Car game 2.0

The aim of the game

My latest post in this blog was called The Car Game. It describes my efforts to design an industrial ecology simulation which is both fun and lets you experience what it is like to make decisions which affect your sustainability performance in combination with other effects, e.g. on sales and competitiveness, in a world that is dynamic and not always predictable.

This post was part of a bigger project initiated by our social systems teacher Frank Boons. He planned to read our posts and combine our ideas with his own to design a game to be played in class.

Last Thursday we played the game. For the details kindly refer to Frank’s own blog http://ieteacher.blogspot.nl/, where he will post them. Name of the game; Car game 2.0.

The aim of Car game 2.0 was (quoting from the handout); to have participants experience the mechanisms of variation (transmission?) and selection, and how these lead to system results in terms of market shifts. Comparing Frank’s game with mine you will immediately notice a couple of differences. I name the most obvious ones.

• ·        Whereas fun was my first objective, it is missing in the aim formulated by Frank. (He did ask if we had enjoyed it, however).
• ·        Whereas my (formulation of the) aim is for the players to experience what it is like to be in a producer’s position and make the decisions, Frank’s formulation is that of an observer, his aim is to have the participants see the big picture in terms of social systems.
• ·        In the game designed by Frank, the players can be producers or consumers. Frank himself is both the bank and the government. In fact he is the deus ex machina, trying to direct the variation and selection process. (whereas in my game the players are all producers and the other parties are represented by cards)
• ·        Car game 2.0 has a (very thin) relation with the concepts of industrial ecology in that consumers can choose for more or less sustainable cars or even public transportation instead of buying a car. (whereas in my game the focus is on sustainability and competitiveness) It is a socio-economist’s game rather than an industrial ecologist’s.

In this blog I shall try and describe the game as it was played last Thursday, with my observations and suggestions.

In this game I was a consumer, and a conscientious one at that. My first choice was public transport. Apart from being the obvious sustainable choice it enabled me to save a little money and purchase a better car in the second period. I expected the others to go for cars immediately but, much to my surprise, 6 out of the 16 consumers opted for public transport. Of course this meant that some of the producers were left with unsold cars, which were binned immediately.

The company which offered the more durable cars, combined with strong marketing, did best in the first two rounds, but then the effects of this durability became visible; sales dropped. Consumers with the more durable cars did not buy new cars, in spite of the producers’ efforts to tempt them with all kinds of special price arrangements etc. In addition to that the government stepped in with a tax on CO₂ emission, which in fact increased the price of cars, which reduced sales even more. This meant lots of business for the recycling company – recycling unsold new cars.

It goes without saying that the car companies reacted with a reduction of production capacity. As a result in the next round there was a shortage of cars. Customers who would have liked to buy a car had to go for the public transport option.

Being a sustainable consumer in this game was not very exciting. After going for public transport in the first round and buying a durable car in the second round I could skip rounds three and four which in fact meant waiting until the others had made their choices, so I had the opportunity to observe. The winning producers had fun, they used their creativity in creating special options to the cars and special sales arrangements. In fact the consumers had little choice, they had select from the options available. Those consumers who did enjoy the game – in my observation, that is – were those who went to negotiate with the producers even if they had no money to buy a car, and tried to influence the production plans, e.g. by ordering cars for the next round with all of the producers, so production would go up and prices would go down, or who traded in their cars and found other ways to stretch the rules of the game.

I would have thought that being a producer were more interesting, but after a few rounds the first company stopped production. There was a management buy-out and the CEOs became consumers, not because they were bankrupt but because they did not want to be producers anymore.

The last round was announced as time was almost up. In this last round I could buy a car again, which I did, but here the ‘last round effect’ was stronger than any market effects. Cars were sold just for any price as the game was over anyway. The game sort of collapsed.

Did it work?

The aim of this game was to have participants experience the mechanisms of variation (transmission?) and selection, and how these lead to system results in terms of market shift. Now we experienced some mechanisms of variation and selection in that some producers did better than others, and of course one of the producers dropped out but we played just a few rounds. The effect of government could not be experienced in just one measure which did not really work either. So, on the whole I do not think the aim of the game was reached – as far as I am concerned.

There was some market shift towards durable cars, but this was inherent in the rules of the game. The choice for a durable car was favourable for the consumers as it was simply the cheapest choice. Safety and luxury cost money for the consumers, but there was no advantage in terms of the game. As for the consumers there was no winning the game they went for the only measurable effect, that is money.

I believe we did not play enough rounds to really experience the effects of variation and selection and not by far enough to feel the effect of government intervention. On the other hand, to be honest, when it was time to stop I was already losing interest.

Suggestions for improvement

If this game is to give an insight into the variation and selection mechanisms and the resulting market shifts it must make it possible for these things to happen, preferably with one or two hours.

How to make it work?

I suggest the following;

1.   Speed up. Make sure everything is ready when the students arrive. Make a good instruction which everyone can read. Answer questions and start the game. Preparations should not take more than 10-15 minutes.

2.   Prepare. Make a plan of what each round is to bring, what the financial results of the various choices must be. If you have to calculate these while the game is being played it slows everything down.

3.   Find a different room. In a lecture room there is no place for a free market.

4.   Make the game interesting for the consumers (e.g. by giving them a personal goal such as; in round 8 I want to have a durable car with reduced CO₂ emissions) or replace them with cards.

5.   Let the players play the game and if you need to analyze what is going on, do that afterwards.  Analysis kills the game.

6.   Make kits and play in smaller groups (this is possible only if the players are all producers). This will also speed up the game. It will not only enable the players to play more rounds but also to compare the mechanisms taking place.

7.   For the effect of government to be visible it should be based on a policy and well prepared. The calculations must be made before the start of the game. If you make different groups you can compare the effects of different policies. (e.g. of government selection pressure and non-intervention)

What did I learn?

For one thing, I learnt that designing a game is not easy. Your game must reflect reality, especially if it is a simulation from which students are supposed to learn. On the other hand you can only use a few aspects of reality, else the game becomes too complex.

Winning is important. Whereas in real life there are many dimensions, in the game there is only one; only things that help you to win the game are important. This means that as a game designer you must make the game in such a way that what you want your players to see is important must contribute to winning the game. This means that before you release the game you must (ask someone to) play it with a simple purpose; to find a shortcut to victory. If this shortcut is found when the game is played ‘for real’ it is spoilt.

Numbers matter. If the math’s are not okay the game will not work.

Now this is all about game design, but did I learn anything about the mechanisms of variety and selection? I must have, in thinking up what could happen in the car market. The events (see the previous blog) were created in view of the effects they are supposed to have on the competitive power of the car producers.  But is this learning about the mechanisms of variety and selection? I would rather say it is mining previously gained knowledge.