An Atlas Shrugged video game?
In this month's issue of Reason Magazine, the cover story deals with America's addiction to video games, including more adults than ever. The most intriguing item in the story was about how an economics professor had been hired by a video game company, and the former economics professor illustrated how these multiplayer gaming environments are outstanding models of microsocieties. As several of us are talking about putting together a physical Atlantis, perhaps we could simulate the Gulch as a video game as a "dry run" before actually building Atlantis. Moreover, could you imagine the number of teenagers who would line up to watch Who is John Galt? if the video game were released just before the movie?
I'm not a programmer but just throwing out some logical thoughts about such a game.
(or at least give it an... objective treatment)
Now he just uses his billions to fund progressive organizations and politicians. He was the single largest donor to Barack Obama's campaign and if you count in all the 501c groups, he's right up there with the trade unions.
describes his bet against the British pound.
What Soros has done consistently is bet against certain currencies. This in itself is not unreasonable. What he has done, however, is put politicians in place to ensure the political outcomes that will make his currency speculation win.
Depending on whose side you are on, he is either viewed as a savior or a destroyer in several eastern European countries and former Soviet "republics".
Or you could play "classes" based on the characters in the book. You could be an industrialist, like rearden, or a miner like danagger or d'anconia (more accurately, a "resource aquisition expert", someone who harvests raw materials), or you could be a transportation tycoon, or a scientist (Stadler or Daniels style, your choice), or you could be a political operative, like Mouch,
Examples of what happens when two circles touch:
Two "trader" circles would get slightly bigger because of a positive value trade.
An “altruist” circle can only sacrifice to another circle by growing smaller while trying to make the other circle slightly bigger.
A "thief" circle attempts to reduce the other circle while increasing the size of its circle by just a bit.
A "doctor" circle will attempt to heal or increase the size of the other circle.
A "nihilist" circle might destroy itself and the other circle.
The are many more circle types.
All circles get smaller over time
The game continues until a stable system is reached or there are no more circles. Much like an old computer simulation called, "Life."
There is also a pie graph showing how much "pie" is left in the avatar world. This and all the circles may scale up or down.
Anyway, it is just the beginning of an idea.
time" rule, because they (we) make the pie larger!!! -- j
If this was a real app their could be 99 cent add on packs that introduce new circles types that could effect the world. Just imagine what an "Obama" circle would do.
wipe out everything of value which it touched!!! -- j
president's circle, then??? -- j
With a “Fed” circle the game “pie” would be distorted thus always show everything is doing better. The player would need to constantly switch to the “shadow pie” to tell what is really going on in the game
It could be very frustrating trying to play the game with these circles.
we can visualize this!!! -- j
If circles symbolize ideas or value systems, they would not necessarily have to be destroyed along with their hosts; they could just change through persuasion or modification. I suspect, though, that most game players would prefer action and story games to elegant abstracts.
I have designed several tabletop boardgames with a theme of "Trade" rather than capturing or exploiting. They use non-predatory concepts that are still quite challenging. Maybe such an idea could be worked into your game.
In the game of Life, there are certain configurations that end in a dynamic balance, not in rigor mortis. An open-ended game that allows for dynamic change without dead-ends could be a fine paradigm.
If this happens, the game universe would be just fine. It is just that all the circles would reach full equality and fairness. If that is the goal, it is easy to achieve.
“they could just change through persuasion”
Did I mention the “evangelist” circle?
The current simple concept currently works more as a simulation. If that is viable than it may morph more into a game idea.
It may not be necessary for all circles to be of equal size to have a fair balance. If the game is intended to show what values and practices make for a better world, through dramatic interactions of conflicting ideas, each game could be a new adventure with a different scenario and different outcome. I would like to see that everyone has the freedom of motion and interaction, not locked into a rigid pattern.
For the original simple idea, the player sets up the circle world, then it plays out. In a similar way as this did,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_...
I am well familiar with Conway's Game of Life (I know the man personally) and have even experimented with initial conditions that could result in immortality, though most of them require an infinite grid.
As for fairness that you define as all circles being null in size (nihilism? total extermination?), I respectfully submit that reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator is rather the antithesis of the objectivist value of individual achievement. That is not fair. What we'd like to see is an environment in which each participant (circle) can reach its highest level without diminishing others. In fact, fruitful interactions and trade would enlarge both parties.
Here's another idea. How about starting with Atlas holding the world, and as the game progresses his strength may grow or shrink depending on how the players around him choose rational and "proper" values and actions, or betray them. Players win if Atlas stays strong, and they lose when they get him to the point where he drops the world. I don't see this as in Tetris where you can never win, only hang on longer. In the Atlas game, when the balance in the world reaches a state where all participants can flourish without sacrifices, the world on Atlas's shoulders will light up and glow, and we all win. Otherwise the lights go out and the world crashes.
I cheerfully offer this idea without asking for a patent or royalties. Just put my name in as having suggested it. Now bring on the brilliant programmers, even if it takes longer than September. A game like this is good forever. Conway's Life has been around since 1970 and shows no signs of vanishing, much to his chagrin.
Extinction is not the fairness I would want but it is objectively and ultimately fair. It is also provides total equality. It meets both stated goals of "progressive" groups. In fact it is only way to fully achieve both goals.
I totally agree that letting people build themselves up is much more fair then tearing producers down.
Ever wonder why traffic slows down as the number of vehicle density increases? Every vehicle has the capability to go at faster than the posted speed. I've modeled this situation. When the rules are that everyone stays in their own lane, regardless of which lane that is, flow is maintained at a relatively high speed. When you allow people to move from the left lanes to the right to exit, you start to have things slow down, and when you instill rules that say when the differential in speed and/or density of vehicles in the right lane exceed a certain level you allow those vehicles to move to the left (and if more than just 2 lanes, set up similar rules for movement to the far left lane), you get even slower throughput. When you set up a scenario where any opening more than 2 vehicle lengths occurs you allow movement from an adjoining lane, you get grid-lock very quickly. Selfishness isn't always the optimum solution, and can be against one's actual self-interest.
1. That being selfish in itself is NOT a bad thing.
2. If you do the work you SHOULD get a benefit based on actual value produced.
A final product can't be completed by 9/12/14.
Oh well, it's hard to make any long term plans these-days against the increasing whims of political uncertainty.
Finishing by 9/12 probably isn't possible, unless we get a lot of people working on it.
With out these traits, just having a lot of people is unlikely to work out very well. A fact collectivists haven't figured out yet.
The smart people in the game would build gated fences (force fields?) around themselves to prevent the attack of thieves.
The real trick is that the more you do, the worse you make things. The only way to "win" the game is to stop interfering in the first place!
Kind of like playing Thermal Nuclear War (In the movie War Games.)
"Go to Atlantis. Go directly to Atlantis. Do not pass Starnesville. Do not collect fiat money."
“You took the last of a farmer's seed corn and distributed it equally and fairly to the people. Gain 10 favor points”
I was thinking that looters could use favor points to attract the most hard-hitting pull peddlers.
For producers, later in the game, permission to keep or use what they own could only be obtained through using one of these pull peddlers. That is unless you landed in the Gulch by then.
You'd need 2 separate negotiable items - Galt Dollars, and Worthless Chits (bad humor intended) to play both halves of the game.
Possibilities might also include the rotters making such a trash-heap of everything that there may be no second-stage winner... or the Gulchers proving, through good strategy, foresight, and business practice, and overcoming the rotter's evil plans, thereby wiping out the early-stage winner.
Conceivably, each player could try for a "double win" -- a true schizophrenic's dream come true, where one side could rule the s#!theap, and then also restore the world - in essence, playing both games at the same time.
If you don't know what Democracy 3 is, then go to http://www.positech.co.uk/democracy3/ right now and check it out.
Just in case you still haven't clicked on the link.
"Have you ever wanted to be president? or prime-minister? Convinced you could do a better job of running the country? Let's face it, you could hardly do a worse job than our current political leaders. Crime, Unemployment, National Debt, Terrorism, Climate Change...Have you got the answers to the problems that face western industrialized nations? Here is your chance to find out..."
Perhaps all we need is a Mod on Democracy 3 that would teach Objectivist principles.
with the terrorists (the required actual international
response to these terror-roaches), maybe we could
work up a variant which wouldn't violate the copyrights/
patents ... ?! -- j
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBill
Its used to make Real time strategy games and could be used to create an objectivist game or a simulation of galt's gulch. I have some experience with it and its programming is easy to learn for a computer language.
http://unity3d.com/unity
I toyed with the idea of a game dealing with the themes of AS. But I never came up with a genre in which I would be comfortable exploring the themes.
If anybody remembers the old Sierra Online, and LucasArts games, like "Day of the Tentacle" and "Full Throttle"? Or even the "Space Quest" series?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpLjf6Uy...
I think the adventure game genre would suit itself quite well to exploring the philosophies of AS.
I've already promoted the "Myst" series of games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eusxaNj0...
In fact, Myst Online: Uru is the only MMO I play anymore (at one time I was up to 9 MMOs). The Myst series is slightly steampunk-themed, and I think it is probably the ultimate expression of the adventure game genre.
I had at one time thought of trying to turn Myst Online: Uru into a virtual Gulch, like Second Life or The Sims Online, but the solitary nature of the gameplay doesn't lend itself well to that.
http://mystonline.com/en/
But, if one, or a group, were to decide to develop a game around the philosophy of Objectivism, and dealing with the themes of AS, I think an MMO in the style of Uru (but with more player interaction) would be the best way to disseminate Rand's ideas.
A single game requires people to be made aware and acquire it, which puts the burden of dissemination on the creator (kinda like having to click on my posts before you can read them... ahem...)
But, in MMOs, not only are you exposing people to the ideas at the same time, you can expand and modify the game as you analyze player's reactions to the ideas. MMOs also tend to do well with word-of mouth, and many, if not most, are funded via in-game purchases.
I'm happy to discuss the matter further if anyone else is still interested.
I agree that adventure game is probably the way to go. When this topic (AS video game) came up before, I suggested a decision-based RPG along the lines of Mass Effect.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/9a...
I haven't played Myst yet, but plan to start it as soon as I finish the Starcraft II campaign. I'm not sure about doing an MMO though. The MMO's I've played have almost zero story, and just feel like a place for gold/item farming with pretty graphics (most recently that is Elder Scrolls Online). Some people here are talking about making a game, and others want to create straight up propaganda. I'm on the side of game that weaves in Objectivist ideas without beating the player over the head. Bioshock did achieve that.
As for the marketing side, indie games are growing in popularity and are easily distributable. Are you familiar with Steam's Greenlight program? There's also Kickstarter of course.
Anyway thanks for your thoughts.
Can you elaborate on your comment? Which MMO's are you referring to?
The MMO business model is either a monthly subscription (like World of Warcraft) or micro purchases for free-to-play games like Clash of Clans. Any background "story" for the game usually sets up some vague conflict that can exist perpetually. If an MMO were to have a real storyline with rising action, climax, and resolution then as players completed the story they would have little incentive to continue playing (i.e. paying). The company that made the game needs to pay for the servers to host the game each month.
I am completely unfamiliar with the MMO business model. Most of the college students that I know who play RPG's don't want to pay for their gaming.
Personally I was a Nethack enthusiast way back in the 1980s.
I recommend starting with RealMyst, as it adds an age not in the original (I haven't played it, but I've seen walkthrough videos of it), then Riven, Myst III: Exile, Myst IV Revelation, Uru: Ages Beyond Myst (and its expansions), and Myst V: End of Ages, in that order, and then visit Myst Online: Uru.
Yes, most MMOs (Massively Multiplayer Online (Role Playing) Games, for those who don't know) are boringly without story. 4Story is probably the worst offender. Mostly they fill you up with quests like, "Go kill x number of y critters and bring me back z number of trophies" :yawn:
That's why I recommended the Myst/Uru format for such a game. While there is a storyline quest, you can do it solo or with others.
A hybrid between an open world, where you explore and trade and engage in craft skills, and an adventure style with a set of story-driven quests that help the players explore the tenets of Objectivism. A difficult balance, but I think ultimately doable.
Here's BioShock: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1094581/
http://archive.today/HI9Jy
Here is another objective review of the game and how it relates to Objectivism,
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/HarrisonC...
Note: There are lots of spoilers.
I've played it. You make many choices. Not life choices, but very limited set of game theory like choices.
It asks and masterfully sets up their own answer, do you sacrifice yourself for the greater good or not?
That people play video games too much is a different, but important, subject than the one I was talking about.
http://www.enlight.com/capitalism2/
Varoufakis compares it "to be omniscient, being able to see and know everything that goes on in the economy." You can get economic data in a MUCH shorter period of time under surprisingly controlled conditions.
No other connotation should be assumed.
The story "And Then There Were None" deals with a imperial starship of the far future making contact with a lost civilization... a civilization of Objectivists.
There is no money in this society, no government, none of that. People trade "Obs" or "obligations"; an example is given in the story. A crewman stocks some inventory for a store owner. The store owner gives him a note which reads "feed this bum". He takes it to the restaurant, where the owner tears it up, thus removing his own obligation to the store owner.
The two main mottos of the story are "F-IW!" and "MYOB". The later we all know (I think), the former stands for, "Freedom! I won't!"
The story seems to deal with just about every issue such a society can come across.
I think a game which places the player or players in such an environment, with goals to accomplish ("quests to solve") might well work both as a game, and to disseminate Objectivism.
"Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value."
"“When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others."
"Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor–your claim upon the energy of the men who produce."
They don't need money because they trade value for value... and anybody who tries to mooch or loot gets shut out of the system til his only options are starvation or suicide.
And Then There Were None:
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php
You use road and bridges. If you own a video game business, your didn't build that. Someone else did.