Re: Today is the One Year Anniversary For The Release of Starfield

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 15:55 this Friday (GMT):

On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 07:53:57 -0600, "rms" <rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net>
wrote:
>

Yes, yes it is.  And I still haven't played it!

>
Me neither. It doesn't help that Bethesda is still asking $70 USD for
it. They seem to think it's a Skyrim-class game or something.
>
The thing is that "Starfield" is not -from what I've read- a terrible
game. I'd play it, if it werent' so overpriced (and if I could stomach
another 100-hour open-world title, which is an increasingly large hump
for me to cross). But it isn't an EXCITING game. It's a Bethesda RPG
through and through; buggy, with uninteresting characters and only
tolerable mechanics. Worse, it lacks the hand-crafted world-design
that made "Skyrim" so memorable.
>
I'll play "Starfield", maybe, eventually. I'm just not in a rush to do
so. But it isn't offering me anything new; it isn't doing anything
that "Mass Effect" or "Skyrim" or "No Mans Sky" haven't done before,
and it isn't doing it any better than those games. It's biggest
recommendation is that it was 'made by the people who made "Skyrim"!'
and if that's the best it's got to offer, I wonder why I don't save my
money and just play "Skyrim" again.
>
Drop it down in price and maybe I'll consider it. But "Starfield" is
definitely not a game I'm going to pay premium pricing to enjoy.

70$?? From what I've heard, it's a really mediocre game and certainly
not worth that much. Of course, I don't have a Xbox anyways, but still.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom