Summary of the game

During the game, my group, KIKI (Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Korea, India), started with a significant amount of tools. We had two scissors, two rulers, a protractor, a compass, four pencils, a set square ruler, and a compass. However, we only had one paper so in order to obtain more, we began trading. We traded a ruler, pencils, and a scissor for quite a lot of paper. We traded again in order to obtain a ruler, after realizing that we actually needed two rulers to work faster on making the shapes. Next, we shared our scissor with another group, where we handed and shared the scissor with every 2 shapes cut out. At first, we did not want to share our scissor but as they were so persistent, we finally gave in and shared our scissor with them in return for $200. We also wanted more money for the sharing of the scissor but the other group had little money so we accepted whatever they had. At the beginning of the game, my team acted quite casual, because we thought that while other groups are busy finding resources and tools, we did not have to find any because we already have all the resources needed. But then, we saw another group that had advanced so far that their bank page was nearly full. From then, we worked really hard and fast and tried to copy their (the advancing group) way but then it was announced that triangles were then not allowed, to which we decided on rectangles. However, the value of rectangles has been decreased so we finally decided on full circles. Overall, I do think that the game was quite fair but it leans on to the “unfair” part a bit. I think that the groups should be able to think for themselves and the amount of resources should not determine the final result of the game. My group had a lot of resources but due to the reckless trading of the scissors, we had to share it with another group, falling to second place due to productivity. Also, I would say that a downside of having and keeping so many tools is that other groups kept on going to our table to trade and share, which we have no intention of doing so. Meanwhile, another group, Wonderland, had worked quietly and won first place as I do think since they have just enough resources, they stayed quiet and other groups do not necessarily come to their table. Moreover, I do think that it was unfair to completely deprive a group of the tools needed since it will take most of their time to trade for the tools. For example, the group that we shared scissors with spent half the game time to look for scissors to cut their shape out. They manage to “draw” the shapes from folding but they had to find scissors to actually be able to trade the scissors for money. In my opinion, this game requires critical thinking in communication and time management in order to win this game.

Connection Between the Game and Real-life Situations

In the game, we were provided with scissors, rulers, protractor, set square ruler, pencils, and a compass, which represents the tools that a country needs to have in order to cultivate their natural resources, which is the paper in the game. I would say that the scissors would represent the tools for cultivating the resource while the rulers and pencils resemble tools that will be needed to make the resource good and to measure the resources. Next, the trading happened mostly during the beginning of the game and it (the trading) died down near the ending. Somewhere in the middle, some countries are still desperately trying to trade or even share. However, once countries have all the things they need, they stayed quiet and became selfish of their resources or tools. This shows how in the real world, offering tools or resources based on generosity does not really happen. Moreover, during the game, my group shared scissors with another group and this can mirror real-life situations on how some countries may even try sharing resources, tools, or sometimes even weapons. But then, I do think it requires trust to share things between countries; trust to keeping the agreements made.

This map shows the number of natural resources countries have.

My thoughts

Based on the experience of the game, I think that trade is necessary for countries to improve and develop. From the game, although my group has plenty of tools, we needed paper for the shapes so we began trading and from then, we were on the safe path. I see my group as countries like America, where they have advanced and plenty of tools but they (America) needs more resources, in matters of precious metals, so they trade or obtain resources from other countries that has a lot of resources such as Indonesia (Freeport). However, I do not think that trading is the best way for countries to improve and develop but it can be ranked as one of the best, especially for countries that do not have as much natural resources. This is because I personally believe that the development and improvement of a country with plenty of natural resources is held by the people’s will and the leader of the country. If the leader and the people of the country knows how to make use of their resources, then there would be no trading necessary since they will be well of on their own. However, this is different for countries with lesser natural resources, where trading of resources is necessary to make use of their tools. Similarly, I think that obstacles that some countries can face depend on the resources they have. As I have written, a country with lesser natural resources will have trouble searching for natural resources or even tools. However, countries that has plenty of natural resources will have trouble making use of their resources such as finding the tools to cultivate it or having the people use the natural resources and not expat countries.

Freeport, Papua, Indonesia is a mining company in Indonesia owned by expats (Americans).