Stumbling to the 80's.
Stumbling to the 80's
still better than the 70s.
Who gives a shit about metacritic score
OH NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>people still care about metashitic when anyone and their dog can review bomb it with 0s or 10s without having even played the game
>people still care about what inept game journos think
Game has 84% on Steam based on almost 10k people who have actually played the game. That's the only rating that matters.
Dark souls 3 has 90% based on 70k reviews on steam
keep seething sekiro is not as good as previous fromsoft games
Hi barry.
Based, Barry BTFO
DaSIII was sold to bandwagonners, I know many people that started on the franchise with DaSIII out of hype.
M8, I don't even play Sekiro. I don't have a dog in this "fight", I'm just stating the facts.
You dont play anything except ffxv barry
>I- I don't have a dog in this "fight"
shut the fuck up you stupid retard.
Jesus Christ that was painful to watch
>>people still care about what inept game journos think
Capcom fags post screen shots of their shitty games all the time.
ok sorry
Why do ratings matter so much? If you’ve played the game you already have your own opinion on it.
It's 92 on Xbox
It's confirmed Trumpkino, Snoyboy
>Steam
That excludes people who refunded it. I mean, actually played it and found it to be a bad game, not just refund to bomb faggots.
Why does a game like Sekiro, which sold more than DMC5 on PC, only have like 50 reviews, but DMC5 has 90?
>That excludes people who refunded it.
It doesn't? Steam doesn't delete reviews of people who refunded the game.
Sekiro is actually difficult, Bloodborne was baby-tier. Of course Journos are going to prefer the easy one. Did you notice how the BB DLC got like an 87, despite having the best content of the game by far? Is it a coincidence that it is also like 5 times harder than the base game content?
It does.
Well, I may have overlooked some recent changes, but it was this way about two years ago.
that doesn't explain the user reviews though
Yes it does?
Bloodborne is a sony exclusive and Metacritic is owned by sony fanboys. Just look at the user score of any xbox game on metacritic
>that one faggot who gave it a 4
>in the review its clear he only played for like the first 5 or so hours and got buttmad at the game being hard
Metacritic is so fucking stupid
Nah m8 most Xbox games are just bad
>Make a "look how hard I am, I am just like your classic games, hard=good" game.
>Anybody with skill masters it in no time and it becomes easy.
>Everybody else who dosent give a shit thinks its the hardest shit.
>Surprised the score drop because you made a game with no access to a full player base.
Not mad, I play it when I can, got to the ape boss, but since there is no online there should be no excuse for a normal hard mode or even a insane mode with one hit kills.
i'm talking about multiplatform games
>Of course Journos are going to prefer the easy one.
then why did they give ffxv - aka "hold o to win: the movie" - a 77? shouldn't it get 100 for being so easy?
it's ok
You are so stupid that it hurts
I'M JUST STUMBLING TO THE 80s
COME ON BABY JOG TO ME
Metascore shouldn't influence your opinion of a game. And I'd say this about any game. I never played Sekiro so I have no preconceptions of it, just saying.
Halo has a 97. Gears has a 94.
he's talking about user scores, kid
I don't know why people keep posting that rad centrist image when all it does is make them look appealing.
Ahahahah the game is SHIT
SHITKIRO EXPOSED
ALL SOULS GAMES AND BB ARE BETTER
Cause one dude gave it a 4.
A literal who at that.
Running from the 90s
oof
Living proof that you should never trust critics, especially not aggregated scores of critics
the sad part about this, IT'S LOWER THAN THE BASE GAME which got an 81.