Libertarian vs Socialistic gameplay

[Gamma Stardust 50]

Always found funny that in the sim city series I played there's a fundamental urge to play "the good guy" politcs wise, your city won't thrive if sims scent unrestraint capitalism. If there's any capitalist educated person playing the game out there (I am sure there's many) you just have to see him/her turn tables... or abbandon the game.

Socialist as I am this has always pleased me. Still if you wanted that big jump in your city development you had to make those UDI missions from SC4:RH, usualy with a very appropriate Mayor rating decrease in order to get enough ammounts of money to invest. You had to temporarly forget your principles in order to win the game. It was a balance, you had to become invertebrate, you had to give up coherence. You had to be turning tables also. The alternative was to achieve these funds by leaving the city stagnated with a small positive balance for long years... maybe that is what must happen in real world. And if ultimately this is the case, praise the simulating engine. Developers made their economics research.

Well its just a game. We don't need to get too serious about it.

More on topic:

I wouldn't mind seeing the option in-game, to let services be run privately. I agree with previous comments that it shouldn't be enforced and come to the player only as an option to avoid  complexity. I think this is possible, I wouldn't use it. But then, which kind of services would be "privatisable" and be regarded as consumer produtcs, surely not fire and police deps.

On the other hand this would imply, if it were to be implemented, that aside of an economics simulating engine you would have to add a finance simulating engine. A system of loans. Ponzi-schemes and all... this would be over the top. Never the less interesting... Mini society lab.

In no time we would all be learning Marx and Friedman on the go. This would get even funnier.

The game will have its private sector into which you will have some control, so called GEMs. I think this is in fact the best approach so far, to please all those mogul wannabes out there.

The enjoyment I take from this is that it is unavoidable, inevitable to take a socialist approach in the creation of these kind of games, and only then add up some reverse coin elements. This increases as you want to get more realistic which, in the end, is the point of the game.

Now the statement:

For the sake of realism we would be privatising a lot of services as it happens in reality, water, who knows, air also (its a business to trade Kyoto quotas, you know), health, security, all basic stuff. We would have to see realism in the consequences also... you know where I am getting at.

This would either kill the fun of the game, keep us in wonderland in disbelief, or outright depression, just by the looks of reality.

I don't mind play capitalist, do you mind play socialist?

Seriously, lets not get serious!

[nickzou 1]

Originally posted by: Lampala Just because someone likes the possibility of this new way of playing doesn't mean they are right-wing. But I like this idea, sort of. It would make you more unique as a mayor, but it might get too in-depth for someone who just came by and picked the game up because it looked cool (and I'm sure there will be many of these people because the game already looks cool). Monte Cristo's target audience can't be limited to experienced city-builders. Another downside is that if this idea wasn't implemented properly, the private option could be used as a moneymaking cheat. Plus, they have to make it so that if you use private funding, it is advantageous to lower taxes and if you use public, you must raise the taxes. (private + higher taxes = unrealistic and vice versa) Of course you could, with good planning, use public with lower taxes. By the way, there's no US Libertarian Party.quote>

Wait really? What is this party then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

[AngBayani 0]

Yes I would pretty much like that idea, because you'll have a more feel of a mayor. Groups/developers can come up with a proposal of their project, or join your city for something, etc. That would be great.