There's a difference between playing a game for pleasure and simulating a universe.
Sure is: one involves the players and the other involves the programmer. What's your point?
The universe can still be fun without suffering.
But not without challenge, and every challenge comes with the inherent risk of suffering.
For instance, imagine if you were in this simworld and you were playing Grand Theft Auto (WITH the detection rules). You'd experience challenge, but you wouldn't suffer yourself.
Not sure what you're suggesting here but it sounds like you're talking about a game within a game: a sim-world that you can log into where your character can log into a game within the game: a
sim-sim-world.
Aside from the obvious redundancy, I think if it had any effect open your perspective at all, all it would accomplish would be to remove you one more level from the necessary catharsis; the real fun in playing a sim-game is letting yourself
forget that it's a game.
And to some extent, you do forget: if you've ever played any of these games you know that certain circumstances and situations within the sim-world will get your blood pumping faster, make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, cause you to breath harder and faster, maybe even illicit a sweat. Even though there's no actual physical danger involved, your body reacts as if there were, ie., part of your physiology
thinks it's real.
Same thing while watching a good movie: certain situations effect you emotionally and physically, even though you know it isn't real. That's the sign of a good movie or a game worth playing: the level of catharsis. Without it, what's the point?
And probably most important for the purposes of this topic: if you'll notice, there isn't a game or movie that doesn't involve some sort of crisis for the protagonists. Doesn't matter if it's drama, comedy, musical, or Walt Disney,
crisis is an indispensable element; without it what would you have? I mean who would bother to watch a movie that started out with "
everything just peachy here" developed into "
still just fine, thanks for asking
" and ended with
"Boy, sure am glad nothing bad happened"? Answer: nobody, that's why they don't make movies like that.
Why does the programmer of OUR world find it necessary to program child leukemia into the mix?
Looking at the bigger picture: obviously, we want disease as well . Not for ourselves as individuals, of course, but as a fact of life for the species as a whole. Consider that every time we conquer an infectious disease we replace it with an degenerative one. We find a cure for smallpox, we come up with diabetes. We get rid of colora and typhoid, we start inflicting heart disease and cancer on ourselves through our lifestyle choices. Why?
How many of our modern-day health problems are self-inflicted?: the result of choices that we've made? Risks that we (as a society) have decided to take in exchange for the benefits of industrialization? Or that we (as individuals) have decided to take for the sake of convenience and self-indulgence? At this point in our history, almost all of them.
Does that make our "sim" fun?
Why do you keep using the word "fun"? That's way too small a box to fit this all in.
Should we not bother "playing" our sim if there are no leukemia rules?? I don't think anyone would argue so!
Not sure what you're asking here (sorry, but the double negative is making this one too slippery).
Can you rephrase this?
