This game, same with first one, B-level, low budget, low price. But first game had relevant promote... And second game have AAA-promote, some years on MS's E3, continual reference everywhere... I suppose, that why many gamers had unrealistic expectations about SoD2.
So, maybe, if MS didn't push this game so hard, we have a little higher scores.

He wanted to give it a 7.5 but could not because his publication doesn’t do .5, a 7 or an 8 were his only options so he went with an 8 because he’s “fucking addicted” to the game.

Just wanted to give people an accurate view of what you’re describing. What he didn’t think the game deserved was a 7, so he went with his next option.

Is it likely to get many more? Or is this around where it will settle? 

I'm surprised he admitted that Tbh but fair play for his honesty. 

1/5 = 20%
2/5 = 40%
3/5 = 60%
4/5 = 80%
5/5 = 100%.

He couldnt give it a 7, so it got a 8 instead.

He could have given it a 7. Check their reviews, they do give out 7’s. 3 1/2 stars on their site = 7. His problem was there is nothing between a 7 and an 8 on their scale. He thought 7 was too low considering how much he was enjoying the game, so he went 8.

If you really think his only options were an 8 or a 6, and that he wanted to give it a 7.5, then why would you have anything to say about him giving it an 8? That’s only .5 off the score he wanted, a 6 would have been 1.5 off. In your interpretation, the game got the most accurate score possible from him. But they can’t give three and three quarters of a star, that would be a 7.5.

Just strange that you’d mention “pro Xbox” sites, whatever that means, giving the game supposed inflated scores, and then mention him and his score as if he just gave it a higher score because of Xbox, when in reality in your hypothetical, it got the most accurate score he could have possibly given :)

Do characters react to other characters death?

It feels a cliche story would fit here with this type of game. It's not trying to reinvent the zombie genre but great a "realistic" zombie experience from what I understand. So a cliche story fits it. 

Do I need to play SoD1 to play this? I'm not gonna get this anytime soon, I have a lot on my list and I'll wait for patches and bug fixes. But I admit I'm interested 

1) Yes, in a sense - the remaining survivors morale and attitude changes.

2) As far as I know, it's not necessary. Although SoD1's story serves like some kind of prelude.

Yikes, MS needs to get their shit together

I have to wonder, is Microsoft releasing these games like sea of thieves and state of decay knowing they weren't ready because they really believe in the Rainbow Six treatment with their games as a service thing, so in the long run they don't think the way these games will launch will hinder it in the future. Or did they release these specifically because they felt they had to release something since correct me if I'm wrong but the past few years Xbox barely ever had any first party games in the first half of the year. As for crack down they were pretty adamant at releasing that last year around the launch of the Xbox one X and now it's gotten such a large delay with currently no release date, so obviously they realized they couldn't just release that to hype up the Xbox one X if it really wasn't ready. So it makes me wonder why they released these two games. Maybe so people who purchased an Xbox one X felt they had a steady stream of first party games to look forward to. I'd love to be a fly in the wall at Microsoft. Cause I would love to know why scalebound (sorry to bring that up) got cancelled over these. Like what about that game was completely unredeemable or way too over budget for them to cancel it.

yeah I heard the podcast as well.  he also admitted the game felt more like a remake of the first state of decay than a sequel and that he was disappointed on that regard.