Anyone heard anything? Paging Stardock…
I’d like to. But while they sell quite well, the reviewers pummel us every time we make one. It’s too casual for the hard core and too serious for the casual.
If we did a 2016 one, we’d have to bite the bullet and pick: casual or more serious.
Vote here for more serious.
Heh, I think we all know where QT3 is going to fall on that axis ;)
I thought the reviewers pummeled it because the game didn’t change from 2008 to 2012 in any meaningful way?
I can see that. Accessible and fun and easy to play, iPad kinda game (I know there are deep iPad games but you guys know what I mean) or a deeper game with a lot of thought required, etc.
Me, I’d prefer a deeper game. But I have no idea which would generate the best sales.
President Forever/Infinity or whatever they’re calling it for 2016 is about as close as it’ll get, I think, for a detailed election sim. Randy Chase, the guy behind the Power Politics series, passed away suddenly back in 2009 while still working on a version of that game that was never completed.
I’m for more casual. Games are supposed to be fun right?
Oh, cool, the fun police just showed up!
And in an era where a site like 538.com gets huge play and political blogs proliferate with polling data and demographic data, perhaps complex is fun. But maybe there’s room for complex and casual in the marketplace, both.
I kind of miss the Political Machine games, too. I wouldn’t mind a re-release as a roster update, but my problem with the last ones I played were more related to the interface and AI. It would be cool to see Stardock apply the lessons they’ve been learning lately to a new Political Machine.
By that rationale, Bejeweled is the funnest game of all time. But thanks for coming to a forum of hardcore gaming nerds to tell us that we’re not having fun.
-Tom
Personally I value a more refined game design that gets people right into the important choices. I dont want to spend hours on moving the polls a smidge, I want all things to count. So I in favor of a more casual game so that I can spend more time on other my priorities (my wife and super awesome 18 month old girl, who is so smart!).
I know, right? People who play serious games are taking time away that should be spent with their families. Plus, they’re not having fun anyway!
-TomWell, a Match-3 minigame wouldn’t be worse than the dancing in the Pirates! remake.
That said, what I would like is something more boardgamy and similar to 1960: The Making of a President.
I think the problem is politics is a lot less gamey these days due to how things have changed. What is effective politics these days is downright depressing, and I don’t think it’s something people would want to play.
Do you find it depressing, Alstein? I find it fascinating, and no more depressing than actual politics (which, granted, can be depressing). But to me, it’s perfect fodder for a game if you have an interesting model. And I think the Political Machine model is definitely interesting. It’s a direct offshoot of the model Stardock used in their Corporate Machine and Entrepreneur games. Namely, that a product is being marketed to the population, and you have to alter the population’s perception to get them to support your product. Basically, politics as advertising. Okay, sure, depressing if you don’t take a cynical view of the political process. But very game-able.
I like that Jorn brought up the boardgame 1960: Making of a President, but I think that’s a lot less interesting model for politics. I haven’t played it in a while, but I recall that it’s pretty much straight-up territory control, where you place cubes to claim certain regions. It’s a disappointingly reductionist model of how politics works in general, and the US Presidential election in specific. But I do like the specificity of the card-driven events and the 1960 election, so it’s got that going for it. You gotta love a game that has a “Lazy Shave” card that dings Nixon for his five o’clock shadow during the debates!
-Tom
Was that all that different from the fighting in the original pirates game? Just the num keys as I recall.
It’s been a while since I played it, but I think it felt more like a rythm-game than the sword-fighting minigame did.
Regarding 1960 and interesting political models:
I might be misremembering how TPM worked, as I’ve been thinking of it as an area control game.
I think saying 1960 is a straight-up territory control game is not completely right; like its parent game, Twilight Struggle, it centers on terrotory control, but there are several elements that makes it less straight-up and more interesting.
There’s campaigning that is straight-up area control. There’s buying media that makes it easier contest states carried by the opponent, as well as change the importance of the issues. Control of the issues gives momentum (resource used for events) and endorsements (very important for territory control).
A lot of the interesting stuff is in the events and what you make of the hand you are dealt; which ones do you play for yourself and which ones do you allow your opponent to take. How do you manage your momentum; do you pre-empt an event that is good for your opponent, or keep some to be able to trigger your events on the opponent’s cards? Do you leave cards that are beneficial for your opponent or yourself for use in the debates? And of course, the debates and various events will screw with the board so Festung Mid-West might fall no matter how well defended you left it.
The specificity of the events on the cards do add a lot to the experience, like Tom said. This might not be easy to add to a 2016 game, but it is partially why I bought it up. To me, 1960 feels like a game with a narrative of a presidential campaign in a way TPM never did (as far as I can recollect). Another thing that feeds into this is the asymmetry; Nixon and Kennedy have different events and play differently. And each hand will probably be different each game. And if you get a horrible hand with only the opponent’s events, there’s fewer of those cards in the deck for the next rounds.
I mean, it’s not the best, most unique or complex game ever. And it is in no way a perfect model of politics. And it might quite possibly be a bad choice of direction for The Political Machine 2016*, but I think it is not just straight-up territory control. And I think it is a game everyone who plans on making a presidential election game should play.
*=If we keep talking about it like it is a done deal, they’ll have no choice but to release it!
Hmm … I can understand your plight, Brad. One avenue to take would be going around the bend a bit: Political Machine 3016
Use your Galciv races, use metaphors, create fun dilemmas (“Do you support planetary bombardment against Planet X, think we should use our culture to overwhelm their society peacefully, or try to impress them in order to have more favorable relations?”), etc. The political grognards will leave it alone because it doesn’t pretend to be super serious, it builds upon your Galciv brand so it could have more appeal, and perhaps if it goes well enough then you might have critics suggesting that you should return to present day for another go.
Jorn, I’d have to dig my copy of 1960 out of the closet, but it still sounds like you’re describing a gameplay model that’s all about territory control, but with a CDG component. I mean, yeah, any game about a US Presidential election is going to involve territory control, and that’s part of why it’s so game-able. But when I say 1960 is “straight-up territory control”, I mean the model for the political process is placing cubes, which isn’t much different from a game where you place, say, armies. Or influence markers in Twilight Struggle. Or species cubes in Dominant Species. There’s no equivalent to Political Machine’s ideas about politics being a matter of the population’s perception, which you have to tweak to align to your candidate’s platform. Instead, in 1960, politics is about dropping cubes to call dibbs on a territory. What those cubes represent is an abstraction that 1960 doesn’t really have an opinion about.
I’m not being critical, as I enjoyed 1960, but it’s applying almost wholesale the gameplay of Twilight Struggle with only minimal adaptation to the subject matter. The Political Machine does much the same thing, but because it’s drawing from the gameplay of Entrepreneur and Corporate Machine, I personally find it’s a more interesting gameplay model for the political process. Because isn’t an election more or less an exercise in advertising? I can hardly blame Alstein for wondering whether it’s too depressing to game. :)
But you’re definitely right about card-driven gameplay and narrative. That’s one strengths of games like 1960, Twilight Struggle, Labyrinth, and other CDG boardgames. You can’t really throw a rock in a gaming store these days without hitting a boardgame that somehow uses card-driven gameplay. And for good reason.
-Tom
Ah, I think I mis-parsed what you meant with “straight-up” territory control.
I agree that managing and adapting your platform is interesting in election games, and is missing in 1960 - though understandably with the specificity of the candidates.