MrGabr

Baptists are Protestant homie

Shadow of Mordor/War are pretty awesome and sound like just what you're looking for. Less focus on stealth but its more there than Elden Ring for sure.

Also seconding the Dishonored recommendations for sure - they have the same fluid movement and fast-paced stealth Cyberpunk does so well, and I'd add Prey because it's also awesome.

Less exactly what you want, the newer Tomb Raider games are decent, though they're mostly action-stealth gunplay vs (I assume you want) swords. Same with Control.

NieR Replicant and Automata will scratch the 3rd person action RPG itch but they have no stealth.

Lies of P is awesome, but it has no stealth. It has several unique mechanics that put it way above other souls-likes for me (the parrying and single recharge of healing to name a specific few).

Looks like the latter

I ended up settling on spells in my left hand, sword in my right, dodging like a maniac.

Right up until the last 3 hours where I respec'd into exclusively two-handed sword + heavy armor because

The backwards-compatibility stuff already in this thread is all true, but also they don't know how to remove some things. Microsoft has wanted to entirely replace Control Panel with Settings since Windows 8 came out, but they gave up. And rewriting the whole operating system from scratch would take decades and still inevitably lose compatibility with some of the random old software mentioned here.

What happens if you hold a sign that says "Palestine Action" on it?

That's because human perception exists on a logarithmic scale! It's called the Weber-Fechner law, and it was one of the first studied psychological phenomena, before psychology as a field was even defined.

Interestingly, our sense of the "bigness" of numbers is also logarithmic. This is why there have to be explicit explanations of the massive difference between a million and a billion - our brains instinctively and erroneously think "eh, it's like double."

~edit I can't type~

It's actually way easier to treat sewage than it is to desalinate water: https://www.waterandwastewater.com/how-is-desalination-different-from-water-reclamation/

There was a bug recently fixed in Unity where if your system was already infected, a virus could run any code through Unity, possibly gaining privileges. I felt Unity slightly overstated the severity in their announcement to developers, but when you get an email from Unity saying "we fixed a critical engine vulnerability, update your game ASAP," it can be quite panic-inducing.

AFAIK, the speed increase to allow technology like the volume is the whole pitch. Not every studio has an entire volume, so lower-budget filmmakers can set up a system with a green screen where the cinematographer can see the CGI environment in real-time through the camera, and with the asset store integration, indie filmmakers can have an insane set/backdrop for a tiny fraction of the normal price.

Now that I think of it, though, I think Mr. Verbinski here is placing undue blame on UE5 when Marvel's CGI has been getting worse and worse because they throw an army of slaves at the footage after the fact, rather than paying artists and working with them to set up shots to make the CGI as easy as possible, like he did.

That's fair, and you really see that on games like Norse where they don't have the resources to make custom material and post-processing shaders, but they still want it to look like AAA photorealism (a bad strategy to begin with but that's their problem). Out of the box, though, UE5 still looks leagues better than anything else that isn't proprietary, and I'd argue that if you do have the time/staff to dedicate an entire team to technical art, the ceiling of how good UE5 can look, if you're going for photorealism, is higher than it is for Unity and Godot as well.

To the original context of the post, that ceiling is still way lower than what should be acceptable quality for big-budget movie CGI, but regarding games, I'm gonna stick to my original point and say that's still an issue on the developers' part for not putting in the effort to make it look good. Even accounting for optimization and visual tweaking, they're still saving enormous amounts of time and money by using UE5 instead of their own engine, and that effort should be expected, the lack thereof not excused.

To everyone saying it's a slip backwards for games, too, it's more complicated than that. It's absolutely possible to make a game that runs at more than 90 fps in UE5; I've done it in VR. The engine just makes it super easy to be lazy, and when you combine that with modern AAA "optimization is for suckers" game dev philosophy, that's where you get performance like Borderlands 4.

I think people only notice UE5 games running badly, and don't realize when it's fine. Clair Obscur was in UE5 and I never dropped below 60fps on max settings except in one area. Avowed was in UE5, probably a really early version like 5.2 or 5.3, based on when it released (the latest it could've been is 5.5, but it's bad practice to switch major engine versions too far into development, so I'd doubt they updated even to 5.4). Avowed had bugs for sure, but not performance issues inherent to the engine.

I think blaming UE5 lets lazy development practices off easy. I'll take it over Unity for sure (I've experienced Unity fail at basic vector math, let alone that no one should ever trust them again after that per-install fee stunt). We should be maintaining that same frustration at developers for not optimizing. Lumen was not ready when it came out, and Nanite requires a minimum hardware spec that's still absurd, but it's literally two switches to flip in project settings to turn those off. UE5 is really an incredible piece of technology and it has made, and continues to make, game making accessible on a scale comparable to when Unity added a free license. AAA developers get off easy when you blame the engine instead of their garbage code.

~Godot is a beautiful perfect angel that needs a new 3D physics engine~