1 TB SSDs are 35-60 dollars.
1 TB HDDs are 22-50 dollars.
2 TB HDDs are 40-65 dollars.
2 TB SDDs are 60-90 dollars.
Clearly, price shouldn’t be an issue because one of these drives that give you 10 times the storage is the cost of 1 new release, and the theoretical person who just bought BG3 and Starfield just spent 120 dollars minimum. So theoretical person let’s do some math!
Seems really silly to complain that you ran out of space on your PC. Get another drive. If you’ve filled up your SATA ports, get a PCIe SATA card. If you have all your onboard SATA slots full, plus your PCIe slots are full, plus you’ve upgraded all the drives you could to at least 1 TB, that typically gives you at least 2-4 TB total. BG3 is taking up 150 GB that you reserved for gaming. Uninstall it if you want to play Starfield. If you don’t want to play Starfield that badly then you have your answer.
Clearly, the real answer is that this person needs another drive in their computer. They act like the OS drive is the only thing that could possibly exist in a computer. Worst case, go get a USB 3 drive and toss Starfield on that.
New MacBooks have their memory soldered directly to the main board and don’t have an extra m.2 port. There are very few windows laptops that meet both of those criteria. But like I said, even in those cases you can install games on an external drive.
I’d be inclined to agree but I’m frankly somewhat at a loss from this articles perspective. Why a 256gb boot drive in 2023? I’m only assuming, based on the math. If it were 512GB I’d assume they’d be able to shuffle off more data. If it’s important files you need to access, store them on an external HDD? If they’re a gamer and they know space is an issue, a SSD enclosure is not much more added cost to a 1TB drive and it solves the issue…
Like I said, I understand the intent about game sizes. But people playing BG3 or Starfield on their laptop are going to have other issues on top of storage, since most laptops have a pretty linear upgrade path. If you have the 256gb model the rest of the hardware probably reflects that pricepoint. Like @bandario said, at a certain point the idea of a game coming preloaded on a USB drive makes sense, but until then the ease for general use of an SSD enclosure makes more sense.
What the heck did you just say about storage, you little newbie? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in Computer Engineering, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on terrible cable management, and I have over 300 confirmed SSD installs. You’re complaining about space on your PC like it’s some sort of divine mystery? Listen up, sailor.
You’re whining about dropping $120 on BG3 and Starfield? You could get a 1TB SSD for as low as 35 bucks, you scallywag. Don’t even get me started on HDDs; a 1TB one is practically a steal at 22 dollars. And let’s go big or go home: 2TB HDD for 40-65 dollars, or if you’re feeling ritzy, a 2TB SSD at 60-90. Still less than your precious games, maggot.
You’re out of SATA ports? Son, have you heard of a PCIe SATA card? Load that baby up. You’ve got more slots on your motherboard than you have excuses. Talking about running out of space with a setup that should give you 2-4TB at least? Don’t make me laugh. You’re telling me you can’t find space for your precious BG3? That’s only 150GB, sailor, uninstall it if you’re so keen on playing Starfield.
And if you’ve hit the limits of both onboard SATA and PCIe, then I have one word for you: USB 3. Worst case, you get an external drive and run Starfield from there. Don’t act like your OS drive is the final frontier; there are many ways to expand your digital seas, you landlubber.
So before you cry about storage again, maybe do some basic math and stop acting like you’re navigating uncharted waters. Get another drive, or walk the plank.
The sentiment isn't wrong. Space is cheap now. Had Star field come out when SSDs were having GPU-like pricing I'd be more outraged, but prices are falling and having multi-terabyte systems shouldn't be an issue. Way cheaper than GPUs that can play the game, that's for sure.
Nah, you can find people complaining about games being too big in cycles going all the way back to the beginning of retail PC gaming. I remember Screen Savers built their "Ultimate Gaming PC" in like 1998 with a few gigabytes of storage, and they said something like, "I know that seems like a lot, but games these days can be hundreds of megabytes, so we want to be able to just fit them all". Baldur's Gate 3 and Starfield are both large games. Not every game is that big, nor are these games necessarily doing something wrong by being that big.
SSD prices finally started dropping rapidly, and HDDs are even cheaper, for games like Sea of Stars or 30XX that don't need read speed performance, both of which have options to extend laptop storage space like the author's use case.
I don't know, I remember being a kid and hearing my mom complaining about some game needing like five floppy disks to install.
My childhood computer had 80 MB of storage on it and 15 of that was used up by the operating system, so I guess installing a 9 MB game was actually pretty taxing.
Remember Strike Commander? The floppy disk version (with very limited speech as well) wanted some 40-50MB when the common HDD sizes were 80-120 MB. I had a larger-than-average 240MB and it'd still have hurt if I didn't have a CD-ROM drive to play the CD edition instead.
Remember Baldur’s Gate 2, which had multiple installation options for different amounts of the game running from the HDD vs CD, and it felt so extravagant to go “install all of it on the HDD!”
That would work only in the console (or Apple) world where you can control who and how can access the data. Otherwise someone will stick it to an USB 1.1 hub connected to the USB 2.0 port for the mouse and then complain “the game is unbearably slow!!!”
Plus I don’t think anyone would want to pay $150 for a game (no, you can’t use a $10 USB drive for this)
You also have to be careful with what other USB devices you plug into your computer (both internal and external). The spec is 40 Gb/s for the controller, but ports often share the same controller and the bandwidth will be split between connected devices. For some computers, this could mean that 3 or more ports should be completely blocked off when plugging your gaming USB drive in, at least while playing the game. If your PC only has a single USB controller, I guess you’ll also need bluetooth peripherals.
Fair enough, I imagine the potential audience of people who both have that tech (and are aware of if rather than it just coming with their machine) and also don’t have enough internal memory to install a game is quite small in the grand scheme of things and a hard sell for a publisher.
You can get a USB 3 SD card reader and a fast SD card yourself. Even if it was bundled with the game, you're paying for the cost of the physical materials.
I don’t think you understand economies of scale. It doesn’t make sense for me to pay retail price for a single unit, especially if I have no other use for it. These costs are trivial at scale, and would also hopefully provide some impetus to optimise the code and texture storage.
Economies of scale aren't magic. Games are somewhat resistant to price increases in the face of inflation because we've shifted to digital distribution that you're looking to erode with the suggestion of shipping with physical media again, and you'd still have to pay well more than half of the price it would take you to buy that same media on Amazon. The storage size has grown because they've been optimizing for other factors, and I'm sure they came to the conclusion that it's more likely you'll free up space or buy storage expansions in the future after a price drop than it is that you would buy a game that ran worse or looked worse forever because they optimized more for storage space.
I am happy to pay whatever extra it costs to have the experience of actually owning a game on a lasting medium with some artwork. My experience with digital downloads is that I just never care as much. Often I won’t even finish the game unless it is beyond amazing. I like to receive tangible things for my hard earned money I guess.
Flash drives are not a lasting medium. You'd need something like a quad-layer blu-ray, which is not cheap and has slow read speeds compared to solid state storage. Also nobody has blu-ray readers anymore. Also blu-ray publishers are tiny. Also the expense of distributing physical media.
So we've arrived back at the beginning - you can have this cake and eat it too, but you're going to have to eat the expense yourself. Imposing it upon the entire consumer market is selfish and wasteful.
Read speeds from a USB stick are incomparably slower than most hard drives. The USB 3.0 specification has a theoretical maximum transfer rate of 5Gb/sec (~600MB/s). By comparison, my PCIe 4.0 NVMe (I believe most laptops these days come with NVMe storage? Could be wrong) has a read performance, reported by CrystalDiskMark, of 7.3GB/s (that’s a big B, not a little b, and looking at 1MiB sequential 1 thread 8 queues). In other words, my hard drive’s measured performance is 12x faster than the theoretical maximum throughput of a USB drive. This also doesn’t take into account things like DirectStorage, which some games have started to adopt.
I think realistically games should consider separating the higher quality assets from the low quality assets intended for lower performance systems, and make them separate downloads. HD assets could be a free “DLC” on Steam, for example.
I hear what you’re saying, but I have about 200 games stored on a traditional HDD that only provides me a read speed of about 220MB/s absolute maximum and I have never had a single issue with any game running from it. As you say this could become a problem as devs adopt directstorage but as it stands right now, it’s a total none-issue.
I have a 2TB NVME M.2 drive in my PC but don’t really see any advantage to putting games on there, that’s what bulk storage is for. If you are playing online, 99% of games will have a countdown or otherwise make you wait until the slowest PC is also ready to go. If it’s a game that uses loading screens, I really don’t care as it still loads pretty damn fast.
Pretty much the only games that I will throw on my M.2 drive is open world games that load as you go if I am on my first playthrough. RDR2 lived on there for a while.
USB 3.2 gen 2x2’s theoretical speeds cap out at 20Gb/s (or 2.5GB/sec). It’s certainly a performance improvement compared to USB 3.0, but still doesn’t quite meet the performance of an internal NVMe. If your PC supports Thunderbolt, you get double the bandwidth (so 5GB/sec) which does match what some slower PCIe 4.0 NVMe drives can handle. This is of course assuming you’re comparing to a NVMe, a SATA drive won’t come close to these speeds but I believe most laptops these days use NVMe drives.
Regardless, if you’re loading games off a USB 3.2 gen 2x2 interface, and assuming you’re using a single drive to a single controller (keep in mind that performance is split between connected devices per controller, and PCs often only have a couple controllers at most to manage all the ports), your read performance is probably more than enough.
Ah, most laptops these days ship with an internal NVMe, so that’s what I assumed you were comparing against. A USB 3.2 gen 2x2 enclosure will vastly outperform a SATA SSD I believe, again assuming it’s the only device connected to your controller.
Than most Solid State Drives you mean, since Hard Drive Disks have way slower read speeds than USB 3.0/3.1, I even have proof, My partners BG3 game was laggy as hell in her hard drive, but it’s manageable to play in an external SSD connected to USB3.1. The read speed changes from 35MB7s-ish to 500MB/s-ish iirc. it was VERY noticeable. Her laptop is a gaming laptop bought 4 years ago, and the processor/grapphics card works pretty well still, but the 250GB SSD is just not enough to manage windows and all the other games/programs, and the HHD is way too slow, so yeah. In the future changing the SSD to put a bigger one would be the best but for now an external drive works wonders.
Compared to a HDD, yeah USB 3.0 speeds aren’t too bad, but most laptops being released these days use an NVMe for storage (or possibly even a soldered drive). My comparison was around what you’d expect in a laptop purchased in the past year or so.
For your partner’s laptop, getting better read performance from an external drive doesn’t surprise me, but there are also limits to this. Games are starting to support DirectStorage, which allows the GPU to directly read and decompress assets from the hard drive. This won’t work with an external drive (at least from my understanding), so those games will likely fallback to much slower methods of loading assets if they support the laptop at all. This is also not taking into account the other hardware on the laptop, which might have been excellent for the time, but with how much CPUs and GPUs have advanced over the past 4 years, I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re starting to reach their limits with today’s major releases.
Beautiful. I’m playing it now and gotta say, I hate everyone who has talked about it up until now. From the die-hard fanboys who say it has to be the best game ever created, to the anti-bethesda circlejerkers who roam every gaming community telling people how it’s a terrible game even though they have not played it.
I’m tired of everyone and their opinions about gaming. I bought it with mid expectations, and I am happy with my purchase.
Honestly, the game is exactly what I expected from all the pre-release info. It's a Bethesda RPG in space. I didn't expect a space sim, so I didn't expect any sort of dynamic streaming for seamless planetary transitions and the likes, because they very clearly stated that this wasn't a thing.
And the capital G Gamers seem to be more bothered by pronouns, body types, female leaders, all the "replaced white people", etc. lol
Seriously, stay away from the Steam forums folks.
Whenever anyone calls me by my “they them” pronouns in game, a tiny juvenile part of me chuckles at the Gamerz out there who I’m sure are frothing at the mouth at the fact that I can play a single player game how I want.
I was considering using they / them for a second, just for shits & giggles, but then thought it's likely not even really used in a lot of dialogs anyway (very much true after many hours later now). In hindsight it would have probably just confused me though, thinking they talk about someone else. Because I am super tired from literally playing too much, which completely fucks with my concentration & attention span. lol
YouTube eventually responded, intending to leave a message in two tweets. However, it only sent one tweet, and just… forgot to send the next part, I suppose.
“Upon careful review, we’ve confirmed that your channel was suspended for violating Google’s Terms of Service,” says YouTube support. “While it didn’t violate any YouTube channel monetization policies, it’s linked to a Google acct that has an issue.”
Since we never got the second part of that message, we have no idea what caused the channel’s ban, and why it kicked in shortly after Wiles shared a VOD of her Baldur’s Gate 3 stream. In any case, her Twitch channel is still up, if you’re hoping to tune in to her next Baldur’s Gate session.
Absolutely bizarre. What kind of Google Account issue can get you banned from YouTube? They already killed all their other social platforms, so it can’t be something she did on Groups or Chat. (Did these get merged into + and Hangouts before being killed off? They’ve had so many of these.) Maybe she did a chargeback on a Play Store purchase or something? I feel like that would be pretty obvious to her, though, and she seems as confused as everyone else.
I could come up with a thousand reasons as to why this would never happen. Hell, I could even argue that the whole Steam Deck’s existence comes from a series of decisions that Valve made out of hatred for Microsoft. So, yeah, it’s not happening.
Still though, as a thought experiment, imagining a world where tomorrow, Steam is owned by Microsoft, it’s… interesting, to say the least. In the most horrifying way possible, but interesting nonetheless. Quite frankly, I can’t imagine anything worse happening for video games. Like to me, this is what a video game apocalypse sounds like.
Still though, as a thought experiment, imagining a world where tomorrow, Steam is owned by Microsoft, it’s… interesting, to say the least. In the most horrifying way possible, but interesting nonetheless. Quite frankly, I can’t imagine anything worse happening for video games. Like to me, this is what a video game apocalypse sounds like.
People in the future will realize that Skyrim was made in a perfect sweet spot at Bethesda. It was made recently enough that the controls make sense and it feels good to play, but Skyrim was still so, so ahead of it’s time when it came to an open world RPG. Back then, Bethesda’s writers really had a knack for making incredibly interesting settings, and just seeing an entire digital world so wonderfully realized was considered ground-breaking.
A decade later, and the same model has become stale. The gameplay is still there, but the soul is not. Idk if most of those old writers have just left Bethesda or retired after so many years in the industry, but the magic has left the studio. I’m not even really looking forward to ES6 as much as I am the upcoming Avowed from Obsidian, because their games still have plenty of soul.
It feels like Skyrim was the game they'd (and by they I mean Todd) always wanted to make, and Skyrim was the first time they had the resources and technology available to make it more or less exactly as they envisaged.
Fallout 4 probably would've been in the exact same situation of the technology finally catching up to their ideas, except they completely botched the landing by adding in voiced characters.
Look I love Dark Souls; it is an incredibly flawed game, and Demon’s Souls is even moreso. Dark Souls was so far ahead of it’s time that it still needed time to bake in the oven. Then with how claustrophobic DS2 and DS3’s worlds were by comparison, I don’t think FromSoft really surpassed Skyrim until Elden Ring.
Both games are some of the greatest of all time though, so a lot of it will just come to preference. I think a lotta Dark Souls players have been spoiled by the remaster though, the original release struggled hard under the weight of Miyazaki’s ambition.
Morrowind was amazing because it is a hand built world. Oblivion had the same core error as Starfield: an overreliance on procedural generation.
For Skyrim they did it right. Just the right amount of procedural generation with enough manual work that things worked out.
You can't overlook the modding scene either. Oblivion had a great mod community with a lot of people getting into it and cutting their teeth there. So when Skyrim came out they were experts and made a lot of amazing mods, particularly framework mods.
But almost all of them are done and gone or corrupted into paid mods(e.g. Elianora, Kinggath(FO4)). So Starfield will never get a good modding scene because the core modding community doesn't exist now.
Morrowind had (and still has) just as vibrant a modding community as ES4 or 5. Tamriel Rebuilt alone is still the largest modding project for any Elder Scrolls game.
All of that expertise was developed on and for Morrowind.
We don’t have the SF version of the Creation Kit yet, but all previous versions are largely similar, and FO4 modders will likely have no issue working on SF.
The articles take is still out of kilter with a lot of opinions. He's focused on the empty procedurally generated content but then talks about how "phenomenal" the main quest is?
The main quest is ok. I wouldn't say it's "phenomenal". I'm not seeing the depth of gameplay and writing that I saw in Baldurs Gate 3 or Cyberpunk 2077 or The Witcher 3. Starfield is not a bad game, but it's also not phenomenal. It's ok. I'm more excited by the next CD Projekt Red or Larian game than I am about the next Bethesda game at this point.
Hasn’t every other generation come with a price decrease and a bigger size reduction? This seems like it’s really just a new model.
The biggest upgrade is the SSD size. But digital is getting more expensive (but also has the disc drive option). Seems like it’s just not enough upside for anyone to get excited over compared to previous generations.
I don’t understand why anyone would buy the $450 digital version plus a $70 Bluray disc drive add-on rather than just paying $500 for a disc model capable of playing blurays and games. Very strange on Sony’s part.
Having a digital only version of a console is very concerning from an e-waste point of view. It’ll be an odd-shaped brick years later when the digital store front is long gone and the old SSD gets corrupted.
I don’t think it’s for people planning on buying the disc drive. But it’s a nice way to avoid FOMO for anyone that doesn’t want to get locked out of discs forever (without buying a whole new console).
Plus, for people looking to save some money, it could be an opportunistic purchase if they find it for cheap later.
As long as there’s sufficiently few regulations to stop it being profitable for companies to market and sell vapourware then people will keep assuming they’re not buying into a scam
The you’re addressing here is The four-point scale, which exists primarily because rating a low score on a big developer’s game is a good way to ensure you don’t receive review copies ahead of release, something reviewers live and die on because their fans want to know ahead of time whether the game is any good. In that sense, it’s a bit of a paradox - you can’t be sure at face value whether the 4 out of 5/8 out of 10/83% was something that the reviewer genuinely levied against the game as a fair criticism of flaws and/or commendation of positive experiences, or if they give it a high number because they’re afraid of biting the hand that feeds.
It’s similar with movies and TV. I think a lot of people see a 50% rottentomatoes or a 5.0/10 on IMDB and automatically assume it’ll be unenjoyable, but that isn’t always the case in reality.
I’m not a fan of RT because I find their critic score absolutely meaningless. IMDB is much better for me, I find the average people score rating usually matches my appreciation of a movie. I am trying hard to remember a single movie with a score of 5/10 that I enjoyed though.
Rt critic scores are, imo, one of the best rating scales. Think of it as a percentage chance a fairly average movie watcher is going to like this movie. It’s not saying “this movie is 75% good”. It’s 3/4 reviewers felt it was worth watching, and does not comment on if they thought it was amazing or just okay. Marvel stuff tends to score high because mostly, despite not being some peak cinema, it provides an entertaining experience that earns a passing grade from most people. Movies that are more niche tend to get a lower score but that doesn’t mean they’re bad, just more niche.
I like this because it’s easy to understand what it means with a little research. Most game scores don’t do that and I find it annoying
IMDB is especially useless when it comes to comedies, they hardly ever reach a 7/10. Hot Shots - 6.7/10, Ghostbusters2 - 6.6/10, Naked Gun 33 1/3 - 6.5/10, Gremlins 2 - 6.4/10, there is a whole lot of amazing movies hidden in the 6-7/10 range.
The thing is most comedies aren’t great. The films you listed were all just ok in their times except Hot Shots which was a great spoof film but was not a great film overall.
I don’t like the whole Rotten Tomatoes thing or judging a film by it’s box office numbers. If it looks interesting, watch it yourself and make up your own mind. 😊
I blame the school grading system for it. 70% and below is already a failing grade in many courses. So by extension anything that gets rated 7 or below is asscoiated with failure.
I am not from the US, so I don't know how long this grading system has been in use there but here in Central Eruope that's a rather new thing. That's why a 5/10 didn't feel as bad 20 years ago while today a 7/10 feels worse.
Interesting take. I’ve been in educational institutions in South America and Australia and usually the bare minimum you need to pass is a 6, occasionally a 5/10. I think expecting most people to score a 7/10 to pass is a bit unrealistic, unless we are talking about school for gifted children or something. No idea that was the standard in Central Europe
It's not the standard, it's just something that started to pop up in some university courses. Anything before that we usually are just graded 1-6/A-F. But even 15 years ago when I attended University there were a few courses that required a 70%+ for passing and what I have heared this has become more common. It's basically to weed out people and reduce the number of students since university is usually free.
I’m in college now and I haven’t taken a single course where 70% wasn’t the bare minimum for passing. I even took a comp sci course and it was the very first year that department lowered the passing grade from 80% to 70%. Apparently for the past 30 years of the comp sci department’s existance, a B- was barely passing.
I think I know some friends whose majors have 60% as the passing grade, but my major is a science and it’s all been 70%.
I think it definitely depends on how the course is assessed, what content it covers, and how much of that content the student needs to have absorbed to be considered to have met the requirement to pass. I just completed one in the UK where, to put it in simple terms, you had to get 10/10 to pass, and you got higher grades if you went above and beyond. But that’s because each module had a set of criteria and you had to demonstrate proficiency in all of them at least once in the coursework, and you got extra credit if you demonstrated “very good” or “excellent” proficiency. (This grading system is unusual in this country, but it exists for very skills-focused courses, where demonstrating proficiency with doing something is more important than showing you know something.)
By that standard, a game with “only” 7/10 would have significant chunks missing in a way that would make it unplayable. A 10/10 game would be average: everything that’s meant to be in there is there, but it’s only done the bare minimum to make a functional game. Every part of the game that could be described as “very good” or “excellent” would earn it ratings above 10.
Not that I’m saying games should be graded this way. It’d be ridiculous and confusing. But it just demonstrates that what constitutes a “failing” grade definitely varies not only between countries, but between different courses. Which means I actually agree that basing game reviews on the grading system of the US educational system is flawed: it makes too many assumptions about what constitutes “passing” or “failing”.
But it’s not based on any educational system. That’s just the spin people erroneously attribute to it. It’s just a percentage, and it’s up to each person to figure out what number works for them or not as an acceptable minimum.
Same with movies, another commenter said a 5/10 movie was good enough for them sometimes, whereas for me the lowest enjoyable is a 6.
All that is fine, what makes no sense is to expect others to have the same standards I do.
My preferred approach is to ignore the number/percentage rating entirely, and focus on what the review actually says. Maybe the reviewer is marking it down because of stuff I don’t care about, and the good parts of the game are exactly the things I value highly. Or maybe they’ve given something a 9/10 but the things they love about it are things that would make me hate it. There are so many more important things when deciding if I want to buy and play a game than what overall percentage it was given in reviews.
That’s why when it come to score, i just look at the total score to see how many people dig the game, and only watch/read review that doesn’t include scoring and might have similar taste as me, and only read negative review in steam to see whether i can put up with the bad part of the game.
Broadly, I agree with what you're saying. Totally just devil's advocate-ing and speculating to provoke thought, so feel free to ignore. I wonder if the enormous number of games available plays into this. I can almost always dig around and find at least one 10/10 game from the last couple of years that I haven't played which is already on sale for cheap. Comparing that to a 7/10 game that just came out at full price... I'd almost certainly enjoy the 7/10 game, but I'd spend less money and likely have more fun with the 10/10. The newness factor may not be enough to bump the 7/10 game to the top of the queue.
With so many great games available an 8/10 might actually feel like a logical minimum for a lot of people, which may influence the scale that reviewers use. If people tend to ignore games with 7- scores and a reviewer feels that a game is good enough that it deserves attention, they may be tempted to bump it up to 8/10 just to get it on radars.
Meanwhile, back in the day there wasn't such a glut of games to choose from. And with better QoL standards, common UX principles, code samples, and tools/engines, games may legitimately just be better on average than they used to be, making it fiddly to try to retrofit review scores onto the same bell curve as older games. To reverse it, I can see how an 8/10 game released in 1995 might be scored significantly worse by modern reviewers for lack of QoL/UX features, controls, presentation style, etc, or even just be scored lower because in modern times it would lack the novelty it had at the time it was released.
This ignores subjectivity. What is a 7/10 for most gamers could easily be a 10/10 for a specific type of gamer. Rather than focusing on review scores people should focus on the niche of games that they really enjoy.
And this is why I don't read opinions from general review/gaming sites. For example, I judged whether I'll play Starfield purely on overviews from YouTube creators who focus on Bethesda RPG-s (Camelworks, Fudgemuppet et al) and space exploration games (Obsidian Ant). The opinions of FPS folks, Fromsoft freaks and D&D diehards is irrelevant🙃
Or, as I've always said, if 2001: A Space Odyssey was made today, it would score 4/10 on IMDB and people would complain that it's a slow slogfest with no action and boring dialogue.
Not to mention the subjectivity of what “7” means. I’ve tallied enough judges ratings to know that some people treat 5 as average, some people treat 8 as OK, and some treat anything below 7 as failing.
I don’t see older games being rated lower as a problem. Yes standards rise over time as games and technology gets better, that’s fine! If you took a mediocre modern AAA game and showed it to a reviewer 20 years ago, I’ll bet all my money it would be game of the year.
It makes more sense to let standards rise and adjust reviews to still keep a reasonable rating scale.
Also, I don’t know the difference between game journalists and game critics,
Neither exist in any meaningful format? There's clickbait game stories and people who halfass review games, but it's well under 1% who meet the bare minimum standard to qualify as anything resembling a journalist or critic. Games coverage is way worse than the people reacting to it.
Lae'zel is fantastic though. Battlemaster Fighter is great and you can fairly easily get a whole ton of Githyanki exclusive items that make get a complete beast.
Also an ambush has an undead patron warlock NPC, so I wonder how much of that class is in the game.
Links Awakening should have demonstrated to Nintendo that the 2d games will still sell on a hybrid console. They could be pumping out new 2d titles and remakes every few years to fill those gaps between 3d releases and make everybody happy.
thegamer.com
Hot