why learn through games?
A game simulating the challenges incurred due to terrorism is important from a learning perspective in that;
- Games provide the player with an active experience
- Provides the player with customized, rapid feedback
- Engages the player by making him/her player pay close attention
- Demands thoughtful planning and decision making demands learning in order to succeed in one’s role
- Promotes behavioral learning
- Games offer consequences
- The player identifies the character and directs the success and failure to his/her gaming actions
context for game
- The context for the game has been an amalgamation of various past and present incidents, organizations and settings.
- However, it should be noted that none of the (1) players i.e. the Government of Seyland, or the terrorist group i.e. the Free Jundals Militia, (2) regional organizations, nor (3) locations and geography in this fictional continent of Bengalia is a result of a singular country, terrorist group, international body, or region, respectively.
- More so, it is a merge of different conflicts, which has been recreated in a fictional setting in order for players to draw parallels to past and current events from the real world as they make their way through the game.
- The location for the game, i.e. the fictional continent of Bengalia was inspired from the Indian Subcontinent, and the countries in the region were also created paralleling features of countries including India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
- The source of conflict in the game, i.e. Coltan, a conflict mineral was based off the current situation at hand in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
- The regional organizations represented in the game, i.e. the Confederation of Bengali Nations (COPN) was created amalgamating the role of the SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization).
Terrorism has been analyzed using Game theory, because;
- Game theory captures the strategic interactions between terrorists and a targeted government, where actions are interdependent
- Strategic interactions among rational actors, who are trying to act according to how they think their counterparts will act and react, characterize the interface among terrorists (e.g., between hard-liners and moderates)
- In terrorist situations, each side issues threats and promises to gain a strategic advantage
- Terrorists and governments abide by the underlying rationality assumption of game theory, where a player maximizes a goal subject to constraints
- Game-theoretic notions of bargaining are applicable to hostage negotiations and terrorist campaign-induced negotiations over demands
- Uncertainty and learning in a strategic environment are relevant to all aspects of terrorism, in which the terrorists or government or both are not completely informed.
- The Rational actor model has also been cited as an important means of deciphering the intricacies of terrorism in that the “rational-actor models depict the negotiation process between terrorists and government policymakers for incidents where hostages or property are seized and demands are issued” (Sandler and Arce, 2003).
- Additionally, “Any counter terrorism policy that underestimates the wherewithal and resourcefulness of terrorists is doomed to fail. In order to predict new types of terrorist attack modes, the likelihood of an attack on a particular target or location, or the likely behavior of terrorists in response to a counter terrorism initiative, it is necessary to posit a theory of terrorist behavior.
- The rational-actor model leads to a number of straightforward predictions concerning the behavior of a terrorist network or cell” (Enders, 2007)
- Thus, since the hallmark of the rational-actor model is that terrorists use their scarce resources so as to maximize the expected value of their utility (Sandler and Arce, 2003)
This games hopes to decipher if these theories still stand and to what extent as it is being tested in a fictional environment.