Echo Chamber: 'Bloodborne's' Critical Praise Is Gaming Journalism's Failure

Read any review, discussion, forum thread or opinion on From Software’s new PS4 exclusive Bloodborne, and you’re bound to encounter the phrase: “it’s not for everyone.” Sometimes it’s sort of an embarrassed acknowledgement, but often, it’s sort of a smirking humblebrag: “It’s not for those people, just for we that can appreciate it.” But in nearly very instance, it precedes a few hundred words of gushing, unrestrained praise, meaning that it all comes down to the same thing: Bloodborne may be off limits to all but a tiny fraction even of people that play a lot of video games, but we as gaming journalists just don’t seem to care.

The story is too old to be commented.
vishmarx1150d ago (Edited 1150d ago )

games should be reviewed for what they are , if bb is difficult and you rate it 6/10, then thats a bigger failure.because youd be telling the dev that an easier version of this would have been better,and i dont need to point out the stupidity in that

ill take this article seriously when you guys start rating nintendo games lower for the lack of VA , story or realistic graphics , for which most games get hammered.
because both mario 3d world and bloodborne are great games, and just because they arent targeting for every gamer alive doesnt make them bad games.not having a proper story or realistic graphics doesnt make mario bad and not being easy doesnt make bloodborne bad . period

SteamPowered1150d ago (Edited 1150d ago )

Comparing Bloodborne to Mario is pretty broad. Mario 3D is a brilliant platformer. Something that Bloodborne isnt trying to achieve.
What's to miss? Mario games aren't meant for realism or immersion, so why grade them on it? Would you compare driveclub to Mario 3d world?

tool-parabola1150d ago

I guess you are missing the point my friend :)

Takwin1150d ago

This article is a fail. I wish we could block sites from our own view on N4G. I really don't give two squirts what Forbes has to say about gaming.

Palitera1150d ago


It already has 140 degrees.

There's no bigger proof about how much N4Gers LOVE these articles.


On topic, Bloodborne is what it is and it has to be rated accordingly. So what? So "hard" titles have to rated down because not everyone will be able to play it?

Yeah, I wish we could block sites too. This alone would mean a better N4G since stupid "hilarious" articles would immediately stop popping.

Ezz20131150d ago (Edited 1150d ago )

It's amazing how those articles never came up when Dark Souls 1/2 were out

but as soon as this (EXCLUSIVE) game come out
i keep see articles like this every where

hmmmmmmmm,i wonder why?!
we need a detective...i better turn on The Bat-Signal.

morganfell1150d ago (Edited 1150d ago )


The issue at hand driving not only positive reviews but also those negative ones are these so called critiques which in fact are nothing more than some nobody's opinion concerning their own likes, dislikes, wants and desires. Far gone and away are the days when reviews were about hard looks at titles for a particular demographic.

For instance, a platformer was reviewed based on a general consensus of what platform gamers would like or find innovative rather than the mere personal tastes of the reviewer. Though best to have someone that liked platformers handling the piece, it was nevertheless written for platformers with their concerns in mind. What was not considered were remarks by persons that found platformers to be a total waste of time.

The same can be said of any genre and there should be no mistake - games such a Bloodborne have succeeded to there own unique category as much as any branded game type.

Instead what we see today are persons such as this forbes imbecile. I agree with Takwin, the pattern formed by numerous forbes articles paints a dismal picture of an imperceptive interloper that fails miserably to comprehend the most basic tenants of what it means to be a gamer. Consistently their writers fumble about in the dark screaming having caught a glimpse of a game such as Bloodborne. Instead of gauging the title on the merits of it's makeup and considering most strongly the audience at whom this particular title was aimed, forbes would see such games damned or completely remade because they were not manufactured to support their own unique whims. Forbes cannot seem to stand the fact this title and those similar to it were made to suit the gaming preferences and tortured mentality of a particular demographic and they are not among said persons.

It is ironic to say the least forbes and numerous other outlets attack titles for not bending to their like when in reality such games do conform to the tastes of a certain crowd...just not theirs. This is the price we pay when certain persons are provided a very public megaphone to scream the one word that matters to them, "ME!"

Bloodborne, like numerous other games are not necessarily meant for broad appeal and particularly not the casual crowd or candy crush fanatic.

Forbes would see Bloodborne hounded for its uniqness and unwillingness to conform. Such reviewers are rather like the person that despises chameleons despite their unequalled ability to shift and adapt their color repertoire because, "They simply cannot do plaid!" The Order was pounded relentlessly and like no game in recent memory because moronic reviewers could not score the game in light of the preferences of persons to whom tightly driven narratives appeal. The irony lies in the fact many reviewers that praise Bloodborne and hold it up to the light as a game that isn't meant to appeal to everyone were the same people that slammed The Order because it didn't appeal to them personally. Hypocrisy much? This damaging practice, the caterwauling soapbox gifted review does more harm to the industry than any 10 bugs in a title. So called game journalists and the rabble that compose the gaming press are the surest enemy of the gaming demographic.

Kingthrash3601150d ago

Bloodborn. ..not evolve, not acunity, not today's reviewing system, not click bait, not this "war", not embargoes, not Nintendos YouTube policies, not day 1 dlc, not evolves style of dlc, not on disk "dlc", not pirating,not released unfinished AAA games, not resolution gate, not game parity, not remake overload, not cut and paste reskinned "new games" none of that.. no bloodborn and it's well deserved critical acclaim is what's wrong with gaming journalisim.
Face palm.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1150d ago
Neonridr1150d ago

I agree with what you are saying vishmarx, but that is not the common train of thought here at N4G. The Wii U's software is automatically deemed inferior because it doesn't display graphics like Bloodborne or The Order. Strange considering I hear nothing but praise for the PS4 indie lineup and almost every game is choosing story or style over flashy graphics.

But to go along with what you are saying, a review should never be based on how hard a game is. Only if it is any good or not.

xkvcq1150d ago

I'm sorry but I just don't agree. Mario is seen as inferior because there is over 20 of them and yet we still have almost no official character development or story progression. This is why Super Mario Sunshine was so great. It actually gave us a unique story with an interesting new world. It wasn't Groundbreaking, don't get me wrong. But it was AT LEAST something different. To me, the problem isn't grapics, it's that playing the same story over and over again gets boring. Super Mario World was great in 1993 and how much Changed in super Mario 3d world?

Neonridr1150d ago

@xkvcq - ummmmm tons has changed. First off, we entered the 3rd dimension when Mario 64 came along. Mario 64 is arguably one of the greatest video games of all time (but don't take my word for it).

Every Mario game brings something new to the table.

Games like Mario Golf or Mario Party do not count as full-fledged Mario titles. How many actual Mario titles do we get per console? 2? New Super Mario Bros is a spin-off and even at that we only have 3 games in that series.

People seem to forget that most other franchises - Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, Halo all spurt out more games quicker than Nintendo creates the next true Mario sequel.

Charybdis1150d ago (Edited 1150d ago )

True the review should score the game on what it is being a casual platform a shooter or a hack and slash.
People have different tastes and gaming experience being it casual or more hardcore gamer. As long as the review mention the gist of the game and its difficulty I am pretty sure people will be able to make their own choices based on their preferences and gaming experiences.
The only problem would be if game reviewers or sony were raising false expectations by advertising at as a casual game which obviously is not the case.

nucky641150d ago

vishmarx, I wish I could give you 100 agrees - I've been saying "games should be reviewed for what they are" for a LONG time.

joab7771150d ago

And this is exactly why today's review scale is flawed.

I think multiple ppl should review every game. Some from the genre and not. No scores, or maybe something, but simple honesty that others can relate to. If I'm a Mario fan and I play and review it, what would ot be? Well, it would be a great read for all those ppl like the reviewer.

As a die hard From fan, I would want the expert Soul's fan review, but everyone isn't like me. Maybe have 4 different ppl review it for 4 different types of gamers. And of its garbage, trolling or fan crap, we will see through it.

Who knows though. Maybe an online fps fan will love it's difficulty and be opened to a new type of game, and maybe many woukd try it at his behest and love it too.

Kingdomcome2471150d ago

I've stated before that I had zero experience with From Software's games going into Bloodborne, and I'm in love with it. It is incredibly tough at times and that's part of the draw for me personally, though I do realize that that level of challenge that it presents will not be everyone's cup of tea. That said, I believe that every review that I've read thus far has actually mentioned it's high difficulty level.

oasdada1150d ago (Edited 1150d ago )

Ok then i should rate MGS or other spy games 5 just cause im impatient or rate GranTourismo 4 only cuz im a bad driver?? a game should be rated for what it is.. THIS article is gaming journalism's failure

miyamoto1150d ago

This is why no one takes Forbes seriously when it comes to games.
They are just desperate for hits.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1150d ago
Dir_en_grey1150d ago's constant negative campaign and their lack of knowledge on gaming is the real failure in journalism

xHeavYx1150d ago

You can always click on the + sign next to the website's name and rate it.

Der_Kommandant1150d ago

lol I've been here since 2008 and i didn't know that

generic-user-name1150d ago

Which never seems to do anything.

kraenk121150d ago

What a failure of journalism....this article of course.

SolidGear31150d ago

The whole point of the article is just pointing out that the game isn't for everyone, which it's not. Maybe for me and you but not a majority of the general public.

Cupid_Viper_31150d ago

Name 1 game in the history of gaming that was for "everyone".....

InTheLab1150d ago


No the point is that there's somehow something wrong with a game that only a select few can play do to skill, and that journalist should rate games based on accessibility.

Gority1150d ago (Edited 1150d ago )

@SolidGear3 The whole point of the article is saying game journalism is failing because Bloodborne is getting so much critical praise, and not letting consumers know BB might not be for them.

That's why this article fails. Do you review Madden lower because a lot of people don't play sports games? In the article the reviewer criticizes most outlets for sending their souls expert to review the game. Would you send someone who doesn't appreciate football to review Madden? I don't get it.

The point (I believe) the author is trying to make is, while Bloodborne is a great game, there's not a great way of saying, this game isn't for you when Metacritic is out there at a 93 rating saying it is great.

Well, that's on the purchaser. READ a review, watch trailers, it isn't that hard.

Caveat Emptor - Buyer Beware

OB1Biker1150d ago

'should rate games based on accessibility.'
Thats really wrong though.. if a game is meant to be difficult, then being difficult should be a positive.

Its time people realize the score is meaningless and should read the review where it should be said the game is difficult.

Baka-akaB1150d ago (Edited 1150d ago )


You're looking for a silverlining where there is none imo.

"Come to think about it, I don’t think I personally know a single person outside the games industry/press that would enjoy this game — we’re falling down on our duty to make sure they know that."

He's just covering his hide by adding in the "ohhh but it's a good game and deserves it praises" , but only after laying it thick that people are too quick to praise it , and that it's not accessible to enough people ...

He has no point . There hasnt been a single review for the Souls games and Bloodborne that doesnt highlight that it's an hard and consuming game . Even the promo is built around that

Neonridr1150d ago

@Cupid_Viper_3 - Pong

back in the day, if you played a video game, you played that one. period.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1150d ago
reaperofsouls1149d ago (Edited 1149d ago )

Disagree! A game sohould be reviewed in the context of what it is on it own merrits . For example MarioKart 8 is not my sort of game but it doesn't mean it isn't a good game or for example if the journalist was a FPS noob getting raped on COD/Halo multiplayer does that those games should recieve low scores?

* Whilst reviewing the last Forza game i was overtaken and eventually finished 6th therefore the game rightfully deserves a 4/10... /s

ninsigma1150d ago

Awful piece. Unfortunately Forbes is one of the few places That actually opens at work because of network restrictions. I could use my data But the signal sucks :(

BattleTorn1150d ago

I actually like Forbes' gaming commentary, and Dave Thier particularly too.

But this piece just came off as trying too hard to create unnecessary dialogue.

I love Bloodborne, and I loathed the "prepare to die" mantra of the predecessors.
Even I have to appreciate that if I didn't like this game, it was my own fault. Cause it previous iterations literally advertised to punish you.

If by now you don't know that a Souls game isn't meant for you, then that has zero reflection on gaming journalism. And if you tried, I bet you could find a handful of reviews that score the game based on the restrictive-difficulty (which I believe is much lower than the games I didn't try)

ninsigma1150d ago

Yeah I must say I have enjoyed his daily blog of Bloodborne.

Show all comments (70)
The story is too old to be commented.