody the mindset of the character. The character becomes a mirror onto ourselves. He is clearly insane because he find this act of murder fun, tedious, or just a mindless action.

I never actually finished this game; I got too creeped out.

This is different to roleplaying, since instead of us choosing our actions based on the character we want to be, our character is defined by the actions we take and our reasons for taking said actions.

Fun Without Purpose

There are plenty of games that feel like they should be fun on paper, but aren’t when actually played. We see this a lot in clones, which end up copying the “fun” gameplay, without much else of what made the original interesting. The game has the same ideas, but the execution falls flat. Why is that?

It’s because these games mostly copy the games on a mechanical level, but they fail to understand how those mechanics were used in the games to make them compelling to play.

If you are going to try to remake a game, you must not only recreate the mechanics, you must also recreate the design. Games do not exist as a jumble of mechanics thrown together to make a game. Design is what gives the mechanics meaning, gives the player purpose, and creates the reason for the player to play your game.

Conclusion

Games can be fun, don’t get me wrong, but it is important to remember that that’s not all games can be. Games can be compelling in other ways, through use of intelligent design. Games can be interesting without having to overstimulate the player with explosions and the like.

There are many ways to go about this; I have only listed but a fraction of what is possible in games. Don’t restrict yourself by thinking, “people won’t play my game if it isn’t fun.” If your game is interesting, people will enjoy it.(source:tutsplus.com


上一篇:

下一篇: