By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Days Gone Opencritic 72 Metacritic 72

 

Predict the score!

95+ 3 3.26%
 
90 to 94 3 3.26%
 
85 to 89 22 23.91%
 
80 to 84 25 27.17%
 
75 to 79 14 15.22%
 
70 to 74 21 22.83%
 
65 to 69 3 3.26%
 
65 or lower 1 1.09%
 
Total:92
John2290 said:
pikashoe said:

I'm fine with you saying you enjoy the game but don't be a dick and say that people who don't are biased sjws, every other post you put up is about this silly conspiracy theory that reviewers are biased against the game because they hate white men or some nonsense. You are making the 'exact' same point in almost every post on every page and it feels like 'spam'. 

Well if it feels like spam, it must be then. 

Well if it feels like a biased conspiracy from reviewers, then it must be then. 



Around the Network

Days Gone just has been announced the best selling game of last week in UK:

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-04-28-uk-charts-days-gone-defeats-mortal-kombat-11-to-claim-no-1

It sold apparently around 70k without counting digital, so probably counting it it must has surpassed 100K (probably around 120k if we expect around 40% digital, at least 1st week) in UK at launch, which is impressive for a new IP.



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
John2290 said:

Well if it feels like spam, it must be then. 

Well if it feels like a biased conspiracy from reviewers, then it must be then. 

Damn, that was a way better comeback then mine. I tip my hat to you good sir.



John2290 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Well if it feels like a biased conspiracy from reviewers, then it must be then. 

If it feels like you're butting in, you probably are. 

Big surprise: When you make a thread entirely about your perspective of reviewers by continously bringing them up, people are going to reply to what things you're saying. Especially when you do something as ironic as trying to make a point of superficial understandings, whilst ranting about your superficial reviews on numerous sites as if they're on connected entity. (Hint: blaming the game for not appealing to the media by continously mentioning how dumb it is that the game promotes a pro-gun view is extremely asinine and almost seems purposely back-handed, it's like saying that the majority of the reviewers are too dumb to accept other people's opinions and just comes off like an excuse for the game; a scapegoat). 



John2290 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Big surprise: When you make a thread entirely about your perspective of reviewers by continuously bringing them up, people are going to reply to what things you're saying. Especially when you do something as ironic as trying to make a point of superficial understandings, whilst ranting about your superficial reviews on numerous sites as if they're on connected entity. (Hint: blaming the game for not appealing to the media by continously mentioning how dumb it is that the game promotes a pro-gun view is extremely asinine and almost seems purposely back-handed, it's like saying that the majority of the reviewers are too dumb to accept other people's opinions and just comes off like an excuse for the game; a scapegoat). 

I didn't make this thread.

EDIT: And you rated it an 8/10, see this is what I'm talking about, reviewers who just can't do their job properly. 

Saying "when you make a thread entirely about your perspective" doesn't mean you literally made the thread ... I mean, it could mean that, but that's obviously not what I meant and it would be besides the point whether or not you did. It's like if I said I made the opening of a cookie store all about myself, I'm not saying I started the opening of a cookie store. I even contextualized it by saying "by continuously bringing them up". 



Around the Network

With more than 10 hrs diving into the game, I just wanna say it is one of the best choices I've made to not listen to what critics saying about the game. First of all, it is easily one of the best looking games on PS4, I played on pro with 4K TV and HDR on, the environment in Days Gone is phenomenal , so is the atmosphere since weather varies in different time and different area, especially in rain, things look surprisingly realistic, and the more time I played the more I found it amazing how Bend studio managed to do great optimization work on this game with UE4 since it's a real open world when compared with uncharted 4, and it runs smoothly in most of part of gameplay. The main issues laid on story line and audio playing, just as some of the critics mentioned, at the begin hours of the game, with a lot of things remained unexplained, it can be very confusing when thinking about what the protagonist do, but things get more and more clear with the development of story, the biggest problem to me is the unnatural facial expression and strange conversation audio playing in some parts, which makes the gameplay less immersive. Overall to me, Days Gone is definitely not a 50,60 score game, at least 75, while because I'm still in progress, maybe it's gonna be lower or higher when I complete it, but so far so good is what I say.



A Metacritic of 70 or 80 is still a pretty good game that you should at least try, or so I was to believe.
I think that's an ok score. If reviewers found some flaws, that's fine.
Even Sony's first party studios are allowed to have a game that is graded as "ok." It was the same with Detroit: Become Human.
They'll try again with a sequel or with an entirely new IP.

Day's Gone will be fine for what it is. It's not gonna set the world on fire with its critical success (and maybe commercial success, depending on how it does in the long-run), but it'll be a good time for anyone interested in the open world adventure with zombies and the like.



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.



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

Haven’t played at all since Friday. Tried to play last night and got cock blocked by one of those slow ass updates. Anyone know what the update added?