September 12th is a very interesting and simple little "game"/simulation from the producers of newsgaming.com. it clearly demonstrates, with emotion, how you may shoot your missile at the bad 'guy' based on current intelligence of her/his/their whereabouts, but by the time your weapon hits, it may or may not hit your target, and, it may or may not hit other non-targets as well. this was for me a very succinct example of 'meaninful play' in that the action i decided to take created a direct and immediate system-response loaded with meaning. "The meaning of an action in a game resides in the relationship between action and outcome" ("Rules of Play" by Salen and Zimmerman, pg. 34). the player-action to system-response relationship in this game is not at all complex, that is, there is no question about your action's consequence - it is a simple design. yet, the choice to outcome relationship is a meaningful one beacause the complexity is on entirely another plane, one dealing with culture and the state of the world. it made me feel like i made a terrible mistake when non-targets fell dead to the floor and homes were destroyed. this concept was no longer, for an instant at least, something outside of myself, something i would never deal with personally, something i would never have to decide and be responsible for, and the point was emotionally learned. if there is one inadequacy to the simulation that i felt, is that i inevitably felt like i just shouldn't do anything - don't disturb this world at all. the terrorists don't seem to do much, if left alone all they do is walk around town like the civilians do. why hurt them (and risk hurting others) if they clearly present no threat? would the simulation be a more engaging/meaningful one if your choice to kill COULD prevent some 'worse' or further evil, if your choice to kill was a decision you REALLY had to weigh seriously because not only would the result be uncertain (as it is now), but also because inherent to the game would be diverse definitions of 'success'?