As far as the speed of the game, PBEM or web-based with one turn a day seems ideal.

Jack

quote: Original post by JackNathan
As far as the speed of the game, PBEM or web-based with one turn a day seems ideal.

Jack

Ummmm..., One turn a day is not exactly what I had in mind....!?

Also I''ve been working on the assumption that it is a real-time game not a turn based one, Am I wrong?

Yeah, I was thinking that this wasn''t a web based game or PBEM, but something more like a normal MMORPG (3D realtime) with very different gameplay.

quote: Original post by Impossible
Yeah, I was thinking that this wasn''t a web based game or PBEM, but something more like a normal MMORPG (3D realtime) with very different gameplay.

Different gameplay is the key. What''s important with regard to visuals though? Showing doors opening and closing? Showing strafing gunfire? Swordplay? The game (in my mind) isn''t about lowlevel physical manipulation. It''s about high level manipulation of others.

True, even though seeing visuals, probably mostly as news footage, face to face conversation, web pages, magazines and newspapers, and other stuff would be cool. Most 3D MMORPGs could be implemented as 2D games or text only MUDs without too much change in gameplay, this game is no different. It just needs to be in a form that is updated in realtime, as opposed to a PBEM or web based interface which would have a lot of lag and be entirely turn based.

[edited by - impossible on November 1, 2002 8:41:32 PM]

I figured PBEM or some sort of turn based game because I had the idea these are long-term games. Then there is no problem with the players having to be online at the same time. I don''t see much political machinery developing in an hour or two game. And a real-time persistant world would have to run at a slow rate anyway, so why not just drop down to turn-based?

Jack

First off, thanks to bishop_pass for his endorsement of my understanding Secondly, I apologize for being away through so much fascinating discussion!

quote: Original post by JackNathan
I figured PBEM or some sort of turn based game because I had the idea these are long-term games. Then there is no problem with the players having to be online at the same time. I don''t see much political machinery developing in an hour or two game.

Real-time and long-term. In the real world, we don''t see much political machination developing a few hours, but behind the scenes virtually every participant is striving to improve their relative advantage. Also note that in the real world events aren''t necessarily concurrent (ie, you do A today but it may take me weeks to decide exactly how to respond).

The immediate effect of a power move by a political participant is to create tension: other participants mull the implications while the current powerbrokers/powerholders consider their response options and how to render the said participant inconsequential while maintaining and/or improving their own advantage.

quote: And a real-time persistant world would have to run at a slow rate anyway, so why not just drop down to turn-based?

Because in real life we don''t take turns, and that''s what makes things so much more fun (what''s he doing/planning to do while I do this? should I do that instead? what will he do then?)

quote: Original post by bishop_pass
What''s important with regard to visuals though? Showing doors opening and closing? Showing strafing gunfire? Swordplay? The game (in my mind) isn''t about lowlevel physical manipulation. It''s about high level manipulation of others.

To effectively manipulate others, however, one often needs external information which naturally occurs in different forms. I think the interface would be very much like an IRC client, but augumented by the ability to view graphical data/information like maps, pictures, charts and so forth. There''s virtually no need to see warfare rendered (as it serves no political purpose); even military strategists only need geographical maps, targets and hostile forces indicated, and logistical information.

Direct player-to-player communication would be predominantly text, though it would be nice to have a graphical "news channel" view where one can catch up on recent events (and like most [aspiring] world leaders, one would need several different news sources - the equivalents of CNN, BBC, Sky, local channels for areas one is particularly interested in, financial channels like CNBC... This would be an entertaining way for a player to obtain a general feel for the state of the game world upon logging (back) in.

quote: Original post by JackNathan
Maybe another way of phrasing what I''m getting at is what would the goals be for the non-state leaders? For that matter, state leaders shouldn''t always be out to conquer the world.

Not conquer per se; more like "subdue" or "subvert." This game is all about manipulation and influence; the objective is not to enslave other players/nationalities/independent entities and, say, levy a tax on them. It''s to place and ally oneself such that when one needs to embark on a large scale endeavor, no matter how "globally" controversial, one can expect a very reasonable level of support simply because many entities can''t afford not to support you.

quote: Modern democracies are more interested in a stable world environment.

In theory. In reality, "modern democracies" are run by people, and people are greedy, power-hungry and conniving. In a Political Issues class I took a while back, I contended (virtually alone against the class) that people are not fundamentally good, and that a system that recognizes this is much more likely to thrive. So socialism (and communism, by extension) are largely regarded as political failures because they were contingent on people harmoniously working together for "the greater good."

My father once explained his support/preference for democracy to me as "a system that pitches the relative greed of all market participants against each other, thereby ensuring a near-equitable distribution of resources according to the effort expended by the individual." Because of its recognition of human baseness and dependence on competition (and implicit compromise for the purposes of personal gain), he considered democracy to be the best way to organize human society.

This game examplifies that in another way. In many games, having players communicate outside of authorized channels is a problem, as is players manipulating the game data perceived by other players (or gaining access to "hidden" player data); in this game''s design, it has been suggested to not only allow such behavior, but essentially encourage it. This may cause the game to have the lowest occurence of cheating and accusations of cheating in the history of competitive online gaming.

quote: But back to the original point, what would be the goal for the press or a business? If it''s just to acquire power, where does it end? Does the megacorp have to own the government?

Megacorp (nice Halloween Harry reference, though probably unintentional!) will never own the government, and it doesn''t really want to. I mean, that would bring a host of responsibility and unnecessary bureaucracy, and companies like to focus on what they call their "core competencies." No, what Megacorp wants is for the government to stay out of their way and let them run their business as they see fit. Unfortunately, what the government wants is healthy competition between companies because it lowers costs, which increases purchasing, which generates taxes; and low unemployment rates with decent pay and benefits, which leads to high standards of living and keeps the populace happy. To achieve this, the government must regulate Megacorp, so if it starts to get too big or too uppity, competitors are expected to complain which will cause the government to cut Megacorp down to size - which prevents Megacorp from ever owning the government (unless we''re talking about a tiny island state, in which case none of what I''ve said applies - and there is no local Megacorp; it''s a foreign multinational).

quote: In essense, this would make many parallel games taking place with each category more or less only competing against themselves, but all the games taking place in the same environment and affecting each other.

Exactly, except there''s no reason for the game to end. Power shifts and cycles, making yesterdays supercorp todays'' Enron. What topples the balance, more often than not? Information. Witness the power of media.

quote: I''m beginning to really like this idea!

Good!

quote: Original post by JackNathan
Maybe it''s just one of those things that would appeal only to certain types of gamer. I''m not much of a fan of the extremely open-ended game with no goals like SimCity.

It''s not "no goals", it''s "set your own goals."

I envision the player entering the game in any chosen way that is reasonably within the game''s parameters (ie, entering as a lawyer-turned politician is feasible; entering as a lawyer or actor is not because success in such endeavors is contingent on too much interaction with gameworld inviduals of inconsequence - which are generally simulated en masse). The player then works towards his/her chosen aspirations but can change at any time and, once the initial target is realized, may set another.

For example, I could come in as a MS International Relations graduate planning to run for local office and climb the political ladder, but a chance meeting presented me with the opportunity to serve as a peace maker which vaulted me to the forefront of international significance. After attainin international acclaim and renown, I may then decide to marry an international news correspondent, become a house husband and write books while working part-time at the prestigious nearby Political Science institute. Yes, I drop out of the power scheme of things, but maybe one day someone may ask me back into the limelight to accomplish a certain task. In essence, the game is free of imposed structure; goals and objectives are determined by the player, as is (relative) success. Entirely subjective, which makes it all the more fun (he thinks he did a great job and has influence, but we think he sucked and is a global joke).