Depends. EDGE has a different logic of rating
Controversial game reviews in console history
- Thread starter Deepak
- Start date
Depends. EDGE has a different logic of rating
Almost the entire reviews of the Battlefield and more specifically is BF2, they should all only get 1/3 of what they are given. I find that a lot of times reviewers just blow off that a game is a bug ridden piece of crap. Perfect example right now is Gothic 3 for me. While I find it blows away Oblivion, I'd still give it only a 6/10 right now with potetial for 9.5/10 once bugs are fixed. That brings me to that Oblivion deserves only a 3/10, IMO. It was a downgrade from Morrowind in many aspects except for graphics.
I am pretty sure actually it was IGN (it was years ago
) and they had posted an explanation also.I am pretty sure actually it was IGN (it was years ago
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....+gamespot+score&rnum=1&hl=en#b9a1293d6e8b961a
Yeah, that magazine actually have some logic and actually give a definitions what its scores actually mean (and five is, as it should be, average). What is the difference between a gamespot score of 7.7 and 7.8?
So different that they gave Zone of the Enders 2 a 4/10, while "incredible" games such as Starsky and Hutch got 7/10 and Drakengard, for its part, got a 8/10.
Seriously, the only way to give any magazine, or online outlet, any form of credibility, at this point, would be to drop the numerical scores that punctuate most reviews out there and leave it up to the review itself and to the final notes to give an overview of the quality of a game.
Or design a supercmputer to read the review and then objectively give a score dependant on the amount of hyperbole or derogatory remarks made in a review. We can call this new supercomputer HAL or Cybernet.
Wow... That's a bit much... I mean, i had the misfortune of playing The Bouncer and it was really, seriously, bad.Controversial, yes. At the same time edge has always had good arguments for their review ratings and a sound logic for them. They seem to be very resilient to the hype factor that contaminates the reviews of many other magazines. I for one think that the GT4 and FFX reviews were more correct in EDGE than in other magazines.
EDGE also tried to get rid of the rating numbers completely at one point, to encourage readers to concentrate on the important matter, the review text. That was not accepted by the readers.
If I want to know whether a game is really a good, balanced, original, and enjoyable game I will take an EDGE review over the others any time.
And this is the point where i step in and clarify that the EDGE of today is nothing like the EDGE of some time ago. Almost all the staff have changed and what used to be the most professional mag around - by far - is now just a shell of what it used to be.
Bioware's Jade Empire got 9.9 out of 10 on IGN. While I liked this game a lot on the XBox, it's really far from perfection...
I'm not really shocked by low scores reviews (most of them are at least argumentated), I don't think they ever convinced anyone of not buying a game they wanted, but what I hate is reviewers giving glowing reviews because of either hype or sometimes outright moneyhats.
I'm not really shocked by low scores reviews (most of them are at least argumentated), I don't think they ever convinced anyone of not buying a game they wanted, but what I hate is reviewers giving glowing reviews because of either hype or sometimes outright moneyhats.
The logic of the GT4 rating was that it was still the same game, i wonder how they would rate for someone who didn´t play the other games. That is actually one of the flawed things about reviews, they usually take aproach that everyone have played every game in the series before and often every game in the genre as well, and sometimes just every game ever made.
I don't really see the problem with changing a review. Most reviews are rushed pieces of trash to entice the "now now now" internet community who reads what's first over what's best. Taking the time to actually complete a game - or at least play the game as much as you would before you would shelf it - takes much longer than most games are reviewed for.
Most reviews for big games are pretty much PR pieces with a few nit-picks to make it sound genuine. That's why Penny Arcade's shots at IGN and Gamespy are so funny - because they're accurate.
That's also why retrospective reviews on sites like 16/32-bit RPG specialists are great. They're entirely driven by thoughts of "I really enjoyed that game and can't wait to play it again".
All IMO of course. Cheers.
Most reviews for big games are pretty much PR pieces with a few nit-picks to make it sound genuine. That's why Penny Arcade's shots at IGN and Gamespy are so funny - because they're accurate.
That's also why retrospective reviews on sites like 16/32-bit RPG specialists are great. They're entirely driven by thoughts of "I really enjoyed that game and can't wait to play it again".
All IMO of course. Cheers.
I remember sites talking up State of Emergency cause it was Rockstars next big thing after GTA. I know IGN and Gamespot gave that game like 8.5's.
New flash, that game was ass. They did that to save face. I think that was probably the most returned game in the history of video games.
New flash, that game was ass. They did that to save face. I think that was probably the most returned game in the history of video games.
Even too much i'm afraid. Innovation is good, but you can't expect every game to do something radically innovative. It's just not possible, and it is totally unfair that some absolutely great games - but not necessarily innovative - should be penalised for this.
Innovation is just one of many factors to take into consideration, and limiting reviews on that is just close-mindedness.
But in the end, do i really care about those silly numbers? Heck no!
Nah, Enter the Matrix was. Once people saw the "extra footage", off they went back to the shop.
Similar threads
