That's not the point. Forget each individual score for a moment and look at the big picture. Edge uses the numbering system to it's fullest extent and is not easygoing on big name titles just for the sake of it. You don't need to agree with every review, but...

1. They aren't biased. They are harsh across the board.

2. 5 is average for them instead of a 7.5 (which has unfortunately become the industry standard).

The reason you are looking at it so weird is because you're seeing a 6 for Resistance and thinking "Gosh, IGN and EGM and these other guys only give unplayable, messy, glitch filled games these scores. Edge must be saying Resistance 2 is shit". They aren't though. They are saying it's above average. It's still a harsh score, but it's basically the equivalanet of an 8 at any other publication.

I can't agree with Tomb Raider though, because I think it's been a damn fine series ever since Crystal Dynamics took over. I don't think you should be comparing games among two different genres though, because those games are not very comparable. The 8 Tomb Raider got is an 8 for an action/adventure and WaW and Res2 were 6's in the realm of shooters. Before you think I'm just saying this out of convenience, I own COD and it's fantastic, and I still respect Edge's scores even though I don't necessarily agree with this one.

WTF? How tough is EDGE?!

Considering they gave those terrible scores to games widely known as not being so bad/being good, Left 4 Dead got an amazing score(As if anyone believed otherwise. It is Valve after all.) but Gears 2 getting such a good score is amazing.

However, as harsh as they seem, I may start coming to them for my reviews from now on. It seems if anyone is unbiased and won't restrain the truth, its these guys for reviews.

Gears Of War 2 is a good game but i got bored playing the Single player and find multiplayer not to good. The game is so similar to the first that it just does not excite. I loved the first but think not enough has changed to receive the high scores. It also has crap bits, like inside the stomach and the worms which you use as walls (poorly implemented idea that good have been good). As with a lot of 360 reviews there is an over excitement due to hype which unfortunately passes on to the reviewers. Now LBP, there is something. Fresh, original, creative, fun, something different. Ever since MS hype machine destroyed reviewers perception of Halo 3 i am wary.

Well, I think that the campaigns(only part I, and apparently Edge played) are a lot better in Gears 2/L4D(if you call co-op the campaign) then in R2. Can't speak to World at War, yet.

That said, 3 points is a huge dissparity, even if just going by campaigns. It's like saying, "R2 is half as good as Gears 2."

I don't think that's true.

This review could possibly drop R2 down another point on metacritic, to an 87/100.

To be frank, R2 isn't the best game ever. It kinda flopped according to my expectations.....but calling it a 6/10...well once again, no matter how harsh you review a game, this is rediculious, especially after giving Gears 2 a 9/10(about right). I'd give R2 an 8.5ish level review just on campaign, and this is from a known "PS3 foeboy."

I understand why people respect the bucking of the system that Edge is trying here, but that's not my complaint. My complaint is inconsistancy of scoring between games of similar genres.

If Fable 2 is a 9, the Fallout 3 should be a 9 or 10. If Gears 2 is a 9, then R2 should be a 7 or 8.

Clearly stating again, their scale is not the problem. The problem is that the scores, in relation to each other, don't match up to the quality of the games. Reviews are opinions. However, when your opinions are not only controversial because of a review scale, but also nearly the opposite of the entire review world's opinions, in regaurd to comparing similar games in similar genres, it just appears they are out for attention.

Giving Fallout 3 a 7/10, a month after giving Fable 2 a 9/10, is just wrong. Not wrong in some fanciful hip wordplay sense, wrong as in incorrect. It's hard to imagine an opinion being incorrect, but this is the best example of such a thing that we'll ever get. Having played both games extensively, it's obvious...

Now, reviews don't matter, of course, but lets not confuse Edge's boldness with scale, and their quality of reviews. Just because you are a harsh reviewer, doesn't mean you are a good one, and with the inconsistancy I'm seeing here, I couldn't see trusting these people.

That said, I guess I could understand people falling for the hype of the magazine because of these low scores. The truth is, it is very unlikely most here have ever read a word in an Edge magazine review. They are judging the quality of the magazine by the harshness of their reviews.

It's one thing to respect a more rounded scale.

It's an entirely different thing to call these people good reviews, with inconsistencies that we're seeing here.

They certainly have differing opinions, but the base assumption behind reviews is that one opinion can be better than another one, and professional opinions are the ones worth knowing and judging a game by. When a magazine disagree's with 100 other source's professional opinions, should we not assume that said magazine is the anomoly, and not the rule? Should we not weight those averages and throw out the extremes to use the law of large numbers, when determining a games quality by score alone(which is how we must do with Edge, since we don't have the written word)?

@Zen

I haven't played Fable 2 or Fallout 3, so I'm going to play this real lightly and talk more of my perception of both games judging by forums and reviews. Fallout 3 I think has more reason to get scored lower for the following reasons:

1. Judging from the forums, it seems to have more glitchies than Fable II does. It's been previously mentioned in the post that Edge has no sympathy for glitchy games.

2. If you get a PC Fallout fan as the reviewer(which I suspect this was), you're going to get the dissappointing, "They took out the humor, they took out the variety, they took out the child murdering" kind of review. It's well documented that there were elements taken out of the new iteration that a lot of fans were not pleased with. On the other hand, Fable II is an improvement in every way over the first game(or so i've heard).

3. This seems to be all across the board, but some people really like the combat system, and others think it's barely workable, especially in third person. I haven't heard anything good or bad about Fable II's combat system, so I don't know how it should compare, but I suppose no news is good news.

Well i agree about NFS, that game is pretty bad. Looks like they didn't like Mirror's Edge much either.

Yeah, it's hard to make that comparison if you haven't played them.

If Edge has issue with glitchy games, then Fable 2 should have gotten a 3/10. I love the game, but the menus, which you constantly have to enter, are very, very sluggish. More-so than the first game. This is my major issue, but there are many bugs in Fable 2 than that. Even ones that prevent you from finishing main story quests, like the temple of light glitch.

I've only played Fallout 3 on the 360, but one thing is true. The game runs smoothly and quickly. The menu's are instant.

I'm not here to compare those 2 games though. My real point was that if you're scoring harshly, Fable 2 is NOT a 9/10. All that talk about scale and they give Fable 2 a higher review than IGN.

If you're scoring forgivingly, the Fallout 3 is NOT a 7/10, lol.

Comparing the games, I think it's fairly obvious that Fallout 3 is the significant winner, but that's just my opinion. However, it's impossible for me to believe that the same reviewer would give Fable 2 a 9/10 and Fallout 3 a 7/10. Completely contrary to metacritic, without needing to be said.

My only explaination for this discrepancy is that perhaps the reviewer didn't backup save, and got stuck in an unlivable situation, and wasn't able to complete the game, or perhaps some random bug screwed up his save file. I can't see anyone getting to the end of the game and giving it a 7/10 after they just Nined Fable 2.

To put this into reference, it's like giving No Country for Old Men a 2/4 star rating, and giving Zack and Mira Make a Porno a 3.5/4.

You can see why some poor schmo would like Zack and Mira better, but you expect more from a real reviewer.

Really harsh, than how in the hell halo3 scored 10/10. I'm not saying it was bad game, but it seems edge go by the hype a lot of times. I think halo 3 campaign, is worse than resistance 2. Above avarage graphics, gameplay that was only tweaked and great multiplayer. I would not say they are harsh, but it seems they are biased to some games.