What are the graphs saying? o.o they are way too small

Sorry, I didn't manage to include links to the full sized images, basicaly they are showing the difference between meta rating and edge rating.

Here they are: http://edgevsmeta.blogspot.com/

Is pretty obvious. MW2 had no innovation and Halo 3 was the same as Halo 2 with a few tweaks. They hate the PS3 because it was seen as the expensive & is the more powerful console therefore it's arty not to like it.

Are you guys trying to argue that a metacritic average is an "unbiased" score, while any score Edge gives that's far off that score is completely biased? I don't know why it's so shocking to think they "hey, maybe Edge just thinks the 360 has better games!" Naw, let's go with the easy route, and everyone who doesn't come close to giving games the score you want them to have is biased.

I wish we could ban all threads talking about Edge scores.

Exactly, that proves it

Well if you could show how one console is more likely to have better games than the more powerful counterpart, please impart your pearls of wisdom.

Simply put, many games on the PS3 are considered top games of their genre, yet Edge reviews don't ever reflect this. To break away from the average review once in a while shows independent thinking, but to do it all the time shows possible bias.

Any argument that bases its statistics on something as incredibly flawed as Metacritic is ridiculous. If you don't like Edge, fine, just stop crying about them and don't read their reviews or you can of course continue to give them PR by bringing the subject up. It's rather childish all the hate they get, nearly every single month from the Sony camp.

The reason there is so much off topic chat is due to the fact this has been discussed lots of times already, just without the fancy graphs. Funnily enough putting the figures thrown around previously into pretty graphs still doesn't change the meaning that for many of us the data set is hugely flawed and thats without bringing the impartiality and bias of Metacritic into the equation too.

So just to clarify one last point, any Edge bias wasn't confirmed in the slightest.

If you are going to argue with something at least say how. All you've just said is that the OP shows nothing.

Why? Elaborate or you're giving nothing other than an unfounded opinion.

No point recylcling old arguments is there usually, I've made my point several times already on this site.  This thread isn't bringing new data to the table just the same old data people post packaged in graphs, we don't need the arguments again.  By showing that the OP is basing his entire argument of proof of bias on flawed data isn't unfounded by the way. 

I assume you consider Metacritc is a perfect measure to judge and only the top 30 games a suitable measure though?  Lets not take into account the hype factor that causes many games to receive inflated reviews from certain reviewers or indeed that some reviewers have in the past been proven to take bribes for scores.  The point is Metacritic is hopelessly flawed as a metric for comparison, its not really up for the debate by anyone interested remotely in a proper statistical analysis.  Thats without mentioning the very poor selection criteria for reviews on Meta, the score conversions they do, how reviewers gauge their average rating. 

As you can see thats one paragraph and there is plenty more reasons that can be used for why this isn't a proof but why should I bother trying to convince someone so intent on spinning numbers (the OP not you).  The OP despite what he wrote after he posted the article (which he admits he didn't check or consider the validity of the data) had already made their mind up and this was never a debate in thier eyes, just an excuse to dismiss anyone with a different opinion.

It was clear to many (likewise with regard to Gamespot and Eurogamer UK), good to see some well backed up study with regard to such observations. The reviews often highlight certain criticism with regard to certain games, but in other reviews they fail to highlight similar points for similar imperfections regarding other titles.

It's sad PS3 exclusives are of very high quality industry experts agree. Uncharted 2 got awards (including Game of the Year) for so many categories. The last 2 years PS3 exclusives were at the forefront and 360 game of the years before that like Oblivion and Bioshock also at a later date saw improved versions on the PS3.

Actually I think it would be fair to penalize XBox 360 games which heavily rely on online multiplayer as you as well as your gaming friends will have to pay extra and subscribe to make use of that. (For example Halo 3 with its short repetitive single player campaign). I still remember these sites criticizing Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction for being similar to earlier Ratchet & Clank games (BTW this was my first), despite the much new gameplay such as the flying sections and mini-games. Yet Halo 3 was just perfect to them.