spiffmeister

It's funny because I can't even see the LNP coming up with something this bad.

This has already cost what, $430B? We should just throw in another few billion and build our own diesel subs for safety.

~~fish~~fush

I wonder if the new excuse any time a media company does something dodgy is "oh it was the AI sorry!"

I haven't quite finished it yet, my feeling is that it slightly overstays it's welcome.

I've also noticed that most of the time I do a thing or two in the game then realise there's not quite enough time in the loop to do another thing, but just enough time to make me want to not waste the loop, since I find starting a new loop a bit tedious.

From memory it respawns the low level enemies constantly, since they're just ammo/health/armour pinatas. You needed to kill the big enemies to complete an arena.

Not really a fan of the design choice, but I had a decent amount of fun when I clicked with how the Devs wanted you to play.

slug

That's "vindictive and devious baby elephant" to you mate.

It really is shocking how talentless you can be to be a successful right wing talking head.

I convinced my partner to play it recently and the way I knew she'd finished it was that I could hear sniffling from the desk behind me.

American politics infects Australian politics in many ways sadly.

This changes the effect of negative campaigning (people still show up in Aus vs the US), but the idea is to dissuade people from voting for someone, rather than encourage them to vote for you. This might have a positive effect on votes for the party doing the negative campaigning, but I think it's a poor definition of convincing someone to vote for you.

I don't think this is a useful definition of voting for

which implicitly gets them to vote for you.

Seems to only be true if you think of there being only 2 parties, which is why I don't think the definition is good.