Will Of The People

I figured it out. I won't spoil it for others. But very good message dude.

Interesting design choice and I did feel frustrated when I tried it for the first time. My point still stands though: I wish there was more strategic depth. Right now it's "Click 10 times on 'debate' to win. Do anything else and lose." This makes the game quite short as there is little replay value, which is kinda sad given the amount of effort and talent that went into creating it.

I'm looking forward to see your future projects.

I completed the game and I have to disagree. "to achieve and unnecessary goal"? Taking care of people is the most necessary thing in the world. Yes there are terrible ideologies and yes you need to check yourself, but governing has a purpose and society is not doomed just because it tries a certain way. Yes, talking things out can make a lot of difference, but there's two problems with that message. 

One, it assumes that there are NO terrible ideologies and all input is good. Greed exists and there are people who genuinely fully want to have theirs and fuck everyone else thereby creating the circumstances for the confusion you're implying with the loss in these games. They can essentially create this collapse of society BY debating to the ends of the world. 

Second, you seem to be unnecessarily dismissive of your peaceful options that still lead to failure in this game. Explaining yourself with "propaganda" (which is not inherently misinformation) and speeches is still engaging in a better future without resorting to the single version of a cycle of bloodshed that you're focused on. You can play the game never assassinating, never revolting, never oppressing, and continually debating when you've made sure the people agree and you're working with the, yet because you didn't solely submit to the whims of the rulers who are engaged in that exact cycle of bloodshed intentionally, you still lose. You were peaceful and genuinely interested the whole time, yet that's still inherently a loss because you did more than ask for opinions of the elite few themselves --more being asking for the opinions of the people, and educating on how things can genuinely work. 

You've (talking about the developer not the player now) essentially taken the assumption that seeking power inherently convinces you to kill people to keep it, looked only at the leaders, and decided the calmness of those leaders (the ones interested in killing to keep power for power's sake) matters more than the very real reasons people become leaders in the first place. A society that leaves each other alone without leadership (leadership is not inherently about "do what I say" and is often about "hey this is a way we can do things to do better") is a society that leaves everyone to starve and be attacked by those who don't leave them alone. When you give equal weight to those with genuine interest in harming people, you still cause the "collapse of society". I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with the premise of this game.