A Couple of Ideas

[Sean 0]

First off, I love the game.

But there are a few things that could be improved:

If you look at another Presidential election game, the Political Machine, they have some elements that could improve President Forever. For example, the have interviewers actually interview you, and the number of prepared responses varies with the intelligence (or perhaps Issue Familiarity?) of the candidate. That is a very fun addition.

Also, an issue's importance should flucuate. If a Ned Lamont comes around and runs solely on Iraq, then Iraq's issue importance should rise as he makes it an issue. You gotta "catapult the propoganda" so to speak.

Exit polls are also cool. See why you won or lost.

Thanks for listening.

[italian-boy 0]

I agree pretty much on everything,really good ideas,hopefully they'll be present in future versions...let's say PF2012?

[ktitus 4]

First off, I love the game.

But there are a few things that could be improved:

If you look at another Presidential election game, the Political Machine, they have some elements that could improve President Forever. For example, the have interviewers actually interview you, and the number of prepared responses varies with the intelligence (or perhaps Issue Familiarity?) of the candidate. That is a very fun addition.

Also, an issue's importance should flucuate. If a Ned Lamont comes around and runs solely on Iraq, then Iraq's issue importance should rise as he makes it an issue. You gotta "catapult the propoganda" so to speak.

Exit polls are also cool. See why you won or lost.

Thanks for listening.

Hey, I also thought Political Machine was a good game, but it's nothing compared to P4E+P. Political Machine stinks without primaries and custom scenarios. Also, what's with Maryland & D.C. as one electoral district? That's just wrong! Does anyone ever play that game anymore?? The Graphics are, in my opinion, pretty good for political games.

[Grey Fox 0]

These would be pretty awesome ideas, although I could see the interview one being a little tough for programming, but not so much so that it would be impossible. If Political Machine wasn't so "cartoony" and unrealistic in results, it would have been a better election game. P4E 4E!

[JoSpiv 5]

I played that once. I won all 50 states as John Kerry against Bush.

At that point I said, "Um....No"

[admin_270 835]

Hi Warner '12,

Thanks for the feedback! For the issue importance changes, this will happen. We are fine-tuning this aspect of the game, and in the next update you should see this happening more.

As for interviewers, we have thought about this a lot. The game assumes a high-level tactical view of strategy, so then going in and answering questions on a talk-show just doesn't 'feel' right in a sense. We'll think more about this, however, and see if there's a right way to do this.

Sincerely,

The 80soft Team

First off, I love the game.

But there are a few things that could be improved:

If you look at another Presidential election game, the Political Machine, they have some elements that could improve President Forever. For example, the have interviewers actually interview you, and the number of prepared responses varies with the intelligence (or perhaps Issue Familiarity?) of the candidate. That is a very fun addition.

Also, an issue's importance should flucuate. If a Ned Lamont comes around and runs solely on Iraq, then Iraq's issue importance should rise as he makes it an issue. You gotta "catapult the propoganda" so to speak.

Exit polls are also cool. See why you won or lost.

Thanks for listening.

[FrenchFisher 0]

Perhaps you could choose between a few options to highlight during the interview... for instance, if you think your stance on the Environment is great, you could select "Environment" from a menu of the issues and your bonus/penalty for the interview will be about that topic.

Alternatively, you could be able to choose from a smaller list of issues, that are either randomly generated or available depending on the interviewer (for instance Oprah might favor discussion of things like Affirmative Action, Environment, and Education).

That way you still have some control over the interview. I still think some random chance should be involved; perhaps the possibility of the interview being judged by your chosen topic could be scaled based on your issue familiarity?

[Fireball1244 0]

While I think this is an interesting idea, it doesn't entirely mesh with how I view the game (note: that's not a big deal, of course). In my view, when I play PF, I'm not the candidate -- I'm the campaign manager. I'm telling the candidate where to go, scheduling the ads, etc, but I'm not actually giving speeches, etc.

As I run campaigns for a living, that might be a bit "biased" of me. :-)

[WagonAngle 35]

The way it is done in the old game President Elect would bridge in fairly well with how this game works. In debates in that game, you would be prompted on each question, and fill in the percentage of time that you would spend explaining/clarifying your own position, attacking your opponent's position, indignantly criticizing your opponent, wittily criticizing your opponent, or stalling.

A sytstem like this could be used, in the macro "campaign manager" sense, for both debates and interviews. For interviews, it could basically be a slider between Charisma and Issue Familiarity, with the different shows having different foci as well. For instance, the approach to being on Letterman would focus on a charismatic candidate, while Hardball would be a more substantive issue-based strategy. This would add a layer of strategy beyond just accepting every interview, because a wonK candidate with 2 charisma and 5 issue familiarity would have a harder time winning over a Letterman appearance. That sort of thing may already be in the innards of the game, but it would be fun to try to strike a working balance with lopsided candidates of that type.

While interviews would be a single strategy, debates would be best served with a separate choice for each question. The questions themselves wouldn't need to be asked, but rather just "Question 1: Iraq" or what have you. There could be a PE-type percentage system or just a radio button type selection among choices ranging from supporting your position, attacking your opponent's, establishing common ground, or evading. Each option would have its own benefits and risks, as well as statistical tie-ins. A high Cha, low IF candidate would be at the least risk of a gaffe by doing a lot of evasion, telling anecdotes and so on. Common ground could be a defensive tactic if your opponent's position on the issue at hand is more towards the mainstream than your own.

[WagonAngle 35]

double post. ne'er mind. nothing to see here.

[MDR 2]

One thing I would like to see, esspecially since the game is from the point of view of the campaign manager is debate negotiations. This allows you to stratagize about the skill of your candidate and there appointment. It be really nice to be able to choose the topics of the debates (ie one on foreign policy, another on education, or just one general debate, or no debates).

[danieldlmn 0]

and what about the state and city there hosted in