![apocalypse2459465_960_720.jpg](https://files.steempeak.com/file/steempeak/breakforbook/JJuDmKB0-apocalypse-2459465_960_720.jpg)
Do you like the way things are done? I guess so. I like it too. Almost every change. The collapse of social bonds, the collapse of civilization and the devastation of ecosystems have something in them that attracts us to them. Just like horror movies, right? We like to be afraid. But not really, because then it is no longer entertainment and a temporary adrenaline leap, only a prescription for anxiety and depression. Two weeks ago I wrote about them, in the context of the mental condition of young people, who are very poor. This is confirmed by all the studies. In my opinion, the reason for this state of affairs may be, among other things, the not-so-happy prospect of the forthcoming climate change. "Not very cheerful" is a euphemism.

The good news is that the same young people want to do something about it. It wants to act. Last week, there was a Climate Strike, a large-scale action with a very clear goal. The crisis is coming and we have to prepare for it. They already know that. They want others to know. The postulates of the Climate Strike are somehow not particularly numerous. Kids would like, first of all, that someone who can start doing something, start doing it. Not too much demand, as if someone were asking me. However, I thought about one of the points of their "program" for a while. Allow me to quote:

"We demand that the media take responsibility for making the public aware of the immediate risks of the climate crisis. We call for the subject of climate catastrophe to be prioritised in the media and for language that reflects the importance of the problem to be used.

That's right. Rightful postulate. And so I began to wonder whether such missionary activities should also be undertaken by game developers. More precisely, not whether they should, because it is clear that they should, but how. To what extent? In which way? The most obvious seem to be all those games that use the postapocalyptic convention. Especially when they combine it with the elements of "survival games". What is the problem with turning nuclear annihilation, meteorite strike, SI rebellion, virus epidemic or zombie hordes into something that awaits us in the near future? Or even for what is already happening? The Bahamas after the passage of Hurricane Dorian are no less terrifying than the phallouting background of Nevada or New York from the first Division. And if we want something more shooting, it's always Syria. Yes, what is happening there is also caused by climate change and global warming. There is a lot of talk about who, with whom and how is mass murdered there, but little about the fact that this state of affairs has been brought about by several years of drought, which caused the collapse of agriculture and the mass migration of desperate people to big cities. That is a pity, because this is a scenario from which everyone should learn lessons. It will be like this everywhere.

The last five years have been the hottest since we've measured the temperature. And the last two years have seen four tropical cyclones with a force V on the Saffira-Simpson scale, which is the highest, at least for the time being, because we are considering extending the scale so that the wind blowing at speeds above 300 km/h can be included in a separate category. Just like Dorian. There is no room for doubt, the climate is changing. And it is for the worse. The question of whether it is our fault or not may be overlooked, because it is no longer debatable. It will be bad. But we like it when it's bad in games. Hunger, cold, thirst, hostile environment, hostile people - there is even a whole genre of games, which is all about survival in the face of these adversities. And there is a second one, about those who managed to survive in a destroyed world. Shouldn't survival and postapocalyptic games deal with unlikely catastrophes such as nuclear war, pandemic or cosmic collision, or with imaginary ones such as the apocalypse of zombies, and what awaits us? And it is waiting for us. We have already passed a few thresholds with the inscription "no return" and now we have to fight in order not to pass from the momentum of the next ones.

Is this a good theme for the game? It seems that yes, yes, at first glance. For example, New York City, a metropolis that has already experienced all possible catastrophes in pop culture, including the invasion of aliens and superheroes. As a city flooded by rising sea levels, haunted by gangs of looters or starving cannibals, it would be a great background for a game of progress, wouldn't it? These decaying skyscrapers growing straight from the ocean, densely overgrown with flora that joyfully accepted the higher CO2 content of the atmosphere. I can see it. The climate is like hell. That, dear New York City, you can't do it anymore. Or Poland. Flooded from the north by the Baltic Sea, in the rest of the country it is a steppe, overgrown with heat-yellowed grass like some Spain, without forests almost, because these either disappeared like pines and spruces, or burned like the rest of them. Some enclaves of autochthons who did not escape to the north, fighting those who are just trying to do so on their way from the south. Why would anyone want Mad Max, right? All you have to do is look at the future a little bit. These would be games. Such a strong impact on emotions, because they are realistic not only in the way they kill each other or die of hunger or thirst, but also in everything else. You would play, wouldn't you?

Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. In the 1950s and 1960s, when there was the greatest threat of nuclear war, very real and taken seriously by everyone, pop culture on average wanted to show such topics. During these two decades Hollywood produced only a dozen or so films with a "bomb" in the background. For comparison, in the 1980s, when almost no one believed that we would kill ourselves with hydrogen bullets, such films were almost a hundred, if you will believe IMDb. The threat wasn't so real anymore, so we could start being afraid for entertainment, not for real. Seriously, nobody likes to be afraid. There is a very large gap between terrible circumstances, which almost certainly will never happen to us, and terrible circumstances, which almost certainly will affect either our or our descendants. It is as if we are watching a sad, moving film about someone dying of cancer. How would our emotional perception of such a picture change if we were not healthy, if we just found out that we also have such a diagnosis? I personally am not able to say decisively and without hesitation that I would like to and would be able to watch such a film in this hypothetical situation (knock on the door, I have to quit smoking).

And in the case of climate change, unfortunately, we have a diagnosis. And the game, which is based on this diagnosis and further developments, could be much more real and disturbing than the McCarthy Way. And not very entertaining. It wouldn't be so easy to shoot cannibals if something in the back of our heads whispered that maybe our child or grandchild would have to do that. Or that he will be on the other side. This is already too terrifying. Sure, there will be games like that. Probably some independent, with no big budget, from Kickstarter. It's also quite possible that they will be good. Moving. Forcing to think. Neededed. But let's not count on some AAA producer boldly reaching out to this topic. Too much risk. That wouldn't be fake anymore.

They will leave it to the politicians. They love to scare people. Until, nomen omen, fear to think what will happen when they realize that they no longer have to invent risks as before, but can use such a real one.