Do you think people can learn something from simulation games that’s inherently hard to learn from mere language or mathematics?
Is it possible to create good simulation games of substantial global events and the subsequent possible outcomes. Some examples would be a pandemic like Covid and how it shaped societies differently based on preconditions and policies OR a discovery of nuclear fission that sparked building nuclear weapon (I.e the manhattan project) and fueled the cold war OR the realization and threat of man made global warming and the global reaction and policy making and many possible outcomes.
And if not why are they not feasible for games. Is there something that makes these types of events and their outcome hard to simulate?
I think yes, and so did Vannevar Bush (OK, not the game part). The first two chapters of Building SimCity are dedicated to non-computer simulations for this reason. Vannevar Bush and his analog instruments, like the differential analyzer, are the subject of chapter 2. Bush (and others) argued that good tangible models were excellent complements to, and sometimes superior to, abstract symbolic representations. For this reason he and his colleagues grieved the transition to digital computing.
For example, he writes in Pieces of the Action (p. 262) of "an example of how easy it is to teach fundamental calculus," about a mechanic with a high school education who learned calculus by working on the differential analyzer. "It was very interesting to discuss this subject with him because he had learned the calculus in mechanical terms ‐ a strange approach, and yet he understood it. That is, he did not understand it in any formal sense, but he understood the fundamentals; he had it under his skin."
I think this is fascinating stuff, and chapter 2 goes deep into the subject. Chapter 1 is about Doreen Gehry Nelson and city simulations made by school kids--it's all about games, simulation, tangibility, and learning.
Procedural Rhetoric: Ian Bogost, Janet Murray (Chaim's advisor and Building SimCity endorser)
For better or worse, games can deliver pre-programmed propaganda and procedural rhetoric for advancing ideologies and changing minds. Some designers push clichéd narratives, stereotypical characters, and institutionalized prejudices that normalize and encourage homophobia, sexism, racism, bigotry, and violence. Others like Will Wright conscientiously use it for good.
Ian Bogost defined the “Procedural Rhetoric” game design philosophy as an unholy blend of Will Wright and Aristotle, that explains how people learn through rules and processes, analyzes the art of persuasion, and focuses on conveying ideology by crafting laws and rules within games.
“I developed my own design philosophy that I called procedural rhetoric, an unholy blend of Will Wright and Aristotle.” -Ian Bogost, Video Games Are Better Without Characters
Ian Bogost, Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames.
Procedural rhetoric or simulation rhetoric[1] is a rhetorical concept that explains how people learn through the authorship of rules and processes. The theory argues that games can make strong claims about how the world works—not simply through words or visuals but through the processes they embody and models they construct. The term was first coined by Ian Bogost in his 2007 book Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames.[2]
Procedural rhetoric analyzes the art of persuasion by rule based representations and interactions rather than spoken or written word. Procedural rhetoric focuses on how game makers craft laws and rules within a game to convey a particular ideology.
[1] Frasca, Gonzalo (2003). “Simulation versus Narrative: Introduction to Ludology.” In The Video Game Theory Reader. Ed. by Mark J. P. Wolf and Bernard Perron. New York: Routledge. 221–37 ISBN 9780415965798
[2] Bogost, Ian (2008). "The Rhetoric of Video Games." The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. Ed. by Katie Salen. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 117–40. ISBN 9780262693646
The Sims has evolved with society over two decades towards a more inclusive, tolerant world celebrating diversity and creativity. Its procedural rhetoric promotes inclusivity, diversity, personalization, and tolerance, and supports self-expression, creativity, storytelling, and sharing. Players imprint their own identities, families, homes, communities, and stories into the game, and share their own personal emergent narratives using online community tools like The Sims Family Album and The Sims Exchange.
mistermann: The intuition of a conspiracy theorist is not useful nor interesting nor falsifiable, by definition. Please stop posting unsubstantive flamebait comments and parroting harmful anti-vax lies, and don't try to argue with the moderator, dang. Reminder: "If you keep posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments, we're going to have to ban you. We've warned you countless times already, and it's not good that you're still doing it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html" -dang https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40660693
As a conspiracy theorist, my intuition suggests to me that there are people within the government that would frown upon the general public getting too interested in (and skilled in) the complexities and nuances of human coordination. That sort of thing is The Experts job.
Is it possible to create good simulation games of substantial global events and the subsequent possible outcomes. Some examples would be a pandemic like Covid and how it shaped societies differently based on preconditions and policies OR a discovery of nuclear fission that sparked building nuclear weapon (I.e the manhattan project) and fueled the cold war OR the realization and threat of man made global warming and the global reaction and policy making and many possible outcomes.
And if not why are they not feasible for games. Is there something that makes these types of events and their outcome hard to simulate?