Connect with us

Opinion

Days Gone is Not Bad, But It Raises So Many Questions

Published

 on

Days Gone gameplay screenshot

At first glance, Days Gone is the very epitome of a 6 or 7 out of 10. Not terrible, not good, but certainly a game that some people will dig and others will bounce off all too quickly. I was leaning to the latter, before something … something in the gorgeous Pacific Northwest setting, something about the way the game is structured to constantly deliver simple, munchable challenges … the game grabbed my brain in just the right way.

In case you are not already familiar with Days Gone, the quick pitch is that it is an enormous, glitchy, and very silly, biker version of The Last of Us, with some Red Dead Redemption thrown in. Critically, too much exists to harp on about—no game is perfect, but the glitches and repetition especially hamper Days Gone‘s power to entertain—but this 7/10 has plenty to enjoy for those who hearken to its charm. The game is not without its depths, either, as Daniel Pereira examined last week.

But, unlike some of the AA 7/10s of gaming’s past (THQ, I am looking at you), Days Gone is a AAA game from PlayStation, whose output consists primarily of critically lauded single-player experiences. By this confluence, Days Gone is more important and notable to OnlySP than most 7/10s, because it raises questions: about where single player games are in the AAA space, why studios are forced to conform to certain expectations of length and scale, and also about how Sony seems to be getting away with it all. For now.

Days Gone

(OPEN WORLD) VIDEO KILLED THE (TIGHT, LINEAR) RADIO STAR

Anybody who grew up with games in the pre-PlayStation era knows it—the feeling of the medium drifting away from them. News flash: things change, media evolves, and, most impressively, the audience grows.

The Sony of today is dealing with an order of magnitude more customers for its games than the Sony of the early PlayStation, which naturally means the games will be designed to appeal to different and larger groups of people. Days Gone is no exception.

Sony Bend’s break-out hits on PS1 were the Syphon Filter series: Metal Gear Solid competitors with linear action levels, gadgets, over-the-top storylines, and a clear tonal direction (that being the spies and tech-thriller vibe that was so popular in the 1990s). At this point in the evolution of games, linear action games are practically dinosaurs, so Bend’s decision to go open world, like Insomniac Games (Marvel’s Spider-Man), Sucker Punch Productions (inFamous), and Guerilla Games (Horizon Zero Dawn) before it, is understandable.

When combined with the already-overplayed zombie genre, though, Days Gone begins to look a lot like Modern AAA: The Game. Not to suggest this is a reason or even contributing factor to its lukewarm critical reaction, but one cannot ignore that Days Gone (while not succumbing to the awful AAA excesses of “always online” or microtransaction loot boxes) has released as a very familiar game in a sea of open-world, destroy-the-camp, follow-the-marker, stealth-kill, fast-travel video games.

One has to ask how a smaller, more distinctive developer such as Bend arrived at this stage. The studio’s last game was Uncharted: Golden Abyss, a PlayStation Vita game from 2011. For fans of tight, third-person action (whether spy-fi like Syphon Filter, or straight up sci-fi like in Resistance Retribution), Days Gone is undoubtedly disappointing. An unwieldy, bloated, sometimes grey sludge of a game, playing like the direct-to-video prepper version of Metal Gear Solid V. For those of us who dig the game’s gorgeous Unreal 4 production design or just cannot get enough of the same ‘stealth kill all the dudes’ missions, Days Gone is a lot more than this.

But even for me, an admitted fan of the game, the simulated and crunchier aspects of being in Days Gone‘s world are interrupted by story sequences that too often take away control, whether cutscenes or boring insta-fail missions where players listen to exposition. These are most certainly part of the game’s broader direction problems, as it seems forced into the open-world Ubi-Towers mode of game that, honestly, does anyone not wish could be better?

BIGGER, MORE MOPEY, MORE … MORE!

Another way of describing Days Gone might be that Sony Bend circa 2014 took the two biggest and most critically acclaimed single player, story-based games around and smashed them together. In The Last of Us, we have monster movie suspense and stealth gameplay with an overabundance of “meaningful” story content about the nature of violence, what would you do for your loved ones, survival in an uncaring world, blah blah blah. The Last of Us managed to make these themes sing, mind you—its presentation and overall command of tone achieving many awards, accolades, and unbelievably high sales for a horror title.

The other game in the equation would be the first Red Dead Redemption, an open-world game from before the term ‘open world’ became tainted with now-overexposed Far Cry 3 mechanics in just about every major title of the current generation. From Red Dead, we see a very American myth of the loner hero, just trying to make his way in a dangerous world, as well as incidental mechanics including hunting wildlife and meeting strangers.

Despite being set in the Pacific Northwest, what clear tonal direction in Days Gone that is not directly about Bikers comes with a heaping helping of western twang (the game’s great original score certainly helps). Unfortunately, coming in the wake of Redemption 2, the game is even more starkly behind the times than most long-in-development open worlds tend to be.

Forgiving the lacklustre presentation of a wobbly, impressionistic storyline (maybe I will have to critique the story separately when I am done, but it has its problems), Days Gone features an almost ineffable failure of direction. Where Red Dead Redemption 2 built an entire curated universe out from the concept of a tribute to westerns in film, the tagline of Days Gone—”This World Comes For You”—is indicative of its muddled direction. The tagline selects one of about a half dozen loci of tone or gameplay in Days Gone, that being the constant sense of danger in the open world, and fails to even hint at many of the others.

Like Destiny and, in many ways Final Fantasy XV, the game is a massive AAA production that suffered an unusually monstrous challenge of development part way through, so much that it remains clearly so in the final product. Somewhere along the road to completion, Days Gone lost focus and became a lesser version of itself. Without speculating too deeply, concessions to the corporate-mandated Open World Formula™ certainly cannot have helped this.

The positives of an open world, as explored in the PS4/XBO generation following Ubisoft’s reinvention of the format with Far Cry 3 and Assassin’s Creed IV, include player freedom that de-emphasises storyline and invites experimentation: letting a wild animal into an enemy camp to cause destruction; approaching challenges from any direction; ignoring objectives and just exploring a vast, often handcrafted environment.

Unfortunately—with the exceptions of Breath of the Wild, which almost avoids having a ‘storyline’ to speak of at all; and games such as The Witcher 3 and Red Dead Redemption 2, whose storylines had such firm direction and quality control that they are excellent in their own right—AAA open worlds are still shackled to the old game problems of narrative, requiring cutscenes and characters and big, scripted-feeling moments that can be easily sold in trailers and pitched to prospective customers.

Had Days Gone been more experimental in this respect, it could have been the first AAA game of its kind to really grab hold of the popularity of story-lite or storyless games such as Day Z, Ark, and other very successful mid-range titles that emphasise survival simulation over narrative.

As it stands, the take-it-or-leave it narrative component of Days Gone drags down the more creative simulation aspects of upgrading the bike, dealing with different kinds of open-world challenges, and exploring farther and farther as your fuel capacity increases. Most importantly, the narrative is thematically dumb. I support anyone who tells me they like it; there is a lot to like after all—but despite good performances and some entertaining dialogue, the world-building is SyFy original movie level, with wannabe-Sam-Peckinpah edginess unbecoming of a PlayStation first party title.

Infamous also fit the bill for a needlessly edgy, yet charming 7/10 game.

YET SONY SEEMS TO BE GETTING AWAY WITH IT?

Days Gone is definitely not Sony Bend’s equivalent to Sucker Punch’s inFamous: Second Son or Guerrilla Games’s Horizon Zero Dawn. The game is neither tight enough to really deliver the goods on a moment-to-moment basis (which, despite the length, games like God of War or even the relatively elegiac Uncharted 4 can still accomplish), nor is it strongly directed enough to prioritise any of its most interesting components: the hordes, the interaction of its various factions, the joy of exploration.

However, my job is not to advocate for mediocre games, and I actually really enjoy the title. Apparently, many people feel the same way, because Days Gone is selling very, very well. Even more impressive is that Sony Bend is not a well-known studio, and the game itself is a new IP with nothing but the icon of the biker aesthetic to distinguish itself at a glance.

PlayStation has been the best-selling console of each generation since its inception, save the PlayStation 3 lagging behind the Wii, which at this point is a once-in-a-lifetime aberration and trivial to mainstream console gaming. Perhaps, because of Sony’s continued dominance, we are seeing its first-party output begin to resemble the Marvel Cinematic Universe: customers will see a game “from the company that brought you God of War and Spider-Man” as a promise.

Maybe Days Gone is not polished to the standard of Sony Santa Monica, Insomniac, or Naughty Dog, but at the same time it does try different things to its PlayStation exclusive siblings (despite the map system and three-pronged upgrade tree resembling Horizon‘s to a T). The game might not be Bend’s Horizon in terms of break-out critical success, but with its commercial success the game is very likely to be Bend’s inFamous or Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune.

Drake’s Fortune was also met with middling reviews, but improved dramatically with its sequel and led to one of Sony’s biggest franchises. Days Gone 2 might make as big a splash as Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 once did because Sony is certainly not in any trouble right now. Of course, those sequels took much less time to arrive, as they were 10-20 hour experiences developed over two or three years.

If nothing else, I know I would like to know what happened at Bend between 2011 and Days Gone‘s release, though I am relieved that the people at the studio still have jobs. With any luck, Sony Bend has worked through its development hurdles and can, without fear of being shut down, work on a more polished, focused, and better directed sequel that will not take another seven years to come out.

Mitchell is a writer from Currawang, Australia, where his metaphorical sword-pen cleaves fiction from reality daily. When he's not writing, he plays video games and watches movies. While thinking about writing.

Continue Reading
Comments

Opinion

The Final Fantasy VII Remake Might Turn Away Fans Instead of Creating New Ones

Published

 on

final fantasy vii

In 1997, Square Enix, then Square Soft, released a title that would change the role-playing genre forever. Until then, the genre only found popularity within smaller, niche communities. In January of that year, Square Soft released Final Fantasy VII,a classic that would hold a special place in gamers’s hearts for years to come.

Until my early teens, I had only heard of the marvel known as Final Fantasy VII. Before that point, I had never experienced the game or seen much of its offerings. For years, I searched stores for a copy until finally locating a version that broke my juvenile bank. I had finally earned a chance to experience a game I had, until then, only known through word of mouth and, after my first few hours with it, found love.

Final Fantasy VII gave me characters to care about and a cause worth fighting for. With a protagonist as gloomy as Cloud Strife, Final Fantasy VII’s extended cast of misfits needed to outshine the leading man and give players a reason to care. The lovable Aerith/Aeris, adamant Tifa, and strong-headed Barret are some examples of FFVII’s supporting cast that remains iconic into modern gaming.

At E3 2015, Square Enix surprised audiences with the announcement that Final Fantasy VII would be getting a full-fledged remake. Fans would ride an emotional high for a while before the title was announced to be broken into multiple parts. A multi-part release, along with some questionable visuals and character design, was enough to shift fan excitement to worry, until both the game and conversation faded out of the limelight.

During Sony’s State of Play stream, audiences were shown new gameplay for the Remake, which featured adjusted character models and the inclusion of more beloved characters. Once again, fans were left on an emotional high after the stream until confirmation came later that the title would still be chopped up into multiple releases.

Square Enix is advertising this game as being too large for a single launch window. For reference sake, the single-player experience of Red Dead Redemption 2 launched in full in October 2018. Given how grand the narrative is for Red Dead Redemption 2, the title still needed a separate disc for installation. Nonetheless this did not encourage Rockstar to split the title into multiple launches. What Square Enix is effectively stating here, is that the Final Fantasy VII Remake will be more expansive than Red Dead Redemption 2 – a title that is already one of the largest games to date. Either the Final Fantasy VII Remake will be groundbreaking for the industry, or this is an attempt by Square Enix to capitalize on the fandom surrounding this beloved title.

As a primary curiosity, fans want to know how the game will be divided. For now, all that is known around this subject is just rumors and speculation, but that does not eliminate the need to discuss such possibilities. For example, will the game be split into two parts or will the division be more akin to the three-disc original version? This version of the split would be more faithful to the original, but then creates a new issue for fans.

The more parts Final Fantasy VII Remake finds itself in, the more expensive the overall experience will be for the players. Square Enix has not yet explained how it will charge for this remake. Given past trends within the industry, the potential for monetization comes via DLCs, expansions, or season passes. For example, Square’s previous entry into the Final Fantasy series – Final Fantasy XV – saw numerous added content post launch, including a second season pass before being cancelled. Additionally, the title received mobile spin-offs and tie-ins full of micro-transactions. In a perfect world, Square Enix would release each part at a lower price point than a full title, allowing the consumer to experience the full game at a ‘normal’ price. Fans will have to wait a little longer to get details on the pricing models, seeing as a release window for the first part is still nonexistent.

One aspect Square Enix should keep in mind, however, is player retention. As with past episodic titles, the possibility always exists for the playerbase to die off during the down time between releases. A large player-base exists that wait until the full title is released before purchasing and playing the game. Since Final Fantasy fans are not used to this kind of launch, many of them may purchase the first part out of excitement and anticipation and become turned off by the required indefinite wait afterwards.

For Final Fantasy VII Remake, Square’s decision to release the game in parts may not be as beneficial as it initially believes. Since the game is a remake, fans will have a certain expectation for the quality of its execution and development. The expectation towards the Final Fantasy VII Remake will be exceedingly high due to the fact that a Final Fantasy VII revered by many already exists. Ultimately, some fans will be disappointed by the remake depending on how faithful the content is to the original, already placing Square at a disadvantage with this beloved IP.

Despite the negativity surrounding Square’s insistence on breaking up the title, excitement for the Final Fantasy VII Remake remains high as fans are once again discussing what it may have to offer. Despite the confirmation of an episodic release, the community will not have any concrete facts until the game’s next showing later this year. Until then, all one can do is speculate based on trends within the gaming industry. I am genuinely excited to see a title loved by many re-imagined for modern technology, but the potential of it turning away die-hard fans due to business decisions leaves me worried for the worst.

Continue Reading