Days Gone somehow makes the apocalypse aimless and boring | The Daily Dot

It’s the end of the world as we know it—and no one cares.

[gangsta_red]

"All the familiar trappings of an open-world game are present in some form. There are towers to climb. There are bases to clear. There are weapons to craft. There are strangers to help, strangers to hurt. There are skill trees to fill, checklists to complete, stories to hear, and new regions to traverse. If there’s anything distinct about Days Gone, it’s the notable lack of a discernible identity. Systems and mechanics are ripped whole-cloth from better games, forming a stunted patchwork of ideas pertaining to survival, zombies, and exploration."

This seems to be the main complaint about this game. Something that was discussed in other recent open world games. The receptiveness of missions in a huge open world that just gets tiring after a while instead of more interesting.

[NecrumOddBoy]

If that's truly the issue for giving this games such scores as a 3 or 5 then the double standard in the industry is completely garbage. HZD received a lot of these review negatives and was compared to Ubisoft games, while Breath of the wild was revered as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Also, Spider-Man didn't receive this type of commentary either, and as someone who love the story and gameplay to the point that I Platinum'd it, the tropes/side content what is very repetitive and to the point where it was a severe chore doing the crime challenges. just saying I think there is a severe standards issue when it comes to games journalism.

[ziggurcat]

how dare a game have content like towers to climb, bases to clear, weapons to craft, strangers to help, strangers to hurt, skill trees to fill, checklists to complete, stories to hear, and new regions to traverse... 4/10

[gangsta_red]

"HZD received a lot of these review negatives and was compared to Ubisoft games,"

That's not entirely true, HZD was pretty universally praised along with Zelda by critics and gamers.

But I do agree with Spider-Man, it definitely didn't...at first, but later there were stories that started to catch on about this. I played Spider-Man and that was my main complaint about the game. I also didn't understand why it got such high scores when it made you repeat a lot of the missions over and over again like most open world games do.

I think the fatigue is just starting to kick in. After years of playing open world games we're starting to see all the familiar tropes being used in these games and critics and gamers are starting to pick up on them.

[Hardiman]

I wonder what they scored AC Odyssey because it didn't reinvent anything but it's fun. Lots of carry this, go kill this guy or find this, but it was fun! I don't understand the hate because by now most know what troupes will be in them.

The innovation may start next gen with bigger CPU but now it is what it is and you either like it or you don't but why one gets shit and another gets a pass is beyond me!

In depth Eurogamer breakdown and he said it ran and looked good and praised the game world and what was in it.

[Germaximus]

Exactly.

Something similar has happened with both Mass Effect Andromeda and Anthem. They had issues but they're still really great games.

The internet only gets more stupid by the hour.

[Imalwaysright]

Zelda? Zelda was nothing like most open world games of today that follow the same cookie cutter formula. It was a breath of fresh air in open world design. An open world game that truly gave a sense of freedom and discovery unlike most open world games that give us an illusion of freedom and that is one of the main reasons why it's so highly rated.

[S2Killinit]

Seem to me like the complaints are vague and generalized. They dont know what they dont like about it, just that they dont like it. I guess im gonna find out for myself because im getting it regardless of reviews.

[gangsta_red]

@S2killinit
"Seem to me like the complaints are vague and generalized. They dont know what they dont like about it,"

Seriously? They literally talk about in depth what they don't like about the game. Exactly what do you find vague or generalized about any of these reviews?

[Gaming4Life1981]

Hzd and zelda were praised and rightfully so but spiderman was overrated and given a pass.

[RauLeCreuset]

I cancelled my preorder. Some of the later previews had piqued my interest. The impression I'm getting from reviews is that it's unremarkable.

[LOGICWINS]

That's actually pretty smart. If you end up deciding to buy it down the line, you'll be getting the same game for a cheaper price.

Sekiro just came out and it's 45 bucks on Newegg with a promo code.

[CrimsonPheonix]

only fools pre-order

[gangsta_red]

*The repetitiveness of missions in a huge open...*

Damn auto-correct!

[Godmars290]

"just saying I think there is a severe standards issue when it comes to games journalism."

From the first game review magazine, Nintendo Power, being published by Nintendo to further gaming magazines being dependent on ad revenue from the game companies whose games they reviewed and to current times when ANYONE with a blog can call themselves a game reviewer, you're JUST NOW thinking there might be standards issues?

Really?

[NecrumOddBoy]

Sort of rhetorical lol but I agree

[rainslacker]

And yet other open world games with the same trappings still get 8's or above. Complaints or not, the scoring systems of reviews is as jacked up as it's always been, and seems like most sites can't even maintain any level of consistency, or editorial standards. Let's face it, you could replace the "Day's Gone" in that paragraph with any other open world game and be none the wiser, because I don't know what a notable lack of discernable identity means. Does BOTW, RDR2, HZD, The Witcher, etc have a discernible identity when they do all those same things?

[gangsta_red]

How come journalists are called out when they don't praise someone's favorite game, but does that same integrity and journalist scrutiny apply when they're giving your favorite game a 10? It's to funny to read review scores come into question when that anticipated triple A game doesn't do as well as we hoped. But all is forgiven for the next game that scores perfect 10's.

"Does BOTW, RDR2, HZD, The Witcher, etc have a discernible identity when they do all those same things?"

Maybe those games did their open world missions better, maybe those open world games weren't wearing as thin when they released, maybe, just maybe Day's Gone just isn't that good of a game and the open world tropes that could be forgiven in better games you mentioned are way too apparent for this one.

Let's face it, if Day's Gone was getting good reviews no one would be complaining about journalist integrity or consistency. We would be celebrating another master piece of a game.

[rainslacker]

Dunno. I haven't played Days Gone yet, so I can't even say if it's my favorite game. I'm talking about the vague explanation that you quoted as the reason why the review system is jacked up.

Maybe those games did their open world missions better....but then what metric is being used to say that this game is like all the others, but lacks an identity? I played all the other games that I listed, outside I didn't get too far in The Witcher 3, and I could apply the same trappings to them as well, and based on the quote, say that they have a notable lack of a discernable identity in broad terms like the quote used the phrase, because what all those games did weren't reinventing the wheel immensely.

Days Gone is getting good reviews. How come you aren't in those good reviews saying how it's a good game, or in the average reviews saying it's an average game, but will come in to the bad reviews and say how it validates your belief that it's a bad game, when you yourself haven't even played it, and even you can't say what the author was referring to with the quote he made, because there isn't any detail on why those trappings are bad for this game, but OK in other games. Or did this same reviewer also have criticize those other games in the same way? If so, the my comment about the inconsistency of reviews nowadays wouldn't apply to this reviewer.

[gangsta_red]

You said an awful lot without saying anything at all.

If the game was good like GoW, Witcher 3, Zelda, HZD you wouldn't be here trying to systematically break down the mental fortitude of these low review scores and why a game is scored differently than others.

Why you're trying to break this down and analyse the mind of this journalist is baffling.

"..and I could apply the same trappings to them as well,"

And you would be wrong. God of War didn't reinvent the wheel either and yet it's a good game. The new Doom didn't reinvent the wheel and yet that was a good game by going back to it's roots. Those games were praised and yet none of those games did anything different than other and yet this one isn't getting that same critical acclaim. Could it be that it's just as plain and simple as the many reviews are saying including the quote I left?

One or two review sites that would say this, I could understand your concern but that's not the case. The positive reviews are now the minority for this game.

None of these games have to reinvent the wheel and this is where you keep getting hung up on with that notion. But these games at least have to keep that wheel spinning and in good condition. Because with better open world games out there the lesser ones stand out even more like this one.

[rainslacker]

I can't speak to the quality of this game, because I haven't played it yet. I'm speaking to the trappings being talked about, and how that was used to downgrade the score apparently. If those trappings aren't a problem in other games just because they're good, why are they a problem in games where the game is supposedly not good? Either the trappings are bad or they aren't.

But, I have played the other games I listed, and while none of them were bad, I don't think all of them were as good as some of the reviews made them out to be. They fell into the same trappings, and had some of the same repetative and less than engaging game play that this game is said to have. Namely BOTW and RDR2 were not very deep in the game play department. Game play wasn't bad, but nothing really special.

I'm talking about the double standard, and I don't feel I'm breaking things down by being overly analytical, because I'm only talking about one concept, and breaking that down with an explanation. If you can't follow along with that, then I don't know what else to say.

[gangsta_red]

"If those trappings aren't a problem in other games just because they're good, why are they a problem in games where the game is supposedly not good? Either the trappings are bad or they aren't."

Let me understand your question, maybe I mis-read it, you're asking why good games have trappings that are acceptable and not the games that are bad? It's obviously clear you are reaching with that extreme black and white statement and even I know you can't be serious with that. Besides I already answered that question.

You should really answer my questions and speak on my points instead of repeatedly dodging them and talking about topics that are irrelevant. You're not breaking anything down, you're making excuses, you're trying to drag down other games like RDR, BoTW and Witcher 3 to try and prop this one up and this is all the while admitting you never played this game.

There are no double standards for this game. The only double standards I see are from the comments in these low scoring articles. If this game were getting 9's and 10's across the board you would be congratulating Bend studios and Sony on a job well done and not questioning journalists reasons on why they would give this game a high score, nor would you be complaining about some bias agenda, and you definitely wouldn't be asking these reviews to explain in more detail why they liked the game and gave it a high score.

If you can't understand even that then I don't know what else to tell you.

[rainslacker]

Yes, that's my question. Yes, I'm serious.

Why are these trappings used to down rate games if they're "bad", but not if the game is good?

Either the trappings are a problem, or they aren't. It's not rocket science. If you're OK with it in a good game, then you shouldn't be critical of another game that you think is not good, or at least downrate those games for it. If you think the game is not good, then base the review on that fact alone, and maintain a bit of damn consistency in your views. Otherwise, it's just people making up bullshit to find more reason to give it a lower score, because they can't think of anything better.

"You should really answer my questions and speak on my points instead of repeatedly dodging them and talking about topics that are irrelevant."

OMG. LOL. OK....here's another quote from you.

"This seems to be the main complaint about this game. Something that was discussed in other recent open world games. The receptiveness of missions in a huge open world that just gets tiring after a while instead of more interesting."

Sorry....this is what I was responding to. How exactly is talking about trappings, and the inconsistency by which games are held accountable to them, not relevant? You know...the thing that you quoted which you based your comment on.....

Do you even know what the hell you say when you say it, or do you just change the subject to try and win the argument? Seriously....I asked a simple question....you haven't been able to answer it. Asking me a question, and saying I missed the point isn't an answer. Trying to say that I'm clueless isn't an answer.

Stop acting stupid like you don't understand the question, and then saying that I'm somehow changing the subject. You started the subject. I'm not the one straying, and every word of my first two comments is based on what you started. I ignored your deflection to stay on topic.

Come on Red. Answer simply. Don't deflect.

Why is it OK for some games to fall into the same trappings and not be docked for it, while other games get brought down several points for it, with some other vaguely defined problems like it doesn't have an identity, or the game play is repetitive. Things said without explanation, and seem like more hyperbole.

I answered your questions.

Only question I saw you ask that I didn't was you asking if it could be as simple as what you said. I'd say, sure it could have been. My comment wasn't meant to be lead to so much discourse. You just took the opportunity to try and make me look stupid, and instead you come across as a desperate fan boy.

But, go ahead answer the question. Or are you just going to call me out again because you know you don't have a good answer?

[ziggurcat]

"Let me understand your question, maybe I mis-read it, you're asking why good games have trappings that are acceptable and not the games that are bad?"

He's asking why those trappings are all of a sudden a problem in Days Gone, especially when they're being used to determine that the game is bad/not good/boring with no "discernible identity." What was it about those same trappings that gave those other games a "discernible identity" (and higher score) when they'd been used countless times over in previous games? Because the argument in the review (or at least in the block quote you've cited) isn't "it's a bad game that uses familiar mechanics", the argument is "it's a bad game because it uses familiar mechanics."

"There are no double standards for this game."

It's a double standard if you're using the mechanics/trappings as a criticism in determining whether the game is bad/boring with no identity, and not for any other game that uses identical mechanics/trappings.

[gangsta_red]

@Rainslacker
"Why are these trappings used to down rate games if they're "bad", but not if the game is good?"

Sorry, but this is one of the most ridiculous questions I have ever read.

It wasn't just the "trapping" that were being focused on in the quote but the over all experience of those "trappings" just emphasized how mediocre this game is especially when a good game does the same thing but better, as this quote literally says. That is why a GOOD game can have these trappings and get away with it and a BAD game can't.

From the quote:

"Systems and mechanics are ripped whole-cloth from better games,"

Better Games like RDR2, Witcher 3 and Zelda (even Spider-Man, which I didn't like) this is why they get a **pass** and not Days Gone. Also might I add, it's funny seeing you compare Day's Gone to RDR2, Witcher or Zelda's trappings even though you never played Days Gone and then ask why doesn't Days Gone get a pass.

"Come on Red. Answer simply. Don't deflect."

How about you read my very first reply to your comment..

***Maybe those games did their open world missions better, maybe those open world games weren't wearing as thin when they released, maybe, just maybe Day's Gone just isn't that good of a game and the open world tropes that could be forgiven in better games you mentioned are way too apparent for this one. ***

How about I quote a part of my THIRD REPLY TO YOU!

***None of these games have to reinvent the wheel and this is where you keep getting hung up on with that notion. But these games at least have to keep that wheel spinning and in good condition. Because with better open world games out there the lesser ones stand out even more like this one***

All of those answer your complete nonsensical, hilarious question of why a BAD GAME GETS DOCKED and not A GOOD GAME.

"You know...the thing that you quoted which you based your comment on....."

And then you replying with some tangent rant about editorial credibility, vague reviews, reviews not having some type of consistency...you're the first one to go off the rails.

Now Rainslacker why is it that you only consider the double standards for the low scoring articles. Why are you questioning these journalists and not the ones giving out high scores? Exactly how detailed is detailed enough for you as to why a critic didn't like the game especially when critics who gave this game a great score are even more vague as to why they liked it? Why aren't you in those high scoring articles asking those questions?

Do you have an answer for that, or are you going to come back and once again ask me why RDR2, Witcher 3 and Zelda gets a free pass?

@Ziggurcat
You're both are creating a unique fallacy by taking just a small portion of the quote to focus on and pretending that's the only issue this reviewer had.

The quote explains with examples in detail (even though Rainslacker conveniently doesn't see it) that Day's Gone rips all the familiar trappings from BETTER GAMES, there's nothing unique, nothing new, nothing to set it apart, there's NO IDENTITY of it's own because better games BEFORE Days Gone did it first and better.

[rainslacker]

See....it wasn't so hard to just answer the question was it. If you had done that from the start, which despite your insistence, you didn't actually do, instead of trying to make me look bad, tempers wouldn't get flared, and you wouldn't end up looking like you desperately needed to win an argument which really didn't need to even become heated, because I wasn't even attacking your original comment or you with my original statement, but rather, the nature of current game reviews. You're the one that tried to make it into a console war thing with the hyperbolic, "If it was getting good reviews, no one would be complaining" thing, to which I can say that if this wasn't a Sony game, you wouldn't give two craps either way. But lets move on.

What you're saying, and what you're supporting, is that if the game is good in other areas, it's OK to ignore the problems, but if the game is "bad", then it's OK to make the extra point how bad it is by deducting more points? I, or we, as a player can take the overall experience and judge a game in such a manner, but reviewers should have a better editorial standard for the sake of their readers.

In other words, the review system is all jacked up and inconsistent. Hence, my original reply to you, and hence why many other games could be swapped out for the authors quote, and be just as relevant, because the trappings are a completely different aspect of the subjective part about if someone thinks the game is bad or not. A bad game is subjective, but the trappings of open world games can be measured using objective observation. People thought RDR2 was boring or bland. Some thought BOTW was boring or bland. So, wouldn't their criticisms be just as valid if those open worlds had the same trappings? To some they were. To me, not so much, because the trappings aren't what really concern me about open world games, and I don't downrate games because of it. But, when it comes to reviewers, it is important, because again....consistency.

And that's my point....a reviewer shouldn't put more weight on things in different games based on different aspects of what they're reviewing.

For example, A game with simple yet repetitive mechanics shouldn't be downrated for it's simplicity just because it's repetitive, while a game with simple, yet more varied mechanics doesn't get downrated for it's simple mechanics as well. You either like or dislike an aspect that you're reviewing, and judge it the same way, or you don't.

If the reviewer wants to judge the overall game and take it into consideration, then that's fine, but that's not what's happening here, or at least not in general, because I don't know what this particular reviewer usually feels about such things.

I'm not going into who gets a free pass or doesn't. It's not the point of my comment. I'm only stipulating that reviews weight things differently for different games, and to take off more for one game because they think it's bad, just to add extra weight to their score, is a bad way to review. It's inconsistent, and makes it so people can go around using these reviews for their idiotic fan boy wars, and makes the reviewer look more biased, than respectful. It's a problem that infects much of the review system, and it's not a problem contained to one console preference, as it can be evidenced by games from any console maker, or from any publisher.

[gangsta_red]

Again, saying a lot without saying anything at all.

I asked you some simple questions and yet you choose to retread your previous statement with added fluff.

Again, why is it that you aren't asking for the good reviews for more details?

Where was your concern for double standards when reviews give a Sony exclusive a perfect score and not other games of the same genre?

I'm not trying to make you look bad, you're doing that job all on your own.

You claim I wouldn't be in these articles if this wasn't a Sony exclusive but the irony is you wouldn't either. In fact you never claim any type of journalist integrity unless it's a bad review for a Sony game.

Let's all remember The Order, where you were also on this holy crusade to prove to everyone that journalists were inconsistent, until the next month when they were giving great review scores for Bloodbourne that is.

The fact is if it's a bad game that does nothing but takes elements from other games but does nothing different than it's going to shine those "trappings" a lot brighter. Something this review and my replies have been telling you over and over again, but as usual you refuse to listen because of your own personal grudge and inability to accept the fact that a Sony game can be mediocre or bad.

No one is asking this game to reinvent the wheel, another statement I have read from you in other articles. What game this gen has? And yet you use that as just another excuse as to why this game is getting poor scores. Your complete refusal to just accept that this is just a mediocre or average game. Why this revelation fails you when we have had many of the same type of games this gen is what's hilarious, you going to bat for these Sony only specific games and then trying to call me out, as if I haven't also called other games that were bad or mediocre.

Instead you want to ask one of the stupidest question I read in a while, "why is it okay for a good game to have something but a bad game can't".
You're already confirming this is a bad game and then asking why can't a bad game be good...seriously. I really don't have time to explain that simple concept something any gamer should just instinctively have.

And this is coming from someone who has repeatedly wanted to convince me they're in the industry but doesn't know the difference between a good game and a bad game. All the while trying to compare this game to RDR, Zelda and HZD but never playing this particular game to even make that comparison fair.

This is a triple A game that didn't meet the standards of other good games. It didn't need to reinvent the wheel, it didn't need to be something completely different, no game this gen has and yet we still have had some gems, this isn't one of them.

No need to suddenly delve into the psyche of the journalist to figure out why, especially when you have been celebrating these same journalists when they conform to your views, bias and standards in the past.

[rainslacker]

I think you just want to argue for arguments sake. As always, you twist around what I say, to try and change what I said, to try and make me look foolish. I wasn't even talking about this game specifically in my original comment, but you have to try and make it into more than it ever was meant to be.

There is no discussion with you, because I did answer your questions, you just ignored the answers, or changed the subject. I'll be 100% honest with you. I didn't even notice it was you I was responding to with your original post. If I had, I wouldn't have bothered, because it's been a couple years since you tried to have reasonable discussions about anything that involved exclusivity. Only reason I followed up is in the slim hope you might once again show you could be reasonable, but you've gone full fan boy more and more with each passing day.

But, if it makes you feel better, you're right, I'm wrong. Everything you said is so obviously 100% accurate, I'm a fool, I have nothing but bias, and all I'm doing is trying to defend this game.

Hope that makes you feel better. Oh, and since you haven't played the game yet, since you say you're going to gamefly it, I assume you already know if it's a good game or not, and aren't just applying your bias allowing all these bad reviews to reaffirm your predisposition to sh*t all over Sony's games.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

[rainslacker]

@pork

Thanks for trying to have a conversation.

I'll get one thing out of the way though. The confusion isn't because my argument is fundamentally unsound, it's because Gangsta willingly acts like he's confused by the question, or outright considers it irrelevant in order to make a bigger case out of something, in a consistent effort to try and disregard whatever argument I may make. He's been doing this for a while now. First he'll ignore the question, then when I push on it, he acts confused by it, then he changes the subject, then he acts like i'm the one trying to ignore his argument when he hasn't taken the 2nd step to address what I ask, then it just devolves into personal attacks. That's why I try not to have these conversations with him, and eventually just tell him he's right, because he's not actually interested in any conclusion that may be against his own bias....which is predominately against Sony.

Anyhow, moving on.

What you talk about with Deck13 games is precisely what I'm talking about. Things that are used to knock one game, aren't even addressed in another, or the weight of such things are not as important. I do indeed understand the nature of overall experience playing a part, but in many cases with the current reviews, I see a lot of nit picking which isn't warranted based on the more level reviews, which in this case, call the game average. I also see many things which are said about this game which can easily be applied to any other game in the same genre. I listed a few, and while some of those do indeed make up for some of their deficiencies to make it not as much a problem, others don't. In the case of the Day's Gone negative reviews though, I'm seeing a lot of generalizing and hyperbole to make the point that the game is generic, often citing broad problems in other areas. Specific bugs can be mentioned, but there isn't a lot of elaboration on the other things which apparently bring the game down.

And this is a prevalent issue among many reviews, across many genres, and isn't even something contained to exclusives. Which is why my original comment wasn't about that, but rather the broader topic at hand.

If my original question wasn't clear, then I could have maybe elaborated. But I did that in follow up comments, which eventually became more bickering between me and Gangsta. Even when I did elaborate though, it didn't go anywhere. If the confusion was still there after that, it's either Gangsta being intentionly moronic to avoid having to answer, or he really isn't that bright. I know he isn't an idiot, so I'm going to go with the former. But, as I said, history doesn't support that he was trying to have a conversation, since he couldn't even recognize that I did answer his questions.:)

As far as if Day's Gone is improving anything, I ask why it has to? Should a game be downrated because it doesn't improve? Can't it just implement such things in a good way, and have a solid base to work off of? I detail a bit the difference between a good/bad game, and the differences to that in terms of what an average/below average game is in another thread if you care to get what I'm going at. Should be near the top of my comment history depending on when you read this reply.

[2pacalypsenow]

Days gone - Boring been here done thayt 6/10
Read Dead redemption 2 - Boring been there done that 10/10

[DrumBeat]

I love your binary thinking.

[AngelicIceDiamond]

RDR2 elevated the open world genre. Just like I hope Cyberpunk will. I personally would probably like Days Gone because I dont play many zombie games and probably have fun with it. Seems like the industry is tired of the Zombie hoard and the genre has been stale or had its ups and downs since L4D days.

[Traecy]

Agreed. RDR2 was completely boring to me to the point I couldn't get past chapter 3 that I ended the game & traded it in.Days Gone looks like a blast of fun,picking up my copy tomorrow.

[ClayRules2012]

I always find it interesting when I hear someone say they couldn’t get past chapter 3 or they couldn’t make it to chapter 3. I’m genuinely not hating on you. It’s okay that you didn’t like RDR2.

I have no issue with that. Sorry you didn’t enjoy it. But I was talking with my boss at work today about Red Dead and how we both loved the game, but we were shocked many didn’t like it or get past certain points of the game (chapter 3) and I had said I loved the realistic approach Rockstar went with (while not perfect, and I understand some criticism many had, which didn’t bother me, I get it tho) but in the end, I wonder what some people were expecting from the game, because I thought Rockstar was clear on the realistic approach they were going for with the game.

In terms of Days Gone, I can’t comment yet, but I’m really excited for it will, regardless of reviews. I never expected this to be to the level of U4, HZD, GOW etc... but I believe it’ll be very enjoyable and fun.

[King_Noctis]

You are seriously comparing Days Gone to RDR2?

[goldwyncq]

It's like comparing Suicide Squad to Endgame. Some of these people are just completely out of touch with reality.

[2pacalypsenow]

What reality? They’re both just video games.

One got average reviews because it does what every other game already does. While the other got praised for it.

And funny you mention endgame, another series that just keeps recycling the same thing and gets criticial a claim for it.

[uth11]

The Old West is more interesting as a setting because it's not as overdone as zombie apocalypse games.

[goldwyncq]

Another chump who's only played the first chapter it seems.

[PhoenixUp]

Don’t call it a zombie apocalypse or you’ll upset some people

[aconnellan]

Lol “it’s a freaker apocalypse guys, get it right”

[Imalwaysright]

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

[Lighter9]

Aimless and boring... Like your review and your website.

[RangerWalk267]

Unfortunately, his opinion is matching that of other reviews. I pre-ordered the deluxe edition. So I'm all in.

[Lighter9]

All in as well.

[ClayRules2012]

Don’t let the reviews get to you. I find some reviewers do well & our informative “NOT ALL” but yea. And while I haven’t played the game, I’m still very excited to play Days Gone tomorrow. Everyone’s gonna have an opinion, and that’s totally fine. I do think some had their expectations a bit too high (hoping it was gonna be Uncharted 4,HZD, GOW level) But i know some also didn’t expect much either upon the original revealand it just didn’t deliver for them. It happens. I have friends for example who think The Last of Us is not very good (story & gameplay wise) I need better friends lol, only kidding. But that’s okay. Where’s that is the finest & best game I’ve ever played.

Also, Some are really enjoying the game while others aren’t (same with RDR2 here on N4G) with all the talk about how boring, slow, too realistic, and clunky that game is said to be. Which I didn’t have those issues with the game, I loved the game overall. But it does have issues that hurt the overall experience for me.

Either way, if your planning on getting the game, I hope you really have a really good time playing it.

[DrumBeat]

See, I have some friends who feel the same way about The Last of Us; a game I cherish like members of my immediate family. Still, I'm able to see from their point of view, understand, and ultimately accept and appreciate their arguments, even though I personally think it's an unmitigated masterpiece.

Some of them said they found the simple area-to-area navigation boring; i.e. pushing pallets and dumpsters. Ok, I get it.

Why then, can't the people of this website appreciate my arguments about the emptiness of Spider-Man, or the limited types of side-missions, etc. Why are people so ready to cast aside objectivity and label me a troll for holding a different opinion?

You seem like a decent dude, so I'm asking you instead of someone else.

[Storm Shadow NF]

Here we go again just like The Order another great game that people said sucked. LMAO. Days Gone is easily 8/10. I would say it’s a lot better than far cry 4 for sure. Sick of negativity and these journalists who don’t play the game. I’ve played for 40 hours and I can say it’s great. These same journalists give Zelda BOTW, an almost 10, and that has a lifeless world. Pick the game game up for yourself and then make an opinion. Opinions are like as@@holes and everybody seems to have a negative one. 🤣

[ClayRules2012]

I agree, The Order is a great game (which certainly has many faults that hurt the experience for me, here’s hoping for a sequel tho to fix what was broken and make something special) but I still very very much enjoyed the game & loved the story.

In terms of Days Gone, I’m glad to hear your enjoying he game. Very glad to hear that. I never did like the Far Cry games myself (not a fan of first person view) but I have played them, so I can make a fair comment on them lol.

I still am amazed that Zelda BOTW got all the praise it did. I didn’t like the game, and one of my friends who loves Zelda and was excited for the game didn’t enjoy it, and we both agreed that had it not been a new Zelda game, we didn’t think it would’ve gotten all 10/10’s and praise of being revolutionary etc... but I am genuinely happy Zelda fans very much enjoyed the game, regardless of my opinions on it.

I personally am looking forward to Days Gone, and am anxious to hear what gamers on here think of it when the game releases. Very excited for it. I do enjoy some reviewers out there, while others I don’t trust. But either way, everyone can share their opinions.

[CrimsonPheonix]

You just like s$%& games.

[ClayRules2012]

Lol, oh Crimson. I don’t know about you.

[uth11]

I defended The Order, but I can't defend this

[ClayRules2012]

Have you played Days Gone yet?

[darx]

I guess another outlier.

[Xavi4K]

Called it when o saw the preview of the game.

Anyway look to the bright side soon this game will be on sale for 20$ and everyone who was so crazy about it and said it will be similar if not better experience than Horizon zero down can play it =)

[chris235]

yes, we know, open world fatigue is a thing. but i will try this anyway. i am hoping the umpteenth open world with zombies keeps me more interested than the umpteenth open world title without zombies.