Login to vote in this poll.
At first I felt that of course equality should be the object of the game. But I thought about how most everyone here stated how unrealistic obtaining that would be. And I began to rethink why in real life we strive to follow morals like treating everyone equally and generally doing the right thing. While it is true that most people (I hope) want to lead life in this direction, actually obtaining that is not only difficult but impossible. So rather than making it the "object of the game," I feel like it should be a guideline you follow and that something more real and obtainable should be an object of the game.
I do not believe that total equality should be the object of the game. First off, that would be an impossible goal, even in a utopian society. There are certain rules and decrees that govern the game. Some players will accept these and flourish under the stated conditions, others will reject the decrees or not fully comply with them. Even within the game's magic circle, total equality cannot exist because the players are all individuals, choosing freely to come together and express themselves uniquely within the game world.
Everyone should start at the same point with all characteristics of avatariral capital equal for each user, which is one of the decrees under inheritance. After the onset of the game equality should not be the number one goal and is unrealistic for a massive multiplayer game. There is no sense in creating a game where everyone remains equal throughout because competition would be generic and become repetitive. Part of the fun is building up your certain character and increasing his skills or attributes to a point were they can defeat another user within the same world. It is human and competitive nature to attempt to better oneself or ones character within the game to accomplish new goals.
This post seems to express the ideal method towards creating a game that is not unfair and yet gives creativity a chance to thrive and grow. Harrison was correct to say that making total equality is both unrealistic and repetitive. It gives of a certain robotic sense, taking away that which is human and alive in people. In actuality within the real world it seems as if governments are attempting to go towards that unrealistic "total equality" both in communism and democracies. Art and creativity in these days are toned down a lot more than what it used to be in the past. Innovation thinking outside of the box is also discouraged and sometimes hindered by the many laws determined to give people "equality". What is happening actually happening is that "equality" is being given at the cost of freedom and that seems to me to be too high a cost to pay.
The term "total equality", i believe, just ignores the entire premise of a game. Whether it's a game of chance, competition, physical, or simulation, the point of the game is to gain some upper hand on reality or other players. If this question was really to incorporate into a game, then the game will obviously not do well in the long run. People do not want to play games to simulate equality. They obviously want to win, or at least be able to show their higher status SOMEHOW towards others.
No, this would not be a successful in two key respects. First the game would present no desirable activities to the user, they would have no drive. People are objective based, and self driven, they do things to better themselves or the lives of those they care about. A game where the the user seeks only make themselves equal to everyone else will flop as it will fail to hold the users attention, they will have no incentive to play. Human beings are competitive, greedy, and individualistic by nature. Is has been genetically encoded into us by evolution, natural selection favors the ambitious, competitive, and selfish. This leads in to the second reason we should not aim for equality in this game. It will not be a proper model of a real world political system. Pure equality is communism, which is an idealistic utopian purity of government. It always fails. It fails because it does not take into account human nature. Making this games main goal for the user equality would fail to successfully represent how the political system it uses would function in actual practice.
I don't think that equality should be the object of the game. In real life, we compete with everyone around us, sometimes without really noticing. We compete in doing well in school with grades, being successful by applying for jobs against others, etc. The amount of money we have displays our status. In games, we wouldn't want equality to be the objective of the game. There are games we play and enjoy because of the competitive edge to it. It's in our nature to want to be the best and win at something. Without some sort of competitive edge, games may seem bland. it's in our nature to be competitive. Games like Galaga and Pacman revolve around obtaining the highest score on the list. Even if we are trying to strive for equality based on the manifesto, it will be at some cost that can't be equal. The players of the game are all unequal and are influenced by many different cultures and have different beliefs. In real life, the world will never be equal and thus seems unrealistic to try and develop a game world that is. In real life, the world will never be equal and thus seems unrealistic to try and develop a game world that is.
I agree, total equality is a really unrealistic goal that seems too idealistic to be an obtainable goal. Especially coupled with how people are naturally, this could be a difficult goal to obtain. Rather I feel like it should be something aimed towards, while knowing it to be an ideal to model after. It shouldn't be an objective to reach and accomplish because that couldn't happen.
I agree with you, and at the same time I don't. Equality in a game is not important and shouldn't be the sole priority of the game objective. As with many aspects of life, if equality is the main objective it promotes redundancy and mundaneness in the gaming virtual space. Many developers rely on inequalities to come up with various storylines to which games are created with. For example, the Batman Arkham Asylum/City games depend on the idea of conflicting ideologies between good and evil, as well as having internal conflict within the main character. But equality all together shouldn't be completely omitted. Equality in a sense of gaming, should be provided in that players should all have the same resources to progress through the game. It shouldn't be the goal, but should be the basis to which a player's mindset should be.
To me this question is a bit ambiguous. It does not state whether it should be the objective of the developers to make a game in which all of the players experience equality or if it is the objective of the players to establish a system in game which promotes equality.
Given the former, it would be a simple matter of letting all players start off on an equal playing field and give them no means in which to advance their capital. Doing this, however, sort of defeats the point of playing the game as there is no motivation to do anything. The objective of the game was met before the players had any chance to interact with it. Thus, it seems that the objective must be for the players to create.
Given the manifestos, it seems like equality between players is something to be encouraged. However, if the players start equal then the game objective is already met. If the players start at random non equal levels of capital then it would be simple to simply pool everyone's capital and then distribute it regularly. None would oppose this as the purpose of the game in that case would be to create equality rather than advance individually.
In a sense, however, the players responsible for gathering and redistributing capital would be inherently more "valuable" than those who are not involved. Thus, equality really couldn't be implemented regardless. As many other have said true equality is a bit illogical. The manifestos do take strives towards evening a playing field however they never truly create equality. The manifestos imply that equality is something the game should try to achieve however the game will certainly also never truly reach the goal. Perhaps the objective should be to emulate equality convincingly enough that all of the players believe they are equal regardless of whether or not they truly are equal, in this sense there is a measurable level of success without simply having an unattainable goal.
Totally agree with this. The question did seem ambiguous, but I did understand what the question was getting towards. However, the key word here is "total" equality. I don't believe that "total equality" could ever be achieved in a game especially if it is trying to depict a modern real world. Lin makes an interesting point in that there wouldn't be an objective nor would there be any reason to play the game if you're not trying to achieve something, like a status or any type of capital. What is meant with the word "equality"? Equality could signify different meanings for different people. It could mean that players could feel equal in status or it could mean that they don't feel threatened by any of the other players, but that isn't really realistic either. However, the manifesto clearly states for equality among players. So, in my opinion, it probably signifies equal say in opinion and voice. Putting in your two cents and having the option of letting your opinions be heard or even acted upon is a giant leap towards equality.
So maybe the object of the game shouldn't be geared towards "total equality" for lack of better wording. The object of the game could probably be to create an environment that could potentially achieve something similar to equality, "equality" meaning that players should feel free to comment on what they believe could or could not work within the game. Creating opportunities for clear communication and equal say among players sounds like a realistic goal that could be a potential objective for the game.
I voted that total equality should not be the object of the game. This answer is in concert to my question of how realistic the game world should be. Total equality, as much as we strive for it, even just within the context of the US, does not, and to my mind, cannot exist. There will always be a disparity of resources, occupations, racial and cultural biases, etc. There is something to be said of a game like Uncharted, which I recently completed, which spirits gamers into a fictional world of action herosim and b-movie plot devices. However, something like WOW exposes racial biases and pre-judgments...even if that was not the intent of its original design. I think it would be progressive if the game actively sought to expose the fiction that is total equality, much like in the way the McDonald's game did. I was not aware of that game before taking the class, and I have to wonder how much of a niche title it truly is. To mainstream the message of total equality as a fiction, through the burgeoning medium that is gaming, should be a primary focus of this project, and the primary focus of other developers for current platforms as well. Time will tell if this proves to be the case...
I agree that it is difficult or maybe even simply impossible to create a world, virtual or real, that produces total equality. Even if people start on a level playing field, through time, experience, and understanding of the game users will begin to separate themselves from other in game users. It is an interesting point about the possibility of a game actively seeking to expose total equality, because the Mcdonalds game provided a unique angle on the topic of inequality. The game did a good job is highlighting inequalities of a corporation like Mcdonals and a new multiplayer online game could continue on the discussion.
I agree that total equality cannot exist. Even if we were to expand the context to outside of the US to include communist nations like China, we can see that equality is an impossibility. China, specifically, has gone through a full revolution where the masses attempted to overthrow the upper echelon. Years later, the installed communist government caused a small percentage of China to be well off with an extreme majority in poverty. Total equality, which is what the Chinese communist movement fought for, would mandate that the much richer east and west coast of China share money with the middle countryside. However, this is not the case nor is it likely to ever be the case.
In the context of a game world, I believe that the only thing that total equality would do is reveal the difficulty and improbability of it as the above poster suggested. If I am playing a game and have accumulated a large amount of resources, I would have to share those resources that I have earned with someone that refuses to do any work. However, if I choose to do no work, there would be a lower amount of total resources in the game. This would cause the world to, essentially, fail because no one is willing to make the effort. Alternatively, half of the people choose to work and half of them do not. Some people from the former half may very well get tired of the game because they are annoyed at the idea that they are constantly supporting others who refuse to put in a fair share. The game would make a good argument against the idea.
Total equality should not be a part of the game, since this is not how real life is. There will always be people at a disadvantage and always people being in a bad situation. In reality, all of us could die walking across a street tomorrow, there is nothing fair or equal about that. If this is to be a dynamic and interesting game, there will not be equality for all. Though this does not mean that we should not try to make the players in the game be as equal as possible. This equality should not be controlled by the admins or original game code, but the players themselves. The players within the game should make it their goal to make the game as equal as possible, even when everyone knows it is not. This is what many people are trying to do in the real world now, and this is what should happen in the game.
This is a great point - if equality is to be a theme in the game (which is appears to be from the Decrees), then it must be expressed in pure mechanics. The game itself must be a game about equality, so in a way I believe that the object of the game _SHOULD_ be total equality. Let that be the objective for the players to meet through some reward system. The more equal everyone is, the better off everyone is. However, let there be game mechanics that hamper progress toward this goal. Say, random events modeled on natural disasters for example. Then things outside of the players' control will affect the equality of the populace (much like in the real world) and players must adjust to meet these unexpected occurrences.
I agree with this statement because real life contains so many factors that cannot be effectively modeled. In life there are a multitude of factors that cannot be listed let alone observed. This game should be a good representative of real life, and in real life there are factors and events that have nothing to do with political states or systems of government. I learned in Sociology about how many people have their own subconscious bias that is a product of their own experiences. This game should not try to model a "perfect" world with absolute "equality" but rather portray an environment where there is respect between all players and attention to respecting a person's own accomplishments. As Murphy stated the goal should be the learning experience between the players themselves and how a new system in the world could benefit humanity.
As many have said, total equality should not be the object of the game, because it is not plausible in real life. However, we should realize this means the alternative to the laments of inequality stated in the manifesto are unattainable.
Players having equal resources at the beginning, as some have suggested, is a nice idea for a game, but not practical because resources cannot realistically be equal for everybody at the start of life. In a sense, though, we do start life equal, in that we are totally helpless and at the mercy of our circumstances when we are born. Another thing is that each person will leave this earth in equality as well. Naked a man comes from his mother's womb, and as he comes, so he departs. He takes nothing from his labor that he can carry in his hand. Just some food for thought.
I agree with you on the idea that total equality should not be the object of the game, but for different reasons. I feel that equality should not be the object of the game, because it narrows the potential of this game. By which I mean, giving this game an end goal would deter the players from really experiencing this game. The point of the game, seems to be, experimental at most as stated in their "faq" section where they say "agoraXchange is an online collaboration for imagining and building a massive multiplayer online game that offers a tangible political alternative to our current world order." Given this goal, I don't think we should constrain the players by giving them a goal because that tells them what to do, and defeats the purpose of agorasXchange's real purpose, which is to let us the players decide what that end objective should be.
In my opinion, I think it is irrelevant to think of this game in terms of what is plausible in real life and what isn't. Remember, this is still a game. This isn't real life. I think this game is more about offering or providing us with a different way to think about our world. If we limit ourselves to thinking of what is only possible in real life, we won't be able to think about a tangible political alternative to our current world order.
However, don't get me wrong. I don't really believe that Utopia can, nor will ever be reached in our world, but that should not stop us from trying. We need to stop with such a self-defeating attitude.
And lastly, I would like to expand more on the point you made in your second paragraph about having equal resources at the beginning. I for the most part agree with you on that starting with equal resources is not realistic, but again, we don't find this realistic because Communist tried and failed. Well depending on who you ask, you might get different opinions, but it's safe to say that Communism did not live out to what we were told it would be. Again, I go back to my point on not thinking about this game as real life. I do think it is true that we shouldn't start out with equal resources, but what if the States in the game collaborated with each other in an effort to help those States with less advantage resources? What if the States involved worked together and not in competition of each other? History has tried and failed over and over again, but this isn't history. This is a game, a learning experience at heart. Can we at least play the game?
I feel like the new decrees of this society are attempting to pave the way for an equal society, that being said as others have mentions there are many variable to consider that could make this difficult, but we should try to take ourselves out of the train of thinking we have in society today and see if we can pave a way for equality. For me the decrees are in place, so the question remains are people able to align themselves in the new society to give equality a chance?
Equality may have its chance, but will never become true equality because resources are limited in the real world. Check out the discussion of personal wealth here: Should players be able to create game objects that assist them, such as houses, clothes, food? http://www.agoraxchange.net/node/70
Also, as yoo.177.er said, individuals in the real world are unique, with differing strengths and weakness. This inherently does not lend itself to total equality.
I think stanton.177.an has identified the real crux of the argument against "total equality" and that is the undeniable fact that people are simply not born equal. That is to say, no two humans are exactly alike in their skills, knowledge, talents, etc. and thus, in a very generalized sense, equal, barring any kind of "Brave New World"-like prenatal bio-modification. And while the debate over what "equality" itself means could go on forever, I think we can find a generally agreeable consensus in defining the true goal of "total equality" as one in which all humans are born equal: given the same opportunities, basic education, and basic quality of life, but not made equal.
Since the game may diminish certain inequities that we experience in our current global society, by rewriting our currently stringent laws of citizenship, inheritance, marriage, and land ownership into the virtual world, it might be possible for players to alleviate social inequality to a certain extent. But to achieve TOTAL equality? Total equality CANNOT, therefore SHOULDN'T, become the defining objective of the game. In terms of game mechanics alone, it would destroy a significant portion of the whole concept of raw competition amongst individual players, a factor that keeps participants interested and engaged. More importantly however, total equality simply isn't plausible in a virtual world that aims to simulate a TANGIBLE, political alternative to our current global society. The state of international, and institutional, relations in the world today hasn't achieved total equality for a reason: it just isn't realistic as our world houses various people who're driven by different incentives, that possess differing intentions.
An objective towards total equality just doesn't fit the bill, especially in a game that aims to simulate and produce a world that reflects reality.
COCU177: Critical Computer Game Studies
WI12; Ayhan Aytes
The total equality aspect would not be possible as others have mentioned. Even though if the game starts everyone with the same resources other circumstances
will give one certain advantages over the other. Everyone is different in some form, whether it is biological,mental or physical, and we cannot force everyone
who are differnet become equal, or the same. Also, it is difficult to encourage people to compete with one another if total equality is the main object of the game.
I can just give my resources away and be lazy for the rest of the game. Thus, this will not be realistic and rational to have totaly equality to be the object of the game
I agree that total equality as an objective does not make any sense. But I would like to pose the a scenario of total equality at the beginning of the game. It would create for a very interesting situation, due to the fact that many of the replies regarding this say that it would not be realistic. This is a game after all. If everyone started out evenly would the Utopia maintain itself? or would the natural imbalances between individuals take hold and put power back into a teeter-totter? I feel that this question is more interesting than trying compare it to what we already know about the world.
It makes perfect sense to start the game of total equality at the very beginning. Players should be given equal resources in the beginning so that it will be fair. Total equality as an objective doesn't really make sense but the Decree of No Inheritance already tries to bring equality to the game. What we know about the world makes it very difficult to answer or even understand the question.
University of California, San Diego
COCU177: Critical Computer Game Studies(Sum II.2011)
I don't think total equality should be the objective of the game because then there will be no value in striving for achievement, personal or not. If total equality were the objective in the game then there would be no sense of reward in playing, since we play games to feel like we have won something or achieved a certain goal or end.
I agree, Total equality as an objective to the game creates a non-competitive atmosphere that allows players the lack of elevating in order to surpass other players. Personally, when I play a game..sometimes I look forward to the challenge as the objective in order to elevate to the next level/mission,etc. Many interact and engage in games for the sake of the feeling of fulfillment and reward.
total equality should not be the objective or final destination of the game because who is to determine what is equal and what is not equal? The standards of equality is too broad and no one can be sure or have the right to say what is equality and what is not. To some people equality is justified in a certain way and to others it might be the same. It is unrealistic to set the objective as equality because it is a virtual world, anything can happen, while sometimes equality isn't all that important to most people.
Total equality shouldn't be the object of the game, but rather players should strive for equality (not necessarily "total" equality). Total equality not being the object of the game reflects reality. Total equality shouldn't be the object of the game because it is impossible to achieve, as stated in some comments before. People are naturally unequal, which leads to the claim that total equality is impossible. Since this game does strive for a tangible political alternative, which I guess should be near reality, total equality shouldn't be the object of the game.
I particularly agree with this respose. Equality exists, in my opinion, on a spectrum. It is not as simple or binarized as "total" or "non-existant" innequality. Thus, the game should try to interface with the notion of a "good enough" as it relates to innequality. Just like the real world, and our positionality in it, is largely a process of negotiating our competing interests, trying to find a balance that might not be just or completely fair, but rather one we can live and cope with, the object of the game should be find a similar "sweet spot". I would like to think the world is becoming more non-binary as it relates to popular notions of gender, sexuality, race, ability, etc. I hope that the game will reflect such progressive strides, presenting neither a fictional utopia or tumultuous distopia, but rather aiming for something more closely based in reality, something more "real".
I don't think equality CAN be the object of the game because it is unatainable. First, equality is a great goal for the game because with that idea comes a sense of democracy and responsibility for self and there is no rich or poor for whom to blame all of the corruptness and problems on. Equality can be a goal of the game but cannot be the sole object of the game however because it is an idea that has no proof of being possible and thus stands to fail miserably if attempted since there are so many complexities. Power is always a factor as well in society and that is why humans compete to gain power and this leads to inequality so there would have to be many steps and rules and prohibitions preventing people from having any type of power over others which is hard because that means no one can have authority over another and without authority how would people have bosses or teachers or supervisors? If everyone owns their own company that wouldn't work because you need workers and there will always be some inherent hierarchy in the workplace in order to get things produced, sold, and circulated. The utopian world of equality that AgoraxChange is talking about is an abstract paradise where everyone does their part and collaborates but there are always going to be people who rebel, who want power, who don't want to help others and are selfish. Some say these characteristics are human nature so equality will be a very difficult object to succeed in achieving when there are factors trying to throw a rock in the system and create anarchy.
This is a great point. Although equality in the world is ideal, it seems impossible for all the reasons you have listed. Unfortunately, some degree of capitalism is inherent in every world, realistic or not, and therefore hierarchies are required. Going along with your idea of not having supervisors because of no authority, if total equality was the object of the game who would want to help guide those less experienced players or "citizens" of this utopia?
Total equality is not a realistic outcome. Socialism and communist ideologies are ideals and are difficult to realize to their full extend. Creation of a utopia or perfect society in which everyone is equal is idealistic, not realistic. Also, when we talk about equality, to what kind of equality are we referring? Social equality, economic equality, cultural equality...total equality is too broad of a concept. Furthermore, total equality usually requires a totalitarian or authoritarian regime, which I think the presence of would go against many basic principles of the game.
yes I agree with you. Total equality is an unrealistic objective. Further equality in general is such a broad concept. Also as you mentioned total equality requires a totalitarian or authoritarian regime, however, who is to determine who is in charge and who is to define equality. In other words, what is equality and what justifies it?
I agree with Allison. I think that equality is too broad of a concept and its definition has not been fully created or explained for the Agora Xchange world. While equality is certainly a goal in all major societies, in order for this world to be realistic, it will need to experience positive and negative events that will shape it. I think that the creators have the goal of making all members come into the Agora world on equal footing and with equal opportunity. Through the creation of a government and class system through, this idea of equality will be quickly be lost and will be in the hands of the new 'leaders'.
This is a nice thought but again not realistic. One of the decrees is to abolish inheritance. I agree with this. This way we atleast start at a more even playing field. One is not born rich while another is born poor. How is this fair? So this one decree already has equality in mind. Yet to make this the game's goal may prove difficult. There are a couple points I agree with and would like to expand on.
Leonidas wrote "Total equality should merely mean everyone should get the chance to become what they want regardless of whatever the game may assign them at first (if this takes place) and contribute to society by what they choose to do."
This makes sense to me. Having choice, not being told what you have to do or strive for is equality. So, even in the situation of making the goal of the game total equality, this takes that choice away. Also, just the concept of total equality is a little hard to grapple with. Just like Bshu writes, "what does totaly equality refer to?"
Before we strive to make this a goal of the game we would first have to figure out it's true meaning.
Total equality is a starting condition so it can not be a goal. Basic equality provides a platform for individual development.
This question raises a few questions of my own.
What does “total equality” refer to? Is it total equality amongst the people in the world or the states? Or is it total equality in dividing up resources among the states? If there were to be total equality, would this affect time of birth or the time of death? How are we to find what is “total equality”?
To me, total equality should not be the object of the game. Rather, the object to make this game as close to reality but at the same time creating a vision of a better world seems to me achievable through learning to exist with natural inequalities (genetics, qualities and traits inherently in us when we are born rather than traits and characteristics we gain through nurture) without creating man-made inequalities used to enhance inequalities. Total equality just seems unrealistic. But to envision a world like the one we live in without certain man-made inequalities such as the laws of citizenship, marriage, property, and inheritance as listed in the decrees seems plausible in a virtual game world that is in fact real world, created by real people. It is much easier to envision the world with some inequalities than to see even a game world with total equality.
I said no because then there would be no incentive for us to grow from the game. I mean how are we planning on making everything and everyone equal when we won't be able to challenge ourselves and get more competition among different states? What will our society or people think; more how is our government going to handle everything equally? There has to be disparities in order for progress to ensue and any society will benefit from this.
True it's more like the real world if there were intentions of malice. But this is a game, and from what I gather, the purpose of this game is to actually influence how people conduct themselves in real societies. Let's get everyone thinking "equality".
I agree with this. It seems that recently, total equality has more or less become a significant goal of many societies, regardless of whether or not it is actually achieved. The goal of the game should be equality, as this would more closely resemble the real world. It is likely that this equality will not be achieved - which is fine - perhaps this could open up some space for discussion in terms of why current societies cannot achieve total equality.
Total equality would mean that there is no difference among anyone and I would not understand why this game would exist. I think that the purpose of inequality is to see how life turns out according to different reasons, and if everyone was equal there would not be anything to compare to anything since the world would become perfect due to the lack of difference. It would be useful if part of the objective was to reach equality, but I don't think it would be a good idea for there to be equality from the start.
Total equality does not exist- and if that was made the objective of this game i would then think that the game was lacking in substantial validity and to be blunt corny! I feel that striving towards a MORE equal world is what the proper objective should be. Striving for equality is more realistic and could produce ideas and strategies that could then be translated back into our "non perfect" world. i think by having people strive for something like more equality as opposed to total equality will lead people to make better and more feasable decisions in the shortrun and propose actions to bring those decisions to life as opposed to just sitting around striving for something that is unattainable.
Equality should only exist in democratic principle, giving everyone the chance to prosper and succeed. If the object of the game is taken under communist ideology then it would become boring. Players would rapidly lose interest in the game because their objective would be the same as everyone else's. Equality in opportunity should be granted to all, for we should all be created equal. It would be irrational to establish a guide, a common goal that all are to follow in order to reach "total equality," this meaning equal property, equal income and equal contributions to society. Diversity of interests, pursuits and activities will not only make the game more interesting, but allow us to see how a society is constructed under democratic ideals, ideally them being really embraced. Total equality should merely mean everyone should get the chance to become what they want regardless of whatever the game may assign them at first (if this takes place) and contribute to society by what they choose to do.
Actually....I just realized something. I think that this whole project is actually some-what putting his thoughts into action. Each student is putting their own thoughts and idea sabout what the world (the game world) should look like. None of the students know what their exact position will be in thes game. I am very excited and interested to see how this all works out now. =)
I do not think that total equality should be the purpose of the game. However, I think it would be interesting to maybe have the starting point of individuals be equal. I am not talking about everyone starts off with the same amount of land and more. Rather, I always found Rawl's theory of the veil of ignorance very interesting but, have never been able to see it play out from the beginning. For those that are unfamailiar with Rawls, in a nutshell. he believes that society should be created based upon principles of justice that all of society agrees to. In order to come up with these principles each individual in society is under a veil of ignorance which means that they seperate themself from their identities, gender, place in society. Under this veil of ignorance it is very unlikely the people would choose a monarchy because the chances of them being the monarch are very slim. Ok, I seemed to be rambling but I thought this would be intereseting to start with.
I would say that total and complete equality is a viable goal, but only if one was comparing different states/groups instead of people. Equality across individuals would effectively destroy any realism the game would have, and thus can be discarded. However it is much more reasonable that all the states could rise to a point of equality; for instance in the real world it is possible that eventually all the states could become liberal democracies (assuming a liberal democracy is the best form of government). Here equality could be achieved, there would just have to be very limited qualifications to be met in order for the game to be considered "perfectly equal" for all states.
why would any one want to aim for total and complete equality? what, are we aiming for the perfect communist society? while we value equality as a principle and aim to give all people equal chances, the decrees of the game seem to start by already giving people more equal chances to thrive (compared to what the world is like today). We will have to do some work on creating equality in terms if equal chances and equal rights that the decrees do not guarantee, but i think it unrealistic and undesirable to strive for total and complete equality among all individuals. For example, this would not allow for some to thrive economically above others, which may make people have less of an incentive to work. This would hinder new developments and not allow for as much progress.
I do not believe that "total equality" is remotely possible due to the fact that there are several traits and characteristics that are impossible to duplicate and therefore it should not be the object of the game. I agree with what (snewton) stated previously in that it would be completely against human nature. People are unique and it seems rather unrealistic for "total equality" to exist in a society where everyone is not equal in terms of occupation, beliefs, race, or just simply physical appearance.
I cannot imagine a situation where "total equality" would ever be possible, and therefore i do not believe it should be the object of the game. If inheritance is abolished, as per the basis of the game, I believe everyone would begin on a much more equal playing field at birth. Therefore, I find it unnecessary to try to make adults completely equal. This is completely against human nature, in my opinion, and I do not see how a such a society could exist perpetually without great secrecy and cheating, as men naturally want to provide best for their families and offspring.
I also agree that complete equality among living beings, or video games for that matter, is simply impossible. Though people fight and strive for "equality", it is mainly commonfolk (simple citizens like us) who are trying to push for this. I do not believe a world, virtual or not, can operate successfully on total equality. Game creators know this, which is why we would never see a game that persistently tries to keep everyone on a leveled playing field. Chess -- a classic examples as to why total equality would never work in a game world. Just how fun would it be having pawns go against pawns? What would happen when a pawn piece successfully crosses a chess board (will it simply remain a pawn --no recognition for all it's hard work?). Total equality is simply unheard of and quite possibly not something reality or virtual reality would hope for.
I agree that achieving complete equality is almost impossible. However, for game purposes what if we had each person start off equal then slowly have them separate depending on a karma system or some sort? I think it would create a unique perspective and totally change the way players could turnout. One perfect example of this system would be Fallen Earth(MMO). The reason this game is so unique is because each player starts off equal. But, as one advances in the game they invest AP(Action Points) into what skills they wanna learn and ultimately each player becomes more unique then the other. Unlike this society we live in today, we are born into a (lower/middle/upper) class system and either have to learn to assimilate or fight the system until one is able to achieve their goal. That is why I would like to see a more unique system.
i agree, people innately are inequal. via, intelligence, ability, fitness.
physical and biological inequalities as well as inequalities of experience that may be dependent on age.
so like everyone else here is saying "total equality" should not be the object, but perhaps a system where everyone receives the same chances. but i don't know how to suggest what a game that chooses that as it's object would know when that kind of equality is reached.
I agree that everyone should receive the same random chance when you start your character. Your intelligence, health, family wealth/life, and other various factors could all be determined randomly. This would force the player to adapt to their situation, and make the game more diverse and interesting. Players coming from different backgrounds would advocate for different ideas in government, or take different jobs. These stats should all be determined by a complex random algorithm, and should not be able to be influenced by the player, for opportunistic players will take advantage of it if it can be tampered with.
without creating man-made inequalities used to enhance inequalities. Total equality just seems unrealistic. But to envision a world like the one we live in without certain man-made inequalities such as the laws of citizenship, marriage, property, and inheritance as listed in the decrees seems plausible in a virtual game world that is in fact real world Bears