You really miss the point of reviews. The reviewer should not give two shits about how much effort or money or love was put into the game. They shouldn't care how big a name the game is. They shouldn't care about the effect they have on sales. It's entirely about their personal subjective experience with the game, if the reviewer thought it was worth a five then it should get a five. It should be an entirely personal opinion based on how enjoyable they personally find the experience.

Of course thats in an ideal world, in reality a name like 'Grand Theft Auto' or 'Mario' is going to give the reviewer some bias before he starts reviewing.

I do not miss the point of reviews, reviewing myself, i know that the most important thing is what i thought of the game. But either way, the score does affect the games success, and it sounds like who ever reviewed the game simply had that bias against the FF franchise. I mean there is no way around it, there will ALWAYS be bias. But the thing is, that if there is no way to back up that 5, then it means crap. And there is just no way to justify those scores. That's why there are other editors that read and make sure the scores are not bogus. But the scores are still fish paste imo.

The only dumb thing I have ever seen edge do is name Halo 3 most innovative game of 2007,2008 over the likes of SMG and Portal which was an absolute joke, but hey, no one is perfect.

Edge's review scores are different from how you know them from other outlets, for Edge 5/10 is average not 7/10 as it's a perfect balance in the middle of a scale of 10 (equal number of ratings for good and bad), this is why you see a lot of 7/10s and 8/10s in Edge as that's what they class as a good/great game, tripple As normally come in at 8s/9s while those that innovate to a point of being impressive with little to no flaws come in at 10. FFXIII had points docked because it was linear and had very little else to do in the whole package.

SMG1 got 10/10 from EDGE and now the sequel gets the same score, now this I like, I bet this game will be getting many more full marks. Can't wait till 11th June.

first of all, that is a ridiculous scale. They should have gone with the 5 star scale. In the 10 scale, good games range in the 7-10. Second off, if the scale is like this, then why did it get the same score as WKC....It makes no sense. 

well, the first one is sitting at 97 right now, nothing shocking really.

You're basing your entire argument off of the fact that you don't think FFXIII is equal to WKC. This may be true to you, but perhaps FFXIII really jarred with a reviewer while another (or the same - I'm not sure if they were written by the same person) reviewer found WKC to be, while flawed, quite charming. While the general consensus may be that one is better than the other it does not mean that every magazine has to agree with that consensus.

I really enjoy that Edge seems to have no concern with following the metacritic score on every game, it seems to me that some other reviewers do.

You are confusing "inconsistency" with scores you don't agree with. Rating WKC and FF13 on the same level is not inconsistent, it just means that two reviwers enjoyed the games abot the same amoun t.

Again. You are not outlining inconsistency. "Inconsistent" doesn't mean "scores you don't agree with". In order to outline any kind of inconsistency, you would need to set down standards according to which they operate and then show how those standards have been violated. You failed to do so, therefore you failed to illustrate inconsistency.

You said "score is as important as content". If score is a part of content, then score must necessarily be subservient to content because it cannot be equal to the hwole of which it is only a part.

It's fine to complain when EDGE gives out a completely retarded score but it looks like they got it right this time. So why mad?

*goes to play first Galaxy*