I'm talking about in terms of the gameplay itself. It's a AAA Walking Dead season 1. Season 2 was a bit more restricted in terms of walking around from point a to point b, whereas there was a bit more freedom in episode 1. This game has that freedom of movement that Episode 1 had.
Like I said, it's gaming side being stupid. If you own a PS4 and are looking for something to enjoy before Bloodborne it's beyond worthwhile.
Were it an adventure game, it'd be compared to TWD, and then the comparison would most likely be far more favorable.
It is, however, an A3 third person shooter, and as such, it is compared to other A3 third person shooters. If you go by gameplay, then it fails to differentiate itself from Gears enough and, lacking multiplayer, is seen as bad value. If you go by story, its story is nowhere close to the story of a Spec Ops: The Line (which also had multiplayer, shit though it was).
I feel that the comparison to Spec Ops is far more just, tbh. Coincidentally, it is also a six hour long game. Very few people were arguing that Spec Ops deserved amazing scores, or that the scores it was receiving were unwarranted, however.
Furore over 1866 would be far smaller if the dev didn't have such a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease.
If you got 60 to burn, im quite sure that there's a lot of great offers on psn that'll be far more enjoyable and long lasting until BB hits.