@ hcf

A game about politics is not worthy of an article on a site about politics and games? I fail to see your logic.

@hcf

You don't have to drill deep into the site, newsletter preferences are found in your account area and can be easily un-checked. Your insinuation was that Stardock sells everyones e-mails for "marketing money" which is not the case.

I loved playing Superpower. I actually crashed the game once, because my spies gained control of a US nuclear sub, launched at Russia, and then World War III broke out. The craziest moment, was when Ireland launched an ICBM at Turkey. You can imagine the "WTF? Ireland has nukes? And why launch at Turkey?" going through my head at that point. The rest of the world went into nuclear winter, except for Africa, which I was then able to mostly conquer. Not bad for starting off as the Ivory Coast... :)

lol ahhh superpower

@Parallax

You're right, pre-orders are only open right now. Beta is out next month, and final release is "June 17th-ish" (sic).

http://www.politicalmachine.com/article/305557/Release_Schedule_Announce...

Lol, I still have the 2004 version on my PC, I might look into this, it was actually pretty fun.

Anyone know if this will be released with nocopy protection like Stardock's GalCiv title? If so I am buying a copy - even if I never play it.

I'll support any effort to abolish DRM and treat me like a customer instead of a criminal.

I have to question the "news value" of advertising the release of a product, particularly one being distributed by known spammers.

Stardock has sold our email addresses for marketing money. Surely they should have enough of it by now to afford their own marketing. They don't need any "link charity," and giving it to them isn't helping anybody.

And there's no "game politics" news here. Politics in games news would be relevant if you'd bothered to explore that; but clearly GP has not played this game, and is only reporting its existence on the marketplace. When EA partnered with electrical utilities in making Sim City Societies, and the result was that the game carried strong political "messages", or "teachings," of a particular political slant, that was news. This isn't.

@hcf

It's being reported because it's a game about politics. I'd say that's fair coverage on a site called GamePolitics.com.

And no, Stardock are not spammers. That's absolute rubbish. Unless Stardock is the only company you've ever given your email address to, I'd say it was someone else who sold it to spammers.

Rocket science ftw.

@Spencer

Instead of writing a *lot* here to explain, I'll refer to a previous writing.

http://www.mercenary.net/blog/index.php?/archives/39-Sins-of-a-Stardock-...

I don't really want to clutter GP with too much of this; but it boils down:

Stardock opt-outs for "3rd party promotions". You have to drill deep into your website to find and disable this. So, Stardock spams.

@therest:

You all seem to have misappropriated the word "politic" to mean "government." Stardock's game is most certainly a game about government mechanics, we can all plainly see that. But I have not seen GP underline, "report on", a single political issue worked in within or without it (neither a message the game promotes, nor a political debate surrounding it).

Now, if Stardock's game delivered some political message: "Vote for Obama!" "Save the Rainforest!" Then that would truly be Game Politics. But instead, this is just an advert for a game that happens to have governance as its primary mechanic. You may as well have a Civ advert here.

So, no, I see no news here.

@ JAbrwok

Ireland has nukes? WTF did that happen?! I remember playing Superpowers, North Korea always started the wars and I was always allied with every nation till I conquered North Korea for attacking my allies. For some reason they always hated me after I helped them, self hating jerks. But I never had nuclear wars.

And can someone please dealete the goatse trolls post, someone is bound to click it. Though the halirity would be worth it.

@ hcf

The issue of GamePolitics being "ouside of its lane" in reporting this isn't up to personal interpretation. What you're describing is termed "political activism". If you want to get involved in politics, try your senator, your mayor, or candidates' webpages. This site is about POLITICS as they relate to videogames. It has already been defined for you. You are welcome to continue the argument, but you are WRONG.

This game lets you explore--to limited degree and limited validity, of course--how each candidate would address various situations. If a videogame simulation--however realistic or unrealistic (and it's not meant to guide your voting preferences with absoute truth, it's meant to be fun)--of the current (and slightly less-current) presidential candidates doesn't qualify as meriting the attention of a site where "politics and videogames collide" in your opinion, your opinion is simply unfounded.

It's neither personal nor a matter of opinion, but rather one of definition, and every dictionary disagrees with you.

@ hcf

I am sorry. I don't agree with you. Britney Spears has nothing to do with games or politics.

Let me ask you this, IS covering the opinions of presidential candadates "science of politics". Probably not. But it is important to people concerned about government influence on gaming.

You brought up Civilization as a reason why this game should not be mentioned. Civilization is about fighting wars and taking over territories and researching technology. Government plays a limited role in this process.

This game is an educational tool in giving people a better understanding of US presidential elections (not a perfect understanding , but a bettrer one). Some people don't understand how primaries, electorial college or campaigning even works. This game could help people understand it enough to cast a more educated vote. They also get to have fun with it.

The game is also online capable. Players can compete with each other in the election and learn how to influence the mass populous to support their candadate.

I find that this game is more relevant to the topic of games and politics than any of the "Presidential Brawlers" that dot the internet. Yet Dennis reports on those too. I guess you probably don't consider those to be news worthy.

I will end with saying that your opinion is yours and Dennis' opinion is his. He is the editor of this site and therefore he decides what is news worthy. Not you.

I seriously think that you just have a beef with Stardock and don't want to see them get any kind of publicity. I am sorry that you feel like that. But the world does not revolve around you and your "problems"

"I am sorry. I don’t agree with you. Britney Spears has nothing to do with games or politics."

My point is that topics and newsworthiness are two different things. So I don't really disagree with you on any particular point here.

"Let me ask you this, IS covering the opinions of presidential candadates “science of politics”. Probably not. But it is important to people concerned about government influence on gaming."

There isn't a question mark in there. Science of politics is a different meta level, we're talking about politics, which itself is the science governing a state. The science of politics would be something like the science of the science of governance.

Even so, I see nothing in this article describing any importance to gaming. The article is very brief. "There is this game." "It simulates the electoral college." "It was fun last time." To this extent, my criticism is that I do not read GP for game reviews or previews.

Is that somehow so antithetical to your views that demands such a lengthy reprisal?

"You brought up Civilization as a reason why this game should not be mentioned. Civilization is about fighting wars and taking over territories and researching technology. Government plays a limited role in this process."

First, I think this is a mischaracterization of Civ, as you can win the game without ever fighting a war or taking over territories. That said...

Who you deprive of life (or threaten to) on the basis of differing political views is one material mechanic one might use to govern, and so issues such as when if ever to use these methods could be very political. The game, Civ, never puts the issue in that context, in my review, and so is not topical.

The observation is that the article describes the game's simulation of the electoral college, and so forth, a simulation of several base mechanics of governing.

So one question might be, does this game, "The Political Machine" put the these mechanics in a political context? I don't know. My complaint is: The article does not say it does or doesn't.

This is an important distinction. You seem to think I am just "against this game," but really I am criticizing GP for failing to frame this game as being political.

"This game is an educational tool in giving people a better understanding of US presidential elections (not a perfect understanding , but a bettrer one). Some people don’t understand how primaries, electorial college or campaigning even works. This game could help people understand it enough to cast a more educated vote. They also get to have fun with it."

This last bit, "to cast a more educated vote." That _could_ be part of a story about a political game. However, it is not in the article.

"The game is also online capable. Players can compete with each other in the election and learn how to influence the mass populous to support their candadate."

Again, that _could_ be part of a story about a political game. However, nothing like this is in the article.

"I find that this game is more relevant to the topic of games and politics than any of the “Presidential Brawlers” that dot the internet. Yet Dennis reports on those too. I guess you probably don’t consider those to be news worthy."

The presidential brawlers are very topical, however, because they're obviously being employed as part of the science of governance (they convey a message), and this employment is very evident in his coverage.

As for newsworthiness, I think his coverage of them is correctly proportioned.

"I will end with saying that your opinion is yours and Dennis’ opinion is his. He is the editor of this site and therefore he decides what is news worthy. Not you."

I don't know if you think you're being helpful in pointing this out, like I didn't know? Maybe you thought that only GP's editor is allowed to criticize GP? I'm not really sure what your argument is, other than "you're wrong because you're not Dennis."

I guess I don't agree with whatever it is you're trying to say, because I think it's pretty reasonable to criticize a writer. Checking criticism is the only way we can grow.

"I seriously think that you just have a beef with Stardock and don’t want to see them get any kind of publicity. I am sorry that you feel like that. But the world does not revolve around you and your “problems”"

I don't mind seeing Stardock get any publicity they pay for. I think I've criticized GP, constructively, for previewing a game that he hasn't made clear is at all political...effectual in the science of governing in any way. I've mentioned that any company that stoops to spam is not worthy, in my view, of "link charity," nor of patronizing.

None of these are my problems. I don't even get Stardock's spam anymore. The issue of spam is a problem of global importance; of Internet governance. Maybe you've never heard those two words together, but it's a big part of my day job; "how do our local network designs effect the global self-organizing Internet?"

It's something I spend a great deal of time thinking about, so maybe I'm a little surprised when I meet people who obviously don't give it much thought.

"I pre-ordered the game just now."

I am disappointed that you place such righteous self-justification ahead of the global community by patronizing a spammer.

Don't forget to opt-out.

Again: opt-out _is_ spam. If you host an opt-out mailing list, you're spammers. And no, the spam I received was for Dominions 3, sent by Stardock.

Get a life dude!