I just finished catching up with Netflix's Alice in the Land of the Dead, and it feels more brain-burning and interesting than the squid game. Regarding the seemingly unsolvable game of three people who must die in the play, "Hide and Seek with Wolf and Sheep" also has a little bit of its own opinion. If there is anything wrong, please discuss it rationally and spray it lightly.
Let's start with the big framework of the game - from the overall design of the plot, we can see from the clues in the first season that the game is divided into "hosts", "executors" and "participants". In the last episode of the first season, the lady on the screen of the "Executor" studio spoke as the organizer, and mentioned the opening of the second stage, using the head card as a bet, and inviting the protagonist group and the organizer to "confront". The so-called confrontation means that there is no invincible existence. Although the "participant" is weak and manipulated, the victory of the participant will at least lead to the death of the executor. Judging from the fact that "participants" died in large numbers on the "seashore", the number of "executors" was obviously much less. Based on this clue, it can be inferred that the "participants", "executors" and "hosts" fought against each other through games. As a result, the ratio of the number of people who get the death penalty is not 1:1, but has its own weight ratio according to different permissions (the "death penalty ratio" brought by this weight ratio should be relatively large, otherwise the two students in the play have mobile phones A secretly recorded scene - the executors danced in front of the computer screen, happily enjoying the participants they monitored falling into despair or escaping death, if the rules are that for every participant who survives, the executor will be punished. If one is punished for death, then the watchers will think in a different position. Can you face the screen without pressure and smile?). But even so, it can be shown that the game is not a unilateral slaughter of the participants, but a certain degree of "fairness" in which the "executor" and even the "host" have death penalties. Therefore, according to the clues and logic of the various games in the play, I personally think that the punishment rules of the games in the play are roughly as follows:
A. All participants are destroyed, and all "executors" survive.
B." Part of the "death" of the participant, the corresponding number of "executors" will be executed according to the unknown built-in weight ratio of the game. (For example, for every 10 "participants" who die in a large game, 1 player of the group will be executed according to the built-in rules. "Executor", for every 3 players killed in the small game, 1 executor of the group will be executed)
C. "Participants" all survive - the group of "executors" are "completely destroyed" or reduce the weight advantage of the executors to execute the death penalty.
Assuming that the big framework I deduced is considered reasonable by my friends, then the next highlight of this article - the wolf and sheep game, it seems that the only result "3 dead and 1 alive" is obviously too much for the "executor" of this group of games. It is too favorable and does not conform to the strictness of the rules and the overall fairness of the game's stakeholders as reflected in the entire game. You must know that the "executor" is also an ordinary human being and will also be sanctioned by the "scourge" laser. There is no absolute advantage to speak of, and the "host" has no reason to design a game that is unilaterally safe for the "executor", because the previous article After analysis, the punishment ratio of participants and executors is at least greater than 1, and if only one person can survive in the wolf and sheep game, wouldn’t it be that the wolf and sheep game tacitly assumed that the number of “participants” surviving could not cause any one person to survive before the game. Name "executor" died? This is obviously not in line with the game logic of the plot.
So, in the case of strictly abiding by the rules of the game, how to survive more than one person in the wolf and sheep hide-and-seek game? In other words, how to break through the "Hearts 7" to play with people's delusions and find the hope of living together with partners?
As can be seen from the pictures in the comics in this article, the equipment of the game is divided into four parts: goggles (eye tracking device), headgear and collar, and the important red pen circle drawing part - the connecting line.
See the picture above, after reading the rules, if a calm and normal person can think of the easiest part to start without violating the rule of removing the collar, maybe 9 out of 10 people will think of it Cut the connection. After all, according to the rules of the game, the collar has a built-in bomb, and the bomb switch of the collar is switched by the identity of the "wolf" and "sheep" brought by the goggles to see the participant. When your goggle identity is "wolf", your collar bomb switch is off, so the game is over, your collar is still around your neck, you are fine, and the bomb inside the collar will not explode. That is to say, if the first wolf uses a tool to cut the connection, so that the bomb is "disconnected" from the goggles in a closed state, the rules are strictly interpreted, and there is no "don't wear" collar at this time, and the rules do not clearly stipulate that Destruction of other parts is allowed (severing the collar will obviously explode immediately, as the collar is "unworn" and will inevitably be disqualified resulting in death). Next, "Wolf" goes to find a "Sheep", and after turning the sheep into a "Wolf", it also cuts off the connection of the second "Wolf", and so on, so is there a possibility of non-destructive customs clearance? For the hint of cutting the connection line, there is a certain hidden hint on the table at the beginning of the game - as shown in the picture below, although it seems that there are scary axes and saws that are like murder tools, but in fact, on second thought, this is not all Is it a tool for cutting or chopping or sawing or smashing something? It's just that "participants" subconsciously think that big tools are powerful "weapons" when life and death are at stake, while ignoring the problem-solving orientation of a table of "tools".
The above analysis is actually from the perspective of bystanders and God, "standing and talking without back pain", as a "participant" party, it is impossible to analyze and make decisions so calmly in a short period of time. , when the wolf survives and the sheep are all wiped out, no matter who the "participant" is, almost without exception, the statement about "the sheep hides and cannot be found by the wolf" will be automatically ignored in the rules. After all, it is the wolf who lives. As a sheep, you must turn yourself into a wolf as soon as possible, and then hide and not be found by the sheep is the way to survive!
Personally, I think this is the first level where the card "7 of hearts" represents the game of people's hearts - "arrogance". The "participants" immediately thought that they had "broken" the irony and psychological rebelliousness of the rules of the game. They all believed that it was the rules behind the game that the wolf could survive by hiding and not being found by the sheep. As a member of the team, he subconsciously regards the three people around him as an obstacle to his survival. As a sheep, he should chase wolves wildly, and as a wolf, he should avoid sheep.
"Hearts 7" plays the second layer of people's hearts - "self-preservation", anyone who turns into a wolf for the first time has any motive to risk cutting his own connection, and then tell his own analysis to the threat of death. Crazy companion, let him not run after turning into a wolf, but let him also take the risk of causing an explosion, cut his own connection, and then take the initiative to make the third sheep survive. How about looking for a sheep to turn it into a wolf and then cutting off each other's connections to help it survive? It's almost impossible to make a decision that is so complicated and extremely contradictory that you have to convince the second person, the third person, and the fourth person within 15 minutes? After all, the first person to become a wolf is already safe. He just needs to hide. Why should he think about such complicated matters and psychological counseling, and take unnecessary risks to save other people? For me, Although it does not seem to violate the rules, no one can tell the consequences of cutting the connection without a demonstration case and the result verification after 15 minutes. If there is a 1 in 10,000 possibility, the cost is your own life. As the first wolf, I am afraid that it is the only choice to be replaced by the officials, right?
The third layer of "Hearts 7" to play with people's hearts - "cooperation". Here, I have to admire the protagonist. The tools he chose for the first time were a few pliers and screwdrivers. After he turned into a wolf by accident, he also found a corner to hide and tried to cut off the goggles and collar by himself. connection, but he also fell into despair when he couldn't complete it by himself. The information contained in this plot, I think, is to imply that the connection can be broken through various tools on the picture, but at least two people are required to cooperate, that is, the sheep cuts the connection for the wolf, and then the wolf breaks the connection after the collar bomb is disconnected. Help the sheep turn into wolves and then disconnect them. The protagonist is very strong, and the first layer of disconnection has been thought of, but the cooperation requires the absolutely candid cooperation of two selfless people to complete. This is too difficult to achieve in an animal like a human. In life, friends, colleagues, and relatives can turn against friends, colleagues, and relatives for money, profit, and status in life, not to mention friends and even strangers in the face of life and death decisions within 15 minutes. How difficult is it to trust and cooperate?
The only problem-solving benefit of "Hearts 7" - "communication". In the collar headband device in the episode, there is a headset, which can communicate wirelessly with multiple people. I think this is also a side-evidence of the game's possibility of loss or multi-player clearance. If it is the inevitable result of 3 dead and 1 life without the possibility of cooperation, then as 4 people who are absolutely opposed, what is the need for them to be able to communicate with each other? What about the conversation? Could it be that under the psychological control of arrogance, self-interest, and self-preservation, who will tell others where they are? The existence of the headset gave the god-level "IQ wolf" the communication conditions to persuade A sheep, B sheep, and C sheep to try to clear the customs with all staff, and then change the communication conditions for the wolf to cut off the connection in turn. After all, as soon as the rules are announced, wolves will run wild, and it is foreseeable that the sheep will be scattered and surrounded by wolves. If there is no headset, even if the god-level wolf or sheep come up with a solution, it does not matter whether others will accept or reach an agreement. Further implementation, there is no way to even talk and communicate, then the game will lose the "fun" and fairness of the game for the sponsor, and even the possibility of testing human nature. After all, the 4 people are only on the first layer of the thinking mode. Where is the possibility of throwing new customs clearance, but it may sacrifice the soul torture of the vested interests, and make the game sponsor more satisfied and exciting?
Finally, for the seemingly ironic description of the rule, "the sheep hide from the wolf", I also have my own thoughts that may be unreasonable. In the customs clearance method analyzed above, the cooperation of two people, selfless candor, precise disconnection operation and other conditions actually have an implicit background requirement - only one sheep and wolf can be in a scene at the same time. Suppose, in the process of disconnection, sheep A operates behind the wolf to disconnect the line, but the wolf sees sheep B suddenly appearing nearby just before the disconnection, then the consequence of cutting the line is that the wolf becomes a sheep, The bomb switch is turned on, and the wire is broken, the bomb can no longer be turned off by turning into a wolf.…
Therefore, the most ideal "Heart 7" wolf and sheep hide-and-seek non-destructive customs clearance solution is really, the sheep are scattered and hidden, communicate through the intercom headset shown in the episode, and the wolf finds the sheep one by one, and then the wolf and sheep cooperate honestly Disconnect, and so on. Once the way of the three sheep looking for the wolf has formed a group chase and snatch, and they do not trust each other in the headset communication and cannot agree with the solution, there is no possibility of non-destructive customs clearance, even if someone comes up with a solution, Due to the presence of many people, the identities of the wolf and the sheep are constantly changing among several people, but the identity of the person who came up with the plan is not a wolf. Faced with a wolf partner who runs like a smoke, even if the IQ is 200, it will be nothing. The only one who survived was the lucky one at the end of the 15th minute. This scenario is also a predictable result of human nature-three deaths and one life may be without exception in all game groups, even if there is a possibility of damage in the rules, It's just in vain, perhaps, this is the greater survival advantage of the "executor" than the death penalty weight, and the reason for the higher mortality rate of the participants in the "Heart" poker series. The environment in which the "participant" is located and the tight time at the time make it impossible to make decisions and cooperation plans that can theoretically be cleared. Even if you are the chosen person in terms of IQ, you are only one person - sometimes, fate It is in the hands of two people and each other, how do you choose? Really, can you trust... anyone else?
View more about Alice in Borderland reviews
