Shad Mar 16 @ 4:41pm
Why is this game so biased?
Almost all development paths except all-hippy are bad. Nuclear is horribly underpowered with the "uranium runs out" crap. Clarthate and arctic methane releases and effects are orders of manitude even the largest estimates.

Does the game reallyneed to resort to such nonsense? It kind of defeats the educational point the game is trying to make.
Showing 1-15 of 20 comments
< >
UsF Mar 17 @ 3:00pm 
You can use unconventional oils and gasses with artificial intelligence technology without any downside. It is like discovering a new way to do something, without planning ahead for the new dangers. Using the AI tech solves those problems, as extraction becomes controlled.

Uranium becomes really viable as soon as you hit 4th gen reactors, because then the efficiency of uranium shoots up and you can sustain them for really long. Before that, they just chew through too much to be sustainable.

You should try the unofficial patch for the game, which gives you more information on most of the items in the game. :)
Delnar_Ersike Mar 19 @ 12:21pm 
The game definitely has a fair bit of green propaganda (don't even get me started with the nuclear stuff: the game says 4th gen nuclear increases uranium efficiency by 10x, while realistic estimates start at a 100x increase in uranium efficiency), though if you play it enough, you'll find some non-hippy ways of solving situations as well. They usually involve exploiting various loopholes the devs forgot to fix (for example, Solar Space Array pretty much solves all your energy problems in a single turn due to a coding oversight, while Super Smartgrids are all you need to start maxing out renewables, no other techs are required).

The prominence of green propaganda is one of the reasons I made (and am still working on) the unofficial patch; I suggest you give it a try if you're curious.
Shad Mar 19 @ 2:47pm 
Had a try of the unofficial patch. Like all the clear descriptions of what is happening. Still get confused at some mechanics. For example, using artificial trees and a bunch of high tech stuff, I got all my regions into negative emissions (around -20k overall), yet every turn my overall emissions would still increase by 6-8k. Even adding biochar on top, I could not do anything.
Fugitive Unknown Mar 22 @ 3:50pm 
You may have reached a "tipping point". Once you get to certain threshholds, the planets ability to process CO2 is inhibited, and excess CO2 is created naturally. These aren't added to any single region.

If you get your temp to 2.5, the chances of you keeping it below 3 for more then a few years drops to nil.

Of course, its also quite possible its one of the game's many examples of bizarro math.
Shad Mar 24 @ 2:30pm 
Is there any way of seeing this extra CO2? Because otherwise it's just bad game design, irrespective of contents. Creating hidden modifers that significantly affect gameplay and arenot clearly explained anywhere.
Delnar_Ersike Mar 26 @ 3:38pm 
Originally posted by Shad:
Is there any way of seeing this extra CO2? Because otherwise it's just bad game design, irrespective of contents. Creating hidden modifers that significantly affect gameplay and arenot clearly explained anywhere.
There are no actual hidden emissions, not even in the unmodded game. Despite the game warning about "tipping points", there really is only one tipping point: the collapse of the Amazon Rainforest. Amazon Rainforest Collapse causes so much forestry emissions that there pretty much is no way to reduce emissions once it gets going, even if you're playing Artificial Trees and Biochar in every region and have Biofuels maxed out in all regions. The tipping point will trigger if you go over 3.25 degrees of warming or 2.75 degrees of warming if at least 20% of the Amazon has been lost to deforestation. In the unmodded game, the only way of reversing Amazon Collapse is to reduce warming to 2.5 degrees; in the unofficial patch, you simply have to go below the Amazon Collapse trigger parameters: 2.75 degrees if more than 20% of the Amazon is gone or 3.25 degrees if the Amazon is still somewhat intact. If this sounds very gamey to you, it's because it is, which is why v0.60 of the Unofficial Patch will focus on this entire dynamic, touching on aerosols and PPM-warming ratio weather effects as well.

Before I forget, remember those Arctic Methane Release messages? Arctic Methane Release acts as a positive forcing modifier (increasing global warming) that increases as global warming increases. In the unmodded game, Arctic Methane Release started out quite small and ramped up significantly, basically becoming unstoppable if you went over 3.5 degrees. In the Unofficial Patch, it starts out a bit higher but doesn't increase nearly as much as in the unmodded game (this is actually the more realistic model, as proven by recent improvements on climate models narrowing the 2100 warming amount from 2-7.5 degrees to 4-6 degrees).

The unmodded game also had "tipping points" in the way it handled certain weather events: weather events that reduced a sector's GDP per worker did not reduce the sector's emissions or energy/resource/transport use per worker. As a result, if you got to around 3.5 degrees of warming, you'd enter a downward spiral: weather events would cause lower GDP, sectors would increase capital index and/or workforce to make up for the lost GDP, the extra capital index and/or workforce would increase emissions, the extra emissions would increase warming, the increased warming would cause more extreme weather events, so on and so forth. This convenient design oversight (convenient because it reinforced the game's green message) was fixed in the Unofficial Patch.
catarcio Mar 30 @ 12:38pm 
Nuclear power has never worked on me and i cant even remember the last time i even attempted to use it as a viable option. The game does a poor job of representing consumerism as an equal counterpart to environmentalism in terms of ideology and way of life. The games economic mechanics sets a cap on growth in developed regions which manipulates the players ability to make the choice on what kind of path is best. Why? Because it doesnt give the player the option of going consumer. It also portrays Consumerist ideology as the root cause of social and political instability. Consumerist regions are hundreds of times more likely to decline in stability even if they are less radical than green regions (Eco fanatics) which I take personally and also take rather insultingly. Its also audacious to suggest that the Middle East is in turmoil because Middle Easterners want better lives. The game suggest that unstable regions would be in peace if only they went green. What garbage!
Fugitive Unknown Apr 3 @ 4:59am 
Nukes wouldn't be a bad play in China if you had unlimited funds. Sadly, you do not (particularly at the start), and its MUCH more important to stop the world from falling apart with education and security upgrades, and then use nuculear power as a stopgap once you distribute 4th generation reactor technology. Don't feel too bad for nukes though - at least they aren't renewable power, which is effing useless early game.

Regarding ideology, I'll admit its a primitive model and makes people act totally crazypants, but you don't seem to have the way it works right (and i'm sure Delnar has more to say on it).

Its not the eco-ideology that causes instability (unless I've missed something). Security and stability has its own stat, and just because a particular nation hates your guts has nothing to do with how stable it is (though unstable nations are, by nature, more likely to dislike you). Try turning North Africa into an eco fanatic state and watch how "Stable" it becomes without education or security upgrades.

Or alternatively, don't turn the middle east into an eco state - if you just send in education and security and up their fuel production, the region becomes stable very, very quick (at least till the fuel runs out or the ecology crashes) even on consumer. Of course, its almost as insulting to assume that you could just fix the middle east's problems with some mercs and a few years of superior schooling, but thats another problem.

Which leads me to the last point: that the game doesn't present consumerism as being
equal to environmentalism. Why would it? This is game about dealing with global warming (primarily) and fuel shortages (secondary) while trying to preserve life. Its a game about the planet dying due to ecological damage. Naturally, having a nation that's more ecological is going to be better for you, most of the time (hey, at least consumer nations can run Geoengineering).

Anyway, ♥♥♥♥♥ing that consumerism isn't good at dealing with a game about global wraming seems like me complaining that my nation of pacifists always seem to lose in Total War.
catarcio Apr 3 @ 10:20am 
I totally agree with you that ideology isnt the only thing that affects a regions stability, my concern is not that Green regions produce volatile political environments, but that Consumerist regions do. The game suggest that a green revolution would bring world peace, but what if the world simply embraced consumption? This is where the game becomes incredibly bias because as a region shifts towards Consumerism, it becomes increasingly harder to maintain its stability, which suggest that the standards of living the local people demand are unrealistic. But cant the same be said about Eco-Fanatics? Cant it be argued that having no affect on the environment is an unrealistic standard? Yet the game insist that no matter how radical either end of the spectrum is, Consumerism will always be more volatile.

Going back to your point about how its almost as insulting to suggest that a higher standard of living would solve many of the problems of the MIddle East, that kind of thought is not based off of ideology alone unlike the point that Environmentalism will solve all problems, that kind of thought is based off of statistical evidence. There is an incredibly strong correlation between regional welfare, GDP, etc, and regional political freedom, violence, etc.

My last point would be that the game is called Fate Of The World and not Fate Of Our Planets Ecology for a reason, because both the ecological and human aspects of life are portrayed within the selected time frame this game takes place in. Unfortunately, it is true that the games true intention is to deceive its audience.

A nation of pacifists wouldnt get themselves into a war, just like how a nation of Consumerist wouldnt get themselves into the mess of restraining resources and trying to micromanage our planet. Consumerism should be presented as an equal because its simply the alternative to going green. In essence the game could really just be what you think the future should look like or what you think is the most moral choice. When going consumer, your not going to act in the same manner as with going green. The end you wish to meet (Solving global poverty) will be different then the alternative (Solving Global Climate Change), therefore the means to that end will also be unique, and therefore one should not be placed above the other. The games mechanics are giving you the choice to put your effort into one or the other or something in between, Consumerism should therefore (presumably) be presented as merely another response and not a problem.
Fugitive Unknown Apr 11 @ 12:49am 
"My last point would be that the game is called Fate Of The World and not Fate Of Our Planets Ecology for a reason,"

Uh.. from the game's description.

"You must manage a balancing act of protecting the Earth’s resources and CLIMATE versus the needs of an ever-growing world population, who are demanding ever more food, power, and living space. Will you help the whole planet or will you be an agent of destruction?"

The game opens with a description of the horrible ecological disasters caused by climate change. The main scenario is keeping the planet in one peice and not letting it go above 3.0 (it is literally the name of the main scenario).

You even win the main scenario if humanity is basically wiped out and reduced to a near stoneage like existance, or if you gamma plague everywhere but Australia into oblivion!

I think you can safely say that this game's primary focus is on the ecology and that it billed itself as such.

" Consumerism should therefore (presumably) be presented as merely another response and not a problem."

Consumerism, by nature, isn't a response. Its a society that's focused on, well, consuming goods and the accumulation of wealth.

An ecological society is focused on preserving the planet's ecology. If the danger is ecological (as modeled in most of the scenarios), it would make sense for it to be a superor viewpoint.

All your actions are based around a UN like, extra-governmental agency with wide ranging (but not quite unlimited powers).



"I totally agree with you that ideology isnt the only thing that affects a regions stability, my concern is not that Green regions produce volatile political environments, but that Consumerist regions do."

Only if you can't maintain HDI. I haven't played this in a while, but I remember running consumerist societies on Denial or Dr. Apoc for a LONG LONG time (at least until the fuel runs out or the planet sets itself on fire).

Even if things are going south, you can still keep the stability up if you up fuel production and use propgands.


"Consumerism should be presented as an equal because its simply the alternative to going green"

I still don't see your logic. WHY should have RDR have done this?
What moral imperative does RDR to set up consumerism as superior in their game?


catarcio Apr 11 @ 1:06pm 
I never said superior, I said equal. And your question makes perfect sense, why would it have a moral imperative if its only goal was to spew out propaganda? If it really wanted to inform it's audience truthfully, it wouldnt have presented Environmentalism as a fix-all to the world's problems. If they really wanted to teach people about global climate change, they would accurately depict it and it's effects on the planets population realistically, which they obviously didnt, otherwise no one would have had to mod it. Like you said, the game drives you into a cliff where your only solution is to kill off humanity and doesnt present anything remotely economically viable as a solution that doesnt involve plunging the world into third world living standards, which is still not enough.

What I mean by equal is that the response to climate change for a Consumerist society would be to adapt instead of prevent. This is poorly presented by RDR because the real-life (I wouldnt call them solutions because it belittles climate change and that would be just as unfair) adaptations to climate change would be so much more sophisticated.

An ecological viewpoint doesnt necessarily have to be superior if the issue is ecological (I know it sounds peculiar) but if the intent of a Consumerist society is to accumulate wealth and technology then it wouldnt be a stretch to say that the sheer capital provided by this society could be used towards adapting to the ecological problem. By response I mean that the society would be polarized increasingly more towards Consumerism instead of just a "been doing that" kind of thing. Again, I understand that when talking about climate change it is audacious to make a claim like "Consumerism is the alternative" but the you have to at least recognize that the game does have a sense of duality to it. Its almost like the developers were considering this as a central theme and then gave in and went with propoganda.
Hardin May 8 @ 6:49pm 
The beauty of this game is how easy it is to mod. To some it might mess up the message or science, but it's a lot of fun. I played several games where I increased the amount of uranium reserves and it makes nuclear a lot more useful in the early game. Of course depending on how much you change the reserves it can be considered cheating, but it's your game do whatever you want.
Fugitive Unknown Jun 2 @ 12:34pm 
Sorry for not replying earlier. Your reply to this thread didn't show up in my "new comments" section.

Originally posted by catarcio:
I never said superior, I said equal. And your question makes perfect sense, why would it have a moral imperative if its only goal was to spew out propaganda?

That isn't the game's only goal, but yes, this game is designed to influence the audience's viewpoint. Its quite intentional and upfront about this. That isn't its only goal. Its also to entertain, make a buck, and inform.

Originally posted by catarcio:
If it really wanted to inform it's audience truthfully, it wouldnt have presented Environmentalism as a fix-all to the world's problems.

What? It really isn't.

There's almost no straight up mechanical benefit to saving the planet when everyone is environmentalist. It doesn't magically fix anything.

Its just that you can't convince the world of the very expensive infrastructure changes and rising costs unless they accept that there is a problem out there and a reason to do it.

Originally posted by catarcio:
If they really wanted to teach people about global climate change, they would accurately depict it and it's effects on the planets population realistically, which they obviously didnt, otherwise no one would have had to mod it.

While I agree the game is unrealistic, I think that has a more to do the game having to take global ecological, economic,sociological and technological (!!!) issues of the next 200 years, and (trying to) turn that into a game that's accessable for most gamers and doesn't present easy solutions.

That's a tall order, and I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that their screw ups, particularly as the only game ever released by a studio that was horribly understaffed by coders. Particularly when the errors are well known thanks to the established awesome mod of awesomeness.

Originally posted by catarcio:
Like you said, the game drives you into a cliff where your only solution is to kill off humanity and doesnt present anything remotely economically viable as a solution that doesnt involve plunging the world into third world living standards, which is still not enough.

What? You don't have to kill off humanity to win, and you can maintain a decent GDP and HDI (though it'll plumit like a stone if things go wrong).

All being environmentalist does is convince the population that lowering emissions is a good thing, and if you pull it off globally, it'll make people a bit more willing to accept lower GDP if and when the fuel starts running out.

You still have to worry about everything else, and environmentalism is hardly a be all solution to everything. In fact, some of the things you do are very unfriendly to greens. One of the first things I do in 3 degrees is order the US to Frak natural gas like crazy and drill baby drill in the Middle East, and beef up up military presence there.

Originally posted by catarcio:
What I mean by equal is that the response to climate change for a Consumerist society would be to adapt instead of prevent.

This game uses the "Tipping Point" models with methane explosions and other climate change accelerators (like methane release) that will make tempratures of six degrees likely. That's why 3 degrees is the "mankind is screwed" level (and why its almost impossible to win if you trigger 2.5 more then a few years before the end date).

At six degrees, you are talking about a global ocean die off, the utter destruction of almost all life (of any kind) and a complete change in the weather system and a total failure of agriculture. They figure a reduction of 6% in O2 levels. Maybe mankind could survive that, but only a tiny % of it, and society as we know it would cease to exist.

Originally posted by catarcio:
An ecological viewpoint doesnt necessarily have to be superior if the issue is ecological (I know it sounds peculiar)

Its the one thing I EXPECT it to be better at. Not having an ecological viewpoint being superior when it came to ecological matters would be like saying there's no reason GDP shouldn't grow faster in consumerist societies.

And honestly, I don't understand why you think this way: I don't expect to be able to play as a communist in Capitalism, why on earth would I expect to be able to play as a hard core consumerist in FotW (though they do let you do that in specific scenarios).

Originally posted by catarcio:
but if the intent of a Consumerist society is to accumulate wealth and technology then it wouldnt be a stretch to say that the sheer capital provided by this society could be used towards adapting to the ecological problem.

Out of curiosity, what in human history would make you think that?

I mean, capitalism is great at growth and all, but it is absolutely lousy at solving large scale problems with global effects, or working on technology for its own sake, because there's no profit in it.

It generally needs an external force to push it towards dealing with ginormous externalities and projects.

Originally posted by catarcio:
By response I mean that the society would be polarized increasingly more towards Consumerism instead of just a "been doing that" kind of thing. Again, I understand that when talking about climate change it is audacious to make a claim like "Consumerism is the alternative" but the you have to at least recognize that the game does have a sense of duality to it. Its almost like the developers were considering this as a central theme and then gave in and went with propoganda.

I don't really get what you mean by a "been doing that" kind of thing. Perhaps you could reword that?

I do recognise the game has a duality to it, but this game (at least the base scenario) is based on assumptions (and frankly, scientific evidence) that show that one of those viewpoints is flat out wrong, at least if the models are true.
Illyrien Jun 2 @ 2:23pm 
We should just have a DLC adding LFTR's, that is thorium base nuclear power. Then by 2040 you can build it anywhere giving 0 carbo and energy cheaper than coal. It would be a pretty easy game after that...but hey who wants realism
catarcio Jul 1 @ 5:31pm 
Oh m'gosh, Im so sorry to have left such a long and tedious comment to have to repost to but thank-you Fugitive for responding :) What I mean by "sheer capital" is the technological capacity mankind posseses in order to survive even the harshest of climatic conditions. A hyper-commercialized society would (assumingly) possess the means to survive these conditions for at least some expanse of time (perhaps 2400?) before absolutely un-livable conditions were to set in, leading to a sort of space exodus (Star Ark). By "been doing that" I mean that our society is not Consumerist in the Hyperbolized sense, a hyper Commercialized society would be that extreme end of the spectrum. The game portrays the evolution and transition into green living quite well but does not portray the "what if?' of a hyperbolized hyper-Commercial society as elegantly. It really is a tall order and I am especially grateful that this game was made I just feel like its antagonistic of the modern way of life and shows very little sympathy to the plight of poverty.
Showing 1-15 of 20 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50