I ask this because of an experience I had with the game a few nights ago. I went through about four terms of office (in Australia) and all I seemed to be doing was shuffling money around where it was needed for political gain. Even though I managed to get poverty and unemployment under control, the crumbling transport infrastructure was my eventual undoing. It strikes me that its a game that you can survive in but never really win.
The feeling I had at the end of the game is not unlike what playing Defcon makes me feel. You don’t win, so much as you lose less than your opponent. Its a hollow victory and leaves you feeling rather cynical.
Anyone else agree? Was this a deliberate design goal, Cliffski?
Not at all, I just tried to make it accurate, which is telling isn’t it? In fact, the game is very very optimistic. there are no constituencies, and 100% voter turnout. there is no campaign spending, no corruption, no doing deals for party funders, or placing important govt projects in parts of the country where they will generate needed votes. Everyone makes an intelligent decision on self interest regarding who to vote for, and personalities don’t come into it. I’m sure the game could be much more cynical .
I think that’s what’s been bugging me. People are isolated in their votes without looking at the bigger picture of what the country is like. Then again, who am I to say that poverty and social welfare is more important than military security and transport infrastructure…
.