Login to vote in this poll.
I voted for the first and third option because if a game is suppose to mimicked the real world, it should also take into the real world natural disasters. I do not think that naturally disasters should have equal impact on everyone wherever it occurs though because I believe that the point of mimicking real world disasters is to make it as realistic as possible. By have equal impact on everyone I do not believe would represent the real world. That is why I choose option one and third because I believe that the naturally disasters should occur but have unequal impact on the players. It should have both positive and negative affects depending on the players' state. This way it can mimicked the real world.
I voted for both option 1 and 3 as I don't believe that they are mutually exclusive.
"Natural disasters should occur, but their affects mediated by the overall success of an individual or state"
If this world is to mimic reality without the political institutions, it would obviously have to include the natural elements that are a part of our world. This means the elements in all of their entirety; natural disasters are very much so a part of our everyday life. I voted for option 3 because I believe that these natural disasters can and should be averted or minimized in the game world, similar to how precautions taken in the real world to prevent damage and loss by the state and individual can mitigate these natural disasters. Success is a vague term, as it is relative, but I interpreted it as successful preparation against natural disasters. - Also important to note the difference between effect and affect. The word affects should be replaced by effects-
Yes, with the impacts equally devastating wherever they occur
I also voted for option 1 as I believe that the impacts of these disasters should be equally devastating in their scale and power regardless of location or state. The only reason why these natural disasters should be mitigated is if the state takes proper precautions in guarding against these disasters. That is not to say that there should not be a varying degree in each unique natural disaster. Similar to how it is in reality, the power of these natural disasters should take into account many different factors such as precautions taken, the location of the state, infrastructure, and other factors.
I agree with Sang because if this is indeed a game to emulate the real world without the human laws and politics that bring about violence, natural disasters are not a factor that should be controlled by the game makers. Natural disasters add to the randomness and chaos that life brings about and the different ways that states respond to them also demonstrates the power and success of those states that are able to respond more effectively to random events. For example, richer states would be able to afford the variety of safety measures to prevent damages from natural disasters, thus making it more appealing to those that want to live there. On the other hand, some disasters won't be able to be safeguarded against no matter what, such as a highly destructive hurricane which could devastate countries.
I definitely agree with your statements here. The way a government manages its peoples tax funds in order to respond to and prepare for natural disasters is crucial. It defines how much money is left for other funds, how much is wasted in top heavy bureaucratic management, etc. If a state decides to ignore the possibility of fire, they should suffer the consequences when a fire occurs. Respectively the state which maintains a well prepared fire fighting force which is well spread out should be rewarded with the ability to quickly mitigate subsequent damage. However if they squander this money and place a fire department every couple of blocks this should be representative in their lack of funds, for other aspects of government.
Proper governing is about finding the right balance, this a crucial dynamic that should by no means be removed from the game.
Another thing to take note of is how a government handles disaster compensation. For example every year in California houses fall off of the eroding cliff faces into which they were built as the cliff side below them slides into the see. Come back a couple months later and you will see the house being rebuilt on cliff once again, with government compensation funds. I have personally seen some of these houses be rebuilt at least twice if not more. Or take for example New Orleans, a city built on artificially placed silt in the opening of the delta in an area that is prone to violent ocean storms. That is a recipe for disaster, but they rebuild with out fail after every hurricane season, only to have the same result next season. Not proper management of funds in my opinion. The man who builds his wood house over a live volcano should not be give the money to do it again when his house burns.
Random events more or less reflect chance, such as natural disasters being more prone to happening in certain regions, and moving to such a place because of financial/employment decisions. These potential risks will test the stability of states and the challenge players in such a manner that their decisions are not the only thing that can determine success and longevity. Regardless of whether it's at the hands of man and institutions or not, anything can happen in life
I agree, but the reasons I agree are mainly because games that are too static are both not as fun and random elements I think would best stress how capable the player is in this game.
The best example I can think of is in Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, how the random events both add to the depth and overall enjoyment of the game, and how they are a good measure of how players react to unplanned stimuli. Personally, I think it would add another dimension to testing out the plausibility of the decrees.
I also agree. This will challenge players and also add a sense of realism to the over all game.
agreed. things happen and sometimes it's out of our control. these event will help progress regions or better adapt players that choose it as a domain.
One of the most important pieces of our development on earth is the realization that natural disasters do occur and it is through them that we learn how to deal with multiple incidents placed upon us by nature. In the world as it is today in such states like California there have been developments such as " flood warnings , flood/house insurance etc" it is through the natural disasters that fields of work and research have developed in order to better inform the inhabitants of certain states and countries about the places in which they live in. I also think that no country or specific individual should be given any kind of different form of treatment regarding the effects of the disasters as it is equally important that the participants of the game are equally affected by the disasters.
Random events should that effect states and individuals should take place because it would parallel our world. In reality things such as natural disasters, the start of a war by surprise or wining the lottery! Random events would challenge society to adapt and overcome obstacles, as well as enjoy events that could potentially change the life of the player for the worse or the better. This would produce multiple options for the player. For example, a natural disaster may encourage players to move to another city, integrating themselves to potentially a completely different environment. However I think that certain dynamics, such as the assets the player may have lost, should be proportionate to the disaster. For example, if a drought were to happen to a farmer player, then he should not automatically lose all that he's got, rather he should be granted enough sources to prosper once again. In contrast, a player who wins the lottery may do as he please with the money (or points) that the game randomly bestows.
Random events should occur because they are an additional and adequate test of a state's effectiveness to handle a difficult situation. It seems quite difficult to determine how a random event would affect every individual, but if it is possible, they should be challenged in varying ways as well. If a state has to respond to a damaging random event, it is because it affects its individuals. Because everyone would have been affected differently, the state would have a realisticlly complex situation to fix.
i still believe random events should be left out, but out of all the responses this would be the best reason to include them. to see how different states and different indaviduals would react and handle them.
id think itd be fun to throw in wild cards....but i think the effects should be mediated by the rank of the player in this forum bc (in theory) how a state would react to natural disasters, etc would reflect their integrity (or true colors?) in the global realm
natural disasters should be left out of this game it would be more fruitful to the player to know that his or her effort and accomplishments in this game wont be taken away because of some random event.
true this is different from real life, but the purposes of games at all is to remove us from the real life. removing random occurrences allows for the actions of the players to be the only deciding factor in the game. players would be much better off if their accomplishments in this game could only be taken away by another player's action or their actions that result in such.
I definitely disagree with the removal of natural disasters from the game as it is very important that the users of the game are able to develop their own specific ways of reacting to unexpected occurrences within their socially constructed worlds. The games purpose is to remove us from the political restraints and structures that we are bound by in this world not to remove us completely from the actual developments of this world that can naturally happen. Therefore, I think by allowing the natural occurrences to be produced in the game the developers and the users are acknowledging that whether we were within the actual constructs of this world or a created one with new forms of politics what is natural , thus not created or caused by us, is still capable and we would need to work with nature regardless
the purpose of this game is also to attract and keep people playing. I understand the idea of having this game being as close to reality as possible, but simply recreating the real world without taking into consideration the target audience is not going to work well. the idea of having your game end randomly due to a "natural disaster" is something that will turn gamers away from playing at all. can you imagine playing a game and leaving for a few minutes to do something and all of a sudden come back to have your character dead and your game end? if that player has invested time in their character, its not fair to them to have it just end. And i understand allowing the players to take their own precautions to dealing with situations, but then sometimes even thats not enough. You are essentially leaving the ability to play the game to chance...
I disagree. I think that natural disasters HAVE to be included in the game. There will always be natural disasters, and they have real and serious effects on people, communities, and states. By incorporating them into the game we are allowing for a more realistic approach to this new world order. If we did live in a world such as the game suggests, there would most definitely be natural disasters, and the actions and reactions in regard to such events is a crucial part of life.
correction, alexaesthetics. the purpose of this game is to remove us from THIS life- i.e. the political sphere we are currently bound by. We are aiming to envision and experiment with what a new political world would look like, but this new political world is still nonetheless a REAL world, and hence should contain elements inevitably (at least for now) present in the world, like natural disasters.
so then if this "game" is going to mimic real life, then im guessing you want this game to end when a player dies. and if thats the case, then if these random events can cause people to die (which natural disasters can do in real life), then youre leaving the possibility of having someones character die and completely ending the game for them by chance. things like that can happen in real life, but those things would also annoy the players. Most people who will choose to play this game would be upset with their character dying and ending the game for them randomly, especially if they have invested time into the game.
there should be independent, random effects that affect both states and individuals with the impacts of these events being equally devastating wherever they occur because this more accurately reflects the reality of the real world. in reality if someone's car gets broken into and the valuables are stolen from the vehicle he or she feels the affects just as bad as any other person who suffers from the same event. the only difference in the affect on the individual would be what contents were in the car when it was broken into. therefore, neither individuals or states should be given different treatment in the affects they face based on the success they have in the society