Bloodborne Review Thread - MetaCritic 93% ~ GameRankings 91.47%

[Robert_Downey_Jr.]

Nuvendil said:

Well I tried explaining it with lots of words so we'll switch things up since I don't want to write a text wall and you don't want to read another.  It's not just scoring well, it's scoring better.  Say that is semantics but it's an important distinction to make.

I get what you're saying and I would have made that distinction if it were relevant to what I was saying.  I'm not trying to downplay Bloodborne.  I'm downplaying the whole conspiracy idea.  And the reason I am is because Bloodborne is scoring well.  For the purposes of my comment, the position of the game's score relative to past games was only relevant in so much as it proved my point:  Souls games get good scores.  And that is a true statement.  The statements "Bloodborne is scoring well" and "Bloodborne is scoring better" are not mutually exclussive statements, both are true.  The distinction is not relevant to what I was saying.  Which is why I am getting annoyed that you are for harranguing me about it. 

"Conspiracy" is a strong word but critics are definitely being hard on Sony games this gen.  I think it's because they just expect more from the leader and with Sony's past accomplishments I guess being a good entry just doesn't get you the same score it did last gen.  They wanted something crazy innovative.  Now it being in the same vein as the other souls games actually negates the negativity because they'd be hypocrites if they reviewed this game a lot lower when by all accounts the combat is improved.  It's not as easy to rip as a new IP when you've established your scores and everyone would know they're just BS if they scored it 85 or something.