The game offers nothing graphically, but it has an incredibly bad optimization. I don't understand what kind of system requirements they're expecting for graphics that look like mud. Immortals Fenyx Rising also reminded me of how much I hate puzzles in games. There's always a bit of puzzles and riddles in these kinds of games, but they're not much of a problem when they're just rare side content. The player should be able to choose whether or not to interact with this content, but when you make it a core gameplay mechanic, the whole game becomes a chore. I decided to play the game because the genre is categorized as Action, Adventure, RPG, not because I wanted to solve ridiculous puzzles every minute. Finally, Zeus and Prometheus, the narrator characters in the game, blabber too much. Their constant attempts to be funny make their dialog even more mediocre.

Although it's not an RPG and the gameplay is completely linear, it has an unnecessarily large map. The universe was very forced and clichéd. The main character seems one dimensional and very boring. I don't usually like playing female characters in games anyway. The only good thing about it is the graphics, but that's not one of the things I look for in games as a priority. Gameplay and story are more important to me and these aspects of Horizon Zero Dawn don't seem worth my time. Instead of being full of unnecessary repetitive interactions, the map should have been smaller but with more meaningful interactions. It would also be better if we could make choices in the game that would affect the story. If we couldn't customize our character's appearance, we could at least decide their gender. These are the simplest things anyone can think of, but the developers of Horizon Zero Dawn only cared about the graphics, but what they don't understand is that graphics are the least lasting thing about a game. A few years after release, that aspect is already getting old. But a good story and gameplay mechanics can carry a game forward for many, many years.

It was one of PlayStation's worst PC ports ever. A year after its release, it's still unplayable. And it will never be fully fixed because the updates only included simple improvements for higher-end systems. There's no reason to play The Last of Us on PC when you already own a similar game, Days Gone, and the developers themselves have admitted as much by releasing The Last of Us in a horribly unoptimized state. I don't know which team worked on porting this game to PC, but if I were a Sony executive, I would fire them immediately and sue them for damages for their sloppy work. These people should be banned from working anywhere in the games industry ever again. The only reason for the game's recent positive ratings spike is the interest in the TV series and the nostalgia-obsessed fanbase on PS. Otherwise you need a $2500 PC to actually play this game. You can buy five PS5 consoles with that money.

It's not very well optimized on PC. On the other hand, the game is really completely linear, there's no replayability and if you watch a video about the game, it's like you've played the game because the things to do are always the same. On PS, if you didn't get nostalgic for the Uncharted series years ago, it's not going to make much meaning for you now when you play it for the first time on PC. What makes the boring pace of the game even worse is that there are always hidden things to find and puzzles to solve.

Henry the Loser...

They put poor Henry in situations that he'll never be able to deal with at every point in the game, and the game doesn't guide the player to overcome them, nor does it allow you to really improve Henry to be able to deal with them. The game's story is locked tightly behind horrible gameplay mechanics, and to complete it you have to put up with gameplay that is in no way enjoyable. Aside from the gameplay, I can't understand how they thought it would be interesting to lead a boring character like Henry, who doesn't even know how to hold a sword, in a medieval concept. This game is a complete waste of time even for someone like me who is interested in the medieval age.

Although the game is owned by Microsoft, it looks like an Indie game. It's been updated for years, but there are no noticeable changes. The biggest problem with the game is that it doesn't have a story with a cinematic presentation that can be followed. The game was made entirely for online purposes. The only objective is to build a base and then defend it against zombies after upgrading it. When you play alone it gets boring and repetitive very fast. There's really nothing to do in the game because everything feels pointless. The game only looks good as an idea on paper. They didn't have the budget to really develop it, so as a real game they couldn't really make it reflect the way it should. What I'm most curious about is the budget of this game. I've seen much better work come out of indie games developed with Kickstarter donations. Not only do they not care enough to allocate a budget for this series, but they've been releasing updates and trying to improve it for years. The contradiction the developers are in seems funny now. I don't know how the third game will be, but it's sure to feel very dated compared to the year it was released.

Although I finished the first game more than once, I couldn't play the second game with the same immersion. I don't know, but there seems to be something missing in the second game compared to the first game, and that's probably mainly because the developers are different. Even leaving aside the comparison, the second game has a very long prologue and a slow pace that doesn't change throughout. I've played the game for 10 hours and I still don't feel like I've made any progress and I can't get into the story. By now, the game should have already grabbed me and motivated my curiosity for the rest of the story.

The main problem of the whole Pathfinder series is primarily combat. Neither real-time nor turn-based mods work well and it pushes my tolerance limits as a player. They could have looked at Divinitiy Original Sin 2 as an example when developing these games. The turn-based combat system in the first Original Sin game was horrible, but the second was improved to near perfection. Games like this should either have a turn-based combat system like Divinity Original Sin 2 or a real-time combat system like Dragon Age Origins. Anything in the middle is mediocre and makes gameplay impossible. Also, the mediocrity of the combat mechanics makes it very difficult to see the good points of the games. At least Owlcat Games has managed to add turn-based combat that is close to DOS 2 in their newly released Rogue Trader. The combat still lacks smoothness, but at least there is an improvement now. But this is why I will never really like the Pathfinder series.

The game is going through a major identity crisis. It is not clear whether it is a cRPG or an RTS. It tries to be both at the same time and fails at both. It didn't bother me at all that the game is not a pure RTS. But it would have been better if it was a pure RPG and the RTS mechanics were completely removed from the game, or vice versa. As it is, it's caught between two game genres and it's pretty mediocre. Relic Entertaintment, on the other hand, has become one of the worst game developers I've ever seen, because the terrible gameplay mechanics that they've persistently maintained since the first game in the series, with no interest in fixing or changing them, are still there in the second game. The unit controls are pretty horrible. I mean, has nobody in the development team ever played a game from the Age of Empires series in their life? Units never follow your orders as they should, and they never move where you direct them on the map without getting stuck. And they still won't let you change the controls of the game! I've played hundreds of games in my life and this is the first time I've ever seen a game series where I can't change the controls. Everything else about the game, including the default controls, has been terrible since the first game. They tried to add RPG mechanics to the game, but we need an active pause to be able to use the units' special abilities without missing the timing, but they can't even add that because they have no idea what they're doing. They don't know how to make an RTS or a cRPG game. Games Workshop probably regrets now that they didn't give Blizzard the rights to develop the Warhammer games at the time, because not only did they make Blizzard a bigger company than they could have been, but they also failed to make the Warhammer games as successful and popular as they should have been. At least they could take Blizzard's example in making these games, but they can't even do that. Arrogance is unfortunately such a harmful thing. At least thanks to them, the Warcraft game series was created.

Soulstorm, the final expansion of the first Dawn of War, features almost identical gameplay to Dark Crusade, with a few changes. Again, it has a very shallow campaign mode that consists of capturing certain areas on the map to win. What I don't understand about the Warhammer 40K series in general is why they've spent decades writing a massive backstory lore spanning hundreds of books. Because they never had the intention of making a story-oriented game that would truly reflect these. If your goal is story, I recommend you stay away from Dark Crusade and Soulstorm DLCs. Their story content is so superficial that it barely fills even a few pages, and their gameplay is frustrating and boring. You can learn whatever story they are telling by opening it and reading it on the Wiki page.