Top critical review
15 people found this helpful
Stable, but too ambitious
on 27 November 2011
I was put off buying this game for a long time due to the bad reviews.
One of the recurring issues in the reviews were the crashes.
Well, I finally bought it a few days ago and am happy to find that it is very stable.
I like strategy games with a lot of depth (eg Victoria 1 & 2) and this is exactly the type of game that I love.
The war aspect seems simplified which some people might not like, though for me this is an advantage as I prefer developing my country to fighting.
What makes this game different is that it tries to capture the decisions you would be faced with if you were a ruler.
In other words, you're not a 'god' controlling that country, only the president/prime minister etc.
To give you an example, when I was playing as North Korea and I tried to reduce my spending on the army, they quickly deposed me from power so I lost.
So you have to keep your party/supporters happy as well as the populace, whilst trying to achieve your own goals.
Unfortunately, the engine underlying the game is slightly too simple.
Each time I start a new game, I get frustrated by some flaw in the engine within two to three game years.
Eg I started playing as Zimbabwe for a challenge.
- Its unemployment rate started at a whopping 95%.
- I did everything I could to boost the economy for two years.
- After having increased the GDP by 45%, the unemployment rate had only fallen to 94.36%!
That's a pretty specific example but hopefully it illustrates what I meant by limitations in the game engine.
So while this game has lots of actions that you can do, the designers did not reflect these accurately in the mechanics of the game.
This removes the main advantage that the game had going for it, ie it fails to be an accurate geo-political simulator.