By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Bloodborne Review Thread - MetaCritic 93% ~ GameRankings 91.47%

I'm playing it and loving it. Not even close to finished, but 10/10 to me so far. /shrug



Around the Network

I'm happy the game was well-liked by the reviews. The game deserve it.



Follow me on Instagram : YAFEAXX

41 reviews so far



Gilgamesh said:

 


Man, you use my joke prediction and put it on the op. That makes me look bad. Not that my real prediction at that time was great either (was thinking in 88). Just want people to know I'm not stupid enough to think BB would get a meta of 51.



Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

None of the 7s have been added yet. Good chance that will knock it down a point, even if those sites aren't weighted particularly much.



Around the Network

After reading/watching some views, I'm wondering how From Software can top this game. It seems like their best game yet. :) Almost worth buying a $400 PS4 for, but I'm poor enough that I can resist.



DrDoomz said:
TruckOSaurus said:

Giving 10/10 reviews to a game to offset haters giving 0/10 is just stooping down to their level, in my opinion.

The best course of action is writing an honest and complete review when you've had time to play through the game. Anyone who spent some time on Metacritic or Amazon knows one line reviews are worthless and that all exclusive are bound to be plagued by those extreme reviews (both positive and negative). The average user scores on these sites are useless but there are still good, honest and thorough reviews to be found and those are the ones people consider when making a purchase.

Except the game does deserve a 10/10. 9/10 would be a minimum and by offsetting the 0/10's, it averages at about 9/10 with 1:10 ratio of positive vs queationable hater ratings. In the end it offsets and creates a fairer rating, don't you think?

My view on it is that since most people know the Metacritic user average is a joke, making a perfect review just to correct it serves no purpose while making a comprehensive review does have a purpose.



Signature goes here!

TruckOSaurus said:
DrDoomz said:

Except the game does deserve a 10/10. 9/10 would be a minimum and by offsetting the 0/10's, it averages at about 9/10 with 1:10 ratio of positive vs queationable hater ratings. In the end it offsets and creates a fairer rating, don't you think?

My view on it is that since most people know the Metacritic user average is a joke, making a perfect review just to correct it serves no purpose while making a comprehensive review does have a purpose.

If it's a joke to you, then why be concerned about it? Too many well written comprehensive reviews already. And I'm too busy playing (if the load times weren't so long, I'd actually have no time to type this either) to write one right now. Again, the game deserves a 10/10 IMO (cept for the load times but that doesn't make it a 9/10 either). I contribute simply to give the game the score I feel it deserves, others are free to do the same and that's what metacritic is about isn't it?



McDonaldsGuy said:
DrDoomz said:

Except the game does deserve a 10/10. 9/10 would be a minimum and by offsetting the 0/10's, it averages at about 9/10 with 1:10 ratio of positive vs queationable hater ratings. In the end it offsets and creates a fairer rating, don't you think?

The game doesn't "deserve" anything til you play it though.


But how do you know that he hasn't or isn't currently playing it? O_o???



The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence...

PSN: StlUzumaki23

TruckOSaurus said:
DrDoomz said:

Except the game does deserve a 10/10. 9/10 would be a minimum and by offsetting the 0/10's, it averages at about 9/10 with 1:10 ratio of positive vs queationable hater ratings. In the end it offsets and creates a fairer rating, don't you think?

My view on it is that since most people know the Metacritic user average is a joke, making a perfect review just to correct it serves no purpose while making a comprehensive review does have a purpose.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with this.  We, the forum junky types, know it's a joke.  We also know there are tens of millions of people who identify as gamer's, and let's face it, there is no gaming website, with anything like that kind of following.  So, it stands to reason that we are, in fact, the minority (this has been well known for quite some time).  Now, I would think people could read these low reviews, and see that there's something seriously wrong with the people posting said reviews...then again, that's assuming people are taking the time to even go into the user review section and not just look at the number posted under the game's page itself.  Which I think is much more likely to be the case.

I think what bothers me most, is that Amazon/Metacritic etc.. and sites like them, have yet to do anything about these types of troll reviewers.  Does it add anything to their site?  Does it make that entire section of their site credible, at all?  No.  It doesn't.  For us, we know it's a joke, and there's no reason to even go there.  So, why aren't they just handing out bans to these folks, to actually bring some credibility to the user reviews section?  That's the part that really is curious to me, they're basically allowing some of the worst elements of gaming, to render entire sections of their websites/business, irrelevent. 

But, assuming that your average gamer, who probably gets the vast majority of their games info from TV ads, knows the intricate details of abuse in the User reviews section?  Not sure that's true.