Wimopy

I'll just add that Fidesz (the right wing governing party) started out centrist in 1990. In 2010 they'd moved towards the right, but in a lot people's minds they were one of the big, reasonable parties since the end of Soviet control. And also just in general "the opposition".

The social democratic governing party also was inept and admitted as such (see Őszöd sleech).

So what happened was the left side of the spectrum lost all support, and what in many people's minds was the centrist or centre-right opposition picked it all up. Just over half the votes gave them a supermajority and from that point they gradually attained complete control over all institutions as a result.

Labour, LibDem, Green together also would have a majority, and hopefully people would vote tactically for Labour if all the right wing votes would go to one party as well, though you never know. So I'm not sure I agree with that part of the analysis.

Otherwise: yeah, it's at least as, probably more, accurate to say Tories lost, as it is to say Labour won.

By the way the votes fell, 38% seem to have voted Tory or Reform. Ignoring how people would vote differently if the system were to change, that to me implies proportional voting would still see the right wing lose. Not nearly as much as they did now, but perhaps more securely.

I just hope Labour will think of this similarly and actually do something to make sure we get a system where that 38% doesn't overcome the rest and leads to a Tory or even Reform government.

Yeah, I don't think that coalition situation is likely to happen. Under FPTP, it's too risky for the voters to try manufacture.

That said, if their popularity massively tanks and polls show they'd lose big, I could see Labour introducing it just before the next election. It would be a huge boost to their popularity.

I think the main issue I have, and likely many others too, is how strongly it is phrased. If he thinks he'll die in the next 5 or 10 years... fine, I guess? But that's unlikely, and with how things have shifted just in the past 25 years, making a statement like this seems arrogant.

Is that overanalysing a one line answer to a question? Probably, but that's what a politician gets and the effect of modern media.

Not to mention how the population and especially Labour supporters have turned pro-EU so he'll likely alienate that part of his base. Strong stances are seen as better, but I really feel sometimes he should take a softer approach.

Can't say much about the game/DLC personally as I haven't played it yet, but what you're looking at seems the be the premium bundle, which is a separate listing. The normal DLC listing is at 63%, mixed.

A common negative review complaint also seems to be performance issues, so it's not really just the difficulty.

Man, Veilguard is being covered a lot.

Honestly, this sounds potentially good or even great.

Two things though:

• They should have shown it in the gameplay trailer, instead of making claims in articles.
• Not in a mainline Dragon Age game.

Maybe it could've been a good combat-focused fantasy game with linear missions instead of being forced to include some lame dialogue wheel and pretending it'll appeal to Dragon Age fans.

My impression from the trailer was that the combat lacks any weight. The player character floated all over, the attacks looked like they didn't even make contact, and the enemies seemed to be on the spongy side. That makes it look and feel bland. If that is the case the reaction won't be great even from players who like action games.

And yeah, I think making this the first Dragon Age game after so long is a mistake. People will expect a game that follows on with same or similar gameplay. This feels like a spin-off game. That's not inherently bad, but you do want mainline games to also release to keep the main fan base happy. Right now it'll just be judged compared to mainline expectations and will obviously not meet most of those.

So I guess Kingdoms of Amalur-style combat but it doesn't look fun or challenging. Story seems like it apparently jumps off of Inquisition which is fair but I could never be bothered to really play or care for that much.

How they got to this from "serious dark fantasy RPG" I don't know. I can see the obvious Mass Effect influences, but other than the cutscene conversations it feels weaker than even Andromeda.

I agree. I was so convinced it's a hero shooter/MOBA/whatever that I checked the description and was shocked it said single player RPG. Hell, I was surprised when it revealed there is a player character.

They 100% don't seem to realise what people liked about the games.

See the other reply about why the EU can't act. I'd just like to add context on the "why were they let in" front.

Hungary joined the EU in 2004. The country was more democratic back then. There were even some hopes of joining the Euro zone. Then the government of the time cocked up (basically their words), and Fidesz/Orbán, who were part of the anti-communist wave in 1989, gained a supermajority in 2010 and gradually rewrote the constitution and electoral system. Slowly eroded all the systems, took control of all the media, etc.

Not sure when they became Russia-friendly/controlled, but Hungary has been less democratic since 2010 and that's where the problems stem from. I genuinely wonder how much of it all was a Russian plot from the start and how much was opportunistic.

In places the article seems to imply they hadn't noticed Hungary was a problem before. It has been, for years, and not just in relation to Ukraine.

Openly buddying up with Russia isn't exactly new and should have raised red flags. Same with open hostility towards the EU. You can also add China there now too, so it's not like the problem is just Russia.

Sadly, I don't see things changing internally. People who support the opposition in Hungary are disillusioned and many of those who could have left. Most, if not all by now, media is owned by either the governing party or affiliates. The electoral system disproportionally rewards whoever gets a plurality, which will be Fidesz with the previous two points.

This has been developing for over a decade. Suggestions that this is something that is only now a problem shouldn't exist.

Also FFS, Russia has been managing to either control people in power all over the world (see: USA) or put their own people in power. Treat this as proper foreign action.

Ok, I might be misunderstanding here, but since committing changes is allowed for everyone, doesn't this mean fixing bugs is something you could do? You'd just be stuck with all the other rights as well until someone else makes a change.