I think that the game should be realistic. In our society positive and negative outcomes are possible so I think the game should have both,too. The game should test negative outcomes to see how the players and those in office handle the difficulties. Maybe from this we can see and discover new ideas for dealing with crises. Positive outcomes should also be included so we can see how those in the game deal with success in addition to failure.
i agree with the comment posted by lawsomjr99 in that there must be both positive and negative outcomes in the game because it promotes a more realistic society. in all real societies there are both positive and negative things that result from actions from both the government and the people of the society. having a purely positive based society will lead to a boring a unrealistic game. people playing this game will want risk in a number of the decisions that they must make in order to succeed and/or survive in this society. on the other hand, only having negative outcomes will discourage people from playing because they know that it is inevitable that they will ultimately fail in the society. having both types of outcomes not only reflects reality but it also adds an element of risk to the game and forces the gamers to be responsible for their actions.
if there were only positive or only negative the game would not be realistic. there would be no reason for the game to reflect today's world if you do not account for all of the possibilities that could occur.
i think it is quite clear that we need to allow for both positive and negative outcomes. what use would a game like this provide us if we fixed what sort of outcomes would come out of it? it is meant to be experimental and aid us in picturing what a world would be like as guided by the decrees. if we only allowed for either positive or negative outcomes it would be either an unrealistic, sickeningly utopian picture or a negative hellish picture that would make us reject the decrees, as it would seem that the decrees lead to this inevitably negative world. obviously we must allow for both positive and negative outcomes!!
I voted for both positive and negative outcomes not for the reproduction of real life, but for the purpose of gamesmanship. In real life there is no such thing as a universally good or bad experience, we apply our own perspectives, reasoning, experiences, and ambitions to a given action or occurrence and evaluate it accordingly.
Many say that a mudslide that kills 20,000 people is a horrible disaster. Thousands of people lose their lives, and thousands more would lose their homes, belongings, and sources of income. The economy of the given location may be crushed and devastated for decades to come. On the other hand, Construction companies and medical organizations around the world would call it a god send, as they would surely experience astronomical growth in demand for their services. Thousands would benefit as result, and thus the situation could be constructed as "positive" overall.
The fact is, even when actions are taken by players to hurt or disadvantage another group, which will surely be seen as negative, it will also benefit another group, and be seen as positive. The same works vice versa. Simply banning a "negative" or "positive" outcome is not possible as these terms are not objective, they only gain their value once we assign it to them.
I think by having negative outcomes it will not only make the game realistic but it will allow for an understanding of what can be done to make things more positive within the game society. The negative outcomes will be considered learning lessons. Additionally, things should be allowed to flow without limitations of positive or negative, in this way the game would have a realistic twist.
As in any other game, negative and positive outcomes should be instated. First, because it is more engaging. It's fun for participants, because it provides incentive to perform. Lastly, it is more consistent with the realities of the world: all our actions have consequences--good and bad.
I concur and think there should be positive and negative outcomes of the game. Doing so provides a holistic account of our strengths and our weakness and will motivate us to work better when there are flaws that need to be addressed. The game society needs to be created in a way so as to replicate the closest resemblance of a realistic game theory in relation to the cost-benefit analysis of the comparing countries. I think our country will strive to have a better agenda and work harder when we know our flaws as opposed to our strengths.
I think that the game should be realistic. In our society positive and negative outcomes are possible so I think the game should have both,too. The game should test negative outcomes to see how the players and those in office handle the difficulties. Maybe from this we can see and discover new ideas for dealing with crises. Positive outcomes should also be included so we can see how those in the game deal with success in addition to failure.
i agree with the comment posted by lawsomjr99 in that there must be both positive and negative outcomes in the game because it promotes a more realistic society. in all real societies there are both positive and negative things that result from actions from both the government and the people of the society. having a purely positive based society will lead to a boring a unrealistic game. people playing this game will want risk in a number of the decisions that they must make in order to succeed and/or survive in this society. on the other hand, only having negative outcomes will discourage people from playing because they know that it is inevitable that they will ultimately fail in the society. having both types of outcomes not only reflects reality but it also adds an element of risk to the game and forces the gamers to be responsible for their actions.
if there were only positive or only negative the game would not be realistic. there would be no reason for the game to reflect today's world if you do not account for all of the possibilities that could occur.
i think it is quite clear that we need to allow for both positive and negative outcomes. what use would a game like this provide us if we fixed what sort of outcomes would come out of it? it is meant to be experimental and aid us in picturing what a world would be like as guided by the decrees. if we only allowed for either positive or negative outcomes it would be either an unrealistic, sickeningly utopian picture or a negative hellish picture that would make us reject the decrees, as it would seem that the decrees lead to this inevitably negative world. obviously we must allow for both positive and negative outcomes!!
I voted for both positive and negative outcomes not for the reproduction of real life, but for the purpose of gamesmanship. In real life there is no such thing as a universally good or bad experience, we apply our own perspectives, reasoning, experiences, and ambitions to a given action or occurrence and evaluate it accordingly.
Many say that a mudslide that kills 20,000 people is a horrible disaster. Thousands of people lose their lives, and thousands more would lose their homes, belongings, and sources of income. The economy of the given location may be crushed and devastated for decades to come. On the other hand, Construction companies and medical organizations around the world would call it a god send, as they would surely experience astronomical growth in demand for their services. Thousands would benefit as result, and thus the situation could be constructed as "positive" overall.
The fact is, even when actions are taken by players to hurt or disadvantage another group, which will surely be seen as negative, it will also benefit another group, and be seen as positive. The same works vice versa. Simply banning a "negative" or "positive" outcome is not possible as these terms are not objective, they only gain their value once we assign it to them.
I think by having negative outcomes it will not only make the game realistic but it will allow for an understanding of what can be done to make things more positive within the game society. The negative outcomes will be considered learning lessons. Additionally, things should be allowed to flow without limitations of positive or negative, in this way the game would have a realistic twist.
As in any other game, negative and positive outcomes should be instated. First, because it is more engaging. It's fun for participants, because it provides incentive to perform. Lastly, it is more consistent with the realities of the world: all our actions have consequences--good and bad.
I concur and think there should be positive and negative outcomes of the game. Doing so provides a holistic account of our strengths and our weakness and will motivate us to work better when there are flaws that need to be addressed. The game society needs to be created in a way so as to replicate the closest resemblance of a realistic game theory in relation to the cost-benefit analysis of the comparing countries. I think our country will strive to have a better agenda and work harder when we know our flaws as opposed to our strengths.