Wait, so how is the definitive multiplayer and a good 6-8 hour campaign not $60 worth of content?

My comment is not about Halo but about Edge.
I know reviews are opinions. Anyway, for those that think they are valid reviewers here are some numbers:
Exclusive full retail games on both ps3 and x360 amongst 100 best metacritic scores. Both consoles have 12 exclusives.
I will compare Metacritic average score with Edge score.

Games "favoured" by Edge (Edge > Metacritic by more than 5%):
360 3: Halo3, PGR3, HaloODST
PS3 1: LitlleBigPlanet

Games where Edge gives roughly the same score as Meta (-5%/+5% deviations)
PS3 2 : Motorstorm , Singstar
360 6 : PGR3, L4D, FableII, FM2, GeOW2, Crackdown

Games downscored by Edge (-15% to -5% of Metacritic score)
PS3 4 : Uncharted, R&C ToD, Motorstorm PR, MGS4
360 2 : TomClancy GRAW, GeOW

Games trashed by Edge (-25% to -15% of Metacritic score)
PS3 4 : Infamous, Valkyria Chronicles, Resistance, Killzone 2
360 1 : Mass Effect

Games despised by Edge (-35% to -25% of Metacritic score)
PS3 1 : Resistance 2
360 0

Adding all % differences to Metacritic, Ps3 gets -157%, 360 gets -33%, so on average PS3 gets -13,1% while 360 gets -2,7%.

Not only this, if you take a close look at what were the specific games downscored things are even more biased, as some ps3 platform defining heavy hitters are treated the worst.
For you as a gamer to take their word as an independent/unbiased magazine.

Their Valkyria Chronicles score alone makes me dislike them tbh. C'est la vie. Different strokes for different folks. 

Just figured I'd mention it because the above post reminded me how much they boned VC's Meta.

I'm curious, what would happen if you did the same thing to Eurogamer?  I actually asked someone about Edge and from what I gather they're tough on games just like Eurogamer is. 

I imagine that big difference is due to a mixture of two things:

1. they're tough on games
2. opinions are opinions are opinions.

and if you did the same thing with Eurogamer you would probably see something pretty close just because they are so much harder and don't always base games solely on hype.

This is exactly what I was talking about in my post. Nothing against ODST or any of the other great 360 titles they score well, that's not the problem. They deserve their awesome scores. But PS3 games are consistantly given scores far off the average while they do a good job with 360 games which just isn't consistant.

great work.

If they were just "harder" on games then it would show it across the board. Unless of course your suggesting that everyone else is just too "light" on ps3 games while everyone else is much harder on 360 games. Otherwise no matter how you cut it, it's inconsistant. They are close or above with most 360 titles while consistantly lower on ps3 titles. How is that consistant in any way other then that they are consitantly chewing  up and spitting out ps3 titles while enjoying 360 ones. And that's not something to be consistant at. That's consistantly being a 360 fan and bashing the other console if anything.

Most of those games you listed I'm sure you expect to get between a 9 and 10.  A bad game (or even a game that just doesn't deserve that score but still good) isn't automatically an 8, it's just something else so that variation is meaningless.

Lets just pretend that Awesome Exlclusive VII for the PS3 and Bodacious Exclusive IV for the 360 both have a 9 on metacritic.  Edge reviews them and gives Awesome Exlclusive VII a 7.5 while giving Bodacious Exlclusive IV an 8.5

According to you, that means Edge is automatically biased against the PS3 and both should either get a 9 or an 8.5 or just the same score when in reality they thought one game was a 7.5 and the other was an 8.5.