-
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
Game feels like a toned down version of Far Cry 5 to me.
I'm enjoying my time with it. I see the faults of it, but they aren't slowing down my enjoyment of the game. its a solid 7.5/8. You know, like eating a good cheeseburger. Its comfortable, its satisfying, you know what you are getting, and then you move on.
Glad I picked it up.
I'm enjoying my time with it. I see the faults of it, but they aren't slowing down my enjoyment of the game. its a solid 7.5/8. You know, like eating a good cheeseburger. Its comfortable, its satisfying, you know what you are getting, and then you move on.
Glad I picked it up.
In this thread I actually saw people using user scores on metacritic as proof a game isn't really bad. Shut it down.
For some reason I've started to see user scores brought up a lot recently. Weird stuff.
"Just gonna pop into the menus...
AAARGH MY EEEEYES!"
Devs, please consider not having paper white full screen menus in 2019. Thanks, HDR users.
They're no less credible than reviews by outlets as far as I'm concerned. Controversial I know, but the obsession with reviews make me want to roll my eyes.
They're usually only ever indicative of the personal opinion of whoever is reviewing the game, and I don't know what makes say, IGN's opinion of a videogame more valid or credible than the layman's.
Yeah we saw that with wildlands, an equally generic and derivative AAA simulator.
Yes, both of these games pretty much check off every "AAA game" box
I'm genuinely curious what the "AAA game" checkbox is and why a game meeting that criteria is a bad thing ?
It's pretty much detailed in most of the reviews so I don't really see the need to do it here. And because it's formulaic.
Lmao what other games has Sony even published this year? User reviews on that site are just 0s and 10s and almost nothing in between
We need more centrist reviews.
"I neither love this game nor hate it. I mean, I don't know if it needed to exist, but at the same time I'm glad the dev team go to make the game they wanted. I might keep playing or stop later, we shall see."
I mean, you brought it up - I assumed you'd be able to elaborate, but okay then.
I mean sure if that's what you want
Open-world? ✔️
Enemy strongholds to clear? ✔️
RPG elements? ✔️
Leveling system? ✔️
Three skill trees? ✔️
Gruff protagonist? ✔️
Light stealth elements? ✔️
Crafting? ✔️
Loot? ✔️
Fetch quests? ✔️
There's probably more too. Like I said earlier it just looks like they kept adding pieces into the game over the course of development that they saw in other games that would appeal to everyone possible.
Thank you, I was genuinly curious. You're not the only person to use that as a complaint (though "AAA simulator" is a new one), and Days Gone isn't the only game to be criticised for it. I just don't understand why its a bad thing. Does every game need to reinvent the wheel ?
No but it sure helps when a game has an identity. Of course if the game sells well then that's probably moot, just like with wildlands, the appeal to all has worked in the past and it's fine to like it. I can see why some people would enjoy Days Gone but I can also see why some are getting tired of the single player AAA formula.
Nah, it comes down to whether you overall like the game or not. Its not the things that are "derivative." Most open world games had some version of most of the above the entire generation. They are just excuses to justify your opinion of whether the game is good or not.
Basically, at the very least they should adapt to the day night schedule so its not too blinding when walking around at night time.
Anyways im definitely having fun with the game the more i play it. But it does need something....
Some type of killzone/half life rebar rail gun to nail freakers to the trees/walls would be fun.
They're absolutely less credible. Tons of people who don't own, or have never played, a game giving it 10/10 or 0/10 reviews isn't credible. I've never seen IGN or any other reputable site give an Xbox game 0/10 because they were a Sony fanboy, or vice versa.
If you mean Days Gone is a bad game then that's hyperbole. Game is one of the most fun games this year.
that's your opinion, and that's fine. the general opinion is that it's a bad game.
because it's a curve, and the majority of games are 5 or above
Oh?
Most people are saying it is a good to great game. Definitely not a bad game.
No it's not. Not even critically. Try harder at trolling please.
what the hell? i don't care about this game, but this is a review thread, and the way games are scored, 72% is not good. i honestly have no interest even talking about it further, i was just confused about people posting in a review thread where the scores were clearly subpar. if you like it, fine. i'm not trolling by pointing out the obvious reception this game got. you are clearly way too stressed over how people are feeling about a game that you like. calm down, good lord.
I am not following the discussion you guys are having but this checklist seems to apply to any game that want to be successful nowadays, which really sucks, seems like you are playing the same game with a different skin only. And congrats for Naughty Dog for making Uncharted 4 and the expansion without that formula.
The stealth elements aren't light, though. And at near 10 hours of play there's only one thing I "fetched" in a quest, and that was only after I watched it being placed in front of me several yards away. I also got to keep what was being fetched.
As for "loot", when I read about how people were obtaining loot in this game - and from where - I thought it was really interesting and not at all what I expected. I don't want to spoil it here, and I haven't actually done it myself yet, but I'm looking forward to trying out different tactics at different times of day.
For an "open world", getting around on foot is near-suicidal half the time. And the world and riding around is more dangerous than even Far Cry 2's respawning-everywhere system was. The off-road biking, thankfully, is much smoother than anything in, say, the Watch Dogs games (and I loved messing around in those games going off-road with vehicles).
Otherwise, what wouldn't I want from that list? Should the protagonist be all nice and live in one of the camps and go all stardew valley growing crops and stuff? It would be a completely different game. Should there not be (what turns out to be quite a variety) of encampments and locales to deal with? And the leveling system, in part, has to do with how much trust you've built up with various pockets of civilization (camps) and their leaders, which actually makes narrative sense for a change, even if it has a few issues.
As for how development went, according to the devs and actors the game started off serious but was switched to more of a comedy just to see whether a comedic and light rapport between the characters would make for a better game. It ultimately didn't work, so they went back to a serious tone. (All budgeted for by Sony, according to the lead actor). Yes at various points they had certain A/B decisions the player could make in-game, but since playtesters were confused about whether they could see tangible results to these, they just took them out. And the devs insist that the 2016 E3 horde show-off piece was almost unchanged from then until release, and it's in the game and available to play.
As for the Kinda Funny review, they clearly had a hell of a time playing the game from a few patches back. Over a few dozen hours, that has gotta suck, and I can understand that not feeling rewarding. And I concur with some of the comments they made about gaining progress in some ways, and not having a new quest available until right after you leave the camp, those things have happened to me too.
But the state of the game on release day was that there is a lot to discover in gameplay and encounters such that it is rewarding, should you power through the first few to several hours. Still won't be for everyone, and patches can't undo review scores or Greg's unrewarding experience with the game, but at least there is some reason for the discrepancy between reviews and user feedback.
I am as calm as can be honestly, maybe it is you who is stressed.
The reviews according to meta critic are mostly positive, with a few that are mix and some that are bad. 70 isn't a bad score nor does it say a game is bad.
Are the following games bad in your logic:
-Dying Light
-Dead Rising
-Prey Reboot
-Wolfenstein TNO
These games are in the 70s or less yet are great games.
there're 16 pages of ps4 games on metacritic's list of all titles. games that score a 72 comprise the end of page 8 / top of page 9....
iow, a game with a 72 score sits exactly dead in the middle of all games rated. half of all the other games score better, & half of all the other games score worse. so sayeth metacritic :) ...
iow, a game with a 72 score sits exactly dead in the middle of all games rated. half of all the other games score better, & half of all the other games score worse. so sayeth metacritic :) ...
This.
When people ask "how does DG distinguish itself from all the other open world games?" the bolded part would be my first answer. Unlike other open world titles (mostly made by UbiSoft):
- you must plan your routes carefully and mind your fuel. Riding off somewhere on a 10% tank = death sentence
- you must drive carefully. If you don't, DG punishes you. It's super refreshing for me that good driving is actually rewarded instead of discouraged. In GTA or FC, you just get into a new car (20m away) whenever you wreck your current ride, which makes traversal a mundane excercise.
the game is really easy, even on hard...there is nothing really dangerous, not on bike and not on foot...you make it sound like a hardcore survival game.
the freakers can´t even get you when you just run in a straight line, even if your stamina is empty...this game sells just an illusion of a "dangerous world" in the end it is here 4 zombies, eh "freakers" and there 5 and you can always run away because open world or just shoot them with headshots... and the hordes can be completely avoided too.
I think the biggest flaw is that there's nothing about this game is exceptional, everything is good but nothing stands out. I'm hooked with the game but again I like my ubi open world game templates and sony cinematic games so
Loving the dynamic random events like getting trapped by rippers and strip of your equipment forcing you to escape your jail and kill them all silently
Loving the dynamic random events like getting trapped by rippers and strip of your equipment forcing you to escape your jail and kill them all silently
It's easy if you're just breezing through the world but if you're actively exploring it can randomly trip you up say you bump into combination of freakers and human enemy. Horde themselves (the 500+ one, not just the hundred) are just impossible with early weapon levels. It's not that hard but I like that you have to be actively cautious when navigating areas and you have to remember to save everytime you get off your bike.
Story and characters are getting better in the 20th hour, but man, fuel and fuel being used for fast travel is pissing me off even harder now I have more of the map. I have to do a calculation on my fast travel, or I appear somewhere with 5% of fuel remaining and no fuel around...
I'm enjoying myself for the most part, but unless something exceptional happens in the second half of the game, then reviews were fair and maybe a little on the generous side for me.
I'm enjoying myself for the most part, but unless something exceptional happens in the second half of the game, then reviews were fair and maybe a little on the generous side for me.
That's not the general opinion. The game is generally seen as mediocre. Hardly anyone calls it bad. I have actually heard no one, who made an effort of an in-depth, reasonable review, call it bad.
Well, I'm about 7 hours in atm ( just came back from Berlin to visit my brother ), and I wasn't looking forward to DG, mostly due to the comments in this thread and the comments in the OT.
Glad I started playing though. The performance is a bit rough, but I'm enjoying this a lot. It may not live to other Sony AAA-titles, but I never thought it would to begin with. So yeah, pretty happy with my purchase.
Glad I started playing though. The performance is a bit rough, but I'm enjoying this a lot. It may not live to other Sony AAA-titles, but I never thought it would to begin with. So yeah, pretty happy with my purchase.
I don't own the game and i'm not buying it, but honestly, is 72 out of 100 really that bad?
Metacritic: 72
Opencritic: 72
IMO 25 - 40 out of 100 is bad.
So which general opinion do you mean?
speaking as one of the reviewers who reviewed this game and whose review is counted in aggregate: when we give a 7, that means it is a good game. end of story.
You have incredibly low standards. Basically no games ever get a score that low on Metacritic. Of the around 300 games indexed on metacritic this year, only two have scores below 40 (a 36 and a 37).
Of all the games on MC this year, 72 is average if not slightly below average.
Woof, some of those reviews. It looked so interesting, too.
Has Giant Bomb reviewed it yet? Their site has changed and I no longer see an obvious link to their reviews. I usually end up liking what they like, would like to see what they say before buying.
Has Giant Bomb reviewed it yet? Their site has changed and I no longer see an obvious link to their reviews. I usually end up liking what they like, would like to see what they say before buying.
Jeez.
5 in 10 reviews gave this game a 7.5/10 or above. ( It's 6 if we factor only the scored reviews, but a lot of the unscored reviews gave it a bad impression anyway )
Anecdotally speaking - in the OT, there's also a balanced number of people who liked the game, as well as those who find the game unenjoyable/tedious/buggy/etc. Leans more towards enjoying it, but it's not a landslide.
In other words, just as many people liked the game, as much as those who didn't. If we factor in 70 as a score that qualifies as 'we liked it', then there's a majority of people who liked the game overall, among both the press and players so far ( based off user reviews )
5 in 10 reviews gave this game a 7.5/10 or above. ( It's 6 if we factor only the scored reviews, but a lot of the unscored reviews gave it a bad impression anyway )
Anecdotally speaking - in the OT, there's also a balanced number of people who liked the game, as well as those who find the game unenjoyable/tedious/buggy/etc. Leans more towards enjoying it, but it's not a landslide.
In other words, just as many people liked the game, as much as those who didn't. If we factor in 70 as a score that qualifies as 'we liked it', then there's a majority of people who liked the game overall, among both the press and players so far ( based off user reviews )
Low 70s certainly isnt good, regardless of what reviewers say it means. You dont get to assign an adjective to these scores by just "saying so", you do it by being consistent across all your reviews. And considering how overblown review scores are, low 70s isnt good, no.
But id say the game is still worth your time if you are really into the genre, and have nothing else to play right now. Thats how id interpret low 70s.
But id say the game is still worth your time if you are really into the genre, and have nothing else to play right now. Thats how id interpret low 70s.