We’re Doomed: Fate Of The World Sequel Announced

A little UI mockup.

When a wide-eyed young lad named Quintin Smith played Fate of the World, he learned that we’re all doomed but hopefully you and I will die before the world’s fully trashed. That’s my understanding of his lesson, anyway. It was a fascinating strategy game about big problems facing the world over the next century – dwindling resources, changing climate, growing population, famine, revolution, extinction, and so on – and how they’re all tangled in complicated ways.

Creator Red Redemption shut down a few years back, but another studio have picked up the rights to Fate of the World and announced a sequel with a few folks from the original onboard.

Soothsayer Games are calling it Fate of the World Online [official site] because, well, it’ll support online multiplayer. Former Red Redemption CEO Klaude Thomas and game director Matt Miles Griffiths are among the folks working on it. Soothsayer say, forsooth, that they may or may not crowdfund the game.

As for what to expect from the sequel, Soothsayer say:

“The key new feature is the move to a multi-agent system where you, as a national premier, have to diplomatically engage with other world leaders, as well as participate in simulations of real-life conferences and voting blocs, such as the UNFCCC COP, G-77, and LDCs.

“This means we can offer a multiplayer version of the game, which will be much faster to play thanks to innovations like an accelerable real time game engine and a new approach to in-game diplomacy. On the data model side, we’ll be covering elements that just didn’t feature in the original, such as detailed land usage and ocean simulation, and the environmental decay of natural resources.

“Our demographic model will broaden, too; this time, to make a game that let players examine our society and its interaction with our environment in a way no other game does.”

Oh good – more things that can go wrong and leave us all doomed.


  1. Tatourmi says:

    Cool! I liked the first one well enough despite the fact that everybody and their mothers seemed to spit on it for having an agenda. Hey, I like games with an agenda. Especially when they are halfway well made and that agenda is not complete bullshit.

    • Tatourmi says:

      Well, that was a bit of a kneejerk reaction from my part so let me nuance it a bit (Since the absence of an edit button forces me to acknowledge my impulsiveness):
      I know that a lot of people, myself included did like the game, I know that it is not mechanically perfect, the cards being a bit of a weird way to deal with the player’s involvement, and I know that every situation the game put us in was not 100% realistic. But the game took the smart solution of telling us “we don’t know what the future will be” and presented us different preset situations as challenges, potential scenarios, never as “the truth”. And inside the paradigm of these scenarios I felt the game had a strong sense of coherence and never at any point took the “easy way out” of having one good kirby-land-like solution, which is what most games do when presented with ecologic problems. You sometimes had to rely on coal-based centrals, you sometimes had to take a dive. And the fact that you had to make these sacrifices was a result of smart design in my opinion. Yes, the game has an agenda. Which is fine by me. But through the gameplay it tells us that it’s agenda is not so much “Pollution is bad!” as it is “the world needs saving and it is not going to be easy”. And I can get behind that.

    • Kefren says:

      Yes, I was more impressed with the game than I had expected to be too. I’m interested in a sequel.

  2. Cinek says:

    Last game was awfully inaccurate (but still quite fun), hopefully a new one will be better!

  3. Ejia says:

    I got too much into the upgrading and research cards to care about fixing the actual problems. Who has time to improve the HDI when there are research labs to build?

    I think I spent too much time in research trees as a child.

  4. Andrew says:

    Hope they get Steam user Delnar_Ersike on board. That person has been patching FotW for ages – turned it into a much fairer game (and a game that explained more of what it was doing). I still play every now and then.

    My hope would be that they would add some element of randomisation, or at least the option for that. For example, emissions could cause temperatures to rise in a range, rather than in a linearly correlated fashion, as it seemed to be in FotW.

    • LionsPhil says:

      “Fairer (as in explained)” would certainly be a plus—the comment I remember from a friend about this game was the temperature seemed to correlate only to time elapsed, as some inexorable “we’re all screwed” doom, regardless of if you managed to crush all emissions, economical devastation, mass starvation, etc. be damned.

      • RegisteredUser says:

        Maybe you were simply experiencing “lag” from already set-in effects?
        Turning around climate is sluggish and more “infinitely huge oil tanker” turns rather than speedboat reactions, and the game when I checked it out did that fairly well.
        I might be remembering with a positive slant though, and I haven’t played the tipping point expansion yet.

        Without being an apologist for bad game design, I did feel that not really knowing 100% of the time what half of the measures would really end up helping in scope is part of the actual real world political dilemma as well, no?
        But I’m all for being clearer about what your choices and impacts in a game are.

      • Tam-Lin says:

        I suspect he played one of the earlier versions, which had a bug that caused something like that to happen.

  5. RegisteredUser says:

    Shame they went under, sad to hear.
    The game concept was absolutely brilliant, based on real world data and projections and made it shockingly clear just how hard it was even with hardliner policies to still try and wrest the world from total extinction level event outcomes.
    It was smart, it was different and it was scary, and it deserved much, much, MUCH more attention.
    It should be a mandatory part of anyone’s school education in my opinion.

  6. pertusaria says:

    I really enjoyed the original, will keep my eye on this. I hope they’re not biting off more than they can chew by trying to account for several more variables. I know the original was too simple to be realistic, but they were able to make a good solid game that way (admittedly with imperfections).