Eco is a multiplayer type of a game, where the players are to able create their own civilization. They have to do it together, arranging some common laws, setting the direction for the future development. Be careful, though, the game is not all about the welfare and happiness of the civilization. Except for one’s own earnings, it is the condition of the planet that is at stake. Furthermore, it may turn out to be very sensitive.

They say:

The world of Eco is an incredibly reactive one, and whatever any player does in the world affects the underlying ecosystem, in potentially destructive ways.

The game is shaping up to be a simulation of everyday decisions, allowing for real time observation of their consequences on the world. Therefore, undertaking an action (or giving up on it) will be meaningful. No wonder, the US Department of Education is interested in the project. Eco could be a great tool for showing the students the dependability network in the ecosystem, and teaching them how to combine our responsibility for the environment with the economic growth.

The game’s designers emphasize that:

Every law in Eco needs to be backed up with scientific documentation, that’s based on the actual data that’s coming from the game.

 

While anticipating the game’s arrival, we can, in the meantime, watch the game’s trailer:

The post Can you save a planet in an Eco-world? appeared first on Games4Sustainability.

The game main inspiration was the report Superstruct Ten – Year Forecast by the Institute for the Future. The reports describe economic, social and environmental challenges which are new for business, governments, social organizations, etc. In 2008 the main question of the report was: What is the future for human organizations? Hence, it was an inspiration for the game developers to carry out collaborative simulation on this problem. The aim was to develop a revolutionary forms of cooperation, coordination and co-creation of ordinary people.

The name “Superstruct” means “to build over or upon another structure to erect upon a foundation”.

It’s not so much about creating something bigger, but about transcending the limits of what exists, growing in strategic and inventive ways. In principle, the relationships between the superstructures have to be flexible.

The game was a collaborative experiment. It lasted six weeks. This massively multiplayer forecasting game was a project open to absolutely everyone. It diagnosed and put the call on real threats and problems named superthreats. They emerged from the collision of environmental, economic and social risks. This included five key themes: “Quarantaine” (protection of health and pandemic disease), “Ravenous” (food safety), “Power Struggle” (energy), “Outlaw Planets” (security in globally networked society)  and “Generation Exile” (issues of refugees and migrants). As a result, most of the audience regarded SuperThreats as extreme-scale challenges, the challenges facing humanity.

The aim was to inspire the players to consider previously unthinkable ideas to create a completely new solutions, mutually learning from each other and to achieve measurable success. Players have to work together. Each year of the “survival horizon” was a milestone in the game. They gained points from 0 to 100 during the entire game. Survivability points showed personal development rather than the result of competition. The game was grounded in reality. It was a real play not a role play. Therefore, the players began to imagine themselves in 2019 in the face of impending disaster. The first step was to fill out  a personal profiles of survivability. It included a set of their own resources, skills, and abilities relevant to the situation.

The second step was to build the superstructure, a collaborative network that’s built on top of existing groups and organizations.

By definition, the superstructure combined two existing communities or groups; took a big problem to solve it; had unique resources of members; and was fundamentally new. Players received detailed instructions on how to build the superstructures. They could use all kind of groups (family, neighborhood, corporate, NGO, church, online communities, etc.). After joining the group they shared their ideas in a form of the Wiki article, according to a specified form. Then they encouraged others to continue the work on a solution. If the contribution was significant and the solution fundamentally new they could receive more survivability points. 900 out of nearly 9,000 players won the maximum number of points.

The materials published by the moderators of the game were the foundation for the players. Each superthreat preceded a video trailer explaining the problem. Regular news and the report of the year 2019  could explain the situation arising out of the describing superthreats and dilemmas. Participants created 550 valuable solutions presented in a form of articles, photos, videos, blogs, podcasts, posts on Facebook and Tweets. There were proposals such as harvesting clothes for solving the energy problem and gumball machines offering food for free.

Described superstructures have resulted in the creation of the Superstructure The Whole Catalog, which is still available on superstruct.wikia.com.

After the game, the authors started the deeper research of collected data and players activities. After a half of a year they published Superstructuring the Next Decade and Superstruct Strategy Cards – visualizations in the form of maps of the superstructs ecosystem. They resulted in three scenarios for the next 50 years. Not only did the players played collectively, they were learning in practice and exceeded the expectations of the creators.

The described game can be used in many areas such as previously unrecognized water problems. Most notewothy, it is mindful of the vision of the future, not only at the level of the abstract governmental or non-governmental organizations, but in the life of the ordinary people. The game gives the chance to take advantage of the resources by the number of people scattered around the world. This acts as a kind of a crowdsourcing education and development, but also as a research tool allowing to draw conclusions from the behavior and substantive contribution of participants. In conclusion, the formula is very open and universal.

(Illustrations from superstruct.wikia.com)

The post How to invent the future appeared first on Games4Sustainability.

Let us tell you a story. There was a city – San Jose. It was 2011, and the recession was speeding up. The authorities were doing their best to limit the expenditure. As a result the citizens’ opinion of the City Council was plummeting. There was also an Innovation Games company, designing serious games for business. Among others, they created ‘Buy a Feature’, helping the brands’ representatives to check, what the buyers think of their product and what improvements are still necessary.

One day, the founder of Innovation Games (Luke Hohmann) randomly found himself sitting next to San José’s Chief Strategist Kim Walesh, and  while chatting and sharing experiences a new idea was born; to apply ‘Buy a Feature’ solutions and techniques for the improvement of the city budget. As a result, the city leaders got together and played the game, leading to significantly  fewer complaints. The city organized the game for the four consecutive years.

Luke Hohmann said:

Last year one thing I remember is, in the tax increase, one table we  gave citizens about 90 minutes to play the game and one table argued about the taxes for 87 minutes and we said there is 5 or 3 minutes left, they finally agreed to raise, the taxes needed the fund what they really wanted to do and it was this really big debate and one of the citizens said: “If you had asked me coming in to this, I’m a pretty staunch conservative, if you asked me if I would ever raise taxes I would say no, but when I actually looked at what we needed to do and we can’t do what we need to do and that we raise taxes”, and I can’t believe that happened to me.

The game’s success might come from the offering the citizens of San Jose the opportunity to take on the roles of the city’s authorities. Everybody could try for themselves to fairly divide the money among all the segments of the city’s budget  (there is never enough money during the game, so the implementaion of savings was necessary). All in all, it was the residents idea to shorten the libraries working hours or limiting the staffing of fire brigades’ cars.  However, worth appreciating is also the city’s attitude towards the game. The authorities took it seriously and drew conclusions regarding which expenditures are a priority for the residents.

During the first two year, city introduced 80% of residents’ suggestions.

As they finalized their budget priorities ranking, the additional information led to comments such as “Should we not spend money on that priority since there are more important priorities?” and “Wow! Now I understand the trade offs between spending and available revenue.

Luke Hohmann is still developing Budget Games. Since 2013, he has been doing it as part of Conteneo, a company concentrating on developing cooperation. Meanwhile, not only has Luke’s idea taken off in San Jose and the US, but also in Europe. The Belgian town of Kortrijk was the first one to play the Budget Game. Also, since September 2014  Centre for Systems Solutions implemented the project in Polish cities of Lublin and Swidnik. The residents of those cities are playing a participatory budget game – Gra o Budzet (Budget Game).

The post Make games, not war to debate over city budget appeared first on Games4Sustainability.