Initial Observations from playing

from PolMach Forums
Played this game over at a friends house, and as a political person, I have some observations/comments:

1) Why are all states the same to advertise in? Shouldn't larger media markets be more expensive? This would be more realistic and properly "weigh" the states?

2) As an edutainment title, I would have expected some information about registering to vote and places to get information about "the issues" from less-partisan sources such as VoteSmart.

3) Negative campaigning should be more effective. This is not reflected in the game. Negative messages are remembered 7x more often than positive ones. This is a deviation from realism and as a result does not answer the question as to why every campaign seems to go negative. The feature could have a "blowback" aspect, whereby the integrity and ratings of the candidate slinging the mud is also soiled.

4) The lack of an independent or third party option is just downright insulting and shortsighted. I understand this wasn't meant to be an all-encompassing game but.... this is ridiculous.

5) There are way too many "everyone agrees" issues in the game. More jobs, economic recovery, and other such knee-jerk issues are ridiculous. Candidates should be pushed to make compromises. I believe this is one of the inherent lessons the game is trying to teach.

6) Overall I appreciate the effort and am very glad to see this title make it to market, these are just some things I really wish had been done differently. I will be picking up a copy or two, since I have several politically active friends.

- Dameontx
5,929 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
Negative campaigning should be more powerful. I can't think of any reason to use it now, unless you allow yourself to fall behind in a key issue early and try to make up ground. Even then its too expensive to put both a positive and negative ad, given that two positives will probably be a better choice.

I completely disagree that the game should include Third Parties. For some reason people think Third parties are more interesting than they really are.
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
I strongly agree about the issues. Basically you are able to circle the country preaching "More jobs"... "Down with terrorism" .... "More jobs!" and avoid even touching any partisan issues.

Okay, so that's what Bush and Kerry have been doing, along with personal attacks, but that's not the point. You should have to focus more on tailoring a message to a certain collection of states, even if it alienates other states. Right now the blue/red states are almost entirely decided by how often you visit. In the real world, Wyoming is not going to vote for Kerry even if he *moves* there; John Kerry could easily win California without ever paying a visit. I think having a direct presence in a state is over-emphasized. There should be more focus on states picking up on the national message and responding to ideology.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
These are good points, however, in more closely played games "Nagitive adds" can make a big differance, as well as playing up smaller issue. If your oppnant is Harping on Jobs, and Terror. You onece they have all the votes on that issue you can pick them to death with smaller issues. And make them more importatnt. Forceing your opponant to respond to them, or lose the state.

In short, althogh is seamse like all you have to do is harp on the obvious, it wont get you to the end of the campaign. Try playing with some differant tactics, and you will see some amzing results.
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
Its true. I kept giving speeches on how we had to support the U.N. as a Democrat. I thought it was hillarious how fast that issue became important, and my Republican opponent had to start responding.

--James
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
Thats the way to do it.
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
I agree that there should be a more partisan breakdown of issues.

It's not true however that a presence in a state will make it automatically vote for you. I have noticed that as a Republican if you go to California and plop down a few newspaper or radio ads, yes you will get the lead because of your presence, but as time goes on all your Democrat opponent has to do is visit a few times and maybe put down a single ad and make a speech and it is right back in his column.

It's just the opposite for the south which leans Republican, so it looks like each party's candidates DO have advantages in their states regardless of ads and things.

But every issue should be broken down to the point where someone gives you a thumbs down. For example More Jobs should be broken into two different categories, for example Democrat Economic Plan and Republican Economic Plan. The Democrat one would boost Democrats a little, Independents a lot, and Republicans down. While the Republican one could boost the Republicans a lot, independents a little, and Democrats down. On other issues like Terrorism the Republican plan could gain Independents a lot while the Democrat one could get them a little.

In the end all issues should be a trade off. It should not be so easy to coast through a campaign by saying you support an economic recovery (who doesnt?), you support more jobs (who doesnt?) and you like the enviornment (who doesnt?).
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
I guess in short what was I trying to say above there is that no issue should give you a boost with all 3 factions or put you down with all 3.
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
If get a level 3 HQ in a state and look at the state Details window, you will see that even things that everyone supports can very greatly. Dems can suport the war on Terror, but only a bit, while the Reps are Greatly supportive. At some point if you only campaign on this you get diminishing returns and end up spending alot of money. Your best bet is to play lots of issues and not harp on any one.

Also, Its sad to say, but this (And I mean the way you dont like) is the way the Political world seams to work. If you watch TV you will see Only the big issues, JOBS, War on Terrer, Hoemland Security. In TV adds.

On thing to remeber is you can Giveu Campaign speaches on the smaller issues to pump up there importants quickly.

Anyway. You have a good point. And wee will keep it in mind.