I'm confused

I'm confused.
If Dark Souls 2 is the worst game why is it the highest rated?
Is it just hated on cause it's popular?

Attached: s.png (655x648, 115K)

it's hated because it's the best in the series

Because it's the easiest one and the journos feel good about playing something they don't have to get good at.

but it also has the highest user score

>game 1 is loved by a niche
>game 2 exploded in popularity due to word of mouth of the game 1 and hype
>same for game 2, every journalist is on board for those brownie points and playing a hardcore git gud game (despite a lot of them playing the entire game co-op and getting carried, just watch some of their gameplay and prerelease videos)

Just shows how little these people understand game mechanics and gameplay, it's all surface level stuff.

It had the best pvp plus power stancing led to so many crazy builds.

>oh shit, people like dark soul?? QUICK, BETTER RATE THE SEQUEL SUPER HIGH SO I CAN PRETEND TO BE A GOOD "IN" GAMER TOO!
>even though DS2 was super downgraded and rushed out of the door so bad it almost makes the usual westacuck scam blunders looks better

Explain why DaS3 is the worst rated then.

Attached: shitsouls2_54.jpg (3577x2686, 3.67M)

The post release Dark Souls 2 backlash and if you at reviews, they aren't all that differerent. Dark Souls 2 has lots of high score padding from random literal who european websites that aren't on the 3 metacritic page.

Totally unrelated question, but is it true that the framerate on PS3 Demon's Souls would completely tank when you broke barrels and shit?

The only ones I had issues with as a concept were the big dog boss and the congregation.
Both were shit, the other fights even the copies were improvements over their first iterations

Metascore doesn't mean anything and shouldn't influence your opinion of a game. I would say this about a game I like but also one I don't like.

yes
even 10fps for a few seconds when blue dragon flies to his perch in the last level

Because it is the best in the series
Yea Forums eternally cucked

Attached: TSTBaQ7.jpg (1462x2046, 121K)

Well, you've obviously never played it, or it's the only game in the series you've played. It's terrible but it had a lot of hype considering how popular the first game is and games seem to get good scores initially due to that hype. That's why I can't stand metacritic and metacriticfags. It's just like opening movie weekends. Star Wars 8 sold the same as 7 on their opening weekends, but because 8 was bad, people didn't come back on later weekends and in the long run, made more than $500 million less I think.

Bloodborne is the highest rated, dark souls 2 was only banking on hype from dark souls 1 journos didnt really understand the greatness of ds 1 so when ds 2 released and they saw the difficulty and shit was still there they gave it higher scores. Ds 1 also wasnt apreciated by everyone when it released but when it got more well known even journos that didnt get it and thought it was shit gave ds 2 great scores because they thought that it must be the same shit and they just dont get it either.

but dark souls 2 is game 3

It was literally overhyped by journalists who were paid out by Bamco.
Notice that there was barely any amount of pre-release materials in lasts months before DS2 release because they were trying to cover exactly how much the game got fucked over and downgraded into oblivion.

>this game is hard, and people like it
>the sequel is still hard
>therefore we must like it

This is the actually right answer

Arkham city got a 96 just a month or so after ds 1 was released and despite being influential in games to come it was as influential to the games of the next decade as ds1 was. Ds1 should have been a 93-94 (maybe even higher) game and ds 2 an 87-90. Bloodborne is fine as a 92 even if its arguably (and objectively) better than ds 1 it was less influential to the industry just like halo 1 has a 97 and the sequels have lower ratings despite them being objectively better.

Arkham city wasn't as influential*

I still remember some forums crying about DS2 and you could clearly see people that never played the first one and just jumped directly to 2 just because the "hype" whining about the game.

>posting the inferior version
Nice try PvPfag

Attached: >unironicallymakingmetacriticthreads.png (439x349, 85K)

The love for DaS1 caused DaS2 to automatically get high reviews despite said reviewers not playing it. It's still the worst game of the decade at least.

>highest rated
Nice try kid *dabs*

Attached: Capture.png (1005x493, 124K)

it has the best online and that is all that matters to journalists and autists since it means they can quickly coop through it to shit out a review

the review scores for 2 just prove that none of the critcs understood what ACTUALLY made DaS1 a cult classic. Same reason why NOONE today compares thing with DaS2 and why all you ever head "its the Dark Souls of X"

nope

Dark souls is the game 2 in that scenario. demon's souls was the "loved by a niche game 1".

>metacritics

Attached: NPC Head.png (416x435, 108K)

Dark souls one came out and got okay reviews critically because it wasn’t some major established franchise yet
It garnered a huge audience and became a pop culture sensation, so the review sites that had already given it a score in the 80s wanted to make sure that regardless of the quality of the next one they would appear hip and with it by giving the next one a high score since it was cool to like it now and would generate more clicks
All of this of course under the obvious umbrella of ‘why are you caring about worthless video game reviews’, as all of them from IGN to even small sites are utterly pointless for such a subjective medium