While I do agree that math gets much easier with interest, and that it gets more interesting the further you get into it, and that math is inherently beautiful, etc. I feel this argument has to fall flat to people who don’t already agree. It’s the education equivalent of when someone says they couldn’t get into an anime and then the fans tell them ‘oh it gets really good around season 9’. You could be completely correct, as you are here, but it’s utterly unconvincing if you don’t already “know.”

To be fair, I think this is mostly a problem with math curricula. Math classes up through high school and early college seem to focus on well trodden solutions to boring problems, and at some (far too late) point it flips around to being creative solutions to interesting problems. I think this could be fixed eventually, but such is the system we have now.

I’ve seen the occasional post here on lemmy making this point. I don’t see anything factually wrong in saying she’d likely keep status quo or even make it worse. But when I see this said the one thing that I always wonder is never addressed:

How would the outcome be better if you voted against her?

Like, I have to imagine that someone making this argument thinks Trump would improve the situation. Because if that isn’t the case, then this is not a decision I’m making at the voting booth, so saying she’d continue genocide as a reason to vote against her falls flat (and, if you’re wondering, is why people are quick to downvote this argument). Is the hope that Trump will see the artillery shells sent to isreal as “librul policy” and axe it on that basis? Or that he’ll do such a bad job that he’ll get assassinated/arrested/overthrown? Something else entirely?

Enlighten me, because I can’t envision Trump making anything better.

The thing that finally got businesses to finally get off IE wasn’t from the browser being worse than every other option. Heck, it wasn’t even because it was a decrepit piece of software that lost it’s former market dominance (and if anything businesses see that as a positive, not a negative).

What finally did that was microsoft saying there won’t be any security updates. That’s what finally got them off their ass; subtly threatening them with data breaches, exploits, etc. if they continue to use it. I don’t see google doing this anytime soon, at least not without a “sequel” like microsoft had with edge.

Surprised TOEM isn’t on your list, given the premise is pretty much exactly what you describe. Last I checked it comes up on the first page or something if you sort steam by highest rated.

Lunacid might also be a good game. I think it fits your criteria for me, but that might just be for me.

I don’t think this can really be answered until after the fact. Anything that I (and I suspect most) people could say about an artstyle are going to be particular to an instance of that artsyle. If I’d give advice as someone who is neither an artist nor a game designer, what attracts me more than anything is a unique artstyle, which, if I’m gonna give a brutal opinion, starting from a vague category like ‘pixel’, ‘hand drawn’ or ‘3D’ probably won’t get you there.

I feel like I even struggle to answer your question at face value because it doesn’t align well at all with how I conceptualize game art. For example, Cruelty Squad is a game that I don’t think I’d have gotten if not for it’s artsyle. Like, sure, it’s 3D, but it’s a lot more like a PilotRedSun animation than it is a game like TF2. Or take a game like Factorio: most of the assets of that game are pre-rendered 3D sprites, so despite being artisticly unique in a way that interests me it doesn’t fit into the categories you’ve asked about. The best I can say is “I dunno”, and I don’t think anyone else can answer it further than that.

One of the reasons I really disliked Reddit and stopped using it years ago was this way of using the voting system. If I make a post, and it gets voted something like +4-10, and a reply that is some rewording of “that’s a dumb statement”, what am I to think? I’m certainly not going to change my mind, no one gave me a good reason to.

If one is voting because they feel they can’t stand behind their opinion if they expanded it in text… I don’t know what to tell ya.

I’m inclined to believe a lot of people do this. This is not to say they are terrible for doing this, it’s that it’s human nature. Replying to someone with a well thought out post takes effort and, from my experience, makes the me realize i don’t know shit about the subject. Point is, this way of using the voting system breeds half-thought opinions which is a host of a lot of other problems.