Days Gone actor has suggested that some reviewers either didn't finish the game or rushed through it to write their reviews.
I think this to be honest, but I think it happens to a lot of games, even the ones on the other side of the coin, the ones which get perfect scores but overall they aren't as good as the reviewers hyped them up to be, and it comes down because they didn't play the game the whole way through to see when things start to get repetitive, or when the second half of the game starts to take a dive.
Most reviewers nowadays only want to get the review out asap.. I never watch reviews, I used to read reviews on gaming magazines back in time it was much less biaised
most reviewers now, don't care about games and care more about pushing an agenda.
Totally agree with the actor. It was strange that the game had some bad unfair reviews but at the same time it was selling a lot and was being very popular. This is not the first time and this is happening more that we think. I would even go to the extreme to request the account and trophy showing that the reviewer really finished the game.
LOVED Days Gone. Played it Day One, and wondered, even throughout my playthrough, why it was receiving such flak. I didn't platinum it because I was renting it(due to well, money, and criticism) and was sharing the disc with my brother(and he platinumed it, rat bastard). I was hoping to revisit and platinum it with my PS5, which I still don't have. Days Gone is still one highlight of my PS4 gaming repertoire.
I am loving this game right now. Taking down a horde is so much fun. I've played less enjoyable games which received better review scores than this. Perhaps one day Sony will revive the title with a sequel.
Good idea show game gamer card or trophies card at least you can say he's either finished it or spent 20h judging the game properly
The game was buggy with the cut scenes on base ps4. It's why I stopped playing. Not worth the $ to me though.
Honestly i thought it was one of the least polished SCE published games of the gen, but it was still damn good fun, and deserved a bit better than many reviews gave it. But if anyone recalls, many fans called it ahead of release. It just seemed many outlets had already made up their mind on not liking it before even playing it, and the reviews reflected that.
Well what did you expect, they are journos.
I thought journalists were supposed to get the whole story and not make a conclusion off of half evidence.
You’d think that’s be the case, but game journos don’t follow any kind of standards.
LOL journalists or at least a solid 80% of them (covering any topic) have not had any integrity or free thought in a LONG time, its all just paid for propaganda.
You don’t have to finish a game to write about it but you should have academic integrity to disclose that in your piece. I personally don’t think a review should post if the game wasn’t completed. If it is truly bad or broken, then just say that in the review. Days Gone also had some racist reviews like Kallie Plaggue from Gamespot. She is a wokey as usual and gave the game hits for having “white” zombies and a white male protagonist. These types of people are a disease to games media.
Reviewers should have a work gamer profile and then link them to the review with trophy/score for completing the game.
This is a good idea.
Thats an excellent idea!
Some games can take 60-80+ hours to go through, and if you’d force a reviewer to quickly rush through that to meet a close deadline, that demand in itself would also affect the experience and thus the score. I worked at a gaming magazine many years ago, and I believe the requirement back then was 8-10 hours for writing a review. Obviously you’d want reviewers to finish a game but it’s just not a very realistic demand for many games, plus for most games you can form an objective opinion within a few hours because there will be mechanics and gameplay loops which will remain mostly the same throughout.
Agreed on the part where certain games can take way longer than others to compete. But what WeasseL is proposing in no way requires them to complete the whole game. But what it actually does is shine light on the credibility of a review. Being able to see just how much they played or how far the reviewer progressed can give you a good indication. If reviewer A shows they played for only a few hours and give a bad score, but reviewer B, C, D & E played for 3 times longer and gave a higher score, we can see a little more accuracy or at least consistency.
In this particular case, there are new mechanics being introduced after the ten hours mark (for instance, being able to deal with hordes). I feel it's a game that becomes a lot better as you play it. It starts a bit too "generic" but over time, you can feel the passion Bend put into it. That's something you wouldn't get if you played 8-10 hours for the review. I understand what you mean though, deadlines often SUCK.
Exactly what I said. It should be required for anyone making a review.
They should certainly disclose how long they spent on it and what percentage they completed. Having a public gamercard isn't a bad idea of course and trophies earned can be a good indicator, but not always.
Oh I’m sure this is case with most.
Are we still fighting over the fact the game came out a 7, and not a 9 or 10. The game is solid, but it's far from a perfect experience. I thoroughly enjoyed the game, but it's not the best thing Sony ever brought to market. Tired of hearing every excuse in the book being made trying to dictate this thing the masterpiece that many, obviously, didn't find it. And the voice actor seems weirdly vocal as soon as the PC version is coming around. I wonder why.
"Are we still fighting over the fact the game came out a 7, and not a 9 or 10. " "Tired of hearing every excuse in the book being made trying to dictate this thing the masterpiece that many, obviously, didn't find it. " How in the world can you be so "tired of hearing every excuse in the book" when the only one bringing up all those old arguments is you? Nothing Witwer said makes claims that the game should be a 9 or 10 or it is a "masterpiece". I don't see anyone in the comments making those statements either. Even if someone had, you can drop the "we" nonsense and respond to them directly all you want. "And the voice actor seems weirdly vocal as soon as the PC version is coming around. I wonder why." This isn't hard. PC version means a bunch of new reviews from PC centric sites such as the one Witwer decided not to name. More than likely he is referring to the PC Gamer review as it neglected to talk about the hordes aspect of the game at all. There is nothing wrong with criticizing that although he should have pointed the review out directly.
Honestly guy, I tried being decent with you, but you seem to give me crap every time I voice an opinion. This is the last time I'm responding to you. I didn't list a single negative aspect that I found of the game, so there's no way I can be "the only one bringing them up". Feel free to flip through my entire comment history to find the time I said I had to restart a mission because my gas can fell through the ground early in the game. I simply said I found its overall review score to be accurate, as per my experience. It's easy to look up specific titles on this site. Honestly tell me how many of the comments section doesn't host a bunch of people stating how reviews were biased against this game, even though Sony games tend to be some of the best reviewed in the industry.
@razzer I agree with Ted, because everytime a sony exclusive doesnt get a 9+ there is always some conspiracy against it apparently. to bring the game down, to bring sony down. now its: the public allready made up their mind or the journous are all in on the game to destroy the games score. Honestly the tinfoilhatting is through the roof. Just try and be objective for a bit and read through these comments, its literally all: journous big no no, conspiracy theories or fanboy hate. did you ever think of that especially with more niche titles, which sony actually makes a lot (which i appreciate a lot) that there is bound to not be universal appraise for it. and that has nothing to do with conspiracies, fanboyism or what have you. its because its more niche. the order 1952 (or what year it was), days gone, death stranding. there is a pattern here. titles like skyrim for example, they get universal praise almost because its a pretty cookie cutter setting: dragons swords magic, everyone likes that shit. thats why with those kind of titles in general there will be a more cohesive opinion about it in the general public. Skyrim has a lot of depth in different areas but the general idea of it is: sword, magic now go kill the dragon. Also i still dont get why people are even attached to metacrittic, its literally just a pool of critiquers/journos which tastes are so varied that there is no conclusion to be gained from it, maybe besides that if a game gets a 9 u know it wont run at 5fps and in most cases is not riddled with game breaking bugs.
@Michiel1989 You and ted should really read what Witwer said so you can be informed on what is being discussed. Here: "I read a review today from a website/publication that will remain nameless. In it, the horde mechanic, the show-stopping center piece of the game, it wasn’t mentioned once. Not ONCE. There were other tells, but it was pretty clear that this reviewer played the game for several hours and then wrote his review. He did not complete it. Days Gone was always meant to be a slow burn game and story. For better or for worse, it was designed for you to take your time. The best story beats and the best game play happen much later in the game, and it’s clear that the nature of game reviews and this slow-burn philosophy of game development are not compatible. These journalists, the ones that rush in, they do NOT take their time, they do NOT play the game on the terms the game presents, because it is their job to put out an article on a deadline. I think that’s not only too bad, but misleading to actual audience members who would like to read an actual review of what we actually did." I have no interest in your personal theories on "tinfoilhatting" that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
It seems obvious you like to dish out criticism but can't take it in return. Nothing you posted here has anything to do with what was said in THIS article. You obviously want to ignore the fact that this isn't about what the overall review score is or whether it is a "masterpiece" or not. You are so desperate to drudge up those arguments you pretend you are tired of that you didn't even bother to address Witwer's criticism of the review. You just dismissed his point as "weirdly vocal" which is a blatantly obtuse thing to say. Obviously you are attempting to lump Witwer's point in with all those claiming the game is a "masterpiece" which isn't even relevant as Witwer never said it was. "I wonder why"
On this topic, I have to agree. I mean, c'mon, if people are going to make an allegation that loads of reviewers didn't even finish the game then they should at least have some solid evidence to back up that claim and specify which reviews they take issue with. Otherwise, it's just a broad accusation that can't be fact checked and that can't be responded to in any meaningful way. In this case, it's very obvious that he's talking about PC Gamer. John Garvin attacked the outlet for giving it a low score ("I give your review a 63") because the hordes weren't mentioned and he believes this is evidence that they didn't finish the game. https://mobile.twitter.com/...
100% agree with Ted. The game was fun, but definitely not the best thing Sony have pumped out. A 7 is fair, the game is good but it’s not Uncharted or GOW good.
I think the game is a solid 7, so I pretty much agree with most reviewers. It was a fun game with a decent story. Though it was also unpolished and repeated a lot of cheap open world tropes.
Who cares what the mainstream review sites gives games. They are extremely biased and will rate games higher that agree with then politically. Imagine if a game right now came out depicting Israel trying to defend against the terrorist group hamas in Palestine…. It would get rated a 0….
Common occurrence I would say
Any review that criticized Deacon as one dimensional and with no character growth cleary wasn't paying attention.
wait....wait....people actually think reviewers finish playing a game before slapping a score on it? LOL
I think this goes without saying. They have to play so many games in such a short window of time.
This jester is making me not want to touch the game again. I was just thinking about starting another playthrough, but this is the guy behind what I thought was a good character, it is getting harder and harder to separate the two.
Just shut up and get on Kickstarter. Sick of this panhandling studio crying and begging for sales.
I think people would be even more annoyed if a studio owned by a multi billion dollar corporation like Sony was on Kickstarter asking for money…
I would love to have my own review website, but I"d take my time with the review. That is the problem though since games take a fair amount of time to beat. I miss the reviews back in the days where you had sections like the story, gameplay, music, etc. Then it culminated into one final score. Also, there used to be addendums to a review. Like if a game got 7/10 people would auto wait for a sale, but a reviewer could add why it got a 7 but still why it needs to be played. They could do it with a game that got a 9/10 as well as we all have nuances we look for when playing a game. As an example, I am not a fan of the last of us, but I recognize that it is a good/great game. This is what I mean by nuance.
I would bet some didn't even play the game. Watched a playthrough.
I also bet some gamers didn't finish the game., Doesn't mean the game isn't great. Just goes goes to show reviews suck.
who fucking cares! whhy does this game continue to get shoved down our throats?
People forget this game was buggy as hell at launch
Just as Bethesda games and Cyberpunk and they still get good scores.
This happens with most unprofessional fanboy reviews especially on PlayStation games. If a game is not on thier system of choice then the game automatically sux they are likely hardly played through it but start moaning from the get go
That theory would only make sense in a world where most PS games don’t review VERY well. Why would a fanboy reviewer review this badly because it’s Playstation and then turn around and give a 9 or 10 to Uncharted, TLOU or GOW?
Death Stranding PS4: Walking simulator bad game Death Stranding PC: GOTY!!!
I was suprised that this wasnt hailed for its gameplay
So much whining about this game lately. Not a bad game but not a perfect game either
Gamespots reviewer definitely didn’t finish the game. Shit, who knows if she even played it. The review was wildly bizarre and inaccurate. Edit: I’m pretty sure this was the review where she complained about all the zombies being white and gave the game 5/10. One of the lowest review scores. Head scratcher
I’m guilty of this as well at the start. I played through probably half the game and got a little stale, because around that time I got red dead two and wanted to jump into that. Over the lockdown I completed day is gone and by the end of it I thought it was such a fantastic game
Unpopular opinion here, but do games really need to be finished to be reviewed? I get the logic behind being comprehensive, but I ask: how much better can a game get toward the end? To me, it feels like in those cases you're reviewing a game for its narrative rather than its gameplay. Barring any significant transitions in how the game is played, it feels a bit unnecessary.
That's the main defense I get from this game. Yeah .... the first hours are less than great ... But but it gets better in the second half. Sooo... what you're saying is the first is less than fantastic, but all of the reviews should just base their opinion on the second half. I didn't buy half a game. I bough a full game.
They were too busy whining about the white male protagonist.
That was Gamespot who also complain about the white freaker. The game even explain why the freaker are white but that means that they didn't play the game.
This is just an excuse anymore. There was, what? Maybe two reviews that brought it up, with the other one actually praising how they took to the character after the fact. Excuse away the other reviews that gave the game the exact same score, or lower. Excuse away how most reviews gave it around the 70% it sits at on metacritic, and how a good few of the sites propping it up are centered purely around Sony titles. The game is a solid experience. I enjoyed it, and will buy it again once the price drops a bit for the PC version, but it was far from perfect. One singular person didn't affect the other several dozen reviews that all didn't consider it a 10/10. Only a few people even considered it an 8. The game had issues, and the reviews aren't reflective of an industry trying to hold Sony down. They're handed goty awards, and glowing reviews, with almost every game they release. This game simply lacked their typical quality. It's as simple as that. If you want to continue believing otherwise, and that the whole industry turned on them because one person brought their personal politics into a review, and they just wanted to sabotage this one Sony project, go ahead.
More and more over the past few years I've found myself completely disagreeing with reviews. To the point where I stopped caring about reviews a long time ago. Almost all reviews these days seem to be too busy comparing apples to oranges and pushing some sort of agenda. Very few review games impartially these days.
Of course they didnt. The game is huge. The unfair reviews was about the easy generic stuff that you could say about any game, the open world fatigue excuse, dont like Deacon. This was the first big game made from Bend Studio. Im not saying this was a perfect 10, not even close. But many reviews at 6 and 6.5. or lower. Not really... For me it was a solid 8. A good game, with a lot of stuff to do, very cool rpg upgrades, cool guns, nice bikes, great hordes, for me the best that i ever played. I really like to hunt down the hordes in the end. Also the horde morde is cool. The main problem that i saw in game was sometime CPU problems, because the game is just too much for the jag cpu... But i didnt even know that the game was made with unreal engine!!! Something that Outriders is and it got all the problems from that engine, the plastic feel of everything.
I feel like I always don't agree with both sides when it comes to this topic, or how good the reviewer is, it's just a way for gamers to act like the review isn't valid, I agree that a game needs to be finished before the reviewer writes his review, yet first you need to accept that the deadline system is messed up because of the whole structure of gaming media, also we need to understand that reviews are opinions so if a game was boring enough that the reviewer didn't feel attached enough to take their time with it then that's worth mentioning, the problem is that those scores impact metacritic which determines the bonuses that the developers get, which is insane, also games act like they don't care for reviews but they care so much about them to the point of insanity, the obsession with metacritic makes the fans think such opinions are not worth taking the rating of the game down! Side note, I assure you that people will say that they need to take their time and then say that they need to do side questions and 100% the game and get the platinum trophies, which are arguments that I have seen people make so much on Twitter and reddit... Also how is this actor assuming they didn't finish the game "the horde" mechanic, so many people didn't really consider them special in any way, and not really worth mentioning, and then you have the skill barrier, people don't ask reviewers to be good at game, they ask them to be the best in the world, sometimes the creators of difficult games aren't good at them, just being able to beat a game is enough! Also this article doesn't continue what the actor said, he kept talking about how the game deserving better because they out their hearts into, which is something I am sick of hearing, I mean no disrespect, but your intentions have absolutely nothing to do with the final quality of the game, if your intentions are good and the game is bad then it's not worth playing!
He doesn't "think" this, it's made apparent by their review.
It was Bend’s first AAA game. It’s initial shortcomings are very understandable when you keep this in mind (it was a buggy open world game, with iffy/repetitive pacing at times). They clearly made up for every shortcoming with their post-launch support (maybe the best I’ve ever seen from a game. The extra modes are basically another game, and a superb example to other devs for how to “leverage existing assets” to offer the most fun from all of their hard work.) I’m sure Sony will give them another chance to wow us with the ps5. They are currently working on Last of Us 2’s multiplayer right now, most likely, but I wouldn’t see that as a sign of lack of faith in them by Sony. It’s just good practice for a newer AAA dev. And, Sony has a history of letting some devs (like NG and Sucker Punch) really do something special for the end of a console gen. I bet Bend gets to be one of the devs that closes out the ps5. And I hope they get 5-6 years to polish their sophomore AAA vision. Then, everybody can give up on treating Bend Studios like a charity case. Ffs, M$ treated their devs like shit, so how did they manage to spin up a sympathy mob for one of SONY’s own devs?!? They’re all talented artists and tech specialists under a stable publisher’s umbrella: they’ll be fine.
Where's the information on how MS treated their devs terribly? They pretty much let them do as they want, aside from the studios they've created to work on specific IPs.
Bungie, their golden goose, left because they didn’t want to make MORE Halo.
Couldn’t agree more. Loved the mechanics from the onset, the story however really started cooking and connecting about midway through for me, then stuck the landing overall by the end. Super happy I didn’t give up too early on this, it only got better the longer I stuck around. Now I’m bout ready to buy it again on PC just to support a possible sequel haha
Some reviewers just need to be blacklisted. If you cant review a game with objectivity, you should not be reviewing games.
If reviewers don’t finish a game, it’s pretty obvious to me that he/she doens’t like the game for whatever reason. Then again, as a reviewer you should finish a game unless it’s complete garbage or totally unplayable.
A couple reviewers complained about a particular (ride me like your motorcycle) scene which made it obvious they had not played the whole game where it' is explained laternin the game it's a joke that Sarah said all bikers would say. It seemed to irk a few reviewers.