I mean the two big negatives are technical issues and the Far Cry Effect (same missions over and over). ACG had a very good review of the game, where his main issue is that the SONY polish isn't there.
Will still pick it up as there really isn't anything in any of the reviews I wasn't expecting.
That's interesting. At least in New Dawn, I never really got that feeling.
AC: Origins definitely triggered my "again??!?!?!" ometer though.
Yeah I mean I can see reviewers being burnt out by the "I'm clearing this camp out again. . ." bit, but I never got there with Far Cry 6 and mowing down cultists.
It could be a spoiler, so I'll just say that some of the reviews talk about a particular gameplay...thing...that is great but comes "too late" and they seem to knock the game for it.
I'm always wary and distrustful of reviewers' impatience. I get it; open world games can be a nightmare to review because they can take forever to experience enough of the content to produce a fair review. So I can understand impatience. I think it could have biased their overall opinion here.
I may be overanalyzing, I dunno.
Also this. We're talking about a 30+ game here. Playing the same mission type multiple times in one day as a reviewer is A LOT different than playing the same mission types in one week as a gamer. It's easy for a games narrative and gameplay warts to pop out when you're playing a game in such a compressed time frame (not excusing the game's issues just pointing out how they might be perceived for a "gamer" vs a "game reviewer").
I was really nervous that we hadn't seen any reviews on this game since it is coming out tomorrow.... Glad to see they finally released them. It's about what I expected and I'm alright with that.
+1
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
Yea you always have to take into account a lot of factors. How reviewers play games and the fact that they are playing A LOT of games constantly in those tight time frames.
It can certainly take a toll on how they feel about certain aspects that may not effect you as a regular player at all.
Like I don't play just every single game that comes out, only those that appeal to me. I won't even play every game in a series even if I like that series. AC is an example there. If an AC game comes out and I'm not feeling another AC game I'm just gonna skip it. So I never really get to the point of feeling burnt out on the open world stuff or even on more specific things like AC because I'll stop playing before that.
But a reviewer would probably have been playing each and every one of those from bad to mediocre to good.
So like, personally I'm taking each game experience a bit more in a vacuum. The game being enjoyable by itself is the only thing that matters for the sake of purchasing. That doesn't mean I won't make a comparison or discuss how another game did something better. But another game doing something better doesn't stop me from buying, playing or enjoying a game if it's still enjoyable itself. If that makes sense.
I mean, it is also possible that the game isn't very good.
I don't think it's necessary to make excuses for the reviewers or the game. There's nothing special about this game that requires it to be reviewed differently.
As with anything it's subjective.
0
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
And it's worth noting that just about every reviewer who didn't seem to have that open world burnout feel really enjoyed it.
So that's going to be a big factor for anyone deciding to purchase it I think.
0
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
I mean, it is also possible that the game isn't very good.
I don't think it's necessary to make excuses for the reviewers or the game. There's nothing special about this game that requires it to be reviewed differently.
As with anything it's subjective.
I mean there are more positive reviews than negative reviews.
Plenty of good reviews with some great reviews and then some bad reviews.
If it were overwhelmingly negative your comment would make more sense but that isn't the case here. It's that they are extremely varied but not super negative.
Yeah as long as it isn't averaging < 40 or whatever then I'm happy with it. I don't put a lot of weight in the overall score from reviewers, but if almost all of them are saying it's bad then it's likely to be bad.
I mean look at how everyone circlejerked about RDR2 and how it's changing everything. Now no one is even talking about it.
How are you gauging whether a reviewer had or did not have open world burnout? That seems impossible.
The reviews I'm reading are almost universally poor to middling at best.
How are you gauging whether a reviewer had or did not have open world burnout? That seems impossible.
The reviews I'm reading are almost universally poor to middling at best.
What is your definition of poor?
You can go to metacritic and see the average and it tells a different story.
Also you can gauge it when they say specifically mention the being another open world game as a kind of negative. That seems pretty straightforward?
0
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
How are you gauging whether a reviewer had or did not have open world burnout? That seems impossible.
The reviews I'm reading are almost universally poor to middling at best.
Metacritic has about 50 "The game is good", 30 "The game is ok, but boy do I wish it didn't do. . ." and 2 "Your game is trash."
I'll be interested to see what Actual Gamers think about it on these forums. Beyond the tech demo of a horde swarming through a sawmill (I think?), I've never seen a trailer for this game that actually hyped me to play it - it just looks Good On Paper to me.
Sony exclusives tend to be pretty well-designed - they have an excellent track record lately (God of War, Spider-Man, Horizon: Zero Dawn)
Open world? That's cool.
I get a motorbike? That too is cool.
Zombies? I am still not bored of killin' zombies. All this sounds lovely.
On paper Days Gone looks great, but yeah, not one of those trailers made me squee, while the first trailer for Horizon and every one after had me flipping the fuck out. But I also wasn't hyped at all for Spider-Man and that's a GotY so I was hoping Days Gone would be... better than trailers made it look, I guess?
The oversaturation of ads for Spider-Man four+ months before release almost turned that into a "don't buy" for me. I'm glad I didn't listen to myself.
To me Spider-Man was "it looks pretty but I need to know how the swinging feels, and I'm not gonna' trust any critic's opinion on that."
Turns out that swinging feels amazaaaang.
'Chance, you are the best kind of whore.' -Henroid
+3
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
edited April 2019
And I want to make sure it's clear that a reviewer feeling that way about open world games and mentioning as part of their review is not a bad thing and I am not saying anything negative about it.
It's good and important to mention because plenty of other people feel that way. And if they see a few reviewers feel that same way and then say they didn't enjoy it as much that helps those individuals know the game isn't for them. That's the whole point of reading the words of the review, to see what specific things the reviewer likes and doesn't like and compare them to your own feelings to see how you personally will enjoy something.
And that's not just this game.
I mean heck, that Slant place that give this the lowest review also gave Sekiro a 40%. And maybe their feeling aligns with yours, then you can more easily find reviews that fit you. I know I certainly don't find Sekiro to be a 40% so those reviews probably aren't going to align with my feeling on other games, and that's totally fine!
I mean if you can snag this game at a RedBox I would say do that if you're on the fence and don't want to commit. I can count on more than one hand the number of times I've been on the opposite of the majority of game reviewers in terms of popular games (latest: RDR2 - rated too high - and AC:ODY - rated way too low).
. . .also I guess there's ANOTHER day-one patch to bring the game up to 1.04 so possible that some of the technical issues ACG ran into are gone (having to restart the game to get rid of an audio bug. . .woof, especially with the reported load times).
I'm just reading the actual text of reviews - and they aren't positive. I'm less concerned with what metacritic says.
I'll relent that "poor" is a misnomer on my part but I definitely think "middling" is fair. I've not seen anybody flat out call it a bad game (maybe Waypoint) but considering the space right now, if something wants my attention it's going to need to be great in order to pull my attention. This is not that. If it is for you, that is great but I think it's silly to try to read into "reviewer's tilt" on this game. There's nothing special about it that warrants special consideration or treatment.
0
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
I'm just reading the actual text of reviews - and they aren't positive. I'm less concerned with what metacritic says.
I'll relent that "poor" is a misnomer on my part but I definitely think "middling" is fair. I've not seen anybody flat out call it a bad game (maybe Waypoint) but considering the space right now, if something wants my attention it's going to need to be great in order to pull my attention. This is not that. If it is for you, that is great but I think it's silly to try to read into "reviewer's tilt" on this game. There's nothing special about it that warrants special consideration or treatment.
I think you are misunderstanding what people here are saying. Your comment here is talking about "special treatment" that is very much not something anyone was suggesting and have already directly explained that. Yet you have said it again.
And much of the conversation beforehand was how the game might not be anything special or amazing but it looks at least fun and who knows, could be surprising and more than that.
But at the very least it looks like a good fun zombie killing time and if it is up your alley then this could be worth it. That's basically it. No one is arguing for it to be a game you should play. Heck, I have even specifically said that for someone in your position it probably isn't worth it.
...welp, guess there was a reason Sony didn't feature this last E3, didn't really do much pre-release press and put a lid on reviews until the day before.
Sony's advertising the living fuck out of this, though. I'm very curious to see how it performs.
I'm just reading the actual text of reviews - and they aren't positive. I'm less concerned with what metacritic says.
I'll relent that "poor" is a misnomer on my part but I definitely think "middling" is fair. I've not seen anybody flat out call it a bad game (maybe Waypoint) but considering the space right now, if something wants my attention it's going to need to be great in order to pull my attention. This is not that. If it is for you, that is great but I think it's silly to try to read into "reviewer's tilt" on this game. There's nothing special about it that warrants special consideration or treatment.
I think you are misunderstanding what people here are saying. Your comment here is talking about "special treatment" that is very much not something anyone was suggesting and have already directly explained that. Yet you have said it again.
And much of the conversation beforehand was how the game might not be anything special or amazing but it looks at least fun and who knows, could be surprising and more than that.
But at the very least it looks like a good fun zombie killing time and if it is up your alley then this could be worth it. That's basically it. No one is arguing for it to be a game you should play. Heck, I have even specifically said that for someone in your position it probably isn't worth it.
You were saying earlier that you didn't trust a lot of the reviews because the reviewers are probably burnt out on open world games. My post was about that comment. There's no way to account for the mental state of a reviewer so you either have to take them at their word or just ignore all reviews.
Like I said above, I've read about 5 reviews for the game now and in each one (even the more positive one) there are some hugely glaring issues associated with the tech and the story. Some people thought Superman 64 was a fun game but that doesn't mean it wasn't a bad game.
edit: said another way, do away with the abstraction of putting a number score on the game and read about the actual impressions from the people with dozens of hours played. It does not sound good.
I'm just reading the actual text of reviews - and they aren't positive. I'm less concerned with what metacritic says.
I'll relent that "poor" is a misnomer on my part but I definitely think "middling" is fair. I've not seen anybody flat out call it a bad game (maybe Waypoint) but considering the space right now, if something wants my attention it's going to need to be great in order to pull my attention. This is not that. If it is for you, that is great but I think it's silly to try to read into "reviewer's tilt" on this game. There's nothing special about it that warrants special consideration or treatment.
I think you are misunderstanding what people here are saying. Your comment here is talking about "special treatment" that is very much not something anyone was suggesting and have already directly explained that. Yet you have said it again.
And much of the conversation beforehand was how the game might not be anything special or amazing but it looks at least fun and who knows, could be surprising and more than that.
But at the very least it looks like a good fun zombie killing time and if it is up your alley then this could be worth it. That's basically it. No one is arguing for it to be a game you should play. Heck, I have even specifically said that for someone in your position it probably isn't worth it.
You were saying earlier that you didn't trust a lot of the reviews because the reviewers are probably burnt out on open world games. My post was about that comment. There's no way to account for the mental state of a reviewer so you either have to take them at their word or just ignore all reviews.
Like I said above, I've read about 5 reviews for the game now and in each one (even the more positive one) there are some hugely glaring issues associated with the tech and the story. Some people thought Superman 64 was a fun game but that doesn't mean it wasn't a bad game.
edit: said another way, do away with the abstraction of putting a number score on the game and read about the actual impressions from the people with dozens of hours played. It does not sound good.
Gonna have to stop you right there because I never said that. And I think that kinda instantly goes back to me saying you did not understand what was being said.
Idk the reviews have given me second thought about hopping straight in. I'll be checking out some gameplay videos to see what people mean. If it's just polish that's missing and the game is still fun, I'll probably still get it. If it's broken, I'll skip it for now.
edit: said another way, do away with the abstraction of putting a number score on the game and read about the actual impressions from the people with dozens of hours played. It does not sound good.
I dunno. I mean I'm looking at the "This game is good" reviews and they do not sound like "this game isn't good." From Easy Allies (this is the lowest "green" score on Metacritic at 75):
Days Gone is incredibly moving, but occasionally frustrating. Just when you start to get burnt out on resource collection and uniform side-missions, the story suddenly hooks you back in. Despite Deacon’s impatience and short temper, his story is often compelling. His actions have consequences, and the map evolves as you make positive and negative changes. Unfortunately, it can also be buggy and less than believable, which is heart-breaking considering the care given to this world and its characters.
That doesn't really sound like a "not good" game hiding behind a decent score.
Speaking of the game, from some user impressions nighttime lasts a full freaking HOUR of real-time. Oh dear.
Yea you always have to take into account a lot of factors. How reviewers play games and the fact that they are playing A LOT of games constantly in those tight time frames.
It can certainly take a toll on how they feel about certain aspects that may not effect you as a regular player at all.
Like I don't play just every single game that comes out, only those that appeal to me. I won't even play every game in a series even if I like that series. AC is an example there. If an AC game comes out and I'm not feeling another AC game I'm just gonna skip it. So I never really get to the point of feeling burnt out on the open world stuff or even on more specific things like AC because I'll stop playing before that.
But a reviewer would probably have been playing each and every one of those from bad to mediocre to good.
So like, personally I'm taking each game experience a bit more in a vacuum. The game being enjoyable by itself is the only thing that matters for the sake of purchasing. That doesn't mean I won't make a comparison or discuss how another game did something better. But another game doing something better doesn't stop me from buying, playing or enjoying a game if it's still enjoyable itself. If that makes sense.
I'm just reading the actual text of reviews - and they aren't positive. I'm less concerned with what metacritic says.
I'll relent that "poor" is a misnomer on my part but I definitely think "middling" is fair. I've not seen anybody flat out call it a bad game (maybe Waypoint) but considering the space right now, if something wants my attention it's going to need to be great in order to pull my attention. This is not that. If it is for you, that is great but I think it's silly to try to read into "reviewer's tilt" on this game. There's nothing special about it that warrants special consideration or treatment.
I think you are misunderstanding what people here are saying. Your comment here is talking about "special treatment" that is very much not something anyone was suggesting and have already directly explained that. Yet you have said it again.
And much of the conversation beforehand was how the game might not be anything special or amazing but it looks at least fun and who knows, could be surprising and more than that.
But at the very least it looks like a good fun zombie killing time and if it is up your alley then this could be worth it. That's basically it. No one is arguing for it to be a game you should play. Heck, I have even specifically said that for someone in your position it probably isn't worth it.
You were saying earlier that you didn't trust a lot of the reviews because the reviewers are probably burnt out on open world games. My post was about that comment. There's no way to account for the mental state of a reviewer so you either have to take them at their word or just ignore all reviews.
Like I said above, I've read about 5 reviews for the game now and in each one (even the more positive one) there are some hugely glaring issues associated with the tech and the story. Some people thought Superman 64 was a fun game but that doesn't mean it wasn't a bad game.
edit: said another way, do away with the abstraction of putting a number score on the game and read about the actual impressions from the people with dozens of hours played. It does not sound good.
Gonna have to stop you right there because I never said that. And I think that kinda instantly goes back to me saying you did not understand what was being said.
Huh? I guess I don't understand what you're saying because I'm not sure how else to interpret that post.
I think they are taking slight umbrage with you saying that they don't trust the reviews, when all they are saying is how a reviewer plays (and enjoys) a game can be quite a bit different than how a consumer does. I made the same argument earlier.
Reviewers don't exist in a vacuum though. They're also consumers and gaming enthusiasts.
My initial point being, if you're going to impose a bunch of assumed caveats to a review score why pay any heed to review scores at all?
Granted, I think review scores are a dumb concept in general but for the purpose of this discussion I think the point is relevant.
It feels a bit like cherry-picking opinions by accepting the good and then denigrating the bad by saying "Yeah but they've probably played too many open world games.".
edit: said another way, do away with the abstraction of putting a number score on the game and read about the actual impressions from the people with dozens of hours played. It does not sound good.
I dunno. I mean I'm looking at the "This game is good" reviews and they do not sound like "this game isn't good." From Easy Allies (this is the lowest "green" score on Metacritic at 75):
Days Gone is incredibly moving, but occasionally frustrating. Just when you start to get burnt out on resource collection and uniform side-missions, the story suddenly hooks you back in. Despite Deacon’s impatience and short temper, his story is often compelling. His actions have consequences, and the map evolves as you make positive and negative changes. Unfortunately, it can also be buggy and less than believable, which is heart-breaking considering the care given to this world and its characters.
That doesn't really sound like a "not good" game hiding behind a decent score.
Eurogamer is my go-to - I feel their stuff is generally pretty considered and well-written, but they can fall into the Polygon "but it is art?" pretentious crap, which can cost solid games a decent score or inflate the score of something that's merely pretty-good to "OMFG you have to play this!" just because it does something a little different with an established genre (Breath of the Wild).
Easy Allies is, in fact, my most-trusted when it comes to professional reviews. Whether or not the game is enjoyable to play is often their central concern - and they've had my trust ever since they were the only major review site (as GameTrailers) to give GRIN's Bionic Commando reboot a solid 7.0 score and a review that said "it's got problems, but it's fun!"
They get it.
And honestly, after a year+ of not being hyped for Days Gone, I suddenly find myself very curious about it after today's reviews, the opinions of its defenders and the Easy Allies review.
I may have to get it. But I'm tryin' to save money. Plus it sounds like it could use a patch or two.
'Chance, you are the best kind of whore.' -Henroid
I totally forgot Breath of the Wild on my "my opinion is way different than that of reviewers." That's the reason I put the Easy Allies review up: it's a 7.5 but they clearly had a good time with the game and fairly call out some of the ridiculous bugs and "bugs" present in the game.
. . .I also don't know how large a game studio is, but I imagine 50 people is pretty damn small (Google says 3000(!) people worked on RDR2).
"Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
0
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
Yea you always have to take into account a lot of factors. How reviewers play games and the fact that they are playing A LOT of games constantly in those tight time frames.
It can certainly take a toll on how they feel about certain aspects that may not effect you as a regular player at all.
Like I don't play just every single game that comes out, only those that appeal to me. I won't even play every game in a series even if I like that series. AC is an example there. If an AC game comes out and I'm not feeling another AC game I'm just gonna skip it. So I never really get to the point of feeling burnt out on the open world stuff or even on more specific things like AC because I'll stop playing before that.
But a reviewer would probably have been playing each and every one of those from bad to mediocre to good.
So like, personally I'm taking each game experience a bit more in a vacuum. The game being enjoyable by itself is the only thing that matters for the sake of purchasing. That doesn't mean I won't make a comparison or discuss how another game did something better. But another game doing something better doesn't stop me from buying, playing or enjoying a game if it's still enjoyable itself. If that makes sense.
I'm just reading the actual text of reviews - and they aren't positive. I'm less concerned with what metacritic says.
I'll relent that "poor" is a misnomer on my part but I definitely think "middling" is fair. I've not seen anybody flat out call it a bad game (maybe Waypoint) but considering the space right now, if something wants my attention it's going to need to be great in order to pull my attention. This is not that. If it is for you, that is great but I think it's silly to try to read into "reviewer's tilt" on this game. There's nothing special about it that warrants special consideration or treatment.
I think you are misunderstanding what people here are saying. Your comment here is talking about "special treatment" that is very much not something anyone was suggesting and have already directly explained that. Yet you have said it again.
And much of the conversation beforehand was how the game might not be anything special or amazing but it looks at least fun and who knows, could be surprising and more than that.
But at the very least it looks like a good fun zombie killing time and if it is up your alley then this could be worth it. That's basically it. No one is arguing for it to be a game you should play. Heck, I have even specifically said that for someone in your position it probably isn't worth it.
You were saying earlier that you didn't trust a lot of the reviews because the reviewers are probably burnt out on open world games. My post was about that comment. There's no way to account for the mental state of a reviewer so you either have to take them at their word or just ignore all reviews.
Like I said above, I've read about 5 reviews for the game now and in each one (even the more positive one) there are some hugely glaring issues associated with the tech and the story. Some people thought Superman 64 was a fun game but that doesn't mean it wasn't a bad game.
edit: said another way, do away with the abstraction of putting a number score on the game and read about the actual impressions from the people with dozens of hours played. It does not sound good.
Gonna have to stop you right there because I never said that. And I think that kinda instantly goes back to me saying you did not understand what was being said.
Huh? I guess I don't understand what you're saying because I'm not sure how else to interpret that post.
Every single reviewer is a different person. Each of them has different things that appeal to them in different ways and each of them plays games differently and for different. Understanding individual reviews and reading the words they say is an important to getting the most out of reviews for any game. That has nothing to do with trust. If a reviewer doesn't like the same stuff as me it doesn't mean I don't trust them. They are saying what is the case for them. I am talking about understanding them, not whether or not to trust them.
Like if a reviewer starts off with "man this game has a really slow start and it really kills the will to keep playing" that means it's a negative for them and anyone who doesn't like slow starts. But then if I actually like and prefer games that start slow it's not only NOT a negative, but a positive aspect that improves the enjoyment of the game. That doesn't make that reviewer untrustworthy and doesn't mean there should be any negative thoughts towards them saying it.
For this specific case if a reviewer mentions that it feels like "another open world" as a negative then it only applies to you if you also have played a lot of open world games to the point where that seems stale. That again, has nothing to do with whether I trust them. Just trying to apply each individuals feelings vs my own.
Luckily they can patch the game so I'll be waiting to see how they address these performance issues. I think this may be a case where they pushed it out the door before it was 100% finished baking, but the story sounds pretty good actually.
+1
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
Luckily they can patch the game so I'll be waiting to see how they address these performance issues. I think this may be a case where they pushed it out the door before it was 100% finished baking, but the story sounds pretty good actually.
Yea since the review copies have hit the wild they have now pumped out 4(!?) patches addressing the bugs and issues. Which, yay for making the effort there! But also maybe it needed just a biiiiit more time there, yea?
Canceled. I'll definitely pick it up when it drops to $30... I just have way too many games to keep up with right now (Conan Exiles, Dying Light, Division 2, Metal Max Xeno, etc...) that $50 for an average game is too much right now. I hope you guys enjoy it! I'll be perusing the thread to get impressions.
I love that one of the parts he gets frustrated with, and thus seems soured on, is that you can run out of fuel, and be really fucked (or that Fast Travel isn't magic and actually uses resources). As happens in a survival-esque game.
Canceled. I'll definitely pick it up when it drops to $30... I just have way too many games to keep up with right now (Conan Exiles, Dying Light, Division 2, Metal Max Xeno, etc...) that $50 for an average game is too much right now. I hope you guys enjoy it! I'll be perusing the thread to get impressions.
Dying Light is one of the GOATs of this gen, imo. Techland had my loyalty after the first Dead Island (best first-person melee combat ever, imo) but Dying Light blew the doors off what they already did super, super well with fantastic first-person platforming (!), way better presentation overall and much better writing.
It's frickin' fantastic.
'Chance, you are the best kind of whore.' -Henroid
Posts
That's interesting. At least in New Dawn, I never really got that feeling.
AC: Origins definitely triggered my "again??!?!?!" ometer though.
Also this. We're talking about a 30+ game here. Playing the same mission type multiple times in one day as a reviewer is A LOT different than playing the same mission types in one week as a gamer. It's easy for a games narrative and gameplay warts to pop out when you're playing a game in such a compressed time frame (not excusing the game's issues just pointing out how they might be perceived for a "gamer" vs a "game reviewer").
It can certainly take a toll on how they feel about certain aspects that may not effect you as a regular player at all.
Like I don't play just every single game that comes out, only those that appeal to me. I won't even play every game in a series even if I like that series. AC is an example there. If an AC game comes out and I'm not feeling another AC game I'm just gonna skip it. So I never really get to the point of feeling burnt out on the open world stuff or even on more specific things like AC because I'll stop playing before that.
But a reviewer would probably have been playing each and every one of those from bad to mediocre to good.
So like, personally I'm taking each game experience a bit more in a vacuum. The game being enjoyable by itself is the only thing that matters for the sake of purchasing. That doesn't mean I won't make a comparison or discuss how another game did something better. But another game doing something better doesn't stop me from buying, playing or enjoying a game if it's still enjoyable itself. If that makes sense.
I don't think it's necessary to make excuses for the reviewers or the game. There's nothing special about this game that requires it to be reviewed differently.
As with anything it's subjective.
So that's going to be a big factor for anyone deciding to purchase it I think.
I mean there are more positive reviews than negative reviews.
Plenty of good reviews with some great reviews and then some bad reviews.
If it were overwhelmingly negative your comment would make more sense but that isn't the case here. It's that they are extremely varied but not super negative.
I mean look at how everyone circlejerked about RDR2 and how it's changing everything. Now no one is even talking about it.
The reviews I'm reading are almost universally poor to middling at best.
And the point I was making about playing a game for review and playing a game for fun applies to all games, not just this one.
What is your definition of poor?
You can go to metacritic and see the average and it tells a different story.
Also you can gauge it when they say specifically mention the being another open world game as a kind of negative. That seems pretty straightforward?
21 80+
8 70-79
19 lower
How is that universally anything, let alone poor?
Metacritic has about 50 "The game is good", 30 "The game is ok, but boy do I wish it didn't do. . ." and 2 "Your game is trash."
To me Spider-Man was "it looks pretty but I need to know how the swinging feels, and I'm not gonna' trust any critic's opinion on that."
Turns out that swinging feels amazaaaang.
It's good and important to mention because plenty of other people feel that way. And if they see a few reviewers feel that same way and then say they didn't enjoy it as much that helps those individuals know the game isn't for them. That's the whole point of reading the words of the review, to see what specific things the reviewer likes and doesn't like and compare them to your own feelings to see how you personally will enjoy something.
And that's not just this game.
I mean heck, that Slant place that give this the lowest review also gave Sekiro a 40%. And maybe their feeling aligns with yours, then you can more easily find reviews that fit you. I know I certainly don't find Sekiro to be a 40% so those reviews probably aren't going to align with my feeling on other games, and that's totally fine!
. . .also I guess there's ANOTHER day-one patch to bring the game up to 1.04 so possible that some of the technical issues ACG ran into are gone (having to restart the game to get rid of an audio bug. . .woof, especially with the reported load times).
I'll relent that "poor" is a misnomer on my part but I definitely think "middling" is fair. I've not seen anybody flat out call it a bad game (maybe Waypoint) but considering the space right now, if something wants my attention it's going to need to be great in order to pull my attention. This is not that. If it is for you, that is great but I think it's silly to try to read into "reviewer's tilt" on this game. There's nothing special about it that warrants special consideration or treatment.
I think you are misunderstanding what people here are saying. Your comment here is talking about "special treatment" that is very much not something anyone was suggesting and have already directly explained that. Yet you have said it again.
And much of the conversation beforehand was how the game might not be anything special or amazing but it looks at least fun and who knows, could be surprising and more than that.
But at the very least it looks like a good fun zombie killing time and if it is up your alley then this could be worth it. That's basically it. No one is arguing for it to be a game you should play. Heck, I have even specifically said that for someone in your position it probably isn't worth it.
Sony's advertising the living fuck out of this, though. I'm very curious to see how it performs.
You were saying earlier that you didn't trust a lot of the reviews because the reviewers are probably burnt out on open world games. My post was about that comment. There's no way to account for the mental state of a reviewer so you either have to take them at their word or just ignore all reviews.
Like I said above, I've read about 5 reviews for the game now and in each one (even the more positive one) there are some hugely glaring issues associated with the tech and the story. Some people thought Superman 64 was a fun game but that doesn't mean it wasn't a bad game.
edit: said another way, do away with the abstraction of putting a number score on the game and read about the actual impressions from the people with dozens of hours played. It does not sound good.
Gonna have to stop you right there because I never said that. And I think that kinda instantly goes back to me saying you did not understand what was being said.
I dunno. I mean I'm looking at the "This game is good" reviews and they do not sound like "this game isn't good." From Easy Allies (this is the lowest "green" score on Metacritic at 75):
That doesn't really sound like a "not good" game hiding behind a decent score.
Speaking of the game, from some user impressions nighttime lasts a full freaking HOUR of real-time. Oh dear.
Huh? I guess I don't understand what you're saying because I'm not sure how else to interpret that post.
My initial point being, if you're going to impose a bunch of assumed caveats to a review score why pay any heed to review scores at all?
Granted, I think review scores are a dumb concept in general but for the purpose of this discussion I think the point is relevant.
It feels a bit like cherry-picking opinions by accepting the good and then denigrating the bad by saying "Yeah but they've probably played too many open world games.".
Eurogamer is my go-to - I feel their stuff is generally pretty considered and well-written, but they can fall into the Polygon "but it is art?" pretentious crap, which can cost solid games a decent score or inflate the score of something that's merely pretty-good to "OMFG you have to play this!" just because it does something a little different with an established genre (Breath of the Wild).
Easy Allies is, in fact, my most-trusted when it comes to professional reviews. Whether or not the game is enjoyable to play is often their central concern - and they've had my trust ever since they were the only major review site (as GameTrailers) to give GRIN's Bionic Commando reboot a solid 7.0 score and a review that said "it's got problems, but it's fun!"
They get it.
And honestly, after a year+ of not being hyped for Days Gone, I suddenly find myself very curious about it after today's reviews, the opinions of its defenders and the Easy Allies review.
I may have to get it. But I'm tryin' to save money. Plus it sounds like it could use a patch or two.
. . .I also don't know how large a game studio is, but I imagine 50 people is pretty damn small (Google says 3000(!) people worked on RDR2).
Every single reviewer is a different person. Each of them has different things that appeal to them in different ways and each of them plays games differently and for different. Understanding individual reviews and reading the words they say is an important to getting the most out of reviews for any game. That has nothing to do with trust. If a reviewer doesn't like the same stuff as me it doesn't mean I don't trust them. They are saying what is the case for them. I am talking about understanding them, not whether or not to trust them.
Like if a reviewer starts off with "man this game has a really slow start and it really kills the will to keep playing" that means it's a negative for them and anyone who doesn't like slow starts. But then if I actually like and prefer games that start slow it's not only NOT a negative, but a positive aspect that improves the enjoyment of the game. That doesn't make that reviewer untrustworthy and doesn't mean there should be any negative thoughts towards them saying it.
For this specific case if a reviewer mentions that it feels like "another open world" as a negative then it only applies to you if you also have played a lot of open world games to the point where that seems stale. That again, has nothing to do with whether I trust them. Just trying to apply each individuals feelings vs my own.
That said, I'm going to stop arguing about a game I have not and probably will not play.
Yea since the review copies have hit the wild they have now pumped out 4(!?) patches addressing the bugs and issues. Which, yay for making the effort there! But also maybe it needed just a biiiiit more time there, yea?
Jim wasn't too impressed by it.
Dying Light is one of the GOATs of this gen, imo. Techland had my loyalty after the first Dead Island (best first-person melee combat ever, imo) but Dying Light blew the doors off what they already did super, super well with fantastic first-person platforming (!), way better presentation overall and much better writing.
It's frickin' fantastic.