Hindsight is always 20/20 but I could've predicted the review scores for both titles long before release.
If you understand the current trends in the industry, and if you see what most critics are rewarding these days (and what they're senselessly slamming), it was obvious, wasn't it? On top of which, one game came into its launch with all sorts of positive vibes, while the other seemed almost doomed before it ever became available. None of this should matter when it comes to professional reviews but of course, we all know the truth. Word-of-mouth always seems to have an impact.
Bloodborne is a better game. I'm not saying it isn't. I am saying some critics glossed over the obvious flaws, and I have the sneaking suspicion that it was simply because the game was more to their taste. I also know that critics completely dropped the ball with The Order: 1886 ; it got bashed for being too short, too easy, and too linear. None of these things have a direct impact on a game's quality (at best, it affects value). Even so, I knew it would happen well ahead of time.
Now, something is wrong with this, right? I shouldn't be able to guess review scores this accurately, without ever having seen either game. I told a friend last October that Bloodborne 's overall Metascore would flirt with 9, if not topping it, and The Order: 1886 would be lucky to top 7. Most likely it would languish in the mid-to-high 6s due to the deeply entrenched biases this industry can't seem to avoid. Plus, both titles acquired a reputation before they ever released and I knew that wouldn't help, either.
I mean, just sayin'.