A few commentators sum this one up well:
"What an awful game. Slowly make arbitrary choices about contentious issues in a way that has nothing but an opaque relationship to the outcome of the game."
- Metafilter Commentator A
"What an awful game. Slowly make arbitrary choices about contentious issues in a way that has nothing but an opaque relationship to the outcome of the game.
Just like the real bailout! However, ironic statements and fun games don't always coincide."
- Metafilter Commentator B
"It's games like this that make me wonder if I should give up tracking them entirely."
- Ian Bogost
All that said, this game executes really well on style, with banjo music and over-the-top satirical writing delivering a vaguely punk take on the whole cluster-fuck. The gameplay suffers from too much simplicity and mechanical opacity. I don´t like a game to tell me "bad idea" when I make a choice to let a whole sector fail; just because my strategy goes counter to the designer´s particular ideology doesn't mean the game should overtly punish it. Or if it does, it should do so in a way that's elegant and consistent with some underlying algorithm. Mathematical feedback loops can be much more persuasive than direct textual admonishment, a lesson these guys don´t seem to have considered, or perhaps rejected in favor of an easier press-package. The game has done quite well in the regard, as a quick search will reveal.
It's worth a few minutes, but don't let it fool you into thinking that a rich, subtle, multifaceted take on the current collapse of Ponzi capitalism isn't possible. If anything, this game reinforces what Jonathan Blow said, that we need to abandon the message-as-meaning model if we´re going to fully utilize game design. That said, it's ok to load your subtext with a twisted style that tastes of delicate bias. Cases in point, Oligopoly and Raid Gaza!