The game itself is as generic and unmemorable as ever, and does little to deserve talk of a sequel, but this is a notably better PC port than Sony’s first attempt.
Sammy writes: "Back when Days Gone Remastered was announced, many fans were squinting to see the differences between the excellent original PS4 version and its PS5 re-release.
But now with the game readily available – and our 8/10 review declaring it the “definitive version of a fan favourite” – we’re beginning to get some meaningful tech analysis.
And according to Digital Foundry, this is not just the bare-bones resolution upscale some had anticipated – “a lot of effort has gone into it”, according to the tech experts. "
Sold well and received even better.. had a bad first month due to technical issues but ended up being one of the best games from last gen
That's the nature of the beast. If a game like a movie does not meet certain numbers then they write off the franchise. EA scrapped DS2 because the DS1 remake did not meet certain numbers. I was hoping the remaster of DG and the fact it also came to PC would convince Sony to green light a DG sequel.
Critic reviews were appalling. The worst reviewed game I’ve ever seen. By that I mean, poor quality journalism, dishonest writing and review scores which are out of touch with fan reception.
Days Gone Remastered is now available, and if you’re looking to find out how it compares with the original PS4 version, read ahead.
Huge difference i must admit, but not sure i would notice without 2 screens next to each other.
Not getting this game still, i want a new game and im tired of remasters
Of course you wouldn't, nobody would. If you have never experienced the other, then you don't have the reference needed for comparison.
Sony getting ready to milk some more people on dumb products.... I can see the psvr1 and 2 owner salivating over days gone remaster. Lol. What a ruse song is pulling.
How can Sony milk customers if it's such a 'dumb product'? If it's so dumb, nobody will buy it, and there's no milking.
Plus, there's nothing preventing people from getting a copy of the PS4 version.
There are plenty of people who never had a chance to play this game, now they can with the remaster.
Don't understand why people who already played the game complain about a remaster. No one is forcing you to buy it. There are plenty of new games to play
Days gone is 85+. It got heavily marked down at launch for bugs where as others get a free pass for that. It's a fantastic game.
And it's not even a big overhaul remaster. It's list turning up the graphic level by one. It's quite embarrassing, as the original wasn't that bad. And the remaster isn't that noticeable
I spoiled myself by modding this game on my PC. Genuinely one of the best looking games I've ever seen. Whilst this remaster looks nice it just doesn't compare to that sadly. It shows the effort that these remasters could put in if they wanted
I so hope this game or DLC for those of us who own the original sells well.
Ive said it before, its an underrated game for sure & was unfairly judged upon release.
Please try this game if you haven't already.
For those who say 'i won't purchase digital only' you can pickup a hard copy for 5 bucks here in Australia, then add the DLC and you have a superb game for $20 or so.
Give it a shot, tell me I'm wrong After completing the game.
Game on gamers.
It was full of bugs at release I wouldn’t call that being unfairly judged. If you want your game to score well then release it in a completed state. Now with that being said I think the game was pretty good.
It really wasn't.
The worst I encountered was a horde spawning on top of me when exploring a cave.
Did you even play this at launch?
It wasnt full of buggs, it was very playable. That was the excuse for the hit job at launch before people started to speak up about how great the game was.
New details on Days Gone Remastered accessibility features, including High Contrast Mode, UI narration, control remapping, and more.
Far from a "bad game". It is at least a 7.5/10.
Bad game ?? Idiot!
the score is incorrect, it was given a 6 not a 5. Either way I disagree with it. To whomever wrote this: if there's demand for a sequel then clearly it did enough to deserve it.
I encourage you all to actually read the review, if only to keep in mind the reasons stated for the low scoring. Then think hard and without bias of how many games hold the same issues that still get praised by the media
Guys, just don't click it or read it. It's Metro; you wouldn't care about their opinion if the score was high, so why do you care that it's low? This is a classic "look at me!" review.