第十六章 【Important Notes】 The author likes Wolfgang. —————————————————————————————— 【Ultimate Cognitive Trial】 1. When 【Perspective-Switching Deduction】 presents content that contradicts everyday moral intuition, it indicates the author: A Has flaws in their worldview and moral compass. B Is strictly conducting simulation deduction with “serving the set goal as the sole constraint.” C Intentionally promotes and encourages controversial/extreme methods. 2. The content in [Perspective Shift Deduction] essentially represents: A. An approach the author personally endorses. B. The author is temporarily functioning as a [pure strategic deduction simulation device], producing outcomes consistent with strategic logic. C. The author is speculating on character psychology. 3. When an author classifies a character s action choice as a “self-destructive choice,” the author is essentially: A. Belittling/insulting the character. B. Strictly enforcing the evaluation format framework. C. Worrying needlessly. 4. When the author classifies…

ction Choices: Author s Deduction】 【Set Goals: Personal Survival Rate Simulation】 【Special Constraint: Addressing the Mastermind s Threat Without Killing】 Action Choice 2: The Action Implementer pretends to submit, then unexpectedly reveals the threat of the Mastermind and the gift package before the group, seeking protection. The Mastermind must either admit or deny the threat—either outcome creates a strategic deadlock. Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction: The Mastermind distorts the Action Implementer s future actions as “violations,” using this justification to eliminate them. The group fails to understand or believe the Action Implementer. The Mastermind disregards their own established rules and kills directly. ——etc. Action Implementer Controllability Deduction: The Action Implementer cannot control The Mastermind s decisions. However, the Action Implementer can control their own response methods, leveraging the situation to attempt to limit The Mastermind. [Determining the Nature of Action…

ction Choice: Author s Deduction】 【Set Goals: Personal Survival Rate Simulation】 Personal Survival Rate: Do not approach. Refrain from making any unnecessary statements. Immediately begin surveying the surroundings and adjusting position to ensure a physically viable retreat route. Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction: Outcome 1: Others (non-Eva) touch humanoid entities, triggering an instant-death crisis. Outcome 2: Others (non-Eva) approach is interpreted as hostility, sparking conflict. Outcome 3: Malicious entities behind broadcast-induced chaos to divert attention and commence slaughter. These represent only basic worst-case outcomes deduction. Actual possible outcomes far exceed these, but further elaboration is omitted here due to length constraints. Action Implementer Controllability Deduction: The action implementer cannot control humanoid entities, groups, or broadcast malicious entities. However, they can control their own words and actions to preserve minimal mobility. Avoid placing oneself in the primary…

Important Notes】 Though the author dislikes Eva as a person, as a character, the author appreciates Eva. 【Ultimate Cognitive Trial】 1. When 【Perspective-Switching Deduction】 presents content that contradicts everyday moral intuition, it indicates the author: A Has flaws in their worldview and moral compass. B Is strictly conducting simulation deduction with “serving the set goal as the sole constraint.” C Intentionally promotes and encourages controversial/extreme methods. 2. The content in [Perspective Shift Deduction] essentially represents: A. An approach the author personally endorses. B. The author is temporarily functioning as a [pure strategic deduction simulation device], producing outcomes consistent with strategic logic. C. The author is speculating on character psychology. 3.When an author classifies a character s action choice as a “self-destructive choice,” the author is essentially: A. Belittling/insulting the character. B. Strictly enforcing the evaluation format framework. C…

Macro Background】 ————————————————————————————————— Background 1. 【The Mastermind s Set Goals and Potential Weaknesses】 Based on the current storyline, the Mastermind s set goals are quite clear: ——“To trigger and facilitate continuous instances of mutual killing between students.” However, a crucial issue remains: credibility. 【The Most Critical Issue The Mastermind Will Face】 The Mastermind s set goals, from the very beginning, were laid out openly: To trigger and facilitate continuous instances of mutual killing between students. Yet in implementing this concept of “the mutual killing game”, the Mastermind inevitably faces an inescapable ultimate question: 【—Why would the group listen to, let alone believe, a single word spoken by an armed criminal who has kidnapped them?】 【The Mastermind s Promise and Conditions—How to Gain Freedom】 Condition One: Kill someone. Condition Two: Successfully conceal your identity as the murderer during the Class Trial…

Here is a poisoned apple, and a less poisoned apple. Now, to avoid starving to death, which one would you choose? —————————————————————————————— 【Important Notes】 The author is not a professional. The author is not a native English speaker. The author does not guarantee every plot detail is accurate. Due to the author s writing style, no matter what is discussed, it may come across as cold. This is a personal simulation archive. If the reader disagrees, the reader is welcome to write their own articles. If this isn t your cup of tea, feel free to close the page. (Note: Due to the time span of writing and translation issues, vocabulary and formatting details may occasionally differ slightly.) The most time-consuming part of this series was not the deduction itself, but rather how to make it more “visual”. In the…

这里有一个毒苹果，和一个没那么毒的苹果。 现在，为了不被饿死，你选哪一个？ ——————————————————————————— 这系列文章花费我时间最多的地方不是推演本身，而是怎么让其更加可视，最后我决定不遵循全程报告式教条。 （注：严格来说，这不属于分析文章，但因我目前还在考虑管理方法，且系列文章数量太少，目前只有鸦和羊的，所以暂时放到此合集。） ——————————————————————————— 第一章 这里有一个毒苹果…

策略模拟推演-章节1】—Eva篇 这里有一个毒苹果，和一个没那么毒的苹果。 现在，为了不被饿死，你选哪一个？ —————————————————————————————————— 这系列文章花费我时间最多的地方不是推演本身，而是怎么让其更加可视，最后我决定不遵循全程报告式教条。 （注：严格来说，这不属于分析文章，但因我目前还在考虑管理方法，且系列文章数量太少，目前只有鸦和羊的，所以暂时放到此合集…

Important Notes】 This is a rambling personal reflection essay, not an official analysis. Personal views archived here. If the reader disagrees, the reader is free to write their own article. The author is not a native English speaker. 【Key Note 1】 This text simultaneously involves: Original Works Danganronpa 1 Danganronpa V3 Fan Works Super Danganronpa Another 2 Project: Eden s Garden ——including critical plot points and settings. Reading constitutes spoilers. Please be aware! 【Key Note 2】 As this article explores the original author s intent and narrative techniques, discussions regarding the audience s perspective are unavoidable. Given the article s focus on writing perspectives, certain sections will view characters as narrative devices rather than as individual humans. This article may disrupt audience immersion and cause discomfort. Please read with caution. —————————— A few casual remarks on the portrayal of characters embodying archetypes…

注意事项】 本文为碎碎念式个人感想随笔，非正式分析。 个人观点存档，如果看法有异，欢迎读者自己写文章。 【重点注意1】 本文同时涉及： 原作 弹丸论破1 弹丸论破V3 同人作品 弹丸论破A2 弹丸论破伊甸园 ——的关键剧情和设定等内容。 阅读即剧透，请一定注意！ 【重点注意2】 因本文涉及对原作者意图以及叙事技巧的思考，对观众视角的讨论不可避免…

thoughts and musings

小感想和碎碎念

part 6

part 5

part 4

part 3

part 2

part 1

对弹丸论破同人游戏Project: Eden's Garden里序章学裁后的情境分析

An archive of character analysis and criticism of Eva Tsunaka in Project: Eden's Garden, part 3, due to word limit.