cool graphics, great sound. hard (opaque) game. the policy got lost on me, bafflingly. problem with the homo luden. Huizinga really nailed it when he saw economics changing the nature of play in culture, especially in global capitalism. it's still play, but it's probably more like still born play. it's not alive.

the newest advertising. an interactive game adds fun to poiltics, but the disconnect is still felt. no change in the existing order. Take Back Illinois probably gets the job done. it can't reject how politics is played, but at the same time it rejects a serious attitude. a lot more thinking gets down when the brain is at ease. we got to make the politicains play games. or eventually the games have to make the politics.

Zombie -- thanks as always for playing. I too still consider this field of political games an experimental one, one that needs refinement. I'm not sure what you mean here: t can't reject how politics is played, but at the same time it rejects a serious attitude. Can you clarify?

i don't think i was clear enough either. i was trying to say that politics is deadly serious because it's run like a business. politicians play the game very seriously and get respect in return. they emphasize stats, polls, etc. they make decisions based on info in a void. voters elect representatives with a very narrow range of ideas and experiences and let them do the hard work. except politics or political action is not exclusive to voting for increasingly indistinguishable political parties. look at flash mobs,situationists. actions can provoke thought instantaneously. or politics can get nasty and disguise itself in suburban sprawl, areas which continuously reproduce more conservatives.

we are already part of the game. the next step is to change attitudes. video games re-represent politics and don't inhibit new patterns of thought. the program operates on a logic that players work around. cheats are no fun/ occassionally they r. failure is only temporary. since its a simulation, players put on themselves in different roles just to see how successful they can be at the game. when it's game over, they at least got into a new rhythm of thinking and interacting for a duration. i don't know if it changes votes, but it at least adds a new dimensional to the worn out political environment that runs on cash money. representatives hopefully get more and more obsolete as games evolve. then politics can be open-ended and not above our heads.

I found the game visually appealing. All those little people in a cute little town. However, as I played I didn't really feel I had a proper grasp of the issues at stake. Why were the hospitals going bankrupt and why did I have to use control budgets tightly? This could have something to do with the fact that here in Denmark we have public health service, which is free. Period. Sure the politicians battle about how to fund the hospitals, but treatment for illness is always free.

I didn't feel the same way with September 12th, or the Anti-Bush Game. Basically because the games in my mind had a broader context which have a direct effect on my life as a citizen of Denmark.

This made me wonder if political games are to influence or reflect aspects of the world in the mind of the player, maybe the player needs to feel that there are issues at stake, which affect the gamer's life or view on the world?

Tore -- you're right that the issues in this game are a lot more specific than in other political games we've discussed here. In fact, not only are they specific to the the States, but specific to one particular state, IL, and moreover specific to certain regional interests in that state, especially suburban and rural interests versus big city (Chicago) interests.

Privatized medicine in America is indeed significantly different from basically any country in Scandinavia, and understanding our system is probably just as difficult for a Dane as understanding your system would be for an American. I know that sounds perhaps odd -- how hard is it to understand public health service -- but our 300 million citizens just don't have a sense of common property like you do.

You can read some background information on the issues over on the game site. Click on the game pictures below the Issues header for some shorthand on them.

As for your question, certainly the player has to be curious, at least, in approaching the game. This game was made primarily with Illinois citizens in mind, although the resonate for other regions of the US more readily than they do for Denmark. In this case, we're talking about a very specific set of issues that many International players might find impenetrable. Still, I think games like this can stand alone as representations of policy issues. At the end of the day, this is just a much more specific issue, one of the reasons I found it an interesting design challenge.

Zombie>> when it's game over, they at least got into a new rhythm of thinking and interacting for a duration. i don't know if it changes votes, but it at least adds a new dimensional to the worn out political environment that runs on cash money.

I certainly hope so. Hopefully we can throw some wrenches in the hype machine by using games as more fungible representations of complex issues.

Thanks for clarifying things for a clueless European, Ian.

You can read some background information on the issues over on the game site.

True, and I considered having a read but it felt a little bit like a cut scene that took time away from the actual game play, I suppose.

True, and I considered having a read but it felt a little bit like a cut scene that took time away from the actual game play, I suppose.

This is a real challenge for these games. Casual game players in general have a very low tolerance for instruction, and we're bending the medium even more than casual games.