Yep. I might just paste this every time it happens.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30519535&postcount=154
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Edge 238 Scores
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Yep. I might just paste this every time it happens.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30519535&postcount=154
TheNatural
My Member!
I got railed on recently for comparing Gamestop's 3/10 Simpsons Arcade score as compared to every other XBLA brawler ever released by their publication.
It just boggles my mind how sometimes score consistency should count, then you say it in another review thread and everyone is saying "well they gave these scores out years ago for the same types of games so they don't know what they're doing" and everyone agrees.
I agree about the consistency BTW - it's just funny when someone brings up one type of game compared to another type of game, it's pick and choose when history should count.
Fantastical
Death Prophet
I literally said "What!?" when I read the MGS score.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
Using an EDGE review for that is probably not the best idea though, they don't really match Gaf's opinion all that often, something like IGN would be better for that.
I think it was because they didn't feel that any game would have a similar impact as the ones during the shift from 2D to 3D, & if they continued to use the old scale it would basically rule out using the number 10( which makes the scale pretty useless).
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
Indeed.
TheNatural
My Member!
I agree to a point, but you need to have consistency with the TYPES of writers you have review them. I mean, if you give someone a review of a game that hates like all hell any sort of RPG period, as compared to giving them to fair minded individuals who enjoy the genre for what it is, you're going to get different scores.
I don't know shit about shit about how EDGE reviews RPG's, but I'm just saying, I do think within a generation if you have gave a certain genre a certain score range and suddenly because you give a review to a reviewer out to make a point he does not like the game because of the genre and breaks that inconsistency, it's not doing anyone favors and no justice towards anyone trying to learn about the game.
Alex
Member
I'm digging XIII-2 so far, there's only so much you can salvage that battle engine though but on the whole I like it whereas I spit a lot of venom at the original. Difficulty balance is wonky and the narrative fluff is probably even worse than X-2 but I don't particularly give a shit, anymore, but it'd be nice if they could marry the FF titles where they decide to go heavy on game design with a slightly less reprehensible cast and art direction.
I don't care, in the absolutely slightest, about reviews, but Edge is interesting at least. I'd like to read their SWTOR review some time and contrast it to some other stuff I've read from them. Personally, I like SWTOR, solid game, works great as a co-op title... fucking reprehensible end-game (a modern genre standard!) but wrapping up on it I'm unsure how I feel about it in absolutes.
It really is something that probably would have been much better as a KOTOR: Origins title, with split stories forming to one and some online co-op and adversary modes, maybe. Or just maybe something like Guild Wars 2. Really, the parts where it tries to shoe horn in massive stuff are the worst. The endless walking, the Illum stuff, more trash raiding, etc.
That's most MMOs though nowadays though. You can tell that most studios, even the good ones, are struggling with the current model to make anything legitimately open world and worth a fee anymore. Hope Guild Wars 2 paints it like it should be with no sub and that ungodly amazing featureset.
I don't care, in the absolutely slightest, about reviews, but Edge is interesting at least. I'd like to read their SWTOR review some time and contrast it to some other stuff I've read from them. Personally, I like SWTOR, solid game, works great as a co-op title... fucking reprehensible end-game (a modern genre standard!) but wrapping up on it I'm unsure how I feel about it in absolutes.
It really is something that probably would have been much better as a KOTOR: Origins title, with split stories forming to one and some online co-op and adversary modes, maybe. Or just maybe something like Guild Wars 2. Really, the parts where it tries to shoe horn in massive stuff are the worst. The endless walking, the Illum stuff, more trash raiding, etc.
That's most MMOs though nowadays though. You can tell that most studios, even the good ones, are struggling with the current model to make anything legitimately open world and worth a fee anymore. Hope Guild Wars 2 paints it like it should be with no sub and that ungodly amazing featureset.
I don't think it's even that. The text is, as always, far more important, but my opinion is that scores are a zeitgeist thing, they're only relevant for the generation they're in at the most, and maybe less than that, given how knowledge of systems improve over time.
TheNatural
My Member!
Well they'll change over time for sure, I don't expect, say IGN to live up to Jade Empire's 9.9 or GTA IV's high score or whatever else. For the most part though I just mean wild arching scores that are way different than ever before with a similar game. Not just 7 vs. 9 or whatever, but like 7 or 8 vs. 3 or something.
The problem with Edge is that it doesn't print the names of the writers at the end of the reviews, instead preferring to hide behind the whole "collective entity" bullshit.
There will be some. Ultimate Ghosts'n Goblins springs to mind.
Not that the Metacritic average means anything.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
Why is it bullshit? Do you think a publications GotY is bullshit because you don't see the voting procedure?
Riposte
Member
This is why I think Edge is a shitty magazine.
I think they are bullshit long before this becomes an issue.
I'd agree with you for almost any publication but Edge, and I think this is a hole they dug for themselves. They refuse to give reviewers bylines, so I'm led to believe that they choose to present a unified editorial vision. Maybe there's some mission statement that says otherwise, but either way, without a clear way to know whose review you're reading their inconsistency just makes their reviews far less useful, both as critique and as a purchase guide. (How do I know if I'm reading a review by Bruce Geryk, who doesn't like anything but hardcore military sims, even more hardcore turn-based strategy games and dwarf fortress, or Erik Wolpaw, who has gone on record saying he wants the action man's Robotron?)
I like to know who is writing the reviews I'm reading. If they come out with a nonsense review I don't agree with then I'll know to avoid them in future.
Sorry, but comparing it to GOTY voting is just stupid. One person scoring a game, and many people voting for a choice of games are completely different processes.
Phat Michael
Banned
It's the best written magazine in the industry. This and retrogamer are both fantastic magazines. whether you agree with the scores or not.
If you actually read the reviews (rather then just seeing the scores) theyre actually very well written.
I dont agree with ALL their scores, but i take into account the reasons why they give them.
to say its a "shitty magazine" is a bit drastic.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
Yeah I know that, this isn't my first visit to an EDGE thread on Gaf (something to do with fighting -game reviews, right?).
Any review they think may be controversial is(or was, the last time they detailed their process) discussed by the whole editorial staff.
Phat Michael
Banned
Fuel got an 8. Not sure about the metacritic but it was quite high.
Riposte
Member
I'm talking about GotY procedures for publications. Go look at Giant Bomb's for example. They are unrealistic, silly concepts to begin with, but made worse if they are not broken down so comparisons can even be logical.
That's not how Edge works anyway, one principle reviewer will play the game fully and propose the text and score, and discuss it with his peers and (obviously) his editor as well. It's why they generally say 'we' in reference to most subjects.
edgefusion
Member
I always find Edge threads so fascinating to read. The amount of complaining I see about the 8-10 scale would have anyone believe some of you guys actually wanted game journos to use the full 1-10. Edge are very well known for using the entire scale, 5 does't mean "total shit, avoid at all costs" it means "okay, probably only for fans". I feel weird for even explaining that. I don't see anything in the OP that's terribly shocking if you consider it on a true 1-10 scale, except for maybe Amalur.
Wow, that's even worse.
I really don't think this is true. Or at least not any more true than it is for gamespot. I've had this argument before, and people usually counter with 'well, they just don't cover bad games', which sounds to me as the same as them not using the whole scale.
Risk Breaker
Member
So.. MGS2 scored an 8, MGS3 scored an 8, MGS4 scored an 8, Peace Walker scored a 9 and MGS3 3D scores an 8.
I don't think Edge's scores for MGS games are really something someone can trust.
I don't think Edge's scores for MGS games are really something someone can trust.
Closest I could find of a summary of their wrpg scores is from Nirolak last year
So yeah, not their favorite genre. They also gave ME2 a 10 to further prove my point
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=28465561&postcount=51
SWTOR got an 8 in this issue. Or are we only talking about single player RPGs? I don't really think of that as a genre in itself.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
That wasn't my point, why is it ok to have a GotY decided by committee, but not a review score?
Your name suggests you are biased
.I'm not sure I understand. You can absolutely define a genre of games composed of games with similar premises and gameplay conceits that fits into the 'RPG' moniker that is also singleplayer. I'm just not sure what it would be called -- it'd probably have 'western' and 'RPG/CRPG' in the name.
I think he's saying that he's not sure it is okay. But even if it's okay, if you want to take that approach as a publication, you have to present a consistent viewpoint, otherwise people won't find your review useful. And publications generally don't take that consistent viewpoint, because I'd imagine it's next to impossible.
Darkflight
Member
Cover, Back and Tease:
I can't think of a corollary: "Single player FPS" isn't considered a genre, to my knowledge; "Single Player Platformer" is not considered a genre; "Single player puzzle game" isn't either, and so forth.
That does not mean that one cannot exist, of course. Just that I can't think of one that does. What would be the functional distinction between single player and multiplayer to warrant the division?
If you give Skyward Sword a 10, you can't be trusted period.
Infinite Justice
Member
"Did i ever tell you the definition of insanity?"
Darkflight
Member
I'm going with a feature on the TF2 store and item creation
Vyse The Legend
Member
What's the Snake Eater review say?
Cerebral Assassin
Member
Shock horror but not everybody has the same view on SS that you do.
Vyse The Legend
Member
There are genuine, honest-to-goodness, objectively terrible design decisions in that game, though. It's an alarming amount for Nintendo too.
Darkflight
Member
Vyse The Legend
Member
Maybe we're running into a taxonomy problem. For puzzle games, I could think immediately of Tetris (as well as many other games). You can narrow it down and say 'block-dropping puzzle game' or even further and say (unique to Tetris' case): 'Tetris game'. Which of these specifically is the genre, which is a subgenre, and which is a super-genre? If we can't even agree on the meaning of 'genre' then maybe we should table the discussion altogether, as we're unprepared.
Now this is easier to single out, and it's worth noting that multiplayer itself can be broken down into meaningful specifiers. Co-op or competitive multiplayer (a huge difference between the two, at that)? I imagine that we're distinguishing between co-op multiplayer vs. singleplayer games, as the differences between competitive and the other two are pretty great. Also, I'll focus on games that have some sort of campaign, as opposed to cooperative/singleplayer arenas.
First of all, I'd argue that the presence of players, by itself, creates a large functional distinction. Second, and this is especially important for RPGs, the interaction with the story. The Baldur Gate games could be played online, in co-op. The story didn't support this, though, since there could be only one protagonist. Neverwinter Nights, on the other hand, did allow it, and as a result the story was written with a lot of indefinite articles.
lunchwithyuzo
Banned
UK developed, -1 for the real score!
Cerebral Assassin
Member
"Objectively terrible"? No-one is claiming its a perfect game, but the hyperbole that surrounds SS is ludicrous, even though it is probably the most rounded Zelda game since OoT.
Cheesecakebobby
Banned
I guess the low-res textures don't look so bad on a small screen, and the 3D might be well implemented. I would like to read the whole review, but I might be putting in a preorder now...
I play tetris multiplayer frequently. It's very popular. This doesn't disprove your general premise, as already stated; just that the example you offer isn't very good.
Yes, this seems logical. I'm convinced; thank you.
Agreed. This seems reasonable and descriptive.