Games

I dunno - it's sort of what's wrong with reviews these days.

Starfield's first few hours are really slow and suck.

Then there's this point at around 20-40 hours where it just clicks and you feel like you are in this massive open universe with so much to do.

And I think most reviewers were writing their reviews having rushed through to around that point.

And then you keep playing.

And you realize that in fact there isn't a huge universe with so much to do, there's a huge effective map with literally copy and paste repetition of everything you've already done. And it even doubled down (or rather went twelvefold down) on this repetition.

And that sense you got earlier on of a universe of untapped potential that had you looking past the flaws in an outdated engine and poor design choices now suddenly come up short, you are left with a game that has little redeeming value at the 60+ hour mark even though you might have thought it was potentially amazing at the 40 hour mark.

I can see why it reviewed well, as if I was under deadline to write a review for it and rushed a few faction quests and the main quest line and looked at the map of so much more to see having barely dipped a toe into certain other quests and exploration, I'd have rated it quite well. Even though after around 80 hours I was so over it that it's nearly forgettable with the last 20 of those 80 hours being a miserable slog where I kept hoping to rediscover some magic. And I say that as someone who typically plays around 200+ hours in Bethesda games.

It sucks, but it takes too much time to realize it sucks for fans of the genre if you already forced yourself to play past the opening 15 hours hump as all reviewers have to.

I think it'd be really healthy for the industry if review scores regularly got updated by reviewers who continued to play past the point of writing the first stab at it.