Right, Now try to play it 200 hours in one game save and let's see how it ends. Mine is a slide show. Then feel free to check the FOUR patches changelogs. With 1.4 hopefully coming out this week. They are 2 pages long with fixes for very disruptive bugs as well. As the freezing caused by the saving procedure in 1.4. Skyrim for PS3 is like a Ferrari that drives at maximum speed of 50 km/h. With the air condition or the lights or everything else occasionally not working. Not good. Nothing like that ever happened with a SE game. With Bethesda it is the norm and they still get the best reviews. is it what, bribing?

To all those who claim 5.4 is an average score, I have to disagree, it's a BAD score. The average score on meta is a 72.

Do you actually read these reviews or just look at the score? The content is far more important than the score and the review describes all the positive and negative points quite well. Edges reviews are some of the most well-written, coherent and critical reviews in the industry, regardless of the score.

@ bolded

This is what's wrong with the games industry today. Such a ridiculous emphasis on metacritic scores and how reviews should only score in the 7-10 range. Step back and look at what you've written. Now try to look at that from the perspective of someone somewhat outside the games industry (if it helps, change the names to titles from a popular film series). It comes across as very immature which is how the games industry and its press are seen from the outside.

True, but if a publication wants to appear as a credible objective source; one actually worth reading, then they should appear both credible and objective; which they very obviously do not in this case.

When you have review standards like the ones displayed here, scores and reviews become completely meaningless; ultimately it undermines the purpose of the review section.

Sure. Tell this to a student: you're good because you show to apply yourself, to study. I really appreciate your efforts. You just made few mistakes, so I will give you a 5/10 (in Italy anything below 6/10 means failure. One must take the class again). Or a D inthe US system. I don't give a damn about the content. Few have time to read all reviews. What it matters the most is the final score. If the score doesn't match the review then the reviewer is no good at all. I have been for a couple of years a Math high school teacher myself. I can assure you that to give the right score is one of the hardest part of the job. 

Anyway I looked for the Edge review of FF X but I couldn't find it. But honestly it would be just to understand how bad a reviewer can be. FF X is in the top games list of many FF players. Mine for sure. To have given it a 6/10 just shows a total lack of competence. And yes, I read also the couple of negative reviews for FF XIII-2, at least the one showed in the Metacritic. It seems to me that most of these guys give bad reviews to popular games just to raise THEIR audience. Otherwise they would still sunk in the anonymity they belong to. 

Oh, on a side note. Number of FaceBook fans for each magazine:

IGN: 607061
VGChartz: 8316
Edge: 6119

Yes. Numbers DO matter.

That's aboslute rubbish Edge don't have to adhere to the feelings of fans nor do any other reviewer for the matter, for one 5/10 is average in Edge's scaling which meant they found X above average, many people liked X but many people also didn't to claim it's a lack of competence because it got a score you don't like is being big headed and I'm guessing you also don't know how Edge rates and reviews games either. They're an industrial mag as well as a gaming one so they look at technical aspects, innovation as well as what progression a game has had over it's predecessors and even things like glitches can result in the score reflecting it as seen with the Fallout games.

This is why getting a high score in Edge is seen in the industry as a notable achievement, if every outlet reviewed like Edge the would a much more accurate reflection of the quality of games today.

Comparing a writen review based on opinion is completely different to a maths question. The latter is exact, the former isn't. I got loads of comments at school where my opinion and understanding did not replicate the actual score. They were encourging my efforts and work put in even if what I had done wasn't correct. If you just went based on what is correct many more might fail. Even in maths, if you understand the process, getting the answer right is only half the marks, working it out is the other.

You won't find the review for FFX online, Edge didn't have website back then, it certainly didn't publish it's reviews online as it is an actual magazine, not an internet website like IGN and VGChartz (both of which have a world wide market while Edge has a UK one, to put light on those random numbers you listed below, I presume you were highlighting them to show how the less facebook fans they have the better the review scores right?).

Its semi-irrelevant what Edge gave FF10. because Edge also gave FF12 9/10 and named it one of their top 10 games of all time.

so i would look at the written review rather than just looking at the score.

and we're being told numbers matter... does that mean when FF13-2 undersells its predecessor we can say that it was trash? based on the Japanese numbers alone it looks like FF13-2 will do less than half of what FF13 did. what if you use this metric to determine quality?

the point is Edge can give whatever scores they want so can Runa. theres nothing preventing fans for seeing for themselves how good the game is. unless of course those fans were disappointed with FF13 they dont want FF13-2.

I'm sorry but FFX deserves that 6/10

I'm glad someone back then realised how mediocre the game really was.