Update 2.0 dissapoints: no sympathy for criticism!

[Tellio]

This is a review for update 2.0 and why I don't like it. This is a long read, probably a boring one, also some spoilers ahead, but I marked them out.

First thing I need to mention is that I was already negative about the game before the update. Going so far as leaving a negative review, detailing what didn't work. Not because I hate the game, but because I want it to do better.

When I read announcement of 2.0, I was curious because I did not play this game in a long while. The patch notes were promising and seemed like addressing long-lingering criticism from the playerbase. Sadly, that was not the case. Let's go point-by-point.

Positives

Save & Load option is amazing. Finally it is possible to look deeper into particular choices.

I very much enjoyed two additional events: chess match with Lucian and watching footbal match with Soll & Alphonso. The game's main strength, in my opinion, is depiction of interpersonal relationships and those scenes played into that. Football match was especially hilarious as the president and two former presidents were pointing fingers and making fun of each other.

Overall, I liked that previously obscure characters like Alphonso, Stahler and Holstrom got the content they so much needed. Other characters that needed more exposure, like Gus, also got more to do.

Meh

Gasom's storyline started out on a good note. Talks with Alphonso and protesters made sense, the choices had weight, there were several factors to consider. Yet, that's basically it. There is not much happening after Chapter One. You are just abruptly informed on the results of your investment decision later on. The results themselves are problematic, but I will get to it later in this review.

Bergia's storyline is alright. The highlight was the discussion in Jen. The main problem was, again, lack of later game content. The story itself acknowledges that passing legislation on the Autonomous Zone should be extremely hard with the Assembly being as racist as it is. Yet, somehow Nia passes it right after reforms with no influence from the president. It should be a challenge to overcome, but somehow it isn't. There is also another problem related to the Articles 6 & 7, but again I will touch on it later.

The new UI is mostly alright with the exception of the new economy slider.

First negative - omissions are persistent

My main criticism of the game in the past was the deliberate strategy to omit information from the player to make things more unpredictable and "exciting". I truly hate that. Of course there should be a place for surprises and twists in such a game, but it should be fair. If you get sufficient information, misjudge it and make a mistake, you should live with the consequences. That should be fair and there are fair twists like that, for example Livia plotline. Yet, time and time again, the game just hides the crucial information from you and expects you to make decisions in the dark. This turns the gameplay into a trial & error run instead of an actual strategy and RPG.

The instances that make me particularly angry are taxes and privatization. As you may know, if you have a slightly negative budget you can't reduce taxes. Yet, the game does not inform you on this rule beforehand. You may promise a tax cut and then suddenly face this new obstruction from Symon. Later on, if you have a surplus, Symon would say that Sorldland does not need new taxes, even if you actually do need those and bank on those. With privatization it is even more egregious, because no one tells you how much money you get until after you make the decision. This is unacceptable.

I did hope the game would address at least those instances, but it did not. Instead it doubles down on it in the update 2.0. For example, there was no clear information on the status of Gasom within EPA. I was sceptical about raising the foreign investment threshold to 49% with Rumburg war on the horizont. Sure, 51% would still remain in the hands of Sordish corprorations, but it would be trivial for Rumburg and Rizia to buy someone off and sabotage the entire operation. The game even hints at this possibility, but never follows through. Keeping it at 20%, on the other hand, is a bad decision, even if you moderately invest. You just don't know if EPA allows the state to keep foreign influence at bay via directive control over shareholders as it apparently does.

Same with Articles 6 & 7. Ricter and entire delegation at Jen insist that BFF would rebel immediately and discrimination would become legal if the Supreme Court overturns the case. Meaning that waterdowned version proposed by NFP is the best solution in those circumstances. Why on Earth would anyone push for Article 6 & 7, knowing that it would both tank the reforms and the legal case? Yet it is possible, but again, you don't know why. You just need to make a leap of faith instead of thinking strategically.

Then there is the new economic slider. Somehow it is even more misleading than the previous one. For a start, it does not give you any indication on how well your economy is doing in the moment. Second, after experimenting a bit, it seems like it does try to make you nervous even if you don't need to be. Even if you have a good economy, the slider would go down in a later game as if something awful is happening and you need to make some decisions to change the trend. Once more, the idea is that you should "keep faith" and make decisions in the dark instead of looking at actual metrics.

Second negative - forget about flexibility

Another huge problem with the base game's design is the ridiculous idea that you need to rigidly follow one pre-determined course to have any success. If you want to win as a reformist, you should boldly embrace everything the game deems reformist. If you want to win as a nationalist, you should be as nationalist as possible (within game's definition) and so on. Make one step out of the lane, try to be flexible and you suddenly start to get problems because your decisions are suddenly considered incompatible, considered "mistakes".

That's the opposite of how the real world politics work. Staying on course is important, knowing your goals is important, knowing your base is important, but being flexible is also important. The game wants you to choose a side (with very strict parameters of what that side is) and follow through with no compromises. This is basically anti-realpolitik that would lead to a disaster if tried IRL. You need moderation and flexibility for success. If Sorldalnd was a real country the most sure way to victory would be to act as a conservative, traditionalist democrat: pushing for moderate small-scale reforms while keeping the support of the conservative majority. That's not how the game works, however. If you try to play like that, the game would consider your approach inconsistent, your choices incompatible, you would get no support and you would fail. It is easier to go extremist communist dictator than traditionalist democrat and that is utterly ridiculous.

Actually, that's how I beat Lucian at chess on the first try. I played as aggressive and risky as I could knowing that the game values stubborn risky one-direction push more than other approaches and that actual strategy and moderation are considered as a path to failure.

Third negative - new budget

To build a good economy in this game you need to embrace both the omissions and uni-directional nonsense. You need to foresee the future (know when budget comes and goes via trial & error) and you also need to follow the pre-determined direction (agree with what writers consider compatible and incompatible choices). As a result you need to follow very particular steps and you can make only so many "wrong" decisions before the game goes in a fail state. This applies to the previous version of the game, of course, but it was a bit more forgiving, with more room for maneuver than the current one.

Update 2.0 gives you 4 additional budget points at start (7 compared to 3). It may seem like it is a lot, but it isn't because the costs for most stimulus measures are doubled. On top of that the costs for increasing state branch budget (like increasing the military spending) now costs 3 points, while revenue from decreasing it costs 2. Meaning that if you increase some and decrease the other, you are at a loss (previously you would get even). On top of THAT you get a multitude of new spending options with some like Gasom and Gruni investments as semi-obligatory. Then there is the debt mechanic, which is particularly cryptic as far as its limits and effects go. Altogether it means that there is actually less money to work with, and you need to know exactly what you are doing to keep things on the right track.

As a result the update doubles down on both the omission logic and narrow-down logic. There is way less room for "error" now, with not much room to begin with. It got so ridiculous that even though I had a successful capitalist economy by the end, it was considered a mixed one because I didn't start a second mega-project and I didn't start one because it was objectively a bad monetary decision within a new budget. So...

Fourth negative - political bias

Update throws even more note and newspaper fluff at you, obviously to make the fictional world grander in preparation for a Rizia DLC. A lot of this fluff is centered around Arcasia/ATO (aka USA/NATO) and the United Contana/CSP (aka USSR/Warsaw Pact).

Now, in the previous version the writers at least pretended to be unbiased. Obviously, they had their sympathies: there is not a single authoritarian communist in a game, for example. Yet, overall it was alright with both sides more or less on equal ground, no better than each other.

The new update throws that away. The fluff text for ATO is based mostly on how Western private military companies abuse Rika (aka Africa), endorse narco-barons in Agard (aka Columbia), militarize the whole world and keep everyone poor, while there are political assasinations going on in the center of Arcasia. Okay, a lot of it is kind of true, although definitely not for 1950's. Basically the writers condensed real negatives about America over decades into one grotesque picture.

Looking at the other side, we get... Communist utopia? The text for CPS is about them helping Rika for free (which is also not in 1950's timeframe and not on that scale), endorsing regional independence, calling for demilitarization, having unprecedented economic and technological growth (even exceeding Arcasia) and improving human rights. Culminating with AN (UN) session where Arcasian President calls for war and Contana's Chairman calls for peace.

Sure, I get that in the current political climate in the West there are many who sympathize with the Eastern bloc. Often it leads to historical revisionism and embellishing. Yet, it takes a special kind of revisionist to look up to Soviet Union, in any decade, as as an example of human rights.

Fifth negative - new Monica content

I hated Monica before and I hate her even more now. A lot of people think she is a radical feminist, obsessed with her cause and deeming it more important than her family and country at large. I think it is partially true, but not entirely true because she is not only ideological, but also power-hungry, which makes her worse.

Ciara, like her or not, is a real old-school feminist, who actually cares about improving life conditions for women instead of revisioning gender dynamics. Monica is the opposite. She is obsessed with female power, primarily her own, instead of well-being of others, including well-being of other women. It may be old content, but anyway: if you don't create commission for women rights, Monica would be furious and ask for divorce. Yet, if you create the commission and veto the bill (same result, different optics), Monica would be mildly angry, but would immediately forgive Anton. She would be fine with husbands beating their wives because she still gets to be the chairwoman.

Update 2.0 makes it even more disturbing because during the prologue you get an option to tell Monica straight up that you don't care about women rights that much. Later in the game, if she gets mad at Anton for refusing to form a commission, he can bring that up and say: "you knew who you were marrying". She responds with: "I hoped you would change" or something like that, which showcases how toxic she is as a partner.

Conclusion

I didn't like it.

[Tellio]

Publicado originalmente por MoreEvilSquid:

If anything, the game often goes out of its way to warn you about certain things. For example, if you're going down the privatisation path, Gloria will in no uncertain terms warn you about your path, and suggests certain actions that may mean you lose the support of some of her faction.

I hard disagree with this particular point. Gloria's warning is by far one of the worst worded conversations in the entire game. First, she tells you that conservatives don't like your privatization plan, particularly privatization of education and healthcare. Fair enough. If you probe her a bit more, she tells you to not even think about privatization of SSC and healthcare. Ok? Before the conversation ends she says that conservatives won't tolerate privatization of SSC and Nedam. Huh?

As a result the same character gives you three contradictory takes on the same subject. If you play the game for the first time you can interpret her words in several different ways. Maybe you should only privatize healthcare if conservatives are so much against privatization of state corporations? Or maybe you should only take Nedam? Or maybe you can take both SSC and Nedam if you don't touch healthcare? The value of all three is vague. It is hard to tell because Gloria in all three cases speaks in absolute terms, instead of hypothetical terms. If you play the game repeatedly with trial & error you know she basically says "if you take Nedam, but don't touch SSC and healthcare it would be fine". On the first run you don't know, you have to guess.

Presidents should not guess. They should not guess what debt is alright and what debt is catastrophic. What level of minority tension is alright and what is a rebellion. What megaproject would bring more money and what wouldn't. That's not how it works IRL. Departments exist for a reason. They crunch numbers, organize reports and provide executives with statistics, surveys and projections. That hard information is used to make decisions.

If that's impossible in the game, at the very least Gloria should say in actual no uncertain terms something like this: "Anton, conservatives are generally against privatization. SSC and healthcare are particularly touchy subjects. If you touch either of those, you would lose my support and probably support of others. As for anything else... Well, some people of my wing are more militant about privatization than others. Proceed at your own risk". Same message, but it is less contradictory. Now you know for certain that you should not touch SSC and healthcare, but you can touch Nedam. It is still risky, but not too risky.

Publicado originalmente por MoreEvilSquid:

The only thing that was kind of surprising was where Kibener manipulates you into replacing the Governer of Bergia - but it makes sense he would do that. It does put NIa's competence into serious question though - for someone who was hailed as a successful reformer as previous deputy Justice minister to suddenly turn out to be so naive and not even look into this deeper or provide you with more information on the successor, seems quite weak

Exactly, the game does not provide you with clear information on what you are doing. Which happens too often.

[Mr. Nowak]

Presidents and politicians guess a significant amount. This is why real politicians praised Suzerain's unclear and open information approach. We are in contact with many from real governments and take feedback in from that perspective.

[Tellio]

Publicado originalmente por Mr. Nowak:

Presidents and politicians guess a significant amount. This is why real politicians praised Suzerain's unclear and open information approach. We are in contact with many from real governments and take feedback in from that perspective.

I believe we are talking about two different subjects here. Rulers can't predict everything of course, especially something long-term and abstract. Like how public opinion is going to shift regarding their policies. But rulers can and do gather information on concrete and immediate matters. Like whether building one megaproject would be more profitable than another. It is something you can predict and plan for with high certainty because there is hard data to back it up. Ever since bureaucracy was invented, rulers don't blindly guess.

Bringing this back to the game, what I really want to communicate here is that a player does not have the option to clarify what other characters mean. In Gloria's example above, it makes sense that she would want to intimidate and maybe confuse Anton on how privatization would go. The problem is that Anton just takes that information and does not clarify it. He listens to three contradictory information bits from Gloria, stands up and leaves. Realistically, he would spend hours there, charming, bullying or bribing Gloria to make her spill the beans on what exactly would it take to get conservative support. Then he would double check that information with Lucian to make sure she says the truth. Only then would he make the decision on privatization.

This is not the speculation about the grand scheme of things and complex predictions about the future. It is a concrete matter that can be investigated thoroughly. Sadly, the game does not have this option. You have to make decision blind. This is because Gloria and Lucian are the only two characters who provide any information on privatization, and both speak vaguely. In addition to Gloria's three takes, Lucian proposes a fourth, minority privatization of SSC and Nedam as the safest option. Why is it the safest option? What conservatives did he contact to know this? How does it work with Gloria's threat not to touch SSC? For no reason Anton has to guess in situation, where he can just ask few people and get a straight answer. It is really only a matter of changing the wording in dialogue.

[CommissarPaintFingers]

Publicado originalmente por Mr. Nowak:

As developers, we aimed to create an immersive world where players can dive deep without constantly drawing real-world analogies. Yet, we appreciate that players bring their own perspectives and biases, which can influence their interpretations.

Maybe I'm just falling into the dev's big brained trap and drawing too many parallels but I'm pretty damn sure Eastern Merkopa is in many respects analogous to much of the western hemisphere circa 1950-1960. And that's okay, it's still a compelling narrative. Now I think it is totally reasonable to argue that the game is not allegorical and in no way reflects the dev's opinions on politics, fictional or otherwise. However it seems like a weak answer to say that this cold war between a communist bloc with a big red banner and a capitalist bloc with a familiar blue logo is just totally made up. Obviously that's a surface level observation but I am not here to write an essay.

Besides that I agree with the other criticisms, I was quite positive about the game before 2.0 and I appreciate the new content from a narrative perspective however the new economic system is grating and more nuance regarding Monica would be appreciated if another update of this scale is ever to be considered.

[The Emperor's Chosen]

loved the 2.0 update, but I still have 1 moderate issue.
A young Anton who joined the Young Sords, is a hardcore Sollist or Nationalist, needs a different wife, or just leave him single or something, because Monica makes no sense for this type of character. I really don't understand the logic here. You even added a totally pointless new option to tell her upfront you don't care about her issue at all, and it gets brushed off with the cliche "I thought you would change" answer, which, honestly is just a fairly ridiculous thought process.

You married a blatantly traditional man, who was in the borderline terrorist group Young Sords, who told you outright at the beginning they don't give a rip about your cause that you've dedicated your life to, and when said man lives up to the principles and morals he had when you met him, her excuse is "I thought you would change"? Yea sorry, that dog just doesn't hunt and I'm not really sure what you expect me as a player to take away from that, because I somehow doubt you want me to interpret her character as mentally stupid for marrying someone like that to begin with.

To be clear, this isn't a "Monica sucks" post. I don't think she sucks, I think she's interestingly flawed, just like everyone else in the game. But honestly, I can't hand-wave the cognitive dissonance of a radical feminist marrying someone who is basically her sworn enemy, and I don't understand why you added a new option in the prologue that changed literally nothing. I understand the game is a very complex web, and branching paths are an absolute nightmare. But this honestly makes zero narrative sense unless your entire point with Monica is that shes basically Hillary Clinton, who only married someone for clout and her own selfish goals and just played along until her time presented itself. If that is indeed the point of Monica then never mind, her marrying someone she should despise makes total sense. If that is in fact NOT the point of her character, then it simply makes no sense, and is imo a narrative flaw in the design. Granted, you probably don't have the resources to fix this right now, but I seriously hope you keep these types of inconsistencies in mind for the future. Thanks.

[The bachelor]

i think what cements on how i feel dialouge is so confusing and its really hard to tell what words mean what and leads to what is that 99% of the guides usually say along the lines of "u can say whatever i dont think it matters" BUT IT 100% does matter but no one knows because theres no indictation which words will lead to what paths. as a game where u play a president u honestly play like a minister or VP i dont know how anton runs the country when 99% of things dont get explained to him XD

I.E. example i was following the hard shrew democract run guide and the results for the consistution if you followed the guide is 169. however in my game i got 10 extra votes and i really dont ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ know where i got it from.

10/10 guides will have in the comments "i didnt get the experience described in the guide" because they probably picked dialouge trees that the guide didnt go over.

when you have a game where a majority of the players think the dialouge trees dont have weight because they dont feel like they do anything and believe its all down to bills, reforms, and budget things and then make guides based off that belief making 9 out of 10 guides useless then something went wrong with explaining to the player the core mechanics of the game.

honestly what could fix it in my eyes is you get a tooltip of antons popularity/willingness to follow with his plans in the government. you click on it and it shows how many seats currently are willing to vote and then with each new path you can check it over and see if you lost or gained seats and then you could have something TO ACTUALLY COMPARE from before and after and think on ur choices and go "so saying or doing that made me gain and lose from these parties." but rn it feels like too many shots in the dark. Also the economy bar is a total joke an actual government would have so much more data on their current economical situation then green line go down, green line go up. They would also probably have data that points to "these types of projects made the most money, or these types could synergize well."

as the president you shouldnt have so little information to make educated attempts on trying to do your playthrough. There should be unknown situations but there should also be just as much info so ur not just swinging wildly.

[Michaelus]

I tend to agree with this OP... I went through 3 plays (2 before 2.0) and failed each time with my goals (each in a different way, which is a positive on variability).... I didn't read any guides or forums, so I was hard guessing everything... I still don't know how to get a successful run... I may be dense or the game just doesn't present the choices in clear enough way... I tend to think the latter unfortunately.

[Bishi]

Why are we arguing about Monica, when the budget is easily the worst thing about 2.0? I just did a run defunding education and health while privatizing everything, but because I didn't invest in gasom or accept foreign aid still ended up being heavily in debt. Everything is just too expensive and requires meta-knowledge/repeat playthroughs to decide what you are going to do way, way in advance.

Also, It's bad enough dealing with obstructionists in the assembly and court who, lol, will sometimes block bills Symon is proposing and ironically trigger the great depression and blame the president. Felt no pity for Sordland on that run when Rumburg destroyed us. Anton shot himself in the head like any sane person would do after all that ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

[Brahmeiro]

Publicado originalmente por Tellio:

If Sorldalnd was a real country the most sure way to victory would be to act as a conservative, traditionalist democrat: pushing for moderate small-scale reforms while keeping the support of the conservative majority. That's not how the game works, however. If you try to play like that, the game would consider your approach inconsistent, your choices incompatible, you would get no support and you would fail. It is easier to go extremist communist dictator than traditionalist democrat and that is utterly ridiculous.

Thats exactly what I tried and failed.

[Mr. Nowak]

This is very disputable. The game offers wide range and the stats show many moderate successful runs. To us a centrist approach is the easiest experience with slight reforms. The more extreme you are the more dangerous things become.

Imposing 2020s country politics logic to a game inspired in a fictional 50s universe is very rigid "sim" perspective. As our reviews and our real political connections tell, Suzerain is much more than this.

[Splashwettyy]

Real world politicians reacted to Suzerian? That sounds really cool, where can I find this?

[Mr. Nowak]

Many. German MFA Strategic Comms, Albanian PM and Several Cabinet Members, US Congress Staffers, US State Department Economic Advisors, US Ambassadors, Human Rights Watch, Former Turkish MP, Berlin Senate Chancellory, University Professors of Coventry, Brown University and there are dozens more.

We are engaged with politicians on different levels to discuss the game, to get advice, and to learn from practice.

[Xemawth]

Publicado originalmente por Mr. Nowak:

We reiterate that it's essential to approach Sordland and its politics as a world distinct from our own. It's intriguing to see how players project real-world biases onto the game, but it's also vital to remember that Sordland’s politics and fiction are bespoke. Drawing parallels between Sordland and the real world is natural, given that our brains often seek patterns and analogies. However, it's essential to distinguish between drawing inspiration from reality and creating a wholly fictional universe.

As a recent purchaser, and player of your game without any preconceived notions, or bias, I want to take the opportunity to give my opinion on this quote, and how it interacts with the game experience itself.

Real world politics are the only logical basis of information the player can draw any semblance of experience from.

As a new player I felt immediately engrossed in the narrative, and the perception of political agency.

I had the unique opportunity of challenging myself to roleplay as the politician I would want to have representing myself. Via this, I had committed myself early on to avoiding corruption at all costs, passing democratic reforms, heeding the experienced and valuable opinions of my expert advisors, and self-sacrificing my own determinations of what would be best for Sordland in the interest of deferring knowledge I lack to those in a position to have such knowledge.

In my opinion the best leader understands where his shortcomings are, and decisively collaborates with a team to make the most appropriate decision possible.

I was thoroughly enjoying my experience progressing through the game in a logical, and pragmatic manner until specifically after the meeting discussing the EPA with Iosef, Lileas, Lucian, and Deivid. Following this, and my discoveries discussed later, I will be walking away from the game on my first playthrough ~halfway through chapter 3.

I had selected defense a priority for my administration based on the tumultuous history of Sordland, which also aligned well with the eventual threat from Rumburg. Upon discussing the defense implications of relaxing the regulations on energy security, the cabinet members came to the unanimous conclusion that my decision to forgo relaxation of the EPA was in the best interest of the country, and therefore the most pragmatic decision. While this directly opposed my market economy strategy I had laid out, I had determined that keeping my campaign promise of "defense" was a more essential need given the ongoing geopolitical crisis of Rumburgian sword rattling. Iosef even furiously slammed his hands on his desk making a point about about how essential it would be to retain energy independence during the crisis. I walked away feeling good about this decision, as it made logical sense, along with the UNANIMOUS approval of my cabinet members.

Down the road, I have come to discover that my decision was the "wrong" one, and Sordland actually has a system in place to ensure energy security up to 49% foreign investment that NOBODY mentioned. Literally every word of advice from my expert cabinet members was not accurate concerning the "threat to energy independence" relaxing the EPA posed.

This is when I went to forums, and guides to review my choices, as I felt like I had made a cognitive mistake in interpretation, and completely lost my agency to make informed and accurate decision concerning the fate of Sordland.

Upon reviewing the "correct" decisions for my goal path up to this point I realized I had made a series of errors, not in judgement given the information available, but in picking the concealed (hidden to increase the "thrill" of the game) golden path to success.

In addition, the meeting with Marcel Koronti absolutely reeked of someone looking to take advantage of my presidency through passive threats. Upon reading guides, Marcel is actually an extremely amicable acquaintance who heavily devotes himself to Anton, and his "gentleman's agreement" is in no way detrimental to Anton's administration.

At this point I began to realize the convoluted nature of the text I was reading.

This is where, when I read the above quote it truly resonated with me that no matter how hard I tried, no matter how diligent I was as a leader, no matter how committed I was to making the "just" decision, it truly did not matter for the sake of keeping the game "thrilling" because "Sordland’s politics and fiction are bespoke".

You could honestly replace "bespoke" with the word "convoluted" or "nonsense" in my humble, and fallible opinion.

I would have been utterly thrilled to spend 40+ hours on my first playthough delving through as much "bespoke" lore as you wanted to throw at me, absolutely nailing my decisions, leaving me with a sense of pride that my hard work and diligence had paid off. To then start follow-up playthroughs testing other paths, making silly mistakes to see the chaotic outcomes, and experiencing failure knowing I had the authority to make it right if I wanted to.

Instead I have learned that details are purposely left out, decisions are purposefully murky, and unexpected, and illogical failure is essentially mandatory.

Unrelated, I wish Anton had the capability of making pro-active political maneuvers. I.E. Start infrastructure projects of my own accord, call an emergency assembly following a crisis, delegating tax cuts to struggling populations, or sending my cabinet members out into the field to do grassroots research on essential issues.

IRL politicians may love your game, but at the end of the day, us average Joe's are the majority of your customer base.

Let me say this as a final point though; what you have done here with this game has honestly scratched an itch no other game in history has for me. I sit here pouring my thoughts into text due to extreme passion awoken by your title.

You have something very special here, and I wish the Torpor Games team all the best.

[Mr. Nowak]

Publicado originalmente por Xemawth:

As a recent purchaser, and player of your game without any preconceived notions, or bias, I want to take the opportunity to give my opinion on this quote, and how it interacts with the game experience itself.

Real world politics are the only logical basis of information the player can draw any semblance of experience from.

Thanks for the deep dive and for your Suzerain insights.

You dove headfirst into the moral complexity of Sordish politics, and we’re all about it. Playing as a virtuous leader, dodging the murky waters of corruption—it’s a bold move, and it’s fascinating to see you embody this role, embracing the intricate dance between ethics and power.

Your feedback, especially on the EPA twist, shines a light on the delicate balance we’re trying to strike. It’s a bit of a juggling act—mixing narrative surprises with a sense of logical cause and effect. And hey, we're taking notes on making sure players like you don't feel sideswiped by the unforeseen outcomes of decisions that seemed right at the time. Think of it like a reflection of real-life governance, where clarity is as rare as a quiet day in politics. The advisors in Suzerain offer a perspective, not the gospel, and sometimes you gotta make that call that no one else gets—a call based on your values, the needs of Sordland, and sometimes, a little bit of gut instinct.

Guides can be hit or miss, so we echo your sentiment—trust your instincts. That first playthrough? It’s sacred. Let it be all you. With over 450 choices, and many designed to be proactive, it’s about feeling the impact of your leadership over time, sometimes in ways you might not expect. This is where we and other games are differing heavily. We won't show the potential paths you could take. We try to make you feel and understand them from a limited and biased perspective inside the game world.

The game presents biased sorts of information about all sorts of things. This is meant to simulate real life perception bias. And Marcel Koronti, what a character, huh? Moral choices are the game's beating heart, where you grapple with ideals, and sometimes, there's no clear win. It’s less about the binary and more about what you stand for.

Now, about being more proactive in the game – we're on it. With the Kingdom of Rizia DLC, we’re testing the waters with new features like Royal Decrees to give you more authority and pro-activity in decisions. We want you to feel like you're calling the shots as King and shape the story.

We're always here, fine-tuning the mechanics and narrative threads based on what you and the community share. Your passion’s infectious, and we can’t wait for you to see where we take things next. Keep laying it on us—the good, the bad, the ugly. Your voice is helping shape the future of Suzerain, and we’re loving every minute of it.

Catch you in the corridors of power!

[G Willikers]

Publicado originalmente por Mr. Nowak:

We extend our sincere gratitude for the in-depth feedback you provided on Suzerain’s Update 2.0. Engaging with perspectives like yours not only informs our developmental trajectory but also fuels our passion for crafting immersive experiences. We aim to shed light on our design philosophies, responding to each concern with clarity and thoroughness.

Preconceived Opinions:

You mentioned that you were already negative about the game even before this update. It's essential, both for you as a player and for us as developers, to approach updates with an open mind. While past experiences shape our expectations, it’s always beneficial to evaluate updates in their own context. Nevertheless, your honesty about your previous opinion is appreciated, as it helps us understand your perspective.

Patch Notes & Player Expectations:

It's heartening to know that you found the patch notes promising. Our aim was to address as much of the playerbase's feedback as possible. However, patch notes can only give a summary of changes, and the real feel and experience often come only when playing the game. We're sorry to hear that the actual experience didn’t match your expectations based on the patch notes.

Bias & The World of Sordland

The essence of narrative design lies in weaving stories that resonate, challenge, and intrigue. We've observed interpretations suggesting our narrative leans towards a real-world bias. However, the essence of Sordland springs from a purely fictional wellspring. Each policy, twist, and event in the game is meticulously tailored to this fictional universe. While players might discern semblances to real-world politics, such parallels are unintended. Our focal intent is not to replicate real-life geopolitics but to create a rich tapestry of political intricacies set within our constructed universe.

We reiterate that it's essential to approach Sordland and its politics as a world distinct from our own. It's intriguing to see how players project real-world biases onto the game, but it's also vital to remember that Sordland’s politics and fiction are bespoke. Drawing parallels between Sordland and the real world is natural, given that our brains often seek patterns and analogies. However, it's essential to distinguish between drawing inspiration from reality and creating a wholly fictional universe.

As developers, we aimed to create an immersive world where players can dive deep without constantly drawing real-world analogies. Yet, we appreciate that players bring their own perspectives and biases, which can influence their interpretations.

Gameplay Mechanics & Design Philosophy

From your feedback, we sensed a yearning for more profound gameplay depth. A foundational principle in game design is clarity of intent. Suzerain was envisioned not as an expansive strategy game but as an intimate delve into Anton Rayne's politically charged memories. The core challenge was striking a balance between offering impactful player choices and not delving into overwhelming minutiae. As game design theorist Sid Meier suggests, a game is a series of interesting choices. Overexposing systems, at times, can shroud the essence of a game, making players lose sight of its narrative heartbeat.

Budgetary Dynamics in Update 2.0

The implementation of budget modifications in the 2.0 update was a conscious decision rooted in our aim to simulate the challenges real-world leaders often face. Economic constraints and budgetary restrictions play a pivotal role in shaping policy decisions in governance. This alteration wasn't just a nod to realism, but an attempt to add depth and gravity to each economic choice the player makes. With a tighter budget, each allocation and expenditure becomes a strategic decision, pushing players to prioritize, strategize, and perhaps even make sacrifices. Our game design philosophy often revolves around creating moments of tension, where players must weigh immediate benefits against long-term goals. By introducing a more stringent budgetary framework, we aimed to accentuate this tension, offering a richer and more nuanced decision-making experience.

Exploring Monica's Complexity

Narratives are enriched by characters that evoke emotions, challenge perceptions, and foster introspection. Monica, as a character, was conceived to be a reflection of these ideals. Her development, especially in the new content, isn’t about simplifying her persona but providing depth, nuance, and layers that mirror real-world complexities. Every character in our narrative universe, including Monica, embodies a spectrum of emotions, motivations, and contradictions. By expanding her storyline, we aimed to delve deeper into her psyche, motivations, and relationships, offering players a chance to understand, empathize, or even critique her decisions and actions. Polarizing characters often become the most memorable ones in narratives. They provoke thought, elicit reactions, and sometimes even challenge our own beliefs and values.

Narrative Design & Anton Rayne's Arc

The narrative is not merely about the turbulent political waters but the personal voyage of Anton. His character arc is not an arbitrary progression but a deliberate reflection of classical literary character developments, from exposition to climax and resolution. The strategic elements serve not as the main course but as seasoning to this primarily narrative-driven dish. As every choice molds Anton's destiny, players are invited to ponder on the ethical, personal, and political consequences of their decisions.

Literary and Political Nuances

At the intersection of political intrigue and narrative depth, Suzerain treads a delicate path. Rooted deeply in political science paradigms and literary motifs, our game encourages players to discern the multifaceted implications of each decision. By juxtaposing these broader political theories against a backdrop of riveting storytelling, we aspire to evoke profound contemplation about governance, ethics, and the omnipresent shadows of power. This melding is not just for entertainment, but also an invitation for players to introspect and critique the very foundations of leadership and morality.

Balancing Player Agency & Narrative Consistency

One of the core challenges in narrative-centric game design is the dichotomy between player agency and consistent storytelling. Renowned game designers often grapple with this, seeking to empower players without jeopardizing the narrative's integrity. While branching narratives cater to player autonomy, they also risk fracturing the central story thread. Our continuous endeavor is to optimize this balance, ensuring players chart their path while preserving the game’s thematic essence.

Ongoing Dialogue & Community Engagement

The relationship between a game's creators and its community is a dynamic, evolving partnership. Every piece of feedback, be it praise or critique, is a testament to the game's impact on its audience. Suzerain, while a labor of love from our end, evolves through this symbiotic relationship. As we march forward, our compass is the collective voice of our community, guiding us towards refinements that resonate and engage.

To conclude, Tellio, it's not just the content of your feedback, but the intent behind it, that resonates with us. Constructive critiques like yours pave the path for Suzerain's evolution. We invite you to remain an integral part of our journey, sharing in the collective story of a game that, thanks to voices like yours, continues to evolve and inspire.

With warm regards and deep appreciation,

Torpor Games Team

I'm probably in the minority on this but your answer just really rubbed me the wrong way. You basically discounted all of their criticism then threw in a paragraph about how important criticism is to your process. Ironically enough it was a very political statement that said a lot while saying nothing and managed to throw in plenty of self-aggrandizement along the way.

I have no idea how accurate the criticism is because I came here to see if the game was worth the current sale price, and conversations like this inform that decision. This answer is really what pushed me off taking the leap.