Both had mediocre first entries into the big boys' league, but Ready at Dawn's next entry Lone Echo stands at 89% on Metacritic. So, perhaps Bend also gets it right next time?
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
So with Days Gone being bad, PSP Devs have struggled to move into AAA gaming
- Thread starter Armadilo
- Start date
- Status
I liked it, too. Granted I got it for less than 10 dollars, but it was a good enough time.
For a big budget AAA title? That's pretty bad.
Like yeah in a better world reviewers use the full scale more often but that isn't the reality.
OP
OP
I suppose I compare it to the other
PlayStation AAA exclusives, I might have set a higher standard because of that.
Maybe also people say average and others say bad
Scores in the 70s being called bad is the exact reason why publishers breath down developers necks so much.
70 ISN'T BAD, LIKE 60 ISN'T
70 ISN'T BAD, LIKE 60 ISN'T
Then you need to get your expectations in check. Bend is a small studio and Days Gone is their first attempt at an AAA game. Given what they've done with the game is pretty damn impressive. As long as it sells well, I think they have a pretty good shot at being another heavy hitting Sony studio.
Also, in what world is a 7/10 bad?
It was a joke at mocking the modern review scale.
Honestly I still don't like that. Since it leaves out a lot of nuance. And if every that is 6 and below is bad than what's even the point of the full 10 scale if half is irrelevant.
"Bad" seems harsh but mediocre and bland is probably correct. If you want to see a truly bad recent game, it would be something like Agony.
After Red Dead 2 has a 97% on Metacritic... you'd think people would realize this
What?
For me is more like:
7 - Good
8 - Great
9 - Amazing
10 - Perfect
It isn't bad. It has an average score of 7/10. People seriously need to stop with this nonsense.
I guess according to OP, Dying Light, Mad Max or Vampyr are bad game because they are around 70 meta.
Well, the nuance is in the review itself. Most reviewers do explain their final rating in a sufficiently detailed text or video.
I'd say Mass Effect Andromeda is pretty 'bad' 71 MC score.
Context matters, this game was marketed very heavily and Sony first party has largely killed it this generation. Even if OP should have known what would happen if he titled his thread this way, I don't think the point should be completely lost.
Context matters, when it comes to Sonys' first party yes 72 is bad.
So a game with 38 reviews that are 80+ on Metacritic is now considered "bad"? Seriously, OP? C'mon ERA, you're better than this.
It's a shame, because The Order was going for more Gears style gameplay without the proper level design. They really should have gone in the direction of RE4 and RE2R. I believe a sequel will be vastly improved in gameplay, like going from Chains of Olympus to Ghost to Sparta.
Since RDR2 i've been looking at reviews differently. RDR2 had so good scores and i honestly didnt enjoy it at all. The game was very well made but for me lacked fun that i search in videogames. I think reviewers are reviewing performance and story above all else.
Its like 'fun' isnt much of a factor... i know fun is impossible to measure though..
Its like 'fun' isnt much of a factor... i know fun is impossible to measure though..
This
Wow, didn't take long.
This needs some more context honestly. These developers were given chances and budgets, not everything comes out amazing during these transitions. Look at Cambridge studio.
They transitioned well to making a AA style VR game and got shutdown.
I think they will get another shot, and think RAD should have too.
This needs some more context honestly. These developers were given chances and budgets, not everything comes out amazing during these transitions. Look at Cambridge studio.
They transitioned well to making a AA style VR game and got shutdown.
I think they will get another shot, and think RAD should have too.
What exactly is the 'point' and why is it thread worthy? Two developers who worked on the PSP having games that aren't critical darlings is indicative of...?
The title is getting the attention because its just about the only thing that can be discussed meaningfully.
While there's potential discussion to be had about developers of handheld games transitioning to consoles, you just had to open up a can of worms with saying the game is bad. A game with an average score that's not even out yet.
The game is average akin to Andromeda.
The hype wasn't there as much as their other titles. Many here were skeptical.
Also Sony is known for its exclusives much like Nintendo so you are going to see a few average and sometimes bad games sprinkled in their lineup. The law of averages plays a role too.
I wonder how many ppl deriding this game would likely enjoy it.
You think Days Gone is going to sell similarly to the Wipeout games Liverpool was putting out?
If this is your reasoning behind the thread title of "Days Gone is a bad game" then your reasoning is flawed.
Read the reviews, realise why the game is scoring in the 70s. Most of the reviews aren't saying Days Gone is a "bad" game.
You're focusing too much on a number.
- Status