Bethesda Game Studios is warning owners of Fallout 4 to either log into a save or manually save their mod load order, because a new patch "focusing on general Creations improvements" is incoming.

Bethesda's got a bit of interesting history when it comes to Fallout 4 patches. 2024's "next gen" update didn't really improve anything but did manage to break quite a lot, and the best solution to come out of that whole thing was simply to roll it all back with a "Downgrader Tool." A year after that, Bethesda did it again, although on a somewhat smaller scale, except that ended up causing a surprise new round of headaches, resulting in much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and of course another update.

All of which is to say that if you're a Fallout 4 fan, you should probably pay heed to Bethesda's latest heads-up.

"As a precaution, prior to these updates we encourage players to log into your game save if you haven't done so in a while or manually save your load order," the studio wrote (via Polygon). "Once your load order is saved, you'll be able to re-download your entire Creations list at once when the update is live."

The response to the post is an interesting mix of gratitude that an 11-year-old game is still being actively supported, concern about the damage that ongoing support might cause, and bemusement/outrage that Bethesda is dicking around with Fallout 4 instead of working on Elder Scrolls 6. My guess is that the studio is capable of doing both, but sometimes you just have to get this stuff off your chest.

In any event, this will hopefully not cause any major headaches, but it's still good advice. And speaking of The Elder Scrolls, Bethesda also said that it's working on a new Skyrim update, details of which will be revealed later. You might as well take that as a warning to back up your Skyrim saves too: Bethesda's recording on breaking mods in its fantasy RPG series is pretty much in line with its post-nuclear one.

In a recent video on his YouTube channel, legendary developer Tim Cain weighed in on one of the great RPG debates: Turn-based, or real time? But Cain doesn't see it as a zero sum game, instead staking out a sensible, radical moderate position on a topic that can prompt forum knife fights.

One unique aspect to Cain's perspective: He zoomed out to "real time" period, not just the OG Baldur's Gate-codified "real time with pause" (RTWP) where you can queue up commands to multiple characters while the game is stopped. The specific contrast of turn-based and RTWP is more often the center of debate, given that they have both been ways of digitizing tactical, often tabletop-adapted combat.

But Cain doesn't see one style as being inherently superior to another, pause or no pause. He thinks each has pros and cons, and reflects on them more as tools available to devs rather than ends in and of themselves. Regarding real time, Cain argued:

• It's naturally superior for first person games (excepting very specific edge cases).
• Combat moves faster, and allows for more characters on-screen without dragging things out.
• But it's more difficult to control multiple characters, and the "pause" in RTWP can feel like a bandaid: "It doesn't solve all the problems," according to Cain.

Cain sees the slow pace of turn-based games as a major drawback, a sentiment you might connect with if you've ever reached the modern era in a game of Civ or gotten an entire town hostile in a 2D Fallout. Conversely, he doesn't seem to be much of a fan of adapting turn-based tabletop rules to a real time game, even if you add in a pause.

He proffered the example from Baldur's Gate of enemies moving out of range from your area of effect spells while you're still casting them as one big disconnect. As an aside, Cain was project lead on the defiantly turn-based, post-Baldur's Gate D&D adaptation, The Temple of Elemental Evil.

More of a neutral observation from Cain: He sees real time games as allowing for (and sometimes requiring) a greater degree of raw player skill and reaction time. On the one hand, this can allow for a greater degree of player expression⁠—I thought of "The Ultimate" challenge in Pillars of Eternity, and how high it raises that game's skill ceiling by prohibiting both the turn-based mode and pausing.

But Cain's also a bit of a purist when it comes to RPG gameplay, seeming to prefer that buildcrafting and strategy take center stage over reaction speed and precision, unless you're making a dedicated action-RPG hybrid.

"They both have their loud, vocal advocates," Cain cautioned fellow developers, but he sees a place for both styles. Cain has, indeed, made games in both styles. However, he firmly does not recommend trying to design for both and allowing players to switch between them as in Arcanum, Pillars, or Owlcat's Pathfinder games, because you'd be "setting yourself up for a lot of work."

I can appreciate Cain's agnosticism on the topic, even though I generally prefer turn-based (at least over RTWP). For other developers' perspectives: Cain's Obsidian colleague, Josh Sawyer, thinks turn-based initially fell behind due to a lack of "tactical variation." James Brawley, a lead designer on upcoming turn-based tactics game Star Wars Zero Company, still believes that RTWP has a place, and that its star will rise again.

First reported by Game Informer, Warner Bros. Discovery provided the slightest of acknowledgements that a sequel to 2023's Hogwarts Legacy is in the works as part of a recent letter to its shareholders.

It's the sort of victory lap / "Gentlemen, to money!" deal you usually expect of the form, and I cannot overstate how tiny the HogsLegs mention is. "We expect Games [capitalization theirs] to more meaningfully contribute to segment profitability going forward as our pipeline expands," the company wrote, "including the second installment of Hogwarts Legacy."

So, it exists⁠—which you probably could have guessed based on the first game's' explosive sales success back when it launched. God willing, the sequel will meaningfully contribute to segment profitability going forward.

PCG news writer Morgan Park liked Hogwarts Legacy well enough in his review, but found the experience soured by the real world context of its release. The wholesome adventures of Harry Potter and his assorted demi-human companions (who may or may not have been buried under an oil pipeline) have taken a darker cast with each passing year due to the strident anti-transgender political activism of Potter author J. K. Rowling, who still owns and profits from the Potter IP.

It's not just icky public statements or whatever: Rowling has been a leading voice in the global movement to get so worked up about trans people and bathrooms that you pass discriminatory laws about it. She has put that Potter money where her mouth is as a financial backer of anti-trans causes in the United Kingdom, and recently threatened to sue Amnesty International over its criticism of a Rowling-funded, trans-exclusionary women's support network.

Nasty stuff, and Rowling's agenda has already cast a pall over HBO's coming adaptation of the original books. The nastiness certainly didn't hurt Hogwarts Legacy's own prospects back in 2023, but anti-trans persecution has only grown more acute⁠—and Rowling more personally associated with it⁠—in the intervening years.