flamingarms

Mate, me asking "how much is reasonable of us to ask of one person?" is not grandstanding; that's just me countering your point. He has used his biggest platform to address issues in the game industry before, just like you want, so my point still stands: how much is reasonable of us to ask of him? Is it his responsibility to address each issue the industry has or is it reasonable for him to pick and choose his battles?

How do you know he isn't? This feels like what happened with Kendrick Lamar during the police violence protests a few years ago in the States. NoName calls Kendrick out for not using his voice during the protests to lead people. Photos come out of him at protests, but covered up to be unrecognizable. Then years later Kendrick releases his latest album, talking about his addiction, new children, and nearly ruining his relationship, and addresses the protest thing with a song called Mirror and says "sorry I didn't save the world, my friend, I was too busy building mine again."

Keighley has gone to bat for the video game industry multiple times throughout his career. He has spent a lot of energy highlighting the work of developers and what actually goes into making a game. He garnered a reputation for asking real, sometimes hard questions to AAA developers, in defense of consumers. He addressed the sexual abuse horror. How much does this dude need to do until it's enough for us? Why are we always so determined to hang shit like this on one dude? Why are we so quick to believe that all we see is all that is happening?

I actually enjoyed the game on the whole. If you're a fan of Myst-likes, you may still enjoy it. But if I remember correctly, that particular puzzle I just looked up the exact solution as soon as I understood how to solve it; I'm not going to let any game waste my time like that lol

Yeah, I feel like we so easily forget that bigger does not mean better. If it's larger than what the development team is capable of touching by hand, then more often than not it's just empty or uninteresting space.

Mate, we've got it; we understand your position. You don't need to keep posting it.

Yeah, the article mentions that exactly - the faster you type the more the accuracy plummets.

Big thank you for writing all that out. There's a lot of dynamics here I am not knowledgeable about, so I appreciate you providing links as well. I'll have to read more on this before getting back to you. After your explanation, I have a much better understanding of the intended value of STAR. My gut is still saying that STAR will not allow 3rd parties into a polarized political environment, but I have no data to back that up. I just feel that people will vote 0 for the candidate they least want, 5 for the one they want, and 3 for the one they're ambivalent about and that will devolve STAR to a two-round ranked choice that favors the two biggest political parties. Again, that's definitely possibly me just not fully understanding the system. I'll have to read more, crunch numbers, and see what numbers others have crunched and get back to you. Definitely very interesting and I love the concept of rating politicians independent of each other.

I may be off here because this is the first I'm reading about STAR, but it seems worse than instant-runoff ranked-choice voting because of the "top two candidates based on first results are the final two candidates". It seems like ranked-choice but broken to keep the States in a two party system.

For instance: Let's say there are 4 parties: blue, red, green, and yellow. Let's say the majority of people have red (27%) and blue (26%) as their top pick, so those are automatically #1 and #2. Green is a close third (25%). The remainder (21%) vote for yellow, then green, then red, then blue. STAR would say every other candidate is eliminated except Red and Blue, and then redistribute the other votes. Instant-runoff would say: eliminate yellow and redistribute based off their second choice. In this example, all those votes would switch to green and green would become first. Then blue would be eliminated, those votes redistributed, and then you'd have to see what would happen. Instant-runoff to me allows for the opportunity for a meeting in the middle - everyone potentially agreeing on their second choice; while STAR seems like it will just continue to encourage people to put their primary pick up top.

It was not originally for just the activation and licenses. Their plan was for it to launch as "always on". If I recall correctly, it was going to require phoning home every 24 hours; hence the outcry at the time and the infamous Keighley interview. They rolled back a ton of the stuff with that console that they said was a "requirement" for functionality. Regardless of whether it launched, if it wasn't for the outcry, they would have launched it. That's an entire console. I have a hard time believing they wouldn't roll out a "cloud only" game - you feel me?

How would they even break up Steam? Separate their software and hardware development from the store? Can't imagine that making any real impact on their practices.

Last generation, Microsoft was trying to sell the Xbox One as "always on" and told Keighley that, if people didn't like it or didn't have internet, they could buy an Xbox 360. An entire console was going to roll out as always online. So, video game companies have already rebutted your argument themselves.

I've played a few hours of Ender Lilies. It's a metroidvania where you play a young priestess who is protected by spirits that you equip to attack for you. It's pretty, has solid music, and the combat so far has been pretty fun and well-balanced for me. Grow the shame pile...