Same for me. I don’t understand why, I should love it but I don’t.

And do you seriously think that someone with minimal modding knowledge can “fix” texture compression

Yes, better textures are consistently one of the first mods to come out for every game they have released since Fallout 3.

There’s a few single player focused ones released in the past decade. Deserts of Kharak comes to mind.

And yet Verdun, Tannenberg, and Isonzo are some of the most fun multiplayer FPS games around.

You might be able to create profiles anonymously, but you can’t use those services anonymously. They only work if you have other people added as friends or whatever, unlike content aggregators like lemmy or reddit, where you can be as anonymous as you want and still interact with all features of the site.

I think that narrows it down enough. If you can use all features of the platform without personally knowing anyone on it, it’s not social media.

Then email is also social media, Google docs is social media, phpBB is social media, Amazon review sections are social media, even Pornhub comment sections are social media, and so on…

If Lemmy fits the criteria, then so does 95% of the internet. Not a very useful definition, in that case.

Original release date was actually announced as 2014 originally (during the 2012 Kickstarter), iirc.

Well I’m having plenty of fun with it, and I haven’t even installed 2.0. If it was a release from this year it would be my second favourite after Baldur’s Gate. So I strongly disagree with your dogshit assertion. If the DLC and 2.0 make it better then it’s for sure a redemption arc. And from the looks of OpenCritic, seems like a very universal feeling.

If everything was there from the get-go, how would there be a redemption arc? There would be nothing to redeem.

A redemption arc is when someone or something starts bad or reviled, and eventually comes to be seen through other eyes. Looks like that applies to CDPR and Cyberpunk to me.

Very cool, very good proof of your claims.

I made no claims, I quoted from the wikipedia link you posted for us, which you may have not read yourself. You’re clearly a bigger expert than the IPCC though, so I wouldn’t even dare to make claims in your presence.

Some argue that transitioning to 100% renewable energy would be too slow to limit climate change, and that closing down nuclear power stations is a mistake.[122][123]

“Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched”. The Economist. 6 March 2021. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 31 January 2022. McDonnell, Tim (3 January 2022).

“Germany’s exit from nuclear energy will make its power dirtier and more expensive”. Quartz. Retrieved 31 January 2022.

In November 2014 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came out with their fifth report, saying that in the absence of any one technology (such as bioenergy, carbon dioxide capture and storage, nuclear, wind and solar), climate change mitigation costs can increase substantially depending on which technology is absent.

This is what the oil companies want you to think. The less hope you have the longer they’ll keep making profit. They still receive trillions in public subsidies, it’s criminal.

We may never go back, but if we did cut 100% of emissions tomorrow, it would have a huge impact. These penguins would have a much better chance for the future, for one, and so would plenty of other species.

That’s just, like, his opinion, man.

It kind of is, in this community.