This project had wrong priorities.

So its been four years since the first political machine, and I tell ya, I was hooked, I loved that game. So naturally, 2008 rolls around and I get stoked because surely, 4 years later the game would be even better.

At a glance it looks nice and polished, but having purchased it, I'm severely disappointed, and feel that the first game is almost superior. 

Why?

Well. while the first one had an absurd amount of characters,  (Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, various repetitive, unrealistic, or dumb candidates) this one completely lacks in them. You guys somehow had time to make Lord Kuna which is some kind of immature self-reference but not enough time to add FDR, one of the most important presidents ever?

I like that the ladders are shorter, but they're kinda screwy. Bill Clinton is not a hidden candidate so he didn't belong in the ladder unless you made him one and could have easily been taken out and rearranged to include... FDR or at least someone to unlock. I do approve of the addition of JFK he was sorely missed in the first one but George Washington being the leader of the Rep ladder is out of place ( It was weird in the first one too). It should be Lincoln to parallel JFK and John Adams should mirror Jefferson. 

I do like the new stats, and the new character creation is great, aside from the fact that I swear you guys tried your hardest to make Obama look creepy beyond belief. But. The stats are unfairly unbalanced. 

TV interviews are not forced so you can have zero intelligence or comeliness and survive perfectly fine, because apparently after 4 years you guys haven't come up with an easy way to do the debates. 

The debates are the climax of the presidential race. It is the confrontation of the two candidates. It doesn't feel right constantly competing against another player but never meeting him face to face. If I was in charge of this project I would have the debates within less than a month, 

All it has to be is a required event on a certain week, like picking a VP, and it is set up like a TV interview, only its a little longer, always asks questions on the top issues, and you have the chance to not only answer for yourself but having a higher intelligence will allow you to attack your opponents stance as well. Afterwards, an article pops up that analyzes who won the debate. It would add a lot of excitement to the game, I promise.

My final complaint is the inflexible campaigns. In the first one you could change what was going on in the nation at the time of the campaign which added some replay value, in this one instead you ask us to compete in 1860 (Which I like),  Europia and a self-reference... not a good trade if you asked me. A map editor would go a long ways instead of having to have people opening data files and hacking the Withdraw from Iraq to having Independents supporting (I personally like that independents are neutral) and so forth. 

But I guess if we had all this power, we would make the game more entertaining than you did, and wouldn't have to buy Political Machine 2012. I'll be hard-pressed to give it a chance when it does come around.