Much as this may go against my tastes, there’s a Dark Souls-like philosophy to uncover, not so much with its visuals, but with both its drip-feed story-telling as well as its pacing. There’s no denying, for starters, The Final Station does a great job at dropping the player straight into the thick of things never really offering an ounce of explanation as to either the troublesome amount of blacked-out, white eye dilated humanoids out to kill you, while immediately presenting the World of The Final Station as this desolate and hauntingly isolated state-of-play to begin with.
Even if Moriarty guesses correctly, Holmes prefers Dover, as then, if Moriarty does fail, Holmes can better escape to the continent. If Holmes reaches Dover unharmed, he can then make good his escape. Holmes believes that if they should find themselves on the same platform, it is likely that he’ll be killed by Moriarty.
Therefore the strategy sets for both players contain only Dover and Canterbury. Moriarty, whose intelligence allows him to recognise these possibilities, has the same set of options. Holmes is faced with the decision of either going straight to Dover or disembarking at Canterbury, which is the only intermediate station. For simplicity we consider only two players in this game: Sherlock Holmes and Professor Moriarty.
The three elements that we need in any game are players, strategies, and payoffs, so let’s figure these out… The story of Holmes and Watson fleeing England describes a situation of strategic interdependence to which we can apply some game theory.
0 kommentar(er)
