I Am Really Enjoying this Game - Hopefully There is a Democracy 5 At Some Point

[LyghtWayve]

I am loving this game on my Steam Deck. It's fun to play around with the different policies and try to lead the country. On election night in the game I am on the edge of my seat.

I hope there is a Democracy 5 at some point. I would really be interested in how this series develops. Perhaps have 3D characters and whatnot to make it more immersive. However, as it is now, the game is really fun.

[cliffski]

Thankyou :D

[Padelboot]

Perhaps Democracy 5 could go the Lawgivers II road and add more to the politics side of things or perhaps have deeper mechanics for interest groups aside of being breeding grounds for terrorists.

On the policy front, the Democracy series is the top notch series, no doubts about it. If I want to play a political game with deep policy mechanics, it's this one. And I love that it allows different ideological approaches to work, allowing for a lot of roleplay. That and that cheeky humor hidden here and there.
I like the character design in 4 and don't think 3D characters would add much, I would prefer more policies and more mechanics in the politics area (like actual coalition talks, parliaments etc.), though that would probably change how the game functions from the ground up.

[LyghtWayve]

Originally posted by Padelboot:

Perhaps Democracy 5 could go the Lawgivers II road and add more to the politics side of things or perhaps have deeper mechanics for interest groups aside of being breeding grounds for terrorists.

On the policy front, the Democracy series is the top notch series, no doubts about it. If I want to play a political game with deep policy mechanics, it's this one. And I love that it allows different ideological approaches to work, allowing for a lot of roleplay. That and that cheeky humor hidden here and there.
I like the character design in 4 and don't think 3D characters would add much, I would prefer more policies and more mechanics in the politics area (like actual coalition talks, parliaments etc.), though that would probably change how the game functions from the ground up.

The idea of coalition talks and parliaments sound good, but I wonder if from a game design perspective, they make it difficult for the player to enact their vision.

What do you think? For example, if parliament says no to a policy, then what?

I do think about parliament sometimes but wonder if that could obstruct the player and thus make the game frustrating. I wonder how a parliament or coalition could actually boost gameplay.

[Padelboot]

Originally posted by LyghtWayve:

The idea of coalition talks and parliaments sound good, but I wonder if from a game design perspective, they make it difficult for the player to enact their vision.

What do you think? For example, if parliament says no to a policy, then what?

I do think about parliament sometimes but wonder if that could obstruct the player and thus make the game frustrating. I wonder how a parliament or coalition could actually boost gameplay.

Yes - and it can be a good thing

Basically it's supposed to add a completely new layer to the gameplay, a more strategic/tactical one, so to speak. Generally politics can be divided into three P's: Polity, Policy and Politics.
Polity is fairly easy, it's the setting in which the politics happens, the framework in which it works. A country is a polity, for instance.
Policy is what Democracy focuses on: The results of politics, be it laws or actions of government.
Politics is the process in which policies are created and implemented. This is what a parliament and more active interest groups would provide.

I've mentioned Lawgivers II, which focuses on the parliamentarism aspect. And yes, it does mean that you sometimes cannot pass laws or they pass laws you don't want. But part of the fun is to still try, maybe form relationships and coalitions with other parties (ideally like-minded) or try some more moderate laws instead to get them passed. In Democracy you often don't have much reason to use the slider moderately, unless you want to save money or roleplay. With an parliament, you would, since you might want other parties to vote in your favour. And of course, everything you do is noted by the populace. Sure, maybe your universal healthcare bill didn't pass now - but the people notice and you could increase in popularity accordingly, winning more seats next election and, maybe, be powerful enough to get it through now.

It's not like Democracy is completely devoid of this. The political power points kind of tries to simulate this. If you are unpopular, have a unloyal cabinet and perhaps some other malus you cannot get big reforms done, especially when they are unpopular with the voters. So even here you sometimes cannot get everything you want and have to work to do it. A parliament would be another way to do exactly that. And since how the parties get voted in is not necessarily set by the starting point of the game (unlike voter groups and existing policies), every game can be a bit different. Right now the other two parties are just empty vessels, who don't really do anything. Same with interest groups, which only serve as glorified terrorist machines and I think it's a shame, because there is potential there.
Plus, if there are more things to watch out for: Actually managing to create the best society you can feels all the more rewarding.


Now, I do recognize that Democracy is focused on the policies and the, dare I say, power fantasy to just pass any law you like and create the society you like. And I do understand, that these mechanics would completely change how the game is played. Lawgivers II plays very differently obviously (and also more buggy, because, well, early access) and I also understand, that not everyone is into that. That's okay. I do think it's fun to try to win elections and make my party seen as the ones who try to better the lifes of people. I do think it's fun giving media statements, do some campaigning and accuse other parties of being incompetent, corrupt buffons, while still negotiating with them behind closed doors. I remember when Urban Empire was still in development, people were excited to try a "city ruler", where you have to work with a council to do anything, rather than the classic city builder with an allmighty mayor (the game came out severely lacking, unfortunately).

Sorry for the long post, but I hope I got my point across somewhat clearly. ^^'

[LyghtWayve]

Originally posted by Padelboot:

Originally posted by LyghtWayve:

The idea of coalition talks and parliaments sound good, but I wonder if from a game design perspective, they make it difficult for the player to enact their vision.

What do you think? For example, if parliament says no to a policy, then what?

I do think about parliament sometimes but wonder if that could obstruct the player and thus make the game frustrating. I wonder how a parliament or coalition could actually boost gameplay.

Yes - and it can be a good thing

Basically it's supposed to add a completely new layer to the gameplay, a more strategic/tactical one, so to speak. Generally politics can be divided into three P's: Polity, Policy and Politics.
Polity is fairly easy, it's the setting in which the politics happens, the framework in which it works. A country is a polity, for instance.
Policy is what Democracy focuses on: The results of politics, be it laws or actions of government.
Politics is the process in which policies are created and implemented. This is what a parliament and more active interest groups would provide.

I've mentioned Lawgivers II, which focuses on the parliamentarism aspect. And yes, it does mean that you sometimes cannot pass laws or they pass laws you don't want. But part of the fun is to still try, maybe form relationships and coalitions with other parties (ideally like-minded) or try some more moderate laws instead to get them passed. In Democracy you often don't have much reason to use the slider moderately, unless you want to save money or roleplay. With an parliament, you would, since you might want other parties to vote in your favour. And of course, everything you do is noted by the populace. Sure, maybe your universal healthcare bill didn't pass now - but the people notice and you could increase in popularity accordingly, winning more seats next election and, maybe, be powerful enough to get it through now.

It's not like Democracy is completely devoid of this. The political power points kind of tries to simulate this. If you are unpopular, have a unloyal cabinet and perhaps some other malus you cannot get big reforms done, especially when they are unpopular with the voters. So even here you sometimes cannot get everything you want and have to work to do it. A parliament would be another way to do exactly that. And since how the parties get voted in is not necessarily set by the starting point of the game (unlike voter groups and existing policies), every game can be a bit different. Right now the other two parties are just empty vessels, who don't really do anything. Same with interest groups, which only serve as glorified terrorist machines and I think it's a shame, because there is potential there.
Plus, if there are more things to watch out for: Actually managing to create the best society you can feels all the more rewarding.


Now, I do recognize that Democracy is focused on the policies and the, dare I say, power fantasy to just pass any law you like and create the society you like. And I do understand, that these mechanics would completely change how the game is played. Lawgivers II plays very differently obviously (and also more buggy, because, well, early access) and I also understand, that not everyone is into that. That's okay. I do think it's fun to try to win elections and make my party seen as the ones who try to better the lifes of people. I do think it's fun giving media statements, do some campaigning and accuse other parties of being incompetent, corrupt buffons, while still negotiating with them behind closed doors. I remember when Urban Empire was still in development, people were excited to try a "city ruler", where you have to work with a council to do anything, rather than the classic city builder with an allmighty mayor (the game came out severely lacking, unfortunately).

Sorry for the long post, but I hope I got my point across somewhat clearly. ^^'

I understand what you are saying and it makes a lot of sense. Working with a parliament would simply mean a different type of game and more for the player to consider. It does sound fun what you describe albeit a bit different. I will also check out law givers and the other game you mentioned.

[Padelboot]

A different type of game, yes. That's a good summary for my wall of text.
I hope you have some fun with that, too, even if they are different (and arguably more flawed, Democracy 4 is quite pristine and polished in what it attempts to do).

And even though I'm well aware a Democracy 5 would most likely not go that direction, because it would change the way the game works drastically, I do hope it does more with the politics side in some way. And that, perhaps, other games will adopt more of the in-depth policy mechanics here.