I used to love Edge but i haven't really followed it for years so i can't comment on any recent alleged biases. One thing that has always been true for them though is that not every decent game get's a 9+ score, anything above a 7 is good by their standards.

This doesn't sit well with alot of people these days who seem to think that any big budget, hyped up game 'deserves' a 9+ rating. Just the other day i saw a thread where someone was angry that a game received a score of 92% or 93% from some online publication. To me that's crazy, the entire range of opinion on a game can't be accounted for by a 5% range.

You consider that inconsistant and all over the place?   It's not like they gave a game a 5 or something.  But sure... i'll give you an example with the first two.

Bioshock - Reason for an 8.  Too Linear.  Mechanics of powers too shooter like and don't match the atmosphere.  As such it doesn't live up to the promise it gives you when you first play the game.

Halo ODST - Reason for a 9.  Gives you exactly what it promises.  A solid Halo Spinoff that is better then most games.

End result... Bioshock ends up feeling a bit disapointing because of the mechanics. (Something I actually agree with)  while Halo is more satisfying and you don't think "What could have been."

Their reasons are perfectly valid.

I just don't agree with their scores. I always thought the scoring system should be dropped, and that people should just read the reviews.

I'll add that I do feel that Edge are sometimes a little inconsistent with their critera - again though I think this is per individual rather than any conspiracy.  For example sometimes one reviewer will verbally pernalize a title (and in the score, too) for being too safe and similar to it's predecessors, while another reviewer will ignore the lack of innovation from one franchise title to another nor mark down because of it.

For whatever reason, the numbers do seem to show the PS3 titles have ended up more on the receiving end than others, but then again, in the end, despite being from a single source the reviews are produced by individuals and as such will vary in approach, particularly given Edge doesn't use a formal template but a written review (which I like) an a simple number score (which I don't).

So for example, the guy reviewing GTA IV and Halo 3 might well see everything he wanted based on earlier titles plus a nice new sheen of polish, and give high scores.  The guy reviewing MGS4 might see a highly polished title that didn't innovate enough for him, and mark slightly lower score.

Ideally, the reviews editor should watch out for any excessive deviations, but no Editor is going to pull up one review for being slightly tougher in judging innovation, or repetition, or graphics, vs another.

I remeber a vgc poster said something like Edge only gives 9+ to innovative games which is why MGS4 only got an 8 and like how LBP got a 9. Apparently FPS exclusives on PS3 arent innovating so the 6 and 7 for R2 and KZ2, but shooters on 360 gets 8-10..hmmm...and Halo 3 is probably one of the least innovation of all the FPS they've rated yet it got a 10.

and yet, bioshock is much better than halo ODST

A) That's a matter of opinion.

B) That's critically irrelevant.

If a Chef makes a dish that's a pretty good hamburger.  He's more successful then another chef who makes something that tastes like a great hamburger but was trying to make a steak.

Welcome to a magazine that actually tries to treat videogame reviews like actual other forms of crticism.

It's the same reason summer blocbusters don't have the same critisicm standards as a Drama.

Bioshock may have been a great shooter.  But that's not what it promised.  It promised a shooter with a bunch of cool powers.

Not a shooter with a bunch of guns shaped like hands with lightning

Bioshock scored 96 on metacritic, halo ODST scored 85. Lots of respectable web sites gave Bioshock 10/10 or 9/10 but EDGE as always puts the GOOD review but they gave the game a score who doesnt match the review at all and its usually 7/10. Remindes of the infamous Conduit review.

7/10 is a good review.

It's a 7... out of 10.

Regardless... as I said.  That's not how proper criticism works.

"Better" games don't always get the higher score.

Once again look at the chef analogy.

If someone makes an Abe Lincoln documentry and it's the best action film ever, with lincoln blowing things up with a mingun... flipping cars over shit.  It's still going to get a bad review.  Because it didn't accomplish it's goal of being a Lincoln documentry.

Because bioshock didn't live up to the promise and Halo ODST is just about what you can expect from a halo game, the first one deserves a jab and the other one doesn't? It could very easily have been "halo odst just rehashes the same ol' stuff" and it could've got knocked for that. It should've been viewed in its own light, possible with a "well, that's the same old thing that has been around since the series began" (like fifa still gets knocked for its keeper) twist to it if certain things just don't get fixed and don't get updated. You can hardly bash one game for being too linear while other games get higher points while possibly being even more linear... doesn't add up. Consistency is lost then.