Every wondered what it's like to run McDonalds? This game is pretty fun. And a little addicting once you get the hang of it.
McVideoGame Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Damn, I thought this was spam.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Well...I guess it could be considered that. But not spam for spam's sake.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
How do you succeed at this game? Seems pointless after 15 minutes.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
Wow, this is really clever. Makes me miss playing the old Sim games.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
clever, but oh so depressing
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I haven't given McDonald's money in years.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
heh...I get the feeling someone might get sued for trademark infringement on that one...some pretty blatant statements against McDonalds' business practices in there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You don't succeed at this game. It's actually a marvel of "game balance" in a very specific way: every single mechanic is subtly (and not so subtly) slanted to make you fail.
The fodder hopper, when full, doesn't hold enough fodder to sustain a full barn of cows through one growing season; a full barn of cows is necessary to produce enough meat to consistently meet the demand of two registers. Pasture and crop fertility degrades at a rate that ultimately exceeds the value of the burgers that can be made from it, forcing you to expand your land acquisition. Employee quality will degrade faster than you can affect it by replacing them or using punishments/rewards. And, of course, even if you DO manage a few sterling seasons, management is distressingly one-note and will demand ever-increasing growth.
It's not a game as much as it's a failure simulation.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Well, I'm fairly certain this was not *meant* as a game so much as a political statement, that being that MacDonald's couldn't survive if it weren't so good at taking over large amounts of South American land for cattle, throwing in lots of "animal flour" and other crap into the fodder, bribing politicians, and other unsavory business practices (At least, that's what the game makers want people to get out of it, I think.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, I got to 2020 before a massive land fertility crunch killed me. Did anyone try crop rotation and does that recover fertility?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Crop rotation does not recover fertility. The only way to manage fertility is to maintain half of your available pasture space as unused ("sold") land; this land heals. Once the land has healed beyond 100% (i.e. has lost ALL of the off-green texture mapping on it), wait for your cows on the degraded land to mature and then buy a new pasture on the good land and sell off your old land. This has diminishing returns, but then so does every other mechanic in the game.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Interesting idea. I tried cow/crop rotation, and that burned me out. It's too bad you can't actually win this game because I was getting kinda into it (good? I do have to write my paper.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The one absolutely essential element is soy. If you run out of soy fodder, your cows will not eat. This actually reverses the growing process, and your cows will eventually starve. During that time, no cows will be slaughtered for meat and no patties will be produced -- which is, as you might imagine, ultimately disastrous.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I was able to keep things going, and even keep management happy half the time by rotating cows. With the right amount of advertising, occasional employee switches, and cow rotation, it's pretty easy to hit a steady state where everything works and you're continually making a profit.
The only thing I use that's "bad" is hormones. I also bulldozed a few squares of rainforest. Otherwise, it seems that enlightened self-interest works pretty well Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
This game seems very anti- McDonalds. I'm having a hard time believing this is actually by McDonalds, especially with the links to people who don't like them. I can't find this game on their site. I'm inclined to think this game will be gone in a few days.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
The first page of the game pretty clearly says that it is not affiliated with McDonalds.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
I first played this game over a year ago, so I doubt it will be gone in a few days.
--Mel
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Now I'm craving a Big Mac...
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I'm surprised that McD hasn't sued yet -- or have they?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
On what grounds?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
They have hundreds of lawyers who could surely find some grounds and even if the case has no basis, force the defendant to spend too much.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:The first page of the game pretty clearly says that it is not affiliated with McDonalds.
whoops. :-p
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: On what grounds?
Unlicensed use of McDonald's trademarks at the very least. But then, the game's been around for a year at least so they're probably out of the woods.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Eh, it's pretty tedious. You have to move fairly slowly and conservatively (at least, I did) in order to get the right pattern going, and then you simply build up from there.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It seems that it would fall under fair use exceptions for commentary, satire, etc.
It could also be that McDonalds is worried about the Streisand Effect.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
The people who made this seem pretty guerilla media savy, and would easy exploit McDonald's trying to sue them to hurt McDonald's even more. So its a trade off of slow but steady brand damage VS one big annoying media with potential for drawn out brand damage.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: It could also be that McDonalds is worried about the Streisand Effect.
"Streisand Effect"? Gonna have to look that one up...
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It seems like some of the land is damaged by cattle more quickly than others.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Not in my experience, Juxta. But if you put cattle back on land that says "100% fertility" but which still has some off-green texture mapping remaining, that land will very rapidly decline.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'm up to 2036, and still going strong. I did have one patch of land turn to "vacche", though, and is now totally unusable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The furthest I've ever seen someone get was 2052.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hell, I got to 2101. Really once you get a rythm going you can walk away or tab out ignore it for awhile, which is what I ended up doing. I had over $200,000 and was steadily growing. Eventually just for comparison I opened up a new game to be able to compare the 'fresh' land for when I was restoring cattle pastures. The sea level had encroached quite a bit, but didn't overrun any fields.
I don't think you can ever win the game, or at least nothing happened when I got that far and still going strong. Some features seem broken or entirely useless: the merchandising tie-in form of advertising, the most expensive one, never seemed to yield any further business. Mostly because I had to have the McDonald's for the Third World ad to combat anti-globalization, and the Food Pyramid to combat obesity organizations, and the Children ad filled the gap less expensively than did the Disney one.
Some complaints are easy to resolve. Organized labor and anti-globalization problems were easily handled by the appropriate bribes. Environmentalists were handled in the same way, and Consumer groups can be handled mostly by keeping an eye on your cattle and culling the sick ones before they get butchered. But the Obesity organizations, I could almost never get them to smile.
It's a fun game to play for a little while, but there's nothing there once you scratch the surface.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
2054 with $100k+ and I'm giving up. The game just becomes monotonous after a while.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah...I'm trying one last experiment: will the sea levels rise if I cut down zero rain forest? (I haven't). Although now it's even more boring, so I'm hearing moos while I'm elsewhere, heh. $150K in 2026. I had to buy out San Jose,of course.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. How were you guys managing to maintain an exponential level of growth in order to satisfy management? Back when I played the game, they would expect exponential annual growth, and would fire you after the third year without it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I never satisfied management. That requirement must've changed. Even with 300K plus when I quit (sea level didn't rise) they were still clamoring for growth, despite it trending steadily upwards for decades. The only time I was ever fired is if I went in the hole over 30K.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Yeah, I had the same experience as Rakeesh. As long as I kept it above -30k, they let me continue. Granted, I only dipped into negatives the one time in that final run, but they just were never happy with the growth rate.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm almost certain it's a design feature, too. With only three registers, lines maxed out, and costs at an absolute minimum by keeping an eye on how the company is viewed and adjusting 'lobbying' expenditures accordingly, growth is still unsatisfactory.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hrm. They definitely changed that element of the game, then. Perhaps the new motto is "ignore management's demands for growth and you'll be fine." Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
What do you do when it says the cistern is full?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, you either sell a soy field or convert it to cattle pasture, since the soy never ever goes bad. Or if you're using gene modifications, or hormones, or animal flour, etc. etc., stop using those since it'll decrease the number of complaints you get.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
2131, my reign ended while I was in the shower. Same with Rakeesh, went on for a while without my needing to tend it, it doesn't seem like it matters if you keep workers happy or not and after destroying all the land for fun the shooter kept spewing burgers for ages, thought it was a glitch. Though eventually they ran out and profit crashed and died. Getting far doesn't feel all that rewarding either, kinda icky even. Very interesting project.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)