That's sorta my point, it shouldn't be seen as a start. We can agree that the AfD would be an immediate loss, they would make things immediately worse and the country would very quickly decline for everyone but the elite who would be insulated from their own policies.
I need people in Germany to see the CDU as a slow loss, because they make things worse at a slower time scale, and the country will continue to decline under their guidance for everyone but the elite who will benefit from their policies.
The AfD losing is good. The CDU winning over the AfD winning is better. But both scenarios are still a loss, and they are the signals that the system is organically producing worse results and it'll continue to increase the magnitude of those poor results until we improve the system.
The CDU should barely be considered a win in Germany. They pave the road that the AfD will walk down. Conservatives make everything worse and fascists thrive in poor conditions.
Someone put out a patch for the Arc Raiders tech test and it allowed me to play after only the first launch day. Very grateful to the steam/arc team that did that - was a great game experience.
I assumed pretty immediately upon hearing him in a couple of interviews that he was exactly this right winger camoflaughing as a centralist. I gave the game the benefit of the doubt because I hadn't seen any hard evidence but I'll stop talking kindly about the game based on this info.
Politics is how we organize our society. Most of everything is political. When society starts organizing movements against groups of people, stripping away rights, and generally being Nazis you have to get more political to stop them. Taking no position is taking a position. Join the rebellion or support the empire, there is no in-between.
That's a stupid comparison and I think that's self-evident. I'm not interested in having a conversation about this with the quality of output you're displaying. I hope this does as well as it deserves and that you're getting paid upfront.
A social media platform advertising to "centralists" or the anti-modding crowd is actually advertising to the right wing crowd and likely the worst of them.
This sounds like truth social but instead of being pro-republican it's just pro-hatred, misinformation, and extreme takes.
Seems like the opposite of what an educated (or intelligent) and good person would want.
Unfortunately, the snippet from the Wikipedia article you quoted exactly exemplifies my understanding of the genre tags and how I've seen them used since I was old enough to get on the Internet and read such things.
Zelda has, for me, always been an action adventure game. I don't think I'd called Zelda breath of the wild an RPG game or an ARPG game but that's because the item portion of the game felt incomparable to a game like Witcher or Diablo where every piece of your character is an item that can be upgraded.
That being said, I'm not exactly the biggest Zelda fan and BotW was like 10 years ago for me.
I guess I haven't heard Souls-Like or games like Zelda or Witcher 3 (what I'd call Action Adventure I guess or RPG) called an ARPG although they fit the name well enough that maybe I have and today I'm falling on the other side of a fuzzy line.
Yes, I was referring to Diablo, PoE, Last Epoch, and the rest of the "looter" ARPG's or what I'd just call ARPG's. Maybe this is why the Diablo-like meme came up? To further drill in to the genre.
I'm waiting for their multiplayer patch to play the game in full but I enjoyed the combat in the first 10 minutes and an excited to play it. ARPGs need to evolve past the idle games most of the current popular ones devolve into.
You're saying a large complex issue has many ways of tackling it to improve it? And that some random 3 paragraph response suggesting we improve the system by trying anything isn't a full write up on the exact policy choices we should implement down to the letter of the law?
/s
Yes, obviously improving wages would help people afford things. Yes, helping construction workers improve their process would help make housing costs cheaper. There's a thousand easy to implement ideas that would help the problem. ONE of those is "don't treat housing like an investment vehicle akin to stocks". Housing should be for housing, not for the wealthy to make a steady stream of income off of relatively poorer people. Landlords serve no function except for in a society where owning and trading homes is an expensive, slow, and bureaucratic process. Landlords are simply a means for money to transfer from the less wealthy to the more wealthy. They are an unnecessary cost that inflates the price of housing to the benefit of an extremely small number of people.
To be extremely clear, this is not the only solution. This may not even be a silver bullet. I am not listing the 1000 page legal proposal you can implement in your country tomorrow. My goal is to simply shift the common perception of landlords from "they totally have to exist and wow I love giving them money every month for absolutely nothing - boy owning things sure seems like a burden, thankfully I'll never have to worry about that because I couldn't afford to own something even if I wanted to" to "of course landlords are bad for society." Or even "landlords are by and large capitalistic parasites that slow progress towards a more equitable society by draining people with less wealth of their means of becoming wealthy. Society doesn't need them, even if you can think of reasons to have temporary housing there are better means than some rich person raising the rent every year on you."
Sure, we can allow some small percentage of the overall housing to be owned by businesses whose sole purpose is providing a good rental housing experience for those in transit. But that's fundamentally different than parasitic landlords whose only job is owning a property and periodically scheduling the cheapest maintenance workers to do actual work they can.
This isn't your governments legislation branch, I'm not proposing a 100 page documentation. I'm simply suggesting a policy direction which is housing should be for housing, not for investment or for rent collection. If someone makes money off of someone they should provide a meaningful service and I think if housing wasn't an investment vehicle the entire system would look so radically different people can't imagine what a system without some landlords existing would look like.
Imagine everyone owned their house, it wasn't expensive, selling one was like selling a car, but you could sell to the government if need be at no meaningful loss and the government sold them back to people like a service for just such a situation.
We need to ban (or tax out of existence) the concept of owning a house you don't stay in. Landlords should be illegal, what value they provide to society is so marginal and so minimal that it would be an overwhelmingly net positive.
That tackles one of the largest worries against a universal income.
Ya, happy to spread the word! I was hesitant for a long while for the same reason but then Steam Deck happened and I looked into it more and BAM here we are. It's one of the more hopeful changes in this tech landscape - the growth of open source and/or free software that's often equivalent to the paid software.
I know you're getting a ton of replies already, but I switched to Arch Linux two months back or so and I just want to say nearly every game I've tried works great out of the box, a handful of games required me to go to my steam settings a flip a switch or copy and paste something from protondb, and no games have failed to work.
Gaming on Linux is so good that you end up flipping one switch in steam and get nearly perfect performance (with most games running identically or better than they did on Windows for me). It's been such a surprise, I just played the Arc Raiders technical Alpha and I thought for sure Linux would fail me then. And it did. For the first day, then on the second day they patched proton and the game and I played all week and weekend with zero issues. It was fantastic!
I would highly encourage any gamer who's thinking about switching to Linux but worried their games won't work to not worry as much. Check protondb for your favorites, but you can safely assume most game work out of the box.
I'm struggling a bit with what you're asking for but here's what I think you're asking for. You brought up two worries with Arc
longterm gunplay
meta progression
I think gunplay is at a really good point systems-wise in Arc. I think at this point the important long term factors are balance and variety. Balance is anyone's guess in any single game or with any single company, sometimes they get close at the start and just make nothing but bad calls from then on like in Helldivers 2. So no comment on Arc's long term balance but I'd give them no worse odds than Bungie to fuck that up - and based off the technical alpha feedback Arc is in a great place in terms of balance and Marathon is most definitely not.
Variety is an easy solve with extraction shooters in my opinion because you can control so many variables. You can have a busted gun but it's ammo or durability decay is so large you only use it one run per find, you can make it a legendary drop, you can make it only good against players or only good against bots, etc. There's a lot of factors in what makes a gun good when an economy and RPG elements are brought in. I imagine if they released a new gun every season or every 6 months or released a set of consumables and legendaries the variety would be maintained for a decade. Again, because there's a bigger PvE emphasis in Arc than in Marathon from what we've seen, I'd bet Arc is able to keep things fresh for longer. Imagine a Javelin in Arc - it sucks against players but it crippled the Queen, that's cool as hell and reasonably feasible. Marathon screams Apex gun design and I think Apex didn't do a good job with their gun pool - every expansion felt like it hurt the pool instead of making it more diverse IMHO but that could have also come down to balance - I suspect marathon will be the same.
Meta progression is easy. Arc has a skill tree that I like (although it's missing details which I think is important) and bench upgrades (and maybe vendor levels?). They also have battlepasses but this is actually a negative for me, I think current battlepass design sucks even if they're going with the friendlier Helldivers style passes. They're just boring. Still, more little "achievement" targets and rewards.
Those have been very compelling. Marathon has quests for a half a dozen vendors. I believe that's it. I don't recall a skill system, I don't recall bench upgrades, just quests. I like the aesthetic, and I don't really mind it all being just quests but between the lack of personalization in meta progression AND the fact it's a hero shooter the game lacks the golden itch of individuality that I love when games have. I think marathon has significantly worse meta progression today AND I don't think they've promised to make it better. That's super important to me. Hunt Showdown is a great game but it's lack of meta progression has made it feel shallow for me. Marathon, I imagine, will feel the same way.
Again, this comes down to Arc being good to go today with systems I can dream about them expanding. Marathon isn't accessible outside the US right now and I imagine even if I could play it it wouldn't feel even close to a finished project - and with a bunch of corpos making promises to the cameras my gut says if the game is good it'll be in a year or two and even then it'll be corporate good and not artist good.
That's sorta my point, it shouldn't be seen as a start. We can agree that the AfD would be an immediate loss, they would make things immediately worse and the country would very quickly decline for everyone but the elite who would be insulated from their own policies.
I need people in Germany to see the CDU as a slow loss, because they make things worse at a slower time scale, and the country will continue to decline under their guidance for everyone but the elite who will benefit from their policies.
The AfD losing is good. The CDU winning over the AfD winning is better. But both scenarios are still a loss, and they are the signals that the system is organically producing worse results and it'll continue to increase the magnitude of those poor results until we improve the system.