In what might be the most distasteful game announcement since Hatred, Polish studio Jujubee has revealed an upcoming title, COVID: The Outbreak: [prebreak]1[/prebreak]

​

COVID: The Outbreak is a real-time strategy game in which you play the role of a global organization that has to deal with a global pandemic. Issue decrees, manage resources, develop projects, and construct buildings. A race for the vaccine begins!

In addition to crisis management, the game provides the players with information on how to behave in the event of an epidemic, what actions to take, and how to protect themselves and their loved ones in the most effective way. The game is based on the data published by WHO and on the information acquired from experts and consultants.

“Here at Jujubee we are passionate about educating our audience while they are having a good time playing our games. Currently, there is a plethora of misinformation circulating the topic of the coronavirus, so we hope our strategy game will serve as a source of entertainment and education for our players.” - says Pawel Nitta, Head of Marketing & PR.

​

GAME FEATURES

Pandemic Management - advise the world what needs to be done in order to survive the dreadful disease; manage funds, staff, medicine, and research priorities.

Issue Emergency Decrees - declare national emergency and close borders, enforce obligatory vaccination, close schools and airports. Do whatever it takes to stop the coronavirus.

Research New Projects - developing new ways to fight off the disease is a sound strategy. Remember to be cautious as your enemy may mutate, rendering your newly acquired ability completely useless.

Unpredictable Events - how you handle the ongoing fake news, mass stockpiling of supplies, or people ignoring the incoming threat will go a long way towards deciding whether you will prevail against the disease, or succumb to it.

Construct Vital Buildings - build hospitals, emergency tents, research institutions, checkpoints, police stations, and a whole lot more. Every building you enact may become the decisive factor in stopping the outbreak.

Games Beyond™ - educate yourself on how a coronavirus operates, what can you do if you become infected, and why quarantines are issued. Understand why a pandemic is a threat to humanity.



COVID: The Outbreak release May 19th on Steam.

 

[MikaDubbz]

Let's italic a bit of this post...
And yet here you are still complaining to him about his views...
Clearly you both have different opinions. One of those opinions - this game is not for you of course. And that's about all there is to it really! Don't buy it! Do you HAVE to have your say about it all the time?? (Social media really gets on my tits for this...)

My personal opinion: I'm sick of all this forced doom and gloom on the subject! WTF is wrong with us all?! Facebook?? Fukk me it's toxic there at the best of times but these days, my God... I've had a neighbour die and currently an uncle in hospital due to it, but to walk round 1 step away from slitting my wrists, nah.. that's not the way to go about things ...or indeed combat the virus, its medically proven if you're in a better physical AND mental state of mind you're better equipped to deal with any illness - not a guarantee of course, but it's better than feeling negative all the time!
Still, I'd say this is a good couple of months too early as well. Europe SEEMS (don't quote me!) to be over the worst, or at least the peak, but I'm not so sure about the US, and Christ knows what'll happen if it hits the poorest countries of Africa as hard... This time next year, when hopefully it's all just a bad memory, get the game released then. Then we can all say 'Oh you guys....!' and all that. Though I do suspect we'd still get a few pansies posting 'That's just gross to me' etc etc...

I'm not complaining about his views, I've stated numerous times that he and I simply don't see the same way, but that's ok. Me sharing my views on the issue doesn't mean others aren't free to have their own views on a subject. Like I've said, you do you, but that doesn't mean I won't have my own opinion all the same on the subject.

 

[FAST6191]

Sure we can do the huggy these are my opinions thing but the challenge of them/to them is more where discussion is at.

In this case I am struggling to understand why.

Does it divert resources from fixing the problem?
Does it slow fixing the problem by some other means?
Does it it denigrate the sufferers of such things? Or the survivors and those associated with them?
Does it trouble said associates in some way?

From where I sit I am arriving at no on all counts. At worst someone bothered by it might see something and be reminded of something, however any such standards tend to revolve around how avoidable something is and in this case you have to actively engage.
To this end "too soon" for this sort of thing almost feels like one of those pointless things that gets adopted as a tradition and carried on for no good reason. That sort of thing bothers me -- mine is not only to reason why but do things for a reason.
If you have something I might have missed, or a flaw in my reasoning otherwise, that is what I seek. We could go further into what sort of timelines would be acceptable. Does it particularly count as a tragedy? If so what does not https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm (several of which are eminently preventable) shows some far more troubling things than https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html if I care to do it, and I dare say few would object to simulating some of the others there or going more low level (any number hospital, surgeon, or larger scale management sims out there, to say nothing of more general things that also serve to do stuff).

Writing off entertainment as little more than frivolous waste of time, as again play and entertainment serve many purposes in learning and general understanding of the world, also irks but that is perhaps a different discussion.

 

[MikaDubbz]

Sure we can do the huggy these are my opinions thing but the challenge of them/to them is more where discussion is at.

In this case I am struggling to understand why.

Does it divert resources from fixing the problem?
Does it slow fixing the problem by some other means?
Does it it denigrate the sufferers of such things? Or the survivors and those associated with them?
Does it trouble said associates in some way?

From where I sit I am arriving at no on all counts. At worst someone bothered by it might see something and be reminded of something, however any such standards tend to revolve around how avoidable something is and in this case you have to actively engage.
To this end "too soon" for this sort of thing almost feels like one of those pointless things that gets adopted as a tradition and carried on for no good reason. That sort of thing bothers me -- mine is not only to reason why but do things for a reason.
If you have something I might have missed, or a flaw in my reasoning otherwise, that is what I seek. We could go further into what sort of timelines would be acceptable. Does it particularly count as a tragedy? If so what does not https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm (several of which are eminently preventable) shows some far more troubling things than https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html if I care to do it, and I dare say few would object to simulating some of the others there or going more low level (any number hospital, surgeon, or larger scale management sims out there, to say nothing of more general things that also serve to do stuff).

Writing off entertainment as little more than frivolous waste of time, as again play and entertainment serve many purposes in learning and general understanding of the world, also irks but that is perhaps a different discussion.

If this is in response to me, well I've given my reasoning for the opinion I have. You just didn't seem to be able to accept it, but my opinion is clear all the same: taking advantage of a tragedy while it is actively happening with a product that makes the tragedy into entertainment, while people are actively dying from it, and then lining your pockets with that profit is just disgusting and in poor taste. If you can't understand that, that's fine, I'm not going to force you, but I do have a sound opinion that makes perfect sense. I can't help but think of my buddy's grandma who is dying of this thing and how on earth she would receive the news that if I told her that this thing she is dying from is being turned into a video game that people are supposed to play for fun and unwind with while the devs keep the profits.

Now, don't take me saying that this is all in poor taste as me saying the devs absolutely can't do this. It's a free country, they can do what they want, but that doesn't change how I think it's just really scummy for the reason I've explained. Again, if you don't see how that's fucked up, cool, I'm not going to force you, but don't pretend I don't have an opinion that is entirely sound and valid just because it doesn't mesh with your own.

 

[FAST6191]

If this is in response to me, well I've given my reasoning for the opinion I have. You just didn't seem to be able to accept it, but my opinion is clear all the same: taking advantage of a tragedy while it is actively happening with a product that makes the tragedy into entertainment, while people are actively dying from it, and then lining your pockets with that profit is just disgusting and in poor taste. If you can't understand that, that's fine, I'm not going to force you, but I do have a sound opinion that makes perfect sense. I can't help but think of my buddy's grandma who is dying of this thing and how on earth she would receive the news that if I told her that this thing she is dying from is being turned into a video game that people are supposed to play for fun and unwind with while the devs keep the profits.

Now, don't take me saying that this is all in poor taste as me saying the devs absolutely can't do this. It's a free country, they can do what they want, but that doesn't change how I think it's just really scummy for the reason I've explained. Again, if you don't see how that's fucked up, cool, I'm not going to force you, but don't pretend I don't have an opinion that is entirely sound and valid just because it doesn't mesh with your own.

That I would consider some reasoning, or at least an outline of one. Previously it amounted to various phrasings of I don't like it, which again we can all say is fine to have, just my opinion, do you respect me bro and whatever else but backing it up and reasoning for it is where it is at. I however failed to see how anybody was being hurt by it and you failed to elaborate where they might have been, or done something else. This was my issue.

In that case I have to ask what is a tragedy? I already noted medical type things that cause far more death and destruction that have been games, films, TV and books for centuries in the case of books but the rest for about as long as we have had narratives. Those were simple annual stats as well repeated year on year too (and will be repeated year on year for a while yet) where this only just goes to the same parties.
I can probably still find, and certainly met throughout my life, people that were still troubled by world war 2, never mind later wars. World war 1 is probably now historical, even for civilians too young to hold a rifle, but I might have even met a few of those (never got some of the conversations like I had with the others mentioned though).
Is this a special case different to those? Is it just because it is new, not pedestrian enough to become a "natural" cause, technically unknown and raw?

Is your mate's grandma more deserving of consideration in this than some random religious weirdo that considers all televisual entertainment a work of the devil?

When you say taking advantage then if we are operating under the assumption that nobody is/efforts are not being harmed by it then does not everything take advantage of something? Most things tend to operate around the idea that build something people are interested in experiencing and they will come.
Does that mean all those people that got out of the investment market (or altered their stores of wealth) and have either already or will eventually make a killing when things get back to some kind of normality are also bad?

 

[MikaDubbz]

That I would consider some reasoning, or at least an outline of one. Previously it amounted to various phrasings of I don't like it, which again we can all say is fine to have, just my opinion, do you respect me bro and whatever else but backing it up and reasoning for it is where it is at. I however failed to see how anybody was being hurt by it and you failed to elaborate where they might have been, or done something else. This was my issue.

In that case I have to ask what is a tragedy? I already noted medical type things that cause far more death and destruction that have been games, films, TV and books for centuries in the case of books but the rest for about as long as we have had narratives. Those were simple annual stats as well repeated year on year too (and will be repeated year on year for a while yet) where this only just goes to the same parties.
I can probably still find, and certainly met throughout my life, people that were still troubled by world war 2, never mind later wars. World war 1 is probably now historical, even for civilians too young to hold a rifle, but I might have even met a few of those (never got some of the conversations like I had with the others mentioned though).
Is this a special case different to those? Is it just because it is new, not pedestrian enough to become a "natural" cause, technically unknown and raw?

Is your mate's grandma more deserving of consideration in this than some random religious weirdo that considers all televisual entertainment a work of the devil?

When you say taking advantage then if we are operating under the assumption that nobody is/efforts are not being harmed by it then does not everything take advantage of something? Most things tend to operate around the idea that build something people are interested in experiencing and they will come.
Does that mean all those people that got out of the investment market (or altered their stores of wealth) and have either already or will eventually make a killing when things get back to some kind of normality are also bad?

WHat?! Clearly you did not read my full responses then because I literally just echoed what I've been saying the whole time. My reasoning didn't change, I only added the anecdote about my friend's grandma having it, and the clarification that I don't think this absolutely can't be made. Otherwise everything else I just said there I've said multiple times now.
'
I'm not gonna dwell on definitions of things like tragedies with you. I consider this a tragedy, just as I would 9/11 or Huricane Kartina. And likewise I think it'd be pretty disgusting if a week after either of those events a game was released for profit turning those events into entertainment. Again, my opinion isn't going to change here, this is just too soon and as such just in very poor taste in my opinion. That's all there is to it. There is no point in trying to change my mind on that, just as I know there is no point in trying to change your mind on this. We just have different ethics that simply don't line up on this kind of issue. So let's just move on, you do you.

 

[FAST6191]

So you arbitrarily defined a tragedy, decided someone making a work of fiction to explore the concepts that does not impede the ongoing efforts to reduce the negatives of said tragedy, indeed might even help some people understand things more (we learn by play and through narratives and all that), does not trouble sufferers of it (be it them or those associated) is bad, indeed worse than that by dint of a further arbitrary categorisation of "too soon" (you say one week after above but we are way beyond 1 week at this point, though that was probably a turn of phrase).

That just seems so irrational. It is not that I care to change your mind, though I will hold mine is always open to new info and ways of seeing things, it is more that I wished to understand the reasons why and boundaries transgressed in your view. At best I now have a vague and nebulous outline, one I would struggle to codify, though how it references back to general ideas of don't hurt people, break things or the like I am still completely blank on.

 

[MikaDubbz]

So you arbitrarily defined a tragedy, decided someone making a work of fiction to explore the concepts that does not impede the ongoing efforts to reduce the negatives of said tragedy, indeed might even help some people understand things more (we learn by play and through narratives and all that), does not trouble sufferers of it (be it them or those associated) is bad, indeed worse than that by dint of a further arbitrary categorisation of "too soon" (you say one week after above but we are way beyond 1 week at this point, though that was probably a turn of phrase).

That just seems so irrational. It is not that I care to change your mind, though I will hold mine is always open to new info and ways of seeing things, it is more that I wished to understand the reasons why and boundaries transgressed in your view. At best I now have a vague and nebulous outline, one I would struggle to codify, though how it references back to general ideas of don't hurt people, break things or the like I am still completely blank on.

Like I said I'm not going to dwell on the definition of a tragedy, I can recognize one when I see one. Just as I'm sure most of us can. It really feels like you don't really have a point to prove, but just want to dwell on arbitrary nonsense. This all started because you asked why I thought this was in poor taste. I've explained why I find it to be so multiple times now. Either accept it or not, either way. move on, because you're doing nothing to change my mind here at all.

I will add, that as I've also already mentioned: If such a release was genuinely for education and most (if not all), profits go toward charities and foundations for those in need right now. Then, I'm all for it. If however, they're using the tragedy to create a product meant to be sold for entertainment purposes while they line their pockets with the profits, then I find that to be in very poor taste.

 

[FAST6191]

I do wonder how many would recognise a certain type of ancient greek play.

The point I would wish to make is those claiming it to be a bad thing to make a game like this, that presumably if they were big bad boss man of a game dev they would kick the idea in the head if one of their underlings came to it when they needed an idea for a new game to make, are at best irrational or hypocritical. In that case, much like most irrational and hypocritical types, such concerns can be dismissed.

 

[minka]

its just plague inc 2

 

[Jonnysert]

I'm waiting for phone version