Support NeoGAF

[StuBurns]

Right, but if we're talking about how Edge has a relative economy of reviewers, and we're talking about how their reviews for a given genre aren't useful to people, then why wouldn't Edge simply choose not to review that genre? They don't, for instance, review iterative sports releases--using the excuse that unless there have been major changes, they don't have enough manpower to cover them all.

I mean, I'm interested in the perspective of someone who has never played an RPG and then plays one, or someone who has never played any games and jumps in with Uncharted. It's not useful to me as a buyer's guide, but it's interesting... but I don't think I'd want it as a 400 word capsule review of a game releasing this month. Choosing to do it this way marries the shallowness and myopia of release-date short-form reviews with the subjectivity of long-form stuff, emphasizing the worst aspects of each.

I don't believe most people subscribe to Edge for buying advice. I don't have any proof of that, but it's not widely available on shelves, certainly not outside of the UK. You basically need to subscribe. If you have an Edge subscription, you're probably a fairly engaged gamer. There's a fair chance you've played these games already, clearly much of GAF have who're commenting the scores are 'wrong'.

This seems like the very last line of buying advice. By this time you've had hundreds of reviews, a few nice video reviews, demos, trailers, months of previews in various forms, you could rent the games as they're out already, etc.

But maybe you could be an adventure game fan, and have some how missed all other advice, but are aware of a game, and Edge give it a middling score, you're still likely to know their tastes are not in line with your own based on the text. It'll never say for example "no one could possibly enjoy this game, do not play it", it's always going to be the unique perspective of the writer, and while Edge use an institutionalized editorial voice, I believe any reasonable reader will filter conclusions based on opinions misaligned with your own knowingly.

How they choose which games to review isn't something I can comment on, as I have no idea. Maybe they weren't even completely aware of the nature of a game until they played it, I know that's happened to me a few times. Maybe they'd decide to review Hotel Dust because they thought it was something closer to a Broken Sword style adventure game, there could be many explanations for why they'd pick games they don't have a predilection for.

Ultimately it is their opinion, I love Alice 2 for example, it's certainly not going to be for everyone, but if in their opinion it's average, I can't see any issue with that. The only possible argument I could see is being concerned their influence could hurt sales and you'd care for a sequel so hope it sells, but even then that just seems like jealousy of their voice having greater reach than your own.

 

[YYZ]

I can't comment too much on the gameplay since I only played the intro bit, but I'd rather watch Drive Angry again than sit through any more exposition of Shadows of the Damned. Just terrible.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

As far as DNF goes, given the massive glut of FPS we've received this generation, I find it hard to see how anyone could even say it's even an "average" game for the genre as it currently stands.

Something like Alien vs. Predator or FEAR 2 is an "average" FPS this gen, and they're head and shoulders better than games like DNF.

 

[Visualante]

I'm really struggling to adjust to the new format. It's like disposable magazines like Wired and GamesTM now. Really not liking it.

Even the features section seems to be a step back.

Making of lacks any of the character it used to have.. Time Extend seems to have been axed.

 

[semiconscious]

I guess I like sucky games. More sucky games please EA, you can haves my money.

welcome to the club! i spend a lot of my time playing & enjoying mediocre to shitty (as in gamerankings/metacritic) games. & i really do appreciate the developers that continue to take the time to make them - thanks, guys!...

 

[Gibbo]

Motherf*** yes. Needs more exposure.
I need to get you all to buy this game.

Edit: No wonder everything else pales if they review FS in the same issue
Edit2: Shame about Alice though.

Haha you probably don't know- but I'm the guy who gifted FS to you. Glad you enjoyed it. It was far too complex for me so I've pretty much given up on it : (

 

[Curufinwe]

The bit in the Shadows of the Damned review about how the game needs a lock-on and not having one is a design oversight is bizarre.

A lock-on or some auto-aim would be a huge help, especially against some of the super-sized villains of the deep, but it’s just one of the design team’s oversights.

You do get a lock-on for the machine gun later in the game, and it's a forced upgrade not an option, which might lead one to believe that the EDGE reviewer did not actually finish the game.

 

[Toma]

Haha you probably don't know- but I'm the guy who gifted FS to you. Glad you enjoyed it. It was far too complex for me so I've pretty much given up on it : (

I cant thank you enough for it. Seriously. I played this game for 90 hours now and hope I'll get a lot more to play it during this sale as the servers are kind of barren and I'd like to see another FS tournament.

To think I wouldnt even have noticed this game without you... Horrible.

Edit: And you shouldnt give up. Come to the FS synapse thread that should pop back up again in a few days We'll share some hints to get everyone started faster.

 

[lucius]

I know, it's nuts. Their opinions and all. Still though, they tend to stick out like a sore thumb most of the time - in a bad way. Edge reviews to me are pure comedy.

Here are some of their reviews of games that most GAFfers and critics consider to be great games:

Lara Croft & The Guardian of Light - 6/10
999 - 6/10
Sonic Colors - 6/10
Dead Nation - 5/10
flower - 7/10
Joe Danger 7/10
Scott Pilgrim Vs the World 6/10
Ace Attorney Investigations - 6/10
Pro Evolution Soccer 2011 - 6/10
Darksiders - 6/10
The Witcher 2 - 6/10
Outland - 7/10
Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia - 6/10
Donkey Kong Country Returns 7/10
Another Code R Wii - 4/10
Contra 4 - 6/10
Yakuza 3 - 6/10
Sonic Rush Adventure - 5/10
Gran Turismo 5 - 7/10
Muramasa: Demon Blade 6/10
Resistance Retribution 6/10
Rule of Rose - 3/10
inFamous 2 6/10
Little Big Planet PSP - 6/10
Warioland: Shake It 6/10
Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Trials and Tribulations - 6/10
Hotel Dusk: Room 215 - 6/10
Elite Beat Agents 7/10
Metroid Prime 3 Corruption 7/10

I can't remember all of them off hand but there were some crazy ones last generation, maybe even worse than these.

 

[corporate cheerleader]

Here are some of their reviews of games that most GAFfers and critics consider to be great games:

Lara Croft & The Guardian of Light - 6/10

They probably didn't play co-op. Technical issues (which aren't game breaking) aside, the game is a blast and has great value.

 

[Visualante]

They probably didn't play co-op. Technical issues (which aren't game breaking) aside, the game is a blast and has great value.

Bit of an assumption for a reputable outlet.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

I wont bash Edge for their scores, maybe they think games deserve what they got, including those in the list above that we generally consider great. But I'll just continue to think that they have supremely weird taste and ignore them like usual. Too bad their reviews are actually decent reads, so I can't fully ignore

 

[george_us]

Glad to see Dungeon Siege III getting some respect. Great game IMO.

And Shadows getting a 5 isnt that far off. If you're not into the weirdness of it then the shooting mechanics probably won't blow your mind. Plus there's the completely terrible Act 4.

 

[corporate cheerleader]

Bit of an assumption for a reputable outlet.

Probably.

 

[Feindflug]

I can't remember all of them off hand but there were some crazy ones last generation, maybe even worse than these.

Yep giving ZoE2 a 4/10 was indeed crazy.

I guess I like fun games. More fun games please EA, you can haves my money.

Fixed.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

I thought it was fairly average tbh. But the scores for Duke and Shadows of the Dammed justify me cancelling my sub. I like their previews but I never agreed with their reviews.

Well if you don't agree with them, then yeah, you better cancel that sub ASAP. Don't want to run the risk of reading something that doesn't confirm what you already think about something.

Backlash for SotD isn't surprising, but I don't see anything wrong with the score personally. Suda games always get a pass for their gameplay due to their wackiness. If it controls like RE4 and doesn't add anything substantial we haven't seen before in the gameplay, then it's an average game regardless of what cool stuff happens in the cutscenes. Plus they're doing a followup article next month, obviously they look there's something interesting about it.

 

[TheExodu5]

Alice: Madness Returns – 5
Dungeon Seige III – 7

hahahaha

 

[ghst]

frozen synapse is probably the best reviewed new ip released all year and the vast majority of you don't even recognise its name.

 

[Toma]

frozen synapse is probably the best reviewed new ip released all year and the vast majority of you don't even recognise its name.

I hope we can change that later this week.

 

[Lostconfused]

frozen synapse is probably the best reviewed new ip released all year and the vast majority of you don't even recognise its name.

I recognize it's name but I have hundreds of hours of generic trash bought at retail to wade through. Also shouldn't you be pimping Red Orchestra some more, august is almost here.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I don't believe most people subscribe to Edge for buying advice. I don't have any proof of that, but it's not widely available on shelves, certainly not outside of the UK. You basically need to subscribe. If you have an Edge subscription, you're probably a fairly engaged gamer. There's a fair chance you've played these games already, clearly much of GAF have who're commenting the scores are 'wrong'.

This seems like the very last line of buying advice. By this time you've had hundreds of reviews, a few nice video reviews, demos, trailers, months of previews in various forms, you could rent the games as they're out already, etc.

I can dig it. So my suggestion to EDGE would be to stop writing month-one buyer's guide reviews and start focusing on in-depth, selective, and lengthy critical reflections 3-6 months after a game's release or more.

But maybe you could be an adventure game fan, and have some how missed all other advice, but are aware of a game, and Edge give it a middling score, you're still likely to know their tastes are not in line with your own based on the text. It'll never say for example "no one could possibly enjoy this game, do not play it", it's always going to be the unique perspective of the writer, and while Edge use an institutionalized editorial voice, I believe any reasonable reader will filter conclusions based on opinions misaligned with your own knowingly.

I do agree to a certain extent, which is why earlier in the thread I elaborated on the room for diversity of opinions. I don't think EDGE's reviews are bad from what I've read at all. I'm not even suggesting they're "biased against a genre" or anything. I'm just noting that, if you accept the criticism that they under-serve graphical text adventures, it might be worth reconsidering how or if they cover them.

Virtually no one is served by someone who writes a review that boils down to "I don't really get this genre, so I couldn't tell you if the game is a good example or not, it bored the hell out of me". That's a totally valid opinion to have and in the case of many of these genres it probably represents a lot of readers, but it's just not actually any more useful than simply not reviewing games from the genre.

Maybe they'd decide to review Hotel Dust because they thought it was something closer to a Broken Sword style adventure game, there could be many explanations for why they'd pick games they don't have a predilection for.

Right, well, that makes sense, but if that was the case you'd expect to see a discussion in the review of the relative merits of the genres. "I appreciated how Hotel Dusk went far more in depth with its characterization and establishment of setting than the typical visual adventure which establishes a wide variety of settings almost as a loose sequence of vignettes, but ultimately the text overpowered me and I think you really need a stronger puzzle element like most visual adventures to keep an audience interested". I can't speak to their Hotel Dusk review, I have no idea if it did that or not. I simply mean that, as a rule, if you are tip-toeing into an unfamiliar genre, we should at least expect insight that links that genre to existing genres in a comparative way.

 

[StuBurns]

I fully agree.

 

[Tylahedras]

WKCII is unfortunate, I was pretty hopeful on that.

 

[Fallout-NL]

Well, here's how they rated similar games.

Diablo - 7
Diablo II - 6
Torchlight - 7
Dungeon Siege - 7
Titan Quest - 7

No way, a 7 and a 6 for the Diablo games, seriously?


Don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate video game grade inflation, but classics like Diablo 1 and 2 deserve better than that.

 

[Toma]

No way, a 7 and a 6 for the Diablo games, seriously?


Don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate video game grade inflation, but classics like Diablo 1 and 2 deserve better than that.

I'd say its even moer funnier that they graded D1 better than the 2nd. Is there anyone else that would agree with that?

 

[no angel]

Reading Edge review scores without the context of the review itself is an exercise in pointlessness. I don't even check them any more, it's only the monthly GAF thread that makes me remember they're there at all. Edge themselves would rather do away with scores altogether, I remember the trial they ran a couple of years ago where they removed the scores entirely, the flack they took from the readers was what forced them to go back to a traditional scoring method.

In a way it's the people complaining in this thread and their fixation with review scores that have created this issue in the first place, which is itself an interesting mirror to the industry's fascination with metacritic placings and all the scandal that goes with it. Personally I think the bst thing we can do is gamers is ignore scores and focus more on the review content, but I suppose that wouldn't be as fun

 

[Adr1an]

Damn WKC2 only got a 4

 

[graywolf323]

WKCII is unfortunate, I was pretty hopeful on that.

I wouldn't go solely by Edge for a game like that, they aren't huge on JRPGs either

wait for user impressions

 

[ghst]

I hope we can change that later this week.

today, infact!

 

[Strummerjones]

It's a terrible thing and one of the best proofs that the games industry is still in its infancy. There's no serious critical examination of its products and no desire (in fact a violent aversion) to any from most fans.

The demand for critical consensus is childish and silly - and hugely damaging to the industry in a number of ways.

This is the crux of the matter. I've been reading Simon Reynold's excellent Book Retromania recently, and he specifically nails videogames and the complete lack of any coherent or interesting discourse around them, and the complete failure of magazines/gaming press to create such discourse this late on in their lifespan.
Without wanting to use the A word, other mediums with similar gestations and youth focus such as music or comic books had waaay more thought being put into discussing and appraising them at similar points in their lives than videogames have after thirty years in a climate where a shortage of exciting new popular culture has lead to even the most banal artifacts of the recent past to be endlessly turned over and reappraised - yet no one wants to touch videogames.

Wisely so - people peculiarly get very angry once you start poking at the core of what videogames and attitudes of players towards them are. For artifacts that people take great pains to point out how little they really care about (they're just videogames, get a grip!), they certainly do treat them as serious business when pressed. Whether it's obvious stuff like tedious fanboys to the more sneaky insinuation from other quarters that so called "AAA" titles are always going to be better than lesser know "cult" games. There's a huge web of beliefs and biases around games that everyone pretends to ignore.

Videogames have long since got to the point where it's impossible for an individual to keep abreast of all genres and all developments. Yet despite this there persists the fantasy of the "rich tapestry of videogaming" (to paraphrase Julie Burchill), that all games should (and do!) get equal and fair treatment by both players and reviewers. It's nonsense, but every attempt at straying from it is heavily shot down by videogame fans. Everyone is supposed to objectively be able to enjoy titles that often have completely antithetical values, with perhaps weight of sales as some kind of deciding factor if anyone does start to poke at the ragged seams. The absurd attempts by people essentially claiming there are objective scores for games or the clinging to metacritic are the only "logical" ways to square this circle.

 

[walking fiend]

I'd say its even moer funnier that they graded D1 better than the 2nd. Is there anyone else that would agree with that?

D1 is a MUCH better game than D2. (compared to the time they were released)

if I were to rate them, I'd give D2 two scores lower. I wasnt an online player back then though, so I can't comment on that part.

 

[hamchan]

EDGE obviously trolls with their scores to garner attention. The magazine is good because of the other, non-review content.

 

[Furret]

This is the crux of the matter. I've been reading Simon Reynold's excellent Book Retromania recently, and he specifically nails videogames and the complete lack of any coherent or interesting discourse around them, and the complete failure of magazines/gaming press to create such discourse this late on in their lifespan.
Without wanting to use the A word, other mediums with similar gestations and youth focus such as music or comic books had waaay more thought being put into discussing and appraising them at similar points in their lives than videogames have after thirty years in a climate where a shortage of exciting new popular culture has lead to even the most banal artifacts of the recent past to be endlessly turned over and reappraised - yet no one wants to touch videogames.

Wisely so - people peculiarly get very angry once you start poking at the core of what videogames and attitudes of players towards them are. For artifacts that people take great pains to point out how little they really care about (they're just videogames, get a grip!), they certainly do treat them as serious business when pressed. Whether it's obvious stuff like tedious fanboys to the more sneaky insinuation from other quarters that so called "AAA" titles are always going to be better than lesser know "cult" games. There's a huge web of beliefs and biases around games that everyone pretends to ignore.

Videogames have long since got to the point where it's impossible for an individual to keep abreast of all genres and all developments. Yet despite this there persists the fantasy of the "rich tapestry of videogaming" (to paraphrase Julie Burchill), that all games should (and do!) get equal and fair treatment by both players and reviewers. It's nonsense, but every attempt at straying from it is heavily shot down by videogame fans. Everyone is supposed to objectively be able to enjoy titles that often have completely antithetical values, with perhaps weight of sales as some kind of deciding factor if anyone does start to poke at the ragged seams. The absurd attempts by people essentially claiming there are objective scores for games or the clinging to metacritic are the only "logical" ways to square this circle.

I don't really agree about critics not being able to objectively cover all genres - they do it, or do their best to do it, with cinema so I see no reason why it shouldn't be the same with games.

But the lack of critical discussion I put down entirely to the fans. They don't want games discussed, they want their opinions of them reinforced and god help any reviewer that tries to do otherwise.

The sad chorus of "LOL games journalism" on GAF consistently misses the point. Games get exactly the sort of journalism most gamers demand, pathetic as those demands may be.

 

[blame space]

I wonder what the portion of posters are who complains about IGN and videogame 'journalism' and then freak out when game X doesn't get a score they agree with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2TDoGsA43Y&t=3m47s

 

[Abooie]

Not necessarily the best place to post these but as I can't create a new thread and I find Edge and games(tm) occupy roughly the same space I thought it'd be as good a place as other.

So for those that are interested here are games(tm) issue 111 review scores:

Duke Nukem Forever 3/10
Hunted: The Demon's Forge 6/10
Shadows of The Damned 8/10
Infamous 2 7/10
Dungeon Seige III 7/10
Alice: Madness Returns 7/10
Jamestown 7/10
The 2D Adventures of Rotating Octopus Character 8/10
Earth Defence Force: Insect Armageddon 7/10
Dungeons & Dragons: Daggerdale 4/10
White Knight Chronicles II 5/10
The First Templar 4/10
Lume 6/10
Williams Pinball Classics 8/10
Arcana Heart 3 7/10
Max and the Magic Marker 7/10
A New Beginning 6/10
Monster Hunter: Dynamic Hunting (iPhone) 7/10

A lot of 7's.

 

[Tricky I Shadow]

999 - 6/10

LOL.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Not necessarily the best place to post these but as I can't create a new thread and I find Edge and games(tm) occupy roughly the same space I thought it'd be as good a place as other.

So for those that are interested here are games(tm) issue 111 review scores:

Duke Nukem Forever 3/10
Hunted: The Demon's Forge 6/10
Shadows of The Damned 8/10
Infamous 2 7/10
Dungeon Seige III 7/10
Alice: Madness Returns 7/10
Jamestown 7/10
The 2D Adventures of Rotating Octopus Character 8/10
Earth Defence Force: Insect Armageddon 7/10
Dungeons & Dragons: Daggerdale 4/10
White Knight Chronicles II 5/10
The First Templar 4/10
Lume 6/10
Williams Pinball Classics 8/10
Arcana Heart 3 7/10
Max and the Magic Marker 7/10
A New Beginning 6/10
Monster Hunter: Dynamic Hunting (iPhone) 7/10

A lot of 7's.

In the past there's been a lot of overlap between EDGE and GamesTM threads (honestly, most GamesTM threads devolve into comparisons with EDGE and whether or not EDGE is better). Here's just as good a place as any to put it. Thanks for posting the scores

 

[SCHUEY F1]

Finally got my copies of the first two issues of the new format and so far I'm digging it. The paper quality really is fantastic as well.