Could a game help test Earthship ideas before we build them?

Hi everyone,

I’m John, founder of a small indie studio called Living Pattern Games. We’re developing Seed-Walkers, a third-person ecological RPG with voxel-based building, survival, crafting, settlement systems, and a world intended to respond systemically to what players build and change.

One question behind the project feels especially relevant here:

Could a game become a useful sandbox for testing regenerative building ideas before attempting them in the real world?

Alongside the game, we’ve been developing a framework called the Living Infrastructure Design Charter. One of its central ideas is to stop looking at a building as a collection of isolated technologies and instead ask how many useful relationships a place can support.

A greenhouse, for example, might produce food, buffer temperature, capture solar heat, interact with water storage, accept waste heat, influence humidity, and shelter another part of the building. But every additional relationship also introduces maintenance, material costs, failure points, and tradeoffs.

That immediately made me think about Earthships.

What if a player could build an Earthship-inspired structure and then see how that same design behaves in New Mexico, Oklahoma, Florida, Washington, or Alaska?

We eventually want variables such as solar exposure, thermal mass, climate, rainfall, humidity, ventilation, water storage, soil, vegetation, material properties, maintenance, and system failures to have meaningful consequences.

Not “the game says this building has +20 sustainability.”

More like: the greenhouse overheated, your cistern is undersized for this rainfall pattern, that thermal mass behaves differently in this climate, and losing one pump exposed three systems that depended on it.

Longer term, I’d also like to explore allowing sufficiently detailed player-built structures to be exported into CAD-friendly geometry or data, potentially giving someone a starting point for AutoCAD or another real design workflow.

That would absolutely not mean the game produced construction documents or proved a building was safe. An architect, engineer, builder, local codes, structural calculations, site conditions, and real-world physics still have the final word.

The idea is closer to a sketchbook with consequences: experiment cheaply in a simulated environment, discover questions and failure points, then carry the promising design into real professional tools.

So I’d really like to ask the people here who have built, lived in, repaired, or seriously studied Earthships:

If you were designing a simulation intended to teach something genuinely useful about an Earthship before construction, what would it absolutely need to model?

What tends to work differently in reality than newcomers expect? What changes most dramatically between climates? What failure or maintenance issues would a useful simulation need to expose?

And perhaps my favorite question:

What Earthship or regenerative-building experiment would you try if materials, money, and the risk of damaging your actual house temporarily disappeared?

We’re not trying to build a game that claims to have solved sustainable architecture. I’d much rather build a place where people can safely test ideas, discover why some fail, and learn to ask better questions before concrete gets poured. 🌱

I dont understand what you are actually trying to achieve?
What is this mean please?

a third-person ecological RPG

Hey John! Thanks for asking, and sorry for the confusion! 😄 I realize I threw a bunch of video game terminology into a forum where not everyone is necessarily a gamer lol.

We're developing Seed-Walkers, a 3D computer video game, with potential for console releases in the future.

RPG stands for Role-Playing Game, meaning you play as a character who explores a world, interacts with people, learns skills, builds things, and makes decisions that affect what happens around them. Third-person simply means the camera follows your character from behind, usually over their shoulder, instead of looking through their eyes.

What makes our game different is that we're trying to make the world behave more like a real interconnected ecosystem.

Players will be able to explore, grow food, build homes and communities, experiment with renewable energy, manage water, restore damaged ecosystems, and much more. We're especially interested in permaculture's concept of stacking functions, where one element serves several purposes and interacts with the systems around it.

For example, imagine building an Earthship-inspired home inside the game. You could experiment with its orientation, greenhouse, thermal mass, rainwater collection, ventilation, and energy systems, then see how those decisions affect the building through different seasons and climates.

A design that works beautifully in the New Mexico desert might struggle with humidity, drainage, or overheating in another region.

That's where the real-world connection comes in!

Alongside the game, we're researching ways to connect these virtual building systems with actual architectural design principles. Eventually, we'd love to explore exporting player creations into programs like AutoCAD, where they could be developed further by real designers and engineers.

Of course, the game isn't an engineering simulator or a substitute for proper building plans, permits, and professional review. We want to start by making the relationships understandable and fun, then improve their realism as we develop and validate the systems.

And that's exactly why I'm reaching out here!

I'm a permaculture practitioner myself, but I know there's a world of difference between understanding a concept and actually building, maintaining, and living with it for years.

We're hoping to learn from people with real hands-on experience, especially what tends to fail, what works differently than expected, and what they'd love to experiment with if materials and money weren't limiting factors.

Even something as simple as "here's the biggest mistake people make when building an Earthship" would be incredibly valuable.

So I hope that clarifies things a little! We're essentially trying to create a fun, living virtual world where people can explore regenerative ideas, learn from their consequences, and perhaps one day carry some of those ideas into real-world projects.

Thanks again for asking, John! 🌱

I don't have personal experience with Earthships, but I have experience with conventional construction and I have read as much criticism as I could find about Earthships because I was quite obsessed with them for a while. (The book "Hacking The Earthship" is a great resource and I recommend it!)

As I recall, there are a few issues people consistently battle with when building/living in Earthships and Earthship-inspired homes. Many people with direct Earthship experience will not have experienced these issues, but what I remember learning is that these issues are much more common than the venerable Mr. Reynolds would wish them to be:

- Funding. Part of the Earthship idea is that it's very cheap because it's made out of trash and the labor is mostly free because you just throw big pizza parties and get friends and friendly strangers to come help build the thing using methods that anyone can learn in a few minutes. This attracts people who are not prepared to bankroll the construction of what turns out to be a rather intensive and complicated project. Many Earthships end up as partly-finished construction sites, half-finished dreams.

- Concrete. Earthships are often pumped full of concrete after other methods of filling the tire wall and constructing the floor fail. All that concrete is expensive, and counteracts the advertised environmental and toxicological benefits.

- Humidity. I can't remember why exactly, maybe because the vapor barriers are often not installed correctly, or maybe because of poor air circulation, but I recall learning that Earthships (especially ones not located in the high desert of northern New Mexico) consistently experience humidity issues, often leading to mold.

There might be others that I'm forgetting. Also, I have to imagine that using greywater to flush toilets will shorten the life of the toilet or introduce extra maintenance, since the internal components of toilet tanks are designed to be in contact with municipal water, but I have not learned whether this ends up being the case in reality.

A game that realistically simulates the challenges of Earthship construction and maintenance should include the challenges Earthship builders and occupants typically face.

(BTW, one big takeaway I got from reading about Earthships was that having a greenhouse is awesome, but having the greenhouse attached to/being a room in a house introduces way more problems than it's worth.)

(BTW2: Lest anyone think I'm just hating on Earthships, I am not. I think they are brilliant, elegant, and superior in so many practical and aesthetic ways compared to conventional production housing. If Earthships represent one end of a spectrum and conventional production housing is at the other end, I believe in a sane world we ought to be building houses way closer to the Earthship end of the spectrum.)

Hey Ned! Thank you so much for taking the time to share all of this! 🌱

This is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for, especially because you're looking at the actual challenges without dismissing what makes Earthships so exciting in the first place.

The funding and unfinished-construction points really stand out to me. I've been so focused on how buildings interact with their environments that I hadn't given nearly enough thought to simulating the process of actually getting them built! Material availability, labor, budgets, time, and unexpected complications could all make for some really interesting challenges. Currently I am making the actual building in the game much easier so the players fun-loop doesn't get lost in mixing concrete and stacking tires lol. I'll see what we can feasibly do for the full release of the game, because there's already a community/relationship aspect to the game, but no currency, currently, etc.

And the humidity and greenhouse issues are right up my alley! One of the biggest ideas behind Seed-Walkers is stacking functions, but I think it's equally important to show when stacking too many functions together creates more problems than it solves. An attached greenhouse might be wonderful in one climate and a nightmare in another.

I also really like your point about concrete. Something being made partly from recycled materials doesn't automatically make the whole building environmentally friendly, especially once you consider the materials, energy, and maintenance required over its lifetime.

I'll definitely check out Hacking the Earthship, thank you for that recommendation!

One thing I'm really curious about: If you could make someone building their first Earthship understand just ONE of these challenges before they started, which would you choose?

I think that's exactly the kind of lesson I'd love players to discover safely through experimentation before trying something in real life. 💚

My son adored mine-craft when it first came out, but I admit the level of "movie magic" made me shake my head.

So basically, I just want to say that something that allows people to build imaginary buildings and gardens that actually relate to the real world in such a way that they learn basic safety/building principles is an awesome concept. Many of the programs that do this sort of thing in the real world are simply too expensive for non-professionals to justify buying.

John Morey wrote:If you could make someone building their first Earthship understand just ONE of these challenges before they started, which would you choose?

Depends who I'm talking to.

Someone with dozens of able-bodied friends who are available and willing to come help out for free and camp out for weeks or months at a time doesn't need my warning about funding as much as someone who doesn't get invited to parties and who could only think of a few people to invite if he or she were to throw one.

Someone planning to build in Arizona doesn't need to be as concerned about humidity as much as someone planning to build in Florida or Washington state.

I wouldn't want a bunch of concrete in my house and I bet most prospective Earthship occupants wouldn't either, but if one of them didn't mind concrete and had a buddy in the concrete business, he or she might even be excited at the prospect of using a lot of it.

I've heard that anyone who wants to build an Earthship should find a tire and pound it full of dirt just once, just as a sanity check, and I think that is good advice. I would recommend the same for framing a reclaimed window, running pipe to a planter, fitting cob around a set of old wine bottles, etc.

Unfortunately, these are all things you've got to do in meat space with your hands. A video game could help people understand the process and the abstract challenges (costs, timeframes, etc.) but if the mission statement is really to give people an idea of what they're up against before they decide to build an Earthship, I think getting out there and really trying things is the only way.

So instead, the potential value I see from a game like this is education, spreading awareness of Earthships, and maybe even better, of the various building techniques and construction science principles that Earthships attempt to tie together--because they can also be decoupled and applied elsewhere, and that is where I think the magic will really happen.

Could a game become a useful sandbox for testing regenerative building ideas before attempting them in the real world?

I personally do not believe that a game can teach someone to build.

Maybe a game could help folks become familiar with what an earthship is.

Maybe a game could help folk learn about what are some sustainable building techniques.

Hey Jay, Ned, and Anne!! Thank you all so much for continuing this conversation! 🌱💚

I'm loving the different perspectives here because you're helping me think more deeply about what a game like this could actually accomplish, and just as importantly, what it can't accomplish!

Jay, your Minecraft comment made me laugh because I know exactly what you mean! 😂 My son and I played Minecraft as his first video game, and he loves it still ☺️ I think there's an enormous opportunity to make learning about real-world systems accessible through play, especially when professional design software is so far outside most people's budgets. I don't necessarily want players memorizing building codes or engineering equations, but imagine being able to experiment with a structure and gradually discover why drainage, ventilation, structural support, material selection, and local ecology matter. And discover what happens when they don't consider them!

Ned, I absolutely love your answer, especially the point about how much the right advice depends on the person and environment. That's something I've been thinking about quite a bit! A design that works beautifully in Arizona could create entirely different challenges in Washington. And someone with lots of experienced friends has very different resources available than someone trying to do everything alone.

Your suggestion to actually pound a tire, frame a reclaimed window, or work with cob is wonderful too. There's no replacing the physical experience of working with materials, feeling their resistance, making mistakes, and developing those skills with your own hands.

But what really got me was your point about decoupling the individual technologies and construction principles so they can be applied elsewhere. YES!! 😂 That gets right to the heart of something I'm very passionate about: stacking functions. Understanding not just what one system does, but how it interacts with others, and when combining or separating them makes the most sense.

Anne, I think your skepticism is completely fair! I certainly wouldn't want someone thinking they could finish a game and suddenly know how to safely construct a real building. There's an enormous difference between understanding a concept and having the practical experience to implement it.

And I think that's helping me clarify the real opportunity here.

Seed-Walkers is ultimately being developed as an RPG, not professional construction software. There will be fantasy, exploration, relationships, ecology, and plenty of other things going on lol. But underneath that, I want the world to respond to players' decisions through meaningful, interconnected systems.

What if a game could help people develop the curiosity, foundational understanding, and confidence to start asking better questions in the real world?

Perhaps someone discovers why an attached greenhouse can cause moisture problems, or why a certain building material works better in one climate than another. Maybe they learn how rainwater, gardens, soil, structures, and energy systems can support one another. Then they get curious enough to research the real thing, take a workshop, or go outside and try something with their own hands!

That's where I think the really exciting potential is. Not replacing real-world experience, but inspiring more of it. 💚

I'm curious what you all think about that distinction. What building or ecological principle do you think would be especially valuable for someone to discover through play, even if they'd still need hands-on experience to apply it?

Thank you all again! This is exactly the kind of thoughtful discussion I was hoping to find here! 🌿

When I first read your topic I thought poorly of it, and was confused.
Now I may be excited!
My background is Civil Engineering, we are taught to see the whole project from top to bottom because all the parts are connected.
Ground works, storm water, foundations, materials, timing of construction etc all need to be lined up.
And if something is misaligned the project is delayed.
I often use the example of establishing a building on a hill in a paddock.
Most people would drive across with gear, and start work.
Then it rains, the drive gets muddy, vehicles get bogged, labour and materials cannot get to the site!
Eventually things get sorted, the building is complete and the driveway is built but its later than planned.
I teach people to lay out the drive, build the stormwater, lay the rock foundation for the road with 11/2" rock.
As the job progresses the rock is compacted, by traffic, nobody gets bogged nor materials delayed and its completed quickly.
The driveway is then finalised.
Why because trades come to the site that has access.
Civil Engineering includes Project Management and that may be the key to a game for home building.

Earthships are labour intensive and only seem to be viable where cheap labour is available.

As Ned suggested setting some tasks, counting how many tyres are needed, knowing how long one tyre takes to compact compared with laying a
similar volume of bricks or cob may work.
Bringing in a storm to simulate muddy access or damage to existing work or stored materials would improve realism.
I can see it getting exciting as I write this!

John C Daley wrote:When I first read your topic I thought poorly of it, and was confused.
Now I may be excited!

Jay, I think you've just made a muddy driveway sound like a genuinely entertaining game mechanic. 😂

First, apologies for the delayed reply! Apparently my notifications decided to take a vacation.

I got a good laugh out of your opening, too. Going from "I'm not sure about this" to getting excited while writing is one of my favorite kinds of feedback!

I think there's something wonderfully funny about a player spending hours designing the perfect sustainable home, only to discover they can't get the materials up the hill.

That's a lesson they probably wouldn't forget.

One thing I really want to avoid is making all our building methods magically sustainable just because they're made from natural or recycled materials. Every choice should come with its own opportunities and complications.

Have you encountered any particularly memorable construction disasters that started with a seemingly harmless planning decision?

I have a feeling those stories could make for some excellent gameplay inspiration! 🌱

Have you encountered any particularly memorable construction disasters that started with a seemingly harmless planning decision?

Planning decisions  can be something a Government authority makes, whereas as poor planning [ by builder, designer, home owner] can result in construction disasters.
Correct wording may be important in a game.
Disasters I have encountered;
- poorly constructed entrance path
- selfish vehicle owners [ maybe a tradie ] blocking access
- delivery to wrong address
- completely incorrect materials being delivered
- incomplete delivery
- plasterers covering all electric cables or plumbing with no marks on the floor to find them behind a blank wall.
- electrician or plumber punching holes in same wall to find their cables etc, plus a few more to teach the plasterer a lesson.
- plumbing not joined properly causing ceiling to fall in or water leaks behind completed tiled bathroom walls.
- waterproofing in tiled bathroom poorly installed and even installed with stones in it.
- electrical switches put in the wrong place, behind open doors, or next to a sink.
- nails driven through water pipes or electric cables put in the wrong place.
- windows fitted with no flashing, balconies that drain inside the house instead of off the balcony edge.
- dishwasher slammed into place when installed, crushing electric cable which caused a fire burning the house down.
- solar collectors on the north side of the house in the northern hemisphere and the south in mine.
- doorhandles that cannot be used if your hands are wet [ ball shaped].
- gaps left in insulation
- windows and flyscreens damaged by having ladders stored against them.
- sewer or drain pipes running the wrong way and not draining.
- no sealer undercoat being applied to new plasterboard when painting.
- shower screen doors that smash against a sink, toilet, room entry door handle-
- concrete not have enough cement,
- people or dogs crossing over freshly laid concrete
- bricklayers who dont use levels
HAVE YOU STOPPED LAUGHING YET!

One thing I really want to avoid is making all our building methods magically sustainable just because they're made from natural or recycled materials. Every choice should come with its own opportunities and complications.

This is a tough one, lead by those who twist the truth and want to sell something.

John C Daley wrote:
- plasterers covering all electric cables or plumbing with no marks on the floor to find them behind a blank wall.
- electrician or plumber punching holes in same wall to find their cables etc, plus a few more to teach the plasterer a lesson.

Definitely have seen the first of those two happen. But when I went back to find my outlets I certainly made as few holes as possible! I want the contractor to hire me on the next job, not see me as a loose cannon.

- electrical switches put in the wrong place, behind open doors, or next to a sink.

That one's gotta be either a planning issue (customer asking for outlets in dumb places) or a code-ignorance question (outlets are required/forbidden in certain places). I will say though, sometimes the customer asks for an outlet, say, on the wall, then halfway through the project, after I have already put a box and run wire to that spot on the wall, they decide they want to put a built-in cabinet there.

- dishwasher slammed into place when installed, crushing electric cable which caused a fire burning the house down.

Tsk tsk. Any time we know an outlet is serving a heavy appliance in a cabinet we sheath it in metal flex to prevent exactly that problem. But also, if a live NM cable got crushed and shorted, why didn't the circuit trip??

- solar collectors on the north side of the house in the northern hemisphere and the south in mine.

Ha, in the neighborhood next to mine there's a house with a south-facing roof slope and a north-facing roof slope. They put a dozen PV panels on the north-facing slope, because the south-facing slope faces the street and they thought it would be ugly!

NED,

Ha, in the neighborhood next to mine there's a house with a south-facing roof slope and a north-facing roof slope. They put a dozen PV panels on the north-facing slope, because the south-facing slope faces the street and they thought it would be ugly!

That is exactly the reason given in Australia!
There must be vain people world wide!
I am not sure why the dishwasher fire was not protected by the fuse, the bloke whose house it was told me the day after the fire.
I never thought to ask at the time.

From Google
"Yes, an electrical fire can easily start without a fuse blowing or a circuit breaker tripping.
Fuses and circuit breakers are designed to protect against overcurrent (too much electrical current flowing through a wire, such as a short circuit or a massive overload).
They do not react to several other common fire hazards:
Why Fires Happen Before a Fuse Blows
• Loose or Corroded Connections: If a terminal, splice, or outlet connection becomes loose, it creates high electrical resistance.
As normal current flows through that narrow or degraded point, it generates intense localised heat (Joule heating).
Because the total current drawing through the overall circuit may still be well below the fuse's limit (e.g., pulling only 5 amps on a 15-amp circuit), the fuse never sees an "overload" and will not blow.