Values

By far the most difficult question, though, concerned the problem of values. It was easy to build equations for air pollution deaths and such, but in the end, how important were those deaths compared to the economic benefits of the factories that create the air pollution? In effect, I had to put a price on human life, something that makes all of us queasy. Environmental problems are difficult precisely because they force us to confront such uncomfortable issues. My design problem was to integrate values into the design without creating something that would be dismissed as narrow-minded.

I spent too much time trying to figure out how to be politic in this delicate matter; it seemed that, no matter how I approached the problem, somebody would be able to accuse me, with some justification, of bias. There is no objective, balanced approach to the myriad complexities of environmental issues; ultimately, the core issues are matters of personal values.

It's funny how some of the toughest problems in game design can have ridiculously simple solutions. The challenge is to step far enough back from the problem to be able to see the simple solution. In this case, my problem was embarrassingly easy to solve: I need merely throw the problem right back into the user's face. In effect, I needed to say to the user, "If you have an opinion, put your numbers where your mouth is. You declare the values to be applied in the simulation!"

This simple insight dramatically changed the design and catapulted it into a higher level of simulation. It freed me of the responsibility to be absolutely unbiased, although there remained an expectation of being fair. Instead of providing the user with unchallengeable numbers, I needed only provide a range of reasonable numbers from which to choose.

It also changed the simulation in a more profound and more exciting manner. Instead of presenting the simulation itself as the truth, I was presenting it as just that: a simulation. This new design concept challenged the user to understand it as a simulation, not as truth handed down from the almighty computer. It also brought the user into the simulation, thereby providing more direct and intimate interaction between user and computer. In a larger sense, this design innovation allowed me to present my thinking on a deeper level. Instead of coddling the user with false assurances that the simulation was correct, I was making it clear to him that much of what we believe is based on the assumptions behind our thinking.

Another unforeseen benefit of this approach was that it applied broadly, not just to values, but to judgments about scientific truth itself. Who is to say precisely how dangerous a nuclear power plant is? There are plenty of studies that give us an inkling of the answer, but no definitive answer can be found. Why then, could not a user declare any reason able value for this supposedly objective truth?