Games that were punished too hard for small inconveniences and suffered more than they should on Metacritic

Which of these games do you feel were judged poorly?

  • Days Gone

    Votes: 73 45.6%
  • Ghost of Tsushima

    Votes: 16 10.0%
  • Cyberpunk 2077 (pc)

    Votes: 24 15.0%
  • The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

    Votes: 7 4.4%
  • Assassin's Creed Origins

    Votes: 5 3.1%
  • Uncharted: Lost Legacy

    Votes: 3 1.9%
  • Doom

    Votes: 12 7.5%
  • Death Stranding

    Votes: 20 12.5%

  • Total voters


God Hand and Monster Hunter series before World.

"Boo hoo! Now I have a tendinitis because there is no second second analog stick on PSP and OMG, can't stand the repetition!"

GTFO here!


imo the biggest issue in video game reviews, moreso than the often how god damn horrible they are, is that they arent updated.

Plenty of fun and mostly excellent games can have bugs on release and get a bad score, then fix all the bugs in the first month or so, but that review remains forever. I dont like that system.
Sometimes you play a game and end up wondering why the hell the Metacritic score is so low. I usually find that long games get the shaft quite a bit, I don't know exactly why but I would imagine that some journalists lose patience with them and rush through them, stressing with getting the review done.

I also find that publications give review duties to people who specialize in genres. For example, they have an RPG guy who only plays Persona and Final Fantasy or whatever, and doesn't mind the length, but the more general action-adventure games that are just as long are given to people who get bored after 6 hours and end up harboring grudges for things that ain't that bad.

These are some games I find have unjust Metacritic scores:

Days Gone - 71
Perhaps the weirdest reviews I have seen for any game this generation, it was punished for things like length and side activities to a larger extent than any game that I can remember. It was given praise for its hordes but the story and gameplay were put under too much scrutiny.

Ghost of Tsushima - 83
83 is not bad, but I feel it's a lot better than that. The user score sits at a 92, and I feel that's more akin to the reality of the game. I know a lot of people view this as one of the best PS4 exclusives.

Cyberpunk 2077 - 85
No matter your thoughts on CD Projekt Red and the console versions, the PC version is a great game. It had a 92 or so early on, but once the reality of the console versions became a thing all the reviews took a massive dump as journalists seemingly tried to appeal to the anger out there and come off as "on the side of the consumers". It was a damn circus and it brought the score down almost 10 pegs.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - 93 (pc), 92 (console)
93 is great and all, but this is a 96-97 easy. It should stand right next to the giants GTA V or Breath of the Wild, the criticisms of the game are weird as hell too. It was clear that a portion of the journalists didn't like the time it took to play through the game.

Assassin's Creed Origins - 84 (pc), 81 (console)
One of the best looking and unique open-worlds out there and one of the best protagonists of the generation. Sure, the combat was a bit weak, but I was really surprised that this one didn't get near a 90.

Uncharted: Lost Legacy - 84
It almost feels like since it was a shorter spin-off game the journalists refused to score it too high. It might not be Uncharted 4 but I loved every second of this. Again, I feel this is more of a 90-ish game.

Doom - 85
One of the best shooters of the last decade, this is a 91-92 type of game. Such a fantastic re-invention of the triple-A run and gun genre.

Death Stranding - 86 (pc), 82 (console)
Real gamers love Death Stranding. A legendary game that deserves 10 more points than it got.
Doom is ok. Is a good game but definitely not a 90+ game. It's really short and the story is practically non existent. Seems like an arcade game
I think the score for Days Gone is fair since it's such an average, bland and unpolished game (and that's when playing the latest version on the PS5).

Assassin's Creed Origins deserves worse, maybe 60-65/100.

Cyberpunk on the other hand deserves 90+ on PC.

The scores for Uncharted and GoT are really fair I think. Good, solid games but nothing exceptional.

(Don't really have any strong opinions about the others, and I haven't played Death Stranding.)
I don’t think any of those games were judged too harshly. They’re all high budget games that sold really well. I don’t think cyberpunk should be on this list though, since it’s not a finished product yet.


I loved Death Stranding, but i don't think it was poorly judged. I was surprised it was made at all to be honest. It was marketed as a mainstream game when it really shouldn't have. A lot of the flaws people spoke of were justified and it satisfied a play style that a lot of people just aren't into. I think if the game had less story/custscenes and the game gave you all the cool tools much earlier, it would have been reviewed better. The introduction to that game just isn't good.


I played all the games from that list and the metascore is more or less accurate. No all games deserve a 95. Reviewers are putting a score from 0 to 100, but for some people games should be scored from 90 to 100. An 80 is an amazing score for movies, why is a shitty number for games?


Seconding Mass Effect Andromeda, it got piled on because of the memes and the weight of people’s expectations but it’s an 8/10 at least. It has amazing environments, great combat and most of the story is good.

In many ways it’s even much better than ME3 for example.


Unconfirmed Member
Days Gone score is a joke, reviewers should be ashamed
Days gone has its flaws, but that metacritic score was way too harsh imo.
Zombie game fatigue. It comes in waves for reviewers and some games get hit with a stray bullet from the wave. Days Gone just happened to be one of those games.

If you're not in the mood for zombies, you're simply not in the mood for zombies. But their job sometimes requires them to be.
Last edited by a moderator:


Lords of Shadow 2 got savaged for stealth sections that made up a tiny fraction of the game experience. Still can't believe how much people lost their minds over something so insignificant.
This! I came to post this...also the Alucard dlc is fantastic.
Obviously it's just my opinion but I don't see Ghost being anywhere near a 92.

It's good. Not great. 80 would be fair. I enjoyed Days Gone more than Ghost.

Ghost Overrated. Days Gone underrated slightly.

I wouldn't put either of them in the 90s of high 80s though.
Last edited:


Days Gone was a victim of a witch hunt from the woke journos. I'm absolutely positive that it would be the same even if the game launched without performance issues.

unfortunately, in this day and age you can't developed a game with a straight, white, biker man as the protoganist. I don't think the scores would be higher w/o performance issues either. It is a shame how bend studio was treated by gaming journalists, and how gamers let it happen.


Real gamers love Death Stranding. A legendary game that deserves 10 more points than it got.
Will Ferrell Lol GIF


you can also add quantum break to the list.

yes, tv show parts are iffy but the core gameplay is fun (and even better than control IMO), story is exciting to follow and the story telling is well-done. MC 66 doesn't do the game justice.


you can also add quantum break to the list.

yes, tv show parts are iffy but the core gameplay is fun (and even better than control IMO), story is exciting to follow and the story telling is well-done. MC 66 doesn't do the game justice.
Quantum Break has a higher 77 metascore on the Xbox One and it's around what I'd give the game. I think the PC port had some problems and that resulted in lower scores.

Fare thee well

I can't recall a lot at the moment, but I would say that metacritic will quickly become what happened to rotten tomatoes: bought and sold.

I think it's time to stop relying on that website. Sure, use it for a kind of litmus test with all other types of reviews if you like, but I think it's far from perfect.
Zombie game fatigue. It comes in waves for reviewers and some games get hit with a stray bullet from the wave. Days Gone just happened to be one of those games.

If you're not in the mood for zombies, you're simply not in the mood for zombies. But their job sometimes requires them to be.
That's not professional though
Metacritic is cancer.

Yeah...I had a recent run-in with Metacritic.

Want to start a review site and gain legitimacy in the eyes of the industry? Biggest gatekeeper you'll ever encounter!

There's literally one (1) guy behind Metacritic who determines if you get on the site or not. And if he says no, he won't even tell you why, but "better luck next year." That's right; he seemingly only reviews applications once per year.

Gaming's biggest aggregate site, but still run by a small staff????

That's a LOT of power given to such a "small" operation.


On topic: I am glad that when Death Stranding was ported to PC, it got the attention it deserved. Still Kojima weirdness, I'm glad I was able to experience it at 60 fps. There really was something zen about being a post-apoc UPS guy.

We'll see what happens with Days Gone. I just look at that game and think, "Zombies? Again?"


Gaming press has completely abandoned objectivity so the scores mean nothing. It's just some narrow opinion of a small collective of groupthink individuals that spend too much time on Twitter. Look at TLOU2 opinions on it are wildly mixed and yet it recieved universal praised by critics? Really? Yup makes perfect sense.
Days Gone got fucked hard and the disdain for it was apparent on podcasts when the game was selling. Then all of a sudden, when Days Gone 2 was allegedly canceled, the same people bemoaned the lost of a great series. Fuck you.


Days Gone was a bizarre one when you look at the actual design of the game compared to other similar ones that got high 80's's just as good....I honestly think a lot of it was because the protags were white biker dudes and it touched a nerve with the woke soy boy reviewers that made them feel inferior to these real men,lololololol.


I personally think Days Gone deserves something like 80-85. I know it was released with some bugs and performance issues so I understand a few points less, but that is all.

I think the MC it got was too unfair, just like all the lies Bloomberg made out about it and Bend just to throw shit to ND, and all the clickbaity headlines many game media made about Days Gone's director and creative director interviews in the David Jaffe stream to make them look bad putting a few sentences out of context making them to say something that was the opposite of what they were really saying in the interviews, where they basically debunked many of the points Bloomberg was saying about themselves, Bend, their relationship with ND and Sony, their reasons for leaving, or Days Gone.


Just got the platinum on Days Gone last night and I very strongly agree that it got absolutely hosed by reviewers. Easily 80+ game. It has some jank and it was a slow burn but in no real view is that game a 70. Clear politics based point reduction, and that is appalling.

I’ll also go along with Ghost of Tsushima. It was the last PS4 game I played, and I was utterly shocked to see it was a low 80s score. That game was beautiful in every way. Easy 90+ if journalists are being honest with themselves.

I think this last gen has really shown just how petty and ridiculous gaming journalists have become, and I think it’s really sad that meta critic score is so important to devs, their pay, and their future. That shit needs to change ASAP.


On this list I went with DOOM, I never played days gone waiting for the PC version.
I would like to strongly add.

Valkaria chronicles 4:

Got criticism for being too similar to the 1st gamre which was released like 10 years before it. After a bad 2 and 3 ,
4 was a massive return to form.

Of course it got bad reviews because of the characters had " sexist" lines which frankly was bullshit.
Actually I got banned from Resetera for defending the shit out of this game at the time.

It deserved better. One of the better stories in JRPGs and one of the better and more unique turn based strategy games.

83% on PC on Metacritic. Deserves at least 90 in my opinion.


Why is the poll full of high scoring games?
I mean can you think of any games that were absolutely slaughtered in reviews that you think are too harsh?

It's hader to come up with that stuff because nobody tends to be play games that score under 60 whether you claim to believe reviews or not.


I think the main game score of Witcher 3 is just right, however its that other games with 95+ are actually underserving and overrated so we should bring them down instead.
I would say however that Blood and wine and Hearts of Stone metascores are slightly underrated. Blood and Wine is 92 and should have been 95 because its a phenomenal DLC. perfect length, significant upgrades to both the world and its gameplay, the new music is fantastic the art is gorgeous the new characters are amazing and there''s a lot of content and new cooler bosses and monsters to fight. The story is also more tight in both expansions and better than the main game imo. For an expansion its really good and its one of the best if not the best one of all time, should cross the 95 or at least 95.

Now real talk. The most snubbed game in terms of metascore for me is Pathologic 2, that game is a true hidden gem, its insanely difficult but thats not a good reason for its score.
There is plenty of other game i can name that are underrated but if i am to choose only one then its 100% Pathologic 2.


Gold Member
To be honest I think those games are mostly scored right?
For as much as people online seem to complain about reviewers and how they only use the 7-10 scale, everyone sure gets upset when the games they like don't all have a 95 metascore. I clicked on this thread expecting to find a bunch of 60-70 scores but it's mostly games with mid to high 80 ones.

The 2 that stand out to me from this gen are Shadow Warrior 1 (as in the first of the rebooted franchise) and Kingdom Come Deliverance.

Shadow Warrior 1 was just a really fun game with great gameplay and nice art direction (if not exactly nice graphics), and even the story ended up being quite enjoyable. It gets a bit repetitive towards the end and the humor often falls flat but it was a solid 8 or 8.5 to me. I liked it A LOT more than the higher scoring sequel.

Kingdom Come Deliverance was also great. Fun and unique gameplay, some great quests, nice visuals and the story and characters really surprised me. Then again I didn't play it at launch so maybe the bugs and technical issues did justify the scores it got.
Last edited:


Unconfirmed Member
That's not professional though
I agree, I'm just stating how things are though. You can always tell the score is lower because of that, especially when you listen to the reviewers podcast, and they either sigh at the subject of zombie games or go on a rant about it. You know deep down that affected the score.

Again, remember when Jeff revealed how gamespot and IGN used to roll back in the day regarding game-types. They would put the sports guy on an rpg and the rpg guy on an RTS and the RTS guy on an action game and the action game guy on sports. This is why sometimes you'd get half decent games getting either oddly high or oddly low scores, because shit was literally a wild west of reviews and you had people who didn't care about the genre being forced to play that genre because they were paid and assigned to do so. Also sometimes when overbooked they'd put freelance journalists who barely cared about games, on a review for a capcom game and you'd end up with Godhand getting a 3/10 while gaming audiences shake their heads in confusion. There are game review companies that still do that to this day. So if the dice was rolled and someone who isn't into zombie games picked up a good zombie game, sorry but it's going to get dinged a point or two.

Add on to that fact that everyone in America thinks that 5 out of 10 is a failing score instead of average(thanks to their education system) and this is why, at the end of the day, I stopped looking at review scores entirely and I can completely understand why some websites like Giantbomb stopped giving review scores entirely. It's just a mess to assign a number to a game that you thought was pretty good. Because the range you have to work with is 7 through 10, so with a 4 number range, you start getting into the decimals and start trying to convince people that a game rated 8.2 is slightly worse than a game rated 8.3
Top Bottom