By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Edge #319 - Dark Souls Remastered cover - Scores: God of War, Far Cry 5, more.

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. 



Around the Network

That mens health cover is lit af. BTW an 8 from edge basically means the game is perfect so that just sealed its greatness.



Oh no! A game I like got a score I don't like! These reviewers must be disqualified! I mean there's no way th-

*doorbell rings*

Oh. There's my package for God of War!



The only surprise here is that they didn't see GOW as others saw it



StreaK said:

ANyway, Edge just wants to be different unless it's key Nintendo franchises. They are definitely checking out meta before they place their own scores while everyone else just scores how they feel about the game. And when it comes to Nintendo, everyone just treats them like they no their stuff simply because they were the first in the business. I know for a fact that is the reason. They DO make great games, but honestly they are no different to some of the great games other companies make now.

The problem with reviews (speaking very generally here) is that damn near all reviewers score games within a tiny range.  In other words, 95% of reviewers agree that X game is great, mediocre, average, or whatever.  But, since reviews are conducted by humans, and humans have varied tastes and opinions, it is unrealistic to think that 95% of people could agree on such a subjective thing as the quality of a given piece of art. 

So, IMO, it is likely that Edge is conducting more fair reviews than many other organizations, as evidenced by the fact that they don't always agree with everyone else.



Around the Network
Kerotan said:
Lol classic edge, sea of thieves only 1 point off gow!

What's impressive about that? Does Edge do increments (8.5)?



Barkley said:
Kerotan said:
Lol classic edge, sea of thieves only 1 point off gow!

GoW was only 1 point behind Arms!, couldn't quite get that 9/10. A real shame!

Arms got an 9? lmao

Mario + Rabbids too, lol.

Last edited by Valdath - on 21 April 2018

VGPolyglot said:
Hiku said:

Were any of those games not known as exclusives at the time of review? If so they should probably be excluded.
I'm also not sure why the list would be missing some 3DS games because of reason #2. 3DS games are Nintendo games in the same way that Fire Emblem Warriors is a Nintendo game for example. What games do you consider Nintendo games as opposed to Nintendo exclusives, and how does it relate to the 3DS games you're referring to that are missing?

Radiant Historia and The Alliance Alive are just two I can think of, titles where were released exclusively on a Nintendo console but not by Nintendo.

I see, so you think he picked games that were published by Nintendo and/or featured a Nintendo IP?
I'll let him answer whether or not that was his intention, but right now I agree with you that the games you mentioned should count.

OTBWY said:
Hiku said:

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. 

Because of the many factors that are unknown to me at the time, and in absence of a larger sample list of reviews in recent years, I wouldn't conclude that those are the only two scenarios.
But I'll say this. If people on the internet can have a certain mindset, then someone working at Edge or any other publication can as well.
Edge is more heavily weighed on Metacritic, and they are at least aware of that, and the fact that their reviews can get extra attention because of this. But if they presumably take advantage of this, it could be for sensationalism rather than platform bias.

The list Barkley provided was interesting though, but it was a pretty small sample size, so I wouldn't draw any conclusions based on it. A larger list would more interesting.
But personally, if we're going to compare lists I'd be more interested to see how so called 'critically acclaimed' games measure up to each other. Which is hard to define, but perhaps games that score 85 or above. The reason those titles would be more interesting to me is because they tend to generate more buzz and attention. And if we're talking exclusives, an ability to drive console sales.

Last edited by Hiku - on 21 April 2018

Hiku said:
VGPolyglot said:

Radiant Historia and The Alliance Alive are just two I can think of, titles where were released exclusively on a Nintendo console but not by Nintendo.

I see, so you think he picked games that were published by Nintendo and/or featured a Nintendo IP?
I'll let him answer whether or not that was his intention, but right now I agree with you that the games you mentioned should count.

OTBWY said:

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. 

Because of the many factors that are unknown to me at the time, and in absence of a larger sample list of reviews in recent years, I wouldn't conclude that those are the only two scenarios.
But I'll say this. If people on the internet can have a certain mindset, then someone working at Edge or any other publication can as well.
Edge is more heavily weighed on Metacritic, and they are at least aware of that, and the fact that their reviews can get extra attention because of this. But if they presumably take advantage of this, it could be for sensationalism rather than platform bias.

The list Barkley provided was interesting though, but it was a pretty small sample size, so I wouldn't draw any conclusions based on it. A larger list would more interesting.
But personally, if we're going to compare lists I'd be more interested to see how so called 'critically acclaimed' games measure up to each other. Which is hard to define, but perhaps games that score 85 or above. The reason those titles would be more interesting to me is because they tend to generate more buzz and attention. And if we're talking exclusives, an ability to drive console sales.

"Edge is more heavily weighed on Metacritic, and they are at least aware of that, and the fact that their reviews can get extra attention because of this. But if they presumably take advantage of this, it could be for sensationalism rather than platform bias."

This could be said over any major publication. Any big outlet that does reviews basically. Hell, even the evening news can be part of that argument. I don't think it is here or there: they are a magazine, they have to sell. But that can't be the reason why they make the reviews that they do. Their audience trusts them and listen to what they have to say. It is perhaps that trust that Edge relies on to sell their magazine. It is a slippery slope.

As for Barkley's list, the sample size is to small, so we agree on that. As for comparing critically acclaimed games being compared, why not start with their highest scores? That would be the best place to start would it not? It is the first thing I looked at (perfect scores), cause of their reputation of being harsher than most.



Edge are loosing their edge this couple of years. I am used to trust their review in 6th and 7th gen era.

But gladly we now have metacritic and other sites to compare.