Top
440°
7.0

GameReactor - Bloodborne Review

Gamereactor's editor in chief has the world's worst patience. Despite this, he reviewed the world's most patience demanding games of all time

Read Full Story >>
translate.google.com
The story is too old to be commented.
XB1_PS41522d ago

Someone always has to go against the grain. When there's so much positivity around a game, and a review like this comes around. I tend to mark them on a list to not pay attention to their scores.

Septic1521d ago (Edited 1521d ago )

The worst thing is, the one or two lower reviews drop the whole average down on metacritic. Silly to take metacritic seriously like that I know, but it kinda sucks for the devs.

You're bound to get hit-seeking ones or dissenting opinions. However, if a site or reviewer is going to score it very low or very high, as long as they strongly justify their scores that's fine.

In my opinion, the more divergent your review is against the grain of other reviews, the greater the duty to prove the contents of your review. Controversial view I know but I think more accountability and transparency can't be a bad thing.

XB1_PS41521d ago (Edited 1521d ago )

Which they definitely do not do.

By their pros and cons, I would put the score at at least an 8.5-9.

Positives
Sleek design, lots of exciting weapon of choice, content rich gaming systems, rewarding boss fights, cool weapons

Negatives
Stilted animations, a little too long load times, at times choppy graphics

donthate1521d ago

To be fair, reviews are subjective and there will always be some that don't like the game due to different culture, preferences or whatever.

Why does that even matter?

I think it is important to get a few critical reviews due to overhyping and underhyping games.

I'm looking forward to get some time with this game personally, but From Software has dissappointed me many a times.

@Septic:

How about you read the review and see if what they are saying makes sense? I guess the reviewer could post a picture of owning the game and that they played it?

I don't trust smaller sites, but gamereactor is pretty big.

breakpad1521d ago Show
Septic1521d ago

@donthate

"How about you read the review and see if what they are saying makes sense?"

Mate I didn't even critique the substance of this review. I was replying to XB1 and was talking about how review scores work on aggregate site and offering my opinion on what good practice is in the case of dissenting views.

oasdada1521d ago

i wudve agreed with the review IF gfx had so much influence these days let alone in a souls game... cuz if gfx and animation mattered this much the Order shudve gotten atleast a 7 over all score basing solely on gfx alone.. and imo an opinion is subjective when its not tied with a prominent score.. a critic should observe things beyond their personal bias or taste.. and should judge solely on the content presented within that genre or category.. its like giving samosa a 5 only cuz u dnt like indian food..

Hedstrom1521d ago

Gamereactor have stopped their cooperation with metacritic and there reviews wont be added there. They dont think metacritic is a healthy system for gamers, developers or publisher.

kurruptor1521d ago (Edited 1521d ago )

Your first comment doesn't make sense. What do you expect them to just ignore the low scores?

Should they ignore the high scores? 5 sites gave the game a perfect score. Is any game really perfect?

And to be clear, just reading this review... I don't see why they gave it a 7. But, my point still stands.

If they want to ban a site's reviews because they have a history of being bad... so be it. But, you can't pick and choose which reviews to ignore.

Septic1521d ago

@kurroptor

Someone on GAF suggested taking the first couple of high scoring reviews and the few bottom scoring ones out of the equation or attributing less value to them when calculating the overall score. I don't really know how that works.

I'm not asking any site to be banned mate. Well apart from Quarter to Three. They are cack.

StarLord_Who1521d ago

THIS is the highest heated review? Of course it is because it's a bad one.

Why do people always favour the bad news? Gametrailers gave it a 96/100, that's incredibly high so everyone shoud be talking about that.

mikeslemonade1521d ago

Just using logic, how is this game a 7 in their view? Compare it to games that are 7, 8, and 9 on their reviews.

Sure you may give it a 7 if you rarely give out 8s, but it's not doing this game justice if you think their are many games better than Bloodborne.

This score is invalid and should not count!

vickers5001521d ago

"THIS is the highest heated review? Of course it is because it's a bad one."

7 out of 10 is NOT a bad score you pathetic CRYBABY WHINERS.

"Someone always has to go against the grain."

Just because someone gives a game a score a LITTLE bit outside of the average doesn't mean the reviewer just wants attention and wants to "go against the grain".

People complain about reviews being too generous and high and devs giving out high review scores like candy, yet when the game they personally like and are looking forward to gets a score less than a 8 or a 9, they flip out and call the reviewer biased or crappy.

What, so it should be necessary for reviewers to be "truthful and critical" of games you have no interest in or think look stupid, but if it's something you're super interested in and already like (many times, before having even played it) then a review less than 8/9 is unfair and the reviewer sucks? Hypocrites, YOU are the reason reviews are the way they are, you deserve crappy reviews. Unfreaking believable.

madmonkey011521d ago

as a reviewer your self septic, do you know if the metacritic scores are simply a mean of all the reviews they collate, or do they remove outliers for example if a game is getting 8s and 9s across the board and one site comes a long and gives it a two, is this then included in the score or is it ignored as an outlier in the data set?

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 1521d ago
Ron_Danger1521d ago (Edited 1521d ago )

Not to be that guy... But you wrote this "I tend to mark them on a list to not pay attention to their scores." and you were the one who submitted the review.

There's a lot of reading between the lines that can be made from that...

@xb1_ps4

It's because you're being hypocritical. You're saying you don't pay attention to them because of their review but then you post the review for all to see.

It's like you just told a group of people that a certain restaurant is bad but they should still totally eat there.

And if you honestly posted it to show other people how bad the review itself was, then you're the first user in the history of n4g to do that.

XB1_PS41521d ago (Edited 1521d ago )

Is there?

What does posting their review do?

It shows other people how bad they are at reviewing.

You're painting your own picture on how you want to view me. It's all in your head bud.

EDIT: @Ron
If I didn't post it someone else would've. If I wouldn't have posted it, and just saw it. I would've made the exact same comment I did above.

I'm surprised that you all are making this about me, instead of the article. It makes no sense.

Bobby Kotex1521d ago Show
Ron_Danger1521d ago

@xb1

Relax. I agreed with your comment. I'm just pointing out the flawed logic. You said you are ignoring them but then you posted it. If you honestly were ignoring them, you would've. And if someone else posted it, you would've seen the website and ignored that article link here.

And (by the looks of the comments under my original post) I'm not the only one who noticed this.

carlingtat1521d ago (Edited 1521d ago )

"I tend to mark them on a list to not pay attention to their scores."

Says the guy who submitted and then commented on the review. Seems like you're paying plenty of attention to them.

Palitera1521d ago

And boosting the temperature meter.

Metacritic is still very high.

MasterCornholio1521d ago

"I tend to mark them on a list to not pay attention to their scores"

Yet you did pay attention and submitted the review.

:I

spacedelete1521d ago (Edited 1521d ago )

if you can't handle an opinion gtfo of the internet.

ABeastNamedTariq1521d ago

You seem upset. Everything is going to be okay. Shhh

GribbleGrunger1521d ago (Edited 1521d ago )

Whilst this is out of kilter with the general consensus of opinion, a 7/10 is a very good score. I would only suspect 'foul play' if they'd given it something ridiculous like 5/10, but I'm fine with this.

One thing I will say though is, as Sony gamers, we really need to stop feeding heat to reviews that are 'controversial'. Once AGAIN, we have a game that's reviewed incredibly well but the only review that has actually reached the top of the page is one of the lower scoring reviews.

Our anger at low scores is actually promoting those lower scores and skewing the perception of a game for anyone just viewing N4Gs and not participating.

Stapleface1521d ago

It's a 7. Your reacting like that's a bad score. It's impossible for everyone to have the same opinion about a game. Even if they were not the biggest fan of the game, they still have it a 7. That says nothing but good things to me. All these reviews and the lowest is a 7. Can't wait to get my copy in.

UltraNova1521d ago

"It's impossible for everyone to have the same opinion about a game"

Hate to break it to you but you should look up The Last Of us...

Anyhow, a 7 is, generally speaking, not a bad score..but it sticks out like a sore thumb when 99% of people score the game a 9 and above, don't you think?

Stapleface1521d ago

@ultra...might want to check my comment history. I was one of the few that didn't see that game as anything special. Want to try again?

UltraNova1521d ago

I won't go through your comments I only have a few mins to go online before going back to Bloodborne which is totally mind bendingly addicting and enjoyable.

Oh btw when 1 person out of a 100 (a rough example but an appropriate one at that)doesn't like something when all 99 others agree its great we call that 'a statistically insignificant exception'. You belong in that category.

But you can pat yourself on the back if you like ;-)

Cuzzo631521d ago

So everybody has to have the same view on one game. If they don't. They are being negative? I go through life Where people don't like me. But most do. Does that mean I'm a bad person or something... Too much fannie politics on this site. Too much bigotry... Debates here are not even debatable when one side always has to be the right and the other my so much

joab7771521d ago

I didn't click on the article but again, guess whose article got hot? The first guy to give a shocking review. I wanna read ot too, just to see if any of it is legit, but I know I'll be disappointed.

garrettbobbyferguson1521d ago

IT'S A 7/10!!!!

Maybe if it was a 5/10 or lower you could argue that they're going against the gran, but it's still a good score. What the hell is wrong with you people!?

DonMingos1521d ago

This is not gamereactor, it's gamereactor sweden. Gamereactor gave it a 9/10

nitus101521d ago

The reviewer talks about 400,000 deaths on a frequent basis which to me is kind of silly. Sure in games by From Software you do die allot but after a while you learn or just give up. As an example a player with a reasonable amount of skill will most likely die 40 to 300 times over the course of the game although PvP can usually increase the death-rate although not really that much.

To me the reviewer appear to go out of his way to nit-pick at things most people would not consider an issue. He did mention long loading times of up to 40 seconds on death which to many in the "twitch group" and those with short attention spans would find this annoying, conveniently forgetting that in FPS death-matches respawns can take quite a few seconds as well.

TrollsBringer1521d ago

Or maybe this "average" review is being honest and not following the hype like the rest?

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 1521d ago
nucky641521d ago

to say you give a 7 because of the difficulty and that the game "is not for everyone" seems ridiculous. it's impossible to make a game that "everyone" will enjoy.

i don't agree with gamereactor reviewers standards.

Gamer19821521d ago

To be fair that reasoning there is the exact reason I wont buy the game. I mean why do we review? To give people the facts about a game and tell them if they will enjoy it. I don't buy the demons games because of the difficulty. I destroyed enough controllers in my time. It wasn't so bad back in ps1/ps2 days when they were £25 each now they £50 each it's not worth it lol. It's not that I don't like difficult games it's just sometimes I get gamer rage haha.

Elda1521d ago

I totally agree with you,that's why I avoided all the Soul games but I decided I'm going to take the plunge & go for it.I love the creepiness & I love hack & slash games.I'm going to really take my time with this game knowing I'm playing other games as well.I'm going to just level up for hours on end before a boss fight I probably won't finish this game till the fall...lol.

TimeSkipLuffy1521d ago

The difficulty does not say anything about the quality of the game. Even if the game is hard and it is not the kind of game the reviewer usually is capable of playing, just review the things you can and get a second opinion from someone who actually like such games.

1521d ago
uptownsoul1521d ago (Edited 1521d ago )

@Gamer1982 & @elda

I completely DISAGREE…Reviews should mention the difficulty & that the game isn't for everybody in the sidebar (or footnote). You DO NOT dock a game review points just because that particular game doesn't appeal to certain gamers

Example: Because I'm horrible at (or don't like) racing games should every review site go back and dock DriveClub & Forza review points for the people like me? No…At most, they put that info in a sidebar or footnote but go ahead with the review for all the other gamers

OB1Biker1521d ago (Edited 1521d ago )

that exactly what a review should say and take into account that everyone is different and has different taste..
nevertheless the review should focus on the quality of the game as what it intends to offer and as the genre it belongs to and assess how well it does in that particular genre

TKCMuzzer1521d ago

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with your comment. Reviews are not to tell you whether you would like a game, their supposed to give an accurate account of the game and not be swayed by what others may and may not like. That is supposed to be made by the gamer, games are made to be played and the judgment made by the gamer, that's why devs make games. You may not like the soles games but might love bloodborne but by your reasoning you will never know.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1521d ago
360ICE1521d ago

Where did he say that?

The minuses were:
- Stilted animation
- Long loading times
- Aliasing (or so I interpreted it)

The other reviewer they had gave it a 9, though. From what I gather, Gamereactor are generally very strict. You'll often find them around the bottom on Metacritic.

claudionmc1521d ago

so they gave a game of 40 hours minimum, with single player and multiplayer action, bosses, long history plus challenging gameplay, a 30% of lower score due to aliasing and loading times?... pretty bad variables management tbh

360ICE1521d ago

@claudiomnc
Hehe, I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way – with them subtracting each minus from a base score of a perfect 10.

Those sort of sum up their quarrels. There are other things too, not that I read perfect Swedish.

Fireseed1521d ago

"it's impossible to make a game that "everyone" will enjoy"

And yet isn't them not enjoying and reviewing it poorer than others the thing that's annoying you? Seems a little hypocritical.

nucky641521d ago (Edited 1521d ago )

nooooooooo...... it's the reviewer knocking his score down because this game isn't for everyone or only for seasoned gamers (or however else he puts it) - if the game is only for vetern souls players and not newbies, it shouldn't matter in his final score - his final score should reflect how WELL the game is made. and when you factor in how many other sites are giving it glowing reviews, then this site and stevior (another 7 score) come across as crybabies trying to get hits on their sites - maybe these guys should just review Mario games.

and that isn't hypocritical at all - it's just some people don't do a very good job at reviewing games.

joab7771521d ago (Edited 1521d ago )

He doesn't care if anyone agrees. He got his clicks, so he got exactly what he wanted

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1521d ago
Mr_GoolyPunch1521d ago (Edited 1521d ago )

Pure clickbait - they know the 7 will get people clicking, but not low enough for them to look like an utter silly billy.

Gamer19821521d ago

There a magazine publication so hits probably won't be a big thing tbh. Though don't know if that website has a magazine I know the UK site does (who havn't released there review yet).

360ICE1521d ago

Yeah, or it's just the reviewer's opinion. Someone is bound to not like it as much as everyone else. Gamereactor Norway, for instance, went in the opposite direction and gave The Order 9/10.

Spotie1521d ago (Edited 1520d ago )

Opinion is NOT an excuse. I wish people would stop using that.

A review is not about the reviewer's personal opinion, because the review isn't for the reviewer's sake, but for others. And others don't have THEIR opinion. Readers don't want to know if YOU like a game; they want to know if THEY will like it.

Somehow, both reviewers and gamers have forgotten this.

Edit: No. Just... no.

It doesn't have to be purely objective. That, as you say, would be nothing more than an analysis. But it SHOULD remove the reviewer's personal tastes from the equation. Again, the review isn't for the reviewer's sake, so why in the hell would it be written like it?

Let's say I'm not a fan of Mario Kart. It would be stupid for me to slam the game for BEING Mario Kart. What sense would it make for me to down it for being bright and colorful, easily accessible, having kart physics? Those are intentional design elements of the game; if they're done well, they should be scored accordingly.

But you have people who don't do that. Indeed, far too many reviews grade a game on what a person wanted it to be, rather than what it is. More to the point, you have people who will use one set of criteria for a certain game or franchise, and then use none of those- or explain away issues- for other franchises with similar formulas. A game that never makes an attempt to revolutionize its genre shouldn't be penalized for that, especially if other games aren't being treated that way; such judgments are often made based on personal preferences.

But there's a marked difference between personal and professional opinion. When you read the best or most popular reviewers of any other medium, they're able to separate their personal views from their professional ones: they address the movie or album or book from the standpoint of its target audience, place it among its peers in the genre, and evaluate how coherent it is as an overall standalone product.

None of that goes on in gaming anymore, though maybe it was never that widespread to begin with. In either case, it's a problem with gaming reviews that needs to be addressed, but won't be.

"Cuz it's just one person's opinion."

360ICE1521d ago

@Spotie

Hahaha! Somehow both reviewers and gamers have forgotten that reviews are not opinions? Reviewers always were opinions. I hate to break it to you, but look up the definition.

There's no objective measure of what makes Bloodborne good or not. It's perfectly possible to account for what you think others might think, but when someone says things like "not a game for everybody" people tend to get upset, so why bother.

An objective assessment of a game would be an analysis.

Mr_GoolyPunch1520d ago

Giving an review which differs from the general vein of what other titles saw as merits or problems with a game definitely gains more clicks, it's as simple as that. Perhaps this was their real opinion, maybe I'm just being pessimistic? They're businesses and businesses need to succeed. Same reasons other sites bump up their scores for games so that the advertising agencies who work for the games companies pay for more advertising on their site.

mafiahajeri1521d ago (Edited 1521d ago )

Das is bad review. Der click bait! Har har har

MilkMan1521d ago

I'm gonna leave my comment and im ready for my bubbles to burst.

When a game is highly loved, hyped, liked, celebrated, cos-played, painted or otherwise tattooed on your privates. I click on the reviewers that give it the worst reviews, because I want to know what is wrong with the game (or product)
Or perceived to be wrong in any case.

To me the Soul games are just that games, not a way of life. If they never existed I wouldn't care, for that matter. No game or system or movie would make or change my perspective in life.

So if something like exceedingly long load times is a factor that diminishes fun, BECAUSE you die often, in a game that embellishes your deaths. This is a problem. You want to get back into the action as soon as possible. Not look at a load screen.

I cant say whether this is indeed a fact, cause although I bought it, and its loaded on my PS4. I have to wait to play. I have to work and sleep is more important than being first out the gate with "How to beat the first boss with my bare first videos" LOL

So, I would argue that in a sea of love, you look for the ones that giving constructive criticism.

XB1_PS41521d ago

I would agree if they made valid points to mark their score that low. They don't though.

Neixus1521d ago Show
carlingtat1521d ago

"When a game is highly loved, hyped, liked, celebrated, cos-played, painted or otherwise tattooed on your privates. I click on the reviewers that give it the worst reviews, because I want to know what is wrong with the game (or product)Or perceived to be wrong in any case."

I agree and actually do this. For a game getting 9s and 10s I look at the reviews for 7s and 8s. And games that get 6s and 7s I look at the ones getting 9s and 10s(if they do). Seems like the best way to get the best views of the game.

Aloy-Boyfriend1521d ago

I've counted between 20 to 30 secs of lead time. It's not as big deal as it seems. What will happened when the next patch addresses it? Seems just like something to bitch about because the loads times have slightly improved since the day 1 patch, and I know because I always counted load times when watching Twitch streams, and now the loads take less time

MilkMan1521d ago

This is actually good news. By the time I get to play this might not even be an issue.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1521d ago