Quantcast
Edge vs. Metacritic (Bias Confirmed!!!)

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Edge vs. Metacritic (Bias Confirmed!!!)

Alic0004 said:
hsrob said:
6.43 and 6.26 (mean Edge scores for all 360 and PS3 games respectively)

The whole point is comparing the scores to their metacritic (or gamerankings) average.  The question people are trying to answer is "how much lower or higher does this magazine review each consoles' games compared to the overall reviews they get?"

Not that this article answers the question very well...  I don't think it does, anyway.

Quoted for common sense. Thanks for pointing out the real subject of this thread, it's impressive how many people have missed it.



MY HYPE LIST: 1) Gran Turismo 5; 2) Civilization V; 3) Starcraft II; 4) The Last Guardian; 5) Metal Gear Solid: Rising

Around the Network
Alic0004 said:
hsrob said:
6.43 and 6.26 (mean Edge scores for all 360 and PS3 games respectively)

The whole point is comparing the scores to their metacritic (or gamerankings) average.  The question people are trying to answer is "how much lower or higher does this magazine review each consoles' games compared to the overall reviews they get?"

Not that this article answers the question very well...  I don't think it does, anyway.

Using Metacritic as a comparison point is only valid if there is no bias in Metacritic. Or even if we have no better comparison using the top 30 doesn't allow us to draw any significant conclusions because the middle 150 could very well show Edge 'bias' in favour of the PS3.

If someone wants to argue that PS3 actually has qualitively better games (and hence deserves higher review scores on Meta and Edge) be my guest but the facts say there is no statistical difference between the mean scores Edge gives 360 games and PS3 games.



ElRhodeo said:
Hm, another possible explanation is that Edge isn't biased, they just thought the PS3 games were worse than the 360 games. Shock!

That's called a 'result', something that comes AFTER examining / testing.
'Bias' means judging BEFORE you tried it.

You know, according to your (very popular) definition of 'bias', any comparison that doesn't result in "all contestants are equally good" is biased. That's pointless.

 

Edge are being compared to Metacritic (made up of many reviewers opinions).  This isn't Edge 360 vs Edge PS3.   What you just posted is nonsense in relation to the topic.

 

 



________________________________________________________________

This could be a result of how they weigh their opinions. A lot of PS3's exclusive's strongest selling points are their graphics, and a lot of their reviews are based on this. Even some of my friends... buy single player multiplats on the PS3 because it's "so pretty" and multiplayer games on the 360 because of Live.

Fact is, lets say the reviewers consider controls, multiplayer, online offerings over graphics, then this weighting could tend to favor the 360. I'm sure you could find plenty of review sites that heavily weight graphics that would have a similar swing in favor of PS3 exclusives.



Without wanting to state the obvious, but in order for the metacritic average to be created, there has to be some review scores above the mean, and there has to be some review scores below it. It's how it works.

Are the ones above just as biased as the ones below?



VGChartz

Around the Network
jarrod said:

Read it again, it's not even the top 30 games in each category.  It's 30 games which scored somewhere between 100-70 on metacritic that he somehow decided to use.

 

 

Jarrod:

 

Do yourself a favour and go to MC. Try to pick only the "exclusive" games from the 360 and those from the PS3. For the 360, depending on your choice, pick games like L4D if you wish since they are technically "Console Exclusive". Don't pick games that are common to 360 and PS3. Now compare the MC score to the EDGE score for those games.

 

I think you will start to see a trend. I did it just then.One platform clearly has a higher variance from the MC average than the other. It's not even close.

 

We can argue until the cows come home about what "Top 30" this guy chose but my suggestion is to try this yourself. Try it for what is exclusive to each console and it's basically backing up what the OP posted, or quoted.



aragod said:
ElRhodeo said:
Hm, another possible explanation is that Edge isn't biased, they just thought the PS3 games were worse than the 360 games. Shock!

That's called a 'result', something that comes AFTER examining / testing.
'Bias' means judging BEFORE you tried it.

You know, according to your (very popular) definition of 'bias', any comparison that doesn't result in "all contestants are equally good" is biased. That's pointless.

Sorry but your explanation is complete bs.

The point is that EDGE is rating PS3 exclusives with bigger difference than XBox exclusives COMPARED to industry standart. It's like saying that Xbox games are better because EDGE "agrees" with the whole industry, but PS3 games are worse, because EDGE is "off" the industry standart. That makes absolutly no sense whatsoever.

Also bias is universal, there is noone and nothing completly unbiased, because bias is a part of underlying social structure affected by many factors which can't be empiricali studyied. There is a whole science which is trying to find these non-visible functions, called Structuralism. Noone is unbiased, therefore the question is:

How much biased you are?

Nice try, turning the bias claim towards me. Actually I am pretty unbiased is this case, cause I don't care for either of the 2 systems. 

Apart from that: You're absolutely right, everybody is "biased". EDGE's job is to give their opinion on the games they test. All I was trying to say is this:
Even if they DO think that Xbox games are better than Playstation games on average, that's a legitimate result. I think it's a plague that people started comparing every review score to the Metacritic average, labeling those 'wrong' who differ. If you don't allow a magazine to have their opinion, why bother reading them? 



Currently playing: NSMB (Wii) 

Waiting for: Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Wii), The Last Story (Wii), Golden Sun (DS), Portal 2 (Wii? or OSX), Metroid: Other M (Wii), 
... and of course Zelda (Wii) 
KylieDog said:
ElRhodeo said:
Hm, another possible explanation is that Edge isn't biased, they just thought the PS3 games were worse than the 360 games. Shock!

That's called a 'result', something that comes AFTER examining / testing.
'Bias' means judging BEFORE you tried it.

You know, according to your (very popular) definition of 'bias', any comparison that doesn't result in "all contestants are equally good" is biased. That's pointless.

Edge are being compared to Metacritic (made up of many reviewers opinions).  This isn't Edge 360 vs Edge PS3.   What you just posted is nonsense in relation to the topic.

Err, no? While I admit that I didn't read the complete OP, the point of it seemed to be: Edge 360 is closer to Metacritic 360 than Edge PS3 is to Metacritic PS3. So it's Edge 360 vs Edge PS3, measured by Metacritic. 

Edit: 
... I probaby shouldn't have started posting in this thread, since Xbox vs Playstation is none of my business. But thread titles containing "bias confirmed" are too provocative for me to ignore, sometimes. 



Currently playing: NSMB (Wii) 

Waiting for: Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Wii), The Last Story (Wii), Golden Sun (DS), Portal 2 (Wii? or OSX), Metroid: Other M (Wii), 
... and of course Zelda (Wii) 

Normally, I'm not a big fan of the consiparcy theories and all that stuff but the data shows what it sows. Edge is significantly lower on it scores for PS3 games than it is for it's 360 games.

What can you do with it, I have no idea. but if I were reading a reveiw from edge about Ps3 game I would definately consider the source.



Cypher1980 said:
That is the most retarded bit of research I've ever seen.

No offence to the OP but you must see how many errors are introduced by the study method.

Restricting any sample to a portion of total compromises any study.

The study proved a few things but it DOESNT prove the startlingly bold final conclusion.

I take it you plan on never taking any new medications if you're sick then? Considering that for a new drug to get past phase III clinical trials you typically only need around 5000 people out of millions, potentially billions of customers I can't imagine you'd trust any drug until it'd been on the market for at least 10 years.