While everyone has its favorite, which title in the Dark Souls/Bloodborne series did critics love the most? Here's where they landed on Metacritic.
How is DS2 higher than DS3?
This is why Metacritic sucks, it's all about context. Reviews for DS3 often read that it was a great Dark Souls game, and some said maybe the best, but it's time to move on from the formula, which at the time really made some sense, and even From agreed with that, it's their last one in the mainline series. Remember, of course, that Bloodborne came out before DS3 - most reviewers had seen four Soulsborne titles (not as many played Demon's Souls) by the time they went through 3, and they were released with quite a quick frequency. Reading through the reviews, it's clear that DS3 is one of the better titles in the series, but each one's being reviewed in its own timeframe. DS2 was the first time many reviewers saw a revision to a Souls game, and they *did* fix quite a few things - they just broke some of the best points of Dark Souls along the way, which took a while to figure out. Plus, having it in 60fps was nice. It's one of those "In retrospect, it's the worst of the bunch, although it's still Dark Souls" types of things. Wasn't bad for PvP, at least. It's kinda like how Skyward Sword got glowing reviews back in the day, and now we're like "Okay, maybe having someone hold your hand throughout the game like a developer was cuffed to said hand was a bad idea." Bloodborne ftw, though.
Metacritic is not a good measurement for video game quality. That's determined by individual preference so it should never be taken that seriously by gamers. I think ppl only care about Meta because of the fanboy war lol, GTA and Tony Hawks PS2 are ranked higher than TLOU, BoTW, and TW3...
DS2 is higher than DS3 in some areas, but overall, no. Both of them are lacking titles.
Because it was the first sequel to Dark Souls and Dark Souls III came after Bloodborne. A lot of times these reviewers can't discern the difference between hype and expectations, while still reviewing what they actually played.
Cause standards change overtime. If you see metacritics over this gen and compare it to last gen, a lot of games got a free pass last gen. This gen though, reviewers are pretty strict and many have moved to a 0.5 scale and tend to go on the lower end. I usually had the tendency to think that any game with >90 last gen was a must buy. This gen, I've dropped my personal scale to anything >85. Also metacritics really doesn't give a full picture. It gives you a good ballpark of how a game is but beyond that, a game rated 92 or 89 is pretty similar in my books
Another proof of Metacritic's lack of credibility. DS2 higher than DS, DeS and DS3 is ultrageous. Bloodborne is in the right place, though.
I was rather surprised myself that it's the highest of the Dark Souls series. I liked the gam but come on it was padded and features some of the worst bosses in the entire series
The dlc bosses were great tho but obviously they came after the reviews
I was done with the series after Demon's Souls. That was enough for me.
You are really missing out on Dark Souls 1 & Bloodborne. The other titles can be skipped, not missing much.
Dark souls 3 can be skipped ??chill chill
Yes, Dark Souls 3 can be skipped. It was a forced entry much like 2 and doesn't have that quality stamp of approval like DS1, BB, or DeS.
Nothing quite compares to the feeling you get when you first appear at the end of the bridge on your first play through on Demon's Souls. I have played Dark souls and Bloodborne, but it's like anything you experience for the first time... you can never experience that feeling again.
It goes like this... Dark Souls 1 > Bloodborne > Demons Souls > Dark Souls 3 > Dark Souls 2
For me it's ds1-ds3-bloodborne-ds2-lords of the fallen-salt and sanctuary-nioh. Lol
Why is this even an article?
Metacritic? That guy is a moron!
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.