Jump to content
270soft Forum

P4Ever Improvement Over P2000


Was P4Ever Improvement Over P2000?  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. Was P4Ever Improvement Over P2000?

    • Big improvement
      6
    • Adequate improvement
      9
    • Betwixt and between
      1
    • Worse
      0
    • A total step backward
      0


Recommended Posts

So, I was looking at my old copy of President 2000, and I noticed and wondered about certain changes. For example, the P2000 campaign map:

p2000map.jpg

Besides the minor fact of the party colors (yellow=dem; blue=rep), there are actually shades in color to represent leaning states.

Next up, platform stances in P2000 were more defined value-wise:

p2000platform.jpg

- Entering an eligible debate is optional.

- Candidate attributes:

p2000candidate.jpg

Two extra attributes, ie photogeniality and cooperability. Also, there is what the candidate's actual attributes are and what the public perceives. Thus, in 2004, John F. Kerry may be a good leader, but may not look like one to the public.

- You could do THREE events on a given day:

p2000events.jpg

- You had advisors

- You had a campaign staff/team to tweak:

p2000staff.jpg

- Graphs have more variables to observe, such as not only your popularity, but the public's opinion regarding you likability, experience, integrity, issue familiarity, and leadership.

- Ads and speeches can be tailored to emphasize more than one issue. Quality is more defined value. Type of ad can be defined, ie TV, newspaper, etc.

p2000ad.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree they should bring all hat stuff back.

But with all the other stuff, it is a huge improvement. senarios for one.

But I do wish the thigns from p2000 stayed like choosing what to focus on ina debate, doing more than one thing a day, putting more than one thing in an ad, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree there are some things that should be brought back (for example the fuzziness of one's position or the real attribute vs perceived attribute, or the different shades). But some of these things seem a bit too much micro-management and complicated for the game, like the campaign's team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are good things with both. I think p4e has better improvements like scenario's and such but some of the things in p2000 were better. I liked being able to create speeches that you could have more than one topic on and you could attack a candidate and also talk about your own stand as well. Drawback was they had to be written which took i think 3 days. Same good thing with the Ad's although I did like the option of choosing to run an ad nationally as opposed to having to select each state. Also being able to turn on or off Popular Vote was nice. That would help in making Senate Scenario's. Overall P4E is better but it would be nice if we could bring back some of the older benefits from P2000.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, I was looking at my old copy of President 2000, and I noticed and wondered about certain changes. For example, the P2000 campaign map:

Besides the minor fact of the party colors (yellow=dem; blue=rep), there are actually shades in color to represent leaning states.

Next up, platform stances in P2000 were more defined value-wise:

- Entering an eligible debate is optional.

- Candidate attributes:

Two extra attributes, ie photogeniality and cooperability. Also, there is what the candidate's actual attributes are and what the public perceives. Thus, in 2004, John F. Kerry may be a good leader, but may not look like one to the public.

- You could do THREE events on a given day:

- You had advisors

- You had a campaign staff/team to tweak:

- Graphs have more variables to observe, such as not only your popularity, but the public's opinion regarding you likability, experience, integrity, issue familiarity, and leadership.

- Ads and speeches can be tailored to emphasize more than one issue. Quality is more defined value. Type of ad can be defined, ie TV, newspaper, etc.

I very much enjoyed President 2000, and I agree with you Javaman that there was definetely some attributes and functions in the game that should have been carried over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I much perfer PF to P2000. Sure, the ability to distinguish between "real" attribute and "percieved" was kind of nice and realistic, but I much perfer the direct, streamlined approach in PF. The slighty simplier gameplay makes for a much more enjoyable game than would otherwise be possible if the game was bogged down with a bunch of needless clutter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...