I kinda felt the same way for a while. So I ignored it. I just kinda forced myself to play through RDR2 which started to feel like a chore. I started to play Days Gone and about 5 or so hours in I didn't want to stop playing.
Last edited:
-
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.
Understanding Days Gone Reviews
- Thread starter Manixramz
- Start date
A very repetitive, middle of the road kind of game. I was actually reminded a lot of AC Odyssey while playing it, in that it's a cool concept that's been padded out to much longer than it stays enjoyable for. Definitely a solid base for a franchise, but 6.5 or 7 sounds about right.
I didn't play it because of reviews.
Ps4 is an exclusive only machine for me. I have a high end PC that's my primary platform.
Days Gone is, however, making me curious via all the glowing feedback from Era users. It's a game I will very likely try in the future if I find it on deep discount.
Ps4 is an exclusive only machine for me. I have a high end PC that's my primary platform.
Days Gone is, however, making me curious via all the glowing feedback from Era users. It's a game I will very likely try in the future if I find it on deep discount.
If it's a legitimate complaint about a character, then that's perfectly fine. However, the post I was referencing stated the review score was affected by the fact that the protagonist was white (which is disgusting if true).
Last edited:
I feel like there has been attempted rewriting of what the scores mean since the day this game came out. "Oh the reviews were too harsh since everyone expected it to be bad" "it didn't get a fair shake" etc.
There's nothing deeper to "understand." Like, not every Sony AAA first party game will be a hit, it's ok.
There's nothing deeper to "understand." Like, not every Sony AAA first party game will be a hit, it's ok.
Last edited:
this should be posted in every single review thread
it's fucking nonsense to debate scores, who gives a shit
That it is another game featuring the same generic protagonist we have seen a million times before certainly does nothing to help it.
I put it down after 12 hours, the core gameplay and loop never grabbed me but it seemed to be a decent enough game if you like zombies and open worlds, there where so many other great games that i had waiting so my motivation for sticking with one i wasn't really having fun with was low, i might return to it if i ever reach a point where i don't have anything else to play.
I'd say the metacritic score mirrors my opinion pretty well.
I'd say the metacritic score mirrors my opinion pretty well.
Last edited:
Yea there is something not right about this when this game sits at 71, while Far Cry 5 Sits at 81, Assassin's Creed Odyssey sits at 83, and RDR2 sits at 97 on Meta critic (And I own all these games). They all have the same 'boring' open world elements, yet this game got shot down for it while the other's didn't. It's at least in the same league and a lot better in a lot of ways. The story telling is better than all of them imo. Perhaps I'm not seeing the performance problems on my pro and ssd, but this game really got a bad deal with the critics - and let's not pretend they don't have an effect on how we all perceive the game. Is it possible the performance issues were patched out?
A lot of people are playing this game who held off for a sale because of the middling reviews and now it's proving everyone wrong to trust reviews.
A lot of people are playing this game who held off for a sale because of the middling reviews and now it's proving everyone wrong to trust reviews.
It wasn't a bad title all in all, serviceable story which felt let it almost had a walking dead style season set up to it. I really liked the distinct and different areas as well as general gameplay loop. Only real issues I had was gathering fuel and crafting felt grating towards the end as the story went on for an exceptionally long time.
5 is average in my books so a 7 is in my opinion a pretty ideal score, a good game bogged down with occasional issues and some bloated features.
5 is average in my books so a 7 is in my opinion a pretty ideal score, a good game bogged down with occasional issues and some bloated features.
Im gonna try to say this in the least console warring way possible, but its my honest theory behind this games reception. I think the platform it was on added to the divide between players and critics. Given sony's absolute roll with 1st party exclusives, a big game not living up to those standards didnt make sense to alot of people, especially here on era where the majority own a playstation. I think there was a level of flaw that people were willing to over look due to its impact as a first party playstation exclusive, i imagine if it were a microsoft exclusive, or just a third party mulitplatform game expectations would have been different thus there would have been less of a divide because the critical reception would have more or less aligned with what a lot of people expect from microsofts first party, or a random third party zombie game
Last edited:
The way people describe this game, and the feeling I have gotten from reviews, is that it is an inoffensive, completely middle of the road experience with no major flaws and no major wins.
If true, that would be a 5/10 on my scale. I think that's a fair score for decent games. Most things I play are in the 4/5/6 range. I haven't played it though, and I assume it's for the same reasons as other people: it simply doesn't grab my attention.
If true, that would be a 5/10 on my scale. I think that's a fair score for decent games. Most things I play are in the 4/5/6 range. I haven't played it though, and I assume it's for the same reasons as other people: it simply doesn't grab my attention.
I personally thought the protagonist was fine and that there were more serious issues (especially on the technical side) that affected enjoyment of the game but to each their own. I find the older I get, the less I care about storylines and characters.
I know why, because the attempt to recontextualize this game has been extremely transparent (and I say this as someone who will probably have it in my top 10 when I inevitably vote in the GOTY thread).
Even based on the E3 build I played last year I'd be ok with 7/10. Mainly because it felt decent enough to play.
while I haven't played it the general concensis of a 7 seems about right, some technical problems and such although still fun. I think the bigger problem is the way ratings are treated by gamers in general. where anything under an 8.5 is usless trash and should be forgotten.
Days Gone is a game that most people already had made up their minds and passed judgement before it even released. Even here many people were rooting for it to fail. The unfortunate thing about preconceived notions is, some people are willing to admit they were wrong and change their opinion, others are beyond stubborn and think admitting they were wrong is some kind of personal slight.
Personally, I enjoyed the game even if there was some pacing issues. The gameplay loop was fun, the story was surprisingly well told, and it got me to care about Deacon St. John and Boozeman even though they come off as the most generic of characters at first. I'm glad the game was a huge success because Sony Bend deserves it.
Personally, I enjoyed the game even if there was some pacing issues. The gameplay loop was fun, the story was surprisingly well told, and it got me to care about Deacon St. John and Boozeman even though they come off as the most generic of characters at first. I'm glad the game was a huge success because Sony Bend deserves it.
Game will end up on my top 10 list for sure. Things I liked: Deacon's random rambling madness coping mechanism, he was Spidey but PTSD biker bro. Learning to love horde takedowns as endgame bosses. The size of it. It kept going, and Days Gone felt like the first three seasons of a show, which means I'm looking forward to seasons 4-6 in Days Gone 2. The weather was spectacular and the various enemies running into each other was always fun to watch play out.
DG (and later Death Strand forced me to stop caring about reviews.
Thank god the market responded well to DG (decent sales IIRC) so I will likely get a sequel.
At the end of the day, the customer is always right. What critics say is irrelevant.
Thank god the market responded well to DG (decent sales IIRC) so I will likely get a sequel.
At the end of the day, the customer is always right. What critics say is irrelevant.
I had an absolute blast with Days Gone but the aggregate review scores are pretty easy to rationalize. Poor pacing and technical issues (that were worse prior to release when reviewers were playing it) being the major standout reasons. The early weapons not feeling great also doesn't help initial impressions.
Many people found a lot to like about it though like the characters, fun gameplay loop, familiar yet well- executed mechanics, etc.
Many people found a lot to like about it though like the characters, fun gameplay loop, familiar yet well- executed mechanics, etc.
There were similar rumblings here when Fallen Order was first shown.
You know that Death Stranding actually reviewed well, right
Since this got warned for some bizarre reason I'll explain my post.
This thread is just anything in the long line of review whining. Honestly if you like the game more than reviews scored it, why do you care? Reviews are just opinions. You liked it, others didn't, great! Enjoy! You don't have to look for some ridiculous conspiracy inside the reviews, they just did not like it as much as you. In short, who cares. Enjoy what you like, let others enjoy what they like.
I mean, year's end re-evaluations are happening all over. So. Also, the thread is from August.
I haven't played the game, but the game sounded like it reviewed appropriately for its state when reviewers were playing.
After some of the patches, it probably went up to around an 8, but reviews are the score of the game and its state at release and should always be that so half baked releases aren't excused just because a developer fixed it months or years down the line and become even more common.
After some of the patches, it probably went up to around an 8, but reviews are the score of the game and its state at release and should always be that so half baked releases aren't excused just because a developer fixed it months or years down the line and become even more common.
True, FIFA games are fantastic, Pokemon haters can shut up, Call of Duty didn't have to change the engine - customer is always right
Nearing the end of the game after being hooked the last month on it.
One of the biggest surprises of the year for me really. Admittedly I am coming into it post-several patches, so I'm enjoying relatively solid performance, sixaxis aiming for fine-tuning my shots(so good), difficulty balancing adjusts, added features, etc... I know launch had issues but close to 60hrs now and it's been great(long initial loads aside)
Pacing is an issue, but at the same time you get so involved with the NPC's that it really helps flesh out their role in the narrative and world. I often consider where cuts could be made, but doing so would lose some nice moments. Not to mention giving some locations in the world a purpose to visit for their errands.
That leads to the best takeaway is that it isn't really about filling out a map or check listing. It wants you to stay focused and not faff about. I mean outside of stopping for supply refresh or taking on optional bandit/zombie zones, it's not shoved down your throat. You are rewarded well for doing so, but it's not flooding you with reminders and distractions. It's a nice change.
Had no interest in this until recent sales, now it's in my top 5 of the year. Kudos.
One of the biggest surprises of the year for me really. Admittedly I am coming into it post-several patches, so I'm enjoying relatively solid performance, sixaxis aiming for fine-tuning my shots(so good), difficulty balancing adjusts, added features, etc... I know launch had issues but close to 60hrs now and it's been great(long initial loads aside)
Pacing is an issue, but at the same time you get so involved with the NPC's that it really helps flesh out their role in the narrative and world. I often consider where cuts could be made, but doing so would lose some nice moments. Not to mention giving some locations in the world a purpose to visit for their errands.
That leads to the best takeaway is that it isn't really about filling out a map or check listing. It wants you to stay focused and not faff about. I mean outside of stopping for supply refresh or taking on optional bandit/zombie zones, it's not shoved down your throat. You are rewarded well for doing so, but it's not flooding you with reminders and distractions. It's a nice change.
Had no interest in this until recent sales, now it's in my top 5 of the year. Kudos.
Good post from earlier I agree with you.
Also, yeah, I never got the narrative that DS was a truly divisive game. It seemed to only polarize US critics.
I really enjoyed it. I don't think it was the greatest game and agree with most of the reviews. There's lots of room for improvement, but I appreciate what it offered and am glad it was made.
I have all those games too and I think days gone was the most fun out of them.
Assassin's creed is just so unnecessarily big and it's frustrating that ubisoft added a pay for leveling up system.
Far cry gets repetitive as well and the bosses are meh. I do like that they followed it up with new dawn though.
Rdr2 is so enthralling in its detail and I enjoy more than gta.
Days gone is a solid 8 in my book and it's cheap enough for people to take a risk on. Plus they've added a bunch of content lately
It took me awhile to get into the game, first 6-7 hours I was right with the reviews. Horrible story transitions, shooting felt crap, bike was crap.
Once I started upgrading all those parts I started to love it. Story transitions are still crap though, but the world was getting more fun to scavenge and I loved having to find fuel and other resources.
Once you start meeting hordes it becomes incredible, genuine tension when you see 1000s of then roaming a highway.
I did feel like it started to wear out its welcome , the entire 3rd act drags on for abit too long.
Overall though a fantastic game and a great foundation to build off for a sequel .
Once I started upgrading all those parts I started to love it. Story transitions are still crap though, but the world was getting more fun to scavenge and I loved having to find fuel and other resources.
Once you start meeting hordes it becomes incredible, genuine tension when you see 1000s of then roaming a highway.
I did feel like it started to wear out its welcome , the entire 3rd act drags on for abit too long.
Overall though a fantastic game and a great foundation to build off for a sequel .
Funny how i think this is a perfect review for Days Gone and it's almost the same as Death Stranding is almost basically the same thing while in my book, Death Stranding is a 8 and my game of the year.
Interesting to see this thread from August still getting replies. I stand by the opinion that it was unfairly looked at for a number of reasons (including reviewers who didnt like theae kinds of games to begin with), and despite many technical issues initially it was one of my favorite games of the year.
Your repeated need to downplay any discussion about how people feel about this game vs how reviews went is basically thread whining.
We are on a forum focused on discussing videogame related topics. Why participate in a thread about a topic you dont care about? Plenty of others to choose from.
A dismissive drive by getting warned is not bizarre.
Your repeated need to downplay any discussion about how people feel about this game vs how reviews went is basically thread whining.
We are on a forum focused on discussing videogame related topics. Why participate in a thread about a topic you dont care about? Plenty of others to choose from.