I don’t have a problem with a flat fee.  BUT, a subscription?  Pass.  The game itself isn’t worth a subscription.

I know, weird flex from PC gamers, right? How dare someone get paid for a QoL improvement that nobody else took the time to make?! I swear we are the dumbest elitist pricks in the world.

I say this not as a PC gamer, but why in the hell shouldn’t someone be compensated for their work on a mod? 

RPGs are one of the few types of games where going for a pacifist run should at least feel doable. The fact that Bethesda has still not found a way to make that happen is odd.

Their point of it sometimes being nonintuitive still sounds valid. Maybe it could use better tutorials or tooltips.

is it at least better than pip boy?

I mean, that’s fair, but anyone at the sub $300 range is stuck at the best you can get for what you have. At 300, it’s which game is 60fps on medium vs which game is 50fps, and at 600-whatever, it’s what looks the best at 100+fps. Both are absolutely reasonable gauges, but also a different scale.

Well, no, DLSS can have significantly better image quality with less/zero ghosting and artifacts. DLSS makes many games actually look better than running at native resolution (e.g. Death Stranding). The same can’t be said for FSR which just has a lot of ghosting and artifacts. DLSS also has better performance than FSR.

I mean, a 7/10 and 75/100 is basically a C: passing, but without distinction. I think both those reviews convey that. 

I resonate with similar sentiments, although for me, the game’s size isn’t the primary factor; rather, it’s the way in which the game directs the player’s progression.

This is absolutely my take on most games these days. I’m generally fine with it in Baldur’s Gate because I know I can pick at that off and on for a few months and constantly have story or side content to encounter and engage with but with Bethesda games they don’t (usually) feel as packed full of stuff that isn’t just…

In 10 years the next huge Bethesda RPG will come out and critics will be saying “it doesn’t have the charm of Starfield or Skyrim”.

I’m seeing the word Overwhelming thrown around a lot in these reviews, and that’s a big red flag to me. Quantity over quality is another phrase I saw, but if anything, 100+ hours of gameplay doesn’t draw me in anymore like it did 10 years ago when Skyrim came out, it makes me run for the hills.

Perhaps, but "I wasn't expecting to be beaten therefore my opponent cheated" is a ridiculous statement to make, regardless of said opponent's history of conduct.

Okay. But you not liking the character isn’t relevant to the discussion at hand. Which is leaving him behind to make the boss battle easier.

If you aren’t going to have him show up to his own storyline why even bother doing the quest?

Like, yes, it does make the battle more challenging. But if you aren’t interested in seeing Astarion confront Cazador what’s the point?

“we cant turn back the clock” say the company behind turning back the clock on WoW to flog WoW classic?

If we can’t turn back the clock, then what can we do? We can keep adding to and improving Overwatch 2. That is how we move forward. This means more maps, heroes, game modes, missions, stories, events, cool cosmetics, and features—an ever-expanding, evolving, and improving game.

Ever expanding game in all the ways except you know, the ones we promised when we sold it to you.

You have as long as you like, you don’t have to play Starfield on release day.