Days Gone

JimBurnley

Niska wrote: »

Question on the (I presume) last mission:

It's the final assault on crater lake. Skizo has Weaver witha knife to his throat. You shoot Skizzo who conveniently escapes no matter what.
After clearing the room, I lose the ability to aim, shoot or call up the item wheel.
You then enter a room full of explosives, and I die. And die, reload and die (as I can't heal). Skizzo has a sniper on you and lots of explosives.

Retried from previous checkpoint - same.

Is this a bug (inability yo use the item wheel) or design choice? If a bug I'll reload prior to the start of the mission.
If the latter I guess i'll just roll and roll and hope for the best.

Thanks.

It's not a bug...

you have to beat him hand-to-hand so yeah, rolling (& ducking) is the best tactic to keep avoiding his shots until you get close enough to him. good luck!

Niska

JimBurnley wrote: »

It's not a bug...

you have to beat him hand-to-hand so yeah, rolling (& ducking) is the best tactic to keep avoiding his shots until you get close enough to him. good luck!

Thanks

Zero-Cool

Sold it today, 38 from cex so it's going down in price. Felt bad getting rid of it but cheered myself up with some games in the psn sale. Like above, can always pick it up again down the road if some proper dlc comes out.

Retr0gamer

It's already $20 in the US state of play sale.

Say it did not preform as expected for Sony.

gimli2112

They'd want to lower expectations, it topped the charts. Sure Zero only paid 15 cents but for every one of him there's someone like me splurging on the digital deluxe version. Sony'd want to get over themselves.

Retr0gamer

gimli2112 wrote: »

They'd want to lower expectations, it topped the charts. Sure Zero only paid 15 cents but for every one of him there's someone like me splurging on the digital deluxe version. Sony'd want to get over themselves.

Topped charts during a very slow time of year.

Sony games always tank quickly as the games are produced to shift hardware and are manufactured way in excess. However usually takes 6 months to drop to 30 or 40.

Its nothing to do with Sony getting over themselves, its not a slight against you or the game. Price drops are based on cold hard facts, sales numbers and stock.

Zero-Cool

I didn't pay 15 cents :pac:

I don't think Sony had huge expectations as everyone saw how this was trending leading up to release. A small studio taking on their first open world, I'm sure no one was expecting god of war/spider-man sales.

I'd love to get some insider info on what Sony think as it will hint of a sequel is likely. I'd love to just get a sales figure at this point.

Zero-Cool

Also the games sales start at 20 dollars but Days Gone in Europe will be 50 quid so should be similar in the US. God War went to a similar price in days of play 2018.

kunst nugget

Yeah, I'd love to see if there was a possibility of a sequel being greenlit. I'd happily jump back into this world again.

It was always going to suffer sales wise from the middling reviews which is a pity because it is a great little game for chipping away at, it probably is a bit too long for some people from starting the game to getting to the point where you feel confident enough to take on a horde. But I've really dug the combat in this and have enjoyed exploring the world but I can understand people's criticism of busywork if they're not digging it the way I am.

gimli2112

I didn't take it as a slight against me, tbh this was only kinda on my radar, I was going to wait till it dropped in price, then the giddiness of the thread inspired/made me buy it at full digital price. I don't regret it and getting a lot of fun out of it. Of course I should have waited.

ERG89

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Topped charts during a very slow time of year.

What??
Spring is a not a slow time for gaming, March to May is always quite busy for releases.
You seem to be really hoping this game tanks for some reason, I don't have a clue why

Retr0gamer

ERG89 wrote: »

What??
Spring is a not a slow time for gaming, March to May is always quite busy for releases.
You seem to be really hoping this game tanks for some reason, I don't have a clue why

I'm sorry if your emotional attachment to the game was affected by my statement of facts.

Think it was a very slow spring with only MK11 really being a big sales winner in the last few months.

Anyway I couldn't care less if the game tanks or not. It might have sold well but if it performs under expectations for Sony then it's tanked as they will have units in rented storage they need to shift. Al I know is that the game is available in the US for $19.99 a month after release.

kunst nugget

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'm sorry if your emotional attachment to the game was affected by my statement of facts.

Think it was a very slow spring with only MK11 really being a big sales winner in the last few months.

Anyway I couldn't care less if the game tanks or not. It might have sold well but if it performs under expectations for Sony then it's tanked as they will have units in rented storage they need to shift. Al I know is that the game is available in the US for $19.99 a month after release.

Except it's not going to be $19.99, it's going to be $39.99.

Exclamation Marc

Retr0gamer wrote: »

. Al I know is that the game is available in the US for $19.99 a month after release.

"Days Gone, God of War, Spider-Man, MLB The Show - starting at 19.99."

No way is Days Gone to be that price when PlayStation Europe have announced it at £39.99/€49.99 for the European side of the sale.

Expect God of War to be that price.

Retr0gamer

Ah ok. Friend told me $19.99

Thought Sony had totally screwed up their sales expectations.

kunst nugget

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Ah ok. Friend told me $19.99

Thought Sony had totally screwed up their sales expectations.

It's a mistake that a couple of the gaming websites made as well.

Grumpypants

Not sure if this was already posted but Del on Angry Joes channel had a great review of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N3FU1SxlNI

Gave it 8/10 and said the story was up there with The Last of Us, which I agree with. I felt this was stronger than the last of us as it had the story but it also had the open world and better gameplay. I got a bit bored of Naughty Dogs' waist high cover loop.

He does call out the bugs and shooting. Most console games use aim snapping but Days gone has it off by default. You can turn it on in the menus though.

I seem to be one of the few that liked the shooting being so difficult.

ERG89

Retr0gamer wrote:

I'm sorry if your emotional attachment to the game was affected by my statement of facts.

No I'm not emotionally attached to the game. I post about it a lot less than you seem to. I doubt you even played it considering you were complaining about it before it was even released. :rolleyes:

kunst nugget

Grumpypants wrote: »

Not sure if this was already posted but Del on Angry Joes channel had a great review of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N3FU1SxlNI

Gave it 8/10 and said the story was up there with The Last of Us, which I agree with. I felt this was stronger than the last of us as it had the story but it also had the open world and better gameplay. I got a bit bored of Naughty Dogs' waist high cover loop.

He does call out the bugs and shooting. Most console games use aim snapping but Days gone has it off by default. You can turn it on in the menus though.

I seem to be one of the few that liked the shooting being so difficult.

You could turn on aim snapping? I didn't know that. I found the aiming a bitch at the beginning but you get use to it quick enough and I actually think not having aim snapping suits the gameplay.

goon_magee

I think the story was a strong point here, but for me TLoU was leaps and bounds ahead in terms of storytelling. I think it may just be down to the pacing issues I felt Days Gone suffered from, had Days Gone remained as focused as it's middle third I would have enjoyed it a lot more, but the pacing in the final third and loss of momentum really affected my overall enjoyment.

Fair score from him anyway. It was a 7 for me personally but I wouldn't disagree with scores a point either side of that all the same.


Off topic, I'm not really keen on Del usually. Too often his opinion (and Other Joe's) tend to chop and change depending on what AJ is saying. I've seen so many videos where they start off on one foot, only to reconsider their position as soon as they realise it's a dissenting opinion. As much as I dislike Alex who does a lot of film reviews, he isn't afraid to go against the grain with his view.

Grumpypants

kunst nugget wrote: »

You could turn on aim snapping? I didn't know that. I found the aiming a bitch at the beginning but you get use to it quick enough and I actually think not having aim snapping suits the gameplay.

Yeah same here i liked that if you messed up it could get messy fast.

kunst nugget

Grumpypants wrote: »

Yeah same here i liked that if you messed up it could get messy fast.

It makes taking down a Horde a much more satisfying experience when you're spraying bullets wildly while panic running.

Retr0gamer

ERG89 wrote: »

No I'm not emotionally attached to the game. I post about it a lot less than you seem to. I doubt you even played it considering you were complaining about it before it was even released. :rolleyes:

I have played it. It's everything I hate about modern triple A games. It's grand but not spectacular and not worth my time as it does nothing to stand out for me.

Zero-Cool

The last few hordes I killed, I thought to myself 'Jesus, I couldn't even shoot more than 4 freaks at the start of the game, now I'm Rambo'. Between difference in quality of weapons (as in grades like poor, average, military spec, etc), shooting perks, gun upgrades and just getting comfortable with the combat, the devs nailed what they wanted 'players to be afraid of the sight of a horde at the beginning but a horde killer by the end.

I thought it was a really nice progression. Lived the story but definitely didn't hit the feels of the last of us. Gameplay wise, this beats the last of us.

Grumpypants

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I have played it. It's everything I hate about modern triple A games. It's grand but not spectacular and not worth my time as it does nothing to stand out for me.

You hate brilliant story telling mixed with amazing visuals and great gameplay??

Retr0gamer

Grumpypants wrote: »

You hate brilliant story telling mixed with amazing visuals and great gameplay??

No which is why I stay away from days gone.

Don't like games that waste my time with Skinner box elements.

It's not a bad game. It's just a cookie cutter open world game with bad storytelling and dodgy gameplay. Heard it gets better but it's not good game design to make you get loads of upgrades before it gets fun.

So I'm skipping it and playing Megaman X at the moment which is a real classic. Life's too short to be playing hours of a game I'm not enjoying.

Grumpypants

Retr0gamer wrote: »

No which is why I stay away from days gone.

Don't like games that waste my time with Skinner box elements.

It's not a bad game. It's just a cookie cutter open world game with bad storytelling and dodgy gameplay. Heard it gets better but it's not good game design to make you get loads of upgrades before it gets fun.

So I'm skipping it and playing Megaman X at the moment which is a real classic. Life's too short to be playing hours of a game I'm not enjoying.

Well none of that is true. The story is as good as any I've seen in any game. The gameplay is solid, varied and interesting with tons of unique bits.

It is great design to keep a game interesting for 60 - 70 hours by bringing in different elements at the right time to keep on ramping up the experience and making it better and better.

For someone with no interest in the game you sure do post about it a lot.

goon_magee

Grumpypants wrote: »

Well none of that is true. The story is as good as any I've seen in any game. The gameplay is solid, varied and interesting with tons of unique bits.

It is great design to keep a game interesting for 60 - 70 hours by bringing in different elements at the right time to keep on ramping up the experience and making it better and better.

For someone with no interest in the game you sure do post about it a lot.

I did enjoy the game, but I think saying it has great design that keeps it interesting for 60-70 hours is a bit of a stretch. One of the things most people, even those who seem to adore the game, seem to agree about is that the pacing in this game is all over the place. There is a couple of 5-10 hour stretches that should have been removed from the game entirely IMO.

Padding the story out with hours of missions that literally added zero to the narrative, and only served to drag things out is far from great design; it stinks of a developer who ran out of good ideas. The final third of the game consists almost entirely of fetch quests that don't add much if anything to the story and even forces you into mandatory camp clearing to progress to the end of the story.
It does make for bad storytelling, and whilst I'd argue the overall story is good, it's told in such a fragmented and erratic manner with constant, unnecessary interruptions, that I definitely think to say the storytelling is poor is a fair comment.

Gameplay, as much fun as I had with it, is most definitely standard triple A open world gameplay. It's far from varied or unique, with everything you do being a riff on something that's been done before in a game, bar the hordes maybe. Cookie cutter is exactly I'd describe the game as, doesn't make it a bad game, but it's a fair appraisal of the nature of the game so to dismiss people's issues and say none of the criticisms Retro posted are true is a bit ignorant.

Grumpypants

goon_magee wrote: »

I did enjoy the game, but I think saying it has great design that keeps it interesting for 60-70 hours is a bit of a stretch. One of the things most people, even those who seem to adore the game, seem to agree about is that the pacing in this game is all over the place. There is a couple of 5-10 hour stretches that should have been removed from the game entirely IMO.

Padding the story out with hours of missions that literally added zero to the narrative, and only served to drag things out is far from great design; it stinks of a developer who ran out of good ideas. The final third of the game consists almost entirely of fetch quests that don't add much if anything to the story and even forces you into mandatory camp clearing to progress to the end of the story.
It does make for bad storytelling, and whilst I'd argue the overall story is good, it's told in such a fragmented and erratic manner with constant, unnecessary interruptions, that I definitely think to say the storytelling is poor is a fair comment.

Gameplay, as much fun as I had with it, is most definitely standard triple A open world gameplay. It's far from varied or unique, with everything you do being a riff on something that's been done before in a game, bar the hordes maybe. Cookie cutter is exactly I'd describe the game as, doesn't make it a bad game, but it's a fair appraisal of the nature of the game so to dismiss people's issues and say none of the criticisms Retro posted are true is a bit ignorant.

As you mentioned before you didn't realise you could just play the story missions and got stuck doing side quests for hours. So that would have a big impact on your impression of the pacing. But that's not the game's fault.

I was progressing the story at the right pace for me, and using side quests when i just wanted to slow things down, so i really enjoyed it.

They get the pace just right and introduce new enemies, weapons and skills at the right time to keep the right ratio of power/challenge.

I don't mind if games aren't totally unique. BOTW had a dated damsel story, terrible enemies, a handful of cool mechanics but nothing that hasn't been done before, was standard open world full of fetch quests and busy work, but it was still a great game.

goon_magee

Grumpypants wrote: »

As you mentioned before you didn't realise you could just play the story missions and got stuck doing side quests for hours. So that would have a big impact on your impression of the pacing. But that's not the game's fault.

I was progressing the story at the right pace for me, and using side quests when i just wanted to slow things down, so i really enjoyed it.

They get the pace just right and introduce new enemies, weapons and skills at the right time to keep the right ratio of power/challenge.

I don't mind if games aren't totally unique. BOTW had a dated damsel story, terrible enemies, a handful of cool mechanics but nothing that hasn't been done before, was standard open world full of fetch quests and busy work, but it was still a great game.

That was about halfway through the game when I realised that. And that wasn't what created the problem, what was an admitted oversight on my behalf simply served to exacerbate the huge issues with the pacing.

I mainlined the critical path from about 30-40% of the way through with no side missions and still found myself groaning on numerous occasions at how absolutely ludicrous the pacing was in parts. So yes, whilst my oversight dragged my initial few hours out more than needed, the majority of my playthrough wasn't impacted by this at all.

I appreciate you like the game, hell I liked the game as well. But you're ignorance to others opinions speaks volumes. You very much have an issue with people speaking out and have it in your head that just because you didn't find something an issue, the issue must not exist.

I don't mind games not being totally unique neither, hence why I was able to enjoy something as blatantly derivative as Days Gone is. But just cause I like something I'm not going to dismiss others opinions on the game being standard fare and cookie cutter, as being not true as you have done on this thread.