Best rated game of the generation along with Super Mario Mario 3D World... unless it goes down.

I'm not saying massive leap I'm saying better which it is if we're using review scores.  That is the reality.  I never said anything to suggest that 89 or 91 are bad they just didn't score as well as Bloodborne.  Now if it goes down to 91 then that obviously changes things and it'll be just as good as Dark Souls 2 according to reviewers.  I'm simply saying that as of now, it being scored higher than those games throws the "all the games score well" argument out because being the best by a dev still means a lot ESPECIALLY when all their games have scored high.  Look at Uncharted.  There are only slight variations, a couple points more difference than From's games.  People view those games in entirely different lights though.  I think it's more significant that PS4 has the HIGHEST rated game from one of the best devs out there rather than saying it's as good as the games available on other consoles.  Just giving credit where it's due.  I have seen people say the opposite about Demon's Souls saying "they only got the worst one as an exclusive."  You using the word exactly so much then making a general statement like well is very hypocritical.  More well or less well I can just say then.  The higher the scores the more those points make the difference when we're talking critical acclaim.  U3 being a 92 and U2 being a 96 makes those games have very different places in history (I like Uncharted 3 more but historically speaking...).  These games aren't even my cup of tea I won't play Bloodborne until it's $30 just like I didn't play Demon's Souls till it was free (platinum'd it because I had nothing else to play at the time) but I like putting things in their proper place.  Saying "it's the best game from FromSoftware (dumb name because of sentences like these)" is much more significant than saying "a critically acclaimed game from FromSoftware"

Im still expecting a dip of a point or two when someone ultimately lowballs it.

Or up.

If you're going to accumse me of being a hypocrit, you had better have more effing evidence than your excessive quibbling for...what is even the bloody point of this?  All I said - ALL  I said - was that I knew the game would score well - well being a general statement of quality, not a specific one - because past games have scored well.  I was merely contrasting my perspective to the one put forward by numerous individuals on the internet and, yes, this very forum, that it would score significantly lower than previous souls games due to an anti-Sony conspiracy or anti-Sony sentiments.  In that context, it being the best or worst is insignificant so long as it scored well - which it has - and within a reasonable deviation - 1 or 2 points  - of the previous titles, which it has.  In the context of my statements, it's place in history is entirely irrelevant. 

I don't know what you're accusing me of or arguing with me over but it's not what I said.  So I'd appreciate it if you would stop your strawmanning cause it is seriously starting to chafe. 

Damn, that's an impressive score. I was going to complete Demon's Souls, but I might pick this up instead.

Demons Souls is still worth completing. Great game

IGN review not out till end of week. They 40hrs in already though

I probably wouldn't be able to suffer two of the games. May as well play the more refined and shiny one!