A city-building game in which the city would prefer you didn't
An experimental city-building game about San Francisco’s housing politics divides players over whether its dense, bureaucratic interface is clever satire or needless complexity. Some praise it for immersing you in the paperwork, delays, and neighborhood opposition that stall new housing, arguing this “friction” teaches more than a simple choice-based game could. Others see it as a missed opportunity for clearer, more accessible civic education, reflecting broader frustrations over NIMBYism, affordability, and how cities manage growth.
Game Design, Complexity, and UI
- Major split over whether the game’s convoluted UI is a flaw or an intentional commentary on bureaucracy.
- Critics argue the interface is ugly, overly complex for a one‑off “educational” game, and undermines the message; they compare it unfavorably to simpler clicker/choice games about PhDs or SWE life that are quick to grasp.
- Defenders say the complexity mirrors real-world housing bureaucracy and is more powerful at “showing” than “telling”; you are meant to feel like a bureaucrat, not a story reader.
- Some liken it (positively or negatively) to Dwarf Fortress or “Papers, Please”: niche, detailed, not designed for broad accessibility.
- There’s disagreement over whether “fighting the UI” is core to the point, or just poor design justified after the fact.
Educational vs. Simulator vs. Vibe Project
- One camp views it as an educational, throwaway game meant to be played once to convey the housing crisis; for that goal, they say, simpler systems and faster feedback would be better.
- Others see it as a simulator/toy for people who enjoy complexity and systemic exploration, not primarily pedagogy.
- Several comments suggest it is “vibe-coded” and primarily for the creator’s own enjoyment, with unclear or narrow target audience.
Housing Politics and Policy Reflections
- Discussion broadens to NIMBYism, locked housing supply, unaffordable housing, and SF’s political choices.
- Some argue old cities have a right to resist more development; others respond that this locks out younger people and fuels homelessness.
- Comparisons are made to alternative models (e.g., Singapore’s public housing), constitutional free movement within the US, and property-tax incentives that discourage selling.
- There is debate over civic engagement like citywide votes on developments: praised as democratic, criticized as tools for blocking growth beyond formal zoning.
Parallels to Broader Bureaucracy
- References to other “bureaucracy as gameplay” examples (Factorio mods, HS2 bat tunnel, fish protection measures) reinforce the theme that large projects get entangled in regulation and local opposition.
- Some find the stress and bureaucracy simulation effective and impactful; others find it off-putting or “the only way to win is not to play.”
Gameplay & Technical Notes
- Players share strategies for “winning” developer mode and maximizing units built.
- Some report mobile usability issues (popover scrolling) and annoyance with default music, though there is a mute button.