@soulmuncher666: I honestly didn't remember where the game took place, but the setting was a similar to places I've been all over the country, I don't think it really matters. I've been to places in California that looks like the setting for FC5.

@blindbsnake: I mostly found the cult angle of it and the setting of an American Midwest town to be very interesting. Far more interesting than most of what we usually get, which is pretty typical of stories we get in movies and video games.

I don't see how having more to do than you actually want to is a bad thing. Don't do it if you want. That's what's great about the franchise. It gives you the options to do what you want to do and you do them or don't. Otherwise, this seems like a fairly typical FC game. Not as interesting as FC5, the whole 'Latin American poor rebels vs. fascist dictator government' has been done to death, but as an excuse to go screw around with some buddies, this seems fun. Idk, maybe 7 is apt, it just seems like a 7 based on the game having 'too much to do' is kind of a weird criticism.

@ds3317: "AAA trash" Blah, blah, blah. Typical pretentious response. It's lazy. Blizzard couldn't even be bothered to update the gameplay to modern standards. Yes, the standards of the genre have been improved upon in the last 20 years. Same with every genre. They sold this on nostalgia and nostalgia alone. Sorry if I'm bothered by the lazy development cash grab Blizzard went for here. I think, at the very least, they could bring the game up to modern standards instead of giving a 20 year old game a facelift and selling it for $40. Most people could probably find the old Diablo II on the internet for free and get nearly the same experience.

@Warlord_Irochi: Which makes no sense to me. As the review says, in the 20 years since the original version of the game, the formula has been drastically improved on. Why people would want to settle for something less just for nostalgia sake, and pay full price at that, makes absolutely no sense. Saddest of all is that it does little but reinforce Activision/Blizzard to make more cash grabs like this instead of putting time, effort, and money into something original.

There's something cheap feeling about a game released 20 years later with almost no changes, banking all it's sales on pure nostalgia. Why else buy the game if not to relive the memories of it from 20 years ago if it really hasn't changed much at all? When you consider just how much they pushed this and hyped it up, especially amidst all their poor public relations at the moment, I at least would have hoped they would have made a greater effort to have the game meet modern standards. That is too much to hope for I suppose and I really should have known better, but at the very least I suppose people can be relieved it's not a blunder like Warcraft III.

I honestly have no idea why people would even still support this. I get the nostalgia, but with everything going on, and the fact that this is very clearly a lazy cash in (Blizzard hasn't made an original game since Overwatch in 2016), I'd hope people would at least think twice. There are a lot of good games out there and the majority are not made or controlled by terrible people getting away with terrible things.

I love the big middle fingers that these services give to their existing subscribers. I purposely went down to the cheaper tier because the streamer doesn't have enough content I am interested in for me to justify paying another $15/mo. subscription. Just let everyone have it for this price.

I loved the Dishonored games, so this was always a must have for me, but I'm glad to see it's good. Really looking forward to playing tomorrow.

@lashheart8: Or he's something akin to the architect. Maybe not THE architect, but something with that kind of level of power.