I don't understand why people need to hear whether games are "worth it" based on someone else's opinion.
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.
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.
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.
Experience the art and make up your own mind. You either like it or you don't. The end.
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.
Going in to the experience with your expectations already dialed in defeats the entire purpose of experiencing art.
Eh let's be real - you decided you didn't like that game the moment you saw any sort of press about it.
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.)
