The Blood of Dawnwalker Review Roundup: All Scores

The aggregate scores

What the score spread looks like

The high end of the roundup is enthusiastic rather than politely positive. Mp1st awarded a perfect 10 out of 10 and called the game a frontrunner for Game of the Year, while Monster Vine gave it 5 out of 5 and Destructoid 9.5 out of 10.

The middle of the spread is where the consensus lives. IGN, Press-Start and Shacknews all landed at 9 out of 10. PCGamesN scored 90 out of 100, PSX Brazil 84 out of 100 and Xbox Achievements 80%.

The low end is real but thin. Push Square gave 7 out of 10, GameRant 6 out of 10 and GamesRadar 3 out of 5. HobbyConsolas was the lowest scored outlet in the OpenCritic pool at 72 out of 100.

What almost every reviewer praised

The writing and the cast come up in nearly every positive review. IGN called it one of the best story-driven RPGs the reviewer had played in a long time, with memorable characters and gut-wrenching decisions.

The 30-day time system is the second recurring positive. PCGamesN said it inflicts weight on every decision while still leaving room for the small human moments, and several outlets described time as the game's real protagonist.

The day and night split between human and vampire forms is the third. Press-Start and the TheSixthAxis both singled out teleporting in a cloud of smoke and bats, walking on ceilings, and the way the two forms change how quests resolve.

What almost every reviewer criticised

Facial animation is the most repeated complaint. Coverage aggregated from several outlets described the faces as closer to AA standards than modern AAA, and that note appears in previews as well as reviews.

Technical performance and general jank come second. Destructoid praised the game while still mentioning rough performance patches, and Push Square described some systems as serviceable but frustratingly stunted.

Combat repetition and enemy variety come third. GamesRadar said so much of the RPG is repetitive that a second build would feel like doing the same thing again, and PC Gamer described a game that does not always follow through on its best ideas.

Why reviewers disagree

Most of the disagreement is about tolerance for rough edges rather than about the core design. Reviewers who valued the writing, choices and time pressure forgave the jank, and reviewers who valued moment-to-moment combat did not.

That split is visible in the numbers. The same systems that produced a 10 out of 10 also produced a 6 out of 10, depending on which part of the game the reviewer weighted most heavily.

For a debut studio, the overall shape is still clearly positive. The majority of outlets recommend the game, and even the harshest reviews tend to say the team should get another shot at a sequel.

Should you trust the aggregate

If you only read one number, the OpenCritic 91% recommend rate is the most useful. It captures the direction of the roundup without hiding the fact that a minority of critics bounced off the game.

If you are sensitive to performance and animation quality, read the mid-range and negative reviews first. They describe the specific friction you are most likely to notice, and the positive reviews are less detailed about it.

If you are there for story, choices and a Witcher-like structure, the positive reviews describe exactly that. The critics who loved it consistently point to the same three things: writing, time pressure and the human-versus-vampire split.