Join the new world

You aren’t captivated by its hyper-realistic military module. There’s neither a pulse pounding soundtrack to draw you in, nor gripping graphics to blow you away. And yet, eRepublik is a very satisfying game to play for a great many people. By any account, it is a success. How could this possibly be?

There ought to be a good reason, and of course, there is: eRepublik provides a place for active expression, and participation, in a public world - a fundamental human desire. The games success is a compelling illustration of this - but I will go further. The most successful, enjoyable aspects of the game, are those that meet this desire, while the least enjoyable are those that stray from it. This is the underlying, yet often neglected, reason that many changes to the game have been found as less satisfying.

Not Just Democracy

By participation in a public world, I don’t mean simple democracy. Many people don’t find it hugely satisfying to vote in real national elections, for instance, because it can often feel as though the impact is inconsequential (among other reasons). Disenfranchisement grows in such conditions - this is especially pronounced in nations in the European Union. Participation in the European Parliamentary Elections has steadily declined over the years, ironically helping some groups opposed to its very existence gain ground there, as others lose interest.

A huge, multi-national bureaucracy is quite distant from the people by its very nature. If people already feel their national government is not listening to them and is unaccountable, a multi-national government will face even larger problems.

So the simple act of voting can’t be the motivating factor for eRepublik’s success - and it isn’t.



Labor, Work, Action

To help explain the sort of participation that instead is involved in eRepublik, as well as why some other aspects of the game are less satisfying, we can look briefly at some real world theory, particular that of Hannah Arendt. She built on the work of Ancient Greek thinkers, such as Aristotle, who classified humans as zoon politikon - literally, political animals. Arendt took this further in her work “The Human Condition,” categorizing human behavior in three ways: labor, work, and action.

Labor is the repetitive activities that we must do every day simply to live, such as eating, drinking, and sleeping. It is shared with all animals, and is impermanent: if you eat one day, it doesn’t mean you won’t have to eat in the future. It is just a means to an en😛 in this case, not dying.

Work is a step up from this. It involves the creation of something, for instance a tool, a public meeting place, even an institution such as a government, meant for a purpose. These are more permanent and lasting - more satisfaction can be derived from seeing a tool you invented being used, or a meeting place being utilized over time.

Finally, there is action. This is what takes place in the shared public space: not mere voting, but people coming together to express their points of view, to try and persuade others, to tell a story, to remember the past and have a chance for your actions to live on forever. Labor and work are important: if we didn’t labor we wouldn’t be alive, and therefore couldn’t work to build the public space that is then the site of action. But it is the action itself that is distinctly human.

In eRepublik

While of course Arendt was not writing about eRepublik, let’s think about how this idea could be compared to our online setting. There are actions we repeat every day: clicking to eat, clicking to work to earn money so you can buy more food, clicking to train. These are repetitive, and at the most basic level are essential to our accounts staying alive. “Two clicking” could be compared to “labor” - noone would say it is particularly satisfying, its just a means to an end.

What could be compared to “work?” There is already some shared public space in eRepublik, and institutions such as the governments. Nonetheless, people have found some enjoyment in taking it to another level: crafting new rules for their governments that are not backed by the game, but become accepted traditions. Our congress tax is a good, long lasting example. Additionally, new public spaces have been create😛 every nation has its own IRC room, if not more than one for different purposes. Creating places like this, which go on to get use, can be satisfying.

And then there is “action,” which perhaps is the clearest to compare. Just as in real life, this is what takes part in the shared public space. People have an opportunity to act in ways to make a name for themselves - and be remembered by the community - for what they do in this shared space. Most importantly, they have a real chance to have an impact. Whether it is the media module, where ideas can be formed out and expressed, and then further discussed in comments, or in IRC rooms where live discussions can occur, undoubtedly it is this expression which is the most rewarding activity of eRepublik.



Media Changes

Now let’s think about some changes that have happened to eRepublik. The media module used to be displayed on the front page - top articles in your nation would appear to you, encouraging people to participate in comments or even in writing articles. People are much more likely to write an article if they think it will be read.

But the media module is now more or less hidden away: it is much less easily accessible. It’s like moving the town square to the outskirts of the town. IRC rooms are effected by this in a way - they are advertised to new players in the media after all, but if the media is harder to find, so too will be IRC. An even worse fate befell the eRepublik forum, which simply no longer exists.

Further, this is not just at a national level - the international media (and defunct sidebar advertising) helped to foster a sense of “interconnectedness” between nations, a sort of “eglobal public square” which now too is less accessible.

War Changes

This is compounded by another change: natural enemy laws, and auto-attack. In the past, wars and battles were carefully planned by nations and alliances. Nations would launch propaganda campaigns, sides would take time to come up with their own casus belli and justification. Each battle would be opened by the President as a part of the strategy.

This “work” could be rewarding, as the efforts go to build larger nations, or strengthen alliances. And it would of course fuel “action” - the debates and discussions about the justness of wars, the soundness of strategies.

With natural enemy laws - which have all but supplanted actual war declarations - wars have changed in character considerably. Often you will see nations go to war simply to achieve the training bonus, or more often even than that, rogue congress proposals for a natural enemy for this reason. Wars have become less associated with strategy, and more with the lowest, least satisfying aspects of eRepublik, “labor.” Battles no longer even need a conscious thought to open them: they open automatically, and are repetitive. Formerly an expression of something more, it becomes subjugated to almost an animal necessity. Regions are conquered and RW'd so frequently, it becomes a blur.

Where once there might be quiet, to better appreciate sound, now there is a constant noise from which little can be distinguished. Is it any wonder it has become less satisfying?



Participation

eRepublik has never been perfect - but it hasn’t needed to be. It captures a very compelling idea in a way that other games fall short or don’t even bother, and naturally excels as a social game, if not a strategy game, or economic game. Whether they knowingly attempted this or merely stumbled on it doesn’t matter - the shared public space in the game, and the opportunity for people to meaningfully participate and be seen, is its driving force.

The administration of the game would do well to think about how they can best utilize this; but we would do well, too, to be thankful at least for this. It’s a compelling experience despite the bugs and detrimental changes, because of the room it leaves us to create and express ourselves. While they can learn some, maybe we can all learn some too - some day applying these principles to our lives, impacting change for the better through action in our public world.