Well, like I said before in this thread, reviews were very much either love it or hate it. Most of the time a consensus forms, but for this game there seems to be two camps of reviewers. The first camp says it sucks, and the second camp says it's a great game. There are some middle grounders giving it between a 7 and a 7.8, but those are in the minority. Now, of course when three critics say a game is awesome, and three other critics say a game sucks, then the average aggregate score will be middling. But one of those groups of reviewers has to be wrong.

So I decided to buy the game and play it for several reasons. I wanted to test my own aggregate reviews theory. I like bend studio. I wanted to know which camp of reviewers was right. The negative reviews had nothing negative to say about the game, other than the story was "bad", and the gameplay was overdone. "Oh, another Zombie game, AND another open world game! We are getting tired of this!"

I haven't entirely changed my mind about aggregate reviews being more or less accurate. The needle has definitely been moved in the other direction though. For games that I'm totally excited to play, I'm just going to buy unless they get really, really, bad reviews. I mean like in the low 60's. There might be two or three games that I'm that level of excited about each year though. If enough of these games wind up being a ton of fun, then yes I will slowly, change my mind on aggregate reviews. Right now though, I think Days Gone having such a middling score is just a fluke. Maybe one in ten games, or one in twenty games gets an aggregate score that just isn't accurate. 

As I keep playing games though, if more and more games wind up being fun, despite middling or bad reviews, I'll slowly change my mind. Right now though, I don't think my sample size is big enough. And I've genuinely enjoyed 90-95% of games that have gotten good reviews, that I've played. There are a few games out there that got good reviews, and I didn't like though. They are rare but they exist. And if there's one or two games a year with good reviews, that I didn't like, then it would makes sense for there to be one or two games a year with middling or bad reviews, that I wind up liking. 

P.S. I don't know what kind of games you like or play. I don't even know what systems you have. So what systems do you have, and what games do you like the most? 

I get what you're saying, and I did do exactly what you said a few years back. Just on a smaller scale. I had some Genesis and N64 games that I planned on beating, but I sold them, because I realized those games had aged past the point of being fun anymore. 

Most of my backlog was built up when I was in college. I didn't have as much time to play games back then, and I lived in a mecca of used game shops. When I was in school I was lucky to get 15 hours a week. I didn't start playing over 20 hours a week again until 2015. And by then the XB1/PS4 generation was in full swing. I expect 2020 and 2021 to be slow years for videogames, so I should be able to catch up during those years. 2013-2014 were pretty slow years for XB1/PS4 in terms of new games. My backlog has always grown and shrunk as each new gen ebbed and flowed. 

And finally, there's a lot of 10-15 hour games in there. Those will be easy to knock out. Lots of SNES/NES/Genesis games.

My main point is, as long as you try something out for yourself, its when your opinion has weight. Saying something is bad because it scored in the mid 60s or low 70s is never a fair judgement on a game. No different to you liking Day's Gone and you ask your friend to go play it and they turn around and say "no" because the game scored crap on reviews. Ill give you my example.

Dying Light scored a 74 on Meta and I love this game. Its one of the best Zombie games ever made in my opinion and I am glad I tried it out rather than seeing the reviews, and basing my purchase on them. It would have easily been a hard miss if I went in with a review focus in mind.

I grew up with Nintendo, I own all there systems however these days I game on a few devices but primary on PC so I have my fair share of really bad games due to the open platform, however I never let reviews cloud my judgement. I currently play on the PC, Switch, 3DS and a XB1 (Due to Halo and Rare) and plan on getting PSNow once its available in my region. 

It is funny with reviewers, they complain about this game being another open world, but will take out points from any game that isn't open or free. They just like to talk BS.

Its exactly why we should never take reviews too seriously no matter what platform or game preference gamers have. The only way to truly tell if a game is good or bad for you is by actually playing it yourself.

i want official sales : D

Good most reviewsites aren't being watched and given credit like they used to get.

Youtube has most of the eyes of consumers invested on it i do think and although you also have crap there,it is easier to see the consumer perspective from real gamers on that platform.

 "Days Gone was the second best-selling game of May, repeating its April performance, and is now the eighth best-selling game of 2019 (year to date)."

-Mat Piscatella

Best I can do... sorry.

I Agree to a certent point. I will throw out a very good personal example.

As many can tell i am a Jim Sterling follower, and i am also a huge Zelda BOTW fan. Jim gave it a 7/10.. which i heavily disagreed with. Now if i was going to base my purchase on his review i would have avoided BOTW. What a huge mistake that would have been since BOTW is my game of the generation.

Its why the only real opinion is your personal one.

I finished the game last Friday. I'm downgrading the game from great to merely good. Thirty hours of extra playtime makes a hell of a difference. I'll write a review on the game eventually. In short though, the missions start to get repetitive, the open world is pretty bland/empty, and the villains are bad cartoon characters. Oh, and refueling on gas, as well as, looting corpses/cars is needlessly time consuming. It's a game that's scored in the low 70's when IMO it should have been in the very high 70's. It's a game with genuinely cool shit to show us for the first 30 hours, dragged out to a 60 hour game. Had they just ended the main storyline halfway through, (instead of dragging it out), and given us more actual things to discover in the open world, it would have been great. 

I am looking forward to the sequel so long as they fire their level designer, or hire more level designers. Half the levels are really good, and the other half are just bland/lazy. Oh, this horde? It runs at you out of a cave in the wilderness! Oh this other horde? You fight it in a town with a ton of explosive barrels, traps, and choke points. Oh this level? You cover your buddy with Sniper fire as he plants explosive charges. Oh this other level? You run up into a generic camp of generic enemies carrying crappy weapons, and stupid AI. You then proceed to play wack a' mole from a distance as they all hide behind cover and occasionally pop their heads up to shoot at you from a distance. Don't get me wrong, cover based shooting can be fun. But Uncharted did it best with all the climbing, mechanics mixed in.