I made an edit about 3 minutes later (I was busy to), but you were too fast in your quotation. But now I see that there was no joke at play here.
The only joke I made was the "Bias against Xbox exclusives" portion.
The difference is that I implied it immediately. It wasn't an afterthought that I edited in afterwards. Not sure how you thought I would take your comment as a joke without the second line you edited in afterwards, which indeed I did not see, but if you say it was intended as a joke I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Here's the thing. Me disagreeing with your method of gauging bias does not mean that I'm automatically saying that they are biased.
I some times disagree with methods regarding opinions I agree with, and they often presume I disagree with the opinion as well.
Although in this case I don't agree with any conclusion. But I would entertain the idea by looking at proposed evidence. And I think the way Barkley tallied scores is a more relevant way to gauge this because there are more ways to give preferential treatment than just the highest possible score.
I think it's fair to say that Edge in recent times generally give lower scores across the board than most publications. (That may very well be because they make use of the full scale of the scoring system better.) And also that in the past year or so they've given Playstation exclusives notably lower scores than for Nintendo. That may just be a coincidence. If anyone wants to extend that list back a few more years, I'd be interested in seeing if it changes.
Either way, scores by themselves don't say much to me. I'd have to read the review to know if the game is to my liking and if the reviewer considered the things I like a positive or negative.
Persona 5 : Meta - 93 Edge - 80
Nier Automata : Meta - 88 Edge - 80
Arms Meta: 77 Edge: 90