Beats me. Maybe you should ask the pyromaniac in three days.

bah! not worth it lol.

I disagree with you Zen. Fallout 3 is a 7 at best imo.
Graphics? good but not great, animation is horrendously bad. 7/10.
Story? meh nothing memorable. 5/10.
Presentation. Yup pretty good 9/10.
Audio. Pretty good 8/10.
Gameplay. Average in every way, doesn't compare to other fps or tps. Even compared to some other rpgs is lacking.5/10

So basically you have an action rpg with bad action and without the usual fantastic story/characters that boosts rpgs scores.

Also your acting kinda weird. There isn't inconsistancy. There is opinion. They think Fable 2 is better than Fallout 3. You disagree? That's your opinion. From a purely technical side? Hard to say, fable has better gameplay and the dog is very impressive, fallout 3 probably has better graphics and I guess the term would be atmosphere.

Judging games objectively is basically impossible. Okay you can judge presentation like that, but even then what about style? I guess technical profiency you can vaguely judge. Like how smooth the game feels but it's difficult. I guess you would call it polish. Sometimes it's easy to tell. Dead space is a more polished game than something like mercenaries 2. Fallout 3 and Fable 2? I would say fable 2 is more polished. Fallout 3 feels a bit rough around the edges sometimes.

I completly agree with Bodhesatva the problem isn't edge. It's the entire rest of the industry. It's crazy if a game gets in the 70's we consider it average. In the 80's is merely good. The 50's should be average. Edge make use of that.

Once again using mirrors edge as an example. It has good graphics, below average story and characters, good gameplay, bad value (short game, then just time trials). To me a 5 (or as other reviewers would give it a 7) seems perfectly reasonable.

Noob.

Standard modifier for Eurogamer/EDGE reviews:

Made in the Kingdom +1/+2

JRPG -1 (unless it has Final Fantasy or DQ in the title)

WRPG +1

I may not like it too, but it's just videogame, jeez.

I've already addressed this. I think Fallout 3 is much better than some people give it credit for. Most people who have played it, and most reviewers agree with me, so it's odd that I'm the one having to defend my favorite game in this thread, but whatever. My point was missed entirely.

Edge are harsh reviewers?

Why a 9/10 for Fable 2? 10/10 for the mediocre Halo 3, and an innovation award? That's above average on the regular scale(89 meta Fable 2), and the game doesn't really deserve it, imo.

Why give Fallout 3 a 7/10? That is vastly below average on the regular scale(93 meta), and it doesn't show consistancy between your harshness via rpg review scores.

The fact that reviewers have opinions doesn't really piss me off.

What pisses me off are fanboys who have never played the games, and don't understand the Edge scale, who will use these numbers out of context, to justify their opinions that "X game is just bad, obviously, and here are it's flaws."

Another ignorant thing that I hate is when people cherrypick the lowest review for a game(usually Edge) and say that, that review is the one they agree with, and the one that is correct, even though they NEVER READ AN EDGE REVIEW IN THEIR LIVES!

Not always, but usually, these are just piss poor excuses that people come up with in their own head as a justification for not purchasing the game themselves.

Or, they use them to flame another consoles exclusives, or whatever.

So yes, Edge is relatively inconsistant and untrustworthy. That's my very valid opinion that I feel I've justified having.

What is an arguable debate is "which game is better," and I'd rather not be involved. IMO, Fallout 3 is GotY, and a lot people agree with me, so I'm straight.

Wow, really harsh :x

6 > 9 > 10 > 7 > 8 in edge world lol


j/k

Another articulate fanboy speaks out !