Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!gatech!psuvax1!psuvm!rmg3
From: RMG3@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: SimEarth: how good is it?
Message-ID: <91059.100228RMG3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 28 Feb 91 15:02:28 GMT
References: <16954@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 40

In article <16954@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>, palvarez@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (Pablo Alvarez) says:

>I've been thinking about buying SimEarth, so I'd like to know what
>people who have played the game think about it.

>-Did you like it?

>-How realistic is it?

>-How good a feeling does it give you for how changes in ecology and
>society interact?

>-Do you recommend it?

>-Other comments?

  The game is great fun as such.

  The accuracy of its elements is questionable.  The atmosphere and ocean
are particularly dubious.  Though that may be a function of the fact that
I do research in climate dynamics.  One thing missing from the atmosphere,
for example, is the multiple latitudes of local rain maxima (roughly
the equator and then 45 North or South).  The ocean has no Gulf Stream, for
instance, which means that 'Europe' in the model is too cold.  Antarctica
on the other hand is far too warm (it is even inhabited!)

  In spite of my misgivings about the accuracy of the details, SimEarth
does a very good job of letting the various elements interact with each
other.  This is the part that makes things interesting in the game, and
it does succeed there.

  I reviewed the game for a faculty member here who was thinking of using
it in an advanced class on climate (400 level).  My feeling then (and still)
is that because of its interactions it would be worth the time, in spite
of the errors in the components.

Enjoy,
Bob Grumbine
Penn. State doesn't even know I'm here.  Why would you think that I represent
them?