Support NeoGAF

[bee]

nice new format, looks kinda outta place with the others on the shelf though but i still prefer it. i usually agree with their scores of the games i've actually played and this time is no exception, there's a fair amount wrong with witcher 2 imo

these threads are always absolutely atrocious but when mods are adding to it with list wars then you know its hit an all time low

 

[krYlon]

I've always thought Edge just pick numbers out of a hat for their review scores.

I mean they gave Gunstar Heroes a 6.
I know it was a long time ago, but I can't let it go!

To be honest, it's still a quality magazine, they just need to stop scoring games altogether.
But I guess they thrive on the controversy.

 

[zoukka]

Has an Edge editor spoken about their scoring in an interview?

My personal observations.

No, because according to Edge apologists it's OK for the magazine to be extremely inconsistent. So Witcher could be much worse or much better. Also LA Noire or Enslaved could be a far worse games than Infamous (imo they are) unlike what Edge scores suggest but since Edge is just being Edge you just don't know.

Or you can read the review.

 

[Riddick]

Or you can read the review.

Are you admitting that the Edge scores are irrelevant? And yeah, or I can read the review which raves and whines about minor details like the did on Witcher 2 while they completely ignore huge flaws in other games because for some reason they were predisposed to praise the game.

 

[Mooreberg]

Dirt 3 9? Witcher 2 6?

Some reversal shit going on right there.

Look at where each game was developed.

 

[f0rk]

Look at where each game was developed.

*Insert racist joke about half of Codemasters probably being Polish plumbers anyway*

 

[Shurs]

My personal observations.

Then how can you claim that there is no internal scale?

 

[Vice]

I don't see why people attribute scores tot he whole magazine when they're decided by the individual review. Maybe they're inconsistent because they have have review X review the first title and reviewer Y review the sequel.

Then again people love getting bent out of shape over opinions.

 

[Shurs]

I don't see why people attribute scores tot he whole magazine when they're decided by the individual review. Maybe they're inconsistent because they have have review X review the first title and reviewer Y review the sequel.

Then again people love getting bent out of shape over opinions.

Edge could simplify things by crediting the person who reviewed the game.

 

[CrunchinJelly]

I saw this issue in a shop today but it's still not on Zinio.

 

[BannedEpisode]

I don't think they get WRPG's.
Mass Effect - 7/10
Jade Empire - 7/10
KotOR - 9/10
Baldur's Gate 2 - 8/10
The Witcher - 5/10
Morrowind - 6/10
Oblivion - 8/10
Fallout 3 - 7/10
Diablo - 7/10
Diablo II - 6/10
Dragon age: Origins - 5/10
Mass Effect 2 - 10/10

Sounds alright to me. I'd disagree about origins but hey, what can ya do?

Edit: I definitely disagree with their L.A. Noire review. On their scale it felt more like a 6.

 

[Vice]

Edge could simplify things by crediting the person who reviewed the game.

They're probably of the belief that anonymity will produce more honest opinions.

 

[Lard]

Infamous 2 6
Witcher 2 6
El Shaddai: Ascension of the metatron 8

Lol.

I'm okay with these scores.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

Are you admitting that the Edge scores are irrelevant? And yeah, or I can read the review which raves and whines about minor details like the did on Witcher 2 while they completely ignore huge flaws in other games because for some reason they were predisposed to praise the game.

Because comparing a magazine's review from 1996 and 2011 and expecting consistency is a good idea. Heck, comparing a magazine from 2005 and 2011 and expecting consistency.

Just because you seem to be a bit problematic in this area, no, that isn't a good idea, I was being sarcastic. It's actually an awful, stupid, moronic idea because people change, magazines change, and interpretations of review scores change.

Yes, scores mean nothing objectively and have for years; where have you been? Is there a mystical world where a score suddenly means something other than some arbitrary concept dreamed up by the writer? Some awesome website where they have nice little objective bullet points? Boy, what a wonderful world it would be. We could finally know why Gamespot gave that infamous 8.8 and not, say, an 8.9 or even a 9.5 or whatever the fuck you could do.

I give your posts a review score: set of impact sockets out of a possible cell phone riding a Gamecube. And that means about as much as any score any publication will ever give a game.

 

[Shurs]

They're probably of the belief that anonymity will produce more honest opinions.

I'm of the opposite opinion.

If you put your name on something, then you have to be accountable for it.

It would go a long way towards getting people to stop treating Edge like a singular entity rather than a collection of individual writers' opinions.

 

[Curufinwe]

Sounds alright to me. I'd disagree about origins but hey, what can ya do?

I've said this a bunch already, but Mass Effect 2 got a 9 from Edge, not a 10. Detox needs to fix his list.

http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/944907-mass-effect-2/articles.html?sort=6

Look at where each game was developed.

Edge is supposed to have a European bias, not just a British bias. But I know it's hard to keep up with all the conspiracy theories.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

Edge is supposed to have a European bias, not just a British bias. But I know it's hard to keep up with all the conspiracy theories.

Oh wait, you're right it's a regional bias.

Oh wait, it's a genre bias.

Oh wait, it's a system bias.

Oh wait, I think they just pull out a random number generator and use that.

Oh wait, I think they ride a donkey around Spain and use a tuba in conjunction with a leopard to fly to the moon and divine the number from The Holy Objective Criticism God of Game Reviews which then gets passed down from generation to generation in a worn leather book filled with every game that shall be made.

Or maybe they're just a bunch of writers who all make up their own minds individually.

Nah, that can't be it. There must be an evil nefarious plot to fool us all, because this magazine offends my opinions and therefore must have the collective monolithic personality of a comic book villain that twiddles its mustache as it doles out shitty scores to objectively good games.

 

[Riddick]

Edge is supposed to have a European bias, not just a British bias. But I know it's hard to keep up with all the conspiracy theories.

Uh, what? Noone has ever said that. It has UK bias.

Because comparing a magazine's review from 1996 and 2011 and expecting consistency is a good idea. Heck, comparing a magazine from 2005 and 2011 and expecting consistency.

Just because you seem to be a bit problematic in this area, no, that isn't a good idea, I was being sarcastic. It's actually an awful, stupid, moronic idea because people change, magazines change, and interpretations of review scores change.

Yes, scores mean nothing objectively and have for years; where have you been? Is there a mystical world where a score suddenly means something other than some arbitrary concept dreamed up by the writer? Some awesome website where they have nice little objective bullet points? Boy, what a wonderful world it would be. We could finally know why Gamespot gave that infamous 8.8 and not, say, an 8.9 or even a 9.5 or whatever the fuck you could do.

I give your posts a review score: set of impact sockets out of a possible cell phone riding a Gamecube. And that means about as much as any score any publication will ever give a game.

I'm usually comparing games from this generation though. As I've explained old Edge was very consistent, now it's the opposite.

 

[Mooreberg]

Edge is supposed to have a European bias, not just a British bias. But I know it's hard to keep up with all the conspiracy theories.

Thanks but I never said that.

 

[Curufinwe]

I know you didn't - you just aren't aware of how deep the conspiracy theories go.

What? No has ever said. It has UK bias.

You are incorrect. I have already posted an example in this thread of a videogame journalist claiming Edge have a European bias based on the Polish developed Bulletsorm receiving a much higher score than the American developed Homefront.

 

[Riddick]

You are incorrect. I have already posted an example in this thread of a videogame journalist claiming Edge have a European bias.

I don't care. The Gaf consensus for years now is that it has UK bias. That's doesn't change because some random person said different.

 

[Vice]

I'm of the opposite opinion.

If you put your name on something, then you have to be accountable for it.

It would go a long way towards getting people to stop treating Edge like a singular entity rather than a collection of individual writers' opinions.

In the game review industry I think you're less likely to see people, basically, sucking a company's dick because they don't want their publication, or themselves, to feel the backlash though. Or at least readers will look at it that way.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

I'm usually comparing games from this generation though. As I've explained old Edge was very consistent, now it's the opposite.

Though I threw in arguments to other posters into my single post (sorry about that) that was largely what I was getting at. I don't really see anyone being consistent (even Edge back in the day) because you can't be consistent with something as dependent on perception as a 1-10 grading scale.

Someone can explain why they believe what they do, but quantifying this stuff is hard business. On an entire magazine or even industry scale? Good god no.

 

[Detox]

I've said this a bunch already, but Mass Effect 2 got a 9 from Edge, not a 10. Detox needs to fix his list.

http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/944907-mass-effect-2/articles.html?sort=6



Edge is supposed to have a European bias, not just a British bias. But I know it's hard to keep up with all the conspiracy theories.

Thanks for the heads up I forgot the actual score even though I am a subscriber. The point some people made still stands though, ME2 got a far higher score than something like DA:O or Witcher 2.

Has any subscribers received their copy in the mail yet?

 

[Curufinwe]

I don't care. The Gaf consensus for years now is that it has UK bias.

Is that the same type of "GAF consensus" that we have in this thread? Seems more like you are just happy to assume your opinions are shared by most everyone else when they're not.

 

[panda21]

Or maybe they're just a bunch of writers who all make up their own minds individually.

thats cool and all, but when their opinion is so consistently out of line with my experiences with the games and the general opinions you see of most people on forums, I don't see why I should pay them any attention.

If you've played witcher 2 and thought it was a 6 out of 10 then by all means enjoy the magazine, but for me I don't see the worth in paying to read the opinion of one dude when it will be of no use in making a purchasing decision.

 

[Corto]

The reviews on Edge seem almost always completely off the mark comparing to my own personal reviews/opinions of games. These scores are just another proof of this. Off course they are well written, well articulated opinions, but I stopped reading them as an aid to direct my buys as my tastes and what I value on games are completely different from what their reviewers value. As it would be expected, as different people have different opinions and yadda yadda yadda...

 

[Shurs]

In the game review industry I think you're less likely to see people, basically, sucking a company's dick because they don't want their publication, or themselves, to feel the backlash though. Or at least readers will look at it that way.

The other side of the coin is that you have people claiming that, in their anonymity, Edge reviews are trolling for hits/sales. You'll also have people comparing one score to another more often than at other outlets because you can't put a score to a name.

I don't do the things mentioned above, but it's plain to see why people do it with Edge more than they do with outlets that operate with more transparency in not only who reviews the games but also what their review scale means.

That's all I'm saying.

I have nothing against Edge, their scores or how they keep their reviewers sheltered, I'm just trying to explore why these threads get the same reactions every month.

 

[miksar]

I love how all the haters ignore that Edge's writing is so many levels above anything else in "gaming journalim" and compare it to IGN/Gamespot extremely boring standardized reviews.

 

[Riddick]

Is that the same type of "GAF consensus" that we have in this thread? Seems more like you are just happy to assume your opinions are shared by most everyone else when they're not.

No, this opinion is shared for years now in most Edge threads and it has been confirmed again with the Dirt 3 review. Maybe it's a wrong opinion and you can prove it wrong, but strawman arguments is not the way to do it.

 

[Evlar]

Not surprised at the Infamous 2 score. The first game was pretty bad, and the sequel seems to improve on it to the point of just being an ok game. 6 seems good enough for a pretty mediocre game.

Then you might be surprised Infamous got a 7.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

I have nothing against Edge, their scores or how they keep their reviewers sheltered, I'm just trying to explore why these threads get the same reactions every month.

Every... Single... Month

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

thats cool and all, but when their opinion is so consistently out of line with my experiences with the games and the general opinions you see of most people on forums, I don't see why I should pay them any attention.

If you've played witcher 2 and thought it was a 6 out of 10 then by all means enjoy the magazine, but for me I don't see the worth in paying to read the opinion of one dude when it will be of no use in making a purchasing decision.

I haven't played the Witcher 2 and will probably get around to doing so at some point, but pretending that there remains an objective standard to compare to Edge is foolhardy at best.

I've agreed and disagreed with their reviews in the past, and will continue to do so. I find their perspectives to be well informed and written competently, which is more than we can say about most gaming media. The Witcher 2 review was interesting to me as a consumer and I will keep their points in mind when making a purchase as with any external opinion.

It's okay that you don't agree with them all the time, but pretending your opinion is better than some random writer on the magazine is the very definition of pretentious.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

I really like Edge's way to write gaming articles, and it is much better than what many other 'journalists' do, but when it comes to reviews, I have to disagree with them. Still, I can make my own opinions, so I only care for the rest of the articles in their issues.

 

[Always-honest]

judging by the demo, infamous 2 seems to be a 100 x bttter than infamous 1. so why the low score.

Dirt 3 THAT good???

 

[Vice]

The other side of the coin is that you have people claiming that, in their anonymity, Edge reviews are trolling for hits/sales. You'll also have people comparing one score to another more often than at other outlets because you can't put a score to a name.

I don't do the things mentioned above, but it's plain to see why people do it with Edge more than they do with outlets that operate with more transparency in not only who reviews the games but also what their review scale means.

That's all I'm saying.

I have nothing against Edge, their scores or how they keep their reviewers sheltered, I'm just trying to explore why these threads get the same reactions every month.

I think if they showed their reviews names Edge threads would just have people accusing reviewer X of taking money to get game Z an 9 while game P got a 7.

I think ultimately threads that involve reviews will always have people accusing the reviewers of something, be it inconsistency, taking money or what, the second the critics ideas don't mirror theirs.

 

[Shurs]

judging by the demo, infamous 2 seems to be a 100 x bttter than infamous 1. so why the low score.

Dirt 3 THAT good???

Here are the reviews, if you're interested.

inFamous 2
Dirt 3

 

[Always-honest]

Here are the reviews, if you're interested.

inFamous 2
Dirt 3

yes thanx!

 

[Shurs]

I think if they showed their reviews names Edge threads would just have people accusing reviewer X of taking money to get game Z an 9 while game P got a 7.

I think ultimately threads that involve reviews will always have people accusing the reviewers of something, be it inconsistency, taking money or what, the second the critics ideas don't mirror theirs.

Reviewers can't win.

Score a game too high: You're either paid off or auditioning for a job with a developer/publisher.

Score a game too low: You either played it wrong, didn't play the whole thing, suck at the game or you're trolling for hits.

 

[Curufinwe]

No, this opinion is shared for years now in most Edge threads and it has been confirmed again with the Dirt 3 review. Maybe it's a wrong opinion and you can prove it wrong, but strawman arguments is not the way to do it.

How about you prove it's correct, or even that it has any more merit than the European bias theory that you seem so keen to dismiss?

The Dirt 3 review confirms nothing except they really liked Dirt 3; enough to give it the same score it averages on MetaCritic. People are acting like Dirt 3 is some awful game or that they gave Brink a 9.

 

[Riddick]

How about you prove it's correct, or even that it has any more merit than the European bias theory that you seem so keen to dismiss?

The Dirt 3 review confirms nothing except they really liked Dirt 3; enough to give it the same score it averages on MetaCritic. People are acting like Dirt 3 is some awful game or that they gave Brink a 9.

Comparisons have been made in previous threads between scores of top UK games and top foreign and they're proved that point, at least to me. I don't have the patience to make these comparisons maybe someone can link you to these posts. What's irritating though is that you keep adding the strawman trying to make a point. Hint, points cannot be made using fallacies.

 

[Darkflight]

Size comparisons:

Back and Tease:

Info on the redesign:


Nice touch I noticed flicking through is that the reader mails are now like 30 pages in rather than somewhere near the back. The non dev columns also sit here now, with the dev ones sitting in the Create section further back.

100 more pages than last month due to the new format, it's pretty damn heavy now.

 

[RibbedHero]

Got my issue today.

New issue is 212 pages, while previous issues were 130 odd (June 2011 was 132 for example).

 

[Mr_Zombie]

Why are we discussing scores? Isn't it the text that matters, not some arbitrary number?

 

[Android18a]

Got my issue today.

New issue is 212 pages, while previous issues were 130 odd (June 2011 was 132 for example).

Yeah. This issue seems more like a book about games rather than a gaming mag. Which is good, I think.

I signed up for the 3-for-£5 trial so I'll give it a few more issues at least. I like what I see so far. Can see these getting archived in my wardrobe!

 

[Evlar]

Why are we discussing scores? Isn't it the text that matters, not some arbitrary number?

I don't have anything kind to say about the text in the Infamous 2 review.

 

[Vasili2K38]

Edge gave Mass Effect 2 a 10? LOL. Anyway, before the arrival of the internets my brother was suscribed (I remember when they previewed MGS1 :O), and I found the magazine interesting, specially the interviews. But today, is a former joke of himself.

 

[fr4nz]

yay! can't wait for my digital copy ... quick Zinio, press the button already!

 

[firen]

Reviewers can't win.

Score a game too high: You're either paid off or auditioning for a job with a developer/publisher.

Score a game too low: You either played it wrong, didn't play the whole thing, suck at the game or you're trolling for hits.

My main complaint with the review is that he thought Prototype was "vastly superior." Although I haven't played inFamous 2 (only the demo on PSN), I was hoping that Sucker Punch would find a better way to implement the morality system. The first one was completely binary. That being said, I did enjoy the differences in the powers. Evil was way more destructive while the other was much more controlled.

 

[panda21]

It's okay that you don't agree with them all the time, but pretending your opinion is better than some random writer on the magazine is the very definition of pretentious.

I'm saying that I don't care to pay to read their opinion, given that it is so often out of line with mine, making it useless for making purchase decisions, and their reviews are not any more insightful than the opinion of any random forum poster. pretending the opinion of some random writer on the magazine is better than some random on a forum is the very definition of pretentious.