Opps read it wrong thought he was talking about the second game which is not clearly better then the first game in every possible way.  Not sure about Second Son since I only played the first couple of minutes of the game over a friends house.

"The game is better then the first one in every possible way maybe you should actually read up on it or actually play the first game. OK I word it better everyone that thinks that it will score lower then 85 never played the first game and is pretty much clueless about the Horizon franchise."

Ah yes the good old 'if you dont agree with me you're clueless' response.

Critical Thinking's not your strong point i assume?

Well as long as the second game gets reviewed by the same person that reviewed the first game it will score higher since that person will realize that its  a much better game then the first one in every possible way.

Critical thinking is actually my strong point.  Since I realize that all the people that predict a low score for Horizon 2 are pretty much clueless about the franchise and never played the first one and didn't do any research on the second game.

Quite possibly true, but that is the problem here, it might not be reviewed by the same person or maybe some outlets, that didn't review the first game, will review this and not like it so much or it could get some low scores for hits or reviewers could be harsher towards it because it's maybe not "next gen" enough or, who knows, some reviewers might deduct points for it not being 60fps on a next gen system.

That's the point here, I'm not bashing the game, cause as you've rightly deducted, I really haven't played the first one nor have I informed myself about this one (I don't care for racers anyway), I'm just telling you that metacritic isn't that straightforward.

Case in point. Gran Turismo 5 was panned for having a fustrating user interface and bad presentation, but everything else was fine and the game scored 84.
All they needed to do was improve the game's UI riight?
Well this was improved, yet new problems had arisen, such as poor audio and bad collision physics and the game subsequently scored 81, 3 points lower.

The fact is, over time, expectations change and what we commend or scrutinise in a game differs amongst everyone, and to assume that horizon 2 is great just because 'Horizon was awesome herpaderp' is pure wishful thinking.

You've made a a sweeping generalisation. How do you know If I've played it or not?

What was that you said about critical thinking?

I know that metascore isn't that straight forward the first game could have actually scored lower by a few points since it had more then a few shortcoming that being said its still the best racing game that was released in 2012 (by one point) even though Need for Speed: Most Wanted (2012) had slightly better graphics. 

And you know it's going to be "better in every possible way" how? Based of a couple of interviews and a teaser?

Most of us predicted a 90+ meta for Forza 5 based on its previous entries and those types of interviews. Look how that ended

Well GT 6 was a slight improvement over GT 5 just not a big enough one to warrant a higher score and for the most part it still had the same short comings then the first game (standard cars and bloated car roster with not enough variety and too many duplicate cars).  Also my expetations for Horizon 2 is not based on wishful thinking its based on known facts that are already known about the game.  We already know for a fact that the game will launch with 200+ cars versus 136 in the original game.  It will have dynamic weather and a day night cylce the first one only had a day and night cycle.  The map will be three times bigger.  There wil be twice as many songs and radio stations 6 versus 3.  The online will be vastly improved.  The overall visuals will be vastly improved.  Single player mode will be more then twice as long 700 events and 100+ hours versus 20+ hours in the first game.