Tbh, at that point you can just drop the ranked choice and go with a regular proportional system.
It’s just trying to shoehorn proportionality into ranked choice.
Another option is to send at least one representative from each party and weight their voting power based on the popular vote. But I haven’t seen that implemented anywhere so far.
So, when I mention the Assassin’s Creed / Far Cry / GTA triangle I really mean to say the poor imitators of those games.
That only happened in the 2010s. That’s when the Ubisoft formula really took off. Assassin’s Creed 1 was only released in 2007, Far Cry 2 in 2008 (FC1 was a quite different game). GTA also only started to get imitated in the 2010s.
Open World in that sense (non-scripted encounters that can be approached from many different angles, with a “living” world) only became a thing in the late 2000s, precisely because of games like Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry 2.
I remember reading a pre-release article about Far Cry 2 in a game magazine, where were all hyped about the many different ways a player could take out an enemy camp, e.g. go in guns blazing, or set a fire that would spread to the camp, or startle wild animals which then would stampede through the camp.
While I do get your point about hand-crafted deterministic enemy placement, it’s just two different kinds of approaches that work for different players.
When you say “dumbed-down”, I understand you mean that the difficulty was too low, is that correct? While some players love or even need punishing difficulty levels, others play for other reasons. (Maybe check out the Bartle taxonomy of player types. It’s a bit outdated, but it shows some of these different reasons quite well.) If you want to just kick back and relax after a hard day of work, punishing difficulty might not be the right thing. Some players want to have to learn (or even memorize) levels/bosses/encounters and repeat them repeatedly until they know exactly which button to press when, and that’s fine. For others that’s just tedious busywork, everyone’s different. I quite enjoyed Far Cry 2 and its random encounters and having to adapt to different scenarios all the time.
I haven’t played the rest of the games you list, so I can’t offer an opinion on them, though I have heard that KOTOR was very good.
Forgive me for saying that, but it’s quite harsh to call a whole decade of games uncreative if you haven’t played a lot of the greatest and most creative games of that time.
To get back to the original point:
20 years ago people were complaining about the same lack of creativity in the AAA scene, saying that gaming was better in the 90s. In fact I remember it was a common talking point that AAA gaming had gotten so bad that there would surely be another crash like the one in '83.
That was in the 2010s, not in the 2000s. In the 90s, game development was pretty much completely low-budget, with games rarely having more than 5 programmers on staff, and maybe 5-10 content creators. In the 2000s games started getting bigger, but the studios were still led by game developers, not by finance dudes. Budgets were still not nearly where they are today. Assassins Creed 1, for example, had a budget of $20mio. Compare that to e.g. the $175mio that AC Valhalla cost to make. And AC1 was comparatively expensive back then.
It was only in the 2010s when finance really got into gaming, budgets ballooned and risks were lowered to nothing.
It’s an old, outdated joke, that wasn’t funny 17 years ago and hasn’t gotten any better in the time since.
You have to be pretty brain dead to think that repeating the same lame joke for 17 years would make it any better.
It’s still a winner-takes-it-all system, just on a lower scale. The UK has a similar system, but it still means that if you are living in a district/county/… with e.g. 70% of the people voting for party A, then your vote doesn’t count.
Ranked choice at least favours compromise candidates over extreme candidates, but it still discounts most of the votes. Same as with FPTP, a ranked choice system with districts mean that most votes won’t count and gerrymandering or accidental grouping of voters means that even a party with low popular votes can score much higher than they should.
Ranked choice is only good if the outcome of the vote can only be a single choice. E.g. “which of these 5 mutually exclusive proposals should be implemented” or “who should be the one singular person occupying office X”. And for these choices, having districts can actually cause even more harm than good, as seen e.g. in the USA.
If you can have a system where a plurality can be in government and where every seat in parliament actually matters, than ranked choice is just as bad as FPTP.
For example, have a look at the 2025 elections in Australia:
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Australian_House_of_Representatives_election)
In the primary vote, Labour and Coalition were almost head-to-head (<3% difference). In two-party preferred vote, the difference was bigger, but still not a lot (55% vs 45%). But Labour got more than twice as many seats as Coalition.
That’s massively skewed. Even though the difference is tiny, Labour got almost a 2/3 supermajority.
In a more proportional system, Labour would have had to form a coalition, potentially even with two other parties if they wanted to avoid a coalition with the Liberal National Coalition. But here they are really close to being able to push through constitutional changes without help from another party.
Oh, totally, no dispute there.
As Legaleagle put it in their most recent video: At that point it becomes logical to resist arrest, to run or to fight.
Loss is the lamest, most boring joke around. Anyone still posting loss memes deserves an “ok boomer” by now.
Loss must be the lamest meme around. It wasn’t great in the beginning and it only went downhill from there.
Anyone still posting loss jokes deserves an “OK boomer” by now.
Statistically, there are more than enough people who voted for Biden and then for Trump 2.
Yes, that was what I was going for. The really big issue with FPTP systems, especially hard ones like the US is that they create two-party systems which are incredibly undemocratic.
Third parties just can’t exist, because they split the vote for your side, so the only choice you have if you are unhappy with your party is to not vote or vote for the other party, and all that does is benefit that other party you’d be even more unhappy with.
You know, kinda like one might think Harris isn’t left enough, so they end up helping Trump to power.
But what’s even worse is that the elected president only ever represents close to 50% of the population, and he’s close to all-mighty and can do whatever he wants without anyone really checking him.
In better systems coalitions between major parties form, and they represent a much bigger slice of the population, and they keep each other in check, having to compromise to not risk blowing up the coalition. And better systems also have a stronger and more living constitution. One that gets updated more frequently, and that has to be updated more frequently because it includes more details. Since constitutional changes then require a larger supermajority (e.g. 2/3 or 3/4), the governing coalition needs to take the needs of the opposition into account as well, because they need their votes when a constitutional change is required.
For example, the US has had 27 constitutional amendments (10 of which happened within a year of the constitution being created, they were basically 0-day-patches) over the last 236 years.
Austria has had about twice as many within the last 70 years.
I think your perception might be 10 years off.
Assassins Creed 1 came out in 2007, less than 20 years ago. It was mindbogglingly fresh and innovative back then. An open world where you can’t just run anywhere you want, but also climb anywhere? And your character dynamically climbed up walls, finding places to hold onto everywhere? That was amazing back then. It was the first game that even attempted anything like that, and it was really, really good. AC only became lame when they started doing the same over and over again with little change.
Similar story with Far Cry. FC1 came out in 2004, only FC2 was also released in that decade (2008). Both FC1 and FC2 were doing something new, fresh and genre-defining. Looking back from now, yes, these games look like everything else that followed it, but because these games defined it.
But in this decade we saw a lot of other genre-defining games, like Warcraft 3 (2002/2003), WoW (2004), KOTOR (2003), Bioshock (2007), Crysis (2007), Fable (2004), Batman: Arkham Asylum (2009), Portal (2007) and also a lot of AAA flops that happened due to too much experimentation and shooting for the stars, like Spore (2008).
And most of the games I listed above don’t have a piss filter.
Ranked choice is nice, but why not just have an actually democratic system with coalitions? No need for a single winner.
That guy is saying it: https://lemmy.world/post/31562244/17770374
(Or actually, they are saying Harris is worse.)
I have heard the same stance often enough to definitely be able to say, “no one ever says that” is not correct. There are more than enough idiots who do say that.
Or still thinks that the leopard won’t eat their face, because it hasn’t so far.
You know what Hitler did when he had low approval? He made disapproving illegal.
Just wait for it.
If such a tiny thing like wearing a mask is too much to ask from you, your opinion is not worth shit in this debate.
It means you can’t even accept minor inconveniences to save the lives of yourself or others.
If you are so incredibly egotistic, and so incredibly short sighted that you can’t even do that, your opinion is obviously garbage and not worth listening to.
You just proved why “an open debate” and “critical thinking” among people who have no clue at all are pretty bad ideas during a pandemic.
Seems like you totally misunderstood the OP. Like, you understood the exact opposite of what they wrote.
I’m pretty sure self defence doesn’t apply against law enforcement, even if you don’t know they are law enforcement.
Less so though.
Yes, being “safe” means you won’t make the next Minecraft, where a hobby budget turns into the best selling game of all time. But it also means that the people who buy every instalment of Fifa or Assassin’s Creed will also buy it.
These popular franchises almost always turn a calculable profit as long as they don’t experiment and do something new that bombs.
As sad as it is, it actually does work out.
That’s why we gamers shouldn’t trust on AAA titles bringing something great to the market. If you want to play a game like you watch linear TV (plonk down on the couch/in front of the PC and to whatever to relax and waste time), then AAA is great. If you want to play something new, something exciting, something that you haven’t played before, then go with lower-budget titles.
AAA is the McDonalds of games. You don’t go to McDonalds for the freaky hand-crafted vegan fusion kitchen bacon burger with crazy Korean curry mayo and caramelized lettuce.
The huge majority of indie games never make any money at all. This link is a little older, but it claims that 50% of indie games on steam never make more than $4000, only 25% ever make more than $26 000 and only 14% cross the $100k mark.
Considering the cost of developers, that’s about 1-2 man years for the $100k mark, and then there’s only a 14% chance of even recouping that.
Passion projects work out because the people making them don’t value their time as work time, don’t make a salary from it, and even then in the huge majority of cases, it doesn’t work out financially.
This statement holds true for pretty much every other corporation. Imagine owning a huge farm and not setting aside a few farm hands to grow old artisan vegetables. Imagine owning a supermarket chain and not setting aside a few shops for exotic sweets from Central Africa. Imagine owning a fast food chain and not setting aside a few restaurants for artisan burger variations.
Yes, every corporation could afford to do stuff like that, but they aren’t there to advance humanity by investing in arts and crafts, but for making every last drop of money they can. And yes, there’s much to criticise about this goal, but making little indie passion projects doesn’t work well with corporations.