Login to vote in this poll.
Theoretically the main audience for this game should be all citizens, but I do not see the premise attracting anyone besides activists and some students. As someone who loves videogames, the idea of this 'game' does not appeal to me. I view this as a social experiment more than a videogame. The scope and the idea behind it is simply too big and too complicated to be executed as intended. There are just too many factors that are not even defined yet that I don't see this appealing to anyone besides students or people that are interested in politics. Chances are, if you pitch the idea to a video game player, he/she would simply brush it off as uninteresting because the idea is too vague/there are no imminent rewards/etc. On the other hand, some students or activists might find it fascinating how real people would try and create a functioning new world order.
The main reason I feel that the game should include all citizens as a main audience is because through game socializers, players will be able to view different opinions from someone that they aren't used to interacting with. Socializers are players who play the game to interact with others not specifically to convince other people believe what they believe, but to listen to people and hear what they have to say. This way, it's possible for the game to reach it's full potential by allowing a diverse crowd to interact with the game and provide feedback that isn't always one note. In a software development cycle, maintenance is a huge part in developing a long term game. It's important to receive proper feedback from a diverse crowd in order to maintain a game which is suitable to players of all types and ethnicities.
Ideally, this game should be designed for all citizens. That way, the game is more likely to have a diverse set of participants and thus have a more realistic simulated society. However, I feel that this is easier said than done. Since this is a game, gamers will almost inevitably become the main players of the game, despite attempts to appeal to other people. It might be feasible to attract certain types of people to the game, like artists for example, by having visuals and artistic freedoms that appeal to the artists; however, I feel like it would be difficult to design the game with all citizens in mind, since there are just too many types of people.
I disagree. I think most gamers wont be as interested in this game just because of the nature of the game. It's nothing like any of the most popular games out on the market and wont appeal to many gamers. I think it would have a wide appeal to a casual audience, the type that like to play Facebook games, especially if it's just a simple web interface. Facebook, anyone?
The main target should be open to all citizens. Why limit the target to only a fraction of the market when the game can be enjoyed by all? A more open audience goes hand in hand with more varied types of engagements, which I strongly encourage since the game's society would be more realistic in both its diversity and social interactions.
I also support the notion to try and appeal the design to everyone in society, it is important for us to collect different people because everyone has their own interpretation and ideas to contribute to the new society. In this way, the game can truly simulate what society would be like with these new decrees of life.
It would be interesting to see a game that attracted everyone to play, not just gamers, or only certain types of people. With a diverse audience playing, you will be able to learn more about different settings across the world, different beliefs and opinions. With people with different backgrounds, comes a plethora of various ideas and perspectives that could be beneficial to improving society. If the game was just comprised of one type of audience who felt the same, had the same opinions, then it would just be boring.
I agree that "all citizens" should be allowed to participate in this game for similar reasons - the game will only reach its full potential if limitless voices are heard and diverse participants recognized. However, I wonder if, in starting the game, a player should state his or her 'title' in today's society - whether a 'video game player,' an 'activist,' a 'student,' or an 'artist' - because then we could understand that person's beliefs and behavior in context. The audience should be limitless in order to allow people with very different experiences to interact, but should they also be anonymous?
There should be no limit to the main audience for this game to take hold. I think a pluralistic model is needed in order to encompass the full capacities of political relations to build. This means taking in all forms of different fields of expertise, whether it be those adroit in the digital media, students with different educational backgrounds, activists with various agendas, and artists with their own aesthetic preferences. Only then can there be a perplexing and informative illustration of how this digital world works.