Days Gone

Retr0gamer

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

I'm just looking for a reason to return to it as I really want to be in the "critics got it wrong! This game is awesome!" camp but the quest structure is just so bizarre and the constant babysitting of the bike is annoying AF. There must be something there considering how the fans go on about it.

The critics were spot on, it's the most 7/10 game out there.

Penn

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

I'm just looking for a reason to return to it as I really want to be in the "critics got it wrong! This game is awesome!" camp but the quest structure is just so bizarre and the constant babysitting of the bike is annoying AF. There must be something there considering how the fans go on about it.

Hey like I said I only played for an hour and already the bike was starting to annoy me, so I can't speak much on that. I will give the game another lash in the future but it feels like I need to have not played any "Stealthily pick off enemies one by one while looting everything to craft stuff" games for a while beforehand.

Zero-Cool

The bike becomes a dream after a few upgrades. If the story/mechanics annoy you early, then it's not gonna grab you all of a sudden half way through. The big changes are you go from a melee build to gun build as your stats improve and you don't worry about gas as much with upgrades and bike is more fun to drive. Not for everyone but damn glad it was for me.

Spear

The Steam listing is up:

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1259420/Days_Gone/

Penn

Zero-Cool wrote: »

The bike becomes a dream after a few upgrades. If the story/mechanics annoy you early, then it's not gonna grab you all of a sudden half way through. The big changes are you go from a melee build to gun build as your stats improve and you don't worry about gas as much with upgrades and bike is more fun to drive. Not for everyone but damn glad it was for me.

I do think I could get into it, but after I had to sneak/lure/stealth kill my way around some zombie enemies (whatever they're called in this game), then looting for supplies, then getting to the radio tower I found a small group of enemies in the woods and had to sneak/lure/stealth kill my way around them, then looting for supplies... it just felt way too familiar to other games (think maybe I'd played TLOU2 just before it) and it killed my interest stone dead.

The hordes look like insane fun and I'm sure once you level up you can plow through anything, but I think I need to plan carefully what I play before it so it can feel somewhat fresh for those initial few hours.

Retr0gamer

I can see this doing really well on steam and since it's built on Unreal 4 it should be open to modding.

The Raging Bile Duct

There's issues with the game. It takes a good couple of hours for your bike not to be a piece of crap, there is pacing issues and there's a point about halfway through that feels almost like a hard reset of the story (although it's quite tame compared to TLOU2 in retrospect) and it takes far too long to get to the point where you're killing hordes. But when the various elements come to get together and you start to get better weapons and can handle them better, it really is a lot of fun.

The story might be fairly generic but some of the subplots help to give a little more depth. I grew very fond of the atrociously named Deacon St. John while playing the game and he wasn't quite the dunderhead that he was made out to be in reviews. Most open world games I've come to kind of despise by the time I've finished them up but that wasn't a problem with Days Gone for me. Also, the first time I killed a horde is one of the most exhilarating experiences I've had gaming. One of my favourite games from the PS4.

Grumpypants

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

So when abouts does the story actually get good? How many hours in?

That's hard to answer as I don't really know. I was in a good space at the time to play it, I was off work for a month and had nothing to do but play games so I could really just relax into it and enjoyed the pottering around on my bike. Most of the story bits I stumbled on didn't have pay offs until hours later.

I found a pile of rocks under a random bridge, that pay off was about 40 hours later

But it is no coincidence that almost everyone on this thread that played it through really liked it.

There are tips that can help. Most noticeably that you can fill up the petrol tank at petrol stations and not have to keep searching for Jerry cans.

Although I loved that limited petrol mechanic as you have to plan your outings. You don't end up doing a GTA randomly driving around.

And trying to fill your bike with a horde coming down the road after you, only to escape at the last second is exhilarating.

The main missions are always marked with a yellow marker. The side missions bounce you around with the different camps so you can build up your relationship with them and explore the characters living there.

gimli2112

not everyone is going to like the genre, some people like air combat sims, for some reason
I like looter shooter games where you rank up a skill tree, I'll ignore many pitfalls and hazards if these boxes are ticked, throw in zombie bears and you have me interested. I liked the gameplay mechanics too, thought the combat was relatively solid, I did like the story although not a fan of the hard reset mentioned earlier and found it way too long the first playthrough,
Funnily enough my favourite playthrough was the third.
I really really enjoyed it, that doesn't necessarily mean it was better than more critically acclaimed games, although I think it is and there's nothing you can do about that

dohboy

I really enjoyed it. The story was the usual generic fare, but I had lots of fun killing hordes once I got the hang of it and stopped pooping my pants when they would chase me.

Mango Joe

brady12 wrote: »

So after about 60 hours I'm after finishing the main story . WHAT A GAME ! 10/10 . Honestly in my top 5 games ever I'd say . I still have maybe 8 Camp missions and loads hordes tackle so I'm going keep playing it . Loved the story , characters and world . The missions were a bit repetitive but I loved tackling enemy encampments , especially later on when I was over powered with silenced sniper rifle with a big magazine . Some of the cut scenes were a bit cringe . Just wanted say THANK YOU to anyone that hyped up game here cos if I payed attention to the reviews I would never played it ...

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

So when abouts does the story actually get good? How many hours in?

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It doesn't

JimBurnley wrote: »

5 minutes in

Jordan 199 wrote: »

It does.

Brady is spot on with his assessment - This is an excellent game, brilliantly executed and hugely likeable.

Of course everybody is entitled to their opinion but I suspect that the people who never got into this game had trouble with the pacing.

It's a stark, desolate apocalyptic World plagued by Zombies and you need to live by your wits, scavenge and work to level up - Anyone that couldn't manage that tends to be all hurt and upset by it as far as I can tell.

People who can appreciate an epic and very fun game tend to love it.

Dave1711

Looking forward to getting stuck into this got a ps5 and had sold my ps4 when this was out and looked cool, must just finish off Control.

Tipsy McSwagger

I tell you one thing I would love a sequel

brady12

i had to laugh at people giving out about the supposed lack of fuel,bike at start and being under powered at start of a game...did they wanted everything spoon fed?

The Raging Bile Duct

brady12 wrote: »

i had to laugh at people giving out about the supposed lack of fuel,bike at start and being under powered at start of a game...did they wanted everything spoon fed?

For a guy that's survived years of a zombie apocalypse, he's shocking shíte at everything when you start the game.

McFly85

brady12 wrote: »

i had to laugh at people giving out about the supposed lack of fuel,bike at start and being under powered at start of a game...did they wanted everything spoon fed?

As much as I love the game it's a pretty stupid mechanism. I get that they're trying to add some realism but fuel in the game in an unlimited resource at every camp or petrol station, so you're getting punished for just forgetting to go to a mechanic before you leave, and its a complete pain trudging back trying to find fuel somewhere.

I've said it before but if there's a sequel I'd like to see the whole way resources and upgrades are handled differently. Resource management should be more involved. Fuel should automatically last longer on the bike but also be something that you have to go, find out in the wild and store - refuelling at camps should be an option but be so expensive as you'd only do it in an emergency. Also if you run out of petrol in the wild, you should be able to call that in to a friendly camp, who'll send someone out with fuel for you, at a price. Not all NERO checkpoints should have fuel lying beside them, and you should be able to transfer fuel from the bike if you really want to open them up.

Bike upgrades should be found out in the wild too instead of having to solely rely on trust at camps. It would encourage exploration, and it would be cool to be rewarded with a rare upgrade after clearing out a horde.

And the weapon system is terrible. You should absolutely be able to keep the weapons you find out in the wild.

I love the game, there's loads it gets right, but there's massive scope for improvement too.

Mango Joe

I think Halflife was the first game I was seriously into where I was conscious that bullets and other findable resources were in limited supply and you actually winced if you missed a headshot as you only had 3 bullets left and they needed to count or you were dead in 4 minutes time, there was value and emphasis there through scarcity and it kept you focussed and not just spraying bullets everywhere.

Days Gone has fuel everywhere, you'd have to be blind and brainless to miss it......people just expect **** to be handed to them permanently these days and have no initiative whatsoever. Its supposed to be a **** bike with a ****ty little tank at the start.....it's built into the plot,

I'd love to see these whining people in a real Zombie Apocalypse, confused, clueless & crying about not being able to charge their phone.......Hopefully someday soon now it'll all kick off !!!!

*** Edit to add that as per the above sentiment there is of course room to improve things - But overall the sheer enormity of scale, huge scope, very high quality, excellent delivery and overall likeability of this game makes me happy to overlook the few very minor quibbles.

Retr0gamer

I don't know. I see a lot of complaints about the game being frustrating, not fun and badly designed by people that drop it. Valid complaints from what I've seen and the little I've played.

The counter response is that the game gets good 30 hours in. Which could well be true but it is also a massive failure in game design. Games shouldn't be fun until you've invested a whole heap into it and gotten upgrades and gear.

Now I'm not exactly innocent here either. Every time I tell someone to play STALKER I tell them it doesn't get good until you pick up a scoped rifle but it's kind of expected in a ukrainian euro jank PC shooter/rpg hybrid and not the usual polished Sony triple A release.

gimli2112

I just think people like different things. I liked from the get go and never noticed an improvement the more I played. I contrast this to Dying Light where I had several aborted attempts before I got going. You do get more powerful in DG but I never felt overwhelmed at any point, large zombie hoardes aside.

The playability is very intuitive, the way the toon moves and interacts with the world, gunplay, driving mechanics were all good for me straight away

Mango Joe

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I don't know. I see a lot of complaints about the game being frustrating, not fun and badly designed by people that drop it. Valid complaints from what I've seen and the little I've played.

The counter response is that the game gets good 30 hours in. Which could well be true but it is also a massive failure in game design. Games shouldn't be fun until you've invested a whole heap into it and gotten upgrades and gear.

Now I'm not exactly innocent here either. Every time I tell someone to play STALKER I tell them it doesn't get good until you pick up a scoped rifle but it's kind of expected in a ukrainian euro jank PC shooter/rpg hybrid and not the usual polished Sony triple A release.

Not fun until 30 hours in??? Not my experience whatsoever in any imaginable sense.

I did read comments multiple times that the hordes come into it too late...... Just more petulant whining from the instant gratification set IMO.

Also you've a lot of negative critique of this game on record for someone who's just admitted to playing "little" of it......

Retr0gamer

You might not say it but I've heard a lot of people say it themselves. As someone that has some knowledge of game development it's strange if it is true as its the kind of thing that you'd be trying to avoid in a more commercial project.

I have only played a little of it but watched my brother play loads of it and that just reaffirmed to me that I was right to drop it as I've no interest in this type of game.

McFly85

Yeah I think if you don't find it fun after a few hours, you're not going to find it fun. It's not the type of game where you're waiting for everything to click - what you do at the start is what you do 30 hours in except with better equipment. Even the skill tree is largely redundant, I pretty much ignored it during my playthrough.

Mango Joe

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You might not say it but I've heard a lot of people say it themselves. As someone that has some knowledge of game development it's strange if it is true as its the kind of thing that you'd be trying to avoid in a more commercial project.

I have only played a little of it but watched my brother play loads of it and that just reaffirmed to me that I was right to drop it as I've no interest in this type of game.

If you've no interest in this type of game then you should at least be objective enough to recognise that you were never going to like it regardless of its standing.

I'm not sure why you're on here every 8 minutes wearing the typeface off your keyboard trying to convince people it's mediocre when its really and truly not.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but honestly it comes across as someone with too much time on their hands that just aching to air an opinion..... any opinion will do..... But if it goes against the grain then all the better.

Retr0gamer

You don't mean to be argumentative and then proceed it by being argumentative.

I'm not pushed anyway about this game. It's the kind of open world game that for me just doesn't stand out and I'm not even bothered arguing about that anymore. The game isn't for me.

Anyway I threw out that counter argument about the game getting better later on as I have seen it thrown out as a pro argument and was wondering if it held any water.

I just find people can't take any criticism, even constructive criticism, about something they like and not take it a bit personally. I just find it very boring if we all sit around and not criticise things in case we hurt upset someone. So going to keep doing it as long as people keep giving out about Ace Combat.

JimBurnley

I'm firmly in the Days-Gone-is-the-dogs-b#llocks camp. It's certainly my favourite game since I got back into gaming around 5 years ago, and quite possibly of all time (played before from Spectrum to Amiga to PS1&2).

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate its not perfect, and its not everyone's cup of tea. This thread is a measure of its marmite like qualities (p.s. I hate marmite).

But its quite simply the most fun and immersed I can remember being in a game. Given it is a fairly large open-world game says even more so for these qualities, not once did it feel like a chore like some others (eg. AC Odyssey, really enjoyed it overall but no doubting that game had its definite grinding moments).

I like the story, slightly cheesey but no more than several top rated US TV shows. The biggest feeling that grabs me though is the tension. I've recently started my 2nd playthrough (first time I've ever replayed an open world game, again says a lot on my love for the game) on the top Survivor difficulty, and it feels as engrossing, and yet still surprisingly fresh as ever. The fear of driving through the tunnels never goes away. Only last night I was clearing a Nero site near an early horde (derailed train), seemed save enough and I'd planned it well, but then got spotted as I was sneaking back to the bike. The next 30 seconds were some of the most heart pumping moments you could experience. Once escaped by the skin of my teeth I had to pause the game and take a shot of whiskey to calm my nerves!

I also really like how the bike, weapons and skills work. Is it realistic - no. But then, is a zombie apocalypse realistic? What it does is gives you more than one play style to adapt to as you go though the game, from being very stealthy early doors and tactically managing fuel/routes etc, to going all out blasting the sh#t out of everyone nearer the end, but plenty of middle ground inbetween from melee to sniper and various bombs, traps etc.

I'm also a fan of how the missions are set out. Not gonna lie it is slightly confusing at the start which may put people off, and although the main story missions are set in yellow compared to the others, the way the different side stuff blend in to each other makes them more relevant to me, its not just side nonsense for the sake of it that you might ignore if trying to power though the game, its genuine story that fits around & intertwines with the main plot.

Mango Joe

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You don't mean to be argumentative and then proceed it by being argumentative.

I'm not pushed anyway about this game. It's the kind of open world game that for me just doesn't stand out and I'm not even bothered arguing about that anymore. The game isn't for me.

Anyway I threw out that counter argument about the game getting better later on as I have seen it thrown out as a pro argument and was wondering if it held any water.

I just find people can't take any criticism, even constructive criticism, about something they like and not take it a bit personally. I just find it very boring if we all sit around and not criticise things in case we hurt upset someone. So going to keep doing it as long as people keep giving out about Ace Combat.

That's just it Retro - Take a very random example..... Golf is something that's really not my cup of tea and I've no interest in whatsoever.

So.... I'm not going to go posting my unwanted and misplaced opinions about golf all over the golf forum am I......?

No, that would be pointless and needlessly irritating to people who happen to like golf and who had been otherwise having a nice day.

Honestly I don't doubt your sincerity and massive interest in games and gaming but sometimes its like you're not even aware you're borderline trolling in these situations.

I'm not a petulant 8 year old - I couldn't give two sh1tes if anyone or everyone dislikes a game - I do think threads like this should give a fair and honest reflection of a game - That way people who may have otherwise been unaware stand to get a load of enjoyment out of them, that's all.

For the record, similar enough to Jims above account of his gaming history, my first console was a generic pong variation with two handheld controllers that you twisted a knob on to move your particular on-screen rectangle.

I've watched games evolve over the decades and the growth and innovation involved has been utterly incredible.

It genuinely irks me when people take literally years of other peoples labour, ambition, artistry, innovation, imagination and personality and simply work hard to seek out perceived flaws or willfully pick holes in the various minutiae of a game just cause they're waiting for the final spin on their washing machine to finish or they've a spare 6 minutes before the cats bathtime.

If you can't add anything then why not at least try not to take anything away unjustly.

Grumpypants

It's not a question of it getting better later. that is very subjective. It starts with a survival lite element to reward exploration. But as you explore, and gain new skills, bike upgrades, better weapons it starts to move more towards the power fantasy.

Some players like the early tension of having to manage things that make it more realistic, others don't want that, they just want to shoot hordes of zombies.

Being able to phase out a mechanic before it overstays it's welcome is just one element of the writing that makes it stand out. Too many games get one mechanic and milk it for the whole game.

There is stuff to be critical of, but the game got such unbalanced coverage from people that clearly didn't play it, I guess they just want to focus on the good so that others can find the gem that it is.

As you can see from this thread, there have been loads of people who didn't pick it up due to the sentiment only to play it later and love it.

Potential-Monke

Mango Joe wrote: »

*All your posts in the last couple of pages*

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder against people who didn't like a game you liked.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The counter response is that the game gets good 30 hours in. Which could well be true but it is also a massive failure in game design. Games shouldn't be fun until you've invested a whole heap into it and gotten upgrades and gear.

There was another thread I posted in where I was told 6 hours wasn't enough. Dark something... :pac:

Retr0gamer

Yeah I never said I wasn't guilty of the same thing