Larry Levy's review of Population - Huzonfirst Games
|
Larry Levy's review of Population - Huzonfirst Games |
This Is What Stuart Dagger Wrote (Counter Issue 12 - March 2001)
"David Coutts took exception to the implication that the game 'Population' that Larry described took its subject more seriously than does his own '6 Billion'. As he does also to the scepticism expressed in my own review back in issue 7. His game postulates a human population of several thousand billion, and the question of where to house them being solved by asteroids and artificial satellites orbiting the various planets. He considers this a future for mankind that is both desirable and scientifically possible."
My Response
Why does Stuart feel it is necessary to answer on behalf of Larry Levy? What is more important to the readership of Counter - the fact that I took exception to Larry Levy's comments on the seriousness of the handling of theme by 6 Billion™, or the arguments for and against. What is more important to the readership of Counter - the fact that I took exception to Stuart Dagger's so-called scepticism, or the arguments for and against? Obviously Stuart's own scientific (and moral) position is so frail that he must rally the readership of Counter in condemnation of me.
Why does Stuart have to phrase my beliefs for me when I have repeatedly offered to express them myself (and subject to his editing)? I have always been aware that Counter is not the forum for scientific debate, but I was unaware that it is intended for lampooning (with no scientific basis) over 3 years of hard work in game design and scientific research on an extremely difficult subject in a totally original, serious and playable treatment of that subject.
At least Stuart almost got his facts right this time... Now he "forgets" to mention the various moons orbiting the planets, and the small planets themselves (Mercury, Venus, Mars & Pluto) as possible housing sites for future populations. He also fails to mention the rather important concept of a timeframe (hint: the subtitle of 6 Billion™ is "The Game Of The New Millennium" because that's when I personally think it will happen, but in fact it could happen well beyond 3000AD and 6 Billion™ allows for either possibility).
Stuart appears to believe (without seeming to require any argument at all) that it is not scientifically possible - EVER. Stuart appears to believe that it is not scientifically feasible - EVER (but then contradicts himself saying <<It may become so at some point in the future or it may not.>>). Stuart appears to believe that it is not desirable - EVER. If you read this page from the top, you'll see that Stuart states <<...You and I take very different views on all three questions>>. That may be, but what do you believe will happen Stuart? Please have the courage to state your beliefs (and not your disbeliefs) clearly.
Stuart appears to believe that science is BAD. Stuart appears to believe that dropping in Malthus' name is enough of a moral argument. Stuart appears to think that he can abuse his position as editor of Counter to belittle a game because he disapproves of the theme. Stuart does not appear to have the good grace to admit he made a mistake and apologise for it.
I refer the reader to more of Stuart's "sceptical" comments from his review in Counter:
"But you don't need believable science, or even good believable anything, to provide a framework for an interesting game. ... When playing, you just have to imagine that you are in the scientific world of Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, or even Kansas."
Stick to games on trains, elections and horse racing, Stuart. Your imagination is obviously not up to serious treatments on the demographic future of humanity.
David Coutts
Larry Levy's Response - 17th March, 2001
I haven't heard from Stuart Dagger, but Larry Levy has provided a very reasonable response which I've added here.