Discussing the idea of "peak gaming"

 So I thought I wrote an article about this already, but apparently I didn't and I only passively mentioned it in my recent "best gaming year" posts and one previous post about battlebit. But I actually do have a theory for why gaming is seemingly on the decline in recent years. I call this idea "peak gaming."

The term is inspired by the term peak oil. Basically, our global economy runs on fossil fuels. There's only so much out there. Our economy is growing infinitely, and it's only a matter of time, unless we find another energy source or shift to renewable green energy, that we will eventually hit a wall so to speak. Between our needs constantly growing, and our supplies constantly dwindling from use, at some point, our needs are going to exceed the amount of energy that we can produce, and that is going to completely mess up the global economy. Eventually. We haven't hit that point yet. And hopefully, given we're trying to switch to other sources of energy by 2050 due to climate change, we never will. But it's been one of those hypothetical economic doomsday scenarios for a while.

I would say gaming has its own analogues here. First, there's moore's law. It's been slowing down. Basically, Moore's law predicts that the number of transistors on top end microchips will double every 18 months. but as we reach really tiny microscopic levels of processes, we're getting to the point, further shrinkage is impossible. So computer hardware is going to get faster a lot more slowly, and we're already seeing the effects of that with modern CPUs and GPUs being more expensive, and also a lot more power hungry than they used to be.

But it's not JUST that. if that was our only issue, it would be the least of our problems. We're running into real problems with the realities of developing games. It used to be, 10-20 years ago, that game development was relatively fast. Developers would get a new game out every 2 years or so. Games would be relatively simple, and would not cost a fortune to make. But as games get more complex, we start getting to a point of diminishing returns. It now takes longer for games to be developed. It takes more employees with larger studios, which makes it more expensive. We see prices go up, more waiting times between releases, and the final product is often kind of lacking something. As people have pointed out, often times we're getting less content, longer time between updates, and games are increasingly buggier. Again, this all goes back to the increasing complexity of games. You can still get relatively simple low requirement games out of indie studios that run great, play great, and have tons of content. You might have to put up with worse graphics though. But AAA games have to put more time, energy, and manpower into getting out those fancy blockbuster games that really drive sales. And that's where the problem is.

A huge problem with modern gaming is that it's taking much longer to get out new releases, meaning more time in between releases. Games are costing more than they used to, they don't go on sale as deeply as they used to. They often don't provide tons of content if live service games (see the halo infinite problem). And again, many of them are buggy broken messes at launch. And yes, this is a problem with complexity. If development cycles are taking longer, AND we're seeing games come out regularly buggy and broken, who is at fault? To some extent it is management, despite the longer time in between games they still rush them out the door to meet their quarterly earnings expectations, but the core problem is that the games are probably more complex than they used to be. Games 10 years ago ran on about 1/10th of the processing power as games now do. And they probably were far simpler at the same time. it took less time to pump out expansive maps that were less detailed. It took less time to program behaviors because they were less complex. We are reaching a point, in my opinion, where games are just getting too complex for their own good. 

Again, the concept of peak gaming is that at some point we're gonna reach a point of diminishing returns, where much like peak oil, we're going to be doing more for less, the same thing is true here. We are starting to do more for less. We are getting worse games that take longer to make, have less content, and are more expensive. Gaming really WAS better like 10-20 years ago in my experience. And while subjective to my own tastes, I just provided the empirical data to prove it by looking at the games i generally enjoyed every year. 

I'm not saying this is the only reason why gaming is worse now. Admittedly, gaming has somewhat "moved on" from me and my tastes. New games are often of different genres or subgenres that i dont enjoy and/or don't wish to learn. Games are more competitive and esports based. To some extent, the game formulas that i enjoyed 10-20 years ago just arent prevalent these days as gaming has shifted from millennials as the prime demographic to zoomers. But again, it's not like those franchises don't exist. it's just that, outside of call of duty which just keeps regurgitating iterations of the same thing year in and year out, aren't really providing content as regularly. Halo infinite took 6 years to develop and get out the door and then we only got updates every 6 months. battlefield 2042 took 3 years to make and another 2 years to "fix." Now we're not likely getting another battlefield game until 2025 or later. Respawn entertainment stopped caring about the titanfall series since they got their cash cow with apex. Arena shooters have largely died out. To some extent it is the whole problem of putting out products far less frequently, but to some extent it also is that things have changed, and games have gone in a different direction than they've used to be. 

Either way, I don't see it as good for the consumer. We're getting fewer games with the games that exist often being worse than previous iterations. I wouldn't be surprised if there's another video game crash in the next decade as this business model becomes unsustainable. As far as im concerned, we've been on the diminishing returns train technologically since the start of the PS3/360 era. That's not to say we havent still made progress, but right now it's starting to get PAINFUL. And that's why I'm writing about it. 

I mean, there is some empirical evidence that outside of some really good years, every year since 2020 has been mediocre to outright awful for me. 2019 was literally the last truly great year for gaming for me, and the only one that has even been "good" since then in 2021. Every other year has been hot trash. And I'm waiting years for games to come out from the franchises i like, only to end up holding off on buying them because they're a mess. Like starfield. it took bethesda at least 5 years to make that, given their last title was fallout 76, and before that, fallout 4. And it was a buggy, broken, boring mess that i couldnt even justify buying. And now, because of that, we arent gonna see the elder scrolls 6 until like 2027 or something. And then we're not gonna see a real fallout 5 until 2030. 

Meanwhile we got fallout 3 2 years after oblivion, skyrim 3 years after that (with another studio giving us new vegas in between then), and then it took 4 years for fallout 4, and 3 years for 76, and you get the idea. 

That's the consequence of peak gaming. Notice how we went from 2 years between releases, to 3, to 4, and now to 5, with future elder scrolls and fallout games being released a good 15 years after their last mainline title. This isn't really acceptable IMO. Something has to give. My personal idea would be to go back to just sticking with PS4/XB1 era graphics for forever and sticking to 3 year release cycles, but again, everyone has to have the shiny graphics and extra complexity even though it means waiting longer for games that are worse. 

And yeah. That's my take on why gaming is going to crap in recent years.

So let's talk death penalty....

 So, I don't discuss issues like THIS on here very often, as it's not particularly interesting to me, with the the latest in botched executions, I feel like I should give my views. 

Abolish it. It's the 21st century. The idea is regressive and barbaric. I understand that from an originalist's perspective, it's not cruel and unusual punishment, but it seems pretty cruel and unusual today. 

The death penalty appeals to our most base instincts, the idea of revenge and the idea of murderous rage against someone who does wrong. I understand such feelings, but I believe we should rise above that. 

When I was a conservative christian, this was the one position I was left on and it was because Jesus preached forgiveness. Even as a secularist I still believe that assuming there are better ways to deal with the issue, like life in prison, that we should pursue that instead. Does killing the person bring the person they killed back? No, it just makes more people dead. It is just a feel good revenge thing. And I would say the right to life is more important than that, even for murderers.

It doesn't even deter people. In order for deterrence to be effective, punishment needs to be swift, certain, and severe. The death penalty isnt swift, the dude above committed his crime back in the 80s and is only being executed now. And it's not certain. Severe, yes but that's all it has going for it. 

It's not cheaper. The death penalty legal costs are more expensive and costly than just letting them live. Again, why do you think he was on death row for 35 years, or most of my life. 

It's had racist applications in the past and given how racist policing can be, it still probably is.

Apparently 4% of death row people put to death are innocent. We probably shouldn't do this with less than a 100% correctness rate. 

It's NOT humane. This was supposed to be but the guy was trying to remove the mask and was clearly struggling. Lethal injection gets botched sometimes too. As does the electric chair. Stuff like firing squad and guillotine likely arent perfect either and are kind of gruesome. Killing someone is "cruel and unusual", who knew?

I mean, it's not a good idea. it's just a feel good vengeful thing. Wanting to get back at someone who murdered another. I know some people just dont have empathy for criminals. Fair I guess. but I believe everyone deserves a right to life if possible. I mean if we were back in like the tribal days and some dude was just too dangerous to let live, I mean, go for it, i guess, but in a civilized society of laws, and criminal justice procedures, nah. Life in prison is fine to me. If they get shot due to fighting with cops or something, fair I guess, but as far as the death penalty itself goes? Nah. If you apprehended them, let them live.

Measuring the best years for gaming in a different way

 So, I kinda went somewhat off of vibes and feels with the previous one. I did consider what releases came out every year. But this time around I want to count up the games and weigh them in terms of how much I liked them and played them. And THEN I'll quantitatively measure. Games I really liked, or are iconic, or i played a lot, are 2 points, one that was okay but i liked it is 1 point, and in rare cases I'll give 0 points to a game if I either didnt play it that much or if I didn't like it or think it was actually notable (relevant especially with some of the newer years where i wrote some games down just because they were so forgettable but i couldnt think of anything else from that year anyway). Without further ado, let's get to it.

1991- 6 (keep in mind theres 2 different sonic games on 2 different platforms with the same names)

1992- 8

1993- 14

1994- 12

1995- 6

1996- 9

1997- 12

1998- 11

1999- 13

2000- 10

2001- 12

2002- 7

2003- 8

2004- 13

2005- 15

2006- 13

2007- 20

2008- 12

2009- 11

2010- 21

2011- 19

2012- 18

2013- 13

2014- 12

2015- 11

2016- 14

2017- 11

2018- 9

2019- 18

2020- 5

2021- 9

2022- 3

2023- 4

So, with this, we do see some differences from my initial analysis, but also a lot of similarities.

The best year for gaming was....*drumroll*, 2010.

The worst was 2022 (although it might be rehabilitated over time as I buy more games from that era on sale). 

All in all, the new tier list for me:

S tier- 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2019

A tier- 1993, 1999, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2013, 2016

B tier- 1994, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2008, 2009, 2014, 2015, 2017

C tier- 1992, 1996, 2002, 2003, 2018, 2021

D tier- 1992, 1995, 2020, 2022, 2023

That seems fairer, it even takes a more bell curve approach. 

A few interesting stats to draw from this:

Gen 7 (aka, 360/PS3/Wii era) is the best era for gaming.

The current generation (Gen 9, aka PS5/XBSX) era is the worst. 

The 90s were better than I remember.

The early 2000s were kinda meh but the later 2000s were amazing. 

The early 2010s peaked, and then things declined from there.

2019 was a really good year for gaming. It was truly "the last good year" for me.

2016 was overrated. It had a lot of multiplayer heavy titles but in terms of a sheer number of games I liked playing, it wasn't as amazing as I remember. 

Maybe I need to switch to rehabilitate newer years. Nintendo is still putting out bangers, I just opted not to buy one this time around. Not enough games to justify it, too high of a price.

That's the problem with everything it seems. Or at least part of it. Maybe newer years will be rehabilitated as games get cheaper. But yeah for me there just isn't a ton to play in this new console generation. 2021 was the one decent year so far that had some really quality bangers and other than that....meh.

So what are the best years for gaming in my lifetime?

 So, I watch this guy on youtube sometimes who claimed that 2023 was a "bad year for gaming". He is doing this to push back against the idea that 2023 was the best year ever for gaming. This guy's opinions are sometimes good, sometimes bad, but after listening to him, I kind of have to agree. 2023 wasn't really an amazing year in my opinion, although of course like him I'm primarily a multiplayer gamer. Still, him discussing what the best year for gaming got me thinking, and got me wanting to go back and revisit the past ~30 years of gaming. 

For the record, this is gonna be HIGHLY subjective. It's gonna be what I think are the best based on what I personally enjoyed. if you asked me before I really sat down and thought it out, the years that come to mind most are 1997 (when I got the N64), 2007 (many modern multiplayer staples all in one year), 2011 (a good variety of titles that I really loved), and 2016 (another solid year, and honestly, to me, the last truly "excellent" year for gaming). But yeah, I'm gonna go back to 1991, which is when I started getting into gaming, post some notable titles that I remember playing from those years, and at the end of it, rate the years, and then put them into tier lists. So let's get started.

1991

Sonic the Hedgehog (both genesis and game gear)

Super Mario World

Honestly? This is all that came up for me. It's a very foundational year. Sonic the hedgehog was the series that was my gateway to gaming, but yeah. other than sonic and mario, that's about it. It's a very...classic year, and those two titles are very strong, but yeah, it's likely not going to be an amazing year in the grand scheme of things.

3/10

1992

Sonic the Hedgehog 2

Super Mario Land 2

Super Mario Kart

Mortal Kombat

Wolfenstein 3D

I know, i know, my tastes are kinda limited, but hey, it is slightly better than last year. Four titles instead of 2. 

4/10

1993

Doom

Super Mario All Stars

Sonic CD

Star Fox

Sonic Spinball

Sonic Chaos

Jurassic Park

Columns

It had some strong titles, might be one of the strongest of the 2D era. 

7/10

1994

Sonic 3 & Knuckles

Doom II

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers

Cosmic Carnage 

Primal Rage

Jurassic Park Rampage Edition

Sonic triple trouble

Eh it had some strong titles that were unforgettable and that I still play today. 

6/10

1995

Command & Conquer

 Super Mario: Yoshi's Island

Vectorman

Knuckles Chaotix

A slightly weaker year but still had some decent titles

4/10

1996

Quake

Super Mario 64

Tomb Raider

Sonic 3D Blast

Final Doom

Command & Conquer: Red Alert

Resident Evil

It was a reasonably strong year. Started moving into the 3D era fully and this is kind of the beginning of a new era of gaming for me.

7/10

1997

Star Fox 64

Goldeneye 007

Mario Kart 64

Doom 64

Turok Dinosaur Hunter 

Quake 2

Huh, it actually had surprisingly few titles released that year. Still, they were all VERY high quality titles. Still, better than the other years? Eh, not so sure. 

6/10

1998

Pokemon Red/Blue

Turok 2

Starcraft

Starsiege: Tribes

Wargames

Yoshi's Story

Battlezone

Half Life

This is actually an extremely strong year by 90s standards. Many of these games still hold up today, and were foundational for the future of gaming. 

8/10

1999

Unreal Tournament

Quake III Arena

Command & Conquer Tiberian Sun

Sonic Adventure

Power Stone

Medal of Honor

Pokemon Snap

Pokemon Pinball

Army Men: Sarge's heroes 

NFL Blitz 2000

This actually does have a lot of solid titles too.

8/10

Breaking the 90s into tiers

If I had to give any year the year of the decade, it's probably 1998. It just had too many strong titles. 

1993, 1996, 1999 are in a similar tier though in my opinion. 

1994 and 1997 are pretty solid but below those

Then 1992 and 1995.

And finally 1991 is the worst of the decade.

 So basically:

A tier- 1993, 1996, 1998, 1999

B tier- 1994, 1997

C tier- 1992, 1995

D tier- 1991

That will give me a solid basis going forward. And yes, nothing got S tier yet, I'll elevate the best of the best to S tier at the end as THE BEST YEARS EVER, but I don't want to get ahead of myself here. 

2000

Pokemon Gold/Silver

Pokemon Trading Card Game

Command & Conquer Red Alert 2

Pokemon Stadium

The World Is Not Enough (007)

Crazy Taxi

Eh, a lot of the games I remember from this year actually came out in 1999. So this seems to be a pretty dull year. It had some good memorable titles, but meh.

5/10

2001

Sonic Adventure 2

Halo Combat Evolved

Mario Kart Super Circuit

Crazy Taxi 2

Advance Wars

Super Mario Advance

Power Stone 2

007 Agent Under Fire

This is a VERY solid year for me. A lot of major foundational titles came out this year that became relevant for gaming for a while to me. 

8/10

2002

Super Mario Sunshine

Battlefield 1942

Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind

Sonic Advance

007 Nightfire

Mafia

Medal of Honor Frontline

Eh, honestly, kind of a lackluster year compared to the previous year. Most games I bought were like GBA remakes of 90s games like Doom and yoshi's island. 

6/10

2003

Pokemon Ruby/Sapphire

Sonic Advance 2

Command & Conquer Generals

Advance Wars 2

Call of Duty 

Mario Kart Double Dash

So THIS was a rather weak year for me. Again, a lot of what i played through this era were remakes of games from past eras on my GBA. It was actually kinda dull. I kinda remember being relatively disengaged with traditional gaming during this time due to a lack of games worth playing. I mostly played stuff from years ago.

5/10

2004

Halo 2

Half Life 2

Far Cry

Doom 3

Star Wars Battlefront

Unreal Tournament 2004

Counter Strike: Source

007: Everything or Nothing

Sonic Advance 3

Goldeneye: Rogue Agent

This was easily one of the best years of gen 6. So many good FPS titles that really set the benchmark for gaming for a while. The start of what I'd consider the golden age of gaming.

9/10

2005

Resident Evil 4

Call of Duty 2

God of War

FEAR

Battlefield 2

Mario Kart DS

Advance Wars Dual Strike

Quake 4

Sonic Rush

As I said, golden era of gaming. So many good games. 

8/10

2006

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Gears of War

New Super Mario Bros

Half Life 2 Episode 1

Call of Duty 3

Just Cause

Black

Metroid Prime Hunters

Star Fox Command

Battlefield 2042

Another very solid year

8/10

2007

Halo 3

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

Super Mario Galaxy

Crysis

Half Life 2 Episode 2

Portal

Team Fortress 2

God of War II

Unreal Tournament 3

Bioshock

Mass Effect

Pokemon Diamond/Pearl

Command & Conquer 3 Tiberium Wars

You know what? I think popq2 (the dude whose commentary started this). I'm not 100% sure 2007 is the best year ever yet, but it's definitely in the running. It's like virtually every franchise I've come to enjoy has had a major release during this time. 

10/10

2008

Fallout 3

Mario Kart Wii

Left 4 Dead

Dead Space

Gears of War 2

Command & Conquer Red Alert 3

Advance Wars: Days of Ruin

Call of Duty: World At War

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars

You know, I don't really remember 2008 being this banging of a year, but I guess it's really a matter of what it came after. It wasn't bad. It had a lot of titles I liked. I only thing Fallout 3 really stood out to me as a legendary game though. Still not bad.

7/10

2009

Left 4 Dead 2

Resident Evil 5

Halo 3: ODST

FEAR 2

Halo Wars

Borderlands

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2

Minecraft

Yeah. We're past the peak of the 2000s. Also, I didn't know minecraft came out in 2009 but I guess the alpha version did. Still. Kind of a lackluster year after so many GREAT years. 

6/10

Making a tierlist of the 2000s

So, one thing I'm going to say is that the 2000s largely BTFOed the 90s. Im kinda glad I didnt make an S tier because none of those years deserved it. Even the weak years in the 2000s were on par with a middle of the road 90s year. I might end up bumping those down in my final ranking somewhat since the 2000s was so much stronger than the 90s for gaming. 

Anyway, if I had to make a tier list

S tier- 2007

A tier- 2004, 2005, 2006

B tier- 2001, 2008, 2009

C tier: 2002, 2003

D tier: 2000s

And to add the 90s back into it so far and correct their rankings:

S tier- 2007

A tier- 2004, 2005, 2006

B tier- 1993, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2008, 2009

C tier: 1994, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003

D tier: 1991, 1992, 1995, 2000

I think this will remain a good springboard to discuss the modern era. Back to the 2010s.

 2010

 Halo Reach

Mass Effect 2

Bioshock 2

Super Mario Galaxy 2

Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty

Fallout: New Vegas

Battlefield: Bad Company 2

Metro 2033

Civilization 5

Sonic & Sega All Stars Racing

Just Cause 2

COD: Black Ops

Mafia II

This was my first year as a full on PC gamer and it was a very good year for me. 

9/10

2011

Portal 2

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Dead Space 2

Battlefield 3

Gears of War 3

Bulletstorm

Crysis 2

Super Mario 3D Land

Terraria

Sonic Generations

Pokemon Black/White

COD: Modern Warfare 3

Mario Kart 7 

Rage

Ya know in retrospect, I don't think that 2011 was really up to 2007. It was more like one of the very good years from 2004 on up. Solid, but not "the best."

9/10

2012

Mass Effect 3

Borderlands 2

Far Cry 3

Dishonored

Halo 4

Sleeping Dogs

Call of Duty Black Ops 2

Resident evil 6

Counter Strike: Global Offensive

Pokemon Black/White 2

Planetside 2

A solid year, but slightly worse than 2011, which was slightly worse than 2010. Still 2005-2006 tier though.

8/10

2013

Bioshock Infinite

Grand Theft Auto V

Battlefield 4

Metro: Last Light

Tomb Raider

Pokemon X/Y

Dead Space 3

Sonic All Stars Racing Transformed

Crysis 3

Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon

I can tell that the golden era is starting to wind down. Still very good, but yeah. Not as good as 2010-2012.

8/10

2014

Wolfenstein: The New Order

Titanfall

Civilization Beyond Earth

Borderlands: The Pre Sequel

Goat Simulator

Far Cry 4

The Crew

Very lackluster year in retrospect. I mostly played titanfall and games from the years before if I recall.

6/10

2015

Fallout 4

Rise of the Tomb Raider

Halo 5: Guardians

Battlefield Hardline

Call of Duty: Black Ops 3

Wolfenstein: The Old Blood

Rainbow Six: Siege

Unreal Tournament 4 

Ark Survival Evolved

Just Cause 3

Another pretty modest year. And let's face it, a lot of the big franchises flopped. Fallout 4 is the only game I consider particularly memorable this year. 

7/10

2016

Overwatch

Titanfall 2

Battlefield 1

Doom 2016

Civilization 6

Far Cry Primal

Dishonored 2

Pokemon Sun and Moon

Hmm, 2016 wasn't as good as I remember. Maybe it's because it had tons of quality over quantity, but it really didn't have a sheer number of titles that I really really liked this year. It just had a few that I liked a lot. Still, I did like those titles a lot.

8/10

2017

Wolfenstein II: The New Collosus

Destiny 2

Sonic Mania

Player Unknown's Battlegrounds

Fortnite

Prey

Mass Effect Andromeda 

Quake Champions

*sigh*, so this is where gaming started going downhill for me. I mean, there werent many titles, they werent that good, this was mostly known for the battle royale craze from a PC standpoint. The switch had a lot of notable titles, but i didnt play switch games from this era onward so maybe that's what I'm missing. But yeah. No significant multiplayer FPS releases aside from battle royale. Yeah they're COD but COD in this era from 2013 largely sucked, hence why I stopped including it. Yes, I played them. They were mediocre and forgettable. 

5/10

2018

Call of Duty Black Ops 4

Fallout 76

Far Cry 5

Battlefield 5

Insurgency Sandstorm

Subnautica

Not a ton of games, but a lot of high quality ones that I played the crap out of. 

6/10

2019

Apex Legends

Gears 5

The Outer Worlds

Borderlands 3

Far Cry New Dawn

 Wolfenstein: Youngblood

Halo MCC (PC release)

Team Sonic Racing

Mario Kart Tour

Call of Duty Mobile

Call of Duty Modern Warfare

Metro Exodus

Eh, am I being too harsh on the post 2016 era? This year was pretty banging. Probably the best in a while. Heck its probably better than 2016 which I always go on about being like the "last good year".

Probably the best since 2010-2012.

8/10

Adding the 2010s to my tier list

So, this went a bit differently than I expected. I always saw the 2010-2016 era as one big block of awesomeness, but the 2010s were full of peaks and troughs. 2010-2012 were solid, but then slowly declined, while picking up again in 2016. Then things got meh again and by 2019, back to being very strong. All in all:

S tier- 2007, 2010, 2011

A tier- 2004, 2005, 2006, 2012, 2013, 2016, 2019

B tier- 1993, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2008, 2009, 2014, 2015

C tier: 1994, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2017, 2018

D tier: 1991, 1992, 1995, 2000

2020

Doom Eternal

Call of Duty: Warzone

Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War

So I admit, I never got into cyberpunk 2077, I might get it eventually, but yeah. This is a REALLY lackluster year. I know COVID hit, and I honestly spent most of 2020 obsessively playing titles from 2018-2019. 

4/10

2021

Deathloop

Halo Infinite

Battlefield 2042

Call of Duty Vanguard

Far Cry 6

I mean, it's not much, but it's honest work. And it's kept me occupied since. But man, this is why I always talk about modern gaming kinda sucking. Look how few titles came out that I actually wanted to play. It's hard to actually find games these days. I'm waiting longer periods of time for fewer games. And this is one of the better modern years.

Quality over quantity

7/10

2022

 Tiny Tina's Wonderlands

Call of Duty Modern Warfare II

Callisto Protocol

So here's the problem I find myself in recently. There are games out there, but very few games I actually wanna play. And most games from the last few years are still very expensive. So not only do they not cater to the same game play I'm used to enjoying, but they also are very expensive.

Hence why I'm so blah these days. Im sure there are some decent titles out there, but I just can't really find any that really grabs me. As such, 2022 is the worst year since 1991 for me for gaming. Good thing 2021 was half decent.

3/10

2023

Dead Island 2

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III

Battlebit remastered

So, two of those three games really did make the year for me. Battlebit remastered is by far one of the best multiplayer games in years. And modern warfare 3 kicks the crap out of MW2, although it is essentially a remake of MW2 from 2009. 

Heck, theres a lot of remakes this year. Dead space remake. RE4 remake. havent played them. Why should I spend like $40+ on remakes of 15-20 year old games when I can just go back and replay the originals? 2023 is a year of remakes. And once again, a lot of games that I either have some interest in, like starfield, but that game also kinda bombed. And there are games like atomic heart I'm interested in, but again, still too expensive.

The fact is, these days, they charge $70 for games, and then they put them on sale for $30-40 and act like its a massive discount. I used to see $60 games come out throughout the year and by THAT CHRISTMAS they would often be $20. 

Every time there's a steam sale, all the best sales are on stuff I already own. Oh gee, I can buy BF4/1/5 for like $12 total, but I've owned them on origin for years and have hundreds of hours in them. Meanwhile cyberpunk, a 4 year old game, is STILL $30! Wtf? Discount that crap more. 

I mean, this is the dilemma I have. I bet there are more titles from recent years I'd like. I jsut aint willing to roll the dice on them. Because gaming is expensive, and I've had to spend the last 2 years upgrading my hardware so I can even play new games. Now it's time to shift to buying games, but yeah. There just aren't a ton I really want.

In some ways I feel like gaming has moved on. Look back to 2004-2016 or so, ie, what I call the 'golden era" of gaming. There were easily like 8 titles a year I wanted, and they were all high quality games. Those years were chock full of stuff I wanted to play. And I admit, I didnt all play them at launch. A lot of them I played years later when they were $10-20 in the bargain bin. But if they dont get to that bargain bin, Im not gonna buy a lot of them. $30 isn't really that good of a deal on a 3-4 year old game. $10-20 is.

Anyway, this year basically is stuck at 3/10, but there's room to improve.

As such, let's add them to the tier list.

Final tier list

S tier- 2007, 2010, 2011

A tier- 2004, 2005, 2006, 2012, 2013, 2016, 2019

B tier- 1993, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2008, 2009, 2014, 2015

C tier: 1994, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2017, 2018, 2021

D tier: 1991, 1992, 1995, 2000, 2020, 2022, 2023

Yeah, the 2020s have kinda bombed so far. As I said though, they can be rehabilitated as I eventually hit those newer titles in the bargain bin in the next couple of years, but yeah, I'm not really too impressed with modern gaming. The last truly great year for gaming was 2019 in my opinion. 

And popq2 was right. 2007 was THE BEST YEAR EVER for gaming. FULL STOP. No question, no debate. 

2010 and 2011 were runner ups. I'd actually say 2010 is slightly better than 2011, so if I had to choose, 2010 is 2nd, 2011 third. 

Beyond that, the next tier down of years would be 2004, 2005, 2006, 2012, 2013, 2016, and 2019. 

As you can tell, I really think that general ps3/360/wii era was fire. Best era of gaming ever. Virtually every year was strong there. 2016 and 2019 deserve honorable mentions for being really great more modern years for gaming. 2019 was the last "great" year for gaming IMO. 

The next tier down are the "good" years. 1993 stood out among the 16 bit era of being the best year with all the best releases. 1998 and 1999 were solid for gen 5 releases. 2001 was a solid gen 6 release date. 

2008 and 2009 were the weakest of the gen 7 releases but still hung in here at that tier. Just shows how amazing that entire era of gaming was. 

2014 and 2015 were showing a clear decline from the golden era, but still hung on enough to be respectable. 

From here, we get the weaker years. 1994 was an okay gen 4 year. Gen 4 was kinda weak in general. 1996 and 1997 had a lot of great games, just nowhere near as many as I thought they did. Oh well, some years were like that, not a ton of great games, but still had really good ones. 2002 and 2003 were kinda slow years for me, with me mostly playing older titles and GBA games. And then you got some of the stronger modern years. 2017, 2018, and 2021 all had a handful of really solid titles I really loved, but it is clear that we're past "peak gaming" as I call it by this point. I'm finding fewer titles fun, and I'm mostly sticking to fewer and fewer games, and being less willing to experiment, as prices are high and game formulas are much different than previous years. They just dont make games like they did back in the Xbox 360/PS3 era any more. 

And then you have the worst years. 1991, 1992, and 1995 just barely had releases I liked. of course I was a kid for most of those and had games from other years that held me over. Btw, even though I started at 1991, the year I got into gaming, I probably have played a lot of 1985-1990 games too, I just dont remember them very well and didnt include them here. 2000 wasnt bad, if anything it might deserve to be renovated back up into C tier, it was just weak compared to the years around it. And as far as modern years, meh. Part of it might be my own lack of curiosity, and the fact that games are expensive, and im unwilling to experiment. I mostly stick to old models I know I'll like and quite frankly, theyre making fewer and fewer games like I like. Lots of great titles out there, but if I dont like souls like games, or ARPGs, or wanna buy overpriced remakes of games from my glory days, Im kinda running out of things to play. it is possible those years, especially 2023, might get rehabilitated into B or C tier though.

But yeah. That's my approach toward gaming. TLDR, the best era was 2004-2016, before that gaming was a lot less mature, but i had a lot of fun anyway as a kid. After that, gaming has changed and I am clearly declining in my interest toward it. Part of it is the fact that things have changed, and part of it is the fact that there arent many titles i wanna play.

But it suffices to say I think modern gaming sucks, and i generally agree with popq2. 2023 wasnt that good. 2007 was fire, we need to go back to 2007 again and have years like that. 

Rating Claudia De La Cruz and other third party candidates I missed

 So, apparently i missed some third party candidates, and I wanted to go over some of them and add them to my overall ranking list. Given the wide variety of candidates here, and not wanting to dwell on my more nuanced Metric #2, I'll just go by Metric #1 as it's a better snapshot for how I'm voting this time anyway. 

Claudia De La Cruz

Claudia De La Cruz is a Marxist Leninist running for president as part of the Party For Socialism and Liberation.

Basic income support - 0/10

 She does not appear to be for basic income

Medicare for all support - 10/10

She does mention medicare for all in her platform. 

Economic policies (other than UBI/M4A) - 5/10

While she does support a lot of my priorities other than UBI, she's too extreme. Pluses, she's for free college, living wages, and unions, cons, her housing policy seems completely nonsensical, she calls for 100% tax over $10 million, and she literally wants to seize the means of production. I'll give her a 5 since I agree with the more moderate standard fare left wing stuff she supports, but I'm also a hard no on her more extreme positions.

Social policies - 5/10

Again, agree with more standard left wing goals, but think she's very extreme in wanting to overthrow the current order of things. She also is very woke and is for reparations, stuff like that. She's just...very illiberal in her methods to achieve her goals. Talks about locking up wall street people and stuff, no. Like, you can be left, without being crazy left, she's crazy left.

Foreign policy - 0/10

She literally wants to cut 90% of the defense budget. Hard pass.

Worldview/ideology- 7/20

While I have to give her some credit as a more moderate, liberal leftie that we do have some points in agreement, her policies and methods go way too hard, and I'm kind of a hard pass on her. We need to achieve progress via reform, and nationalizing everything and locking up people we dont like just isn't it.

Consistency/dedication to progressive values- 6/10

Given the key word is progressive values, I'll give her high Marx (hahaha, get it?). But still, shes terrible on liberal values that are normally assumed or taken for granted, and she ain't for UBI.

Experience/competence- 0/10

She's thankfully not very competent or experienced, and shouldn't be taken for granted.

Doesn't act as a spoiler- 0/10

I mean shes running third party, and I consider her to be as much or more of a threat as Trump tbqh.

Total- 38/100

Eh, in some ways she kinda exposes some flaws in my metrics. I mostly was just assuming everyone but trump would kinda be okay with liberal democracy, and she really ain't. Still, I kinda sorta agree with her on some things due to also being on the left. I just think shes way too extreme. I feel like given how I feel about her she should score lower, but the metric is the metric and it's a flaw in what I'm measuring. 

Which brings me to the other question: what about the warmness rating?

 Gut instinct says:

20/100

I mean, if i rationalize it, I could go higher, like the metric #1. Or I could go down to zero due to MLs being illiberal and being for batcrap insane ideas. I ended up instinctively splitting the difference. Fair. Next. 

Peter Sonski

Peter Sonski is part of the American Solidarity party, which if I recall is a socially conservative but economically liberal party that kind of have a theocratic approach to politics.

Basic income support - 0/10

There is no overt support of basic income

Medicare for all support - 0/10

There's no overt support of medicare for all either.

Economic policies (other than UBI/M4A) - 8/10

He largely has a pro worker agenda, and one with distributist characteristics from what I can read.

Social policies - 2/10

I mean, the dude is basically a theocrat. his big issue seems to be banning abortion. He's against gay marriage. However, he seems liberal on social justice to some extent, and he's against the death penalty.

Foreign policy - 7/10

He seems dovish on foreign policy in his platform, but he does seem to have the sanity to be somewhat pro ukraine and pro israel so he seems more pragmatic than most leftists at least.

Worldview/ideology- 6/20

Economically he's okay, but not really as progressive as I'd like. Socially he's just...no.  Foreign policy he's okay I guess. Eh, not a huge fan of this guy.

Consistency/dedication to progressive values- 3/10

He's not really that progressive. He has some okay economic ideas though.

Experience/competence- 4/10

 Eh, he was on a school board once apparently and he seems relatively pragmatic but he's also not super experienced either.

Doesn't act as a spoiler- 0/10

Third party, automatic L. 

Total- 30/100

I mean, he's slightly preferable over a republican, but that's about it. Doesn't score very highly. 

Warmness rating- 25/100

The fact that he's a christian theocracy is just a turn off for me. Still not ALL of his positions are bad.

Michael Wood

Michael Wood is running as the Prohibition party candidate. I didn't know these guys were still around. Prohibition was considered to be a failure. Ah well, let's check him out.

Basic income support - 0/10

No basic income support.

Medicare for all support - 3/10

His support for universal healthcare is confusing. He does believe no one who needs treatment or medicine should be denied for financial reasons, but he seems to support free market healthcare. he supports medicare and medicaid so he aint a pure free market freak, and he does seem open to a public option, but he's full on opposed to single payer. Due to not having a solid stance I'm kinda giving him a 3.

Economic policies (other than UBI/M4A) - 6/10

This dude really is chaotic neutral. He's for right to work laws, but he also supports paid family leave and a living wage.  Also supports free college and possibly student debt forgiveness.

Social policies - 6/10

Eh, they seem relatively moderate all things considered. They seem to fall short of banning alcohol and the like, merely calling for a ban on advertising, as well as high excise taxes on such things. I could come around to that. I just dont think full on prohibition works, but it seems they have learned from that. They seem nominally pro choice but like everything else, he's kinda all over the place and talking out of both sides of his mouth. Dude's totally an enlightened centrist who tries to be exactly in the middle and giving each side like 50% of what they want. Still, seems to be a little more liberal than conservative.

Foreign policy - 5/10

He supports the troops but no major statement on conflicts either way. Still, at this point someone who supports the troops doesnt sound completely insane like modern leftists do so....without knowing anything else, 5/10.

Worldview/ideology- 6/20

I mean I kinda agree with him but I kinda don't, like everything else this guy is it's so nuanced it's hard to make sense of. I consider him a full on enlightened centrist. He's not bad, but he's not my cup of tea.

Consistency/dedication to progressive values- 4/10

I dont consider him very progressive but I trust he would try to implement his platform as stated. 

Experience/competence- 3/10

He doesn't have any political experience, but doesn't seem completely insane either. 

Doesn't act as a spoiler- 0/10

Third party, automatic 0.

Total- 33/100

He's okay. Preferable to a republican, but vs a progressive, nah. 

Warmness rating- 25/100

Meh. He's up there with the Christian guy.

And there you have it. The other third party candidates. I'll add them to my final scorecard.

Ron Desantis removes sociology as a core college class in Florida

 So, there's a reason when Ron Desantis was running for president, I was still considering voting blue no matter who even if he got the nomination. He is also kind of dangerous to democracy, just in a more subtle way. Take him, for example, removing sociology as a core college class in florida. 

Now, I'm going to be blunt. Is sociology "woke"? Yes it actually is. Critical theory actually gets its origins in sociology to some extent, and as I've stated before, it's an offshoot of the sociological paradigm of conflict theory. It is also a legitimate academic theory. Why do I crap on it so much despite that? Because people end up making it their entire personality and developing a cult around it, that's why. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a legitimate theory people should learn about. If anything, that's the one place where it should be learned, and the one place where it can be learned in its proper context and not by terminally online SJWs who just throw academic buzzwords at you with no context and then half the country ends up thinking it's made up. 

But Pudding Ron wants to do away with that. He believes that the very idea of critical theory is so dangerous, and that the theory is so fake, that no one should ever learn about it. This is academic censorship. It should not be tolerated, it should not be seen as okay, F this guy. 

Colleges are places to learn. They are places to have your ideas challenged, and they are places where academic discourse should be as liberal (not politically liberal, but liberal as in free) as possible.

I think the right often has an argument about safe spaces and freedom of speech on college campuses. Right wing views should NOT be censored or sanctioned (unless someone goes full on into some nazi crap). I was a right winger in college. If colleges censored my views, it would actually be counterproductive to the learning process. You want people to come to conclusions on their own, not forced to come to conclusions. When I went to college, I was told that it doesnt matter WHAT I believe insofar as it matters HOW i got to such a position and whether it can be justified. And that's actually why I believe (politically) liberal ideas win in a free market of ideas. They have more evidence. They are supported by reason. They can be demonstrated. And that's why, as much as I despise the adherents to the social justice religion, I don't go full on into "this stuff is made up." It's not made it. It's a legitimate academic theory. It's just one of many possible theories one can consider, and I would say actual "woke" people are about as closed minded as any conservative, and they share more in common with conservatives than they're willing to admit. Horseshoe theory at work.

As such, when Ron Desanctimonious (yeah, I'm really laying into him today) decides to ban academic theories he doesnt like because he's a denialist of them, I'm going to come out against them, because I support free speech and open academic discourse. 

Even more so, I'm going to say that his ideas are counterproductive. How are people going to actually be able to learn about these things in a relatively objective context and be able to make decisions based on it (just as I did) if it isnt taught properly? Learning about critical theory from SJWs online is one of the worst ways to do it because they come off as deranged cult members trying to indoctrinate you into a religion. And alas, in some ways, while Desantis wanted to crack down on the theory to ban it from academic settings to stop its spread, he actually ends up just further polarizing society where now the adherents get to play the edgy persecution complex card that they believe in forbidden knowledge and that they know oh so much about the world more than everyone else. Stop, Ron, you're making them stronger. 

It's a lot like if you had some leftie trying to ban christianity and that just causes all the christians to get obnoxious with the persecution complex. They already partially believe the world is against them, why give them anything to confirm their delusions? Same thing here. 

Honestly, political factions need to stay out of academia and stop trying to push their moral policing nonsense on others. And that applies both to the left AND the right. Academics need to just focus on teaching truth, and teaching it objectively. We need to stop turning everything into propaganda one way or another. 

And the right in particular needs to stop being so anti intellectual in general. Seriously, yall need some of that free college I want you guys to have. If you did, you wouldnt be trying to ignorantly ban things you disagree with and hopefully, like me, see value on academic freedom and freedom of discourse.

Briefly discussing that chart showing the ideological divide between men and women

 So, there's a chart floating around the internet discussing how men and women seem to be diverging from each other ideologically, and everyone has been talking about it. A lot of the talk has been toxic with women going HURR DURR MEN ARE MISOGYNISTIC and men are basically expressing that identity politics are cancer, although often in colorful ways implying women are sluts and stuff like that (implying they did have alt right views).

And to me, the problem is obvious. Identity politics IS the problem. I mean, I've written on this before, men aren't gonna be interested in left wing politics if the whole thing is a circlejerk demonizing them for all things wrong in the world. Of course, women arent gonna be interested in conservatism either if they wanna force gender roles on people and seem to wanna go back to the 1950s. 

Both are simultaneously correct about the other, while completely lacking self awareness about the problems with their side of the aisle. Conservative politics are anti woman, but left wing politics are anti men. 

I keep saying it. Since 2016, our politics have become increasingly polarized on identity lines and it really isn't good for us. It's literally tearing us apart and driving the insane levels of polarization in society. As long as the two sides keep viewing the other as "the other", as in, something unlike and opposed to themselves, then nothing is gonna change. 

Honestly, it's going to take the left to really step up on this one too. Why them? Well, because can you REALLY separate a lot of conservative politics from traditionalism? I mean, conservatism politics is inherently traditionalistic. It's kind of a lost cause in my opinion.

But the left is different, which is why i always attack the left. It's like attacking that A student who gets Bs while kinda ignoring the D student who gets Ds. One is doing...what they can do, and the other can do better but isn't applying themselves. It isnt good enough just to be better than the other side, they should strive for the excellence they're capable of. Yes, we all know conservatism is a lost cause on issues like these and is completely and utterly incapable of being the better person and solving this. But the left isn't.

The left, rather than playing up all of these toxic identity politics, and driving a wedge in society with their intersectionality and privilege shaming nonsense, could instead embrace a more liberal conception politics based in equal rights and liberty for all, but without all of this toxic nonsense. I'm basically saying that the left needs to triangulate back to the more traditional liberal center, rather than going full speed ahead with the critical theory crap. That stuff is toxic to the discourse. It divides people and as long as our politics revolves around this stuff, we're just going to polarize to opposing extremes based on identity, while nothing actually gets done.

Only when one side truly respects equal rights for all, without any of the toxic identity dynamics endemic to modern society, will this nightmare of identity politics end. And again, I don't trust the right to be able to do that given their ideology is inherently stuck in a past where women were in the kitchen and minorities were enslaved, so....lefties, you're gonna have to moderate on this one. You need to bring men back into the fold with good old working class politics and solutions to their problems. You can't just demonize men or privilege shame them and then scratch your head wondering why they dont vote for you. Stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution. I get it, identity politics are an easy perpetual outrage machine, but they really are tearing society apart and strengthening the alt right if anything. If the left abandons identity politics, the right are just gonna look like jerks by keeping it up, and they're eventually gonna moderate back to the center either because no one ACTUALLY wants to live in the 1950s or earlier socially any more. As I see it, the left moderates, and the right will inevitably be forced to or lose elections. Donald Trump and his ilk are only popular as a backlash against the left. If the left is sane and moderate, than it makes the right look increasingly insane and extreme. And that's how you solve this issue.

Fetterman shows anti war protesters the door

 So, people decided to protest John Fetterman outside of his home here in PA, and Fetterman decided to show them the door. He started waving an israeli flag around, which is pissing off some progressives, who are promising never to vote for him again. 

I have mixed feelings about this. To get the negative out of the way, I don't know if essentially giving your supporters a middle finger is a good idea, the kind of left that's willing to protest like this IS perfectly willing to drop you and not vote for you, and this might actually cost him reelection given his narrow vote margins in 2022.

At the same time...I LOVE THIS! I'm going to be honest, I'm kinda neutral on the conflict at this point, if I HAD to choose, I'd choose israel, but I recognize israel is doing some shady stuff that I dont agree with, but I'm not gonna get on my high horse and protest democrats like children over this. These people are rude, they're uncivil, they're self righteous, and you give them an inch and they'll take a mile. They give people who protest the left a bad name. They remind me of the people who protested LBJ in vietnam. And I believe they kind of recognize a similar 1968 moment for the democrats if we're not careful. Republicans pounced with their silent majority rhetoric and we ended up with nixon, and eventually reagan. 

I do believe it is the right of every american to protest their leaders, I dont believe anyone owes any politician a vote, and I personally have exercised these powers before too. However, this ain't it, fam. No one really cares. The majority of the left (myself included) is not with you, and if anything it incenses me that THIS is the issue that the left goes so bugnuts on. Seriously, you wouldnt even get this self righteous over a UBI, or medicare for all, or a green new deal, why do it on this? 

And, as you can tell, with my last few days of posts, I've had it with these people. I'm tired of the toxicity, the self righteousness, the constant neverending protests that dont amount to anything. They're not helping their case. They're turning most against the left.

And honestly, this is why I like Fetterman's creative approach to dealing with them. I'm not sure how this will play out for him electorally as what he did essentially amounts to a giant middle finger to the left, but in my opinion, this is what I believe needs to be done sometimes. At some point the democrats needs to say "hey, look, we see you, we hear you, we don't care, kindly screw off, have a nice life." And let the pieces fall where they may.

If the article above implies anything, it's that this behavior is actually winning over some conservatives. Because let's face it, conservatives hate those kinds of people too, and they also like the owning the libs mentality, so they are eating this up like crazy.

And in order to avoid another 1968 moment long term, let me say this. These guys do not represent the majority of the left. They dont represent a majority of democrats, or even left leaners at large. They are a small vocal minority. When they had their opportunity to protest vote in new hampshire, a resounding 1.2% wrote that in. They only got 500 more votes than shoe on head. And that is about how seriously as anyone should take them.

Seriously, most democrats seem to be behind president Biden on this, regardless of their views on the issue. Biden won around 70% of the vote in New Hampshire, with Dean Phillips being the most significant challenger at 20%, and Marianne Williamson getting 4-5%. 

That's the reality of the left. Are there more independent lefties not counted here? Sure, including a lot of leftists, but they're not likely to shift elections in a meaningful way because they dont organize properly anyway. So who cares?

When progressives do lean left, they're more likely to do so on domestic policy, like economics or social issues. i do believe a lot of progressive ideas like a $15 minimum wage, and universal healthcare, and paid parental leave are majority positions. Even positions like UBI, single payer, free college, etc., are likely held by significant minorities of voters, like say, 40-45%. 

 This crap caps out at 30% tops, and the people actually running around being toxic about it are around 1-2%. No one should care about them. Other than discussions like this, they should largely be ignored. And I actually do advise the democrats to ignore these people this time. They're such a significant minority that they're more likely to lead to democrats LOSING voters than gaining them. Because if they cave to these guys they're gonna alienate far more normies. 

And that's the thing with me. Sometimes, I'm going to side with the left, and sometimes I'm going to side with the center.  It depends on what the issue is, how I feel about it, and in cases like this, what does the actual polling say. I like to pick my battles, and as I said already, this ain;t it fam. If anything, I'm throwing my lot in with fetterman and waving israeli flags around just to piss people off (to be fair i would not go that far myself as i dont endorse israel either, i just find the idea of doing so funny).

Election Update 1/26/24

I mean let's face it, we all know this is gonna be a Trump-Biden rematch right? I discussed the primaries, the results are following the trends, and I don't see any way for it not to be a boring 2020 rematch barring health issues or legal issues getting in the way. 

So let's go into it:

National Polling: Trump + 4.3%

This isn't good. That's down 2 points from last month, where I had Biden at a 11.5% chance of winning.

As for the states:

State	Margin	Z Score	% D Win	% R Win	EV if D Wins	EV if R wins
Maine	Biden +11.0%	-2.75	99.7%	0.3%	143	398
Washington	Biden +10.0%	-2.50	99.4%	0.6%	155	395
New York	Biden +9.0%	-2.25	98.8%	1.2%	183	383
New Hampshire	Biden +8.0%	-2.00	97.7%	2.3%	187	355
New Mexico	Biden +8.0%	-2.00	97.7%	2.3%	192	351
Virginia	Biden +4.4%	-1.10	86.4%	13.6%	205	346
Colorado	Biden +4.0%	-1.00	84.1%	15.9%	215	333
Minnesota	Biden +2.5%	-0.63	73.6%	26.4%	225	323
NE2 (estimated)	Biden +1.9%	-0.48	68.4%	31.6%	226	313
Pennsylvania	Biden +0.6%	-0.15	56.0%	44.0%	245	312
Wisconsin	Tie 0.0%	0.00	50.0%	50.0%	255	293
Arizona	Trump +4.8%	+1.20	11.5%	88.5%	266	283
Michigan	Trump +5.3%	+1.33	9.2%	90.8%	281	272
Nevada	Trump +5.4%	+1.35	8.9%	91.3%	287	257
Georgia	Trump +6.6%	+1.65	5.0%	95.0%	303	251
Texas	Trump +8.0%	+2.00	2.3%	97.7%	343	235
Iowa	Trump +8.0%	+2.00	2.3%	97.7%	349	195
North Carolina	Trump +9.0%	+2.25	1.2%	98.8%	365	189
Florida	Trump +10.0%	+2.50	0.6%	99.4%	395	173
Ohio	Trump +10.0%	+2.50	0.6%	99.4%	412	143
ME2	Trump +14.0%	+3.50	0.0%	100.0%	413	126

 And it keeps getting worse and worse. Georgia, Nevada, and Michigan have gotten more red. Biden's chance of winning has dropped down to 9% from 11-12%. We finally got Maine CD2 polling, it's so high it's off the charts. Wtf, New York dropped down to +9, how do you do so badly in NY? That should be like an easy +20-30% pro Biden state. 

On the flip side, Virginia has gotten slightly bluer, as has Pennsylvania. PA actually flipped back to Biden. Not sure how that will hold up in practice, it's still pretty split, but any movement in the right direction is good. 

And yeah. It's getting worse. We are worse off this month than last month in net. We're way worse than 2-3 months ago when I started doing these monthly predictions. And even then I was noting that Biden seems absolutely screwed. 

If we hit 95% chance Trump, 5% Biden, we're back in Obama 2008 territory. Right now, we're at a 9.2% chance Biden wins, and a 90.8% chance Trump wins. So it's pretty close. We're getting there. 

Right now, Wisconsin is still 50-50, so the most likely electoral college vote is either going to be 283-255 Trump, or 293-245 Trump, depending on which way Wisconsin goes. 

We are screwed. Still, we have around 9 months to turn this around. I just hope people wake up and abandon Trump en masse (or people get more used to voting for Biden again) or we're gonna lose.