It's disappointing but not too surprising, if I recall then only a small minority of players picked the Dwarf Commoner and Noble origins in the first game too, despite them having arguably the most involved roleplaying possibilitiꦛes (direct connections with the main quest and the possibility of unique re༺lationships, and even having a child!). The whole Orzammar arc in the first game has really grown on me, it's morally-ambiguous Dragon Age at its finest, and I love whenever a fantasy work can present a world where their system of morality is very alien to our modern sensibilities, it forces us to have to role-play and think like someone who lives in the setting and not just as ourselves.

I don't think The Veilguard is for me, but any recognition from the big publishers that single-player games (that aren't a thousand hours long) are still important and have a role in the gaming sphere can only be good news. I play games as a solo hobby but mostly as a way of experiencing a work, the same w🌺ay that I'd read a book or watch a movie, which is why I like my games to be a complete and "contained" experience, not everything needs to be a social endeavour or become a second job.

I think Waller-Bridge will be a great creative force for this but I can't feel too excited about another Tomb Raider adaptation, especially if they chose to double-down on the "Survivor"-theming. I enjoyed the games a lot but I think in these cynical times, there's a gap in the market for the more overt camp fun of the original titles and I hope that this is something we see a return to, rather than tryin🌠g to make Tomb Raider more "grounded" in tone and character. There's room for both and the more recent entries have definitely made some positive adjustments to the series, but I feel like fans and general audiencꦺes alike want a Lara who is a bit more... fun?

Bethesda (and Microsoft, post-acquisition) clearly banked a lot on Starfield being a new Skyrim-sized hit so I think it's inevitable that they won't want to let it drop easily, though (admittedly, as a PS5 gamer who hasn't played it), it feels like Starfield has left very little impac🐼t on the cultural space, certainly compared to TES or even Fallout. I feel like TES VI is already going to have a🀅n impossible task living up to fan expectations so I don't think Bethesda need to spread themselves any thinner, especially given that Fallout 4 (and obviously 76) have also been very polarising. I feel like a lot of Bethesda's credibility as a AAA studio is going to ride on how TES VI shapes up, The Elder Scrolls still has a very dedicated following and it's felt like a lot of the attitude towards Skyrim from Bethesda's most direhard fans has been one of "let them get it out of their system, so we can get back to what Bethesda do best". Starfield was an opportunity for Bethesda to showcase something new and spectacular, to see what they could do when unshackled from an older IP, and I don't see it suddenly becoming an evergreen property... a hypothetical Starfield 2 could be 15 years away, would there be any appetite for what amounts to a legacy sequel to a series with very little lasting relevance?

Yeah, given that DA has struggled to keep a consistent tone and gameplay across entries I think the series has gotten into a point where it's impossible to appeal to everyo▨ne and the huge time gap since Inquisition won't have helped. The series has offered diminishing returns for me personally so while I'm genuinely happy for those who can get the most from The Veilguard I just don't think it's what I'm looking for. And y'know, it's sad in a way, but not everything has to be for everybody and I don't begrudge those for whom The Veilguard is what they're looking for in Dragon Age. I think a certain amount of fan hostility and toxicity was sadly inevitable but I hope that once more people have had a chance to play the game then people can keep the focus on enjoying what they enjoy and letting it rest, not everything has to be worth "fighting for", it's okay to move on.

I definitely feel like it's possible to have a middle ground approach, Amy having a crush on Sonic isn't an issue in isolation, only when it becomes her sole personality trait and it becomes an obsession. I'm happy to see that aspect toned down but my concern is that she feels a bit flat now, just being Sonic's spunky friend doesn't do much to set her apart from the already large cast of Sonic characters. I actually think Sonic Boom (the TV show, at least) had a good balance where she was still a bit more impulsive and quick to anger which gave her some personality beyond being kind and helpful, and her crush on Sonic was ♕more of an alluded-to gag rather than her entire reason for existing.