Medical Center
United States
Independently developed and published
Released 1979 for PLATO educational mainframe
Date Started: 1 December 2024
Date Ended: 2 December 2024
Total Hours: 4
Difficulty: Moderate (3.0/5)
Final Rating: (to come later)
Ranking at time of posting: (to come later)
Medical Center is one of two games written for PLATO that took the mechanics of
The Game of Dungeons (1975) and put them in a hospital.
Bugs and Drugs (1978) beat it by a year, and there are enough similarities that
Center was probably influenced by
Bugs, but
Bugs may have no longer been available when
Center was written.
The game puts your character in a 20-floor hospital, each floor specializing in an area of medicine, each crawling with diseases related to that specialty. As you wander the corridors, you encounter these diseases and have to decide whether to treat them with medication, fight them with your innate constitution, rely on a limited pool of immunizations, or refer the patient to surgery. You get experience points and money for diseases successfully fought and eradicated, but if you fail, the disease affects you, weakening one of your systems. The goal is to climb the medical hierarchy as far as possible, from intern to professor emeritus while simultaneously climbing the hospital to the twentieth floor.
|
I wonder how accurate this list is in its depiction of the hierarchy of medical positions.
|
Where Bugs and Drugs had a standard set of RPG character attributes (strength, intelligence, etc.), your character in Medical Center just has a series of percentages associated with his 11 systems. Eight of them are considered "vital": cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal, liver, urinary, central nervous system, blood, and skin. If any of your percentages drop below 0%, you die. Vision, hearing, muscular-skeletal, and reproductive systems are "non-vital," but 0% in any of them means that you functionally cannot play the game.
|
Nothing suspends disbelief more than an intern with a perfect liver and a positive bank balance.
|
The moment you enter Level 1, you start meeting gonorrhea, impetigo, nonspecific urethritis, acute cystitis, and a host of other conditions. If you can identify the right medicine, it's almost always successful. Sometimes the right choice is unsuccessful, just like in real life, but in such cases you lose, say, 0-3% of health in your related system. If you choose the wrong medication, you lose in the double digits.
|
My first encounter. Yesterday, I didn't know what "impetigo" was.
|
Naturally, Google helped a lot in identifying the right medicine, although not as much as you might think given that it's been 45 years. The search engine's most common answer was doxycycline, which isn't in the "formulary" list that you can bring up at any time. I learned that when doxycycline is indicated, tetracycline almost always works instead. Also, penicillin is a good default. Overall, this phase of the game is easier than in Bugs and Drugs because the earlier game put you on a time limit whereas Medical Center gives you all the time you need to search the Internet Archive for 1978 copies of The Physician's Desk Reference.
|
25%! This choice was definitely "wrong."
|
The non-medication options are iffier, and I didn't experiment with them much. Just "fighting" the disease hardly ever worked. Immunizations and surgery both seemed like traps; when I tried immunization, it inevitably turned out that there is no immunization for that disease. Surgery, when it works, costs so much that it can bankrupt you.
Yes, for some reason, when you order medication or surgery, the cost comes out of your balance. With medication, you generally recoup it with the amount billed to the patient, although the game is realistic in that there are separate "billed amounts" and "collected amounts." Your first couple of encounters can go poorly if you order a medication that's too expensive for your balance, since running out of money immediately ends the game.
|
This is a cutthroat hospital.
|
In addition to encounters with diseases, there are also lots of random encounters with letters, books, cabinets, medicines, and such. You might get a letter with payment for a past bill, or a check from some place for which you wrote an article or gave a lecture. You might find a medicine cabinet with a pair of glasses that increases your "Vision" or a pair of sunglasses that decreases it. You find bottles of medicine that boost your percentages.
|
That was a decent check for 1979.
|
You can find books that tell you outright what the answer is to the medication question--with the caveat that some of them are quite old and may reflect outdated practice. This is an in-game version of what I was going through with Google. Bugs and Drugs also featured such books (though without the possibility of them being wrong), one of the many similarities between the titles.
Each 20 x 20 floor also has a few fixed encounters, including stairs to the floors above and below, an elevator (which has restrictions based on your level), a pharmacy where you can buy immunizations, a lounge where you can rest, and the departmental offices, where you can get treatments specific to that floor. Your character has a specialty and receives "privileges" on the associated floor, including free treatments.
|
Family Practice is on the first floor, which is disturbing given the number of times I encountered gonorrhea and syphilis.
|
The goal is to achieve as high a rank as possible. No one has made professor emeritus since 1984. The current top scorer is only a chief resident (rank 6 out of 21).
|
Everyone who has ever made professor emeritus.
|
In any event, I got my character up to "2nd year resident" (second highest on the current leaderboard) and probably would have been able to go higher except that I insisted on pushing upward in the hospital. I died on Level 6 when I ordered cephalosporin to treat bacteroides-peritonitis. For all I know, that was the right answer, but my GI system was at 0% from some earlier bad choices, so even a slight loss would have killed me.
|
That sounds like an unpleasant way to go. Not that there are any pleasant ones.
|
Medical Center was written by Dr. David E. Trachtenbarg, who attended the University of Illinois College of Medicine from 1971 to 1975. He is still practicing in Peoria, Illinois, and he has taught at the university since 1990. I'm not sure what his status was in 1979 when he wrote the game, but he presumably wrote it to help younger medical students. The title screen also credits Dr. Stephen C. Doughty as an "infectious disease consultant." I wrote to Dr. Trachtenbarg to see if he remembered anything about the game, but I hadn't heard from him at publication time.
These two medical games are some of the few truly educational RPGs that we've experienced, games where the player's knowledge (mostly) trumps random rolls and character attributes. I suppose this is not dissimilar to how the player's cleverness, not the characters', determines success or failure with the fairy chests in Betrayal at Krondor. There's a longer entry to be made here about the duality of player growth and character growth and what kind of balance a good RPG favors, but I wouldn't generally mind if occasionally an RPG rewarded a player's knowledge of history, geography, physics, physical sciences, humanities, or other knowledge sets, even if such rewards aren't the game's entire raison d'ĂȘtre.
|
One of the last diseases I eradicated.
|
However, purely as a game (rather than a teaching tool), Medical Center leans too far towards the player's knowledge to be an enjoyable RPG, as enjoyable as it was as a novelty. Bugs and Drugs had more nods to classic RPG tropes, such as being able to earn experience by finding money instead of just curing diseases. Medical Center was fun as a diversion, and to boost a little of my knowledge about diseases and drugs, but not something I'd want to play to the top level.
Thanks go to El Explorador de RPG for
alerting me to the game along with a few others that history had mostly forgotten. I've since played all of them, so unless yet another one pops up, I have once again reached the end of the PLATO list. That feels sad to type. Even when they weren't superb, they delivered a level of competence above anything in the commercial CRPG market at the time, and
Medical Center, although not the best of the RPGs on the platform, is no exception.
Good thing my GI system was above 3% a week ago with peritonitis! Strange how this game blurs the line between who pays and gets sick. What doesn't kill you gets you promoted. Nietzsche is snickering somewhere.
ReplyDeleteAt least you didn't have to deal with insurance companies. That would be a way to eat into revenue.
ReplyDeleteWell, the difference between amounts billed and amounts paid could reflect insurers’ reimbursement rates I suppose…
DeleteAlso, random question based on having a somewhat uncommon name, but are you the Zack Macomber who was at Exeter in the late 90s? If so, I’m Mike Russo, commenting under a random pseudonym for annoying Google-account-related reasons.
(If not, I’m still Mike Russo, but that fact will presumably be much less interesting)
I mean this a fascinating concept... add the politics of practice and insurance and you could update this into a whopper of a game!
Delete"Are you sure you know what you're doing?"
ReplyDelete"Yeah, I played Medical Center!"
(I wonder if anyone actually who went into medicine can actually say that)
As to rewarding real world knowledge, I'm sure there are plenty of games that do that in ways we don't realize, not just ones with outright quizzes like the Persona series, but over subtle knowledge we assume everyone has that might not be true. There's also any time you play a game in a foreign language and actually understand something as opposed to just brute forcing it.
Are you implying playing "Life & Death" did not qualify me to perform appendectomy?
DeleteI played a bunch of Life and Death on my roommates’ Mac 30 years ago, and to this day I am completely convinced I can diagnose appendicitis and probably do the surgery too so long as the patient was in black and white.
DeleteHey, if Colton Moore could fly a plane from Indiana to the Bahamas after learning how to fly with Microsoft Flight Simulator. . .
DeleteI may have to track this one down working in medicine. I had forgotten about "Life and Death" frankly... but in my young hands in 1988-9 it usually meant DEATH!!!
Delete"Family Practice is on the first floor, which is disturbing given the number of times I encountered gonorrhea and syphilis."
ReplyDeleteDoctor weighing in here:
Family practice typically means primary care. Gonorrhea, chlamydia, and other bacterial STDs are often treated by a primary care doc. No need for a specialist at all. The OBGYNs, infectious disease experts, or urologists would get pissed if I consulted for gonorrhea treatment.
"I died on Level 6 when I ordered cephalosporin to treat bacteroides-peritonitis"
ReplyDeleteFrom that list I think for 1979 the answer was clindamycin
Yeah... Clindamycin would do the job. Bacteroides are anaerobic bugs that wouldn't be too susceptible to the 1st generation cephalosporins of that era. Later cephalosporins like cefoxitin would do the job here. I'd have to dig around to see when that was marketed, but probably about this time or the early 80s.
DeleteIs there something like this, but for French verbs?
ReplyDelete"Want ads have been placed to fill your old position." That's some Papers Please-level savagery.
ReplyDeleteSo how exactly does hitting 0% in reproductive systems prevent you from being a doctor?
That's a good question. The instructions say: "If your vision drops below zero, you will be unable to see the walls of the medical center. If your hearing drops below zero, you will be unable to recognize any diseases. If your musculo-skeletal system drops below zero, you will be unable to move. If your reproductive reserve drops below zero, you will be sterile." But you're right--what affect would that have on the game? The only way to see would be to play long enough to get hit by specific diseases.
DeleteThe same question was also on my mind and the answer given is not entirely satisfying.
DeleteSame here on both counts.
DeleteI recall repeatedly reading recently (is there a name for cumulating words starting with the same two letters? Double alliteration?) about the "gamification" of learning / games as tools for fostering the interest of younger generations in teaching subjects.
ReplyDeleteSo I wonder if it would make sense to use something like a modernized version of Medical Center or Bugs and Drugs to this end or if comparable programs are currently applied in schools or universities?
Not sure about all the abbreviations, but while many of those having made it to professor emeritus seem to hail from medical faculties, it appears there is at least one who accessed it from a finance faculty.
I feel as though the concept works particularly well for medicine, a field in which the experts are truly 'battling' against disease, undesired conditions, etc. This could probably be extended to some other fields, but works less well for others (e.g., astrophysics!). One could still have the content-knowledge-trivia component, but without the active 'confrontation' against the known enemy it seems to me that everything would be rather more abstracted.
DeleteIt's another good read but it's no closer to 95.
ReplyDeleteHave you tried using ChatGPT/Copilot instead of Google Search? The advantage is that you can list the possible options and request the answer be one of them. If some treatment is obsolete, chances are that the AI will know and tell you.
ReplyDeleteThe last time I used ChatGPT as a joke, some utter wad wrote to me and pointed to my AI policy and asked me to explain the discrepancy. So even if I did, I probably wouldn't talk about it.
DeleteI don't have a universal policy against AI like Chester, so I can report that ChatGPT did get this one right. However I hope that actual doctors are not relying on AI to "know and tell you" that a treatment is obsolete.
Delete(Here's an example of ChatGPT manifesting a novel error in an area I know something about--I was expecting it to step on the rake of saying that the statement that Joey has blue eyes "does not directly tell anyone anything new about their own eye color," but I was also expecting it to go through the traditional 100-step induction instead of somehow jumping the gun and sending everyone away on day two.)
@CRPGAddict: To be honest, I feel you are being a bit harsh on that commenter (assuming it's the one you refer to) - seeing as you set up that policy with a wording that sounds as if you strongly care about it and being yourself picky on exactness in other contexts (as are probably many of us in some aspect of our lives).
DeleteOh, no, I wasn't talking about Rowan. I'm sure he was kidding. I was talking about someone who wrote to me directly. But I think it was clear from the context that I used it for a throw-away joke and not to generate any of the content in the article, which I would never use AI for.
DeleteThanks to CERTAIN THINGS in the news recently, I've had to dredge up this factoid a few times in the past week. AI has been able to perform comparably to human doctors at diagnosing ailments since long before the current LLM explosion - like, this happened back in the '80s. In fact, it was basically the ONLY success they'd had in AI research for decades. This is less to do with AI magic and more to do with the fact that a large percentage of diagnosing illness does map well to "Just do a statistical analysis of the symptoms", and the cases where it doesn't are just as hard for a human to figure out as a computer.
DeleteSELECT Disease FROM Diseases WHERE Symptoms LIKE '%hives%' AND Symptoms LIKE '%swelling%';
DeleteAre we really calling that "AI"?
No, we're not. That's a straightforward decision tree, not any kind of machine learning.
DeleteHistorically (as in 1980s and earlier) artificial intelligence had *nothing* to do with machine learning; computer scientists working on AI back then believed that they could develop human-written programs running on contemporary hardware that would be capable of human-level cognitive tasks. One somewhat famous partial success of such efforts was Shakey the robot which could autonomously move objects to make a path to a destination. However, ultimately this direction of AI research failed to achieve its goals, and the subject was practically forgotten for a few decades.
DeleteThe specific term for that branch of AI is "expert systems".
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system
@Anonymous: Preaching for my content, but in 1983, SSI was publishing a game whose AI trained while playing against the computer thanks to a neural network. This game had been initially coded in 1977 on a HP3000
DeleteI wrote an article in there (skip directly to the second half where I write about the context, I always start with the "Let's Play"):
https://zeitgame.net/archives/11339
The manual gives some information on how the neural network works (Appendix B: "Learning")
https://archive.org/details/fortress-manual/page/17/mode/2up
Transformers/"All You Need is Attention" were seminal, obviously, but the key limitation in the 80s was not that much the doctrine or the tech but the raw computer power and the volume of data.
*while playing against the human players
DeleteI always proof-read myself AFTER publishing ^^.
Well, sure, the concept of neural networks existed at that time, but even though people were aware that they were close to how natural intelligence (ie. the human brain) worked, nobody seriously thought that they could ever lead to "real" artificial intelligence, because the hardware requirements were seen as obviously insurmountable; everyone genuinely believed that true AI would be achieved by doing something completely different. (Since you mention Fortress, note that apparently neither SSI nor anyone else writing about it in 1983 ever used the term "artificial intelligence" in the context of the game, because that just wasn't what it meant back then.)
DeleteDredging up some old memories, what I was taught back in the 90s was that "AI" was a family of research areas, including machine learning, natural language processing, computer vision, expert systems, ontologies, and a few other things. And at the time, expert systems were the only kind of AI that was actually useful for anything. There were some breakthroughs in computer vision a few years later while I was in grad school, but basically all the research collapsed down to machine learning once you could throw enough compute at the problem (a thing which more or less happened after I washed out of academia).
DeleteIn the Interactive Fiction community, we spent years trying to improve natural language processing algorithmically, only to have the mainstream basically completely reject the idea of parsing human language in favor of "Just assume they meant the thing that's most statistically similar to a phrase you've heard before"
@Anonymous: If I understand you correctly, people knew about neural network (eg: Fortress) but did not conceive it as a path to AI [I consider the current SotA LLM as AI for the purpose of this discussion, anyone from the 80s talking to Claude would consider it AI].
DeleteThat's interesting. I am used to people claiming that neural network were "new", but I never considered the nuances of 1980 "doctrine" on the path to AI.
I found mentions on Fortress being AI in CGW, October 1984, "The Computer as an opponent" by Charlie Merrow:
"Ability to Learn or Adapt
The one area where there is tremendous room for improvement in computer game-playing ability is in the ability to learn a game by playing it, or to adapt to the opponent’s style of play. Artificial intelligence is a field which is making great strides toward the creation of computer programs which have these characteristics. But, the memory and processing speed requirements are generally quite large for games of any real complexity, thus making them unsuitable for most microcomputer wargames. One recent exception to this rule is the board game FORTRESS from SSI."
I don't think it's correct to say that ANNs weren't historically conceived as a path to AGI - they absolutely were. Rather it was one of several competing paradigms for achieving AGI, and until very recently, not even necessarily the most pominent and/or promising one.
Delete