By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
slowmo on 03 February 2010
aleusianacht88 said:
slowmo said:
If you start applying rules to reviewers telling them they have to score more or less based on previous scores they gave games then it will become a joke. Retroking1981, your idea of conforming to previous reviews is terrible and would only serve to make review scores even more of a joke than they are now.

I'm sure if they were slanted more towards the PS3 or Wii you would have a problem with them. Fanboyism has absolutely no place in video game journalism and reviews whether it be genre bias or platform bias, it's crap.


They aren't slanted towards anyone so I have no problem at all, obviously you do hence why you might want to read the bit I bolded and follow your own advice.  The main reviews I don't trust are official magazine reviews and some single format publications.  It's not fanboyism for a reviewer to say their opinion on a game if it doesn't score well on their criteria.  Looking at the vast majority of reviews for MAG out there it would appear this review was pretty much on the money.

The main people on here that cry about biased reviewers is PS3 owners (thats a fact), why is there such a trend I wonder?  It was old in 2007 and its not getting any more interesting to listen to now in fairness.



Around the Network
slowmo on 03 February 2010
Xoj said:
slowmo said:
MAG is a average shooter with a unique premise, the score wasn't obviously less than other reviews so you're just bitching because they had a different view of one of your favourite current games. Games TM gave Assassins Creed 1 a score of 4, did I cry about it, no I read the review and decided I could live with the downsides. As it happens the reviewers opinion was wrong on the score but is pros and cons hit the nail on the head that he wrote in the review.

The bias overspilling your words makes your rant have very little value to me, you have no proof of them favouring 360 ports of games as you've not bothered to get ACTUAL numbers of games they did this on in any issue, let alone the one you're upset about.

Ever considered that the fact they get to play the best games on all consoles is why they don't score some PS3 exclusives as high as you would like?

says the guy wit halo on their avatar

pretty much all FPS on consoles are average, certain there noticeable quite bias since Mw2, halo:ostd  never go below a 8 get average ;_;

 

Either you're very bad at FPS on consoles or you really haven't played many.  My avatar has nothing to do with my opinion and Halo isn't even one of my favourite games this generation.  If you call Bioshock, Orange Box, COD4, Halo 3 average then frankly, I know now how little your opinion means on the FPS genre. 

For the record ODST was worth a 8 but then again I'd know that having played it through fully, also most reviews tend to agree with my viewpoint. 

Looking at the tags under YOUR name though its easy to see why you would want to try and bait and troll me, just shoo please.



redux_4 on 03 February 2010

Urm, they are reviews, which by their very nature and personal.
For the record, I stopped buying Edge too - not because of their scores, they don't bother me, I'll still make my own mind up - mainly because I got sick of their increasingly pretentious grammar.



Badassbab on 03 February 2010
Catlana said:
heedstone said:

@ Catlana, I'm not pissed at EDGE for one crappy review of MAG, there's a whole host of other absurd reviews they do. for example:

 ....................EDGE ..............METACRITIC

Killzone 2 .........7 .......................91
Halo ODST ........9 .......................83
MAG .................6 ........................76


Crackdown ......8 ........................83
Infamous .........7 ........................85

mario kart wii ...6 .......................82
Banjo kazooie
nuts and bolts ..7 .......................79 


It's easy to find PS3 and Wii games that have recieved distinctly low scores from EDGE. Does anyone know of any 360 games that EDGE should of marked higher? I honestly can't think of any, and will be happy if someone can prove me wrong....

Edge gave the original Mass Effect (one of my favorite games) a 7 while its Metacritic sits at 91. Btw, I also really like Borderlands and Edge gave it a 6. To me and my friends that play together, the game is at least a 9, while metacritic the game is at 84. Edge also gave Blue Dragon a 6 while Metacritic sits at 79. So what can you tell from above, Edge simply tends to vary the score more. I very, very much disagree with some of their scores, but they are only 2% of a metacritic number on average.

Note: if you do not like Edge then do not subscribe, I don't. However, I try not to get too upset over reviewers that I disagree with. Threads like this just generate more attention for Edge and sell more copies.  


Edge are very independantly minded, hence some  of their review scores don't match those of other mainstream mags. I think Edge is boring and never been a big fan but I don't care for them much and it doesn't really bother me as there are plenty of other mags out there especially online.






Cross-X on 03 February 2010
heedstone said:

Killzone 2 .........7 .......................91
Halo ODST ........9 .......................83

That comparison slightly annoys me...

 

 

 



Around the Network
Xoj on 03 February 2010
slowmo said:
Xoj said:
slowmo said:
MAG is a average shooter with a unique premise, the score wasn't obviously less than other reviews so you're just bitching because they had a different view of one of your favourite current games. Games TM gave Assassins Creed 1 a score of 4, did I cry about it, no I read the review and decided I could live with the downsides. As it happens the reviewers opinion was wrong on the score but is pros and cons hit the nail on the head that he wrote in the review.

The bias overspilling your words makes your rant have very little value to me, you have no proof of them favouring 360 ports of games as you've not bothered to get ACTUAL numbers of games they did this on in any issue, let alone the one you're upset about.

Ever considered that the fact they get to play the best games on all consoles is why they don't score some PS3 exclusives as high as you would like?

says the guy wit halo on their avatar

pretty much all FPS on consoles are average, certain there noticeable quite bias since Mw2, halo:ostd  never go below a 8 get average ;_;

 

Either you're very bad at FPS on consoles or you really haven't played many.  My avatar has nothing to do with my opinion and Halo isn't even one of my favourite games this generation.  If you call Bioshock, Orange Box, COD4, Halo 3 average then frankly, I know now how little your opinion means on the FPS genre. 

For the record ODST was worth a 8 but then again I'd know that having played it through fully, also most reviews tend to agree with my viewpoint. 

Looking at the tags under YOUR name though its easy to see why you would want to try and bait and troll me, just shoo please.

certainly as far as innovation bioshock deliver in something halo 3 doens't, storytelling. but MAG have 256 battles never seen in a console before.

and it was you that starting calling MAG average without even playing it, i was in beta.



slowmo on 03 February 2010
Xoj said:
slowmo said:
Xoj said:
slowmo said:
MAG is a average shooter with a unique premise, the score wasn't obviously less than other reviews so you're just bitching because they had a different view of one of your favourite current games. Games TM gave Assassins Creed 1 a score of 4, did I cry about it, no I read the review and decided I could live with the downsides. As it happens the reviewers opinion was wrong on the score but is pros and cons hit the nail on the head that he wrote in the review.

The bias overspilling your words makes your rant have very little value to me, you have no proof of them favouring 360 ports of games as you've not bothered to get ACTUAL numbers of games they did this on in any issue, let alone the one you're upset about.

Ever considered that the fact they get to play the best games on all consoles is why they don't score some PS3 exclusives as high as you would like?

says the guy wit halo on their avatar

pretty much all FPS on consoles are average, certain there noticeable quite bias since Mw2, halo:ostd  never go below a 8 get average ;_;

 

Either you're very bad at FPS on consoles or you really haven't played many.  My avatar has nothing to do with my opinion and Halo isn't even one of my favourite games this generation.  If you call Bioshock, Orange Box, COD4, Halo 3 average then frankly, I know now how little your opinion means on the FPS genre. 

For the record ODST was worth a 8 but then again I'd know that having played it through fully, also most reviews tend to agree with my viewpoint. 

Looking at the tags under YOUR name though its easy to see why you would want to try and bait and troll me, just shoo please.

certainly as far as innovation bioshock deliver in something halo 3 doens't, storytelling. but MAG have 256 battles never seen in a console before.

and it was you that starting calling MAG average without even playing it, i was in beta.


I believe I stated it was an average FPS with a unique concept, how is that statement wrong?  Every review seems to agree with me pretty much.  Perhaps if more people in the beta had provided better feedback instead of kissing ass with developers then the game would have been even better.  Beta's in FPS games are a double edged sword because people spend more time trying to bend games to fit their playstyle rather than actually bug finding.  The only advantage a public beta gives you is an idea of how the netcode will perform. 

Halo 3 did bring some innovation to console FPS games, I suggest had you played the game you would know this.



heedstone on 03 February 2010
Catlana said:
heedstone said:

@ Catlana, I'm not pissed at EDGE for one crappy review of MAG, there's a whole host of other absurd reviews they do. for example:

 ....................EDGE ..............METACRITIC

Killzone 2 .........7 .......................91
Halo ODST ........9 .......................83
MAG .................6 ........................76


Crackdown ......8 ........................83
Infamous .........7 ........................85

mario kart wii ...6 .......................82
Banjo kazooie
nuts and bolts ..7 .......................79 


It's easy to find PS3 and Wii games that have recieved distinctly low scores from EDGE. Does anyone know of any 360 games that EDGE should of marked higher? I honestly can't think of any, and will be happy if someone can prove me wrong....

Edge gave the original Mass Effect (one of my favorite games) a 7 while its Metacritic sits at 91. Btw, I also really like Borderlands and Edge gave it a 6. To me and my friends that play together, the game is at least a 9, while metacritic the game is at 84. Edge also gave Blue Dragon a 6 while Metacritic sits at 79. So what can you tell from above, Edge simply tends to vary the score more. I very, very much disagree with some of their scores, but they are only 2% of a metacritic number on average.

Note: if you do not like Edge then do not subscribe, I don't. However, I try not to get too upset over reviewers that I disagree with. Threads like this just generate more attention for Edge and sell more copies.

 Obviously borderlands doesn't count as it is a multi-platform release.

True, Mass Effect does deserve more than 7, but I'm pretty sure Mass Effect and Blue Dragon were over 2 years ago, when EDGE was harsh, but uniformly so, they gave pretty low scores to Wii, PS3, and 360 alike, which didn't really bother me.  I'm pissed that they're continuing to mark down PS3 and Wii games, but are becoming more and more lenient towards the 360 exclusives (eg. Halo ODST-9, GTA episodes-9).



The dude abides   

Xoj on 03 February 2010
slowmo said:
Xoj said:
slowmo said:
Xoj said:
slowmo said:
MAG is a average shooter with a unique premise, the score wasn't obviously less than other reviews so you're just bitching because they had a different view of one of your favourite current games. Games TM gave Assassins Creed 1 a score of 4, did I cry about it, no I read the review and decided I could live with the downsides. As it happens the reviewers opinion was wrong on the score but is pros and cons hit the nail on the head that he wrote in the review.

The bias overspilling your words makes your rant have very little value to me, you have no proof of them favouring 360 ports of games as you've not bothered to get ACTUAL numbers of games they did this on in any issue, let alone the one you're upset about.

Ever considered that the fact they get to play the best games on all consoles is why they don't score some PS3 exclusives as high as you would like?

says the guy wit halo on their avatar

pretty much all FPS on consoles are average, certain there noticeable quite bias since Mw2, halo:ostd  never go below a 8 get average ;_;

 

Either you're very bad at FPS on consoles or you really haven't played many.  My avatar has nothing to do with my opinion and Halo isn't even one of my favourite games this generation.  If you call Bioshock, Orange Box, COD4, Halo 3 average then frankly, I know now how little your opinion means on the FPS genre. 

For the record ODST was worth a 8 but then again I'd know that having played it through fully, also most reviews tend to agree with my viewpoint. 

Looking at the tags under YOUR name though its easy to see why you would want to try and bait and troll me, just shoo please.

certainly as far as innovation bioshock deliver in something halo 3 doens't, storytelling. but MAG have 256 battles never seen in a console before.

and it was you that starting calling MAG average without even playing it, i was in beta.


I believe I stated it was an average FPS with a unique concept, how is that statement wrong?  Every review seems to agree with me pretty much.  Perhaps if more people in the beta had provided better feedback instead of kissing ass with developers then the game would have been even better.  Beta's in FPS games are a double edged sword because people spend more time trying to bend games to fit their playstyle rather than actually bug finding.  The only advantage a public beta gives you is an idea of how the netcode will perform. 

Halo 3 did bring some innovation to console FPS games, I suggest had you played the game you would know this.

i did halo 3 simply followed halo 2, mingle all the things many FPS had and put them together.

split screen = golden eye, and many of the features were on FPS like CS and UT,



Kantor on 03 February 2010
retroking1981 said:
CyberRazorCut said:

I try to read multiple reviews for titles I'm interested in, but I think the key is to find a handful of sources you trust, and take all this Metacritic malarkey with a humungous pinch of salt.  Mega Action gave Terminator 2 Judgement Day 87%.  Sega Power gave it 17%.  Where was Metacritic then, hmmm??  We all got by (thanks for buying me T2 dad...)

innocent times my friend. back then reviews weren't affected by one anothers opinions lieke they might be today. did edge give mario kart a 6 cos they thought it was a 6 or because the gamerankings average was to high for their liking? scary thought, lol

im off to imdb to give avartar 1/10

Why on earth would one of the most well-known gaming magazines in the world care about a Gamerankings average? They gave it a 6 because they thought it was a 6, nothing more to it.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective