Sudden Unexpected Nocturnal Death Syndrome, or SUNDS, is a condition in which otherwise healthy individuals, typically men from Hmong populations, experience heart failure  while sleeping (Adler). The first reported death from SUNDS occured in 1977, and from there, it has escalated greatly. Since the initial discovery, researchers have drawn links between nightmares and SUNDS attacks, often concluding that nightmares act as a sort of trigger or contributor to the condition (Adler). But the deaths of individuals that have fallen victim to SUNDS have yet to be explained; autopsies have not been able to determine the cause of death in SUNDS fatalities. Despite the escalating nature of the condition, as well as the mystery that surrounds it, the initial outburst of SUNDS has not resulted in high levels of public awareness or research. Although academic papers had been written on the subject, the disorder did not gain name recognition, as other deadly ailments had. One movie significantly changed that.

The 1984 film A Nightmare on Elm Street paints a picture of the disorder similar to the ones described by SUNDS researchers. The film, which has remained a staple in the horror genre since its release, depicts a band of friends attacked in their dreams by a single tormentor, Freddy Krueger. Sporting excessive scars and a glove with knives protruding from the fingertips, Krueger stalks the characters in their sleep, eventually killing several of them (“A Nightmare on Elm Street – Plot”). Through this storyline, director Wes Craven depicts distinctly SUNDS-like experiences. Some disagree with the film’s portrayal of nightmare-related deaths. One such critic expressed his distaste regarding the non-Asian cast, stating that the powerful story of SUNDS ‘was co-opted by someone else” (Philip). However, some believe that the SUNDS cause could benefit from increased public awareness (Kammadanam).  The portrayal of nightmare-related deaths in A Nightmare on Elm Street benefits SUNDS cause, because it brings increased awareness by pushing it to the front of public discourse, which can lead to a push to increase research and funding.

Through the course of this paper, I will demonstrate the way in which A Nightmare on Elm Street portrays SUNDS and its symptoms. I will also elaborate on the current state of SUNDS research, and the effects of the film’s portrayal of the condition. Doing so will establish the increased awareness that the film brought to the cause. Furthermore, I will demonstrate how public awareness results in more funding and research for the SUNDS cause, which can, in turn, lead to better results and insights.

Throughout its history, nightmares have been closely related to SUNDS. This role must be examined further in order to fully grasp the topic at hand. For many years, the Hmong people, who are the primary victims of SUNDS, told stories of evil beings visiting them and others in their sleep, while dreaming. Many within the Hmong community believe that such dreams forewarn death (Adler). Commonalities between each story include the presence of an evil being, a feeling of wakefulness, an inability to move, extreme fear, the feeling of pressure being exerted upon their chest by the being, and difficulty breathing (Adler). Researchers, too, have observed these symptoms in SUNDS-related events (Adler). This means that both Hmong folklore and academic research have been able to describe nightmares containing an evil being as a precursor to sudden deaths. While there are still some aspects of SUNDS-related nightmares that remain nebulous, it’s clear that there is a definite connection between the two.

Although it may not accurately display all the details and symptoms of SUNDS, A Nightmare on Elm Street does portray nightmare-related deaths that resemble those of SUNDS cases. In a 2014 interview, Wes Craven reflected on the inspiration for his film, describing a healthy young Cambodian immigrant who “died in the middle of a nightmare” (qtd. In Marks and Tannenbaum). He continued: “That became the central line of Nightmare on Elm Street.” (Craven) Craven’s description of a healthy Asian male who inexplicably died during his sleep is characteristic of SUNDS victims. Although he didn’t expressly disclose SUNDS by name, it is very likely that Craven is, in fact, describing a SUNDS case. The illustration of Craven’s inspiration for the film can be seen in each on-screen death, as each character who perishes does so in the dream world. Tina Gray, for example, who was “slashed … with bladed glove, levitated, thrown, dragged up wall,” experienced the described death during a dream (“List of Deaths in the Nightmare on Elm Street Films”). While stuck in the nightmare, Gray is vividly and distinctly shown as being attacked and killed by Freddy Krueger. During this event, another character bursts into Gray’s room, finding her alone, and dying; Gray’s body was in the process of being spun and dragged against the wall (“Tina Gray”). Though Gray being thrashed about during her nightmare is clearly an example of sensationalized aspects being incorporated into the story in order to add more entertainment value, Gray’s death does share some common attributes with SUNDS deaths. First, Gray experienced an evil being in her nightmare, just as SUNDS-related nightmares often feature evil presences. Furthermore, her death is shown very distinctly so as to portray the idea of wakefulness during the nightmare. SUNDS-related nightmares, too, leave their victims with a feeling of being alert. Finally, both SUNDS nightmares and Gray’s death feature feelings of severe fear. Despite the fictionalized aspect of her death, her experience is distinctly SUNDS-like.

Gray’s death is not a stand alone occurrence. In fact, each of the four characters killed over the course of the film were each killed in a nightmare by Freddy Krueger. Moreover, each experienced similar symptoms to Tina Gray, such as extreme fear and wakefulness. Each of these traits combine to create an amalgamated portrayal that is descriptive of SUNDS cases.

Since its outbreak in the 1980s, SUNDS has been the topic of many scientific studies and reports. These have sought to examine every component in the deaths from nutrition and metabolism to heart disease and genetics, each attempting to find a causing factor behind SUNDS (Adler). Although no cause has been found, research continues to be done into this mysterious condition. As a whole, it is this group of research and inquiries that makes up the SUNDS field, which can be described as the ongoing attempt to discover new findings and insights into the condition.

A Nightmare on Elm Street does something else in relation to SUNDS: it brings it to the forefront of public discourse. Since its release, the film has been considered a staple of the horror genre. Its imagination and never-seen-before storyline captivated viewers, prompting Rolling Stone to call Freddy Krueger, the infamous villain, the “most famous scarred face in horror-movie history.” (Gilmore) The exposure and public attention the film received launched it and its story into popular culture. As a result, millions of people discussed and thoughtfully considered A Nightmare on Elm Street and the story that it portrayed. Naturally, with nightmare-related death at the center of the movie, nightmares were pushed to the core of many discussions on the film. Although not everyone who examines or discusses A Nightmare on Elm Street is aware of SUNDS itself, the film sees to it that they receive an increased awareness of nightmares and nightmare-related death. As a result, symptoms and experiences that are characteristic of SUNDS are placed in the public eye, indirectly placing SUNDS in the public eye as well.

By placing SUNDS at the center of public attention, A Nightmare on Elm Street contributes to increased funding and research of the condition. The result of SUNDS gaining awareness through viewership of the film is that many began to conclude that the condition is significant. Its presence in the public eye assigns it relevance and weight that it did not otherwise have. Conversely, diseases and syndromes that have very low public awareness are often thought of as trivial and somewhat unimportant (Allard). A common sentiment that accompanies this pattern of behavior is: if this condition were really that important, it would be more well known. The result of this dynamic is that those in charge of allocating funding, whether associated with the government or an independent organization, may be biased towards diseases that are more centered in the public eye. A recent study which sought to examine this phenomenon showed similar results. “[The] results are astonishing – funding is exceptionally sensitive to bias,” said Ruth Hufbauer of Colorado State University, the school that conducted the study. By giving SUNDS recognition, A Nightmare on Elm Street essentially assigned the condition a bias that can be expressed via funding allocation. Therefore, SUNDS research is likely to receive increased funding. Moreover, since funding goes directly towards research, any funding allocated to the SUNDS cause will be dedicated entirely towards SUNDS research in some capacity. As a result, more research can be conducted. A 2003 study reflects this, finding that “federal research funding … results in more … research output” (Payne and Siow).

Given the causal relationship between increases in awareness and funding and research of SUNDS, the effects must be examined. Common sense will likely lead one to assume that more research and funding can have a positive impact on the SUNDS cause. After all, elevated funding can result in better research equipment, more compensation for new test subjects, and salaries for new researchers and scientists. Each of those outcomes (and the countless others that are produced by increased funding) can lead to better and more groundbreaking research. One study, conducted by researchers Magnus Gulbrandsen and Nes-Christian Smeby, surveyed university professors regarding the effects of funding. The study’s collected many responses that reflect a positive correlation. The authors described that they found a “significant relationship between industry funding and research performance” (1). They also reported a greater application of research among professors who received industrial funding, as well as a tendency to work with more researchers and publish more scientific results (Gulbrandsen and Smeby). This conclusion indicates that SUNDS (and other conditions as well) can experience research-related benefits beyond what would have been available without such funding.

Admittedly, my conclusion could use additional research. Although I described a study that examined the ways in which biases affect levels of funding, no study has specifically examined the way in which a recognition bias can affect funding. While such a study may produce similar results to the one referenced in this paper, the results are interesting nonetheless, and they may help to clarify the relationship between awareness and funding. Furthermore, some conflicting conclusions exist in regards to the quality of research after having received funding. Some researchers believe that increased funding results in more research, though not necessarily higher quality research, while others believe it results in better performance in research settings. (Payne and Siow; Gulbrandsen and Smeby) Further research into the correlation – or lack of correlation – between funding and higher quality research should be done. Granted, traditional logic and many studies back the idea that funding produces better results, yet more research can help flesh out this concept and determine its true validity.

The course of events in which A Nightmare on Elm Street brought public awareness and, thus, increased funding and research to the SUNDS cause are not isolated incidents. In fact, there are several cases in which popular media greatly affected a disease or condition. Perhaps the most well known example is the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, or ALS, is a disease wasn’t necessarily a center of attention prior to 2014. However, the emergence of the Ice Bucket Challenge made ALS a household name. The challenge, aptly named, involved people from all walks of life dumping buckets of water and ice on their heads and then nominating several others to participate. Those who didn’t participate in the trend within 24 hours were expected to donate to ALS research. The immense popularity of the challenge led to millions getting involved. In fact, even major celebrities participated, with notable personalities such as Conan O’Brien, LeBron James, and Oprah Winfrey posting ice bucket videos (Stampler). With the challenge as a predominant element of pop culture, $220 million was donated to ALS research. This money has already resulted in what one writer describes as “significant progress toward better understanding of ALS.” (Allard) As a result of the Ice Bucket Challenge, the ALS cause has been positively impacted in much the same way that SUNDS cause was positively impacted by A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Those who disagree with my position argue that A Nightmare on Elm Street has had a negative impact on the SUNDS cause, as it spreads misinformation about the condition. To some extent, they’re correct. The film does include fictionalized aspects that aren’t true to realistic SUNDS experiences. As a result, the film could contribute to obfuscation to some degree. However, those who hold this belief must also consider the benefit of the film’s portrayal, as it perhaps outweigh the disadvantages. Because the film warps certain aspects of reality in order to produce a more appealing film, it’s become widely mainstream. If the film had displayed wholly accurate accounts of SUNDS, it would surely have received less acclaim and been thought of as considerably more dull. One reviewer reflects on thrill that the fictionalized elements bring to the table: “the dream-attack gimmick … makes for lots of … visual surprises” (Cassady Jr). Therefore, the inaccuracies contained within the movie are partly responsible for the fame that it’s claimed, which has in turn led to increased public awareness and research for SUNDS. In spite of the inaccuracies, A Nightmare on Elm Street has provided the SUNDS cause with a very significant benefit, one that tends to overshadow the harm that it causes. While no means of spreading the word may be perfect, the film does the best with what it has.

While SUNDS itself may not be compelling nor significant for many, my conclusion is. The idea that increased public awareness can lead to more funding and research, and eventually progress toward known measures of prevention or even a cure for a disease or condition, is an extremely significant finding. Just like SUNDS prior to the release of A Nightmare on Elm Street, there are countless conditions that have little name recognition and receive little funding. However, following a path that begins with communicating ideas regarding the condition, and ends with increased awareness and funding, can result in important progress for these diseases and conditions. What A Nightmare on Elm Street has done is give the medical field an effective example of such a path. With this information, those working to fight and cure diseases can see to it that research and funding are boosted and that they are one step closer to winning the fight.

The informal formula to increase funding and research, as described above, does not only have an impact on the medical field. Those suffering from conditions with limited research funding, or those close to people who are suffering, can feel the direct impact from increasing public awareness, as it will inevitably lead to more research and progress. Treatments or breakthroughs may appear at faster rates, and they will experience a bigger push to generate progress.

However, these are not the only people who are impacted by the conclusions in my findings. Everyone who has a vested interest in creating a healthier world can benefit, as it enables the medical world to conduct more research into many conditions and diseases. Such an increase in research will surely have a positive effect on disease treatment and perhaps help scientists damper the negative effects caused by such ailments. Consequently, the health status of many can be raised, helping to create a more healthy population.

A Nightmare on Elm Street, although never explicitly stated to be SUNDS, portrays an experience very similar to ones had by SUNDS victims. Particularly, its focus on vivid nightmares featuring an evil presence is reminiscent of folklore prevalent among Hmong culture, a population that has produced the majority of SUNDS casualties. In doing so, the film is able to both draw public awareness to the SUNDS cause, and generate more funding and research. Consequently, the implications of these events are large and have the potential to create significant effects on both the medical community and on worldwide health.

Works Cited

Adler, Shelley R. “Sudden Unexpected Nocturnal Death Syndrome among Hmong Immigrants: Examining the Role of the” Nightmare”.” Journal of American Folklore (1991): 54-71.

Adler, Shelley R. “Refugee stress and folk belief: Hmong sudden deaths.” Social Science & Medicine 40.12 (1995): 1623-1629.

Mason, Paul H. “Sleep paralysis: night-mares, nocebos, and the mind-body connection, by Shelley R. Adler.” (2012): 255-257.

“A Nightmare on Elm Street – Plot.” IMDb, IMDb.com, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087800/plotsummary.

Marks, Craig, and Rob Tannenbaum. “Freddy Lives: An Oral History of A Nightmare on Elm Street.” Vulture, 20 Oct. 2014, http://www.vulture.com/2014/10/nightmare-on-elm-street-oral-history.html.

“List of Deaths in the Nightmare on Elm Street Films.” Elm Street Wiki, nightmareonelmstreet.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_deaths_in_the_Nightmare_on_Elm_street_films.

Gilmore, Mikal. “How ‘Nightmare on Elm Street”s Villain Became a Pop Hero.” Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone, 6 Oct. 1988,        http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/features/nightmare-on-elm-street-freddy-krueger-pop-    icon-19881006.

CallierFeb, Viviane. “A Little Bias in Peer Review Scores Can Translate into Big Money, Simulation Finds.” Science | AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 10 Dec. 2017, http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/02/little-bias-peer-review-scores-can-translate-big-money-simulation-finds.

Payne, A. Abigail, and Aloysius Siow. “Does federal research funding increase university research output?.” Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy 3.1 (2003).

Gulbrandsen, Magnus, and Jens-Christian Smeby. “Industry funding and university professors’ research performance.” Research policy 34.6 (2005): 932-950.

Allard, Jody. “Disease Awareness Months Work, Even If You Don’t Wear The Ribbon.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 2 June 2017, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry /disease-awareness-months_us_59112be6e4b0e7021e9aa247.

Stampler, Laura. “ALS Ice Bucket Challenge: 27 Best Celebrity Videos.” Time, Time, 15 Aug. 2014, time.com/3111965/here-are-the-27-best-celebrity-ice-bucket-challenge-videos/.

“Tina Gray.” Elm Street Wiki, nightmareonelmstreet.wikia.com/wiki/Tina_Gray.

Philip. “Movies That Should Have Starred Asians: A Nightmare On Elm Street.” You Offend Me You Offend My Family, 6 Oct. 2009, http://www.yomyomf.com/movies-that-should-have-starred-asians-a-nightmare-on-elm-street/.

Kammadanam, Anne. “Sudden Nocturnal Death Syndrome (SUNDS) – Global Perspectives.” Digital Commons, 7 Mar. 2016, digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=symp_grad.

Jr, Charles Cassady. “A Nightmare on Elm Street – Movie Review.” Common Sense Media, 9 Sept. 2006, http://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/a-nightmare-on-elm-street.

In the 21st century, The Game of Life is an immensely popular household board game. Entire generations can look fondly at childhood memories of themselves and their family playing Life. Yet, most remain in the dark regarding its parent game, The Checkered Game of Life. The game, invented by Milton Bradley, similarly portrays the twists and turns of life from birth to death. Although The Checkered Game of Life has not remained relevant (most likely due to its extremely simplistic nature), there are many differing opinions and interpretations of the game. Much of the disagreement regarding the game’s meaning and purpose stems from the messages being conveyed in the game. Despite the fact that there is some degree of ambiguity, conclusions can be extrapolated from what evidence is available. Playthings Magazine wrote that the game “taught a lesson of success through integrity and right living” (Whitehill). However, others believe the game communicates more subtle themes. Today, Lynn Prior writes, “We’ve been playing with the unspoken message [to be] millionaire tycoons.”  Upon thoughtful consideration, I would like to expand upon this sentiment. Milton Bradley’s The Checkered Game of Life is explicit capitalist propaganda, because it includes a capitalist structure and theme that positively portrays capitalism.

Throughout this essay, I will shed light on the ways in which The Checkered Game of Life is overtly capitalistic in nature. In addition, I will also detail the way that Milton Bradley sought to positively portray capitalism. In doing so, I will establish that Bradley’s design is propaganda that positively benefits capitalism as a whole.

In order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the capitalistic themes at play in The Checkered Game of Life, Bradley’s background and the role of capitalism in his life must be reviewed. In the essay “The Meaning of Life” by Jill Lepore, she details Bradley’s life prior to the invention of his game, a summary which reveals the hardship endured by himself and his family. Specifically, Lepore reveals that Bradley was born into poverty, yet recognized the value of hard work and the success that it could bring. As a result, Bradley worked hard doing several jobs prior to the success of The Checkered Game of Life, the most lucrative of which was a lithography business that produced a highly popular lithograph of Abraham Lincoln the year he was elected. However, misfortune once again struck, as Lincoln grew a beard, making Bradley’s stock of Lincoln lithographs worthless. Despite the adversity that Milton Bradley faced, he continued to work hard and chase success. He invented The Checkered Game of Life shortly afterward, and that brought him great fortune. The significance of Bradley’s life before the invention of his famous game is that he followed an intrinsically capitalist worldview. The idea of a strong work ethic leading to prosperity tends to be a facet of capitalistic ideals (Rodgers). As a result, it can be concluded that capitalistic sentiments had an influence on both Bradley’s point of view, and his approach to the business world.

A separate essay written by Bruce Whitehill outlines the rule set of the game. In “The Checkered Game of Life – Milton Bradley’s First Game,” he describes that the board game’s white squares – which are alternated with the neutral red ones – are filled with either “good or bad values or conditions” (Whitehill). Landing on a “good” condition, he says, will advance the player through the game, while landing on a “bad” condition will inhibit their development (Whitehill). The movement of the game involved some elements of chance, and some of choice. He describes it this way: if a player spins either a 1 or 4, they may move up or down one or two spaces. Spinning a 3 or 6 allows them to move one or two spaces diagonally in any direction. Finally, spinning a 2 or 5 enables them to move right or left, for one or two spaces once again (Whitehill). Although there is a square entitled “Happy Old Age,” happiness is not the key to winning the game. Certain traits, such as “Honor,” “Wealth,” and “College” reward players with points. To win the game, players must be the first to collect one hundred points. In order to do this though, players have to navigate the board and avoid “bad” squares that delay them, as well as “Suicide,” which eliminates them from the game. In this way, the game seeks to mimic the ups and downs of the journey of life.

The Checkered Game of Life is inherently capitalistic. That is to say, the game is rooted in capitalistic ideas and structures. Evidence of this lies in the rule set. Firstly, the only way for players to win is to earn 100 points. This places emphasis on resources and pushes them to the forefront of the game. This emphasis extends beyond Milton Bradley’s game, as capitalist societies also greatly value capital (hence the name). Furthermore, rewarding the win to the highest point holder subtly equates an abundance of resources with success, much as capitalistic cultures do as well. As Jill Lepore, regarding the resource-driven game play, wrote: “[the game is] a series of calculations about the best route to collect the most points, fastest.” (The Meaning of Life) This is a sentiment often echoed in capitalist cultures. As a result, this attitude towards capital paints the a picture of a game entrenched in a capitalistic model.

In addition to the rule set, the game board also reflects capitalist themes. Historically, several capitalist societies have placed an emphasis on a certain life path, one that includes education, beginning a career, and earning good money in that field (Lipset). In his game, Bradley reflected this path, as it features the squares “College,” “Industry,” “Wealth,” and “Success.” Moreover, his appreciation for hard work, which tends to be essential feature of capitalism, seems to have led him to include “Perseverance” and “Ambition” (both of which reward players) as well as “Idleness” (which forces players to move backwards). In his inclusion of such distinctly capitalistic values, Bradley adds yet another layer to the capitalistic model that is The Checkered Game of Life.

Milton Bradley’s vision for the game in terms of the message it sends also sheds light on the situation. In his patent application, Bradley described the game as “intended to forcibly impress upon the minds of youth the great moral principles of virtue and vice.” Furthermore, upon pitching The Checkered Game of Life to a potential buyer, he claimed it “encourages children to lead exemplary lives.” Clearly, he pictured his game instilling morality and goodness in its players. Traditionally, morality is thought of in terms such as kindness, loyalty, and respect (Whiteley). Bradley does include “Honesty” and “Bravery” in his game, both of which are thought of as representations of good character (Whiteley). However, they’re far outnumbered by capitalist values. A close examination of the game would reveal significantly more capitalist squares than traditionally moral ones, pushing capitalist themes into the limelight of game play. As a result, it’s clear that Bradley’s depiction of morality differs from the standard. In the game, he replaces conventional morals with capitalistic themes of good and bad. Consequently, the game redefines morality and places capitalism at the center of its moral teachings.

Given that Milton Bradley depicted capitalist ideas positively and sought to create an association between them and moral goodness, determining that The Checkered Game of Life is propaganda is a natural next step. Propaganda can be defined specifically as “information, ideas … spread …. to help or harm a person, group” (Propaganda). In the case of The Checkered Game of Life, Bradley clearly spreads ideas promoting capitalism. He does this through both structuring the game in a capitalistic system, and populating the squares with capitalist values. In doing so, he supports capitalism by assigning it a positive connotation in the eyes of the players. As a result, the game represents a strong propaganda piece.

Those who disagree with this viewpoint tend to echo one counterargument: The Checkered Game of life is designed to reflect Milton Bradley’s reality, one that exists in a capitalistic society. They believe that the game was designed to mimic popular sentiments of American culture. In some ways, they are correct. America follows a capitalistic model, and has for some time (Kulikoff). Therefore, Bradley’s game did somewhat reflect an American reality. However, the question presents itself: was simulating American culture Bradley’s intention in the creation of his game? It seems unlikely. A game intended to mimic reality in all probability would not express the bias that The Checkered Game of Life did. The game, which is meant to convey ideas of good and bad, is centered around capitalism. While this does represent one aspect of reality, ideas regarding morality and goodness in American culture extend beyond capitalism. Traditional moral ideals also play a large role in the public discourse regarding morality. In fact, large pockets of American culture, particularly those occupied by religious individuals, place great emphasis on traditionally moral values such as goodwill and charity.  Yet Bradley largely left these out of the game play. In doing so, he displays a blatant bias towards capitalism and fails to represent a large chunk of American life. Therefore, his creation of The Checkered Game of Life is not representative of reality, nor is it designed to be.

Other opponents of my position subscribe to the belief that The Checkered Game of Life should not be subject to this level of scrutiny. In their eyes, games are meant for entertainment only and need not be closely examined. This is a sentiment often echoed within the movie industry. Oftentimes, directors refuse to acknowledge the ideas that their films promote, on the basis that they are meant for entertainment purposes. Quentin Tarantino is perhaps the most notable director to consistently disregard the impact that his work has. Despite critics who believe that his films glorify violence, he is adamant that “it’s just cinema” (qtd. in Zuckerman). In doing so, he dismisses the strong messages that his films portray. However, this does not negate the impact of his work. The same is true for The Checkered Game of Life. Using the descriptor “entertainment” as a shield with which to hide behind and save a piece of work from judgement does no good. Regardless of its label, the game promotes capitalism and can have an impact on impressionable players. For this reason, it must be examined and its meaning scrutinized.

There are many conflicting opinions regarding Milton Bradley’s The Checkered Game of Life. Some believe that his game is simply as it looks on the surface: a fun game designed to promote good choices. But others believe hidden themes and pro-capitalist sentiments lie behind the game’s mask. Given the large amount of capitalist positions and values included in the game and the positive connotation associated with capitalism, it is likely that the game is a piece of capitalist propaganda.

Works Cited

Lepore, Jill. “The Meaning of Life.” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 21 May 2007, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/05/21/the-meaning-of-life.

Rodgers, Daniel T. The work ethic in industrial America 1850-1920. University of Chicago Press, 2014.

Whitehill, Bruce. “Checkered Game of Life – Milton Bradley’s First Game.” The Big Game Hunter, The Big Game Hunter, 19 Jan. 2013, thebiggamehunter.com/games-one-by-one/checkered-game-of-life/.

“Propaganda.” Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/propaganda?s=t.

Lipset, Seymour Martin. “Values, education, and entrepreneurship.” Promise of Development. Routledge, 2018. 39-75.

Whiteley, C. H. “On Defining” Moral”.” Analysis 20.6 (1960): 141-144.

Kulikoff, Allan. The agrarian origins of American capitalism. University of Virginia Press, 1992.

Pryor, Lynn. “Playing the Checkered Game of Life.” Lynn Pryor, 10 Nov. 2016, lynnhpryor.com/2016/11/10/playing-the-checkered-game-of-life/.

Zuckerman, Esther. “Everything Quentin Tarantino Really Thinks About Violence and the

Movies.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 11 Jan. 2013,  www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/01/quentin-tarantino-violence-quotes/319586/.

Pandemic: The Cure is a cooperative dice-rolling game that tasks players with finding a cure for four different diseases (Yu 4). Overall, the game has garnered quite a bit of critical acclaim and is widely appreciated by gamers. One reviewer reflects: “It is an extremely fun dice adaptation of the original game that stands on its own quite well.” (JCM0242) However, all pieces of work are subject to criticism, and Pandemic: The Cure doesn’t represent an exception. “The choices in the game are less interesting or difficult. The characters are less interesting,” writes another reviewer, unhappy with how the game holds up in comparison to its parent game, Pandemic (Rapson). Conflicting perspectives regarding the game and its quality cause some to call its rule set into question. Some believe that the unpredictability of the game due to its focus on dice-rolling provides edge-of-your-seat excitement, while others believe that it weakens the gameplay. The ruleset of Pandemic: The Cure should be adjusted to incorporate a currency system that requires money be spent in order to perform actions, because it adds more strategy and skill to the gameplay.

Throughout this essay, I will clarify the ways in which a money system should be integrated into the game. I will additionally address the disadvantages of the current gameplay and demonstrate the connection and causal relationship between a money system and skill-based, elevated gameplay. Doing so should establish the validity of the proposed rule set as well as the flaws that exist in the current state of the game. Finally, I’ll reflect on the goal for the current rule set, and how the adjusted rules address the goal of strategic play more effectively.

Before claims regarding the game can be addressed, the rules regarding dice must be clarified. Pandemic: The Cure revolves around the element of randomness, and thus the ability to execute any of the four available actions is dependent on a set of dice. The rules state: “Roll all of your player dice. Each die will show either an action or a biohazard symbol.” For each rolled action symbol, the player can choose to either take the action, or re-roll the dice. For dice showing biohazard symbols, the player must set the dice aside (there is no re-rolling of biohazards) and advance the infection rate by one.

A revised ruleset for Pandemic: The Cure wouldn’t rely nearly as heavily on random dice rolls. Instead, it would use a payment system to determine available actions. Within this updated gameplay, players would be issued a certain amount of money at the beginning of the game. This would be exclusively spent on the four in-game actions. A certain amount of money would be associated with each action, and once a player pays that price, they can perform the action, thus advancing their position in the game. Because actions would no longer rely on randomness, the dice would be replaced by a traditional six-sided die with numbers on each side, instead of action symbols. This would be rolled at the beginning of each player’s turn in order to determine how much the infection rate would increase.

After the initial sums of money had been distributed, players would have the opportunity to earn additional money many times throughout the game. A player would receive a government grant if the number of infection dice of a certain color in their current region exceeded three. This is known in the game as an “outbreak”. An outbreak would demonstrate to the players’ government that the disease has escalated, and consequently more funds should be allocated to treatment and research. However, an outbreak isn’t wholly good news. According to the existing rule set, exceeding more than eight outbreaks causes players to lose. In this way, the game would engineer suspense and keep players engaged, as the event brings both good and bad consequences.

Although the examination of the advantages of the proposed rule set represent the bulk of this paper, understanding the disadvantages of the current rule set is crucial to a complete understanding of the paper as a whole. Allowing for the occurrence of new biohazards to be dictated by a die is advantageous in terms of fair play, as it doesn’t allow players to determine or influence the number of biohazards, which would effectively enable them to cheat the game. However, dice-rolling isn’t necessary nor is it beneficial to gameplay when it comes to deciding the actions players take. This element of the rule set essentially puts no restrictions on player actions outside of the limited amount of dice. Because all rolled dice (with the exception of biohazards) can be re-rolled, players can change the actions they can take at will, allowing them to “play god” and determine their own fate. As a result, this method of gameplay gives players an unfair advantage.

Another disadvantage of games that are dictated by a roll of a die is that they’re primarily rooted in chance. This somewhat overshadows (or often cancels out) the necessity of skill and strategy and forces the game into a realm of tedium and monotony. With this method of gameplay, players aren’t forced to thoughtfully consider their standing in the game or develop an adaptive course of action. In fact, player participation is often negated to some degree, as player actions are few and far between. Furthermore, games that rely on chance often allow chance-based events to carry more weight than player-dictated events. As a result, such games are mindless and less engaging.

However, games that combine some semblance of change with skill-based play have enjoyed great success. Games such as poker and Scrabble have maintained enormous popularity largely because of their ability to deal players a random hand (quite literally, in the case of poker), and force them to use skill and knowledge of the game to make the best out of what they’re given. By creating a harmony of randomness and choice, the proposed ruleset change to Pandemic: The Cure curates an experience built upon skillful gameplay. The addition of a currency system ensures that player actions are self-determined and limited, forcing them to think carefully about the choices they make. Spending too much may cause a player to run out of money, leaving them unable to do much in the way of treating disease. Spending too little leaves the disease rampant, doing hardly anything to stop its spread. Under these new rules, players must thoughtfully examine the current state of the disease as well as their monetary standing, and create a course of action that takes both into account.

While it’s true that the current rules of Pandemic: The Cure promote some aspect of strategy, incorporating money into the gameplay takes the element of strategy to the next level. It introduces more factors that players must consider. Firstly, the original rules dictate that players can only perform a certain number of actions per turn. This is determined by the number of dice they have (the number of dice varies from player to player). The revised rule set introduces a new policy: players may perform as many actions as they’d like, provided they have the money to pay for them. By doing so, it forces players to contemplate not only which actions to take, but how many to take as well. Furthermore, the new rules demand that players base their strategy on their available funds. For instance, a strategy requiring a player to constantly travel between regions and thus requiring plenty of funds to do so would not be used by a player with very little money. In this way, players must take into account many more elements, increasing the level of skill and strategy-based participation and boosting the overall quality of gameplay.

This is not to say that chance-based gameplay is inherently bad. In fact, many players enjoy the thrill that comes with a roll of the dice or the draw of a card. They love the idea that anything can happen at any time. To them, this kind of randomness and unpredictability gives Pandemic: the Cure a kind of excitement that’s unparalleled by skill-based games. Fans of this style of gameplay also tend to appreciate the simplicity and speed that accompany it. They find that the dice-based elements of the game allow players to take their turns without having to consult the rulebook or plan way ahead. In this way, they’re able to avoid unnecessary complexity and keep the game as straightforward as possible.

This desire for a quick, easy, and unpredictable game is not only valid, but it’s most likely the driving force behind the creation of Pandemic: The Cure. It’s parent game, Pandemic, is considered to be more complex, while Pandemic: The Cure is thought of as a much simpler version. One review reaffirms this sentiment: “This is a very solid, lighter version of the board game… Easy to setup and play” (clman99.) This idea can also be demonstrated via the comparative rule sheets. While both Pandemic: The Cure and Pandemic come with 8-paged rule sheets, Pandemic attempts to fit much more information into its rule sheet, while the one for Pandemic: the Cure has significantly more blank space. Consequently, the rule sheet for Pandemic is more extensive. Because of this, it seems that Pandemic: The Cure was an attempt to create a more simplistic version of its parent game.

Many of the conflicting ideas regarding ideal gameplay are a result of differing goals for Pandemic: the Cure. For those who believe the goal of the game should be to create simple and unpredictable gameplay, the current state of Pandemic: The Cure meets their needs. However, for those who think the goal should be to challenge players, my proposed ruleset meets those needs and does an effective job of engineering strategic gameplay. This is done through the introduction of deliberate actions, as forcing players to make choices requires them to dedicate time and thought to their situation. As a result, not only does this add the element of strategy, it roots the gameplay in it. The game would be centered wholly around strategy, completely leaving behind the element of random choices. In this way, the adjusted ruleset addresses the goal of strategic gameplay much more effectively than the current one does, proving it to be a stronger game as a whole.

While many enjoy Pandemic: The Cure’s take on Pandemic (its parent game), others dislike the sacrifices the game has made in order to become what it is today. It’s reliance on dice-based (and thus chance-based) play causes some to lose interest. Although those of this belief represent a minority, their voices remains strong and reflect one concept: they believe that the element of dice-rolling reduces the skill-based components of the game and gives it a tedious feel. An adjusted ruleset of Pandemic: The Cure would include a monetary system that requires amounts of money be spent in order to perform actions, as it greatly increases the element of strategy and skill.

Sources Cited

Yu, Dale. “Dale Yu: Review of Pandemic: The Cure (Z-Man).” The Opinionated Gamers, 28 Dec. 2014, opinionatedgamers.com/2014/12/29/dale-yu-review-of-pandemic-the-cure-z-man/.

JCM0242. “Review of Pandemic: The Cure.” Amazon, http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1KBIE0AV9K98K/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00M4KGF5S.

Rapson, Ian R. “Review of Pandemic: The Cure.” Amazon, 1 Nov. 2017, http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1YFJYAJ5GTI1S/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00M4KGF5S.

clman99. “Review of Pandemic: The Cure.” Amazon, 9 Oct. 2014, http://www.amazon.com/Z-Man-Games-ZMG-71150-Pandemic/dp/B00M4KGF5S.