I was surprised to see the difference as well. Still, I would have preferred to see each camera at 100% view. Most of the A7RII images was displayed at 320%, and that put the Sony in an unnecessary disadvantage. I would be shocked if they looked good when blown up so much.
I was very impressed with the pictures displayed at 200% from the 100megapixel Hasselblad.
What's up with the obviously different contrast curve? How on earth do you lose hight detail in a piece of cloth with an A7rII? Why are most colours warmer in the Sony pictures? Why start comparison at an aperture where the 35mm camera will be disadvantaged by diffraction when you refuse to stop down the medium format camera to get an equivalent dof with the argument that it makes the image softer due to diffraction. Why talk about "a finger grain structure" on a fixed pixel pitch image sensor with 2.5 times the resolution?
All in all, if I wanted to rig a test in favour of the Hasselblad, I'd do something similar.