Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Satisfaction in the results
Published on October 26, 2004 By Draginol In The Political Machine 2004

Making computer games has its drawbacks. But one nice thing about them is that you know when they succeed. They can succeed commercially (i.e. make a profit) and they can succeed critically.

With The Political Machine, it appears we've done both.  Which lets us breathe a sigh of relief because it was a very close thing for us.  I had the idea for the game floating around my head since the 2000 election. And even before that, I had given some thought to doing a game based on politics.  But after the Bush/Gore 2000 election, I knew that we needed to make a game before the next election.

But we almost didn't have time.  We went a bit late on getting the expansion pack for Galactic Civilizations done.  So in January of 2004, we began development of The Political Machine.  We had to finish the game by June in order to have the game out in time for the election season.

That gave us 6 months to come up with a game, write a 3D engine, and put it all together in a single solid package.  I was vaguely aware that there were other games out there but didn't have much time to look at them. The main impression I got was that they were focusing more on being election simulations. I didn't want to make a simulation. I wanted to make a game. Specifically, I wanted to make a strategy game with very well defined game mechanics and rules that would be easy to understand for casual gamers but satisfy hard core political junkies.

In June, we did indeed finish the game and we got it out the door in time. It was pretty solid other than not realizing that our use of True Type Fonts would prevent it from working on those older (but more common than we realized) integrated Intel video adapters (which is one reason why user reviews tend to be a bit lower than the actual review - doesn't take too many ticked off people who can't run the game to lower a user review).

Here's a round-up from slate:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108292/

and

Here's a look at the games of this genre from Gamespy.

http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/559/559987p1.html

The Slate article is by no means definitive since it's one reviewer's point of view.  But it choosing The Political Machine as the best game of the pack definitely made us feel pretty good here. I think it really boils down to whether you're looking for a simulation or a strategy game. If you want to play politics as a strategy game then I think The Political Machine is very strong.  If you want a more in depth simulation, then one of the other games may be your ideal.

How much we can update the game really depends a lot on our publisher. All our updates have to go through them and they have a finite QA budget so we have to make it worth their while to do more updates.  But we do plan to release an update after the election that takes into account the new political realities.


Comments
on Oct 27, 2004
Congratulations Brad.... you and Stardock deserve the adulation
on Oct 27, 2004
good to hear that it has been a success.

I also look forward to any future updates (such as a UK update for the general electino there next year)

Paul.
on Oct 27, 2004

So in January of 2004, we began development of The Political Machine. 

Wow!  I thought that is was something you had been working on for years (like at the end of the last election)!  I was impressed before, but now...well, I'm blown away!

Congratulations ... you certainly deserve it!

on Oct 27, 2004
I think the Slate reviewer was probably most amused by the way it let him re-enact the last election:
"Playing as Kerry in one round of Political Machine, I won the popular vote but lost the election. The game didn't offer me a recount."
on Oct 29, 2004
Quote: ''(which is one reason why user reviews tend to be a bit lower than the actual review - doesn't take too many ticked off people who can't run the game to lower a user review).''

Doesn't it take the same equal amount of people to push up a user review? I don't think Pol Machine is a bad game, but your reasoning is a bit flawed. Most user reviews are based on the average mark people give a game. If the game is really good, you will get good marks, and your average will go up. If the game is bad (for whatever reason), you'll get more negative marks and the user review will be lower.

Naturally, if a game is bad, many people will be 'ticked off', and will give you a lower mark. So, I don't agree with your reasoning that the ''lower'' user review should be blamed on a number of ticked off people. I believe the user review is based on the quality of your game. Furthermore, I can even say that user reviews are often more fair than normal reviews, for the simple reason that more people review the game and the user review becomes much more representative unlike a normal review which is only based on 1 reviewer (sometimes more).

on Oct 29, 2004
"Furthermore, I can even say that user reviews are often more fair than normal reviews, for the simple reason that more people review the game and the user review becomes much more representative unlike a normal review which is only based on 1 reviewer (sometimes more)."

I think that you make a false assumption that the user reviews are representative. Its been my experience that user reviews tend to be slightly more negative than most games warrant. The reason being that people who are dissappointed are more likely to post a review than people who enjoy a game. Usually people who enjoy a game are too busy playing to bother reviewing a game while people who have problems with a game are looking to vent their frustrations. Also unfortunately the internet contains a significant number of people who need to bash games, etc in a mis-guided attempt to raise their own self esteem.

Individually, user reviews can be very useful, if they give specific reasons for their ratings. But if too high a percentage of the reviews are of the "insert name of game sucks" type that have no specific complaints, beware the so-called "averages". They will be skewed.
on Oct 29, 2004
Well, there are the supernegative and then there are the fanboys too.... who really elevate a game score. You have to look at a company's fan base to get a better perspective of how accurate a user score is.
on Oct 29, 2004

Doesn't it take the same equal amount of people to push up a user review?

No. If a game is a good game -- an 8 out of 10 let's say (4 stars) it takes several people to make up a single disgruntled gamer who gives it a 1 out of 10.

on Oct 30, 2004
I understand that it sucks to see your game gets low user reviews sometimes, especially after you have put so many hours in it and so many people do enjoy it.

I have checked gamespot.com, where I found that the user reviews are significantly higher than GameSpot's own reviews. Of course, this is just 1 website. But still i can't agree with you when you say that it takes several people to make up a single disgruntled gamer who gives it 1 out of 10. You can also say that it takes several disgruntled people to make up for 1 superduper fan who gives you a 10.

Mind you, I did enjoy playing Pol Machine, but some people don't. But I can't believe that people who think a game sucks are more likely to post a review.

Link
Check the above link to gamespot's website and you'll see that the user reviews are quite a bit higher than gamespot's own review.

Interesting though, this discussion about (user) reviews..
on Nov 12, 2004
People who can't get the game to run are more likely to complain. And for those people who run into those annoying SafeDisc stuff or have embedded intel video adapters are more likely to respond.