Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ciarog]

If someone else was making this game, I would be excited, I would download it, and I would gladly play it.

[link deleted by moderator]

Personally, I still like the idea of Revolt of the Elites: the Game. But, if you're looking for another setting, then... hmm...

Post-apocalyptic might be interesting. Say that the United States federal government has ceased to exist as a functional entity (or at least in some way lost its claim to having a monopoly on the legitimate use of force) by the time the game begins and you're in charge of one of the successor factions. It could be a LCS-style direct action activist group, a gang/cartel, a rogue military unit, a corporate-backed PAC not unlike the kind being suggested here... just about anything. One part LCS, one part Syndicate Series, one part Shattered Union.

[Ciarog]

Because the answer is that winning is not worth it if you have to resort to violence to accomplish it. This isn't a game about the American Revolution against the British this is a game about how Liberals have always been demonized because of their progressive approach to policy that seeks to other throw the states quo and how violence is always mustered against those who oppose the status quo but as Martin Luther King once said "Darkness can not drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate can not drive out hate, only love can do that.

MLK was getting a lot more radical by the time the CIA had him killed...

...anyway, there hasn't been a single political movement in history was able to take power without violence, the threat of violence, or the backing of people who were willing to do violence on their behalf. I know our institutions love to shove this (heavily sanitized) view of The Reverend down our throats, but fact of the matter is that he would have gotten nowhere if he wasn't seen as a preferable alternative to the likes of the Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army, and Nation of Islam who were literally willing to burn down the cities of America if they didn't get their way. And then of course there was the Federal Government, which would be tasked with enforcing the changes that King et. al. wanted, violently if need be. Might is right and it always has been.

[IsaacG]

Because the answer is that winning is not worth it if you have to resort to violence to accomplish it. This isn't a game about the American Revolution against the British this is a game about how Liberals have always been demonized because of their progressive approach to policy that seeks to other throw the states quo and how violence is always mustered against those who oppose the status quo but as Martin Luther King once said "Darkness can not drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate can not drive out hate, only love can do that.

MLK was getting a lot more radical by the time the CIA had him killed...

...anyway, there hasn't been a single political movement in history was able to take power without violence, the threat of violence, or the backing of people who were willing to do violence on their behalf. I know our institutions love to shove this (heavily sanitized) view of The Reverend down our throats, but fact of the matter is that he would have gotten nowhere if he wasn't seen as a preferable alternative to the likes of the Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army, and Nation of Islam who were literally willing to burn down the cities of America if they didn't get their way. And then of course there was the Federal Government, which would be tasked with enforcing the changes that King et. al. wanted, violently if need be. Might is right and it always has been.

"violence, the threat of violence, or the backing of people who were willing to do violence on their behalf" is such a broad metric it applies to people shopping on black friday.

Personally, I still like the idea of Revolt of the Elites: the Game. But, if you're looking for another setting, then... hmm...

Post-apocalyptic might be interesting. Say that the United States federal government has ceased to exist as a functional entity (or at least in some way lost its claim to having a monopoly on the legitimate use of force) by the time the game begins and you're in charge of one of the successor factions. It could be a LCS-style direct action activist group, a gang/cartel, a rogue military unit, a corporate-backed PAC not unlike the kind being suggested here... just about anything. One part LCS, one part Syndicate Series, one part Shattered Union.

That does sound interesting.

That said, I'd feel better if AG could go two sentences without antisemitism.  Political ideology does not have to be tied to racial identity.

[Azerty]

If someone else was making this game, I would be excited, I would download it, and I would gladly play it. I'm just having a lot of difficulty getting myself to work on it because I've been in constant doubt about whether it's a game I should be making in this environment. I'm not worried about you guys -- I'm not worried that regular decent people are going to play the game and suddenly go "Yeah, time to go be a political terrorist IRL, that's a good idea" -- and I don't think that anyone should feel bad for wanting me to make this game, or for disagreeing with my misgivings. I just worry, and don't want my actions to feed in, even a little bit, to the psychosis of actual political terrorists, or to promote a mentality of vilification of other human beings in a time when, if anything, our politics desperately need a larger dose of humanity and better understanding of each other. I mean, you could say the same of any era; but these days that sort of decency is in especially short supply, and I'd rather not be part of the problem.

I'm confident that I could get this game into a stable, minimum viable state in a month or two of focused and enthusiastic free time development. I might still go for that goal. But right now that's difficult to promise. I'm having a hard time mustering the enthusiasm to work on it when I'm having moral doubts about finishing and releasing it at all.

Yeah, political violence and terrorism are now too much near home.

An update might see more peaceful methods (i.e. running as candidates or social action) and might add more backlash for violence.

[EuchreJack]

To this end, you can only recruit people up to what you can afford using your stable income. Robbing houses may give you disposable cash on hand for one time purchases, but ongoing expenses, such as rental costs for new safehouses, and salary for new recruits, will need to paid from stable income. At the start of the game, that's your trust fund, but you may feel the need to secure additional sources of income.

I humbly suggest not doing this.  It goes against the very grain of the game that you're creating.
Limiting someone to what they can afford is Socialist and Un-American.  Rich people are always trying to leverage their future for an advantage today.  Maybe the player has a surefire plan that will net them untold riches in the future by picking up more recruits than they can pay for today.  Why not let them try it?
After all, what's the worst that happens?  Your star recruits bail out - Their employees, not brothers-in-arms.  You get new ones when you get the finances straightened out.  Maybe even hire them back if they don't find work in the interim.

It seems to me that the player's character is the sort to think their smarter than everyone else, so they should be able to take such risks and face the consequences.
...and if the player gets raided just after their security guards walk out for insufficient pay, then maybe they'll learn something if they survive.

As for your doubts:
I was also worried about the state of American politics, until I went to an Art Museum and was reminded of our history.
1804: Aaron Burr and Hamilton duel.  That's right, two duly-elected officials pointed guns at each other and tried to kill one another.
There were subsequent fights between elected officials in the Assembly and Senate leading up the American Civil War.
1861: The American Civil War starts.  Our country actually splits in half along party lines into open warfare.
Early 1900s: Communists form groups dedicated to the overthrow of the capitalist world.

Domestic bombings and riots during the Vietnam war, The Black Day in July.

Honestly, things are pretty peaceful now, when you look back.

One flaw of the game is that it purports to represent a neoliberal against a populist regime, when we have a neoliberal leading a populist regime currently.  The ideologies are off.  You want satire?  Imagine Trump lost to Bernie Sanders, and satire the supposed authoritarian socialist regime of Sanders as a neoliberal protaganist.  You can poke fun at both sides and its completely ridiculous since it didn't happen...but it could have.
Now if you excuse me, I have to daydream about what if Bernie Sanders was president for a while...

[IsaacG]

As for your doubts:
I was also worried about the state of American politics, until I went to an Art Museum and was reminded of our history.
1804: Aaron Burr and Hamilton duel.  That's right, two duly-elected officials pointed guns at each other and tried to kill one another.
There were subsequent fights between elected officials in the Assembly and Senate leading up the American Civil War.
1861: The American Civil War starts.  Our country actually splits in half along party lines into open warfare.
Early 1900s: Communists form groups dedicated to the overthrow of the capitalist world.

Domestic bombings and riots during the Vietnam war, The Black Day in July.

Honestly, things are pretty peaceful now, when you look back.

Aye.  As people get older, all the forces protecting them from the terrible realities of the world tend to fade away.  To the viewer, it looks like the world is getting worse, regardless whether it is.  Heck, according to Gallup Polls, Americans were more open to Syrian refugees in 2015 than to Jewish refugees in 1938.  It's one of the frustrating things about 'MAGA'.  The 2010s have been better than probably any preceding decade in all recorded history.  I expect that to be the case with most decades over the past 150 years or so.  Not easy to measure, though, and obviously some places are worse off, but overall, I'm quite confident.

One flaw of the game is that it purports to represent a neoliberal against a populist regime, when we have a neoliberal leading a populist regime currently.  The ideologies are off.  You want satire?  Imagine Trump lost to Bernie Sanders, and satire the supposed authoritarian socialist regime of Sanders as a neoliberal protaganist.  You can poke fun at both sides and its completely ridiculous since it didn't happen...but it could have.
Now if you excuse me, I have to daydream about what if Bernie Sanders was president for a while...

I like to imagine Freddie Mercury sang at his inauguration, though my version of events diverge from reality in the late 1970s~early 1980s.