so u want your choice that would be way to much effort for 5 minute game like a scenario for every option would be infinite and the point of the game is that all these choices are irrational and for comedic purposes not for you to be thinking straight which is why you cant keep the money you just have to spend it. And calling it terrible game for that is just terribble
the point of the game is anti-capitalist propaganda masked in satyr.
There are a great many obvious things you could spend stupid amounts of money on that are left out.
"Pay for the wall but not build it"
Why is that an option instead of say
"Pay for 10 years of cancer cure research"
"Donate to Mental Health Charities"
"Pay to replace the coal power industry (go green)"
Because there are plenty of things you could put but non of them are political issues the creator cares about.
It's not a game.
It's not entertainment.
It's just political satire at its usual low, short sighted, and selfish level.
If you wanted options that were irrational and fun and just about exhibing the absurd amount of money he is worth you could have options like
"Buy 181, 818 classic Rubber Ducks for $1m"
"Buy a building and demolish it for fun"
"Send free coffee to every college campus in America"
If you want to make spending an absurd amount of money fun you let people spend it on common things that are relevant to their daily lives and you show them just how many times over a person worth that much could have everything you could ever dream of wanting.
Its just political satire i dont even know if its worth debating about in comments lmao its an itch.io 1 min game
So when I play a Call of Duty game, and my only input for how to resolve a situation is shooting someone, does that mean that Call of Duty isn't actually a game, that it's just political propaganda shoving a point of view down my throat?
Or, maybe, games can both? In fact, all games ARE both! Every game has things you can and cannot do. Every game has a point of view for what is "acceptable" in a given situation. And what it determines is "acceptable" is based largely on the attitudes of the people who made it.
I made a game with the point of view that being a billionaire IS, in fact, immoral. There are no ways to play my game where this point of view is not central to its design. If you refuse to give all of your money away, you get the Bad End. The fact that my game's point of view conflicts with your politics doesn't make it less of a game, anymore than Call of Duty conflicting with MY politics doesn't make IT less of a game.
Not every game needs to align to your viewpoint. And if it makes you uncomfortable, you can stop! "Stop playing the game" is a perfectly reasonable response in this situation. There are games I've stopped playing because they pushed politics I found reprehensible; there's no reason you can't do the same. I once read a very interesting article on someone who couldn't play Bioshock Infinite because it features a baptism, and it was against the player's religion to engage in something like that -- so they stopped! It's really that simple.
You're completely welcome to make your own billionaire simulator which acts how you want it to. Try it! Twine is free and very easy to use even if you have no programming experience. I guarantee that once you get a sense of what creating a game is like, it'll change your perspective on what a game "should" be.
I make games for a living.
That's literally what pays my bills.
And frankly, call of duty is a shit franchise.
The point of my comment is to give criticism. That's accomplished. You don't have to agree with the criticism or even change because of it.
I never like when a game locks you into a single choice or force you to do something. That's why I primarily play sprawling rpg's with non linear story's and if it has multiple endings I'm all the happier.
That's why D&D still has a place in modern gaming. Because the more flexible interaction between player and dm makes the gameplay more personal.
Limiting a player's options can be an incredible tool.
It can be used to force the player to feel an emotion or make a decision they would find difficult.
But when you artificially limit the options in a scope that wouldnt normally have such limits it distances the player from their virtual counterpart. It injects a separation that is destructive to the narrative.
Well the point of the game is that no person in the world is worth that money, and also that the immense power of the wealthy to just do any shit they want with it is immoral and wrong.
If you don't think the homes of millions on Puerto Rico are "relevant to their daily lives", i don't know what to tell you. Probably that you're a laughable bootlicker.
Great game by the way, felt very good to spend this asshole's money.