"Take cover! Incoming Eurasian rockets!"
This is an real-time strategy game where you fight two other world powers for control of raw materials. You must also maintain Ministry of Information bullitens informing the population of the progress of the war and the constant improvement of thier lives. If you fail to do so, a populace may become suspicious and stop working in the factories and sending their boys off to fight. This will hamper your ability to wage war.-- lawpoop, Apr 18 2005 (?) 1985 - The Day After http://www.gb64.com/game.php?id=21&d=18Land in an underground cave - on the moon. [zen_tom, Apr 18 2005] Not as I imagined from the title: a worldwide strategy war game where the aim is not victory but a non-collusive perpetual war status quo.
I like the propaganda angle, though.-- calum, Apr 18 2005 Hm, you have an interesting idea, calum. The computer would be trying to end the war somehow, right? But you have to keep it going? How would that work?-- lawpoop, Apr 18 2005 ... and no matter whether you win or lose, the game always ends with you being arrested and shot.-- moomintroll, Apr 18 2005 [lawpoop], I really just opened my mouth and let my belly rumble, there.
But thinking about it, I wouldn't have the computer trying to stop the war, per se, rather have the consuming and destructive nature of war working against you, which lends itself to fairly complex resource management style gaming (national population must be maintained, pro-war attitudes also, as well as munitions, money and all the usuals). On a straight war gaming side, I suppose the user could elect to be commander in chief and direct battles in as hands on or off a manner as he or she thinks appropriate. I just like the idea of having to engineer a respectable loss being as important a battle outcome as a resounding victory.-- calum, Apr 18 2005 There was a '1985' video game, released by the Mastertronic budget label on the C64, however, rather than even remotely capitalising on the political/psychological potential of the name, they came up with a very mediocre lander clone.-- zen_tom, Apr 18 2005 [calum] What about trying to maintain a war against enemies who will definately crush you?
OR, that the enemies also want a constant state of warfare. Wasn't that what Winston was told in the Ministry of Love? That the fighting was to use up surplus goods? There's no other way to have total control over the population than to be at war. The leaders don't want to give up power over the populace, so they want to maintain the war, but they don't want any other side to win, either.-- lawpoop, Apr 18 2005 Does this 1985 game really have anything to do with the novel 1984? Or did they just choose that as another date like 2001 or whatever? I mean for Christ sakes' they are on the moon!-- lawpoop, Apr 18 2005 I don't know, but I remember shelling out my 1.99 and looking forward to getting some real intruige and dark dystopian atmosphere - only to be very dissapointed to find cheery computer-game music and a turn-and-thrust, get-the-fuel-pods style avoid-fest. Grrr. In short, no.-- zen_tom, Apr 18 2005 [lawpoop], eh, I thought it would be more of a challenge if you were to assume that your enemies *were* hellbent on destoying you but I don't suppose it matters the intent of your enemies, if you are playing against a computer with your own specific perpetual war aim in mind. Your second paragraph pretty much sums up how I came to misconstrue your idea title.-- calum, Apr 18 2005 Great idea. The closest I've found is on the other side, with the proles. A first person shooter called Half Life 2...-- Laimak, Apr 18 2005 If there is hope, then it is in the proles.-- The Jolly Misanthrope, Jun 23 2005 I think this misses the point of 1984, which is that the war may or may not have actually been going on.-- bungston, Jun 23 2005 I thought maybe it was some Van Halen video game.-- Giblet, Jun 24 2005 random, halfbakery