Previous Next

A game about politics, albeit based on the popular T.V. comedy series, sounds more like a potential cure for insomnia than my idea of fun. Let's have a look anyway. Yes Minister is played over a period of five days (not real time of course) and places Jim Hacker (you) in the role of Prime Minister of Great Britain. The aim of the game is to survive one week in office and remain popular.

The main screen is a scrolling representation of your office in the Houses of Parliament. This contains everything required to run a successful government. There are two telephones through which you take calls from politicians and other political figures, an intercom which lets you communicate with other people in the building, the trusty teletype which provides info on current affairs as they happen, drawers and notepads which provide details of important meetings to be attended and a safe which contains the daily results of the opinion polls (only to be opened by masochists!). There is also a door through which you attend your various appointments. You're a very busy PM, aren't you?

As for gameplay, there really isn't any to speak of. It's more of a walk-through episode of the series in which you have to make minor decisions. Despite this, it's excellent fun. The conversations that you have with your fellow politicians are intelligent and witty, the graphics are clear and use small digitised pictures of the stars of the show.

Even the telephone ringing is realistic. Cries of "Will someone answer that bloody phone?" could be heard around the CF office while I was playing. This may give the impression that Yes Minister is a stonkingly good game, but sadly it not the case. When you have played the game once, that to all intents and purposes, that's it. Even if you lose, there is no incentive to play again because the scenario remains aimost exactly the same. With many types of game this wouldn't matter (shoot-'em-ups for example) but because of the conversational nature of the game, a second playthrough can prove tedious.

Will the right honourable member please explain to the house why public spending of 2.99 is justifiable on a game which is in effect only good for a few plays? No? Then I have no option but to propose a motion of not buying the software on the grounds of wasteful personal expenditure.