On this page
DIRECT ANSWER
What the player needs to know
Where the score sits and what it hides
An average in the low eighties is a strong result for a studio’s first release, but the spread underneath it is more informative than the headline. Ninety-two percent of counted reviews were positive and the remainder were mixed, which means critics largely agreed the game is good while disagreeing sharply about how good.
The high end reached a perfect score, with one outlet calling the result a landmark statement in game design. The low end sat at 60, criticising a repetitive open world and systems judged dated against current peers. Both verdicts reviewed the same build.
| Measure | Value |
|---|---|
| Metascore | 83, generally favourable |
| Critic reviews counted | 59 |
| Positive | 92 percent |
| Mixed | 8 percent |
| User score | Not yet available |
What critics agreed on
The recurring praise concentrates on the writing, the weight of the choices and the day-and-night structure built on the 30-day clock, which several reviewers treated as a genuine structural answer to open-world bloat rather than a gimmick. That is the part of the game the strongest reviews were responding to.
The recurring criticism is more specific than the scores suggest. Reviewers repeatedly named repetitive quest design, combat defence that leans heavily on reacting to prompts, and a launch build some found rough. Those complaints are worth weighing directly rather than through an average, because they describe things a player either minds a great deal or barely notices.
Reading a launch aggregate carefully
The embargo lifted on August 31, three days ahead of release, which is why a full aggregate existed before the game was on sale. A score read on one day is still a snapshot: late reviews continue to be counted, platform pages can diverge, and a user score arrives only once the retail audience has played. This page records the number, the review count and the date together so a later change can be understood rather than silently absorbed.
Other aggregators run their own panels and weighting, so a figure quoted from one of them will not always match the one above. Where this page cites a number it names the aggregate it read rather than blending several into a single average.
The completion-time reports circulating alongside these reviews are a separate question from quality, and they are handled on their own page because a short run and a weak game are not the same claim.
Aggregate scores move as late reviews are counted, so the number, the review count and the observation date are recorded together and updated as a set rather than individually. Platform pages can disagree, and this page names the aggregate it read instead of blending several into one figure. Individual outlet scores are cited to show the spread, including the low end, because an average alone hides whether critics disagreed sharply or narrowly. User scores are kept separate from critic scores and will not be added until the retail audience has had time to play the released build.
Frequently asked questions
Is The Blood of Dawnwalker good?
Critics broadly say yes. It holds a Metascore of 83 across 59 reviews, with 92 percent of verdicts positive and none counted as negative.
What is the Dawnwalker Metacritic score?
It sits at 83, in the generally favourable band, on the date this page was read. Late reviews can still move it.
What did critics criticise most?
Repetitive quest design, combat defence that leans on reacting to prompts, and a launch build some reviewers found rough.
REFERENCE RECORD
Sources used for this page
Compare Standard, Deluxe and Collector’s Edition content using the official guide while keeping live regional price and stock separate.