We do have a problem of polarisation. But on the other hand we also have a problem of too many games, so we simply can’t play them all. This leads us to a need to choose which one to pick. And a bad choice is very bad, because games are expensive and time consuming.

Now the real problem is when a community mistaken a new game for another. Like avowed was considered a terrible game because the leader scroll fanboys thought it would be their next game, and it wasn’t. Anyone who know what old school bioware games were will certainly love avowed.

Now while veilgard is not a bad game, is it actually good? I’m not informed enough yet about it, but bioware has been terrible in the last decade, so I am clearly very wary of what they’re doing.

I will wait for a discount for both those games, and I’ll play avowed first because I’m informed and careful, and I have other games to play already.

On the side there’s also the problem of fascist propaganda that will brand a game woke a try to destroy it.

There is no chance it wasn’t meant to be an open world. The witcher 3 was a very successful open world they made.

Also, CP77 actually is in the style of elden ring that was praised for it, but CP77 came long before it. Most critiques of CP77 missed that part because the game doesn’t throw it at your face.

I wish it was, but it isn’t. It usually about them being able to ban you from playing for whatever reason they deem worthy.

Horse archers, or skirmishing units in general, are countered by archers or siege units. Unless the game is wildly unbalanced it always works.