Login to vote in this poll.
I voted that the game should be close to the one we inhibit to make for a more realistic representation. I think this can allow players to find the world to be more believable, making it easier for players to become enveloped into the world. If it's too unbelievable, focusing too much on positive or negative, I think it could become more of a caricature.
I believe that many players would not find an urge to play a game that is close to the style of our world. If its too close to the style of our world, they would not have an urge to play something that is not much different from our everyday lives. If the point of video games is to simulate a world SIMILAR to ours, it would be pointless to play a game that's just like ours without the ability to change it or see any difference. Also, if the world just shows the positive aspects of our world, then I feel a player would just want to live their real lives and gain and experience those positive aspects in real life, instead of not gaining their benefits in the video game. If the world shows the negative aspects of ours, there would be a point to the game. The point would be to play the game and make the world better, to overcome those negative aspects, which would not be realistic to overcome in real life.
I voted for the game to mimic real life, but feel that there is a certain limit that we should impose on it. If we take Fallout: New Vegas or Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas as examples, we can see how much certain aspects can improve upon a game. The former game allows you to activate a "hardcore mode" while the latter forces you to play this style: things like food, water, and exercise are required for an avatar to be healthy. These games add an element that players have to worry about, but are limited enough so that they are not annoying. Outside of the potential for the game to reflect social norms and desires, the matter of fun is still important. I do not necessarily agree with other posts about the implications of a realistic world because, to me, the biggest point of games is simply entertainment.
I chose the emphasis on the positive aspects of the world as it is a game and I am playing it to escape from reality. Taking a break from reality mean no problems and happy playing. I do not want to be hindered by the negative aspects of the world in a video game when I can face them in real life.
I voted for this one because I did not understand what positive and negative aspects of the world meant. But I do want a game that represents the real world as closely as possible because I like games that give me something more to relate to. Also some games are too unrealistic to the point that is ridiculous, does not let me take the game seriously. As well I like games that not only represents the real world but also have a message or a critique of the real world. This to me gives games more meaning and always me to immerse the game more. Realistic games allows me to transition easier into the virtually world and fully immerse myself into the game.
Out of all three options, I believe that a game that is closely similar to the world we inhabit would be the best choice. Games are a dependable medium that could effectively help and prepare players by exposing them to how our world operates. If we were to play games that only emphasized positive aspects of the world, we would grow comfortable with the safe and ideal environment in the gaming space in such a way that that we might become too narrow minded and blinded. Unaware of the hardships, crime, corruption of the real outside world, players may grow to think of the gaming world as a haven that they may not ever want to "come back" to reality. At the same time, games that focus on just the negative aspects of our world might also promote unhealthy thinking and behavior, making players think that it is acceptable to act violent or disruptive in real life. Therefore, a gaming world that is most close to the one we inhabit creates a domain where players could constructively socially connect and exchange societal ideals that are permeated within the game structure and content.
I think setting this in a close to real world environment would create the best results in terms of this thought experiment. It would allow us to see the potential Utopian society created and ultimately see its outcome. In doing so, it would answer far more questions like, why are these laws not in place? what are the benefits of the current law over these laws? would it be morally acceptable if we put these 4 decrees in place? would it also be the best outcome to do so?
Stylizing this game to highlight the positive or negative aspects of the world would create too much bias. If one were to make a game that's stylized to make negative aspects very apparent then suddenly the good aspects become far more noticeable the few times they appear. Stylizing the game in such a way would be best if you're delivering a message to people, but it would not help here since this should be run as more of a thought experiment.
I chose for the game to resemble the real world we inhabit because we if this game wants to connect to the players in more than jsut entertainment value, making the world resemble our own would be easier for gamers to connect and see real world meaning in whatever the game attempts to display or explain to its gamers. If you use a real world context and then change the world or create new ideas or forms of politics based on real world situations, change, inspiration and new thought would be more likely to be a result of the game.
I feel that in making a game realistic, the game designer introduces the player with a real world problem, giving the player the option of choosing how they want to do in that scenario. For example, in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, if an enemy throws a grenade nearby, you have the option to either run away and take damage, or pick the grenade up and throw it back. This is a situation soldiers have to deal with in real life (although I heard if that actually does happen, and it is too late for the grenade to be thrown back, the closest soldier has to jump on the grenade and take the impact of the grenade so that the rest of the team doesn't get hurt). In any case, it gives the player the option of choosing what they would do in the real world and act accordingly. Making a game realistic doesn't mean that the player doesn't have an "escape" from reality, it just means that players are aware of the real life consequences of their actions in the virtual world.
The objective of this game is to model is to provide an alternative, idealistic political system and allow players to experience this, testing its limits and validity. If the game were to focus only on the positive aspects then players would feel no penalty towards their actions. In this you would see an overwhelming disregard of the consequences of a users actions in pursuit of avatar capital or other desirable objectives. However the game can not only focus on the negative aspects either, as this would result in a strong hesitation in the user to perform any sort of action. They would be afraid of exaggerated losses with little or no gain in sight.
Because of this I believe that the game needs to be firmly based in reality. The game should take a realistic approach to users actions, with give and take mechanics, and a definitive gain and penalty incentive system. However as this is a virtual representation which seeks to emulate to prove certain points, I believe that the penalties and gains should be slightly exaggerated so that the user can definitively see the results of their actions.
I voted for this one because I feel that any game that closely relates to our real world will make it easier for the user to be enveloped by it. A video game should bring the user out of their reality, and into the games. This can be achieved, in my opinion, by creating a world that has similar characteristics to the world we inhabit, with minor caveats.
I think to bring a player out of reality and into a new reality, a game must be completely different from reality. I think this because, if a game is too similar to actual reality, then it will allow the player to look for ways to connect the game to the real world and when he/she realizes slight differences or inconsistencies, then the player will began to get distracted from the game and may even lead them to stop enjoying or realize the game is flawed. That's why I believe the game should be as far as possible from reality.
I concur with tung.177.ch on this because when you play a game, you need to understand why you would want to play it: to get away from real life pressures, distract the mind from things that stress you or even challenge yourself to get your mind more focused. I contest to this because when I play video games/ computer games and etc. I choose to play it when something in life is stressful or too upseting. Like the way someone would want to watch a comedic movie after something bad has happened. Its a form or way of destressing/ therapy. When your mind is too full of things in real life and there is not really an outlet to expose any of this tension, I find myself more inclined to find a way to let out thi s mental stress and take it out on one of my video games. I feel like this is similar to how tung. speaks about the "escape" of the current reality world. Games are a type of media that helps channel stress into something more entertaining based/ challenging. Therefore, to "play" a game is a way to cope with real life stress and in the end make it more enjoyable then coping it some other ways that might make it less enjoyable. So if a game was too much like the real world, it might loose its sense of "escape" and might lead to a less enveloping experience.
I understand where your coming from, however for a lot of other people, the point of playing games is to "escape" the current reality of the world. Examples could be you would be able to fly around in a game or teleport and fight big bad monsters. People want to be able to do things in games that would otherwise be impossible to do in real life, and that's why people get immersed into games (MMORPGS come to mind to most). Imagine a game that was made that basically exactly mimicked our world and your life as you know it....not so fun to play is it? Why not just "play" real life instead
You make a very good point. If the game is too similar to our real lives and real society, then the appeal of the game will suffer as we can just learn from real life and "play" real life. Aside from being able to "escape' from current reality as a form of entertainment, players may learn from the simulation more easily by more easily recognizing the differences from real life. I still voted or the first option to have the game similar to real life, but the game would need to implement certain aspects that will distinguish it from reality, such as the ability to alter time or an increased time rate.
I completely agree with this comment as many people use video games to escape the reality of real life (although some argue that people play for fun and not just escape). If you are making a virtual reality, why would you want to face the negative aspects of the real world in a virtual world? I would much rather want to fly or have superpowers and not be burdened with problems. If I wanted to face negative aspects of the world, I'd just live my regular life and not playing a virtual one.
I concur with tung.177.ch on this because when you play a game, you need to understand why you would want to play it: to get away from real life pressures, distract the mind from things that stress you or even challenge yourself to get your mind more focused. I contest to this because when I play video games/ computer games and etc. I choose to play it when something in life is stressful or too upseting. Like the way someone would want to watch a comedic movie after something bad has happened. Its a form or way of destressing/ therapy. When your mind is too full of things in real life and there is not really an outlet to expose any of this tension, I find myself more inclined to find a way to let out thi s mental stress and take it out on one of my video games. I feel like this is similar to how tung. speaks about the "escape" of the current reality world. Games are a type of media that helps channel stress into something more entertaining based/ challenging. Therefore, to "play" a game is a way to cope with real life stress and in the end make it more enjoyable then coping it some other ways that might make it less enjoyable.
I don't think the goal here is so much an escape as a change. Teleportation and big bad monsters certainly have their parallels in the real world-- just transportation and, well, big bad monster people, i.e. the kind who made World War II the deadliest conflict in history. Furthermore, there are plenty of games out there that pretty much deflect what you've said regarding being able to do impossible things in games-- The Sims comes to mind. And there are plenty of games with real-world inspirations-- L.A. Noire and Bully, for example. As far as I know AgoraXChange presumably relies on the real world to cue its design-- and the real world is "interesting" enough as it is.
I voted that the game would should simultaneously be close to the one we inhabit, emphasize its negative aspects, as well as champion its positive aspects. As a gamer, it can be captivating to be spirited into a world quite unlike our own, but I have played many such games in the past. I think it would be enriching and powerful, for myself and others, to experience a game world which largely mirrors our contemporary reality. 3/1's lecture about games being a medium for social change is what particularly prompts my voting decision. Game culture revolves around social production of possible worlds, and the fact that gaming is more mainstream than ever before, largely due to gaming being a recession-proof hobby, make sit an ideal forum for social change. Books may strike many of this digital generation as antiquated and a chore, going out to see a movie can be expensive...but most people, according to Games of Empire, as well as lecture, have the money to invest in a game console or PC, and its supplementary software.
I voted that the game should emphasize its negative and its positive aspects. I don't believe that making it similar to the world we inhabit is too important. Especially with the decrees that the game will have, it is impossible to make the game be similar to ours. The structure of how a player can live their life is already fundamentally different. With the 2nd decree, this forces everyone who lives to make something of themselves where their success is not as greatly affected by birth. The playing field of the game of life is more balanced that individual do not inherit any type of fortune, and are free to move across borders into different cultures and lifestyles. This will create an interesting world for the game where the users have the chance to see the world grow organically with the social decisions everyone makes. I agree that the social production of this world can give users an interesting perspective of how the world can be with only a few fundamental differences to our own.
I voted for both positive and negative aspects because human nature is the same even if you don't have a close resemblance to today's world. What is important are issues such as equal rights and poverty. If these issues are present then other issues such as politics are a dime a dozen. You also must have the good with the bad. We will never live in a world where everything is good and bad is not present. Human nature won't allow this and it is something that we must live with and do our best with.
I voted for as close as possible to the real world. In order to understand the basic thought processes that go into everyday decision making (and in turn, transform them to a more just, fair system) one would have to begin by creating a real world analog. The intricacies and interconnectivity of the real world is partially the exact reason why it is so difficult to understand. If users have an experience as close to the real world as possibly, then arguably they will act as close to they would in a real life setting (with some limitations of course). Users always will know they are playing the game, and because of that there are always some who will do simply whatever they feel like doing, and this becomes a target focus. How can we adapt the rules and system, so that people play the game, without being obtrusive. There is always a troll, and nothing can be done to truly stop that, but the real world has trolls as well. Mimic the real world, to better understand it, so that variables can be introduced to see how a particular aspect would work if tried in real life.
It would be negative for the world. (It really depends on genre!!)
I believe that some people will take the games seriously and they may be try to apply for their real life.
(Not every game user, but some of team will take seriously).
I voted in favor of creating a game that is as close to the real world we inhabit because it helps with the experience. Stylizing the game to favor certain aspects would only limit the options and possibilities, as well as knowledge that could be gained from playing in a realistic environment. The game dynamics should simulate all aspects of the real world in order for this social experiment to work. Choices made will carry more weight as the ideas in the game and choices made are concepts that could happen in the real world. The game should also immerse players in the game that is visually realistic because the experience of playing in a more realistic environment adds to the ability of a person to suspend the reality that they are currently in and accept the virtual reality that they are playing in. Movies offer a glimpse of this kind of immersion. Special effects and graphics have made movies that are very lifelike and realistic, yet have no human actors. These movies invite viewers into another world and the game should do it as well.
--keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to.
I voted for the options 2 and 3 and here's why.
First, the reason why I did not choose option one "portraying the real world" is that, simply, the real world is too immense, and too complex for the allotted virtual world space. I say this because there has not been one game to date that accurately and vividly represents the reality we live in. This is because of that fact that our society and culture is always changing and evolving so it's virtually impossible to represent the real world per se. And even if there was a game which could portray the real world accurately, it would not be in favor for the designer to create a game that mimics reality this way. This is because the virtual space is a space in which the player is able to explore and engage the world how ever they like without permanent consequences. If a game were to depict the real world, various consequences would not make the game appealing. By creating a game that either emphasizes the positive aspects (art games, faith of humanity) or the negative (grand theft auto, post apocalyptic environmental setting), it makes the game much more appealing since, well, I already live in the real world, why would I want to go into a game that represents something I experience everyday?
I voted that video games should portray reality as close as possible to the world we inhabit but, to a certain extent depending on what the game is about. Nowadays video game graphics and story lines are getting more and more realistic. Games such as Call of Duty Modern Warfare are depicting war as it really is. This video game is not leaving out the positives or negatives of the realities of war, rather it is throwing it in the face of the gamer and it becomes entertainment. In video games, users tend to lose themselves in the fantastic possibilities of the virtual world often because they are fascinated by its dissimilarities to the real world and vise versa. Many video game users desire games that are realistic, it makes it much more interesting because now they can put tactics that they believe they would use in real life to the test, virtually without suffering the consequences. A good example of this are sports games, FIFA in particular. Over the years FIFA has become more and more realistic in terms of game play. Yes, like any other of these progressive games the graphics have gotten a lot better where spectators often have a hard time distinguishing if they are watching an actual soccer game or a video game. However, this does not compare to what games like FIFA 12 take into consideration in gameplay. Now, users must take into account rain and snow and what effects weather has on a soccer game. If pushed too hard players get tired and cramp up and this all part of the game, realistically but, now it has become virtual as well. These are the type of games that should be portrayed as closely to reality as possible because it challenges the gamer and makes the game fun. Due to their heavy portrayal of reality it allows users to think "what should I do in this situation" and often their decision pays in the form of a win or a goal, thus making the game that much more entertaining. This is what many gamers desire.
I think it is better to have the game to be realistic because I believe that video games reflect heavily on our society and what people value. While the video game is realistic to our society, it should include a balance emphasis on both the negative and positive aspects of the world.
If the game only emphasizes on the good aspects of the world, then it would implicitly influence the players to ignore the negative aspects of the game in real life as the players accepts the “logics” of the game and begin to indulge into the game. However, if the game only emphasizes on the negative aspects of the world, then it would manipulate players to think that there are only negatives aspects in the world and there is nothing that can be done about it.
To have the game be realistic, it also educates the players that the world is not binary. There is not always good vs evil situation in the world.
If the game isn't realistic, I believe it would defeat the whole purpose of this social experiment. To my understanding, this virtual world that we are creating is one which is designed to trigger players to question the world that we do live in right now, with a world that has a background as similar to ours as possible will not only help us connect easily with this virtual world, but would also allow us to see the difference between the two worlds.
I definitely agree that this project's main purpose should be a social experiment in which players interact with a virtual world that is similar to our own. However, for it to be an "exact" mirror or replication would, to my mind, very much decrease the enjoyment and fun factor of the game. So, in this way, I don't think the game world being "as similar as possible" would represent progress...or something players would be enthusiastic about. The McDonald's game, for example, was largely a social project, but based on what I saw of it in class, it still seemed rooted in entertainment and fun. After presenting on Braid for my group's game lab, I was reminded of how important the fun factor is while playing a game. The art style was fantastic, the writing and overall moral of the plot, in its many interpretations, proved quite thought-provoking. The mechanics of the game were at the time, and still are, largely novel and ground-breaking, despite being a de-make in many ways. However, the game was frustrating and difficult to the point of being less than entertaining the very most of the time, which for me lessened its impact as it relates to its strengths. Again, this project, much like the "real world" should be about finding a balance...representing a world that is not about total realism, or a fictional total equality, but similarly remaining palatable and engaging enough that gamers will want to play it.
The purpose of agoraXchange, according to its manifesto, is to challenge "a world in which myths about birthright result in violence and suffering within and among nations and families." What agoraXchange hopes to do, through the populist, worldwide medium of a video game, is to make an effective response against the current state of the world, a state that uses institutions and birthright to privilege some over others.
I interpreted the aforementioned question as follows: What would be the best representation of the world in this video game in order to produce an idealized solution to global problems? To keep it as realistic as possible, to emphasize the good that is happening and the bad that needs to be fixed is the only way.
Focusing entirely on the good side in the world shuts out the bad aspects of the world that the game clearly attempts to address, as made clear in its manifesto and decrees. It would be seen almost as a propagandist sort of game.
Focusing entirely on the bad would force the game to lose perspective of the successes in the world, successes that the players can clearly capitalize on to solve the main problem in the game — how to make the world a less hierarchical, unfair place. Players would lose the necessary drive to play this impossible, depressing game.
This correlates with the psychological idea of Flow Theory, where games must hit the exact medium of difficulty to get players to return to the game. Making the game too easy, or too one sided (like focusing entirely on the good side of the world) makes the player lose interest. Making the game nearly impossible, like focusing entirely on the bad parts of the world and expecting a solution, causes players to quit from frustration. A happy medium, that is, showing both the good and the bad, allows players to figure out a solution that will both challenge their abilities and reinforce what they know.
I vote for the game to be realistic as possible (even though I know true reality is impossible with a video game). If the game is trying to simulate a world free of “war, hunger, restrictions of movement, environmental degradation, the lack of compassion in our political institutions and in our families,” (agoraXchange Manifesto) by basing the game on the four political tenants found in the decrees, then it should try to be realistic, because it is dealing with real problems.
If the game is “Stylized to emphasize the positive aspects of this world,” then it would ignore fundamental social issues that WILL arise in the real world, thus failing to accomplish the intended goal.
If the game is “Stylized to emphasize the negative aspects of this world,” then it would ignore the positive aspects that ALREADY exist in society, exaggerating and distorting problems thus possibly making solutions irrelevant.
I agree. I actually could not have said it better myself. If agoraXchange wants to simulate something, I believe that it should try to recreate everything in the real world. But a world free of “war, hunger, restrictions of movement, environmental degradation, the lack of compassion in our political institutions and in our families", is not realistic. These are HUGE factors as to why people move and relocate and actually dictate why several people make the decisions they make. If making these factors absent from this simulation, you are creating a whole new world with new aspects. If you would on emphasize the positive or negative aspects of this world, then you would be completely be ignoring the other end, which are bound to occur. Society has positives and negatives and by ignoring one or the other, you are setting boundaries. I believe that these boundaries should not exist.
I completely agree. If the game aims to touch on these everyday problems and issues, then the game should make these issues as realistic as they can be. Without allowing for both positive and negative aspects to be present, then the game becomes influential on one end of the spectrum, and may even be perceived as propaganda. Especially with the decrees, all people must be considered, therefore the game should be as realistic and it can.
While I did vote for the option of having a world that is similar to our own in the game environment, there are certain concerns that come to mind. I wonder how similar a world can really be to our own if it has these four political tenets at the core of its environment and structure. How different would our own world be if these tenets were the central beliefs founding our political systems? I can't really say for sure, but I do know that I can easily presume that it would be very different. With that said, I don't really think that a world based on these four political tenets can profess to be similar to reality. We can try to make it AS SIMILAR as possible, but even that in itself would be very different. Even something as minor as having choice-based citizenship would have a huge impact on modern society today.
I think that the game should emphasize on the negative aspects of our world because this way we can experience and focus on the negative aspects that we tend to avoid in the real world. The game can certainly be inspirational to its player and serve as something that ultimately brings public good to the society. Also throughout the game, we might be able to solve these negative encounters we face and perhaps resolve such issues.
I think the game should be stylized to emphasize the negative aspects of the world because there are many negative aspects in our real world, but normally people tend to avoid to bring up these kinds of topics. However, in the game, we have less misgivings and more freedom to express our opinions towards these topics. Also, we can face these problems that are happening in the real world with a more honest opinions. Regardless of whether our opinions would really affect the reality, at least, by discussing these negative aspects here may inspire us to have a brand new understanding of the issue and we may find solution to it. Therefore, the game will become more exciting since everyone is solving problems, and some of the solutions may be helpful or even can be employed to solve problems in the real world.
I agree with you. I think focusing on the negative aspects of the world help us understand what we are generally avoiding in the real world. We can also have the ability and opportunity to solve and face the problems that we tend to avoid in the real world as well. Further, there will be no real punishments or consequences through different choices we make, which allows us to explore different ideas and different approaches that can serve as a good tool in solving problems. After all, it is just a game, which means our real life will not be affected by the choices we make in the game.
i just think that if the game is closely resembled to our world, then why would we play? we need the positives and the negatives, you cant just have people run around freely without any consequences. agoraxchange has a goal of replicating our current world yet making better changes and certain improvements. then with this new model we are able to address social and economical issues and being able to make improvements that may benefit our world. having this world represent ours will have better impact in the end.
The game world should be emphasized on the negative aspects of this world because the game itself is a fantasized world and through emphasizing on the negative aspects, perhaps we can realize how our world has become and it is critical that something should be done to change our world and make our world a better place. It can serve as an inspirational purpose to further analyze the negative aspects of our world.
Just as I commented earlier, we have got enough fantasized games that provide us different ideal utopias, and we do not need more. In today's life, what we are lack of is the kind of game reveals negative aspects of the real world, which let us rethink and reevaluate our current world. Emphasizing on the negative aspects would enable us to realize how our world has become from a political and historical perspective. It will be the unique part of the game, and instead of gaming in a fantasized world, we rather craving for something exciting or violent that is occurring in real world. I think this has already become a common mentality of game player. Anyhow, emphasizing the negative aspects would make this game better!
I would like the game to be as realistic as possible because it could serve as a virtual reflection of the world that we live in today and bring to attention some of the possible issues that we face in society today to the audiences' attention. Not only could players related to their virtual characters better, but they could also learn a lot about the world that we inhabit today as a result of playing the game.
This game should be realistic to the world that we live in today because the world that we are in is almost the opposite of what this game is trying to achieve. If we create this game's world to be as realistic as our world is today, it would just create a reflection of today's society and not what AGORAXCHANGE wants it to be. i think the graphics such as trees and homes should look be as realistic as possible but the social and cultural backgrounds of this world should be left out in order to achieve what this game is trying to go for. If the game is created to realistically, it will go against its own decrees. The game should only emphasize on the positives of this world because after all, this is a a game and a game is somewhat of a simulation of the real world. It may not be in the same form as the real world ,but the problems encountered in games are almost always encountered in the real world. IF the game emphasizes on the positives only, it may boost people optimistic view's therefore making the real world better.
If this game is ever really produced beyond vaporware or even the pre-alpha stages, for the issue that's being represented it makes the most sense to have a real world perspective to accurately show the beyond believable challenges to actually create this unreal utopia. Some challenges would not be accurately represented would mostly be social issues which when dealing with the hegemony and interpolation would take many generations to change so greatly. Also it would need to address issues that are natural to the human psyche that are not pre-difined by the hegemony because this would also be a huge obstacle to overcome that wouldn't change with new social norms.
choosing a positive world or negative world would just avoid the conflicts overall. We need to balance the issues between pros and cons to have some conflict the person can resolve, without these conflicts then what would be the point of playing the game in the first place.
I dont think this is necessarily true. A positive or negative world could outline the goals we aim to obtain and see if they are sustainable,a negative world could highlight some of the problems and determine if they are solvable within the game world.
Yes I agree with how a negative world highlights the problems. It will be represent the problems we have in our world and perhaps suggest ways to solve it. Even though it might not be possible in the real world due to many unchangeable factors, however, it certainly can bring self realization to those who played the game and inspire us into thinking differently or looking at things in different angles.
It seems to me that the purpose of the game is to create a new world that resembles a utopian society. Emphasizing the positive or negative aspects of reality would only draw attention to issues that the gamemakers determine as 'problems'. It gives them the power to determine what issues are worth dealing with while the rest are put aside. I believe issues would take form within the game as people continue to play. It should be the players' responsibility to determine and resolve the most important issues.
I personally think that the game should stylized to emphasize the positive aspects of the world just because it is a virtual game and we would want to escape from the real world. I know that the game is geo-political game and not a fantasy one, but it is still considered a game and in the real world games are use to take people's minds off the negative issues or event in society. Yes this game isn't a fantasy game, but it doesn't mean that it should be as realistic as it should. For it to be more engaging, it could focus more on the positive aspects of the world which will draw the attention of the players to the game and will make the game more successful.
It is true that games are supposed to be "distractions," relief from the real world. However, being that this game's main goal is to emphasize realistic outcomes of a tangible political alternative, I think that the game should should be as close to reality as it can get so that we can see specifically what our actions would do to this alternate society. I think that the goal of this game is to shift the stereotypical perceptions of games from one that lets one escape reality to one that lets one view another possible outcome for this society, given that our decisions impacted the greater society, not just our immediate community.
I agree, I think the world should look realistic to the world we live in today. I feel that if the world resembled ours it would give us the opportunity to see what our world would look like if we truly did have these decrees and rules put into play politically and socially. It would allow us to see a realistic alternative to our world today rather than seeing a utopian world that looks nothing like ours which would look like a fantasy world or something we couldn't understand or be familiar with thus seeming unattainable. Having a world that doesn't look like ours goes against the idea of the game as an alternative to our world because it isn't an alternative then, it is a whole different world. So I think it is essential for it to look like ours as a result so that we can realize and visualize how things would run in our world today if we had these rules and this structure.
It seems to me that one key objective of the game is to reveal problems that occur within the real world, thus creating a platform on which debate and discussion about such issues could take place. If the game closely resembled the real world, in terms of realism, it is likely that the game would be more successful in prompting discussion about real world problems, as well as investigating possible solutions.
All you people are crazy if it is like our current world we will only get the thoughts of at least middle class and up, the poor don't have the internet so the "social experiment" would be bullshit.
I also agree and think that the real world provides the best illustration for how the world should be run in relation to the politics we are facing today. Sticking the game to the real world does justice in providing credible strategic leverage in aiming our objectives in the world or colony we plan to embark on. I would argue the most practical solution to this game provides the necessary groundwork to identify the law or government in a realistic setting. So, for example, we can try a democracy in the corresponding country of our choice to be the form of government. I think all players who put input for this government will then give the best testament whether or not this system is in fact working for us as an online game for the real world.
I would like the game to be as realistic as it could be regarding policies, rules and laws for the players. The game needs to be as close to life as possible to parallel reality. I feel that players should be given the choice to make both positive and negative options in order to determine appropriate outcomes. Rewards, as well as consequences should be implemented. However I must say that often players would more than likely deem the importance of the game much less than the everyday world. Role-playing games, as realistic as they have been, often produce no more than a sense of enjoyment in manipulating decisions through a character. Yet I feel the game can bestow upon us relevant information regarding the way players choose to conduct their behavior through their character, perhaps telling us something about the society we live in.
I agree with this. I argue that positioning the game as similar to that of the real world allows for a more realistic approach to the negative and positive of the game world where you learn from your mistakes and not everything is in your favor. I do not like solely putting emphasis on only the positives, or only the negatives, because it creates a biased standpoint on everything surrounding the game world. If the game parallels reality, it allows the player to actually apply day to day things and not use too much of their imagination or base things on falseness. By demonstrating policy, or rules of law/government the game world may have a favorable outcome on the players real life.
I think that emphasizing the negative aspects of this world in the game would raise awareness of what needs to change in the world for the better of everyone. I know that representing negative aspects would not be accurate to the real world, but I honestly think that in order for people to pay attention to any type of issue it must be done in a very harsh manner and that is what showing negative aspects would do.
You raise a very good point as we live in a wealthy country and will likely never experience the hardships that some people would have to go through. Making the game emphasize on the negative aspect of the world would indeed generate consumer awareness of some of the problems in the world that they otherwise had no knowledge of.
I believe that the best way for people to play this game is if it closely represents the world we live in today. If the game closely represents the world we have today, the choices the players make while playing can actually reflect possible changes and choices we can make in the real world. From the choices we make in the game players can assess either the failure or success of such choices.
ALthough it would be uplifting and maybe even inspirational to see the positive points emphasized its not reality. I would feel very detached tfrom his positive world and be less inclined to play because the choices will not really make a difference anywhere. It would be like any other adventure game that takes you out of the individual's world into a fantasy one versus a game that could actually affect the way we view the world and possibly change it.
I agree with you. If the game is more close to our life, its actually can become a practice to approach the real situation, also could has some kind of hints when the player encounter the similar situation during their daily life. Although its just a game which sometimes could only provide limited information but while player can learn some basic concept of how it works and how it function which can really apply to their life, which would be more helpful then other two options.
I agree with this post about how the game should be realistic, closely representing the world we live in today. If you're going to make a geo-political game then it obviously has to draw off of aspects of the real world we live in. I also agree that the positive points should not be emphasized in the game, it would be hard for people to relate to this kind of world when they are so used to their imperfect world that's filled with natural disasters, war, diseases, and many other flaws. Instead, the focus should be on the imperfect world where players could then use it and experiment with it and try to come up with ways to improve the simulated game world.
I feel that the game world should be as close as possible to the one we inhabit. This is very important because in order to create a game that would later be used to create a model for a change in global politics, it is key to start with an accurate representation of the world as we know it.
In addition, I feel that more people would play the game if is realistic. For example, it seems that people enjoy playing games that seem real.
For this reason many like to play simulation games where it feels like you are actually a part of the game.
In order for people to make realistic choices within the game, the game should accurately represent the world. If the game does not accurately represent the world people would potentially not be able to make predictions about their actions and choices. Thus, people may end up making choices they normally would not make in the real world.
Creating a game world that is more stylized to emphasize the positive aspects of this world, rather than a world simply like our own or stylized to incorporate negative aspects of the world would be more attractive to new players. Emphasizing positive attributes in a game world would entice more players to participate, as a positive first impression of the game appears more inviting. After a more pleasant introductory stage, then the game could then incorporate negative aspects or pose problems or rigors to players participating in the game world that they could solve--inducing more challenges so the gamers would want to continue playing as there is somewhat of a contest or reason to keep playing. The game should be challenging enough so people don't lose interest, but feasible and accessible enough not to deter players from playing the game.
This is an incredibly interesting theory, as I believe you are seeing the negative aspects of the world (hunger, war, etc) as "bosses" to beat in ever diversifying difficulties. And while I believe that this would probably entice traditional gamers into agoraXchange, I don't believe that this is what the game intends to do.
The game is following a very specific medium, to be sure, and as a video game, it does lend itself to the idea of levels and experience points. However, I think that the game's objectives — which, according to its manifesto seeks to challenge current political institutions that perpetuate a hierarchical structure in this world — lend itself to a different sort of game than one with levels. The game's challenges should be presented in its entirety, without emphasis on either the good or the bad. Seeing the general scope of the world as a whole is crucial to understanding the game and playing it.
if the goal is to create something that is outside of our norm, I feel we must think in terms of those outstanding circumstances and take the positives we see in our norm now and utilize hem as resources to create an actual utopia.
i think the game should be styled around the positive aspects of the world. besides the fact i dont think it would actually ever reflect it as it is today bc not everyone participates online, pointing out the negative parts is much easier than pointing out the good. an online forum would require that one defend why the Good is good
to get people's mindset out of that which the players will hold in the real world, we'd have to construct a different reality to which players can set aside the biases and such that they hold.
to have a world similar to ours would just allow for the same hegemonic attitudes and same kind of hegemonic thought and hegemonic solutions.
to emphasize the positive aspects of the world would be like playing a game that is nearly half played already, finishing a puzzle that is halfway completed. it would be more rewarding to give players obstacles harsher then the one we face in this world to cause the players to think differently and figure out different solutions, and a harsher world would provide for this much better then a world emphasizing the positive aspects of the real world.
See, I think that it would be important to create a world similar to the one we inhabit today so that we can see how to prevent the hegemonic attitudes and biases that exist in our world. Players would be forced to think 'outside of the box' and start anew but if the world resembled ours then perhaps we could translate some of the lessons learned in the agora world into "real world" social change.
On a side note, I definitely agree with alexaesthetics' comment about the 'halfway completed puzzle' - we should not focus on the positive but instead give players obstacles and complex challenges. The type of players who want an 'easy' game shouldn't be playing this one anyway - solutions to problems shouldn't be effortless but should require new ways of thinking and of understanding the world.
i agree, after reading the 4 decrees on the main page i know see that those decrees would themselves force the players to think in a non-hegemonic way and that creating a world that resembles ours would probably be the most beneficial.
the game should be realistic to the extent that it reflects the world that we live in. this will allow for a more accurate reflection of peoples views and understanding of our society. this realism will also let the players experience both the positive and negative aspects that the members of society face on a daily basis. not only will having the game reflect the realism of our world will give us a more precise understanding of the players views about the world they live in, but it will also allow the players to express their successes and struggles their characters experience in the game world.
I agree that this game should be realistic so that it reflects our current world. Allowing flexibility through the medium of the internet will become a microcosm of the world we live in today. From this scale, I think it will be easier to scrutinize and examine the relations between people and parties everyday. This underlines a further understanding of race categories and citizenship categories.
I agree, it would be interesting if the game addressed real issues in today's society.
but what issues would be addressed? economic issues or social issues? political ones like elections and the passing of bills? if we were to have the game address real issues, that i agree would be beneficial to the game development and play, then who would be the ones to decided? i think some major rules/laws should be mapped out and others made by the players.
which laws do you think should be made?
but then maybe people won't take this seriously.
I agree, if a game is unrealistic, if I was the gamer, I would not think too much of the world. For example, I play Grand Theft auto, and it does not really make me question my current life or the world around me based on that game because of how unrealistic some of the content of the game is.
Would be nice to see something different, maybe inspirational.
how serious did the creators intend this game to be? i agree the site can be inspirational to its viewers if taken as a real change for the future. but how can that really be possible? can a game on a website truly cause change that affects society for the better? if played out to its fullest capability, would the game alter the path people/society is on now? i am just not convinced that a game has the ability to do all that.