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

Lawlight said:
VGPolyglot said:

The post you're quoting shows Nintendo games are also scored below average, so I don't know how you could come to those two simultaneous conclusions.

If we don’t include Super Bomberman, it is an average of 4 points less than MC. Since Edge only does integers, it can be said that Edge = MC when it comes to Nintendo. Across the Sony first parties in the list, the average is 14 points less than MC. Yeah, definite bias there.

On top of that, they chose to have a remaster on their cover. Yeah...

If you include detective pikachu and golf story. (Which would take arms and bomberman off the list) the average goes to around 8 below metacritic. If you take hellblade off, Sony's average is just a little below 10. Which makes it unlikely that there is a bias.



Around the Network
pikashoe said:
Lawlight said:

If we don’t include Super Bomberman, it is an average of 4 points less than MC. Since Edge only does integers, it can be said that Edge = MC when it comes to Nintendo. Across the Sony first parties in the list, the average is 14 points less than MC. Yeah, definite bias there.

On top of that, they chose to have a remaster on their cover. Yeah...

If you include detective pikachu and golf story. (Which would take arms and bomberman off the list) the average goes to around 8 below metacritic. If you take hellblade off, Sony's average is just a little below 10. Which makes it unlikely that there is a bias.

I only took off the non-firsty party games.



ICStats said:
So based on this I have to assess that Edge's scoring scale is 7 = shit, 8 = goty candidate

Right! People are reacting as if 7 and 8 are bad scores. 



Pocky Lover Boy! 

Hiku said:
OTBWY said:

"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.

Yes it can be said for any major publication that's weighed more heavily on Metacritic (Or the mainstream media). So if someone there wants to have a particularly weighted impact, they know they can. In cases where there are a number of questionable scores, it'll cause some people to raise their eyebrows. And the more influential the review is, the more negative attention it tends to get. But a more common reason for purposefully attracting attention through controversial actions is probably for the sake of your own business.
For example, the reason Edge chose not to have God of War on the cover probably doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they don't consider it a particularly remarkable game, not even in the same league as ARMS, but rather that they figured that most other magazines would feature Kratos on the cover, so by having Dark Souls they'll stand out from the rest.

As for comparing critically acclaimed games, starting with their perfect scores is most convenient since you already provided us with the list. I don't know if I'd say it's the 'best' considering it leaves out the vast majority of reviews, so we'll get a very small sample size. If you're particularly interested in perfect scores because Edge notoriously give lower scores, the same should apply to the number of 9's they give out. And 8's, etc. Not only are their sample sizes larger, but I'd say lower scores tend to be more interesting to look at in the context of this 'conspiracy theory'. Because they have the potential to make the biggest difference for the most noteworthy games, that tend to reside in the upper end of the review spectrum.
For example, for a game that sits on 95 on MC like God of War, a score of 8 would make a bigger difference than a score of 10. And certainly a 7. Which brings back memories of Jim Sterling.

Anyway, you can understand why people who may be concerned with some of Edge's recent reviews may not be concerned with what happened a decade or two ago? Let's say Reggie Fils-Aimé started writing for Edge under cover during this console generation. If he didn't work for Edge 6 years ago, those kind of reviews wouldn't be an issue then. Over the years management, editors and writers come and go. Even review guidelines and the entire grading system can change.
When it comes to games with perfect scores, I don't know how far back in time you'd be interested in relevance to the concern some people currently have in this topic. If I had a list of their 9's, 8's, 7's, etc, I would only really be interested in looking back a few years. Even the entirety of the current collective console generation would probably be a lot of work to tally up.

For this current generation (or the generation between systems that compete with PS4), they've given out 4 perfect scores to platform/console exclusive titles.

Bayonetta 2 (WiiU)
Bloodborne (PS4)
Zelda: Breath of the Wild (NSW)
Mario Odyssey (NSW)

Nothing particularly odd about the split imo. Especially since it's a small sample pool. Though on a sidenote, from what I've played I wouldn't give Bayonetta 2 or Bloodborne 10's. But I'm not shocked if they do. Especially considering they loved the original Bayonetta just as much. And I personally can't think of any PS4 games I'd give perfect 10's to. Then again, the last game I would have given a 10 at the time of release may have been Ocarina of Time. So I'm a lot more stingy when it comes to giving out 10's than Edge.

If you want to look to the previous generation which stretches back over a decade, if we look at exclusives which was what Barkley was focusing on in his comparison, they gave 10's to 6 games.

Halo 3 (360)
Super Mario Galaxy (Wii)
Little Big Planet (PS3)
Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Wii)
The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword (Wii)
The Last of Us (PS3)

Nothing in particular stands out to me about this list either, other than the split being more even.

"Yes it can be said for any major publication that's weighed more heavily on Metacritic (Or the mainstream media). So if someone there wants to have a particularly weighted impact, they know they can. In cases where there are a number of questionable scores, it'll cause some people to raise their eyebrows. And the more influential the review is, the more negative attention it tends to get. But a more common reason for purposefully attracting attention through controversial actions is probably for the sake of your own business. For example, the reason Edge chose not to have God of War on the cover probably doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they don't consider it a particularly remarkable game, not even in the same league as ARMS, but rather that they figured that most other magazines would feature Kratos on the cover, so by having Dark Souls they'll stand out from the rest."

I think we generally agree, however the final part is what I disagree with. I think the example is not a case of not wanting GoW cover because of the competition. I think it rather just has to do with them choosing the higher rated game over the other. As I also said before, controversy is not their MO, it is rather their trusted and harsh scoring that makes sells their magazines. Otherwise they wouldn't be as successful, since they would be another apple in the basket.

"
As for comparing critically acclaimed games, starting with their perfect scores is most convenient since you already provided us with the list. I don't know if I'd say it's the 'best' considering it leaves out the vast majority of reviews, so we'll get a very small sample size. If you're particularly interested in perfect scores because Edge notoriously give lower scores, the same should apply to the number of 9's they give out. And 8's, etc. Not only are their sample sizes larger, but I'd say lower scores tend to be more interesting to look at in the context of this 'conspiracy theory'. Because they have the potential to make the biggest difference for the most noteworthy games, that tend to reside in the upper end of the review spectrum. For example, for a game that sits on 95 on MC like God of War, a score of 8 would make a bigger difference than a score of 10. And certainly a 7. Which brings back memories of Jim Sterling."

Sure it leaves out games, but like I said, it is a good starting point from which you can analyze if they have a bias or not. Looking at what games they would consider the best, that would be the actually the greatest example. From there you can start to go into the lower tranches. The thing that I noted earlier though, is that they are consistent with their scoring, with few outliers here and there. The notion of scoring something so much lower for the sake of controversy and thus getting attention, is a slippery slope. Why don't we see more lower scores here and there, and how would it affect the credibility of the publication. This would be a dangerous thing to do as a company. Jim, I don't know. He could have just found the game not much else than a 7, but attention he did get. And I also think his relationship with Nintendo is pretty well known, while we don't know anything of the sorts at Edge.

"
Anyway, you can understand why people who may be concerned with some of Edge's recent reviews may not be concerned with what happened a decade or two ago? Let's say Reggie Fils-Aimé started writing for Edge under cover during this console generation. If he didn't work for Edge 6 years ago, those kind of reviews wouldn't be an issue then. Over the years management, editors and writers come and go. Even review guidelines and the entire grading system can change. When it comes to games with perfect scores, I don't know how far back in time you'd be interested in relevance to the concern some people currently have in this topic. If I had a list of their 9's, 8's, 7's, etc, I would only really be interested in looking back a few years. Even the entirety of the current collective console generation would probably be a lot of work to tally up."

I do not understand that. The fact that they have been relatively consistent over the decades have made me conclude as such. Hence why I said that they were consistent. Perhaps that is their hiring process. Maybe it is rigorous, maybe they root out biased persons quickly. Either way, I have not seen anything that suggests massive or either little changes in the way they review games. For example, like I said before with the perfect scores. They are spread wide over time. This indicates some form of consistency, wouldn't you agree?

"
For this current generation (or the generation between systems that compete with PS4), they've given out 4 perfect scores to platform/console exclusive titles.


Bayonetta 2 (WiiU)
Bloodborne (PS4)
Zelda: Breath of the Wild (NSW)
Mario Odyssey (NSW)

Nothing particularly odd about the split imo. Especially since it's a small sample pool. Though on a sidenote, from what I've played I wouldn't give Bayonetta 2 or Bloodborne 10's. But I'm not shocked if they do. Especially considering they loved the original Bayonetta just as much. And I personally can't think of any PS4 games I'd give perfect 10's to. Then again, the last game I would have given a 10 at the time of release may have been Ocarina of Time. So I'm a lot more stingy when it comes to giving out 10's than Edge.

If you want to look to the previous generation which stretches back over a decade, if we look at exclusives which was what Barkley was focusing on in his comparison, they gave 10's to 6 games.

Halo 3 (360)
Super Mario Galaxy (Wii)
Little Big Planet (PS3)
Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Wii)
The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword (Wii)
The Last of Us (PS3)

Nothing in particular stands out to me about this list either, other than the split being more even."

I don't disagree with any of this, but I do think scores of both Bayonetta 2 and Bloodborne were well deserved.




 

RolStoppable said:
Barkley said:

Hmmm the last 10 PlayStation exclusive (or console-exclusive) games reviewed by Edge...

God of War :                       Meta - 95          Edge - 80
Ni no Kuni 2 :                      Meta - 81          Edge - 70
Yakuza 6 :                             Meta - 83         Edge - 80
Gran Turismo Sport :         Meta - 75          Edge - 60
Knack 2 :                              Meta - 69          Edge - 50
Yakuza Kiwami :                  Meta - 80         Edge - 80
Uncharted Lost Legacy :    Meta - 84         Edge - 80
Hellblade :                           Meta - 81         Edge - 40
Persona 5 :                          Meta - 93         Edge - 80
Nier Automata :                 Meta - 88         Edge - 80

Every single one lower, except one that was equal. Average of 12.9 points lower.

Yeah I'm beginning to see a pattern here. xD

 

Edit: Oh I missed Dissidia. Which surprise surprise they rated 5/10 compared to the metascore of 67.

Yup, Edge is more credible than most other reviewers.

I'll take the word of EDGE over Metacritic any day of the week.....



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
Barkley said:

Hmmm the last 10 PlayStation exclusive (or console-exclusive) games reviewed by Edge...

God of War :                       Meta - 95          Edge - 80
Ni no Kuni 2 :                      Meta - 81          Edge - 70
Yakuza 6 :                             Meta - 83         Edge - 80
Gran Turismo Sport :         Meta - 75          Edge - 60
Knack 2 :                              Meta - 69          Edge - 50
Yakuza Kiwami :                  Meta - 80         Edge - 80
Uncharted Lost Legacy :    Meta - 84         Edge - 80
Hellblade :                           Meta - 81         Edge - 40
Persona 5 :                          Meta - 93         Edge - 80
Nier Automata :                 Meta - 88         Edge - 80

Every single one lower, except one that was equal. Average of 12.9 points lower.

Yeah I'm beginning to see a pattern here. xD

 

Edit: Oh I missed Dissidia. Which surprise surprise they rated 5/10 compared to the metascore of 67.

Yup, Edge is more credible than most other reviewers.

If anything Edge is actually the least credible review source.

Uncharted Lost Legacy rated just as high as God of war and Persona 5 ?



Jranation said:
ICStats said:
So based on this I have to assess that Edge's scoring scale is 7 = shit, 8 = goty candidate

Right! People are reacting as if 7 and 8 are bad scores. 

Just wanted to clarify something. I don't think 8 is a bad score. I remember in 2008 Eurogamer started giving 8's to games like MGS4 and the like. At first I thought Eurogamer was a bad site, but eventually I learned that 8 from them is a good score. Same goes for Giantbomb with their 5 star scale. A 3 from them is a good score. Back then it seemed that anything below 85 on MC was a not so great score for a game to have. But these days, I'll risk even getting a game at 77 or 78. That's because more and more sites started using 8 for more games over the years. So back in 2008 a MC Score of 85 held the same clout as a MC Score of 80 does today IMO. Maybe in a few years a 75 will hold that same level of clout and the truly bad games will be in the 50's. 

But anyway, it's not the 8/10 from Edge that bothers me. It's that they are saying that Sea of Thieves is better than Far Cry 5. If Edge was a good publication that just so happened to use more of the scale, they would have given SoT a 5/10 at best, or even a 4/10. It's obviously an unfinished game. Meanwhile Far Cry 5, while not being revolutionary is still a solid title in the series. On the flip side Arms in no way shape or form deserves a 9/10 from them, but there we go. 

TL/DR Edge is a bad publication, not because they use the full scale, but because they rate bad games highly, and rate excellent games poorly. Normally 8/10 from any publication means that game is a must own title. 



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

 

EDGE isn't biased against Sony and I don't think they're directly biased toward Nintendo.

However, they do seem to score certain genres and aesthetics higher while being more critical of others. Much the way Jim Sterling's reviews are more about "The Opinions of Jim Sterling" than they are about the actual games, EDGE reviews are mostly about their own pretensions.

I put Sterling and EDGE in the exact same category. Though they present themselves differently, the end result is the same. Both of them are useless unless your tastes align perfectly with their own--and mine certainly do not.



Shikamo said:

From these games I played Sea of Thieves and Far Cry 5, and I'm playing God of War, in my opinion 6 for Far Cry 5 is fair, 7 for Sea of Thieves It's a little more than the game deserves, and 8 for God of War it's less than the game deserves. Well, that's nothing more than my opinion.

Scores:

God of War - 8

Sea of Thieves - 7

Far Cry 5 - 6

A Way Out - 6

Extinction - 3

Scribblenauts Showdown - 3

Minit - 6

Detective Pikachu - 6 

 

Source

Congrats Dark Souls Remastered !



At least i'm not surprised by they review. NintEDGE should rethink reviewing some games. Hell they gave 10 Zelda if i good remeber 2 or 3 weeks before premiere. And GoW score is 1 higher than game without any content wtf EDGE?