did you read it? the whole thing is way too harsh and reads more like a troll review. it should be removed from opencritic imo.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Days Gone Review Thread (See Staff Post)
- Thread starter Neat
- Start date
I just read the preview. Don't actually want to click through. What kind of a blurb is that?
that was the last paragraph of the text review, i also added the summary in the score box.
I do agree it's super generic, but again, it just doesn't invite the kind of criticism that that original blurb has. I can't think of any high profile game that does to be honest.
A 37? Fuck off with this shit. Also the score is just a calculated average of these numbers they gave in these categories lol
- Presentation - 72%
- Music - 70%
- Gameplay - 5%
- Content - 75%
- Story - 20%
- Fun Factor - 10%
- Performance - 10%
I'm still scratching my head at that performance because based on digital foundry's coverage it doesn't seem nearly that bad.
Honestly reading it makes the reviewer just seem mad that it's not on par with other exclusives. It seems pretty silly to effectively shit on a game for not being the top of it's genre.
Lol why are we discussing Assassin's Creed Odyssey anyways? Goddamn. From the way it plays, the way it's structured, it's RPG-ness, player-choice, settings, EVERYTHING, they are different than Days Gone, so of course people would and could value that game differently than Days Gone.
I swear so many of you are so funny in saying "I don't care" while at the same time showing so blatantly how deep your care actually is about silly stuff like this.
I swear so many of you are so funny in saying "I don't care" while at the same time showing so blatantly how deep your care actually is about silly stuff like this.
huh, why is the link not working? is daily star banned on era?
I don't know if it's banned but it's an incredibly shady news site. They do anything for clicks. They once fabricated an entire interview with The Rock and had to take it down once he went public and said it never took place.
seems like they really should have scored it lower if gameplay and fun factor was between 5 and 10 out of a hundred.
The user score at Metacritic keeps raising up, at 7,9 now.
The game should have been 8.0 at MC IMO, a very solid 8 game.
The game should have been 8.0 at MC IMO, a very solid 8 game.
That 37 review looks like it was written by a bot. Read the first couple lines.
They call Uncharted 4 "Uncharted four" and include the sentence "Days Gone isn't a video game." How does a site with that type of content standards get indexed on OC?
They call Uncharted 4 "Uncharted four" and include the sentence "Days Gone isn't a video game." How does a site with that type of content standards get indexed on OC?
And now they come up with a perfect score for Days Gone :)
Yeah I think that's very fair. Personally I'd score it about an 8/10.
Considering the similar Metacritic scores, do you (folks who have played both) think Mad Max is better/worse/roughly similar to Days Gone? I wonder if critics have gotten harsher or if this year has just seen a bunch of relatively uninspired releases (Anthem, Crackdown).
May have something to do with the multiple 10/10 user reviews that warn others to flee from 'xbox haters' and 'reviewers with political agendas'?
Of course, there are quite a few 0/10s from the other side.
Don't make the mistake of relying on the user score for anything.
I kind of find the same enjoyment in Days Gone that i did in Mad Max. IMO they are in the same ballpark.
the metacritic user score is beyond useless, yeah. it's massively prone to users (many times people who haven't played the game) spamming 0s and 10s.
British tabloid newspaper like the Daily Mirror and the Sun. They do a lot of fake stories for fearmongering from the fake Rock interview to fake Rockstar Games allegations to a volcano ash airplane story using fake details to Madeline McCann false allegations and more. Don't know if those are the reasons it's banned here, though.
Tbf they are way worse than the mirror, I mean it's still shit but they don't totally fake stuff. Well apart from that time with piers Morgan..
I can't stomach saying they are worse than the sun so I'll say they're equally bad for different reasons.
This feels really bandwagony to me. I mean, it's definitely pretty generic and derivative apart from the hordes, but it's pretty competently executed for what it is.
My one real issue is that the deadzone is abhorrently large and not configurable, so shooting sucks.
My one real issue is that the deadzone is abhorrently large and not configurable, so shooting sucks.
Last edited:
I'd personally rank this game as a high 7, or a low 8, if that makes sense. It's a fantastic game that's getting unrelentingly slammed. The game is thoroughly carried by it's visuals and gameplay / sense of fun (Although there are rough spots). It's a good "comfort food" type of game. Despite the generic backdrop, Bend has definitely done enough to stand out from the crowd if you look beneath the surface. Which for myself, took me a while, as I wrote this game off until I watched a good 2-3 hours of gameplay near release) The bike as a traversal mechanic is fun, scavenging is fun, and the map is fun to "clear". Clearing out ripper camps/infestations feels fun and actually means something, as opposed to just unlocking viewpoints in Assassin's Creed (I'm an AC fan, despite it's problems.). You're making the region safer, whilst also unlocking the zone as a fast travel point...and working your way towards blueprints.
The main criticism for Bend moving forward is to improve on their narrative design. More specifically, cutscene timings, and having more introductory quests at the forefront of story, rather than 10-15 hours into the game.
Secondly, forced playstyles, e.g. pure stealth missions (without real compelling reasons) and lame failstates. I haven't actually encountered issues with those things in particular, since I'm adept and a big fan of stealth games in general. However, I know that for many people it's an acquired taste and rather polarizing. Also, regarding narrative design. They have incredible mocap and VO talent...but they just need to improve their writing consistency and some elements of VO sound design, e.g. Main character yelling to himself in stealth / caves etc, which is jarring. Main character yelling during conversational dialogue, despite standing still and not exerting himself.
The gameplay is fun as well, and it's what carries the game. As someone pointed out above, the aiming deadzones and aiming in general is incredibly rough and needs to be improved upon.
Despite the criticisms, all of which are valid and apparent, this game was a big surprise for me as I felt underwhelemed during it's showings and reveal, to loving it now. It's a fantastic entry to Sony's library of games. The expectation of it being near the levels of Naughty Dog or Santa Monica's work is absurd. Those two studios don't only make good "exclusives", but two of the greatest of all time games in Last of Us, God of War (Reboot). There's a decade plus of learning and cultivating talent that goes into those games/studios.
This is more ranty that I intended, and forgive the grammar, as I'm tired as fuck as I write this.
The main criticism for Bend moving forward is to improve on their narrative design. More specifically, cutscene timings, and having more introductory quests at the forefront of story, rather than 10-15 hours into the game.
Secondly, forced playstyles, e.g. pure stealth missions (without real compelling reasons) and lame failstates. I haven't actually encountered issues with those things in particular, since I'm adept and a big fan of stealth games in general. However, I know that for many people it's an acquired taste and rather polarizing. Also, regarding narrative design. They have incredible mocap and VO talent...but they just need to improve their writing consistency and some elements of VO sound design, e.g. Main character yelling to himself in stealth / caves etc, which is jarring. Main character yelling during conversational dialogue, despite standing still and not exerting himself.
The gameplay is fun as well, and it's what carries the game. As someone pointed out above, the aiming deadzones and aiming in general is incredibly rough and needs to be improved upon.
Despite the criticisms, all of which are valid and apparent, this game was a big surprise for me as I felt underwhelemed during it's showings and reveal, to loving it now. It's a fantastic entry to Sony's library of games. The expectation of it being near the levels of Naughty Dog or Santa Monica's work is absurd. Those two studios don't only make good "exclusives", but two of the greatest of all time games in Last of Us, God of War (Reboot). There's a decade plus of learning and cultivating talent that goes into those games/studios.
This is more ranty that I intended, and forgive the grammar, as I'm tired as fuck as I write this.
Last edited:
Lol this reads like a parody review. It's also somewhat poorly written, having skimmed the article.
After playing the game for a few days going back and reading some of these reviews is a joke.
Listening to the latest Waypoint podcast makes some of these scores sound INSANELY generous.
My god. The way they enumerate the level of jank, jank that negatively impacts the story, jank that negatively impacts moment to moment gameplay, jank upon jank.
It sounds like a total mess, and an utter chore to play.
My god. The way they enumerate the level of jank, jank that negatively impacts the story, jank that negatively impacts moment to moment gameplay, jank upon jank.
It sounds like a total mess, and an utter chore to play.
I personally enjoyed Mad Max a bit more, but they're in the same ballpark. Neither exactly sets the world on fire, but both are fairly enjoyable.
Not only that but it also looks like a bland mess bereft of personality and identity. It's like during development, they looked at the status of AAA single player games and wanted to check off every single gameplay concept they could.
I really love the game so far. Those reviews are a joke imo. Can't wait to player again after work.
Granted, they reviewed it on a lesser-patched version, so they had to play with more bugs for more hours - but on release day the game was neither of those, and still isn't, at least for me. It actually beings to make more sense as you go.
Let's go with the obvious here... PRESENTATION 72% HAHAHAHAHAAA
Holy fucking shit.
(will not even bother about that gameplay 5% nonsense, honestly it has to be a typo)
Last edited:
After playing a bit I agree mostly with the IGN review, turns out I was correct about the missions lacking variety, I love the game world though, I spend most of my time with it finding different ways to kill freakers and admiring the visuals, one of the best looking UE4 games this gen.
Yep, that's a review alright.
Seeing as the site looks like amateur hour, I'm going to assume that this site can't be taken too seriously.
well of course, the writing is also like it came from a 13 year old, i just wonder why opencritic has no standards when it comes to websites they'll add to their average.
Opencritic is better than MC. MC has had dud reviews on it before too.