Rissen wrote:I've played Hidden Agenda - it was quite fun, but I didn't like the fact that your choices were so limited in terms of who you could choose as a minister. Also I think that if you have to pander to your ministers then the skill should be choosing ministers which are most like you, not in letting other people (apart from voters) dictate your policies.
But that's the point of the game, isn't it? Achieving something concrete while making compromises. In a pretty accurate representation of a polarized Central American "republic," you have very angry and armed factions on the left and right. In Hidden Agenda, if you give it all to either side, the other stages a revolt and you are out of office: you lose. One way to build street cred with opposing factions (whichever side you may take) is to include its representatives in government. You don't have to do this, but then winning the game--completing your term in office--becomes much, much harder. And if you do put a member of some group you don't belong to in power, of course they're going to expect the implementation of some policies they favor. That's very realworld, and adds a nice element of strategic balancing.
Being realworld, yet fun to play, was what the game designer tried to achieve. He really wanted to make Hidden Agenda reflective of the extreme cultural tensions present in an unstable Central American government. He's told me that he then went to several companies with the idea of doing a Middle Eastern version of the title, but was fobbed off ironically enough with the answer that nobody was interested in the Middle East. :roll: Of course, that was back in the late 1980s, but still.