Who are you working with?
The core team consistes of two students: Angel Inokon, Stanford University and Jeff Bowman University of California, Berkeley. We also have a team of advisors and contacts. See the people page.

What platform will the game run on?
The initial prototype will be a PC based game using Flash.

What do you plan to do with the game?
Plan to submit it to Serious Games competition at Berkeley. It will also be submitted as a Master's research project at Stanford. We hope to continue developing the game.

How do we know what people need to learn?
We ask them. We conduct surveys and then code their answers into categories which we later use in our content design and game design. We also look at what experts know and find a subset of information we believe would be meaningful to our audience.

How do you plan to manage the complexity of mini-games that all have to connect?
The game is essentially a linear story. Each chapter is basically a multiple choice test. There are not an infinite number of choices. We are careful to contain answers that are valid in that set. The player perceives that they have lot’s of choice. They are mostly in control of overall score based on the number of missions they play.

Will the constantly switching perspectives be too much for the learner. Is it better to focus on one thing and learn it well and then move on?
Our domains of knowledge - management, scientific and personal - all interrelate. The game builds upon knowledge in one area and constantly returns to these subjects to reinforce learning. As for staying with one perspective longer, we suspect that this generation is more twitchy and will enjoy the diverse pace. It remains to be proven, further study will inform us here.

What if the perspectives conflict? What if what you decide on the personal level conflicts with the government level?
The simple answers is we would not present scenarios that conflict. If the governement says you can’t have vaccine, we wouldn’t present a scenario where you have an option of going against the policy. But we present things the family can effect like hygiene, quarantine and supplies. As another example, if you are playing as the virus. You would be limited to playing the virus in a lab where it is being contained and studied.


Will comedy be effective? When is it appropriate? Will people take the game seriously?
Comedy is a very effective tool when used wisely. It is an excellent way to capture attention, ease tension and teach moral lessons without being too preachy. In our game comedy is used after tense moments of gameplay to give the player an emotional break. We would use it in scenarios that are mostly preventative where there is no immediate threat of danger. We might also include it to show quirky sides of human nature to teach moral lessons. For example: In the shopping frenzy game, you might see a shopper hoarding food underneath their clothes and then getting caught for doing so. People will laugh because they can imagine themselves doing something like that. We believe in the first few turns of the game people will get how serious the subject is and these moments of light levity will keep them playing.

If these toys are too fun how do you know people will take it seriously?
Fun does not equate with lack of learning. The answer depends on the audience and our objective. We believe serious games can be fun. Their success is measured on whether learning outcomes have been achieved. We aim to pursue this question through assessments that gauge the effectiveness of the game for our audience.

What is innovative about this game? How will this game be disruptive?

• Toy-based simulation.
• Multiple perspectives. Be the president or Be the virus and infect people in a limited amount of time.
• See the effects of decisions throughout the game
• Promote action in real life outside of the game

Is the game accurate?
We gathered data from current events, advisors, professors, and experts to inform our models. We attempt to simplify real life decision making so it can fit within a digestable game experience. No it is not 100% accurate but it will be research based. We are looking for medical advisors to collaborate with us.

What is the alternative to this game? How do people learn about pandemics?
Media and health care advisors. People are over saturated. Some of the hype may be misleading or cause people to over-respond.

What is the risk if we don't build this game? Has there been an example where health information has failed with serious consequences?
The risk is another Katrina except widespread, long-term and more devastating. The government has already admitted that if a bird flu hits they can't help. We're on our own. We must be informed. I know of not game where health information has failed. We can't afford to fail.

Can disease be fun?
Yes. Just like SimCity or Sodoku is fun, people gain enjoyment by solving difficult problems. Disease can be fun if you present clear interfaces, fun play and attainable goals. Also the game offers a diversity of genres with some more "action-like" goals that require speed or fast thinking to respond.

How do you quantify preparedness? What things can’t be quantified?
Not sure.