Sorry your browser is not supported!

Disclaimer: This is not a political rant, its an observation about game mechanics, finger off the button Mods!!

So, Weather its a base building game, a god game, rts etc... the whole setup is basically a communist community, the leader "you" decides and dictates how your subjects will live, how much food is produced, tools army etc etc you know the drill you played these games.

So while planning this little game idea this paradox hit me, how can I make a base building type game that gives NPC's individual responsibility for the towns progression, his own gold and food stores, own home and means of income etc while I " the mayor" decides the layout and progression direction of the town what does a game like that even look like.

This got me wondering is the full commune system seen in most game done out of historical sense of tribalism, a desire to be communist or because its just easier to code it that way, has anyone attempted to buck this trend and does the game I am imagining actually already exist.

I guess a game like this is more like a simulation, you set some base rules and the town folk play out the sim according to there personality traits, I suppose some god games take this approach, I did play Black and White for a brief time way back when but thats not what I have in mind.

So, OK, ignoring the fear of my idea being hijacked, here's what I have penned down.

You, the player have an actual ingame character that can walk around and interact (kind of like your StrongHold Lord, but far more interactivity), you inherit a plot of resource rich land, trees, iron, copper and gold, the aim of the game to to just make money coz your broke, you start with some basic tools, your land and a few dollars, to start your on your own, you build, you mine, you do it all until you can afford to hire someone to do that task (like a click game but far far more indepth), as your town grows (the more resources you discover will attract attention your your town) people will turn up from time to time looking for a place to settle and make some cash, everyone is out for themselves, some more honest than others, some lazy, etc etc

the more jobs you create the more dollors you earn through taxes, rents, mining rights, eventually your character becomes the towns fat cat mayor, rags to riches and a long the way your townfolk have made a few quid along the way, obviously a military aspect is involved, other towns or bandits, a common enemy to unite a militia, trade routes with other towns.

Basically a more true to life capitalist method of playing a town building game ... would such a game be engaging , obviously during the game your tactic of play would change from building to managing and back and forth as required.....

And snap back to reality, would the effort of coding all these system be worthwhile, is the socialist aspect of these types of games for ease of gameplay, ease of development or long term social conditioning for a communist world, hey, it works for the settlers, right! lol

What do you guys think, namely my game idea lets keep politics out of it, does anyone know of any games that use a system like I described, a capitalist approach to a settlers type game, would it even work or be just to much work ......

"So while planning this little game idea this paradox hit me, how can I make a base building type game that gives NPC's individual responsibility for the towns progression, his own gold and food stores, own home and means of income etc while I " the mayor" decides the layout and progression direction of the town what does a game like that even look like."

Was very common in the godgames in the 90s and early 2000's. Became viewed as micromanagement after that and mostly disappeared. Some games with different forms of it are -

Sid Meier's Civilization (in this one, you set what type of direction you want the city to head and they build/harvest accordingly)
Saga: Rage of Vikings
Akami Village

I just re-read your post and saw the whole capitalist thing at the end.
Looks like this is very much like what you describe: http://www.worldalpha.com

What you're describing isn't a Socialism Vs. Capitalism but rather Dictatorial Vs. Libertarian concept...
At least if we're talking in "Political" Terms., but a more specific descriptor would to that of Micro Vs. Macro Management.

Now the reason why _most_ games follow a Micro approach over a Macro approach is due to a simple case of Control... that is to say a Game where you have said control abstracted are less enjoyable.
Why? Do we all secretly desire to be Dictators? Well, no... actually the reason is more basic.
We want to see a Cause & Effect.

Consider for a Moment the idea of Aim Assist in a First / Third Person Shooter... the reason it exists is because most people's dexterity / skill doesn't really match their intention.
It's why it's such a difficult system to implement WELL., because it should be invisible to the player while giving them a sense they are better players than they really are.
While, no this might not seem like it has much to do with Simulation Systems (ala City Builders or such)., we are talking about a very similar player interaction with the system; as the Player MUST feel like THEY are in Control., it is THEIR Skill., THEIR Intent and that there is a clear Cause & Effect occuring.

I mean consider for a moment if you were playing something like Starcraft., and half of your Drones decided "Nah, think I'll pull a sicky today" right in the middle of an enemy push.
Or worse... new Units refuse to be conscripted due to Contentious Objection... or your War Factory goes on Strike over Pay / Working Conditions...
Well now you've lost due to something beyond your control / random event.

Suddenly that isn't as enjoyable an experience BECAUSE it wasn't something YOU as the Player can really do anything about.
You'll find in most games Realism will take a backseat for Enjoyment., with Games that don't do this... feeling unbalanced, broken or just boring / frustrating to play.
We play games to often escape reality... and to said end., while Socialism / Communism in Reality are REALLY horrible Systems that simply don't work because of the Individuals NEED for Agency; they do and work well as game mechanics because said systems can be "Perfect" and Micro-Managed in such a way that they DO work.

And as noted., this is more enjoyable for the player because they're getting that constant Cause & Effect with Consistent results.
Now is it possible to design games that are more Macro in nature., where the game somewhat will play itself with you giving more "Suggestive" Actions ... sure.
Populous for example where you as a "God" terraform the land or send disasters so that the denizens that you favour will gain an advantage to conquer the other factions.

It's a simple example but a good example of a more hands-off approach that can be fun.
But developing such games is much more time consuming and difficult esp. to also make it a "Fun" experience.... even then you're looking a system that has a predictable outcome from your actions., where-as in Real-Life you might see what would appear to be a more random / unpredictable outcome; often because it's more difficult to take into account ALL of the Factors at play that would inform the decision of the System Agents.

A more Modern example would be something like SimCity (2013) or TheSims with Free Will turned on.
But then let's be honest., there's a reason why Free Will is often turned off or minimised for The Sims; as again it's frustrating to do something only for your Sims to ignore what you've done.

Raven, you rarely post, but when you do it's great stuff. Excellent post, Raven.

I get your points there Raven and that explains the trend in such games from a code logic and a user engagement point of view it makes perfect sense, I think a more abstract approach could be fun if done right but its a fair assumption that it adds a lot of coding overhead. a well thought out story and goal system could cover this but again probably far to much work for a single hobby dev, idea shelved! lol

Well the idea is only as Complex or Straight-Forward as you decide to make it when you move to a Concept... not to mention how much you're willing to compromise in order to achieve what you set out to do.
I mean the idea here is in essence a game world where your action influence but don't dictate outcomes.

Still with this said, approaching Game Conceptualisation like this is Backwards.
Mechanics should always be designed and adapted to best suit the Concept., as opposed to having a Concept that you design and adapt Mechanics to suit.
I mean as a Game Designer, you should always be asking yourself "Is this adding Value / Fun / Engagement?" and if the answer is "No, but it's a cool concept" then it isn't worth the time needed to invest in making it a reality.

And excellent example of what I mean is Fable Legends... on paper it's an interesting idea., but Lionhead became so caught up in the original idea that they refused to really give up elements of it to better suit the Asymmetric Competitive Multiplayer that was the real heart of said idea.
The same in a way is true with Rare's Sea of Thieves., it wasn't until they stopped simply designing around a somewhat aethereal idea and instead listened to the community to ground it; that they finally changed the game from "Well, that's interesting but not much fun" to "This is fun"

As noted here., don't simply shelf the idea; instead make some prototype concepts based upon potential mechanical ways to implement it... then take whichever one feels the most Fun and Engaging.
Work from there. Most great games come from concepts that rarely resemble the final product., it's only once you begin playtesting and accept that things will likely HAVE to change to keep things enjoyable that you can build something great from it.

mod edit: please don't. as PTC said: