By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Catlana on 03 February 2010
heedstone said:
Catlana said:
heedstone said:

@ Catlana, I'm not pissed at EDGE for one crappy review of MAG, there's a whole host of other absurd reviews they do. for example:

 ....................EDGE ..............METACRITIC

Killzone 2 .........7 .......................91
Halo ODST ........9 .......................83
MAG .................6 ........................76


Crackdown ......8 ........................83
Infamous .........7 ........................85

mario kart wii ...6 .......................82
Banjo kazooie
nuts and bolts ..7 .......................79 


It's easy to find PS3 and Wii games that have recieved distinctly low scores from EDGE. Does anyone know of any 360 games that EDGE should of marked higher? I honestly can't think of any, and will be happy if someone can prove me wrong....

Edge gave the original Mass Effect (one of my favorite games) a 7 while its Metacritic sits at 91. Btw, I also really like Borderlands and Edge gave it a 6. To me and my friends that play together, the game is at least a 9, while metacritic the game is at 84. Edge also gave Blue Dragon a 6 while Metacritic sits at 79. So what can you tell from above, Edge simply tends to vary the score more. I very, very much disagree with some of their scores, but they are only 2% of a metacritic number on average.

Note: if you do not like Edge then do not subscribe, I don't. However, I try not to get too upset over reviewers that I disagree with. Threads like this just generate more attention for Edge and sell more copies.

 Obviously borderlands doesn't count as it is a multi-platform release.

True, Mass Effect does deserve more than 7, but I'm pretty sure Mass Effect and Blue Dragon were over 2 years ago, when EDGE was harsh, but uniformly so, they gave pretty low scores to Wii, PS3, and 360 alike, which didn't really bother me.  I'm pissed that they're continuing to mark down PS3 and Wii games, but are becoming more and more lenient towards the 360 exclusives (eg. Halo ODST-9, GTA episodes-9).

Even last year, Edge gave low marks to xbox 360 exclusives (Halo Wars meta 82, edge 7 / The Maw meta 75, edge 5 / Star Ocean meta 72, edge 5). I really liked The Maw, btw. There simply does not appear to be any systematic pattern of Edge favoring one console over another that I can see.

Also deviations from the norm by 10 to 20 percent are fairly common. The only titles that we have discussed that show remarkable deviation from the norm are Mass Effect, Killzone 2, Mario Kart Wii, The Maw, and Star Ocean. The reviewer for these titles was significantly out of the main stream.  



Around the Network
mario64 on 03 February 2010

Edge IS 360 biased. It was proven long ago by a guy who took every Edge review score and compared them to meta.

PS3 exclusives were rated a lot lower than Meta, while 360 exclusives were at least on par with meta.

On dozens of games, maths say they're biased.

They're the favorite 360 fanboy magazine, along with Eurogamer (but recently, Eurogamer seems less biased).



retroking1981 on 03 February 2010
Kantor said:
retroking1981 said:
CyberRazorCut said:

I try to read multiple reviews for titles I'm interested in, but I think the key is to find a handful of sources you trust, and take all this Metacritic malarkey with a humungous pinch of salt.  Mega Action gave Terminator 2 Judgement Day 87%.  Sega Power gave it 17%.  Where was Metacritic then, hmmm??  We all got by (thanks for buying me T2 dad...)

innocent times my friend. back then reviews weren't affected by one anothers opinions lieke they might be today. did edge give mario kart a 6 cos they thought it was a 6 or because the gamerankings average was to high for their liking? scary thought, lol

im off to imdb to give avartar 1/10

Why on earth would one of the most well-known gaming magazines in the world care about a Gamerankings average? They gave it a 6 because they thought it was a 6, nothing more to it.


they wouldnt im just being sarcastic, hence the silly avartar remark.



A Bad Clown on 03 February 2010

Aw...I thought you were talking about Edge Games, which deserves twice as much hate as Edge Magazine.



19:44:34 Skeezer METAL GEAR ONLINE
19:44:36 Skeezer FAILURE
19:44:51 ABadClown You're right!
19:44:55 ABadClown Hur hur hur
19:45:01 Skeezer i meant
19:45:04 Skeezer YOU ARE A FAILKURE
19:45:08 Skeezer FAILURE*
kiefer23 on 03 February 2010
heedstone said:

I find it hard to talk about EDGE without using expletives but here goes.....

  I used to get Edge magazine religiously for over 4 years, iI found it to be a high quality magazine which I found to give great insight into the video game industry, and its reviews were what always influenced my video game purchases the most over this time.

   However, in recent times there can be no doubt that the staff at Edge have definatley pinned their colours to the mast.  It's not just evident in the consistently low scores the PS3 (and Wii) games get, but the fact that it's always the X-box version that is tested in nearly every Multi-platform game review they do.  The Edge staff clearly prefer to use the 360, and in doing so have gone from being impartial advisors, to being 360 fanboys.

  I stopped buying Edge a few months ago for just this reason (I now buy GAMEStm - a much better magazine all-round), but am still continually infuriated when I hear of their reviews (MAG being the latest).  It really irritates me that a magazine that I once held in high regard seems intent on kicking dirt in the faces of non-360 owners.

   Sorry if this sounds like a rant (which I suppose it is!), I generally never post on forums, but after reading the EDGE review for MAG, it irritated me so much, I actually had to write something or I'd explode.  As for MAG, I have found it to be an excellent game, and and a hell of a lot of fun (nowhere near the 6/10 EDGE gave it).  I personally find it more enjoyable than killzone or COD.  However, if you didn't like the beta for some reason then you wont like the full game, as it is more of the same.  Hopefully see some of ya on the battlefields!


Oh, wow...

Do you not think they test the Xbox 360 version because 99% of the time that was the lead platform? It would be unfair to review a sloppy port and degrade the game in a Multi-platform magazine.



Around the Network
heedstone on 03 February 2010
kiefer23 said:
heedstone said:

I find it hard to talk about EDGE without using expletives but here goes.....

  I used to get Edge magazine religiously for over 4 years, iI found it to be a high quality magazine which I found to give great insight into the video game industry, and its reviews were what always influenced my video game purchases the most over this time.

   However, in recent times there can be no doubt that the staff at Edge have definatley pinned their colours to the mast.  It's not just evident in the consistently low scores the PS3 (and Wii) games get, but the fact that it's always the X-box version that is tested in nearly every Multi-platform game review they do.  The Edge staff clearly prefer to use the 360, and in doing so have gone from being impartial advisors, to being 360 fanboys.

  I stopped buying Edge a few months ago for just this reason (I now buy GAMEStm - a much better magazine all-round), but am still continually infuriated when I hear of their reviews (MAG being the latest).  It really irritates me that a magazine that I once held in high regard seems intent on kicking dirt in the faces of non-360 owners.

   Sorry if this sounds like a rant (which I suppose it is!), I generally never post on forums, but after reading the EDGE review for MAG, it irritated me so much, I actually had to write something or I'd explode.  As for MAG, I have found it to be an excellent game, and and a hell of a lot of fun (nowhere near the 6/10 EDGE gave it).  I personally find it more enjoyable than killzone or COD.  However, if you didn't like the beta for some reason then you wont like the full game, as it is more of the same.  Hopefully see some of ya on the battlefields!


Oh, wow...

Do you not think they test the Xbox 360 version because 99% of the time that was the lead platform? It would be unfair to review a sloppy port and degrade the game in a Multi-platform magazine.

Haha, that's quite a biased opinion you've got there!  Do you work for EDGE????   :D



The dude abides   

Masakari on 03 February 2010

Actually, he's right. Everybody who's not in denial knows that:

1) for a long time this gen the lead plat was 360, it's only begun to change / vary recently

2) for a long time this gen the best version on multiplats was 360, it's only begun to change / vary recently

This is fact. And easily seen by the amount of internet bitching it has created on several cases (just recently Bayonetta, for example).

I know if I was a reviewer, I would try to judge a game by it's best version. For CoDs, for example, that would be PC, for stuff like Bayonetta it would be 360, heck, if anything, it's an advantage to a lesser port version, as they don't differentiate from score in the review, they just say which version they tried. They do say if X port is worse, but that isn't reflected in that game/platform's metacritic.

A review is an opinion, don't like it, fine. Why bitch about it on the web? I seriously don't get that.



slowmo on 04 February 2010
Xoj said:
slowmo said:
Xoj said:
slowmo said:
Xoj said:
slowmo said:
MAG is a average shooter with a unique premise, the score wasn't obviously less than other reviews so you're just bitching because they had a different view of one of your favourite current games. Games TM gave Assassins Creed 1 a score of 4, did I cry about it, no I read the review and decided I could live with the downsides. As it happens the reviewers opinion was wrong on the score but is pros and cons hit the nail on the head that he wrote in the review.

The bias overspilling your words makes your rant have very little value to me, you have no proof of them favouring 360 ports of games as you've not bothered to get ACTUAL numbers of games they did this on in any issue, let alone the one you're upset about.

Ever considered that the fact they get to play the best games on all consoles is why they don't score some PS3 exclusives as high as you would like?

says the guy wit halo on their avatar

pretty much all FPS on consoles are average, certain there noticeable quite bias since Mw2, halo:ostd  never go below a 8 get average ;_;

 

Either you're very bad at FPS on consoles or you really haven't played many.  My avatar has nothing to do with my opinion and Halo isn't even one of my favourite games this generation.  If you call Bioshock, Orange Box, COD4, Halo 3 average then frankly, I know now how little your opinion means on the FPS genre. 

For the record ODST was worth a 8 but then again I'd know that having played it through fully, also most reviews tend to agree with my viewpoint. 

Looking at the tags under YOUR name though its easy to see why you would want to try and bait and troll me, just shoo please.

certainly as far as innovation bioshock deliver in something halo 3 doens't, storytelling. but MAG have 256 battles never seen in a console before.

and it was you that starting calling MAG average without even playing it, i was in beta.


I believe I stated it was an average FPS with a unique concept, how is that statement wrong?  Every review seems to agree with me pretty much.  Perhaps if more people in the beta had provided better feedback instead of kissing ass with developers then the game would have been even better.  Beta's in FPS games are a double edged sword because people spend more time trying to bend games to fit their playstyle rather than actually bug finding.  The only advantage a public beta gives you is an idea of how the netcode will perform. 

Halo 3 did bring some innovation to console FPS games, I suggest had you played the game you would know this.

i did halo 3 simply followed halo 2, mingle all the things many FPS had and put them together.

split screen = golden eye, and many of the features were on FPS like CS and UT,


Did it happen to mingle all those things together in a cohesive package unlike nearly every other shooter out there by any chance? 

Saying forge, theatre and the pretty much unparalleled online stat tracking didn't bring anything new to the table is rubbish, you don't like the game then thats fine but don't come in here talking FUD about it.

By the way, it happened to scoop this too:

http://www.edge-online.com/news/halo-3-scoops-edge-award-interactive-innovation

 



Xoj on 04 February 2010
slowmo said:
Xoj said:
slowmo said:
Xoj said:
slowmo said:
Xoj said:
slowmo said:
MAG is a average shooter with a unique premise, the score wasn't obviously less than other reviews so you're just bitching because they had a different view of one of your favourite current games. Games TM gave Assassins Creed 1 a score of 4, did I cry about it, no I read the review and decided I could live with the downsides. As it happens the reviewers opinion was wrong on the score but is pros and cons hit the nail on the head that he wrote in the review.

The bias overspilling your words makes your rant have very little value to me, you have no proof of them favouring 360 ports of games as you've not bothered to get ACTUAL numbers of games they did this on in any issue, let alone the one you're upset about.

Ever considered that the fact they get to play the best games on all consoles is why they don't score some PS3 exclusives as high as you would like?

says the guy wit halo on their avatar

pretty much all FPS on consoles are average, certain there noticeable quite bias since Mw2, halo:ostd  never go below a 8 get average ;_;

 

Either you're very bad at FPS on consoles or you really haven't played many.  My avatar has nothing to do with my opinion and Halo isn't even one of my favourite games this generation.  If you call Bioshock, Orange Box, COD4, Halo 3 average then frankly, I know now how little your opinion means on the FPS genre. 

For the record ODST was worth a 8 but then again I'd know that having played it through fully, also most reviews tend to agree with my viewpoint. 

Looking at the tags under YOUR name though its easy to see why you would want to try and bait and troll me, just shoo please.

certainly as far as innovation bioshock deliver in something halo 3 doens't, storytelling. but MAG have 256 battles never seen in a console before.

and it was you that starting calling MAG average without even playing it, i was in beta.


I believe I stated it was an average FPS with a unique concept, how is that statement wrong?  Every review seems to agree with me pretty much.  Perhaps if more people in the beta had provided better feedback instead of kissing ass with developers then the game would have been even better.  Beta's in FPS games are a double edged sword because people spend more time trying to bend games to fit their playstyle rather than actually bug finding.  The only advantage a public beta gives you is an idea of how the netcode will perform. 

Halo 3 did bring some innovation to console FPS games, I suggest had you played the game you would know this.

i did halo 3 simply followed halo 2, mingle all the things many FPS had and put them together.

split screen = golden eye, and many of the features were on FPS like CS and UT,


Did it happen to mingle all those things together in a cohesive package unlike nearly every other shooter out there by any chance? 

Saying forge, theatre and the pretty much unparalleled online stat tracking didn't bring anything new to the table is rubbish, you don't like the game then thats fine but don't come in here talking FUD about it.

By the way, it happened to scoop this too:

http://www.edge-online.com/news/halo-3-scoops-edge-award-interactive-innovation

 

LOL many of those features were on many games before, it didn't bring anything new.

it's just mingle them together, UT had mods that gave it many of features halo added



slowmo on 04 February 2010

@Xoj - You really need to take your rose tinted spectacles off, glad you're not a reviewer.