| 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. |
Yup, maybe no one in the whole world is biased, and everybody farts sugar and rainbows, dorothy. (Sorry, not sure where that came from :) )
The point is that if it's possible that any game magazine could be biased in some way, you would show it by looking at their track record in a fair and accurate way. You probably shouldn't have a ten point average divergence if the sample is big enough, for example. Of course, others may insist that a twenty point difference is where people should start scartching their heads. But surely it's imaginable that in an extreme enough case, with a big enough sample size, anyone would have to admit there would be something weird going on. Imagine if one specific magazine rated every Wii game 50 points below everyone else's average. (And no, I'm not talking about IGN 
)
