[Drybones]

The first game was good. This one is not. I don’t understand how a big game like this could have you just walking around doing nearly nothing for several hours straight. Every puzzle and lock solution is basically on a sticky note next to it in game removing the minimum challenge the game presents. Movies are more engaging.

As for the story, it’s just Alan Wake 1 retold but louder and in your face about it.

[lloeki]

> I don’t understand how a big game like this could have you just walking around doing nearly nothing for several hours straight

Alan Wake 1 had a lengthy walking around/watching cutscenes first part, so this sounds good to me: I like walking simulators (e.g Gone Home, Firewatch). Not every game has to be about blowing things up to smithereens or solving over-rehashed puzzles.

The most recent example for me was Scorn: for me it was fantastic until I got to the area where you get a thinly veiled shotgun thing with mandatory combat + solve those rotating puzzles over and over whose essential logic has been seen a thousand times (in stark with the first big room environmental puzzle whose logic wasn't that complex but was immersive), at which point I dropped the game as it was just killing the mood for me.

[ShamelessC]

> I don’t understand how a big game like this could have you just walking around doing nearly nothing for several hours straight

Isn’t that exactly how Alan Wake 1 starts out?

[illegalsmile]

I started AW1 the other day because it had been on my list after playing through Control. There's definitely a lot of walking around and cut scenes but I wouldn't say you do nothing. You do have to fight people, collect items and do some very simple puzzles.

[ShamelessC]

Huh fair enough thanks for clarifying. How does Alan Wake 1 hold up?

[sillysaurusx]

Thank you! Exactly what I was hoping to hear, unless it was actually good. Thanks for saving us from disappointment.

[jahsome]

The first couple hours are intentionally slow. It's not "doing nothing" it's building suspense and laying out the foundation for the story.

I don't understand why people need to hear whether games are "worth it" based on someone else's opinion.

[chungy]

It helps to make a decision about whether it's worth buying. Of course opinions can vary wildly, which is why looking up multiple reviews and/or videos might be a wise idea.

As an example, I've struggled to get people to fully play one of my favorite platformers of all time, VVVVVV. And then the much vaunted Ocarina of Time bores me to tears and I can't push myself to get through it.

[Vetch]

It makes sense to make a purchase decision based on others opinions yes, but what I don't understand is why sillysaurusx seems to have already decided based on one response, and without knowing how (dis)similar Drybones's taste in games.

Alan Wake is a great game but I consider Alan Wake 2 to be much better, but I also enjoyed Control more than Alan Wake and enjoyed all aspects of Quantum Break. Where you fall on those games will probably most affect how much you enjoy Remedy's latest.

How much you enjoy unorthodox multimedia narrative story telling, psychological and cosmic horror meta-narrative weirdness, how much you accept being confused from design jankiness in certain spots as part of the experience, stuff like that will decide how much you enjoy this game. Personally, its only real flaw is mystery solving can be a little too handholdy and bruteforce-able.

[jahsome]

No, it makes zero sense to predetermine one's artistic interpretation based on outside influence. Absolutely none.

The idea that anyone needs another person to tell them what is likable is just sad.

[ShamelessC]

> As an example, I've struggled to get people to fully play one of my favorite platformers of all time, VVVVVV. And then the much vaunted Ocarina of Time bores me to tears and I can't push myself to get through it.

VVVVV appears to be a fairly low budget indie game with graphics that haven't aged very well compared to modern indie games. I'm sure it was fun and it seems it was very well received when it came out.

Ocarina of Time was a AAA game that came out during the first real mainstream transition toward 3D graphics. It effectively kickstarted the RPG and free-roam genres while still presenting a typically polished Zelda experience. It was fun when I played it (when it came out) but it has not aged very well compared to modern games. If you didn't play it when it came out you're probably not going to enjoy it - but at least you can respect its impact on gaming.

Anyway the point is that games don't age well and similar to music, people don't tend to like other people's favorite games unless they're highly aligned in the first place.

Reviews are pretty pointless as well but in general you can tell in the first 2 hours of a game if you're going to like it or not, at which point you can choose to return it or not return it.

[chungy]

VVVVVV holds up perfectly. Good level design, good physics, good gimmick at the core of its game play. The graphics were designed to be evocative of the Commodore 64 era. It's hard for that to really age when that was the intent in the first place.

Ocarina of Time bored me in 1998. It still does. It hasn't "aged poorly" in my view; it was never good in the first place. (Yes, it's my opinion. :P)

[lloeki]

> Ocarina of Time bored me in 1998. It still does

Oh my so I am not alone. I always felt like it was terrible, especially compared to the GB and SNES ones, and whatever games were out on PC/PS/DC around that time (not so much about the graphics but the game's pacing, controls, and mechanics). I feel the same about Golden Eye.

I feel like these games got a lot of success not because of what they are but because it exposed a chunk of players (Nintendo die-hards) to a type of game that wasn't previously available to them on their favourite platform.

[Reticularas]

VVVVV was released during the initial wave of indie game popularity. It may not be the most influential of that group- but it's more relevant than it probably seems from a present day standpoint

[ShamelessC]

Okay I’ll take your word for it. Like I said it appears to have been well received. Gameplay looks interesting.

[jahsome]

You defeat your own point. OOT is nearly universally adored, and you don't like it. So other's opinions are worthless when it comes to determining your own taste.

Experience the art and make up your own mind. You either like it or you don't. The end.

[wredue]

Random internet people is, hilariously all you can even trust now.

Reviewers have been pretty questionable of late with a few obvious gaffes, but Starfield was the last straw for me. A wall on 10s for reviews, but the game is a clear 6, maybe 7 on a good day.

[izacus]

> Reviewers have been pretty questionable of late with a few obvious gaffes, but Starfield was the last straw for me. A wall on 10s for reviews, but the game is a clear 6, maybe 7 on a good day.

Pretty much all reviewers I follow were giving Starfield reviews explicitly mentioning how boring it is how it feels obsolete for 2023.

So which "reviewers" are you quoting and why aren't you reading the ones that match your taste in games?

And how the heck are random people in the internet more trustable to you, there's thousands of people that lost their shit because Starfield didn't get perfect 10/10 scores.

[pbj1968]

Starfield looked incredibly boring from the trailers and preview videos. I had to shake my head and roll my eyes at the review scores. I’ll stick to Halo if I want to constantly jump and shoot aliens.

[cassianoleal]

I must be about 50h into Starfield and I'm on NG+1.

I found it extremely boring at first. I hugely disliked the potato graphics, the clunky animations and the rubbery faces.

Now I find I pick it up to kill time and have fun while doing so. The story is not incredibly deep but it's interesting enough. The gameplay is not 2023 AAA quality but it's decent enough. The endless interruptions with fast travel and loading (even for crossing doors and riding lifts! :-o ) are pretty low effort but they don't bother enough.

Pretty much all aspects of the game are good enough but never great. I'd probably give it a 6/10 but with a caveat that it's something I keep going back to.

This is the first time I'm actually playing a Bethesda game by the way. I tried Skyrim a few times and always found it extremely boring and clunky. I tried Fallout 76 and it was the same. This is the 3rd of their games I'm trying to play and so far it's been going ... quite ok! And I'm glad I'm playing it, it's fun despite its (many) shortcomings!

[physicles]

I was confused about Starfield until I saw https://youtu.be/lHiP5OPZ2sA?feature=shared , which explains what it actually is: Fallout, but in space. Also apparently it takes about 12 hours to get into it.

[lloeki]

That's my take on it, and what I found so increasingly boring about those games

Starfield is Fallout, but in space, Skyrim is Oblivion, but in the north, Fallout is Oblivion, but in post-nuke retrofuture, and Oblivion is Morrowind, but in a thinly veiled roman empire setting.

I mean, from gameplay to quests, it's the exact same thing, reskinned. e.g porphyric hemophilia was cool in Morrowind, but the exact set up + quests is reproduced over and over again in subsequent games (incl. across franchises!). I'm halfway wondering (and would not be surprised) if Starfield had vampires as well.

It's nice if you enjoy the thing a lot (good for fans! I'm all for them enjoying it) but is otherwise so repetitive that what was fun back then is not anymore, and a fresh coat of paint increasingly failed at saving the later entries.

[jahsome]

Why do you need to trust anyone else at all? It's art. Experience it for yourself. Make your own decisions.

Going in to the experience with your expectations already dialed in defeats the entire purpose of experiencing art.

[ShamelessC]

> Thank you! Exactly what I was hoping to hear, unless it was actually good. Thanks for saving us from disappointment.

Eh let's be real - you decided you didn't like that game the moment you saw any sort of press about it.

[satvikpendem]

It is good, but you have to go into it with different expectations. Skill Up has the best review of it that I've seen [0], where the game is actually a 4th wall breaking meta commentary on the story driven and mystery game genre as a whole, with live action parts interspersed with the gameplay and cutscenes.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh1vq0SljoU

[reroute22]

I hate meta. It always sucks.

[izacus]

> Thank you! Exactly what I was hoping to hear, unless it was actually good.

So you were just peddling around to confirm your preconcieved bias for it to be bad?

(Pretty much all reviews have been universally VERY good in media.)

[ljm]

The first game was more action oriented while this one is more like survival horror. I think it's a refreshing change from pushing back the hordes as it's much more of a tense and atmospheric slow-burn.

Personally I'm hugely fond of it but I absolutely love the weirdness of Remedy's extended universe, and for me it's less about the gameplay but the story and atmosphere. So, my bias couldn't be more apparent but I think there's a lot more to it than what you're dismissing it for.