> Greentext

Problem is, it falls into the category of something not being great but not being terrible, and no one anywhere seems able to discuss anything with any middle ground opinions anymore.

"I played this 100+ hour game for 1 hour and I already knew it was shit" is about the same level of irrelevance as "you have to play at least 40 hours to understand that the game is great". Opposite ends of the spectrum, both extreme views.

In reality, you're right. A game should hook you from the start, and most truly great games do. I've got something like 30 hours into Starfield. It's obviously not a truly great game. It is also not however a shit game that has no merit or value playing. It does take a while to sort of get into, and that's a major flaw. But for me it did pick up and I started enjoying it.

Some of my favorite open world games bodged their openers. In particular Horizon Zero Dawn and The Witcher 3 come to mind. So far Starfield does not appear to be as good as either of those. There are too many aspects of the game that feel half baked, especially in comparison to truly great games.

But it does somehow have its hooks in me despite its flaws. And I do think if anyone wants to really give the game a fair shake and have discussions about it in good faith, they have to invest a little more time to at least be able to experience enough of the game to get a real picture of it. I don't know what that number of hours is. I don't think it's 40 by any means but it's definitely more than 1.