confusing “war on terror” game mechanics

I’ve been reading some commentary this week, and apparently there are so many different events and reactions that could trigger “victory for the terrorists” that I have a hard time maintaining any optimism or keeping anything straight.

If the Chicago Bulls have more points than the Miami Heat they win. Now that is something I can handle. Simple and straightforward. No bullshit like – If the Miami Heat call a time out now, then the Chicago Bulls have really won! If Pau Gasol swears in Spanish, then the Miami Heat have won! If Vinny Del Negro ever coaches in the NBA again, the terrorists have won! Just one simple victory condition. Points.

We don’t need to oversimplify. In a game like basketball there is essentially one way to get points. Maybe the terror game can have some more complexity with different ways of acquiring victory points, but instead of having to constantly check all these various conditions sufficient for victory, we just tally everything up. Whether we race for a certain amount of victory points (if the terrorists get 20 points first, they win) or add up and compare after a predetermined amount of rounds, I don’t know. Those weighty decisions should probably be made by terrorism experts on cable news.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s