I'm just going to shove these words into your mouth because I cannot grasp the obvious.
I'd never posit that all reviewers are pandering to large publishers, but rather that the majority have absolutely seen score creep that now rewards mediocrity with 7/10 in order to maintain access. This is why I unapologetically turn to a more trusted source first.
It absolutely is. Not to whinge over the state of the gaming press as I'm not one of those guys, but with that said I personally stack weight behind EG's reviews before looking elsewhere. Not to say that they are the best/most objective in their field, but rather that they are consistent and don't seem to pander to publishers. Happy to hear of any other sites that leave others feeling the same.
..and to be honest, after reading a bit more the game doesn't look bad, only middling.
Eurogamer - 2/5 Stars - "Stripped-back Ubisoft formula is admirable yet doomed"
Shocker.
Edit: Apologies for starting this off negative. I'm just tired of Ubisoft and AAA in general and didn't intend to knock the shine off of something that some folks are looking forward to.
Well there's a provocative anecdote if I've ever seen one. Well done.
Since moving to Linux this is at least the second time there have been issues with MS screwing up dual boot via grub. I switched to systemd-boot after the first incident, and thank goodness for that.
As someone that moved to Linux and has become accustom to full control of my system, I finally feel seen when it comes to GrapheneOS. Here's to a native root solution down the road, your take a la sandboxing sounds nifty.
Perfectly cromulent.
Good to know, thanks for the heads-up.
You're so close and yet: Whoosh