×
I Played ‘Cyberpunk 2077’ on Mac and It Feels Perilously Close to PC Gaming

I Played ‘Cyberpunk 2077’ on Mac and It Feels Perilously Close to PC Gaming

Cyberpunk 2077 strode like a solo cyberninja onto MacBooks with the kind of swaggering bravado you’d expect from a chromed-up Night City merc. Knowing you can run CD Projekt Red’s graphically intense game, even if not at the peak ultra settings, is a mark of how well the device plays AAA titles. In case you missed it, Cyberpunk is now on Mac, and I’ve tested it on a plethora of Apple’s M-series laptops from the last few years. The good news is it’s playable, but for many Apple fans, this will be their first true taste of finagling graphics options and drowning in frame rate data like your average PC gamer. Welcome to the party, chooms.

I was impressed by how the game ran on Nintendo Switch 2, and that was because the developers put in extra effort to enable AI upscaling to remove small environmental details that would hinder the CPU. That game ran at 1080p in handheld mode and when docked. But the Mac ecosystem is far more varied, and CD Projekt Red wasn’t going to create a different version of the game for each individual size and chip. Whereas gamers could expect relative consistency on a console, the Mac version is essentially the PC version of the game. Apple insisted the game default to the “For this Mac” graphic preset. On all systems I tested, the default settings pushed the resolution way down for the sake of consistent gameplay. It’s the worst way to play the game.

A MacBook Pro 16 with M4 Pro, left, and MacBook Air with M4, right. You can already guess which one is capable of handling any ray tracing. © Adriano Contreras / Gizmodo

On an M4 MacBook Air 13, with its 2,560 x 1,600 resolution display, Cyberpunk automatically pushed the resolution down to 1,170 x 1,068. The game runs at medium settings with no ray tracing and manages to squeak out a little over 40 fps in benchmarks. The lower resolution worked in combination with MetalFX upscaling, which takes frames at a lower resolution and transforms them so they look better. This keeps frame rates at a playable level. Without MetalFX, you’ll struggle to meet 30 fps at these same settings. If you boost the resolution to native, you’ll likely struggle to meet the playable 30 fps in most scenes.

Apple’s base settings also enable VSync, which sets the max fps at 30. It’s the first thing you should toggle off if you plan to play the game on Mac. With VSync on and set to 30 fps, the game feels floaty and visuals blurry, as if the player character is a drunk stumbling home after a long night. It’s worth seeing frame rate dips into the high 20s for the sake of smoother gameplay. With that said, the game doesn’t look half bad on a $1,200 MacBook Air with the 10-core GPU, even if the resolution and upscaling muddles textures and create odd visual pop-in where in-game objects or details appear when you get close.

Older MacBooks with non-Pro-level M-series chips will likely dip the graphics settings and resolution even lower, if you can actually play it at all. Previous models of MacBook Air came with only 8GB of memory at their minimum spec, and those models cannot run Cyberpunk at all. The M1 MacBooks can technically run the game, but at the low, low resolution of 900p. Things aren’t much better on a $1,600 MacBook Pro 14 with M4, either. It sits at 1,800 x 1,125 resolution, and if you try to go to native 3,024 x 1,964, you’ll find the frame rate just isn’t consistent enough with medium settings. On an M3 MacBook Pro 14, Apple sets the resolution to the same as the one with M4, but it wants you to play on most settings set to low. In my tests, I found you should still be able to handle medium graphics with that Mac.

Apple will set low resolution no matter if it’s a lower-end or higher-end chip. After multiple tests, I found the real minimum you want for the game is one of the more recent Macs with a Pro-level chip, like the $2,500 MacBook Pro 16 with M4 Pro. Apple and CD Projekt Red set the “For this Mac” settings base resolution at 1,728 x 1,080 and no ray tracing for 60 fps gameplay, but benchmarks put the actual uncapped frame rate at over 70 fps. Turn on ray tracing to ultra and set to 1200p, and you will get just under 60 fps during gameplay. Even at 4K, you can still achieve playable frame rates, though you’ll need to accept below 40 fps gameplay and minimal ray tracing. I haven’t tested the Mac mini with M4 Pro and Cyberpunk 2077; it might have more constrained performance. That device starts at $1,400 for a version of the M4 Pro with a 16-core GPU compared to the 20-core GPU on the MacBook Pro.

So now that Mac has a few more games you may want to play, can a MacBook be your next mobile gaming rig? It depends on how much you’re willing to spend. When I reviewed it in 2023, my M3 Max MacBook Pro 16, sent to me by Apple, was $4,000 at launch, and it still will set the base resolution for Cyberpunk at 1440p for 60 fps with ray tracing enabled. For the highest-end, you’ll need an M4 Max or M3 Ultra chip currently only found on Mac Studio. Those devices start at $2,000 for a 14-core M4 Max. The 60-core GPU on the M3 Ultra Mac Studio demands $4,000 at base. As good as previous M-series Macs were, only the latest and more expensive models will be able to offer an experience close to what you can get on today’s current consoles or gaming PCs.

Apple’s main concern should be how it will present these graphics options if it keeps pushing Macs and gaming. The “For this Mac” graphics options pretend to offer console-like ease for getting into the game, but they make the game feel far worse than if you tuned the settings yourself. It shouldn’t be the norm going forward, even if Apple wants to make it easy for the average Mac owner. Apple fans will just have to suffer within their graphics settings, like the rest of us PC gamers.

Source link
#Played #Cyberpunk #Mac #Feels #Perilously #Close #Gaming

Lego-style propaganda videos alleging war crimes are flooding online feeds, echoing the White House’s own turn toward cryptic teaser clips and meme-native visuals. This is not just content drift. It is a new front in the information war, one where speed, ambiguity, and algorithmic reach matter as much as accuracy.

One Iran-linked outlet, Explosive News, can reportedly turn around a two-minute synthetic Lego segment in about 24 hours. The speed is the point. Synthetic media does not need to hold up forever; it only needs to travel before verification catches up.

Last month, the White House added to that confusion when it posted two vague “launching soon” videos, then removed them after online investigators and open source researchers began dissecting them.

The reveal turned out to be anticlimactic: a promotional push for the official White House app. But the episode demonstrated how thoroughly official communication has absorbed the aesthetics of leaks, virality, and platform-native intrigue. Even when official accounts adopt the aesthetics of a leak, questioning whether a record is real or synthetic is the only defensive move left.

Real vs. Synthetic: The New Friction

A zero digital footprint used to signal authenticity. Now, it can signal the opposite. The absence of a trail no longer means something is original—it may mean it was never captured by a lens at all. The signal has inverted. Truth lags; engagement leads.

Automated traffic now commands an estimated 51 percent of internet activity, scaling eight times faster than human traffic according to the 2026 State of AI Traffic & Cyberthreat Benchmark Report. These systems don’t just distribute content, they prioritize low-quality virality, ensuring the synthetic record travels while verification is still catching up.

Open source investigators are still holding the line, but they are fighting a volume war. The rise of hyperactive “super sharers,” often backed by paid verification, adds a layer of false authority that traditional open source intelligence (OSINT) now has to navigate.

“We’re perpetually catching up to someone pressing repost without a second thought,” says Maryam Ishani, an OSINT journalist covering the conflict. “The algorithm prioritizes that reflex, and our information is always going to be one step behind.”

At the same time, the surge of war-monitoring accounts is beginning to interfere with reporting itself. Manisha Ganguly, visual forensics lead at The Guardian and an OSINT specialist investigating war crimes, points to the false certainty created by the flood of aggregated content on Telegram and X.

“Open source verification starts to create false certainty when it stops being a method of inquiry—through confirmation bias, or when OSINT is used to cosmetically validate official accounts or knowingly misapplied to align with ideological narratives rather than interrogate them,” Ganguly says.

While this plays out, the verification toolkit itself is becoming harder to access. On April 4, Planet Labs—one of the most relied-upon commercial satellite providers for conflict journalism—announced it would indefinitely withhold imagery of Iran and the broader Middle East conflict zone, retroactive to March 9, following a request from the US government.

The response from US defense secretary Pete Hegseth to concerns about the delay was unambiguous: “Open source is not the place to determine what did or did not happen.”

That shift matters. When access to primary visual evidence is restricted, the ability to independently verify events narrows. And in that narrowing gap, something else expands: Generative AI doesn’t just fill the silence—it competes to define what’s seen in the first place.

Generative AI Is Getting Harder to Spot

Generative AI platforms have been learning from their mistakes. Henk van Ess, an investigative trainer and verification specialist, says many of the classic tells—incorrect finger counts, garbled protest signs, distorted text—have largely been fixed in the latest generation of models. Tools like Imagen 3, Midjourney, and Dall·E have improved in prompt understanding, photorealism, and text-in-image rendering.

But the harder problem is what van Ess calls the hybrid.

#Internet #Broke #Everyones #Bullshit #Detectorspropaganda,artificial intelligence,open source,satellite images,iran,war,politics">How the Internet Broke Everyone’s Bullshit DetectorsLego-style propaganda videos alleging war crimes are flooding online feeds, echoing the White House’s own turn toward cryptic teaser clips and meme-native visuals. This is not just content drift. It is a new front in the information war, one where speed, ambiguity, and algorithmic reach matter as much as accuracy.One Iran-linked outlet, Explosive News, can reportedly turn around a two-minute synthetic Lego segment in about 24 hours. The speed is the point. Synthetic media does not need to hold up forever; it only needs to travel before verification catches up.Last month, the White House added to that confusion when it posted two vague “launching soon” videos, then removed them after online investigators and open source researchers began dissecting them.The reveal turned out to be anticlimactic: a promotional push for the official White House app. But the episode demonstrated how thoroughly official communication has absorbed the aesthetics of leaks, virality, and platform-native intrigue. Even when official accounts adopt the aesthetics of a leak, questioning whether a record is real or synthetic is the only defensive move left.Real vs. Synthetic: The New FrictionA zero digital footprint used to signal authenticity. Now, it can signal the opposite. The absence of a trail no longer means something is original—it may mean it was never captured by a lens at all. The signal has inverted. Truth lags; engagement leads.Automated traffic now commands an estimated 51 percent of internet activity, scaling eight times faster than human traffic according to the 2026 State of AI Traffic & Cyberthreat Benchmark Report. These systems don’t just distribute content, they prioritize low-quality virality, ensuring the synthetic record travels while verification is still catching up.Open source investigators are still holding the line, but they are fighting a volume war. The rise of hyperactive “super sharers,” often backed by paid verification, adds a layer of false authority that traditional open source intelligence (OSINT) now has to navigate.“We’re perpetually catching up to someone pressing repost without a second thought,” says Maryam Ishani, an OSINT journalist covering the conflict. “The algorithm prioritizes that reflex, and our information is always going to be one step behind.”At the same time, the surge of war-monitoring accounts is beginning to interfere with reporting itself. Manisha Ganguly, visual forensics lead at The Guardian and an OSINT specialist investigating war crimes, points to the false certainty created by the flood of aggregated content on Telegram and X.“Open source verification starts to create false certainty when it stops being a method of inquiry—through confirmation bias, or when OSINT is used to cosmetically validate official accounts or knowingly misapplied to align with ideological narratives rather than interrogate them,” Ganguly says.While this plays out, the verification toolkit itself is becoming harder to access. On April 4, Planet Labs—one of the most relied-upon commercial satellite providers for conflict journalism—announced it would indefinitely withhold imagery of Iran and the broader Middle East conflict zone, retroactive to March 9, following a request from the US government.The response from US defense secretary Pete Hegseth to concerns about the delay was unambiguous: “Open source is not the place to determine what did or did not happen.”That shift matters. When access to primary visual evidence is restricted, the ability to independently verify events narrows. And in that narrowing gap, something else expands: Generative AI doesn’t just fill the silence—it competes to define what’s seen in the first place.Generative AI Is Getting Harder to SpotGenerative AI platforms have been learning from their mistakes. Henk van Ess, an investigative trainer and verification specialist, says many of the classic tells—incorrect finger counts, garbled protest signs, distorted text—have largely been fixed in the latest generation of models. Tools like Imagen 3, Midjourney, and Dall·E have improved in prompt understanding, photorealism, and text-in-image rendering.But the harder problem is what van Ess calls the hybrid.#Internet #Broke #Everyones #Bullshit #Detectorspropaganda,artificial intelligence,open source,satellite images,iran,war,politics

flooding online feeds, echoing the White House’s own turn toward cryptic teaser clips and meme-native visuals. This is not just content drift. It is a new front in the information war, one where speed, ambiguity, and algorithmic reach matter as much as accuracy.

One Iran-linked outlet, Explosive News, can reportedly turn around a two-minute synthetic Lego segment in about 24 hours. The speed is the point. Synthetic media does not need to hold up forever; it only needs to travel before verification catches up.

Last month, the White House added to that confusion when it posted two vague “launching soon” videos, then removed them after online investigators and open source researchers began dissecting them.

The reveal turned out to be anticlimactic: a promotional push for the official White House app. But the episode demonstrated how thoroughly official communication has absorbed the aesthetics of leaks, virality, and platform-native intrigue. Even when official accounts adopt the aesthetics of a leak, questioning whether a record is real or synthetic is the only defensive move left.

Real vs. Synthetic: The New Friction

A zero digital footprint used to signal authenticity. Now, it can signal the opposite. The absence of a trail no longer means something is original—it may mean it was never captured by a lens at all. The signal has inverted. Truth lags; engagement leads.

Automated traffic now commands an estimated 51 percent of internet activity, scaling eight times faster than human traffic according to the 2026 State of AI Traffic & Cyberthreat Benchmark Report. These systems don’t just distribute content, they prioritize low-quality virality, ensuring the synthetic record travels while verification is still catching up.

Open source investigators are still holding the line, but they are fighting a volume war. The rise of hyperactive “super sharers,” often backed by paid verification, adds a layer of false authority that traditional open source intelligence (OSINT) now has to navigate.

“We’re perpetually catching up to someone pressing repost without a second thought,” says Maryam Ishani, an OSINT journalist covering the conflict. “The algorithm prioritizes that reflex, and our information is always going to be one step behind.”

At the same time, the surge of war-monitoring accounts is beginning to interfere with reporting itself. Manisha Ganguly, visual forensics lead at The Guardian and an OSINT specialist investigating war crimes, points to the false certainty created by the flood of aggregated content on Telegram and X.

“Open source verification starts to create false certainty when it stops being a method of inquiry—through confirmation bias, or when OSINT is used to cosmetically validate official accounts or knowingly misapplied to align with ideological narratives rather than interrogate them,” Ganguly says.

While this plays out, the verification toolkit itself is becoming harder to access. On April 4, Planet Labs—one of the most relied-upon commercial satellite providers for conflict journalism—announced it would indefinitely withhold imagery of Iran and the broader Middle East conflict zone, retroactive to March 9, following a request from the US government.

The response from US defense secretary Pete Hegseth to concerns about the delay was unambiguous: “Open source is not the place to determine what did or did not happen.”

That shift matters. When access to primary visual evidence is restricted, the ability to independently verify events narrows. And in that narrowing gap, something else expands: Generative AI doesn’t just fill the silence—it competes to define what’s seen in the first place.

Generative AI Is Getting Harder to Spot

Generative AI platforms have been learning from their mistakes. Henk van Ess, an investigative trainer and verification specialist, says many of the classic tells—incorrect finger counts, garbled protest signs, distorted text—have largely been fixed in the latest generation of models. Tools like Imagen 3, Midjourney, and Dall·E have improved in prompt understanding, photorealism, and text-in-image rendering.

But the harder problem is what van Ess calls the hybrid.

#Internet #Broke #Everyones #Bullshit #Detectorspropaganda,artificial intelligence,open source,satellite images,iran,war,politics">How the Internet Broke Everyone’s Bullshit Detectors

Lego-style propaganda videos alleging war crimes are flooding online feeds, echoing the White House’s own turn toward cryptic teaser clips and meme-native visuals. This is not just content drift. It is a new front in the information war, one where speed, ambiguity, and algorithmic reach matter as much as accuracy.

One Iran-linked outlet, Explosive News, can reportedly turn around a two-minute synthetic Lego segment in about 24 hours. The speed is the point. Synthetic media does not need to hold up forever; it only needs to travel before verification catches up.

Last month, the White House added to that confusion when it posted two vague “launching soon” videos, then removed them after online investigators and open source researchers began dissecting them.

The reveal turned out to be anticlimactic: a promotional push for the official White House app. But the episode demonstrated how thoroughly official communication has absorbed the aesthetics of leaks, virality, and platform-native intrigue. Even when official accounts adopt the aesthetics of a leak, questioning whether a record is real or synthetic is the only defensive move left.

Real vs. Synthetic: The New Friction

A zero digital footprint used to signal authenticity. Now, it can signal the opposite. The absence of a trail no longer means something is original—it may mean it was never captured by a lens at all. The signal has inverted. Truth lags; engagement leads.

Automated traffic now commands an estimated 51 percent of internet activity, scaling eight times faster than human traffic according to the 2026 State of AI Traffic & Cyberthreat Benchmark Report. These systems don’t just distribute content, they prioritize low-quality virality, ensuring the synthetic record travels while verification is still catching up.

Open source investigators are still holding the line, but they are fighting a volume war. The rise of hyperactive “super sharers,” often backed by paid verification, adds a layer of false authority that traditional open source intelligence (OSINT) now has to navigate.

“We’re perpetually catching up to someone pressing repost without a second thought,” says Maryam Ishani, an OSINT journalist covering the conflict. “The algorithm prioritizes that reflex, and our information is always going to be one step behind.”

At the same time, the surge of war-monitoring accounts is beginning to interfere with reporting itself. Manisha Ganguly, visual forensics lead at The Guardian and an OSINT specialist investigating war crimes, points to the false certainty created by the flood of aggregated content on Telegram and X.

“Open source verification starts to create false certainty when it stops being a method of inquiry—through confirmation bias, or when OSINT is used to cosmetically validate official accounts or knowingly misapplied to align with ideological narratives rather than interrogate them,” Ganguly says.

While this plays out, the verification toolkit itself is becoming harder to access. On April 4, Planet Labs—one of the most relied-upon commercial satellite providers for conflict journalism—announced it would indefinitely withhold imagery of Iran and the broader Middle East conflict zone, retroactive to March 9, following a request from the US government.

The response from US defense secretary Pete Hegseth to concerns about the delay was unambiguous: “Open source is not the place to determine what did or did not happen.”

That shift matters. When access to primary visual evidence is restricted, the ability to independently verify events narrows. And in that narrowing gap, something else expands: Generative AI doesn’t just fill the silence—it competes to define what’s seen in the first place.

Generative AI Is Getting Harder to Spot

Generative AI platforms have been learning from their mistakes. Henk van Ess, an investigative trainer and verification specialist, says many of the classic tells—incorrect finger counts, garbled protest signs, distorted text—have largely been fixed in the latest generation of models. Tools like Imagen 3, Midjourney, and Dall·E have improved in prompt understanding, photorealism, and text-in-image rendering.

But the harder problem is what van Ess calls the hybrid.

#Internet #Broke #Everyones #Bullshit #Detectorspropaganda,artificial intelligence,open source,satellite images,iran,war,politics

Today’s Connections: Sports Edition is tricky! There are some red herrings you’ll have to avoid.

As we’ve shared in previous hints stories, this is a version of the popular New York Times word game that seeks to test the knowledge of sports fans.

Like the original Connections, the game is all about finding the “common threads between words.” And just like Wordle, Connections resets after midnight and each new set of words gets trickier and trickier — so we’ve served up some hints and tips to get you over the hurdle.

If you just want to be told today’s puzzle, you can jump to the end of this article for the latest Connections solution. But if you’d rather solve it yourself, keep reading for some clues, tips, and strategies to assist you.

What is Connections: Sports Edition?

The NYT‘s latest daily word game has launched in association with The Athletic, the New York Times property that provides the publication’s sports coverage. Connections can be played on both web browsers and mobile devices and require players to group four words that share something in common.

Each puzzle features 16 words, and each grouping of words is split into four categories. These sets could comprise anything from book titles, software, country names, etc. Even though multiple words will seem like they fit together, there’s only one correct answer.

If a player gets all four words in a set correct, those words are removed from the board. Guess wrong and it counts as a mistake — players get up to four mistakes before the game ends.

Players can also rearrange and shuffle the board to make spotting connections easier. Additionally, each group is color-coded with yellow being the easiest, followed by green, blue, and purple. Like Wordle, you can share the results with your friends on social media.

Here’s a hint for today’s Connections: Sports Edition categories

Want a hint about the categories without being told the categories? Then give these a try:

Here are today’s Connections: Sports Edition categories

Need a little extra help? Today’s connections fall into the following categories:

  • Yellow: MLB Teams, Colloquially

  • Green: UCLA

  • Blue: Can Follow Minnesota

  • Purple: Starts With Part of the Body

Looking for Wordle today? Here’s the answer to today’s Wordle.

Ready for the answers? This is your last chance to turn back and solve today’s puzzle before we reveal the solutions.

Drumroll, please!

The solution to today’s Connections: Sports Edition #565 is…

What is the answer to Connections: Sports Edition today?

  • MLB Teams, Colloquially — D-BACKS, JAYS, PHILS, SOX

  • UCLA — ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, LOS, UNIVERSITY

  • Can Follow Minnesota — LYNX, UNITED, VIKINGS, WILD

  • Starts With Part of the Body — ARMY, EARTHQUAKES, LEGACY, LIVERPOOL

Don’t feel down if you didn’t manage to guess it this time. There will be new sports Connections for you to stretch your brain with tomorrow, and we’ll be back again to guide you with more helpful hints.

Are you also playing NYT Strands? See hints and answers for today’s Strands.

If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.

Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Connections.

#NYT #Connections #Sports #Edition #hints #answers #April #Tips #solve #Connections">NYT Connections Sports Edition hints and answers for April 11: Tips to solve Connections #565
                                                            Today’s Connections: Sports Edition is tricky! There are some red herrings you’ll have to avoid.As we’ve shared in previous hints stories, this is a version of the popular New York Times word game that seeks to test the knowledge of sports fans. Like the original Connections, the game is all about finding the “common threads between words.” And just like Wordle, Connections resets after midnight and each new set of words gets trickier and trickier — so we’ve served up some hints and tips to get you over the hurdle.If you just want to be told today’s puzzle, you can jump to the end of this article for the latest Connections solution. But if you’d rather solve it yourself, keep reading for some clues, tips, and strategies to assist you.
        SEE ALSO:
        
            Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more: Play games on Mashable
            
        
    
What is Connections: Sports Edition?The NYT‘s latest daily word game has launched in association with The Athletic, the New York Times property that provides the publication’s sports coverage. Connections can be played on both web browsers and mobile devices and require players to group four words that share something in common.
    
        This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
    


Each puzzle features 16 words, and each grouping of words is split into four categories. These sets could comprise anything from book titles, software, country names, etc. Even though multiple words will seem like they fit together, there’s only one correct answer.If a player gets all four words in a set correct, those words are removed from the board. Guess wrong and it counts as a mistake — players get up to four mistakes before the game ends.
    
        This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
    


Players can also rearrange and shuffle the board to make spotting connections easier. Additionally, each group is color-coded with yellow being the easiest, followed by green, blue, and purple. Like Wordle, you can share the results with your friends on social media.
        
            Mashable Top Stories
        
        
    

        SEE ALSO:
        
            Wordle-obsessed? These are the best word games to play IRL.
            
        
    
Here’s a hint for today’s Connections: Sports Edition categoriesWant a hint about the categories without being told the categories? Then give these a try:Here are today’s Connections: Sports Edition categoriesNeed a little extra help? Today’s connections fall into the following categories:Yellow: MLB Teams, ColloquiallyGreen: UCLABlue: Can Follow MinnesotaPurple: Starts With Part of the BodyLooking for Wordle today? Here’s the answer to today’s Wordle.Ready for the answers? This is your last chance to turn back and solve today’s puzzle before we reveal the solutions.Drumroll, please!The solution to today’s Connections: Sports Edition #565 is…What is the answer to Connections: Sports Edition today?MLB Teams, Colloquially — D-BACKS, JAYS, PHILS, SOXUCLA — ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, LOS, UNIVERSITYCan Follow Minnesota — LYNX, UNITED, VIKINGS, WILDStarts With Part of the Body — ARMY, EARTHQUAKES, LEGACY, LIVERPOOLDon’t feel down if you didn’t manage to guess it this time. There will be new sports Connections for you to stretch your brain with tomorrow, and we’ll be back again to guide you with more helpful hints.Are you also playing NYT Strands? See hints and answers for today’s Strands.If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Connections.

                    
                                            
                            
                        
                                    #NYT #Connections #Sports #Edition #hints #answers #April #Tips #solve #Connections

New York Times word game that seeks to test the knowledge of sports fans.

Like the original Connections, the game is all about finding the “common threads between words.” And just like Wordle, Connections resets after midnight and each new set of words gets trickier and trickier — so we’ve served up some hints and tips to get you over the hurdle.

If you just want to be told today’s puzzle, you can jump to the end of this article for the latest Connections solution. But if you’d rather solve it yourself, keep reading for some clues, tips, and strategies to assist you.

What is Connections: Sports Edition?

The NYT‘s latest daily word game has launched in association with The Athletic, the New York Times property that provides the publication’s sports coverage. Connections can be played on both web browsers and mobile devices and require players to group four words that share something in common.

Each puzzle features 16 words, and each grouping of words is split into four categories. These sets could comprise anything from book titles, software, country names, etc. Even though multiple words will seem like they fit together, there’s only one correct answer.

If a player gets all four words in a set correct, those words are removed from the board. Guess wrong and it counts as a mistake — players get up to four mistakes before the game ends.

Players can also rearrange and shuffle the board to make spotting connections easier. Additionally, each group is color-coded with yellow being the easiest, followed by green, blue, and purple. Like Wordle, you can share the results with your friends on social media.

Here’s a hint for today’s Connections: Sports Edition categories

Want a hint about the categories without being told the categories? Then give these a try:

Here are today’s Connections: Sports Edition categories

Need a little extra help? Today’s connections fall into the following categories:

  • Yellow: MLB Teams, Colloquially

  • Green: UCLA

  • Blue: Can Follow Minnesota

  • Purple: Starts With Part of the Body

Looking for Wordle today? Here’s the answer to today’s Wordle.

Ready for the answers? This is your last chance to turn back and solve today’s puzzle before we reveal the solutions.

Drumroll, please!

The solution to today’s Connections: Sports Edition #565 is…

What is the answer to Connections: Sports Edition today?

  • MLB Teams, Colloquially — D-BACKS, JAYS, PHILS, SOX

  • UCLA — ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, LOS, UNIVERSITY

  • Can Follow Minnesota — LYNX, UNITED, VIKINGS, WILD

  • Starts With Part of the Body — ARMY, EARTHQUAKES, LEGACY, LIVERPOOL

Don’t feel down if you didn’t manage to guess it this time. There will be new sports Connections for you to stretch your brain with tomorrow, and we’ll be back again to guide you with more helpful hints.

Are you also playing NYT Strands? See hints and answers for today’s Strands.

If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.

Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Connections.

#NYT #Connections #Sports #Edition #hints #answers #April #Tips #solve #Connections">NYT Connections Sports Edition hints and answers for April 11: Tips to solve Connections #565

Today’s Connections: Sports Edition is tricky! There are some red herrings you’ll have to avoid.

As we’ve shared in previous hints stories, this is a version of the popular New York Times word game that seeks to test the knowledge of sports fans.

Like the original Connections, the game is all about finding the “common threads between words.” And just like Wordle, Connections resets after midnight and each new set of words gets trickier and trickier — so we’ve served up some hints and tips to get you over the hurdle.

If you just want to be told today’s puzzle, you can jump to the end of this article for the latest Connections solution. But if you’d rather solve it yourself, keep reading for some clues, tips, and strategies to assist you.

What is Connections: Sports Edition?

The NYT‘s latest daily word game has launched in association with The Athletic, the New York Times property that provides the publication’s sports coverage. Connections can be played on both web browsers and mobile devices and require players to group four words that share something in common.

Each puzzle features 16 words, and each grouping of words is split into four categories. These sets could comprise anything from book titles, software, country names, etc. Even though multiple words will seem like they fit together, there’s only one correct answer.

If a player gets all four words in a set correct, those words are removed from the board. Guess wrong and it counts as a mistake — players get up to four mistakes before the game ends.

Players can also rearrange and shuffle the board to make spotting connections easier. Additionally, each group is color-coded with yellow being the easiest, followed by green, blue, and purple. Like Wordle, you can share the results with your friends on social media.

Here’s a hint for today’s Connections: Sports Edition categories

Want a hint about the categories without being told the categories? Then give these a try:

Here are today’s Connections: Sports Edition categories

Need a little extra help? Today’s connections fall into the following categories:

  • Yellow: MLB Teams, Colloquially

  • Green: UCLA

  • Blue: Can Follow Minnesota

  • Purple: Starts With Part of the Body

Looking for Wordle today? Here’s the answer to today’s Wordle.

Ready for the answers? This is your last chance to turn back and solve today’s puzzle before we reveal the solutions.

Drumroll, please!

The solution to today’s Connections: Sports Edition #565 is…

What is the answer to Connections: Sports Edition today?

  • MLB Teams, Colloquially — D-BACKS, JAYS, PHILS, SOX

  • UCLA — ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, LOS, UNIVERSITY

  • Can Follow Minnesota — LYNX, UNITED, VIKINGS, WILD

  • Starts With Part of the Body — ARMY, EARTHQUAKES, LEGACY, LIVERPOOL

Don’t feel down if you didn’t manage to guess it this time. There will be new sports Connections for you to stretch your brain with tomorrow, and we’ll be back again to guide you with more helpful hints.

Are you also playing NYT Strands? See hints and answers for today’s Strands.

If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.

Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Connections.

#NYT #Connections #Sports #Edition #hints #answers #April #Tips #solve #Connections

Post Comment