Print

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

[Servant Corps]

Some time ago, I have asked for help on making a game where you run a Middle Eastern dictatorship. I still am working on that.

However, I am increasingly becoming concerned that Americans may not like playing such a country, because that would mean they are playing a dictatorship...and, uh, Americans like democracies (the American people, not the State Department, I mean). So they might feel some sort of...uh...anguish playing a game where you're a tyrant. At the same time, the player want to remain in control of their own country, and may utterly dislike the idea of actual "democracy" where power is taken away from the dictatorship and given to The People (i.e, a random number generator).

I am playing around the idea of allowing the player to convene a "Legislature". If they do so, then, when the player is faced with dilemmas, instead of making a decision, they can opt to "Consult the Legislature" and let the Legislature rule for you instead. The Legislature's response is based on an RNG (so that players won't be able to predict what will actually happen, as what should be in a democracy). This RNG is weighed on my assumptions of what side would be most dominant on an issue (for example, IMHO, the Legislature is not likely to be pro-Israeli, so if you have a dilemma related to Israel, the Legislature will likely choose an anti-Israeli option). If you consult the Legislature enough times, you gain popularity (as you demonstrated your commitment to democracy). In this way, the player may choose the level of democracy he wants within his country.

I won't implement this system for my first Diwayana game because I'm concerned it's too complex for me right now (and also because I'm not sure of examples of Middle Eastern dictatorships engaging in some measure of 'opposition co-option', aside from the Gulf State monarchies such as Bahrain, Jordan and Kuwait...well, alright, Iran had a Majlis but I'm not sure how independent that was during the 1980's.) If I made a sequel to Diwayana based on the post-Cold War era though (1990's-2011), I have to create a way for the player to implement democracy in his country.

So I ask you: Is the system I proposed above sufficient to allow people to have democracy, and thereby keep them calm? Or is there some better way of representing democracy?

[Max White]

Democracy does not mean you must have a system the exact same as the American government. Any system that allows for peope tof freely vote for their next leader counts, so you could easily take the 'Sim city' route and have a popularity meter, showing how much people like you, and if you do things they don't like then you are voted out of office and 'Game over'.

Or, rather then the player taking the assumed role of a official, they take the role of the collective will of anybody elected into office. This means that at any one time there would be multiple electorates campaigning for office, and what ever one gets into power is the one you control and gain the attributes of. So, for example, the next election could involve a Hippie figure who was good with public image, but poor with military, or a gun slinging texan who does horrible with image, but rocks the military. If you don't do anything to interfere, one gets office, and you get their powers. Or you could run a smear campaign against one to lower their influence, in exchange for the cost of advertising the campaign.

But in the end, since when did people realy care about democracy in their games? Dwarf Fortress is a socialist utopia, most RTS games are communist, the majority of fantasy games exist in a monarchy. People may fight for something in real life, but not so much care in a game, such is the magic of escapism.

[Retro]

However, I am increasingly becoming concerned that Americans may not like playing such a country, because that would mean they are playing a dictatorship...and, uh, Americans like democracies (the American people, not the State Department, I mean). So they might feel some sort of...uh...anguish playing a game where you're a tyrant.

This is an incredibly inaccurate gauge of how people view games they play. An equivalent statement would be like saying I don't play Sonic the Hedgehog games because I'm uncomfortable not playing a human character. There's very little people won't do in a videogame, and I'd bet you it's effectively all due to squick rather than discomfort at being a tyrant whilst living in a democracy. I don't know any gamers who don't play every game like they're a tyrant, regardless of what genre.

A better concept might be to just establish a dictatorship, let players rule their lands, and have a separate body of arbitrators or like U.N. observers or something who gauge how nice you're being to your people before they begin to intervene, first non-violently then militarily depending on how 'bad' you get. Players do not like giving up control, and personally, if I'm given a country to run in my game, I'd much rather have full power with risk of punishment for screwing around than not having full power but being guaranteed that my populace will like me. This also gives the players the ability to just be evil as hell if they so desire, as long as they have the military power to fend off the rest of the world's attempts to intervene.

[Siquo]

Hmm, I've been thinking about something like that, but with my own country as an example.

If you do not do what the people want you to do, you lose power (game over), but if you do go along with the popular vote, you slowly but surely become a second Hitler. It's a lose-lose situation

For an example of a game which did democracy vs. dictatorship right, look at Tropico.

[Lord Dullard]

Yeah... I don't think that living in a democracy or preferring a democracy IRL means that you prefer/want the same thing in a gaming experience.

If it did, it would mean all DF players are tyrannical, sadistic bastard-- ah, wait. Crap. Nevermind.

[Virex]

You could integrate it thoroughly with the game: Have the player run for office and campaign for votes when he's not in control. Make it a democracy simulator if you will.

[Draco18s]

Go play this game.

Essentially, you can only be voted out of office as a losing condition.

[mainiac]

In what universe is the US legislature not pro-Israel?  We give them billions of dollars in aid every year and in return they steal from us and make us look like dicks in front of the world.  Sure, they give us valuable intelligence information on terrorist groups... groups that they were instrumental in creating and sustaining!  If we weren't rabidly pro-Israel, we would have realize they are really shitty "friends" a long, long time ago.

[Duke 2.0]

 Really, I think Americans would prefer playing a game where you are a supreme dictator instead of an even slightly accurate democracy. We already have a ton of mass population management games where your only limitations are money and resources, so we are used to not having to struggle with the local city governments telling us that they don't want the new reactors to replace the aging dangerous nuclear ones because they find the new technology dangerous.It's a frustrating thing a lot of people won't want to deal with.

 So yeah, don't worry about it.

[mainiac]

Of course, domestic and geopolitics is based on domestic demands even in non-democracies.  The Chinese know that the exchange rate manipulations are starting to hurt their economy too but they can't stop because of the entrenched interests in their non democratic government and economy.  So if you want to do real-politik well, the democracy and other entrenched interests component is probably inseparable.

[Duke 2.0]

 Interesting how accuracy of simulation has arisen again despite the concern being over playability and how well the market will take the product.

[Servant Corps]

In what universe is the US legislature not pro-Israel?

My OP mentioned that the game takes place in a Middle Eastern country. The US public may be pro-Israeli, but the Arab Street? Not so much.

[mainiac]

Oh, you were talking about America so much that I assumed that this was going to be a game about america trying to control the middle east.

[Aqizzar]

Oh, you were talking about America so much that I assumed that this was going to be a game about america trying to control the middle east.

The very first line of Servant's OP was that he was making a game about ruling a Middle Eastern Dictatorship.

I haven't read nearly enough about your design or concepts yet Servant, which is entirely my fault because it sounds awesome, and dealing with a legislature in a traditional God-game is something I've pondered for some time.  Anyway, yeah, you're totally misjudging your market if you think Americans, or anyone for that matter, wouldn't enjoy a game where you're a dictator.  I mean, basically every civilization-management game ever made casts you as an immortal dictator susceptible only to enemy attack or full-scale revolutions.  Just look at the success (which I'd attest for) of Tropico, where you're literally a Caribbean dictator.  Take Tropico and surround it with sand instead of ocean and hey presto.

Not that much more detail wouldn't be great, I just don't know where you'd start.

[Dr. D]

I guess looking how the system of government in England developed the Parliament might be neat. The player could be the king and either decide to just let it happen, or to fight for his power.