Can we get more choices?

[Suzamia]

Like, the issue I had today was children gambling in casinos. My only options were to outlaw gambling for everyone or encourage the kids to gamble. Where's the middle ground option that lets me keep gambling legal but enforces an age limit with strict laws to protect the children from being suckered? I used to play around with this a long time ago and that was my only real problem with this game and why I stopped playing. Many issues have either all or nothing choices or just ignore the issue all-together, which is not really a choice at all.

[Kandarin]

Issue choices are, as a general rule, quite extreme. Taking one side or another means taking up the cause of people who have hardcore viewpoints and little respect for any alternative. Some do offer compromises, of course, but many of these are unusual, to say the least. The long and short of it appears to be that realism and political reason take a backseat here to actions that will produce funny (or at least interesting!) results.

[Todd McCloud]

Like, the issue I had today was children gambling in casinos. My only options were to outlaw gambling for everyone or encourage the kids to gamble. Where's the middle ground option that lets me keep gambling legal but enforces an age limit with strict laws to protect the children from being suckered? I used to play around with this a long time ago and that was my only real problem with this game and why I stopped playing. Many issues have either all or nothing choices or just ignore the issue all-together, which is not really a choice at all.

I understand what you mean. In real-world applications, there would be a plethora of choices to choose from (humorous undertones aside) but, being a game, there can only be so many. Still, I feel some issues could use an 'extra' choice. Perhaps this would be something the three (it is three, right?) issue editros could encourage? Only a thought, of course.

[Primorum Libertorum]

I agree that there should be extreme choices, but it is very disappointing when the game tries to push you into a certain direction not because of logical options and consequences, but out of ideology. A good solution was found for the topic of animal rights:

1.) Keep minimal or no animal rights, put economy and personal interests above.
2.) Avoid animal cruelty while allowing meat-consumption.
3.) Ban meat-eating.
4.) Tax animal suffering.

You have the two extremes, but also two moderate positions of which one is leaning more towards state interventionism, while the other one favors individual freedom. Three to five options are not too confusing, and yet they make a point. Not choosing an extreme does not mean that one has to stay neutral; the world is not just black and white, and especially politics should not be. However, it is also important to keep the extremes for various reasons.

One can also split questions into two or more. For example, I first decided about generally legalizing marijuana and later restricted its use to home, banning it from public and workplaces. That was a clever approach to that topic and makes the game deeper, since your choices don't only affect your statistics, but also have political consequences.