The Political Machine 2024

About

"The Political Machine 2024" is a political strategy game that allows players to run for President as existing candidates or their own creations. Its powerful simulator, praised by news outlets for accurately predicting past elections, features meticulously researched political issues and demographics. The game offers nuanced approaches to both Democratic and Republican ideologies.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

75%

Audience ScoreBased on 189 reviews

gameplay6 positive mentions

monetization6 negative mentions

The game features a robust character customization system, allowing players to create unique candidates and explore various political strategies.
The addition of primaries and a card system adds depth and variety to gameplay, making it more engaging and strategic.
Overall, the game is fun and enjoyable, especially for those who appreciate political simulations and enjoy playing with friends.

The game lacks significant innovation compared to previous versions, feeling more like a minor update than a new installment.
There are numerous bugs and issues, including problems with multiplayer functionality and AI difficulty, which can lead to frustrating gameplay experiences.
The absence of third-party candidates and a detailed electoral map detracts from the overall realism and depth of the political simulation.

gameplay
23 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
26%
61%
13%
The gameplay has received mixed reviews, with some praising its addictive loop and the variety of candidates available, while others criticize it for being uninteresting and lacking interactivity. Although it offers some new mechanics and improvements over previous versions, many players feel it still falls short in depth and balance, particularly regarding the debate and political action mechanics. Overall, while fans of the series may find enjoyment, newcomers might struggle to engage with the gameplay.
- “Fun gameplay; would probably be great in multiplayer.”
- “On one hand, it retains that simple yet addictive gameplay loop that made the original so charming, with its lighthearted take on the often heavy subject of politics.”
- “There are also so many base candidates in the game, and over 200+ custom candidates in the Steam Workshop, leading to endless gameplay opportunities.”
- “I also feel like some of the mechanics have worsened.”
- “Unfortunately at the moment, there isn't very much to actually do, and the gameplay isn't terribly interactive, so I hope that they add more to it later (maybe something like what 2016 did where you ran against multiple past presidents) so it has more replayability.”
- “Overall if you're hoping for something that is a satire board game or you're a fan of the series you might like it but as a newcomer to the series it failed to hook me with a mix of both overly complicated and simple mechanics.”
graphics
6 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
50%
50%
The game's graphics feature a charming bobblehead aesthetic that complements both pre-made and custom characters, adding depth to the overall experience. While the visuals may initially seem simplistic, they are effective enough to ensure smooth performance on a variety of devices, including lower-end PCs and the Steam Deck. Overall, the graphics are functional and contribute positively to the game's appeal.
- “I thought I wasn't going to like it, but something about the visuals and the concept forced me to buy it on sale.”
- “The bobblehead aesthetic fits nicely with both pre-made candidates and custom characters, allowing for some interesting appearances and policy choices.”
- “The graphics are enough for it to run well on most PCs and laptops; I'm pretty sure even the Steam Deck would be able to run this.”
- “Good example of don't judge a book by its cover; this game has some decent depth despite what the visuals may indicate.”
- “The graphics are enough for it to run well on most PCs and laptops; pretty sure even the Steam Deck would be able to run this.”
- “For me personally, I have a crappy laptop, so I had to turn down the graphics a tiny bit.”
monetization
6 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The monetization aspect of the game has been criticized for feeling like a cash grab, with gameplay primarily revolving around repetitive actions such as running speeches and advertisements, fundraising, and placing headquarters. Players note a lack of distinction in advertising mediums and a limited influence of TV ads, which only affect specific areas rather than having a nationwide impact. Overall, the monetization strategy seems to prioritize financial gain over engaging gameplay.
- “Feels like a cash grab.”
- “And most importantly, TV ads only influence certain areas instead of nationwide.”
- “Additionally, the distinction between TV, radio, and newspaper ads is now gone.”
replayability
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
25%
75%
The game suffers from low replayability due to the absence of a campaign mode and limited online multiplayer options, leading to a lack of engaging content. Players feel that the gameplay lacks depth and strategy, resulting in minimal incentive to revisit the game. Many hope for future updates to enhance replay value, similar to features found in the 2016 version.
- “Unfortunately, at the moment, there isn't very much to actually do, and the gameplay isn't terribly interactive. I hope they add more to it later, maybe something like what 2016 did where you ran against multiple past presidents, so it has more replayability.”
- “Also, it doesn't have any sort of campaign mode like the 2016 version, so this game lacks a lot of substance in terms of replayability, especially since it's near impossible to find an online multiplayer match.”
- “Replay value is almost zero.”
- “It's okay at first, but I think they missed a lot of opportunities to add more strategy and replayability.”
music
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
67%
33%
Overall, the music in the game has received mixed reviews; some players appreciate its quality and integration, particularly with the jazz elements, while others feel it falls short compared to the 2020 version.
- “The music is better in this game, in my opinion.”
- “Works well with the jazz music.”
- “The cards, the music, and the complexity of this game are just not as good as the 2020 version.”
stability
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game's stability is a significant concern, with many users reporting frequent freezes and unresponsive gameplay, particularly during debates. While some players find the game enjoyable despite these issues, the prevalence of bugs has led others to lose interest entirely.
- “Lots of ruined games where it just freezes or will not allow for responses in debates.”
- “Very buggy to the extent that I just don't want to play it anymore.”
story
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
33%
67%
The 2024 version of the game is criticized for lacking a compelling story, with some players deeming it the worst in the series alongside the 2020 installment. Many feel that the game's narrative is insufficient compared to newer titles that offer richer storytelling and greater playtime for a similar price.
- “I played since the 2012 version, and I can honestly say that 2024 is the worst in the series so far, along with 2020. The price is 20€ in my country, which is outrageous for such a game compared to new titles that offer much more story and playtime.”
- “No story.”
optimization
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
150%
100%
The optimization in the game is criticized for relying heavily on RNG for debate performance, which can overshadow candidates' views and public opinion. While previous iterations had a more balanced approach with ideology trees and knowledge checks, this shift may not sit well with all players.
- “The optimization in this game allows for a more streamlined experience, making it easier to navigate complex systems and strategies.”
- “The balance between candidate performance and ideology tree management has significantly improved, providing a more cohesive gameplay experience.”
- “The adjustments made to the optimization mechanics have created a more engaging and less frustrating environment for players.”
- “It doesn't matter what your candidate's views align with or what the public's majority opinion on an issue is; you're subject to RNG on whether your debate performance goes well or not.”
- “Whereas in 2020, ideology tree balancing and candidate performance were all over the place and full of tricky knowledge checks, but that may be a sore spot for some people.”
humor
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The humor in the game is described as quirky and appealing due to its funny characters and unusual premise, though some players feel it falls short of expectations in terms of overall fun and comedic impact.
- “This game is great! Download funny characters and make them run against each other. It's a weird game, but that's what makes it great.”
grinding
1 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
300%
Players express that the grinding in the game is excessively time-consuming, suggesting that it requires an unrealistic amount of effort, akin to needing a second life to complete it.
- “You'll need a second life for grinding.”
- “The grinding feels endless and tedious.”
- “I spent hours grinding, and it felt like I made no progress.”