Hiku said:
OTBWY said:
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.
That is exactly why it is ridiculous to claim that Edge is biased against a platform. Exactly because of what you said. It is a ridiculous claim, and me posting perfect scores suggest that they are rather diverse in their scoring and consistent over the years up until today, don't you agree?
Well the original idea here is that Edge is biased, or pro Nintendo. So that is what I commented on. Now going on to general scores (today of course), it still doesn't hold up as they are again very diverse across all platforms. The other person could try to compare meta scores and Edge scores of Nintendo games and get about the same results I can assure you.
|
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.
For example:
Persona 5 : Meta - 93 Edge - 80
Nier Automata : Meta - 88 Edge - 80
Arms Meta: 77 Edge: 90
|
I thought you were joking about the first part too, which is why I actually made the first comment (which was unfinished).
It does not matter that you agree with me, or you don't agree with my *method* or whatever that means. The point is the important part here, which is twofold: That Edge is consistent and diverse in their scoring across all platforms. This goes from all the way back to today. The perfect score list was simply a reflection of this. Now if you believe that there is some sort of difference in the scoring of these two platforms, then I will only refer to your earlier comment. There are too many factors to be weighed in here, such as different writers etc. We have can sum up an endless amount of games (a bigger sample size than Barkley's obviously), without picking and choosing certain ones, and find that there is really no suggested bias (going by their list on MC). They score lower, that's it. They have outliers here and there, but that doesn't mean much on the whole. If you still think that they score Sony games lower on average (not saying you perse), then I can only conclude two things: Coincidence (most likely) or they just think Nintendo made the better game. Would the last point make it seem that they are biased, not really. It could be a number of things that made the score so. It is therefore ridiculous to suggest that some reviewer at Edge woke up with the mindset to score some game lower because it is a non-Nintendo game.
