It did feel like that, open world is over saturated and for something to come along, you have to really have to redefine the genre at this stage for great reviews. 

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.

This game screamed "meh" from the start. I know it's not a bad score but people just expect more and since you're willing to spend your money it has to be something else. In Brazil we say it lacks salt when something is boring and too "normal" like this game seems to be. I didn't play it yet so I can't really say if it's good or not but I won't even bother. Maybe borrow it from a friend in the future.

it makes no damn sense that gamespot gave Anthem better score, when the game has no story, no content, a lot more bugs and flaws.

I am quite convinced that most of the big media sites are biased against the game.

It makes perfect sense. GameSpot fired it's senior editor for giving a bad review to Kane and Lynch back in 2006. The publishers of Kane and Lynch had already paid GameSpot's parent company for full page banner ads across the entire site. Shortly after the senior editor got fired, all the good writers, and staff quit. I'm honestly blown away that anybody gives GameSpot a shred of credit these days. 

Reviews for this game were all over the place. Lots of outlets loved it, and lots of outlets didn't really care for it. I'd say it's a solid 7/10 at least. 

Different games and genres. Plus it’s not like you’re talking about a 5 versus a 9, it’s a 5 and a 6.

if Anthem is 6/10, then by those standards Days Gone is 9/10 or GOTY

Reviewer thought Anthem was a 6/10 shlooter.

Reviewer thought Days Gone was a 5/10 open world zombie game.

I was tempted to trade in RDR2 for this...I have been bored by RDR2 which is strange because I can see the brilliance in its open world but I am just not having much fun. I loved BotW and HZD...so it can't be open world fatigue. However seeing this getting 7s and 6s makes me wonder if I should do it. Digital Foundry's analysis almost convinced me to dive in.

I wish games were actually rated on how well they are within their own genre, but usually not. That is why less popular genres get a lot of flak for not appealing to a "wider audience".

I have been playing the game for a few days now and I just don't see the 6 material. The game is at least an 8. It isn't exactly the best game ever but it is fun. What this game offers is the singleplayer open world zombie survival game. Aren't almost all other zombie games linear? Including The Last of Us. Days Gone has some extremely well crafted scenarios that require some ingenuity and thought. I am in love with this survival gameplay myself. 

I feel like this game is being punished for rewarding stealth gameplay(which the twitchy gamers of today find boring) and not reinventing the wheel persay. Feels like Horizon Zero Dawn reviews all over again.

I also applaud this game's world building. Yet reviewers are dismissing the way this game fleshes it's world out just as they did Horizon. Audio recordings, well placed items, scene positioning craft the story. IE: I was exploring this little neighborhood. Big farm house. In the Barn there is a female/Newt Freaker trapped inside. You can hear them scratching away. If you go to the main house, upstairs you will find a dead man hanging himself just above the toilet. The room next to it has a locked white door. The Staircase has a single kid drawing of a Mom/Dad/Child/Dog. You have to climb across the house rooftop to get to the window inside the locked room. Once inside you see a dead woman freaker with an axe or something stabbed in her. Some light loot is in the room. It isn't the most inventive scenario, it is completely optional little find, but I think it caputures the storytelling in this game well.

I wouldn't say I am super invested into the main plot just yet. The game gives you no time to care about Deacon's wife before putting her at risk. Something the Last of Us understood hence making the player interact with the daughter for a good minute before the big let down. The world of lawlessness is good/serviceable. 

I am definitely not experiencing any of the performance issues some are complaining about. The most dodgy scenario was probably the opening cutscene, everything else has run as smooth as butter. No frame dips or anything. I am running off of a PS4 Pro and Day1 Patch tho so not sure about if it is different otherwise.

This game is a 8.4/10 for me so far. Will see if I change my mind once it ends.