What's left when you take everything political from politics? A board game! And a bad one at that.
My friend was as wrong as one can be. And this is why:
Let's start with media aspects:
Graphics:
The graphical presentation is befitting of a board game, characters have more head than body and can be more or less customized. (They will still all look like rubber toys, but that's ok) The map most of the game happens on is obviously a map of the US, which could have featured some landmarks or stuff, but is mostly just a display of colored tiles (different styles are configurable, so as to display awareness, voters etc. in the states).
Now one should not expect much more, I guess, but it does look "simple". Not worrying about that too much tho, as it is a board game.
Audio:
Not too much to note here forgetting some horrible sounds that sometimes pop up. There's no real need for surround sound or anything, as once again: it's a board game. So I guess this is also "ok".
Gameplay:
The Gameplay is what murders the whole game (as is always the case with bad gameplay). You basically are only able to spend 41 turns touring around the state, each turn your stamina being refreshed. Now you need stamina to tour around and to do stuff. What can you do? Build HQs (mainly to raise money and get votes) and 2 other types of buildings which are used to raise the resources next to money. The first one of those resources lets you hire assistants who do all kinds of stuff for you, like helping you get votes, or slowing down your opponent. The last resource is used to "buy" the agreement of different societies and unions (female-rights, worker-rights, gun-association etc.), which will further add to your campaign.
Now if you're not building stuff, you're holding speeches/creating ads/giving interviews (all to raise votes) or you do fund raising (to get money, duh).
While this may seem like a lot to do (especially if you add to that, that each building has 3 levels and there are 3 types of adds), it is not. Any ad/interview/speech you create/give is assisted by a little window that tells you how voters will react. So if you chose to tell the public you are fond of abortion, the republican vote section will get a thumb down while the others get a thumb up. Turning that around, you can say you do not support abortions and the thumbs will turn.
And you can also do both "for" your opponent, saying he is in favor/against abortion, so that he has to suffer the effects.
What likes/dislikes the state has, can be seen when a hq is built and that will then translate into the window. (No need to study those long statistics.)
Following from that, the gameplay can be seperated into two parts:
- Build stuff and get staff.
- Say you want the economy to grow, say that other dude wants it shrink.
For 41 weeks. (During which you get an assistant-politician, doubling the fun!)
And if you win... Rinse and repeat.
Now that is so incredibly deep, it's shallow again. I won't even lie and say the game has "Potential", because it hasn't. You COULD turn politics into a board game, but you will never do it in a satisfying way. Politics ARE complicated and not really too accessible to newbies and board games can GET complicated but have to be simple and accessable at the same time. So no Union there.
And if you even want to be remotely successful, at least let it be a bit deeper than this. Monopoly is deeper than this.