Well, as the the title in this thread suggests - it's going to be about a simulator idea that will be controversial.

Heck, it might even spark a debate on this very thread.

Obviously, you may be wondering, "what is this simulator about?' well, I'll tell you: a Cult Simulator.

Yep, you saw it right - a Cult Simulator. I personally think that this is an interesting concept that will bring a new light to the simulator genre.

Of course, I'll be hearing from the opposite side of the debate soon.

So, for those of you who have managed to read this far, here are the gameplay mechanics:

• When you start a new game, you can customize the player's and the cult's attributes - player e.g. intelligence, creativity. cult e.g. rules.
• Create ranks for the cult
• Once your cult grows, it begins to gain media attention - e.g. cops will go after it, religious institutions will ban it, etc.

So, what do you think? Please give feedback in the comments below!

I could see this going in two radically different directions. The first would be to focus on humor and parody, poking fun at cults, playing up caricatures and stereotypes. The second would be more serious in nature, allowing a player to explore the social dynamics, psychology, and ethical issues surrounding cults (possibly with or without trying to send a particular message).

I imagine that the game mechanics, aesthetics, and marketing would all be heavily dependent on which of these routes you were meaning to pursue. There might be some other options too, which would likely have similar effects on the production process. My biggest warning is to not get stuck in between two or more substantially different routes, because then it won't be clear what you're trying to achieve with the game, what type of experience you're attempting to generate among your audience (or even who your target audience is).

I could see this going in two radically different directions. The first would be to focus on humor and parody, poking fun at cults, playing up caricatures and stereotypes. The second would be more serious in nature, allowing a player to explore the social dynamics, psychology, and ethical issues surrounding cults (possibly with or without trying to send a particular message).

I imagine that the game mechanics, aesthetics, and marketing would all be heavily dependent on which of these routes you were meaning to pursue. There might be some other options too, which would likely have similar effects on the production process. My biggest warning is to not get stuck in between two or more substantially different routes, because then it won't be clear what you're trying to achieve with the game, what type of experience you're attempting to generate among your audience (or even who your target audience is).

Thanks! That's very good insight, and I could see myself (and the other person whom I'm working with) go the more serious route.

If you (or anybody else, for that matter) wants to see more technical details of this project, then here you go:

• It's going to have ASCII graphics
• Perspective is going to be top-down
• Programmed with Python

You could also implement it so that the player is not the leader, but the very idea itself.

So it doesnt matter if groups of people claiming to be the cult all die, as long as the idea survives (if your idea bans internet, it might make your cults more resistant to its members becoming sane, but it might not spread so well, etc)

Ofc it could be interesting if you can directly control the leaders or whatever (maybe the idea is so ingrained in them, you have direct control)

Do you hope to avoid these stereotypes to ensure gameplay lasts a reasonable amount of time?

yes, of course I do, but I'm not really sure how to.

You could also implement it so that the player is not the leader, but the very idea itself.

Although it seems interesting, I'm not sure how that would work.

yes, of course I do, but I'm not really sure how to.

You could also implement it so that the player is not the leader, but the very idea itself.

Although it seems interesting, I'm not sure how that would work.

It could play just like it would if you were the leader, but doesn't have to end when that leader dies off. In civilization games you control a civilization for like 6000 years, but there's no story about you being immortal or anything. It could be included if you want a bit of sci-fi/fantasy in the game, but it doesn't really need to be addressed. You just do what works for the game, and if you don't explain how they can continue spreading a cult after it's leaders are gone, the player will make up whatever they want to explain it.

It seems like the idea could be at least as popular as pandemic. Definitely needs some humor in the design.