Pro Philosopher 2: Governments & Grievances Steam Charts & Stats

peak sequel to a peak game, 10/10

If you liked Pro Philosopher, you will probably like the sequel. For me the biggest problems was getting use to new art style, which is good, but characters also seem noticeably different from the first game. Also Socrates Jones sadly takes the backseat and Ari does all the debating. The philosophers have strong personalities like in last game and their ideas are examined well in the short time given. 5 hours is not long time even examining one thinker, but when you have half-a-dozen, only core things can be shown. Considering all this the game achieves everything that is sets to be doing. 10/NONSENSE! More spoilery section starts here: Machiavelli: It would have been interesting to see his ideas as depicted in his Discourses on Livy. He seems lots more reasonable and not fan of tyranny like in Prince. It is however understandable that he is depicted as edgy teenager, as that is how he is known. Machiavellianism or political realism is still living ideological movement. Most famously maybe seen in opinions of Henry Kissinger. It was important for the game to show at least one person that debated against ethical governance. Fanon: Fanon was a weird pick, as I felt that his thinking was not really connected to the conversation at hand. No one is gonna debate that colonial government is a good way of governing. His chapter doesn't really answer the question on what is a good goverment. However I liked him as I had never heard about him. I was especially interested on his opinions of urban vs rural. Rawls: I would have been more interested on the examining veil of ignorance. Big problem for me has always been that people act lot on principle and not on direct self interest. Practicing Catholic has very different opinion on abortion compared to feminist activist. I think that even under the veil of ignorance their opinions would not change, as they would choose based on principle, not on self interest. Plato: I liked how this game had a more modern depiction of Platos Republic. It felt realistic modern remake of the old ideas. Really felt the right way to end the game. On what we didn't have: The game however was left lacking on nationalistic and far-right thinkers. This felt weird as nearly all modern states are nation-states. We had time to examine Nozic an ancap thinker, which ideology is as fringe it can get, but not time for Hegel and his followers? Far-right nutjobs like Evola could have also been interesting. Maybe this just seems weird to European and the chosen philosophers in game are logical to American. It welt weird that the joke achievement is called: Still No Nietzsche, when much more importantly: Still No Hegel. Well there is a reason why we speak about Continental and analytical philosophy. German idealism is not very interesting talking point to analytical philosopher. But this is just nippicking. All of you did a great job on game and hope to see something like this more in the future!

If you like the first game, you'll love his one even more! The art is better, the humor is more polished, the characters are more likable and have more depth, etc... The game gives you a nice sample of a wide variety of political philosophies and their potential flaws. It's like a crash course but as a game, which I feel like is more helpful as it's fun and interactive. Every chapter is fun to follow and includes some bonus history of some of the historical figures. I had no idea that it was historically unclear whether Machiavelli had written "The Prince" as a "guide" or a satire. After that chapter, I went online to look into it, and many reputable sources bring up this question too: That he was a man who wrote using sarcasm, direct language, and dry humor. I really liked his statement at the end, that whether or not his writing was a piece of warning or advice, all that matters now is that that is what he is known for now, and his ideas have had real-world effect on history. I suppose it's the same thinking as "The Death of the Author", where the story/ideas you present are up for the reader's interpretation, and are no longer under the control of the writer's intent. The implication that the "Machiavelli" we see here isn't the real man himself, but more "the idea of Machiavelli" essentially stuck "playing the part" like an animatronic or a computer program, was really fascinating to see (and may have pulled on my heartstrings a fair bit). It also explains how a philosopher can be trapped in a realm full of other philosophers to debate with eternally, and still never change their opinions. For if you change your stance, you're no longer "that idea" and will likely disappear. (I'm almost certain that I'm overthinking it, but where else is a better place to overthink, than in a philosophy game?) I haven't finished the game yet but I'm enjoying it a lot and I'm genuinely surprised that the review scores aren't higher.

I couldn't suggest a game more I myself am very interested in political philosophy. I went in a bit apprehensive but came out smarter and with a list of new people to study. Game really challenged my ideas by giving multiple very good view points with their benefits and flaws and gave me names of cool philosophers to study it is a must play.

It's a great game, mostly non-serious debating with good stories and dialogue. Higher production quality than it's predecessor with more dialogue between debates. Do absolutely play part 1 first, if you found glaring issues with that one, they most likely won't be fixed for this one. Great music too. Best game released in 2024 in my opinion.

This game was a little disappointing to me. It's a copy of the original Pro Philosopher with a slightly improved dialogue system, a new set of philosophers, and a slightly larger frame narrative. It has similar problems to the first one. [list] [*]If someone is arguing with you, the structure of the game means that they're inevitably wrong in some way. It doesn't feel right to have the outcome of a debate be predetermined. [*]Philosophers only argue with the player, not with one another (except for a pair of contemporaneous Americans, which is probably the best part of the game). Although they've ostensibly been hanging out with each other for centuries, none of them seems to have changed or grown in that time. [*]The game's ultimate thesis about government comes down to 'educate people in philosophy so they can discharge their civic responsibilities wisely', which seems like a bit of a cop-out. [*]The frame narrative feels almost superfluous, and most of the characters feel like caricatures rather than real people with complex motives. [/list] It has some good moments and funny jokes, but it's pretty much just edutainment that serves as an introduction to a few different philosophers. I feel bad about being harsh to a game with such an earnest tone, but there's not too much meat on its bones, in my opinion.