Simpathy for the Devil
So I've posted recently about society's use and misuse of economics. Another example, one that is particularly disappointing to me, is the set of algorithms used to run SimCity 4.
If you never played the SimCity games, they put you in the position of a mayor running a city. You zone land and provide city services, and if you do a good job your city will grow and thrive. The original game was quite simple (though, realistically, simple rules and components could yield complex systems), but by SimCity 4 you had a wide variety of power plant and mass transit options, three different densities of each zone, water pipes, schools, libraries, farms, and plenty of other buildings I can't remember. The complexity had increased greatly. You had to worry about waste disposal, sewage, education, and plenty of other factors.
It... was... awesome! Or at least it seemed awesome. You could design a fairly complex working city, and in doing so you had to solve countless problems that cropped up. You revised your strategies, you learned new ways of structuring your city, you generally had a blast.
If you were inventive enough (I usually wasn't), you discovered weaknesses in the algorithm used by the game. So for instance, raising taxes reduces "demand" for certain types of buildings, but "demand" only affects new growth, not pre-existing buildings. So you could always raise your taxes to the maximum, raise some money, and then lower them again when it was time to grow your city. I haven't actually tried this, but I assume a post toward the end of this thread is reliable.
It also turns out that the traffic algorithm used by SimCity is unrealistic. Residents don't choose the shortest commute in terms of time. I'm not sure what they do exactly, but I think they simply minimize geographical distance traveled. So for instance they would rather drive on congested streets directly to work than walk a block out of their way to take a subway.
Now, admittedly the system is still complex and challenging. You could play the game and just pretend you live in a universe in which residents have a bunch of irratinal behavioral quirks. This would be difficult for me, since I would much rather play a game with rational citizens. More importantly, though, I get the sense that the rules have been jury-rigged to achieve some semblance of rationality, but have created all kinds of unintended consequences and perverse effects. So in other words, the developers wanted to simulate actual city dynamics but for whatever reason didn't use basic economic principles to write the algorithms.
The result is that you have layers of meaningless crap. "Demand" isn't really demand, so they layered on the concept of "desirability." Planting trees raises desirability, but it's a temporary blip (which is quite strange; trees should add more to desirability as they mature - think of the magnificent trees on many college campuses). The list could go on forever - the more I read, the more examples I find.
I'm not insisting on perfect economic realism. I don't mind if things are simplified or if residents sometimes behave irrationally. I also understand if things have to be smoothed over for ideological reasons (what are the consequences of a tax hike, or increased spending on education?). The basic pattern should be a reasonable one, though.
As a quick side note, it would be pretty awesome if developers came to you with plans, asking for help with eminent domain or tax breaks. That's highly realistic, and figuring out which plans to approve could be quite a challenge.
It's especially frustrating because I don't think it would be much harder to do it the right way. The developers got so many things right - it really is an exquisite game in some ways - that it is especially galling for the game to be ruined by this one factor. Now admittedly, some things are computationally difficult. Traffic algorithms in particular might be tricky. Still, it's hard to escape the feeling that ultimately the game's algorithms were designed largely in ignorance of basic economic principles.
Finally, imagine how awesome it would be if more sophisticated economics were brought to bear. There was a hint of this in SimCity 2000, if I remember correctly. You could lower taxes on car manufacturing in anticipation of the car boom, then raise them when the boom happened. This is a crude version of what could be a much more thorough use of path dependency. Imagine having to choose whether to go into hog slaughtering or steel. It would be hard to predict that one would lead to Chicago and the other to Pittsburgh (and if the game were well-designed, neither would be automatic, it would truly be path-dependent).
Such wasted potential! I have hopes, though. First, users can design their own "mods" that alter the algorithms of the game. In theory, someone might have already designed reasonable mods. More importantly, a new SimCity may be in the works (see the end of this entry). Hope lives on!
If you never played the SimCity games, they put you in the position of a mayor running a city. You zone land and provide city services, and if you do a good job your city will grow and thrive. The original game was quite simple (though, realistically, simple rules and components could yield complex systems), but by SimCity 4 you had a wide variety of power plant and mass transit options, three different densities of each zone, water pipes, schools, libraries, farms, and plenty of other buildings I can't remember. The complexity had increased greatly. You had to worry about waste disposal, sewage, education, and plenty of other factors.
It... was... awesome! Or at least it seemed awesome. You could design a fairly complex working city, and in doing so you had to solve countless problems that cropped up. You revised your strategies, you learned new ways of structuring your city, you generally had a blast.
If you were inventive enough (I usually wasn't), you discovered weaknesses in the algorithm used by the game. So for instance, raising taxes reduces "demand" for certain types of buildings, but "demand" only affects new growth, not pre-existing buildings. So you could always raise your taxes to the maximum, raise some money, and then lower them again when it was time to grow your city. I haven't actually tried this, but I assume a post toward the end of this thread is reliable.
It also turns out that the traffic algorithm used by SimCity is unrealistic. Residents don't choose the shortest commute in terms of time. I'm not sure what they do exactly, but I think they simply minimize geographical distance traveled. So for instance they would rather drive on congested streets directly to work than walk a block out of their way to take a subway.
Now, admittedly the system is still complex and challenging. You could play the game and just pretend you live in a universe in which residents have a bunch of irratinal behavioral quirks. This would be difficult for me, since I would much rather play a game with rational citizens. More importantly, though, I get the sense that the rules have been jury-rigged to achieve some semblance of rationality, but have created all kinds of unintended consequences and perverse effects. So in other words, the developers wanted to simulate actual city dynamics but for whatever reason didn't use basic economic principles to write the algorithms.
The result is that you have layers of meaningless crap. "Demand" isn't really demand, so they layered on the concept of "desirability." Planting trees raises desirability, but it's a temporary blip (which is quite strange; trees should add more to desirability as they mature - think of the magnificent trees on many college campuses). The list could go on forever - the more I read, the more examples I find.
I'm not insisting on perfect economic realism. I don't mind if things are simplified or if residents sometimes behave irrationally. I also understand if things have to be smoothed over for ideological reasons (what are the consequences of a tax hike, or increased spending on education?). The basic pattern should be a reasonable one, though.
As a quick side note, it would be pretty awesome if developers came to you with plans, asking for help with eminent domain or tax breaks. That's highly realistic, and figuring out which plans to approve could be quite a challenge.
It's especially frustrating because I don't think it would be much harder to do it the right way. The developers got so many things right - it really is an exquisite game in some ways - that it is especially galling for the game to be ruined by this one factor. Now admittedly, some things are computationally difficult. Traffic algorithms in particular might be tricky. Still, it's hard to escape the feeling that ultimately the game's algorithms were designed largely in ignorance of basic economic principles.
Finally, imagine how awesome it would be if more sophisticated economics were brought to bear. There was a hint of this in SimCity 2000, if I remember correctly. You could lower taxes on car manufacturing in anticipation of the car boom, then raise them when the boom happened. This is a crude version of what could be a much more thorough use of path dependency. Imagine having to choose whether to go into hog slaughtering or steel. It would be hard to predict that one would lead to Chicago and the other to Pittsburgh (and if the game were well-designed, neither would be automatic, it would truly be path-dependent).
Such wasted potential! I have hopes, though. First, users can design their own "mods" that alter the algorithms of the game. In theory, someone might have already designed reasonable mods. More importantly, a new SimCity may be in the works (see the end of this entry). Hope lives on!
posted by James | 9:20 AM
1 Comments:
The New Yorker had an article on the creator of the Sim series (SimCity, SimEarth, SimLife, The Sims) last month. It was about his upcoming game, Spore. This is interesting:
Wright seems to be more interested in making games than he is in integrating his ideas into a coherent philosophy. After you have played The Sims long enough, for example, you begin to recognize all the ways in which the simulation is not like real life. (The Sims 2, which came out in 2004, added more refinements to the basic design; in addition to the motives and needs, there are four different aspirations.) The Sims is only as realistic as the social theories it’s based on, and these theories have been combined not according to scientific principles but for the purposes of entertainment. The Sims doesn’t really model human dynamics; it merely gives you a model for exploring your own idea about how families work (just as playing with dolls does). Wright is not a visionary, in the sense that he is not the author of a world view; he tailors his ideas according to the technical parameters of the simulation and the logic of games. Whether the game involves fighting intergalactic battles or modelling climate change, the simulation works according to a logic of its own. Wright may be the game industry’s greatest auteur, but to a large extent he has abdicated authorship of his own creation.
I think that addresses your point about why the rules aren't truly economic. It's a game, not a true simulation.
Post a Comment
<< Home