433 réponses à ce sujet

[Hurrrr]

Edge is a pretty damn good magazine. Been reading it on and off for a while. Its not your usual crap, its close to the industry and from the advertisements alone, you can tell that alot of its readership is game industry staffers.



Remember though...

-They do not operate on the infamous 7-9 review scale that most critics do. 5/10 is an AVERAGE GAME of its genre. Not crap, not great.

- They are as close to untouchable in terms of cred as a games mag can be. This is no Gamespot.



So what they gave it an "average"? That's pretty alright, I love the genre so a 5/10 + from edge is by itself enough of a reason for me to know ill like the game.

[Zenthar Aseth]

That'd be dandy if we didn't have other reviews from them. But we do. So they're full of crap. KotOr 9/10? MW2 9/10? Morrowind 6/10? Oblivion 8/10? Dragon age 5/10?



I don't know if the magazine is good otherwise, but they can't review games properly to save their life..

[egervari]

Hurrrr wrote...

Edge is a pretty damn good magazine. Been reading it on and off for a while. Its not your usual crap, its close to the industry and from the advertisements alone, you can tell that alot of its readership is game industry staffers.

Remember though...
-They do not operate on the infamous 7-9 review scale that most critics do. 5/10 is an AVERAGE GAME of its genre. Not crap, not great.
- They are as close to untouchable in terms of cred as a games mag can be. This is no Gamespot.

So what they gave it an "average"? That's pretty alright, I love the genre so a 5/10 + from edge is by itself enough of a reason for me to know ill like the game.

There is no infamous 7-9 scale. Lots of games get 6 and 5.5 and 4. Some even less than that.

If this was the only source for credible game reviews, I would never, ever have bought dragon age. And man, what I would have missed!

While I don't think Gamespot in particular is that great, some sites do rate games fairly well. Gametrailers is usually much better. The only games I saw them give questionable reviews to were Halo games. They go on and on about how much it sucks. They spend 80% of the spoken review talking about faults and problems... literally going on for 6 minutes about what is wrong with the game and not saying much about what is good about it... and then they give it 9.9 (gross exaggeration, and I know you get my point).

IGN has a better track record as well.

Regardless, I am knowledgable enough and logical-minded enough about gaming and RPGs to know that any conclusion that results in a 5 is bull. I've been gaming since the NES was first released. I played the original final fantasy when it was first released, and played all the old-school rpgs like ultima 6/7, lands of lore, might and magic 3+, and a bunch of others. I've probably played 100 rpgs at least of all types. Probably a lot more.

Trust me: DA:O is not a 5. I don't know how you consider this magazine credible.

Also look at bg2 - 8/10. It would seem that everyone else completely disagrees with them. On metacritic, it is the #6 best pc game of all time. If you go to gamerankings.com, it also #6. That's a hell of a lot of pc games to beat out since the dawn of pc gaming. #6!!!!! And so Edge decides to give the 6th best game of all time a stupid 8/10. If the 6th best game of all time is an 8, then does that mean only 5 other games get scores of 9/10 and 10/10?

Modifié par egervari, 22 novembre 2009 - 01:47 .

[Raxxman]

egervari wrote...

Trust me: DA:O is not a 5. I don't know how you consider this magazine credible.

Why should I trust you? You write a published magazine that is read by and respected by a large number of game designers? You ever done anything to earn trust? 

You call some one an idiot on this forum, and 20 mins later they come back to prove without a shadow of a doubt they are infact  a complete tool bag.

I mean seriously the idea that every game player in the world will like this game is idiotic, the idea that a reviewer should give the game a 7/10 not based on his opinion but peer pressure (which is what you're essentially suggesting) is idiotic.

So, why should I trust you? Really, give me a reason.

[Raxtoren]

That reviewer is not respected, and if he is, UK-gamers need a reality check.
You know a game that got 5/10 in avg? Two worlds, thats what a 5/10 game is.
So buggy that is unplayable, with framerate issues constant. with a horrible story and gameplay.
Thats a 5/10 game.
But hey, Diablo 2 was a 6 for them, so why even bother to argue.
Every good game that the media/fans like EDGE has to trash.
Thats basically it, the best rpgs of all time landed on a 7/10. Kotor got a 9, sure but then again what is a 10? what did Kotor do that Mass Effect or DAO didnt do?

Also, as I said before...
Fallout 3 got tons of 9+ by every magazine, and it sold millions of copies by the fans and got voted by GOTY from many fansites, and the developers themself voted last year F3 for GOTY.

So if the media,fans and the developers thinks F3 was goty, and Edge gves it a 7?
What does that tell you? that they out of line with the gaming world in general.

Modifié par Raxtoren, 22 novembre 2009 - 02:24 .

[JaegerBane]

PurpleChair wrote...
As has been said, there's no mention of this '30 hour' number anywhere in the review. I don't know where this number has come from.

Hmm, I'll have to check that, I could have sworn he said something about worth of playing didn't have enough in it, or words to the effect.

And you say it "depends on facts that don't exist"... no it doesn't! It depends on opinions that some people do share. For example, he thought the combat involved far too much micromanagement, and I agree. And some people will say that that's one of the great thing about the game - a number of my friends, for instance. But that's just a matter of opinion.

Well to be honest, complaining about micromanagement in a game like this is shaky at best. The first time I played through the Korcari I just clicked on things, set my team mates up to do their thing and just zapped uglies with my spells. It was only later I got into messing about with placings and chaining powers together. Depending on difficulty the game can be played almost without micro at all.

Calling just clicking on enemies as 'too much micro' is an example of a 'fact that does not exist'. If it were truly an issue for the guy he would have played in a way that didn't require it. He may like or dislike micro, but to mark the game down just because it happened to include it was silly.

This idea of objectively reviewing a story makes no sense whatsoever. How would that even be possible? What kind of criteria would you use?

*sigh* Are you honestly telling me that it is impossible to say with solid justification whether a story is good or not? Have you even read any book reviews before? Are you not familiar with the concepts of pacing, dramatisation, exposition?

Obviously you can't objectively claim sci-fi or romance or whatever genre is better than the rest. But you can claim whether a story flows properly, whether it's too abrupt, whether it's difficult to keep with the flow, whether it's unclear, as this has to do with the introduction of plot concepts, the treatment of the reader, the length of chapters, the style of the storytelling etc. It's no different for computer games.

And what do you have to say about any of the other issues I mentioned? Why is 'story' by itself such an issue for you?

Modifié par JaegerBane, 22 novembre 2009 - 02:38 .

[egervari]

Raxxman wrote...

egervari wrote...

Trust me: DA:O is not a 5. I don't know how you consider this magazine credible.

Why should I trust you? You write a published magazine that is read by and respected by a large number of game designers? You ever done anything to earn trust? 

You call some one an idiot on this forum, and 20 mins later they come back to prove without a shadow of a doubt they are infact  a complete tool bag.

I mean seriously the idea that every game player in the world will like this game is idiotic, the idea that a reviewer should give the game a 7/10 not based on his opinion but peer pressure (which is what you're essentially suggesting) is idiotic.

So, why should I trust you? Really, give me a reason.

So you, in good conscience, think DA:O is a 5/10? Have you even played it? It basically takes a lot of what made bg2 amazing (again, the 6th best game of all time), and adds on the tech of 2009 with the improvements learned from neverwinter nights, kotor and mass effect. What we have is essentially a polished masterpiece. It isn't perfect, but there's so little to fault it compared to what it does right.

And yes, a review isn't a person's opinion, and it is NOT about catering to fan pressure. There should be a level of professionalism when reviewing something.

For starters, the person reviewing the game should at least tolerate the genre, if not actually enjoy it. Based on the little tidbits of information that we've gotten, it would appear that the reviewer does not like rpgs. 

I hate sport games. I really do. Especially football games. I hate those even more.

Now, let's say I get hired by a Edge magazine to review sport games. If you tell me to review the game based on my personal experience and not on the merits of the game, I will probably give all of them a 3/10 to 7/10. I don't think a single sports game would have a prayer in getting an 8, unless I thought it was fun (and like I said, I don't think any of them are fun).

So if I review sport games like that... is my opinion a responsible, professional that represents the position of the entire magazine? Does my review reflect the quality of the game? Does my review even communicate with my target audience? Of course not - that would be absurd!

And yet, that's exactly the problem with edge's reviews on the cream of the crop of RPGs that we've been blessed with over the years.

Modifié par egervari, 22 novembre 2009 - 02:38 .

[egervari]

These are reviews I have written in the past. 3 out of the 5 I wrote won the monthly contest game faqs have (and 4 out of 5 were *'d), which got me many free amazon dollars to buy books and stuff with. While I am not a professional reviewer, when someone actually read through the reviews and assigned the winner, they seemed to like mine whenever I applied.



Mass Effect:

http://www.gamefaqs....ew/R121053.html



Fire Emblem for Wii:

http://www.gamefaqs....ew/R119593.html



Zelda for DS:

http://www.gamefaqs....ew/R118333.html



I dunno why I stopped. I did stop playing games for a year or so before I started gaming again. I might just write a DA:O review and enter it in the monthly contest if they are still running them.



Anyway, take it for what it's worth. I'm obviously not an idiot like that guy from Edge, and as you can see from my Mass Effect review of the xbox version, I'm not some bioware fanboy either.

[PurpleChair]

JaegerBane wrote...

Obviously you can't objectively claim sci-fi or romance or whatever genre is better than the rest. But you can claim whether a story flows properly, whether it's too abrupt, whether it's difficult to keep with the flow, whether it's unclear, as this has to do with the introduction of plot concepts, the treatment of the reader, the length of chapters, the style of the storytelling etc. It's no different for computer games.

Those are all subjective issues, though. Have you read 'The Legend of the 10 Elemental Masters'? It's almost totally unreadable, I doubt many people would bother reading past the first page. You might say that it's an objectively terrible book, but I'm pretty sure the author thinks it's an amazing book, for all the same reasons that other people hate it. Just because lots of people share an opinion, doesn't make it fact.

And what do you have to say about any of the other issues I mentioned? Why is 'story' by itself such an issue for you?

I think they're all also subjective, really. Even something that might sound obviously objective, like graphics, has a strong subjective quality when you really get down to it. What kind of graphics are 'best'? With what kind of criteria can you objectively compare games like Space Giraffe, Cave Story and Crysis? All of these things depend on your personal experiences, expectations, preferences, and so on. They are all subjective.

I wasn't going to dwell on that stuff, since it'll no doubt just infuriate you further. But, since you asked...

[Wickedjelly]

Aerundel wrote...
The Witcher - 5/10

Wow, I'm not sure what's more baffling.  Giving this game a 5/10 or The Witcher that score.  I suppose since reviews are really just one's opinion it's hard to fault someone for their assessment of a game, but really seems to me that someone there gets stuck reviewing a genre at times they simply don't enjoy playing.

[Solica]

Balraw wrote...

In the end all this matters not a bit

I think it does matter. And I'll try to explain why, even if it might be a minefield to approach.
I occasionally peruse Edge. But unlike others here, who profess to read Edge, I don't think it's particularly great. And I'll just dismiss out of hand any notion of them being less corrupt than others. It's a magazine being published by a "lifestyle magazine" publishing empire, Future Publishing. Looking at circulation and ads, it seems very likely that it's a financed magazine, even though it's expensive. And Future Publishing is definitely receiving money from clients that include all major Japanese game industries.
As for "integrity", it seems a lot of chief editors have left Edge over the years, slamming the door as they left.
But in a way it might not be exactly "corrupt". For instance, if you want to do some communist propaganda, you don't really have to pay people extra to do it. You just have to employ committed communists with a burning conviction from the start.

Edge, throughout most of what they publish, interviews, blogs, keynotes, editorials, even "news" (selection) push certain views, an agenda of what video gaming should be and what directions it should go. As I dared say in a previous post, it's a "political" magazine. You just have to check it out yourself to get what I mean. I think that is the easiest way I can describe it. Just check it out for yourself. And if you disagree with me then,.. well, then I just suppose you disagree with me.

It doesn't help that the gaming community doesn't really read Edge, if enough of the gaming industry do, and are influenced by it. Who knows? They might. Then the damage is done anyway, in terms of what kind of games and platforms will tend to dominate publishers marketing and development budgets, and for what types of detail decisions will be made down in the development.

I have a lot of personal thoughts about gaming and games. I realize that they're very personal and not representative at all. But how can they be representative? Doesn't the gaming community in the end become dominated by those who embrace the types of games that are offered? And aren't their opinions in the end influenced by the experiences they are offered? Anyway, Edge is everything I resent about where gaming is going, and IMO DA:O already makes far too many concessions to the kind of gaming ideals that Edge push. Isn't it scary? How Nintendo ideals have totally changed what RPG used to be? Or, more to the point, what PC RPGs could have been today, offered development resources on different things. And they have done this even to RPGs, a genre I bet a lot of us more mature here thought would be safe and immune. It isn't. This genre, too, is and will be converging to the same mold of concepts as all the others.

You should check out internet info on an upcoming game title called 'Bayonetta'. This is a 10/10 title according to Edge. No "boring" "micro-management" there. That's what your gaming future might look like. "It doesn't matter" seem a bit too passive.

Modifié par Solica, 22 novembre 2009 - 04:40 .

[Reiella]

Wickedjelly wrote...

Aerundel wrote...
The Witcher - 5/10

Wow, I'm not sure what's more baffling.  Giving this game a 5/10 or The Witcher that score.  I suppose since reviews are really just one's opinion it's hard to fault someone for their assessment of a game, but really seems to me that someone there gets stuck reviewing a genre at times they simply don't enjoy playing.

Witcher pre-expanded edition/patches was pretty blah.  The expanded and the patch fixed alot of the issues with it, but I can easily see and sympathesize with a 5/10.

[Balraw]

Solica wrote...

Balraw wrote...

In the end all this matters not a bit

Snip for space
 

I understand you believe that  Edge have an adgenda and are wanting to push the gaming industy in a direction you peronally dont agree with. To be honest I would be suprised if Edge or any other publicaiton (print or otherwise) does't have a similar adgenda or set editorial direction. 

I really can't comment on that as I have very rarely purchased Edge so I haven't really formed an opinion or had enough exposure to them to do so.  However they are only one magazine out of many many such publications and to me personally they don't matter. 

My opionion only of couse so feel free to form your own.

Modifié par Balraw, 22 novembre 2009 - 05:20 .

[egervari]

Solica wrote...

Balraw wrote...

In the end all this matters not a bit

I think it does matter. And I'll try to explain why, even if it might be a minefield to approach.
I occasionally peruse Edge. But unlike others here, who profess to read Edge, I don't think it's particularly great. And I'll just dismiss out of hand any notion of them being less corrupt than others. It's a magazine being published by a "lifestyle magazine" publishing empire, Future Publishing. Looking at circulation and ads, it seems very likely that it's a financed magazine, even though it's expensive. And Future Publishing is definitely receiving money from clients that include all major Japanese game industries.
As for "integrity", it seems a lot of chief editors have left Edge over the years, slamming the door as they left.
But in a way it might not be exactly "corrupt". For instance, if you want to do some communist propaganda, you don't really have to pay people extra to do it. You just have to employ committed communists with a burning conviction from the start.

Edge, throughout most of what they publish, interviews, blogs, keynotes, editorials, even "news" (selection) push certain views, an agenda of what video gaming should be and what directions it should go. As I dared say in a previous post, it's a "political" magazine. You just have to check it out yourself to get what I mean. I think that is the easiest way I can describe it. Just check it out for yourself. And if you disagree with me then,.. well, then I just suppose you disagree with me.

It doesn't help that the gaming community doesn't really read Edge, if enough of the gaming industry do, and are influenced by it. Who knows? They might. Then the damage is done anyway, in terms of what kind of games and platforms will tend to dominate publishers marketing and development budgets, and for what types of detail decisions will be made down in the development.

I have a lot of personal thoughts about gaming and games. I realize that they're very personal and not representative at all. But how can they be representative? Doesn't the gaming community in the end become dominated by those who embrace the types of games that are offered? And aren't their opinions in the end influenced by the experiences they are offered? Anyway, Edge is everything I resent about where gaming is going, and IMO DA:O already makes far too many concessions to the kind of gaming ideals that Edge push. Isn't it scary? How Nintendo ideals have totally changed what RPG used to be? Or, more to the point, what PC RPGs could have been today, offered development resources on different things. And they have done this even to RPGs, a genre I bet a lot of us more mature here thought would be safe and immune. It isn't. This genre, too, is and will be converging to the same mold of concepts as all the others.

You should check out internet info on an upcoming game title called 'Bayonetta'. This is a 10/10 title according to Edge. No "boring" "micro-management" there. That's what your gaming future might look like. "It doesn't matter" seem a bit too passive.

I would agree that their "standards" are merely just preferences, and these preferences colour the scores of other genres. 

Still, I don't think RPGs are heading in the wrong direction. The actual problem is that not enough of them are being made. We are kind of lucky that a few companies that make RPGs are pretty good to great. A lot of other genres have a much higher hit/miss ratio. They may have more "good" games, but not many more... and considering how much crap comes out in their genres, RPGs have it much better. When one of the worst rpgs of the year is something like Risen... I think we're doing okay.

Having said that, NWN2 is not that old of a game... just a few years back... and that's about as deep as they come. I can't think of a gaming system with all the addons is more complex than that. In fact, it's been somewhat of a barrier to entry for me, because it's so different second edition rules that I played engine after engine with, and frankly, I don't have the kind of time to devote myself to learning 3.5 edition rules to become good at building characters. It could take a week just to learn it well to play the kind of characters I like to play... so I never did.

In that way, Dragon Age is actually a step up for me. It's deep enough that you need to know what you're doing, but you don't need to spend a week in order to start having fun with the deeper mechanics. I don't see it as much as a concession as it is a compromise.

Besides combat depth, Dragon age pretty much sports the best of breed everything else the industry has seen... so I'm not sure where the other concessions are. Play BG2 again... you'd be pretty damn amazed as to how bad the story progression is, and how poorly written some of the dialog is to that game. It was totally acceptable when we played it 10 years ago... but dragon age honestly puts it to shame.

I think some concessions are also made because high definition games take a lot longer to build then old school games. The days where a game took 100 or 150 hours to beat are long gone. Trends change, and I'm not so sure the magazines like edge are the reason. I don't think the chaff they write is that influential even if it was their agenda.

[Solica]

egervari wrote...

snip
Besides combat depth, Dragon age pretty much sports the best of breed everything else the industry has seen... so I'm not sure where the other concessions are. Play BG2 again... you'd be pretty damn amazed as to how bad the story progression is, and how poorly written some of the dialog is to that game. It was totally acceptable when we played it 10 years ago... but dragon age honestly puts it to shame.

I think some concessions are also made because high definition games take a lot longer to build then old school games. The days where a game took 100 or 150 hours to beat are long gone. Trends change, and I'm not so sure the magazines like edge are the reason. I don't think the chaff they write is that influential even if it was their agenda.

Well, sigh. I guess it might be that I'm simply a little bit too harsh right now, angered by their review of DA.
Edge ain't always such a bad read.

And I said it was a minefield. This is too big to go into here and now. But I didn't mean I want deeper mechanics for the player to dig into. I'm not a rule-set and class nerd. But deeper problems and decisions perhaps. I think what I meant is more what you touched with "high definition". A game needs a high budget to be produced with high definitions and thus we get fewer and it also needs a big market to pay for the effort. A big market in turn, is assumed to require well known gaming concepts and mechano to be accepted. Thus the original PnP RPG concepts aren't evolved with the help of the computer towards greater definition in terms of gameplay. But rather, on the contrary, simplified. DA tries, and I suppose also fails, to be part RTS, for some players. ...Arrg, I'll just leave this here. It's not the subject anyway. I like DA very much. I knew it would be like it is, a long time ago, and I'm at peace with that this is what I can get. Economics being what they are.

[jerms510]

Aerundel wrote...

Pasted from another board:

"Past Edge WRPG scores for reference:

Mass Effect - 7/10
Jade Empire - 7/10
KotOR - 9/10
Baldur's Gate 2 - 8/10
The Witcher - 5/10
Morrowind - 6/10
Oblivion - 8/10
Fallout 3 - 7/10
Diablo - 7/10
Diablo II - 6/10 "

o.o a 6/10 for d2? I played Morrowind for an hour, which consisted of running around having no clue what to do until I stumbled across an enemy which promptly killed me as I continued to miss my melee attacks. If D2 was a 6 then Morrowind should be -4/10. Had no motivation to even look at Oblivion after the Morrowind fiasco. Witcher looks neat but never played it, loved FO3, and of course the bioware games are all fantastic.

[Nygaard87]

Isn't that where Tim Langdell worked? the guy who tried to claimed copyright infringement on any game that used the word "Edge", in the title? I hate that guy beyond belief. You can't claim copyright on a freakin word. I cannot give a rats ass what Edge magazine thinks of dragon age.

[Rainen89]

Hurrrr wrote...

Edge is a pretty damn good magazine. Been reading it on and off for a while. Its not your usual crap, its close to the industry and from the advertisements alone, you can tell that alot of its readership is game industry staffers.

Remember though...
-They do not operate on the infamous 7-9 review scale that most critics do. 5/10 is an AVERAGE GAME of its genre. Not crap, not great.
- They are as close to untouchable in terms of cred as a games mag can be. This is no Gamespot.

So what they gave it an "average"? That's pretty alright, I love the genre so a 5/10 + from edge is by itself enough of a reason for me to know ill like the game.

I'm fine with people thinking DA is average everyone has their different views. Personally this game has topped anything I've ever played but again, opinion. The troubling fact of this "pro" review is that all games with guns and explosions get high ratings. All games with interaction, roleplaying, finesse and frustration get low ones. I know why this is most people prefer huge explosions and shooting guns than to playing RPGs but nevertheless when they say games like DA, Diablo and who knows what else are mediocre but give anything with a rifle a 7-9 that's not a good review, that's a biased.

[newcomplex]

[/quote]

No I dont work for edge. Im a 22 year old

And yes I'm stubborn because you have all reached a consensus without reading the review. 
[/quote]

diablo 1 = 7/10

yeah, your a fanboy for a gaming magazine that is obviously has no grasp what so ever on the PC genre.   

[Malkut]

PurpleChair wrote...

CONS
- Generic Tolkien-esque setting

OH MY GOD ANOTHER FINAL FANTASY GAME WHERE AN ANGSTY FAE LADYBOY GRINDS LEVELS WITH HIS CHASTE WHITE MAGE GIRLFRIEND AND EXPLORES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAGIC AND NATURE AND TECHNOLOGY IN A SETTING THAT'S IDENTICAL TO EVERY ANIME EVER!

THIS IS THE GREATEST GAME I'VE EVER PLAYED IN MY LIFE! [/bum]

[Rainen89]

I lol'd.

[mufuti7]

Hurrrr wrote...
- They are as close to untouchable in terms of cred as a games mag can be. This is no Gamespot.

So what they gave it an "average"? That's pretty alright, I love the genre so a 5/10 + from edge is by itself enough of a reason for me to know ill like the game.

Maybe they have great feature articles and interesting "industry news" but their credibility in regards to reviewing games is obviously laughable, at best.

I have spent some time browsing their site since yesterday and there is absolutely nothing outstanding about this magazine. They seem to cover a lot of ground but aside from that they are obviously just another game magazine.

Nothing to go crazy about, nothing someone else is not doing in the same fashion in a different color.

[Blank Syndrome]

It's a bloody magazine, same as any other; people just selectively respect any with opinions that happen to be congruent with theirs.

[Sheraldan]

Never heard of Edge, i looked in the local stores around me a this morning and Walmart, EB games, Super Store, Safeway, Save on foods. Do not carry that mag so yeah can't be that big. PC gamer on the other hand they all had. along with some others such as the ps mag xbox mag.