An interesting game was released today to the public.
The goal of the player as the leader is to establish a stable resolution to the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict and win the Nobel Prize before his or her term in office ends. The difficulty level can range from calm to violent.
Any resemblance to Hidden Agenda, up to now the penultimate simulation of politics, is no doubt very non-coincidental. The player picks a side (Israeli or Palestinian) and lists their views on the ongoing crisis. The game is designed to teach people some of the issues facing each side, mostly involving bullets flying into things. So how well did it do?
My first playthrough was as the Israeli Prime Minister.
I quickly discovered that the game adequately simulated Israeli politics, insofar as my position was untenable and I couldn’t actually accomplish anything. I was responsible for keeping a high popularity among both the Israeli and Palestinian public, which was about as likely as it sounded.
For every measure trying to ease pressure on the Palestinians, the Israelis cried that I was appeasing terrorism. Any measures against terror attacks were met with global condemnation and Palestinian hatred.
So, what about doing something about the settlements? What do my advisors have to say about this?
Yeah, big help there, guys. Thanks.
So, I tried to remove some settlements in the West Bank, only to have the army revolt and the settlers take potshots of their own at the Palestinians.
Frustrated, I built a really big wall. My gesture of peace (building it along the 1967 borders) was signally unappreciated and the settlers were unamused that I was leaving them outside of it. Terror attacks continued. I ordered retaliatory airstrikes, being somewhat irked at the total lack of cooperation I was seeing from, well, everyone.
Yeah, that didn’t go well at all. In other words, a good Israeli politics simulator.
A run through as the Palestinians went a bit better. The situation for the Palestinian side is different (and not entirely historically accurate) – you are a technocratic administration caught between both Fatah AND Hamas. Oh, and Israel still occupies everything. Given that, the only thing I saw likely to do – promise to spend lots of money.
And how would I do this? The time honored tradition – spend OTHER PEOPLE’S money.
Unlike the Israelis, I actually had to find money for all my wacky projects. I managed to fund an economic renaissance mainly through keeping first the EU, then the US very happy and sending lots of money, some of which didn’t make it into Swiss bank accounts.
Meanwhile, Fatah and Hamas merrily shot up most of Israel and Israel responded by occupying Palestine TO DEATH. Part of the Palestinian government’s dillemma is keeping two groups of warring maniacs quiet. With Fatah it’s somewhat easy since one of the options is helpfully “Bribe”. Hamas is made of sterner stuff, and really your only option is to build up a strong police force that can keep order in the streets. Once the militants were cowed, Israel started actually backing off and making concessions.
I never actually “Offered Thanks”. I can only assume that the Palestinian leader would have been immediately strung up or something.
The demanding of Israeli withdrawals combined with my continued Welfare Payments Via Looking Really Sad Eyed At The UN managed to work Palestine up the road to statehood.
No thanks to these guys, of course.
After a while, here was the situation in detail:
Note my two popularities being tracked – in Palestine you don’t worry about Israeli opinion, merely the world at large, which can be met through not advocating terror and making nice speeches. Israel hates me. Oh well. Both Fatah and Hamas hate me. Oh well. The UN loves me. Priorities: IN ORDER.
After eventually gaining control of the streets, by giving Fatah lots of money and police sweeps against Hamas leaders, we finally got to this point:
So clearly, I am better at dealing with wild-eyed jihadis than cranky ward leaders from Haifa. I’m not really sure what that means.
So how much of a GAME is this? Not much. It’s clearly an educational tool, much like Hidden Agenda was. Some of the problems facing both leaders would be illustrative to those not familiar with the Middle East situation (which is pretty much everyone not listening to NPR on an hourly basis). And it helpfully comes in English, Hebrew, and Arabic, so you can give a copy to your favorite side and watch them become frustrated that there’s no “Invade Other Side TOTALLY TO DEATH” option. (Well, as the Israelis you can do missile strikes. That’s how I got the “YOU LOSE” screen.)
What Peacemaker does do well is demonstrate how games can be used for something besides gang-banging simulators. I briefly toyed with designing a similar game about the US occupation of Iraq, but first wrote a book instead, then got a new job and promptly lost any pretense of free time. But there’s still lots of room for “serious games” about geopolitics – not only in the Mideast/Iraq, but perhaps even things like the situation in Latin America (will it lean towards Western capitalism or Venezuelan caudillo socialism?) or even Poppinfresh’s favorite future history, how China will eat the world.
Or we can keep making games about hit points and barely dressed young women. I bet a game with both hit points AND barely dressed young women would be awesome.
#1 by Mr. Poppinfresh on February 2nd, 2007
Eat?
No, buy.
#2 by brent on February 2nd, 2007
SimHugo could be entertaining.
#3 by Cael on February 2nd, 2007
> So, I tried to remove some settlements in the West Bank, only to have the army revolt and the settlers take potshots of their own at the Palestinians.
They already do that, as is widely known (and loathed) in Israel proper. Which is why i found the Army revolt unlikely. But the game looks pretty well-balanced to me.
The question is, how many downloading the Arabic version will play as the Israeli side? An opportunity to educate is good, but if nobody takes it….
#4 by VanHemlock on February 2nd, 2007
Everything I learned about American History, I learnt from ‘Colonization’, and the various Civilisation games did more for my grasp of world history in general than anything I sat through at school. They were both fun to play which helped, too.
#5 by SavageX on February 2nd, 2007
hmm thanks for the heads up! Looks like a good game!
#6 by blachawk on February 2nd, 2007
“Everything I learned about American History, I learnt from ‘Colonization’, and the various Civilisation games did more for my grasp of world history in general than anything I sat through at school.”
Well you have just invalidated pretty much every opinion you might ever offer that relates to American or World History.
#7 by Prussian_Knight on February 2nd, 2007
Everything I know aobut European history I learned form Paradox
#8 by BruceR on February 2nd, 2007
They have games with hitpoints now?
#9 by Sweetmeat on February 2nd, 2007
Hmmm in response to the barely dressed young women thing, I just got Vanguard and it’s interesting that the smallest breast size for a female woodelf is a C cup. The middle of the slider is a solid D cup, and the biggest option is easily a Double D. This is the wood elf. High Elves have breasts like porn stars only not very shapely. On the other hand if you are wearing armor, you are actually wearing that armor … much like DAoC, so no biggie I guess – though I personally think a perky B cup is more attractive than anything that was an option
#10 by Nicademus on February 2nd, 2007
VanHemlock,
Let me be the first to tell you that your understanding of US history is completely mindfucked. The US did not win the revolution by building a small colony in CA, then having the British invade there and spend the rest of the war trying to walk across the continent. Also cannons did not cost more the more we bought them.
That is all.
#11 by joe stafura on February 2nd, 2007
First of all thank you very much for the fine review Scott.
The one point that I would like to address is the statement “So how much of a GAME is this? Not much. It’s clearly an educational tool, much like Hidden Agenda was.”
While PeaceMaker is technically a “Game” it is really a different genre. We felt that price point, $20, represents value comparable to a documentary or a novel.
The commitment one makes to experience Peacemaker is smaller than the larger more complex games but we feel the effects are equally profound.
In full disclosure, I am a member of the ImpactGames team and admit that proudly.
#12 by nerd gone bad on February 2nd, 2007
Interesting attempt at a current-day Israeli-Palestinian Conflict-Fantasy Game. And it’s definitely a fantasy game because it even alludes to a possible peaceful resolution.
There isn’t and never will be an equitable nor peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
#13 by Nicademus on February 2nd, 2007
Joe thanks for the direct comment. Feel free to stick around a day or two and I’m sure you’ll get a long reply from someone on how your game sucks, the graphics are formulaic, your classes are restrictive, and you STILL haven’t fixed the deathclaw bug dammit.
#14 by Gar on February 3rd, 2007
…and how you should bring back precasting
#15 by Xuri on February 3rd, 2007
Interesting. But when is the first Middle East Online MMOG coming our way?
#16 by damijin on February 4th, 2007
>>Interesting. But when is the first Middle East Online MMOG coming our way?
Crusades MMO first. Baby steps!
#17 by Boanerges on February 5th, 2007
I hear tell that Hearts of Palestine 2 will have a 3D graphical representation of the world.
#18 by Axecleaver on February 5th, 2007
Was there an Israeli option for “Choose heinous act of aggression then hide behind U.S. ally’s apron until the whole thing blows over?” That seems to be working pretty well for Israel in the real world.
This must have been a hard game to design. There’s no way to “win” diplomatically in that region of the world. How do you design a fun single player game that always ends in loss?
What happens if you upset the UN? Do they issue you stern warnings? UN hasn’t been relevant in years.
#19 by scottj on February 5th, 2007
The main strategic problem for Israel IS actually accurate: any actions which make life easier for the Palestinians will decrease Israel defense vs terror and directly hurt popularity with the Israeli public. The opposite holds through with trying to secure the area against militants. In fact if you try to do both, both sides won’t believe you are honest/competent (hello PM Barak).
Upsetting the UN as Palestinians closes off economic aid and is easy to do (come out in favor of terror strikes). As Palestine you can get aid for your budget from Israel, Arab states, “Palestinian allies” (I assume Iran/Syria as they only aid you if you are soft on terror), the EU, the US and the UN. The EU tends to have the least strings attached, followed by the UN and finally the US.
#20 by Scorn Emperor on February 5th, 2007
If reality was a Paradox game:
Israel would just invade & annex each other nearby country, waiting about ten years between occupations for revolt-risk due to nationalism to die down. They could periodically release annexed territories as satellites to appease international concern over their growing belligerence. I’d suggest they convert the Iranian religious class into soldiers for a multi-step war against Russia, once Turkey, Romania, and Bulgaria are secure. Capture a few territories, force a peace. Wait for the peace treaty to expire…repeat. Alternatively, they could try and take Italy, but that might bring the EU into a greater war.
It might be worthwhile to send an expeditionary force into Liberia to secure access to vital trade goods, fueling the war machine.
Terrorism wouldn’t be a problem, as long as they kept their police funding slider at max. It also might make sense for them to replace democracy with a liberal dictatorship. “Bringing freedom by force of arms.” That works pretty well in Victoria: Revolutions.
#21 by blachawk on February 5th, 2007
“Was there an Israeli option for “Choose heinous act of aggression then hide behind U.S. ally’s apron until the whole thing blows over?” That seems to be working pretty well for Israel in the real world.”
You clearly don’t grasp the situation.
Frankly, the Israelis have been FAR more tolerant than many other nations would have been thus far. If Mexico was sending suicide bombers into Texas and launching rockets at Austin, Mexico would cease to exist in a matter of weeks. If Monaco decided they wanted some land back that they decided had been stolen by France and attacked, France would… well… they’d surrender. But we know what any other nation would do.
I’m not Jewish and I have absolutely no connection to Israel in terms of friends or associates. I saw Schindler’s List once if that counts as bias.
I did however, spend a lot of time in the Middle East, and listened to many an Arab tell me about his Israeli / George Bush conspiracy theories. Arabs will typically believe any outrageously ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theory as long as it stars an Israeli as the main villain. The same goes for the Palestinians. They can do no wrong, it’s all the evil Jews’ fault.
Read Arab newspapers, it’s insane babble. Every issue of any Arab paper that wants to stay in print will have a couple articles about the new evil thing the Jews are doing. Unfortunately, a lot of that has carried over into western media.
Palestinian militants hide weapon systems behind civilians, using women and children as human shields. When an Israeli bomb goes off course and kills these ‘innocent’ people it’s a war crime, a tragedy. Yet, when Hamas fires rockets specifically at civilian targets with little to no military value whatsoever, relatively little is mentioned in the papers about that tragedy.
By and large, most Arabs view suicide bombers as we viewed Mother Theresa. We knew her way was the surest path to heaven, yet we know we don’t have what it takes to sacrifice everything like she did.
Anyway to continue my rambling post… I’ve weighed the issues in my mind with as little bias as is possible for a human to have. I’ve been to the Middle East, and tried to get an understanding of the people while I was there. My conclusion is that modern Islam and Arab/Persian culture is simply incompatible with the rest of the world. Eventually, one will change or cease to exist. Will the entire world change in a bloody confrontation, or will the Middle East?
#22 by Schlecht on February 6th, 2007
The “Every Arab Is Evil, So Let’s Shoot Them” strategy has worked so well up until this point. If we rule out enslavement and nuclear apocalypse, all that’s really left is actually letting islamic countries develop themselves and hope they undergo reform.
#23 by blachawk on February 6th, 2007
“The “Every Arab Is Evil, So Let’s Shoot Them” strategy”
What are you talking about?
“actually letting islamic countries develop themselves and hope they undergo reform”
That, for the large part HAS been the strategy the west has adopted in the Middle East. Guess what, it’s not working.
#24 by brent on February 6th, 2007
> I’ve been to the Middle East, and tried to get an understanding of the people while I was there.
Given that you’re dropping terms like “Arab/Persian” in apparent seriousness, I think you should have tried harder.
#25 by Evangolis on February 6th, 2007
I can’t agree that supporting a series of authoritarian regimes who frequently put our interests ahead of those of some of their own citizens really counts as letting Islamic countries develop themselves.
To clarify, the “Every Arab is Evil, So Let’s Shoot Them” is a strategy that frequently gets proposed when I talk with my fellow Americans away from recording devices. It generally goes with misconceptions about the number of ‘Arabs’ (some may prefer ‘Islamo-Fascists’) and the cost of delivering bullets on time and target. If the advocate does recognize the cost difficulties, they generally suggest going nuclear at that point, rather than increasing taxes.
Other people, can’t live with them, can’t shoot them all. Like Randy Newman said, “Let’s drop the big one now.” (Yes, I’m being every bit as sarcastic as he was.)
#26 by Nicademus on February 6th, 2007
I think we should all follow Tom Clancy’s instruction and have Swiss Guard Peacekeepers take over the whole region and restore stability.
#27 by blachawk on February 6th, 2007
““Arab/Persian” in apparent seriousness”
Sorry, I don’t follow you. Tell us what you think you know, so I can help you.
Maybe my use of the ‘/’ confused you. I suppose it was my shorthand way of typing ‘Arab and Persian’.
#28 by scottj on February 6th, 2007
Except that Arabs are very different from Persians, in culture, language, religion, and political goals.
Thus the reaction when you conflated the two.
#29 by blachawk on February 6th, 2007
Well, no shit. Still, I don’t think I merged the two. Or if I did, that was, of course, not my intent. My observation is that both Arab and Persian culture are incompatible with that of the West. I know I spent most of my post talking about Arabs, but in many ways relevant to westerners, Persians are equally incompatible.
Just because Judy in the corner cubicle doesn’t understand basic facts about the middle east, doesn’t mean you’re the only one that does. I did spend several years of my life in Bahrain and Kuwait, as well as a memorable 6 months in Iraq. My impressions and opinions don’t come merely from books, computer games, and what the media tells me I should think.
#30 by scottj on February 6th, 2007
Whoa there, Dr. Perle, was just explaining why people jumped on that conjunction. I happen to agree with your views on Arab media scapegoating. Back down to Defcon 3 plz.
#31 by blachawk on February 6th, 2007
Yeah I know Scott. Wasn’t trying to go nuclear on you. If anything I think you give some people too much credit.
#32 by brent on February 6th, 2007
The specific thing I get eye-rolling about is when somebody tries to tell me about the 500 Million People With Exactly The Same Opinion based on their personal experiences with a small non-random sample population.
I would hardly contest that the Middle East suffers from an acute surplus of jerks in power, or that the media prints ridiculous articles to sell papers, or that blowing up civvies to make political points is completely wrong and unacceptable.
But getting from there to stuff like “Eventually, one will change or cease to exist. Will the entire world change in a bloody confrontation, or will the Middle East?” strikes me as a bozo statistical argument at best and more than a little bit of apocalyptic fanwanking. The entire world changes every freakin’ day, dude. Some people are always going to hit the ominous minor chords on the Wurlitzer about it.
Anyway, to offer my non-doomy-doom-doom prognosticaion, I think that given access to some meaningful political and economic freedom, the ‘culture’ problem in the region takes care of itself. iPods > imams. Capitalism FTW!
#33 by Walter Yarbrough on February 6th, 2007
Somewhere in the achives of ehowa.com is a great video showing the stark contrast between Israeli coverage and Arabic coverage of the same events.
I can’t seem to find it, but it certainly highlights a basic problem,
(For those looking to search, note that ehowa is nsfw)
#34 by blachawk on February 6th, 2007
“my non-doomy-doom-doom prognosticaion”
Peace dude! It’s all about, like, the love dude. Those terrorist dudes are just harshing each others’ mellow.
With any significant change there will be conflict. You might find yourself agreeing with me (or at least disagreeing less) if you didn’t take everything I said to its extreme possible meaning. I don’t think it’s going to be WW3, but if the Middle East were to begin westernizing, you will see Islamic progressives getting violent with fundamentalists and conservatives.
Anyway, your argument and reasoning are going in a circle. You’re saying that in order teach them western values you need to give them western freedoms which require western values to work. Their values/culture must change before there can be meaningful political freedom. That sort of the nature of revolution.
“I think that given access to some meaningful political and economic freedom, the ‘culture’ problem in the region takes care of itself. iPods > imams.”
Just curious, do you agree with the invasion of Iraq? Iraqis now have access to political and economic freedoms, but it’s not really working yet, is it? The country is on the verge of civil war to determine which Imam will be the next dictator. Your arguments are empirically denied, unless you are predicting some major turnaround and success story in Iraq.
#35 by VanHemlock on February 7th, 2007
@ blachawk & Nicademus:
Oh, indeed, and I tend not to offer opinions on World or American History at all, but as a youngster growing up in the UK, I certainly found the above mentioned games more interesting and memorable than anything going on in history classrooms, and I guess was tricked into learning a bit more about the background of both than I otherwise would have, by clicking into the ‘Civilopedia’ help menus of each.
I doubt I was that unique a child.