It is with some regret that I have to give this game (by a company whose Rulers of Nations I very much enjoyed) a negative review.
That comes from three main areas of failure.
1: Not actually a good depiction of US politics.
2: Not very different from Stardock's The Political Machine 2012.
3: Not very customizable.
1: This should not be surprising. Eversim is a French company and has to approach US politics from the not entirely compatible lens of French politics. This is the most visible in the Obamacare options the player can use.
Actual US politics is a battle between theories and adherents who don't always (or often) understand the theories of their political tribes. Even so, one's reception of different policies depends on a series of assumptions which are NOT UNIVERSALLY AGREED UPON. In game, Obamacare is seen as purely a good thing for health care (or those voters who care about it). Opponents of it very much dispute that medical care will improve as a result of it.
Republicans argue economic theory and the practical side of government management and argue it will not improve health care. Democrats tend to adopt the assumption that health care will improve. As you can see, a Republican voter who very much cares about health care will vote very differently from an equally motivated Democratic voter. The game does not reflect that.
The same problem shows in military and economic choices. The disagreement over theory simply is not represented in game. The game doesn't even show party membership or support for issues in states. There is simply no feel of depth to the choices in the same way one has in Rulers of Nations since there is no sign that there are different factions. The special interests are represented with mysterious donors dumping money in your lap if you support certain policies but the reality of special interests in the US tends to be that they have little money but lots of motivated activists who vote consistently.
The effort at showing "communities" (presumably another effort at modeling special interests or minority groups) seems negligible and fails to represent the inconsistent politics within those groups.
The inclusion of different kinds of ads (TV, Posters, Humans, Internet) leaves much complexity out and the simplicity adds little to enjoyment. Over the course of a real life campaign, different mediums recruit different kinds of voters (accurately mentioned for internet ads) but the inability to issue the same kind of message (without even having the most basic idea of impact) seems ridiculous.
For more influence is granted by visiting events and making some pronouncement while there (completely incredible to the media-saturated American mind).
2: So much of what exists in Race for the White House seems like a less complex and detailed version of The Political Machine (which is amazing given the famous complexity of their other games). The politicians are simply vehicles for the player and posess no special skills, aptitudes, or anything differentiate them at all (did I mention that the game seems to be based on french politics?) while the role of activists and other aspects of campaign staff are reduced to "campaign headquarters" which play even less role compared to what is in The Political Machine.
Information on states is extremely basic (with maybe some info on how many voters have drifted to or from your campaign due to whatever reasons (rumors for example). Fundraising is negligeable except for the gifts of oddly wealthy special interests. The time taken for activities is rarely given as clearly as the Political Machine. You don't get to see what voters in a state think or what their party affiliation is.
The only thing that I see Race for the White House doing better is including third parties (The Political Machine does not).
3: The Political Machine had many customization options ranging from the preferences of the politicians in question, their appearences, the length of campaign (as determined by a slider), the starting money, and the difficulty are easily and radically modified. The Race for the White House just gives you two or three options and limited pre-generated politicains. Somehow, getting to pick your photo at the end of a victorious campaign does not make up for a cardboard candidate.
The Political Machine has the possibility of randomizing states' policy preferences, wealth, and more. The Race for the White House has no such options.
Conclusion:
This is a pale imitation of the Political Machine and an embarrassment given the quality and complexity of other games Eversim has produced. Rulers of Nations has hundreds of variables and visibly active factions. Unless there are some massive updates or DLCs, it is a waste of time and money on everybody's parts.
Improvement:
Because I love Rulers of Nations (and I really hope they fix the problems playing it on Steam), I want to lay out a few areas of improvement.
1: Let players see the populations of states along with the preferred parties of the states. List how well different parties poll in the area. Playing without information is not fun.
2: Let people see what the effects of supporting one policy is before they select it. Surprise is not fun when there are extremely vague phrases used in ads.
3: Expand special interests to include activists instead of just donors. Activists make politics far, far more complex and modeling them seems very simple (just take some of the code they use to simulate campaign headquarters now).
4: Have ads designed to persuade instead of just state. Show the effects of different political theories in the game. Instead of "I know business", have "The Laffer Curve is Real" which would then shift voters views on several policy options (that could then by used to convince them to vote for you).
Policy depth:
Shallowest: "I propose lowering business taxes" or "I propose raising business taxes"
Less Shallow: "Government taxes reduce business activity" or "business activity will be increased with more government activity"
Even less shallow: "Business is a moral act" or "Business is a completely amoral act"
5: In real life, campaign staff are essential. In game, they are absent. Having some assistants' that might have an affinity for one faction or another would add far, far more complexity than exists.
6: Have some real randomness. The random events are few (I do not consider the standard campaign visits enough).
7: The mention of foreign countries is promising but unused (especially given the number of immigrants and foreign citizens resident in the US).
8: Have some customization. I might want to have very long campaigns with lots of foreign intervention, active interest groups, and no third parties. I might want a short campaign with very little political hostility and little money. All of those are possible in real life and somewhat in existing political games.
Again, it pains me to see Eversim, creator of Rulers of Nations, masters of complexity and faction, reduce the complexity of US politics to money at a time when incumbents who outspend new politicians by several multiples are voted out.
I anxiously await a patch or DLC (which should be publicized by Eversim).
