With Edge magazine already giving their impressions on what they've played of the game so far I'm curious to see if reviewers will have the knowledge and ability to explore the game mechanics. I still remember the misinformation that went around with DS2 once reviews hit (the Adaptability stat comes to mind) and how it took extensive community testing to figure out what was really going on with the game.

It's probably too much for any given reviewer to really get into the game (they probably don't have the time), but how valuable is a review when it can't give people the information they really want? I feel that the Souls series is a known thing and any general review is essentially going to read like, "Yeah, it's a successor to the Souls series." Are they even going to be able to explore the online mechanics and the Chalice Dungeon?

What do you guys think about reviews that deal with mechanics heavy games like Bloodborne? I hear people have issues with Monster Hunter reviews for similar reasons.

I feel like From's Souls-like games have reached a broader appeal with reviewers. Look at Dark Soul's 2 on Metacritic its a 91/100. That's pretty amazing for any game especially for something like Dark Soul's. I think a review two weeks before release speaks volumes about Sony's and FromSoftware's confidence with Bloodborne.

I feel with a game like this you ignore the reviews from the critics and look to the community at large. With something that has as much nuance as something like the souls games or a monster hunter game I highly doubt any critics are going to be able to give games of this ilk proper representation.

Demon's souls was the only one people had trouble with (even then gamespot gave it the goddamn game of the year award) and the more obscure stuff like adaptability, world tendancy or whatever has never been an essential part of the souls series. You can totally enjoy each game just going off of the in game information. You won't be able to min max everything but that's not how anyone should play these games the first time around anyway. Besides, I would expect gameplay mechanics to be properly explained this time around. Having no idea what covenants do or if there's any consequences for leaving them and not explaining the effect of stats properly is just kind of bad design.

I don't think the majority of people buying this game will care what the reviews say. Most Souls fans will gladly buy this game because it's from the same director and developers of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls. I'm planning to preload the game as soon as the option is available. There aren't many games I would do that for, but Miyazaki and his team have made great games so far and everything I've seen seems to indicate Bloodborne will be great, too.

Yes, reviewers might struggle to grasp the game mechanics, but most people assigned to review the game will probably be a fan of the franchise and therefor won't have too much trouble adjusting to any changes made to Bloodborne's gameplay.

What others have said: this is the follow-up from the team that made Dark Souls 1. If you're already in that sizeable fan base, that's enough to get you in the door, and then past that word of mouth will spread it. I think worrying about reviews sinking the success of this game is a bit of grasping at straws for things to worry about; I think this game has been given all the hype and publicity you can expect from a game like this, and those that want it REALLY want it, and word of mouth will take care for those who don't KNOW they want it yet.

So we have already decided that Bloodborne is a great game and are preparing to do damage control just in case the first people to actually play it don't give it the recognition it deserves? Alright then.

If I see an 8.8 I'm going to fucking lose it you guys!!!! Who's with me?

Exactly. Most people that are aware of Bloodborne already know if they want to buy it or not. The Souls games have tons of exposure at this point, and they have been a hit with most reviewers. This is simply a next gen Souls game regardless of how you slice it. I see no reason to believe it will review badly, and reviewers didn't screw DS2 despite not being able to 100% grasp it. Why would they do that to Bloodborne?

Also the fact that the Edge article tagline ends in the words "Dark Masterpiece" I get the impression they sort of liked it up front.

This game seems like it's more for a niche market when compared to The Order, so I doubt anyone will care about reviews.

The title of this thread is weird to me. Are you implying that reviewers have some duty to Bloodborne to depict it's mechanics and quality in a certain way? That's an odd way to look at it.

What damage control? I'm asking if reviewers will be able to understand and explain Bloodborne's game mechanics when they showed they were not capable of doing so with DS2. You can also throw in the fact that the online components of the game can't be properly explored until a good chunk of the player base has the game in their hands.

@golguin: "This game has incredible, creepy environments that are fun to explore; rewarding combat that is similar yet so different from previous incarnations and bosses that are varied and designed uniquely."

That's pretty much all I want to hear. Anything else is bonus and I'll find out on my own. Hard to screw that up in a review.

The Souls series is no longer half as niche as it once was. While there may be few reviewers that are super hardcore into the series as some fans, there are plenty with a solid amount of exposure to the series and are reasonably competant at playing it. (On par with someone like Vinny.)

To be perfectly honest, at this point I'm more worried about seeing a bunch of circle-jerk praise it doesn't necessarily deserve, simply because the series has reached that level of popularity and a somewhat rabid fanbase. Any negativity is gong to recieve plenty of backlash, warranted or not.

If reviewers are reviewing this for the common man, they're going to review it like a common man. Asking them to get deep into it is unrealistic in most cases.

Except for Dan Tack at Game Informer, he's one of the few reviewers on the big sites that knows these games inside and out. I think he beat Dark Souls II three times before publishing a review. So if you're really worried about a review score, he's the closest you'll get to an incredibly knowledgeable review of Bloodborne.

If you liked the Souls games, you'll probably get this anyway, and if it gets a 7 or a 10 it shouldn't affect your enjoyment whatsoever.

Critics can't fail any product, they can only give their perspective on the products they critique.

Are people expecting this game to appeal to mainstream audiences? Not sure why reviews would matter.

@recspec: Well I mean it's not like people with that PS4 have hardly anything else to play aside from indie games. I would expect plenty of people to at least get it and try it because it's one of the precious few big games for the PS4 these days.

On a somewhat related sidenote, I'm like 95% a digital PC gamer, am I absolutely fucked by this point for getting a copy on release day since I haven't pre-ordered? Is it worth it to pre-order for extra shit in the game? Haven't done the whole release day physical media thing in forever, and digitally the PS4 doesn't seem to have nearly enough HDD space for how big these games are. Like 60 gbs for TLoU remastered.

@belegorm: I've bought like 95% of my stuff digitally this gen and I think there's plenty of space. I only had to uninstall a couple things recently to free up space, and that's with literally everything else I bought still installed.

Compared to the PS3, which I felt like I could barely keep one game installed at a time, I feel like an HDD wizard. 60GB is unusually high btw. Bloodborne is only 27GB according to its PSN page.

This is why you ignore reviews period.

Also From has to take blame here as well. They want to make their game purposely obtuse that's all fine and good, but they can't bitch if reviewers find it difficult and spread misinformation.

i already preordered it so I know it 10/10.

Short answer: No.

Long answer: No with fifteen O's.

probably. everything else has been disappointing this past year (apparently), and the internet is rabid to hate and tear things apart.

oh wait, souls games are the sole (lol) exception and it will be loved no matter how mediocre or bad it is.

Hopefully they make the world in bloodborne feel as connected and organic as the world in dark souls, that was dark souls 2's greatest failing in my opinion, the world just felt so disconnected and stage like.

So far I am excited but with the last year of releases, my body is ready for some hard core disappointment.

Game reviews are purchasing advice not game guides it's not their job to teach game mechanics. Besides, if you know that information enough to judge a reviewer for not having it than you don't need a reviewer to point it out to you in the first place and the other people probably don't care or will find out in other ways. The souls games are highly reliant on its community solving it's more obscure elements and even though it's part of what makes them so special if it doesn't spell it out meaningfully enough for a reviewer it's probably the games fault not the writers.

The audience for this game is largely already established anyway so the people that are interested in this game are going to play it regardless of what reviewers say or don't say. And those people know what they are in for so I don't think it matters either way. It doesn't make since to blame reviewers for information that isn't available to them.

I think even most reviewers get what a Souls game is and Animation priority is by now.

If they don't, their opinion isn't probably worth listening to anyway.

@zeik: Weird I feel the opposite, I feel like I have overflowing space on my PS3. Though most of what I've got are 2D fighters and indie games I guess

If reviewers can't figure the game out without doing research on the internet, I want to know - that means I can stay away from it.

Regardless of what the reviews say, I doubt you'll find an absolute opinion in the "community at large" either. Take Dark Souls 2 for example. Plenty of people use every chance they get to badmouth the game, others think it's good but not as good as the original, and some like it more. If anything, I'm sure Bloodborne will be divisive, even once the mechanics are better understood.

Pretty much. When the new StarCraft expansion is out, people who still play it won't be looking at metacritic but for the opinions of pro gamers and commenters instead.

Bloodborne does look like it is faster and more aggressive than DS, which could mean better general appeal.

Also, negative reviews of someone who isn't really commited is also valid criticism. 'It gets good after the first 20 hours' isn't really good enough for the majority of gamers, which should be reflected in a review.

You do love your sweeping generalisations don't you.

Reviews in general aren't and shouldn't be in-depth breakdowns of a game: I don't expect a review of Street Fighter to go over the changes in frame data compared to previous iterations, nor do I expect a Call of Duty review to compare the available weapons and make a verdict on how balanced it is. It makes for an incredibly boring and lengthy review and reviewers shouldn't have to delve into those depths. Is the game completable, how is the difficulty curve, is the game "polished", is it "fun"? Answer those questions and leave the nitty gritty to FAQ and guide writers.

People that know about this game probably also know about Dark Souls. So my guess is if it reviews well, other people will end up trying it out while people who already know they want it will get it anyways.

Reviewers will very rarely be as good at singular games as typical gamers because they don't usually have the time to devote that much energy to one game. That said I can't help but read a bit of obnoxious superiority out of the question at hand. I didn't obsess over the souls games to play them over and over again, beat them while naked with no equipment or using special covenants to make the experience harder a.k.a. playing it the "right" way. At the same time I can still appreciate them and the systems. I'm sure reviewers will likely be able to appreciate the game even if they didn't watch hours of lore videos on YouTube from people that seemingly devoted their lives to them.

I think you might want to look to the wikis and subreddits if you want in depth analysis of the game. A review is just a person's opinion on whether or not you should play a game.

The only reviewer I'm interested in hearing from isn't even a reviewer in the classic sense.

I've got the game pre-ordered, but I am interested in hearing what Erik Kain has to say after some time with it. I'm sure there are other writers who can dig deep into a Souls-like for this Bloodborne review, but Kain's the only one that's caught my eye.

Main stream reviewers are already giving games like monster hunter and dark souls great reviews so im not sure where the concern is.

either way you should judge weather you like a game based on your standards not someone else. if the people who are like you dislike the game for the same reasons you would dislike a game take a second look.

DB xenvoerse is getting medium reviews but Im having a fucking blast with it.

I don't think reviewers are there to service the hardcore community surrounding these games. It is still possible to enjoy the Souls games without getting into the nitty gritty of certain stats, the "correct" way to play etc.

this is really true for most games.

Im not gonna read reviews for most fighting, wrestling, or dragonball games because what im looking for is not gonna be the same as the mainstream.

nor do I read reviews for exact details. reviews arent really made for that. its for a person to give you an idea of overall why he liked or didnt like something. then you take those reasons and see if those are reason why you would like or wouldnt like something.

Reviewers weren't the only ones spreading misinformation about DS2, yah know. Forums/the community were guilty of that as well.

As far as I'm concerned, a reviewers job is to sum up their feelings on a game, providing buying advice to would be consumers. They aren't writing a faq or a game guide, they're giving an overall impression.

Also, reviewing a game like this is really tough. Not only are these games long, they are extremely obtuse/hard to crack. If a reviewer can reach the credits of a soulsesque game, in my book, they've done enough to have the right to review it.

Kat Bailey's the reason that I got into Souls in the first place. Her Demon's Souls review did me no wrong. I'd trust her take on it, but not really anyone else's.

The biggest problem with the PS3 is that you actually need double the required space to download and install anything. So on my 120GB PS3, which is really more like 100GB in actual usuable space, I literally had to delete almost half the HDD to download Yakuza 4 recently. I don't know how anyone with an earlier 80GB or 40GB PS3 could stand it. (That 40GB literally can't download certain games, period.)

No offense, but the elitist tone of the title of this post seems to imply it's already a foregone conclusion that this game will be good and/or without flaws or problems or that so-called "commoner" reviewers won't be qualified to describe them. If you're talking purely about describing in-depth mechanics and not the ability to ascertain the quality of the experience as impressed upon a reviewer then I apologize.

I'm a huge Souls fan, but the people I trust the least to review this game with something resembling objectivity are the die-hard fans and Youtube theorists.

I'm waiting at least a week after release until the dust has settled before deciding whether I'm willing to buy a PS4 for this one game. It's going to have to be really damn good. For me it's not a good personal precedent to set buying a game based solely on brand power, even if said brand has yet to truly fail me in the past, especially one that's exclusively tied to a system I'd otherwise have almost zero interest buying in the first place.

Just imagining the terrible feelings I'd have if the game (I impulsively bought a PS4 for) turned out to actually be bad gives me pre-emptive douche chills, so I'm going in with a huge heaping of healthy skepticism..

@whiteforestparkrangr: man remember the days we could rent systems and games to avoid that feeling?

Only if you consider it the reviewer's job to explain a game's systems rather than how they feel about it.

The only thing I would care about in a Bloodborne review would be an exploration of the mechanics and systems that are new to the game. Once I get the game in my hands I wont be going online for FAQs or walkthrough or what have you (did that for DS2). The only time I'll be willing to read up on Bloodborne is when the reviews come out before the game. After that I assume the internet will be too saturated with Bloodborne spoilers to look up Bloodborne info safely without getting spoiled.

If it's elitist to desire an exploration of the game's new systems in a review for a game that relies heavily on specific mechanics then I don't know what to tell you. I'd prefer not to know anything about the story, environments, bosses, music, etc. if it can be avoided. I just want the mechanics.

@golguin said:

So any review that focuses on any aspect of the game that isn't the specific precise details you want is an innate failure and the fault of the reviewer? Are you listening to yourself right now? Why do you even care about reviews, when you seem so opposed to what they're designed to do?

I'm hoping that Matthewmatosis does a video on it, since I REALLY enjoyed his review of Dark Souls 2. He tends to go really in-depth and point out a lot of small things that I didn't even bother noticing, and he can articulate everything so well. This time I'll be able to watch the video right away since I don't own a PS4 and consequently won't be getting Bloodborne any time soon.

At no point did I say that a Bloodborne review needs to cater to my needs and only my needs to be valid. I also didn't make any comment to suggest that X or Y aspects of the game should not be discussed or talked about in said review. What I did say is that I'd like an exploration of the games new mechanics and systems in a review.

What I will say now is that if a review for Bloodborne doesn't discuss its new systems and mechanics (Chalice Dungeon is big on that list) at all then it would be a problem.

Review embargo drops Monday just to let everyone know. Dat confidence!