Days Gone Opencritic 72 Metacritic 72

[colafitte]

Azzanation said:

colafitte said:

I understand that this game doesn't revolutionize the genre nor bring production values to the next level, but when i hear some critizised points about the game, all of them except frame rate/bugs problems can be said to a lot of other open world games, specifically a game like RDR2. RDR 2 had awful combat, mediocre mission design, useless economy system, broken bounty system, irregular story, empty open world (you only do something if there is some ? pointing in the map), .... and that game received a freaking 97 on metacritic.....I'm still pissed of by that. The double standars in the press are something that i can't accept anymore. If Days Gone is nitpicked for everything and it gets a 75 on metacritic, RDR 2 should had been a 80 game at most too. The Evil within 2, a game that received a 75 on metacritic was a game unfairly rated by the press too and it was ono of the best game in the genre ever. I don't know if there is some bias about the zombie genre or what.

In the end, people can see a lot of videos of the game and playthroughs, and there's a lot of people playing with it. If you want to base your opinion in getting the game or not, base it on people that you trust, because the press is becoming worthless and unreliable.

---

RDR2 is simply just a better game overall and one of the best this generation. I personally didnt like RDR2. A better comparison is State of Decay 2 which was plagued by bugs and glitches which haunted its overall metascore. Good game but no excuses for bugs.

Despite having not played Days Gone for myself, i probably agree with you in that RDR2 could be a better overall game, that's why i said it's a 80's game for me. But that's my point. Games like Days Gone that are in 70's are considered bad, because we usually expect a game being really good only if it's high 80's, 90 or more. But grades are completely subjective depending of the player.

I love cinematic driven games, with high production values. In that regard RDR 2 was almost perfect. But there were other things that are objectively bad or average and were shadowed in reviews. With Days Gone it's the opposite. Everything wrong with the game has been put absolute in front and the things that does right not.

I'm not saying Days Gone deserves more score. What i am critizing is how the gaming press changes its criteria depending in if its cool to praise a game or if it's cool to hate it because social media, marketing campaigns or bubble opinions in forums affect that perception. 

And when i made that comment i was still trying to figure out why it was receiving 5's and 6's from important gaming sites if the problems were bad IA (RDR2 has bad and simple IA too), mediocre mission design (RDR 2 have a problem with this too were missions are played without player agency), empty world (RDR 2 is the same, most of the map is empty, just with animals and you can not interact with people more than just to say howdy or get lost) and irregular story (RDR 2 has a great character in Arthur Morgan, but the story in most of the games goes nowhere and the epilogue las way more longer than needed). So i was asking myself....Why is this game then a 72 on metacritic??, what really makes it 25 points worse on metacritic than RDR2??, just bad frame rate and bugs???, some lack of polishness??, that's it?? because i really want to know, because i have not decided yet if i a want to buy it or not. I see most of the same problems critics have with Days Gone as i had with RDR 2. Is this game just as inaccurate reviewed as RDR 2 then, or not?. I can't trust reviews opinions and that's the problem.

Last edited by colafitte - on 29 April 2019