Fiddling While Rome Burns?

January 19, 2007 4:37 AM

Can you save the world? This engaging flash game from the BBC lets you try. And it's based on Science! too.
posted by mr. strange (25 comments total)

Very nice. It just fails to tell you that your effort as the EU president will help fuck all as long as China, India, and the US give you the finger.

Still very educational.
posted by uncle harold at 5:19 AM on January 19, 2007

every time i come close to saving the world, conservatives starts screaming how i'm making them poorer and how climate change is a big lie.

f'ing end bosses. ugh.
posted by jcterminal at 5:33 AM on January 19, 2007 [2 favorites]

I used Interest Interest Interest Fire.
posted by srboisvert at 5:55 AM on January 19, 2007 [2 favorites]

I managed to go all the way. It's interesting though - your final scores seem to be based entirely on the last round (especially popularity). Never mind that throughout my tenure I enjoyed an over 50% popularity rating, the fact that my final policies were massively unpopular meant that apparently I'm some sort of despot.

Screw it, I got 92% for environment, and thus saved the world.
posted by djgh at 6:26 AM on January 19, 2007

Perhaps the greatest flaw of the game is how it deals with the popularity of initiatives. The way in which public opinion is modeled seems badly off-kilter. One would not expect to be able to get a screen at the end that says all of the following:

• Well done!
• Europe emitted a very low level of carbon emissions, which is likely to result in global temperatures increasing by 1.4-2.5 degrees Celsius.
• You left the economy in ruins. Hyper-inflation and joblessness are endemic across Europe. People are starving and crime and lawlessness have taken hold.
• You were generally liked and seemed to consider public opinion on almost all the decisions you took.

I am not sure what this 'victory' screen says about the BBC's opinion on European voters, but the combination strikes me as supremely implausible.
posted by sindark at 6:52 AM on January 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

I reduced emissions to almost zero and everyone in the world loves me, including all my voters, despite the fact that Europe is now an economic ruin.

Just like sindark I see.
posted by biffa at 6:53 AM on January 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

I, too, saved the environment and will be remembered as the most popular president of all time, despite leaving the continent in utter economic ruin. Go me?
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:02 AM on January 19, 2007

Add me to the "well loved and saved the earth but am now dirt poor" contingent. Is it always a 2 out of 3 thing - you can achieve two of the goals at the detriment of the third?
posted by divabat at 7:13 AM on January 19, 2007

Well, I helped the earth, but didn't quite save it. I was frustrated by the fact that in the last few rounds I consistently over-produced energy but couldn't export it.
posted by oddman at 7:34 AM on January 19, 2007

oddman,

Energy is no problem, but producing food and water without massive emissions seems impossible. This game is not so realistic, despite what they claim on the 'science' page.
posted by sindark at 7:39 AM on January 19, 2007

from link: "...you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office."

This game seemed tough, but it's only part 2. It's not half as hard as part 1, Constitution Challenge, where you had to quell the civil unrest and anger caused by the fact that one man had taken control over dozens of formerly sovereign nations.
posted by koeselitz at 7:48 AM on January 19, 2007

Wow, me too. Saved the world, wrecked the economy.
posted by arcticwoman at 7:54 AM on January 19, 2007

Also, what game were the refs watching? I easily had twice as much money in the bank as when I started and they told me I'd bankrupted the EU. What gives?
posted by leapfrog at 8:46 AM on January 19, 2007

leapfrog: Yeah, I know what you mean. I tried playing it again, this time trying to keep my money-bar as low as possible. I speculated that the idea was to take as little money as possible in taxes.

It made no difference. I still devastated the economy.
posted by mr. strange at 9:40 AM on January 19, 2007

So, it's like that thermonuclear game.
posted by IronLizard at 9:54 AM on January 19, 2007

I wonder if it is possible to keep the economy stable while reducing carbon emission and keeping popularity. Anyway, it seems wise to use "Spin your policies" whenever it is available.
posted by nkyad at 10:08 AM on January 19, 2007

Environment 86%
Wealth 6%
Popularity 83%
posted by bhouston at 10:36 AM on January 19, 2007

Interesting but somewhat flawed. I cut all foreign subsidies from the start, but always voted to reduce emissions. Eventually the world saw the light and everyone was voting with me. On the other hand, I ended up with 72% in Environment and an amazing 100% popularity, having nevertheless managed to raise the retirement age to 80, raise taxes here and there, etc. Increasing pensions must have helped a lot.

But my Wealth ended up at 6%. The extremists were vastly influent. Since my popularity was absolute, I guess I was the leader of the extremists.
posted by nkyad at 10:39 AM on January 19, 2007

89-12-88.
Looks like I'm strictly better than you, bhouston.

Also. Ditto what leapfrog said about the economy/wealth.
posted by juv3nal at 11:01 AM on January 19, 2007

77/7/88

I feel like Castro.
posted by MythMaker at 11:55 AM on January 19, 2007

OK that economy is definitely buggy. I just clicked on the wealth thing to get a graph this last time around and the graph is a steadily rising slope from where you start out and I somehow ended up with 10 for economy.
posted by juv3nal at 12:28 PM on January 19, 2007

* You left the economy in ruins. Hyper-inflation and joblessness are endemic across Europe. People are starving and crime and lawlessness have taken hold.
* You were generally liked and seemed to consider public opinion on almost all the decisions you took.

I am not sure what this 'victory' screen says about the BBC's opinion on European voters, but the combination strikes me as supremely implausible.

Pretend it's the USA then. George Bush was voted in for a second term despite a very solid record over the previous four years.

In only seems implausible if you assume people rate and like leaders based on their job performance, which seems pretty tenuous :)
posted by -harlequin- at 1:46 PM on January 19, 2007

Environment 93%
Wealth 3%
Popularity 50%

I never supported fossil fuels or any current model, and balanced energy requirements every other round with something to make the people happy. In the last round, I had to spend alot to decrease the CO2.

I can't believe there were never any significant options for food at the local or household level. And organic farming was only big industry.
posted by asfuller at 4:30 PM on January 19, 2007

89/9/93 first time around, and I didn't realise there was a "more cards" button (durrrr).
93/9/100 using more cards.

Eco-friendly, extremely popular, but lawless!?

Yay.
posted by linux at 5:24 PM on January 19, 2007

They posit working fusion reactors, but they don't have much effect.

If we actually get fusion power working, everything will change.
posted by Malor at 7:09 PM on January 19, 2007