What are you playing?

[lexluthermiester]

I tried explaining it to my mom... shes a card carrying stoner and didnt know! I felt like I had a duty to tell her.

Now THAT is funny!

 

[cucker tarlson]

loved this sequence in Origins

Spoiler: pics

this one too

Spoiler: pic

I really like you can clear all the locations and side quests and then proceed with doing the main story alone.

 

[Sithaer]

Took another shot at the crucible

Finally past 150 Died a hair short of 160 completion....Challenge accepted! At 25 FPS... too many spawns, game just chokes on it

View attachment 157020

And chests gave me a nice little inspiration for my next toon, too

This could be mental... Resist shred, health and lifesteal on weapon, the perfect summoner companion

And is that a full conversion to vitality I see for pets? OMG
Oh man... this has death knight written all over it. +4 Field Command... 10% OA... and full freedom to convert into whatever from physical

Anyone used this puppy before? Sheeet

View attachment 157023

I assume you already tried but if not try the deferred rendering option in the game settings,it was added to the game earlier this year I think.
It helped me gain a decent ammount of performance,sure it still has big drops when things go crazy but at least its not a total slide show as before. 'game is also not a fan of my first gen ryzen'

Other than that yea,old game engine and the usual CPU bound issues.

Don't think my Blademaster can pass 150,way too squishy for that so most of the time I farm the world map places/skeleton key dungeons instead.

 

[ARF]

Very smooth and nice gameplay at 3840 x 2160 with Ryzen and Radeon RX 5700 XT:
Average FPS: ~70, Max FPS: >80 (rain Monaco FPS 86)...

 

[cucker tarlson]

more of this please

Spoiler: pics

While Origins and Odyssey are not on par with the Witcher,I think people who are always complaining about Ubisoft are completely clueless.One of the best RPGs of the decade.

 

[rtwjunkie]

more of this please

Spoiler: pics

While Origins and Odyssey are not on par with the Witcher,I think people who are always complaining about Ubisoft are completely clueless.One of the best RPGs of the decade.

I have to wholeheartedly agree. Origins was about 100 hours to finish story and explore, Odyssey 150. In neither case did I feel that was too long. The story carried right through and many regions had their own substories and plots, more than just a side quest.

The scale and complexity of them are epic, and the mechanics smooth. For the first time, Assassin’s Creed games seemed to be made with keyboard warriors in mind. Loved the attention to detail as well.

You’re right, not up to TW3 level, but pretty close. I’m hoping they keep this standard for Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla.

 

[cucker tarlson]

I have to wholeheartedly agree. Origins was about 100 hours to finish story and explore, Odyssey 150. In neither case did I feel that was too long. The story carried right through and many regions had their own substories and plots, more than just a side quest.

The scale and complexity of them are epic, and the mechanics smooth. For the first time, Assassin’s Creed games seemed to be made with keyboard warriors in mind. Loved the attention to detail as well.

You’re right, not up to TW3 level, but pretty close. I’m hoping they keep this standard for Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla.

Just finished Origins,took 81 hrs in hard mode (don't ask about Odyssey,I think I have more than 300 hrs of playtime in just one,single playthrough no NG+) edit: just checked,it's 393hrs
Origins is an exceptionally well crafted game all round.
I took a different approach this time - did all the loactions and side quests first and left the main story for dessert.And guess what - it was just as enjoyable.At no point did I find any holes in the plot.You can just do that as easily as your usual mixed style playthorugh where you keep progressing to find different locations.

Close to witcher - no,especially considering the expasions which were as good or better as the base game.But still amazing.

completely OT,but gotta ask native speakers.I was thinking of a good expression to say "all round" and something like "on all ends" popped into my head.would that even make any sense ? like,AC:O is well crafted on all ends - meaning there's no weak points or holes in any aspect of the game

 

[Rahnak]

I have to wholeheartedly agree. Origins was about 100 hours to finish story and explore, Odyssey 150. In neither case did I feel that was too long.

Yeah, I also agree Origins is just right length wise. It did cause a little fatigue when I played the DLCs, but I did it all back-to-back. I'd rank it my 2nd favorite AC so far (haven't played Odyssey yet).

I'm now 85h into my Satisfactory save, I've started building a new base and finished my first outpost on my newly built train network and just that took me 15-20h. My free time. It's great to catch on some podcasts though.

 

[moproblems99]

While Origins and Odyssey are not on par with the Witcher,I think people who are always complaining about Ubisoft are completely clueless.One of the best RPGs of the decade.

My only complaint about the series, and Ubisoft in general, is why they averse to jumping? I like to jump. Climbing is fun but I like to be able to jump.

 

[robot zombie]

completely OT,but gotta ask native speakers.I was thinking of a good expression to say "all round" and something like "on all ends" popped into my head.would that even make any sense ? like,AC:O is well crafted on all ends - meaning there's no weak points or holes in any aspect of the game

I think that both work. "All-round" or "all-around" are common choices, with neither terms really being wrong, despite having different meanings and uses. You might say that something is good "all-around" and people will generally take that to mean it does no wrong or excels in all relevant aspects. Or you could say that it is an all-round good game. Technically, the latter is more correct, as "all-around" generally describes something saturating a confine, rather than a single object. As in, "There are cockroaches all around the hotel grounds." Or maybe you're talking about a desert, with "sand all around." But the first example still works in this case, as the literal interpretation might be that the entire game is filled with 'good' - the game is the confine for a range of aspects, which in this case are all given a positive connotation. And in that sense, "on all ends" is likely to be understood in a similar way, due to its establishing of a defining boundary. E.g. "Good from its core to its edges."

I think that's actually quite good. It fits. You did fine! Honestly, I would never guess that you weren't a native speaker if I didn't already know. You don't use full 'proper' English, but most of what you say is in line with what common native speakers would say in normal conversations. I assume your English skills are mostly from immersion rather than study, which is probably for the best anyway. There is how the language is defined, and then there is how it is used in actuality.

I might say "across the board" or "well-rounded", as although "well-rounded" usually refers to a person's or entity's skills/accomplishments, it generally fits works of art when you consider that we often speak of them as though they are people taking actions. You are describing an effort, and so might choose to speak to the completeness of the effort. You could say that the game is generally well-executed. You might also say that it is "well-polished" or "refined" in order to highlight a granular-level "completeness." You are then suggesting not only a macro-level (or general/nonspecific) success, but further adding that it is good, down to even any one singular, micro-level detail. Or maybe you simply say it is "all-encompassing" as if to imply that the game "has it all."

You could also consider it to be some sort of structure or system, by referring to it as "robust" or "impenetrable." This would be more in line with your conception of it having no weak points.

There are really many more ways to go about it. I think it's best to stick with what's intuitive and requires the fewest comparisons to understand.

See... this is the problem with English. I think it is a beautiful and fascinating language. But it also suffers the problem of providing a million subtly different ways to say similar things, which tends to make things very confusing for native and non-native speakers alike. The good news is that if you are a little off target, the context already in the conversation naturally leads people to the intended interpretation, even if it is technically incorrect. For better and worse, English is a flowery language with a lot of superfluous crap stuffed in. On the flipside, it also means you can generally say things how you want to say them, and people will usually know what you mean, whereas with simpler languages utilizing much smaller word pools, if you screw it up, nobody knows what the hell you're trying to say. That's probably part of what makes many other, more straightforward languages hard for us native English speakers to grasp

 

[Vayra86]

For The King

RNG Partybased RPG with a world map layer a'la Heroes of Might & Magic (find sites, do things), combat a'la classic turn based RPG.
This RNG does NOT disappoint. Polished, pretty exciting, and heavily influenced by your choices. Its easy to get into as well, and new things just keep unfolding for me... Very nice. Should be free if you picked up on EGS.

Dungeons lock you into them and you are forced to finish them all the way through. Player death becomes permadeath eventually; (you can revive someone during the same combat or have to get back to recover someone) and every revive costs a 'life', the hearts you see on top here. That element turns some runs into straight Darkest Dungeon-esque survival runs. Really cool, I've been on the edge of my seat multiple times in the last 3 hours... Progression is fast, you ramp up quickly but so do the enemies. Game kinda offers a super condensed epic quest experience. Design 10/10

Combat:

 

[Sithaer]

I think that both work. "All-round" or "all-around" are common choices, with neither terms really being wrong, despite having different meanings and uses. You might say that something is good "all-around" and people will generally take that to mean it does no wrong or excels in all relevant aspects. Or you could say that it is an all-round good game. Technically, the latter is more correct, as "all-around" generally describes something saturating a confine, rather than a single object. As in, "There are cockroaches all around the hotel grounds." Or maybe you're talking about a desert, with "sand all around." But the first example still works in this case, as the literal interpretation might be that the entire game is filled with 'good' - the game is the confine for a range of aspects, which in this case are all given a positive connotation. And in that sense, "on all ends" is likely to be understood in a similar way, due to its establishing of a defining boundary. E.g. "Good from its core to its edges."

I think that's actually quite good. It fits. You did fine! Honestly, I would never guess that you weren't a native speaker if I didn't already know. You don't use full 'proper' English, but most of what you say is in line with what common native speakers would say in normal conversations. I assume your English skills are mostly from immersion rather than study, which is probably for the best anyway. There is how the language is defined, and then there is how it is used in actuality.

I might say "across the board" or "well-rounded", as although "well-rounded" usually refers to a person's or entity's skills/accomplishments, it generally fits works of art when you consider that we often speak of them as though they are people taking actions. You are describing an effort, and so might choose to speak to the completeness of the effort. You could say that the game is generally well-executed. You might also say that it is "well-polished" or "refined" in order to highlight a granular-level "completeness." You are then suggesting not only a macro-level (or general/nonspecific) success, but further adding that it is good, down to even any one singular, micro-level detail. Or maybe you simply say it is "all-encompassing" as if to imply that the game "has it all."

You could also consider it to be some sort of structure or system, by referring to it as "robust" or "impenetrable." This would be more in line with your conception of it having no weak points.

There are really many more ways to go about it. I think it's best to stick with what's intuitive and requires the fewest comparisons to understand.

See... this is the problem with English. I think it is a beautiful and fascinating language. But it also suffers the problem of providing a million subtly different ways to say similar things, which tends to make things very confusing for native and non-native speakers alike. The good news is that if you are a little off target, the context already in the conversation naturally leads people to the intended interpretation, even if it is technically incorrect. For better and worse, English is a flowery language with a lot of superfluous crap stuffed in. On the flipside, it also means you can generally say things how you want to say them, and people will usually know what you mean, whereas with simpler languages utilizing much smaller word pools, if you screw it up, nobody knows what the hell you're trying to say. That's probably part of what makes many other, more straightforward languages hard for us native English speakers to grasp

This also happens when your native language is more 'complicated' than English like the one I have.'I heard its very hard to learn for non native speakers,supposedly'

A few years ago I was well uh,rather close to someone and we communicated in English and sometimes I just couldn't find the right words in English to exactly express what I meant and it even ended up in arguments and misunderstandings tho I was trying to be clear as possible.

I'm a simple person in general and I don't even like to use fancy words in my native lang but at times its hard for me to find the right words to use.
And yea even as a native speaker of my lang I think its full of unnecessary things and I would much prefer English as my mother lang. 'my native lang is Hungarian'

Most of my English knowledge comes from self learning like gaming,movies and whatnot +4 years in high school. 'I had no choice but to learn German in elementary school but I really did not like that,droped it as soon as I could'

 

[moproblems99]

I'm a simple person in general and I don't even like to use fancy words in my native lang but at times its hard for me to find the right words to use.

Pretty much the average English speaker. American anyway.

 

[robot zombie]

This also happens when your native language is more 'complicated' than English like the one I have.'I heard its very hard to learn for non native speakers,supposedly'

A few years ago I was well uh,rather close to someone and we communicated in English and sometimes I just couldn't find the right words in English to exactly express what I meant and it even ended up in arguments and misunderstandings tho I was trying to be clear as possible.

I'm a simple person in general and I don't even like to use fancy words in my native lang but at times its hard for me to find the right words to use.
And yea even as a native speaker of my lang I think its full of unnecessary things and I would much prefer English as my mother lang. 'my native lang is Hungarian'

Most of my English knowledge comes from self learning like gaming,movies and whatnot +4 years in high school. 'I had no choice but to learn German in elementary school but I really did not like that,droped it as soon as I could'

I'm not really familiar with Hungarian, but I can say that English relies a lot on phrasing and conjugation in order to convey the nuance of things. Within all of the potential modulations is probably everything you could think to say, and there is always a concise way to put it. In that sense, it's about precision. Like, tunnelingly precise. Like big fractal crystals. But there is such a wide range of possibilities... simpler building blocks that must be combined in order to construct higher-order meaning. Whereas in your language, it sounds to me like there is a wider range of first-order terms that exist specifically to convey the same meaning. So if you know it well, it's perhaps a little 'neater' than English. Like, maybe there are just a whole lot more things you say that are meant specifically to express only one thing. We don't have as much of that in English. Does that sound right?

English almost isn't about precision, though. There are so many schools of philosophy on ways to use the language and when to use what ways. Nobody can agree on what is correct, in a more practical sense. What is correct for you depends on your interpretation of what the rules exist to accomplish, as well as what you need them to do for you. So there is a lot of meta-usage, or intentional rule-breaking. In it all, there is invariably an exacting way to say something that is 100% in line with the rules, but you'll find almost nobody says it that way, because they've found something that is 'close enough' and wayyy easier

So it's kinda funny you put it that way. Most speakers look to do exactly what you grappled with in arguments. Most American speakers I've met try to find the plainest ways to put things, because the exact way is more convoluted to pin down in a transmittable way. Different regions all have different ways of doing it.... sort of an off-record, culturally preserved vernacular that makes their communications both simpler and more reliable, because they maintain a unilateral meaning for certain terms in one another. So like, basically a bunch of people continually come up with their own answers to the question "Aw man, how do I describe it? What's a word for...?" Instead of casting things plainly, we use more abstraction. This may just be why it is a language rich in metaphor.

It's probably also why so many of our 'debates' devolve into never-ending ventures in semantic enterprise instead of discussions about things and ideas. It's because nobody actually knows how to say what they mean!

 

[dragontamer5788]

English almost isn't about precision, though. There are so many schools of philosophy on ways to use the language and when to use what ways. Nobody can agree on what is correct, in a more practical sense. What is correct for you depends on your interpretation of what the rules exist to accomplish, as well as what you need them to do for you. So there is a lot of meta-usage, or intentional rule-breaking. In it all, there is invariably an exacting way to say something that is 100% in line with the rules, but you'll find almost nobody says it that way, because they've found something that is 'close enough' and wayyy easier

No, you're right.

For example, when I say "No, You're right", I really mean "Yes, I agree with you". In this instance of English, "No" really means "Yes".

This shouldn't be confused with "Yeah no", which means No for real. "Yeah" usually means yes, but when combined with "Yeah no", it means "no". "Yes no" would be completely incorrect English of course. So yeah, "no" can be complicated.

 

[robot zombie]

No, you're right.

For example, when I say "No, You're right", I really mean "Yes, I agree with you". In this instance of English, "No" really means "Yes".

This shouldn't be confused with "Yeah no", which means No for real. "Yeah" usually means yes, but when combined with "Yeah no", it means "no". "Yes no" would be completely incorrect English of course. So yeah, "no" can be complicated.

Yes, I haven't had a reason to consider that 'no' had ever had such confusing usages associated with it. In fact, I would not have had to, if I hadn't have just had you, having told to me, an example that hasn't had a chance to have mentioning in the conversations we have been having. So you must've known that I would've had to be having a good laugh about it, after having had a chance to parse what you have had to say about it.

 

[cucker tarlson]

I think that both work. "All-round" or "all-around" are common choices, with neither terms really being wrong, despite having different meanings and uses. You might say that something is good "all-around" and people will generally take that to mean it does no wrong or excels in all relevant aspects. Or you could say that it is an all-round good game. Technically, the latter is more correct, as "all-around" generally describes something saturating a confine, rather than a single object. As in, "There are cockroaches all around the hotel grounds." Or maybe you're talking about a desert, with "sand all around." But the first example still works in this case, as the literal interpretation might be that the entire game is filled with 'good' - the game is the confine for a range of aspects, which in this case are all given a positive connotation. And in that sense, "on all ends" is likely to be understood in a similar way, due to its establishing of a defining boundary. E.g. "Good from its core to its edges."

I think that's actually quite good. It fits. You did fine! Honestly, I would never guess that you weren't a native speaker if I didn't already know. You don't use full 'proper' English, but most of what you say is in line with what common native speakers would say in normal conversations. I assume your English skills are mostly from immersion rather than study, which is probably for the best anyway. There is how the language is defined, and then there is how it is used in actuality.

I might say "across the board" or "well-rounded", as although "well-rounded" usually refers to a person's or entity's skills/accomplishments, it generally fits works of art when you consider that we often speak of them as though they are people taking actions. You are describing an effort, and so might choose to speak to the completeness of the effort. You could say that the game is generally well-executed. You might also say that it is "well-polished" or "refined" in order to highlight a granular-level "completeness." You are then suggesting not only a macro-level (or general/nonspecific) success, but further adding that it is good, down to even any one singular, micro-level detail. Or maybe you simply say it is "all-encompassing" as if to imply that the game "has it all."

You could also consider it to be some sort of structure or system, by referring to it as "robust" or "impenetrable." This would be more in line with your conception of it having no weak points.

There are really many more ways to go about it. I think it's best to stick with what's intuitive and requires the fewest comparisons to understand.

See... this is the problem with English. I think it is a beautiful and fascinating language. But it also suffers the problem of providing a million subtly different ways to say similar things, which tends to make things very confusing for native and non-native speakers alike. The good news is that if you are a little off target, the context already in the conversation naturally leads people to the intended interpretation, even if it is technically incorrect. For better and worse, English is a flowery language with a lot of superfluous crap stuffed in. On the flipside, it also means you can generally say things how you want to say them, and people will usually know what you mean, whereas with simpler languages utilizing much smaller word pools, if you screw it up, nobody knows what the hell you're trying to say. That's probably part of what makes many other, more straightforward languages hard for us native English speakers to grasp

your posts are a good source material for learners
and you're from Florida
ppl say Polish is among the most difficult among languages but I think it's mostly pronunctiaion and declension.It's simpler than English on the syntax level.

 

[Sithaer]

I'm not really familiar with Hungarian, but I can say that English relies a lot on phrasing and conjugation in order to convey the nuance of things. Within all of the potential modulations is probably everything you could think to say, and there is always a concise way to put it. In that sense, it's about precision. Like, tunnelingly precise. Like big fractal crystals. But there is such a wide range of possibilities... simpler building blocks that must be combined in order to construct higher-order meaning. Whereas in your language, it sounds to me like there is a wider range of first-order terms that exist specifically to convey the same meaning. So if you know it well, it's perhaps a little 'neater' than English. Like, maybe there are just a whole lot more things you say that are meant specifically to express only one thing. We don't have as much of that in English. Does that sound right?

English almost isn't about precision, though. There are so many schools of philosophy on ways to use the language and when to use what ways. Nobody can agree on what is correct, in a more practical sense. What is correct for you depends on your interpretation of what the rules exist to accomplish, as well as what you need them to do for you. So there is a lot of meta-usage, or intentional rule-breaking. In it all, there is invariably an exacting way to say something that is 100% in line with the rules, but you'll find almost nobody says it that way, because they've found something that is 'close enough' and wayyy easier

So it's kinda funny you put it that way. Most speakers look to do exactly what you grappled with in arguments. Most American speakers I've met try to find the plainest ways to put things, because the exact way is more convoluted to pin down in a transmittable way. Different regions all have different ways of doing it.... sort of an off-record, culturally preserved vernacular that makes their communications both simpler and more reliable, because they maintain a unilateral meaning for certain terms in one another. So like, basically a bunch of people continually come up with their own answers to the question "Aw man, how do I describe it? What's a word for...?" Instead of casting things plainly, we use more abstraction. This may just be why it is a language rich in metaphor.

It's probably also why so many of our 'debates' devolve into never-ending ventures in semantic enterprise instead of discussions about things and ideas. It's because nobody actually knows how to say what they mean!

In a simple way yes its something like that,way too many words for almost the same meaning but with little differences.
Apparently we have words that don't even exist in English,not directly at least so all I can do is describing if want to use those words. 'lucky me I rarely do that'

Also such things like having both j and ly,you pronounce them exactly the same but ofc they can and do differ in writing depening on the word.
This never made sense to me and never bothered to learn it properly in school. 'sure I know some but the rest I just go with 50-50% and hope for the best'

Close enough and easier is also my way as long as we understand each other.
I had a friend once who spoke English 'non native tho' but used a weird riddle/fancy like way or what.. Its like he could never get to the point clearly and used words I never even heard of. 'like someone from 100-200 years ago'
Found it to be rather annoying after a while,like dude just say what you mean in a normal way.

Pretty much the average English speaker. American anyway.

I was born in the wrong place eh.

Anyway,to post something ontopic:

Started Metro Exodus around 2 weeks ago,playing it 1-2 hours/day only so my progress is slow.
Kinda like the game tho,its not the Metro I'm used to but I will take it.

No I'm not playing on hard difficulty,just playing normal for the story and the general gameplay.

Game sure is stressing my poor GPU,at least it still looks great on High with no tessellation/hairworks.

 

[cucker tarlson]

In a simple way yes its something like that,way too many words for almost the same meaning but with little differences.
Apparently we have words that don't even exist in English,not directly at least so all I can do is describing if want to use those words. 'lucky me I rarely do that'

Also such things like having both j and ly,you pronounce them exactly the same but ofc they can and do differ in writing depening on the word.
This never made sense to me and never bothered to learn it properly in school. 'sure I know some but the rest I just go with 50-50% and hope for the best'

Close enough and easier is also my way as long as we understand each other.
I had a friend once who spoke English 'non native tho' but used a weird riddle/fancy like way or what.. Its like he could never get to the point clearly and used words I never even heard of. 'like someone from 100-200 years ago'
Found it to be rather annoying after a while,like dude just say what you mean in a normal way.



I was born in the wrong place eh.

Anyway,to post something ontopic:
View attachment 157485

Started Metro Exodus around 2 weeks ago,playing it 1-2 hours/day only so my progress is slow.
Kinda like the game tho,its not the Metro I'm used to but I will take it.

No I'm not playing on hard difficulty,just playing normal for the story and the general gameplay.

Game sure is stressing my poor GPU,at least it still looks great on High with no tessellation/hairworks.

tayga was the pretttiest part graphically,wait till you get further

Spoiler: pic

 

[Decryptor009]

Jurassic World Evolution, seriously cool game!

Will be in HD...

 

[Assimilator]

I'm back in 7 Days to Die, sadly. If you've never played it, it's essentially Minecraft, except with enemies that are actually dangerous and a somewhat realistic survival mechanic that doesn't allow you to stay alive eating and drinking whatever garbage you come across. Also it has guns.

Its main flaw is that it looks and performs like actual dogs**t, while having nothing resembling a story or goals besides "stay alive and kill zombies". What makes it unique is that the terrain is completely deformable/destructible, which allows for infinite creativity in designing a zombie-killing fortress. Oh, and the zombies can also destroy terrain, including your fortress. Better build some traps and defence turrets to keep the undead out!

The other game I'm playing in between is World of Warships. It's free, simple to get into, matches are quick, and overall the game isn't a massive commitment in any way shape or form, it simply allows me to satisfy my urges for shooting things that go boom. And thankfully it has a PvE mode with bots where nobody cares very much, which is a wonderful chill contrast to the PvP mode that I tried once, in which my entire team got their dumb a**es killed by the enemy then spent the rest of the match criticising me in chat for not being able to singlehandedly deal with all the remaining enemy forces.

WoWS does keep trying to convince me to upgrade to a paid account so I can earn XP quicker, but honestly I don't care enough - I can do a drive-by torpedo-ing of a battleship with a destroyer right now, and that's all I really desire.

just playing normal for the story

You're gonna be disappointed.

It's nice that 4A Games tried something different, but it's also obvious that they have no idea how to make an engaging open-world game. The best sequences in Exodus are when you're in confined spaces like the previous Metro games, the open-world parts just feel like empty busywork added to showcase the graphics. Unlike the previous entries, I won't be replaying this one to get all the achievements.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Started Metro Exodus around 2 weeks ago,playing it 1-2 hours/day only so my progress is slow.
Kinda like the game tho,its not the Metro I'm used to but I will take it.

No I'm not playing on hard difficulty,just playing normal for the story and the general gameplay.

Enjoy!! What an epic game! Played it 3 times and each has been a great experience providing me with new perspective and things I had not noticed before. Playing for the story is fine. This is a game that was meant to be soaked in and absorbed.

 

[cucker tarlson]

starting gta5,how do I turn off subtitles ? and what is that blue bar ?

 

[kapone32]

Is anyone else getting the issue where the Borderlands free games on Epic are not launching? I have been trying to play them since yesterday.

 

[Chomiq]

starting gta5,how do I turn off subtitles ? and what is that blue bar ?

Blue bar is for armor, i.e. bulletproof vest. Subtitles are in Display settings.