One of the fascinating things about an interactive piece like PeaceMaker is that it can take a life of its own. Players get positive messages you didn’t intend to convey, others try very hard to find the bias towards one side or the other. Such is the common observation of “which side is easier”. For example, we got this note from Josh Felberg:
“Something i noticed while playing through both sides is that the job of the Israeli Prime Minister seems to be much more difficult than that of the Palestinian President. Almost every action by the Israeli PM is scrutinized and complained about by either one side or the other, while the actions taken by the Palestinian President seem to generally gain support more easily.”
Interesting to compare to a blogger from a few days ago:
“Playing the Israeli side is actually pretty easy… Playing the Palestinian side, however, is all but impossible. You have no funds with which to institute policy programs or government construction. Talking peace to the Israelis gets you hated by your own people. Deploying police and attempting to arrest militants is pretty much ineffectual.”
It is all new to us, and we will be looking for answers. How come people find the experience so different? Is it related to pre-assumptions that lead the scenario in a certain direction? All I can say is that we aimed to create a realistic and balanced environment, arguably optimistic, with no intention to say that one side holds the key to a solution or that one side is to blame.