It's such a shame that a decent game like Starfield has the worst beginning to a game possible. Multiple times during the first 20 hours I wanted to give up, but I'd just spent like 40 quid on this so I was going to finish it. At about hour 15 I started seeing signs of improvement, and then at hour 20 I felt like the whole world had opened up and everything finally made sense.

Past the 1 day trawl, Starfield offers a unique game with some incredible moments. The story is pretty good and the characters are well thought out. Combat is satisfying, but very easy. The different dialogue systems are amusing (always a highlight for me personally) and actually have an effect on the world around you. The different cities in the game are a huge highlight for me as they stand out as some of the most memorable and atmospheric from the last few Bethesda titles. Even the spaceship combat is fun once you get your head around the controls

Starfield got a lot of hate, and it probably deserved it. But if you're a true Bethesda fan, you'll stick it out and realise that this game is at least a bit better than it was first made out to be - but AS IF I'm going to new game+ this one, nooope

Edit: Remembered the fast travelling and lowered my rating by half a star. Absolutely shocking choice on the devs part, feels like they didn't play their own game

As someone who'd never touched a fire Emblem game, or really even knew what they were about - I was blown away!

The art style, the addictive combat + strategies, the characters, story, music... damn.

My main qualms with the game lie with how if you're new to the series and lose people early game (post tutorial), it really screws you in the late game with no chance of recovering.

I'm really looking forward to playing whatever next one I decide on though, especially now I have an understanding of the mechanics!

Played the 2024 remastered version

I think I enjoyed this game more as a spectacle. These remastered versions did not get the attention they deserved as they did something that not many remasters do: kept as true to the source material as possible. They did this to the point that there is literally a button on the controller that instantly switches between the old and new graphics, something very fun to do every so often.

In terms of the game itself, it has it's strengths and weaknesses. What Tomb Raider set out to do in 1996 was phenomenal, an Indiana jones style 3D video game, and they achieved that. However the combat is terrible, and unfortunately common, some of the puzzles just require to look around for ages, and the camera can be really, really bad at times.

However what's left is a cinematic puzzle platformer that takes you through some cool environments with some satisfying moments. The lack of music in tomb raider could be looked at as a negative, but actually I think using the music in the moments it does gives you a sense of achievement, which is powerful in itself.

I definitely think retro game enthusiasts should give this a try if they haven't touched the original Lara Croft games due to age, especially since the saving system has been buffed to the max, allowing to to save + load wherever, whenever