Official Thread State of Decay 2

Rate this Game

  • ☆☆☆☆☆

    Votes: 3 37.5%
  • ☆☆☆☆

    Votes: 3 37.5%
  • ☆☆☆

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • ☆☆

    Votes: 1 12.5%
  • Votes: 1 12.5%

  • Total voters
    8
"More zombies, fewer bugs, and a much bigger budget: State of Decay 2 could be the killer exclusive that the Xbox One’s been dying for"

https://www.gamesradar.com/more-zom...m_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer_grtw

and

"With improved controls, added co-op play, and better user-interface offerings, State of Decay 2 keeps the great concept of the first game while improving nearly every aspect around it."

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/s...-full-day-in-state-of-decay-2-apocalypse.aspx

and

"State of Decay 2 is shaping up as a promising successor to the original's legacy on Xbox One – our initial impressions:"

https://www.windowscentral.com/state-decay-2-xbox-one-preview

NICE.

Nice! Contradict Eurogamer.
 
I kept my Game Pass another month to try this out. If it doesn’t hold my attention long then I’m canceling till Crackdown 3 hits.
 
Weren't you hyping up Sea of Thieves for the last 2 years and defending the lack of content when it came out just because you had nothing else to play on PC and you are a secret agent for Microsoft?

Quit with the bipolar act already. If you have nothing to contribute then don't post at all. Thanks.

Na, I've already said Sea of Thieves is what it is. I also haven't followed the game for 2 years. I just said there would be more in the retail game than beta, and there was. You're wrong on all points, once again. Big shocker from the resident looney bin.

And weren't switching sides between Sony and MS for the last 5 years with your delusional multi-personality disorder ridden rants?

s-l300.jpg
 
GiantBomb wasn't very impressed.

This will be a mid 70s metacritic.
The original State of Decay was a 78 on the Xbox 360. So far, every preview of this beta build, has stated that the game is better in every way than the original. That should put the game in the 80's a bare minimum.
 
The original State of Decay was a 78 on the Xbox 360. So far, every preview of this beta build, has stated that the game is better in every way than the original. That should put the game in the 80's a bare minimum.

I doubt it.

Games have advanced a lot in the last 5 years. It sounds like the game doesn't try to do anything appreciably new from the original and incremental improvements aren't going to tilt the needle. There's been too many negative previews (canary in a coal mine) for this game to score well. Mid to high 70's is my guess.
 
I doubt it.

Games have advanced a lot in the last 5 years. It sounds like the game doesn't try to do anything appreciably new from the original and incremental improvements aren't going to tilt the needle. There's been too many negative previews (canary in a coal mine) for this game to score well. Mid to high 70's is my guess.
The original State of Decay was a 78 on the Xbox 360. So far, every preview of this beta build, has stated that the game is better in every way than the original. That should put the game in the 80's a bare minimum.
 
Who cares about metacritic scores, as long as YOU have fun with it, I don't think much else matters.

That's true but I have noticed some coorelation between games that score well and games that I enjoy. I think we'd all like to see State of Decay 2 score a 90+ on Metacritic.
 
Metacritic score =/= fun

Lol, oh no! The link you posted was a critic aggregate on Fortnite: Save the World, which by all accounts kind of sucks. The only review for the main game (Battle Royale) that I'm aware of is from IGN who gave it a 9.5.

I can see we're getting into the usual territory here with you though so I'll leave you with this. Your first response was that you thought it would score a "minimum in the 80's" which suggests you do care about critic scores. Then you realized that was a losing battle so you allowed the paradigm to shift to "scores" don't matter. Do they matter or not? Or do they only matter when the games your interested in score well?

Either way, this is starting to feel like a segment on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert so I'm out.
 
Your first response was that you thought it would score a "minimum in the 80's" which suggests you do care about critic scores.

It suggests that after I read what you posted, I went to google, and I googled SoD1 metacritic score and found it was 78. Then after reading the previews of the beta stating that the game improved in every category, that it sounds like the game will hit the 80s.

Not sure how that translates into me caring about critic scores. If critic scores mattered that much to me, I wouldn't have bought Oure, which is one of my all time favorite games, and scored a 53.

You need to think a little more before you post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hazard71
I don't think that matters, if the game is fun to me, idc if it scores a 0.

I'm not saying that.

I'm saying there's a fairly strong coorelation between a game getting high scores and people liking it, as the reverse is true.

It's clearly not a hard and fast rule though.
 
Last edited:
I’ve enjoyed many games over the years that didn’t score really well.

Lies! Just bald face lies! We all know there is strong direct link between pointless numbers attached to products and our enjoyment of said product based on that number. So no, you didn't enjoy them at all, you just pretended to because you're weird.
 
The game may suck, but I could give two s***s what GB thinks.

I like some of the guys (mainly east coast), but some can be too cynical sometimes. They'll acknowledge that it's not a game they will never like, yet they'll continue to spend 30 minutes crapping on it.