185 réponses à ce sujet

[RetrOldSchool]

The thread about the Edge review was (rightfully) locked due to a lot of personal attacks on a user (which ofc isn't ok).

I do think however that the discussion of the review and whether it's a fair review with valid points and whether Edge is a good magazine when it comes to reviewing RPG's or not is still an interesting discussion.

Personally I think from comparing the DA:O score (plus quotes and comparing quotes on metacritic from other RPG reviews) to the beow examples make me feel like Edge doesn't really seem to be able to distinguish a good RPG from an average...

Here's to keep it going, if anyone else thinks it's of interest, but in any case, keep it civil.

(below is my post from the locked thread, I posted it right before it was locked, so this is a repost, old thread where you can read quotes from the review etc:
http://social.biowar.../9/index/433346 )

Why Edge IMO has disqualified themselves from rating RPG's

I tried to stop myself from posting in this thread but after seeing how Edge has reviewed other RPG's I cant help myslef anymore.
At first I thought that Edge might just be a magazine that tries to be a little harsher a little less forgiving than a lot of other reviewers (many reviewers hardly put much empahisis on the negatives at all, except if a game is complete garbage.
I think that can be a good thing if some reviewers are less forgiving, but it's extremely important that the magazine as a whole keeps that standard and maintain that kind of stance in all reviews, otherwise the result just seems unjustified and biased.
I hope (most likely) that the following examples of Edge reviews are written by other reviewers than the person who reviewed DA:O but notetheless, the image I get from the magazine after comparing is a very negative one. 
Edge may be a good magazine for other genres, but as RPG reviewers they fail. Totally.

You have to keep in mind that JE, Fallout 3 and ME was scored 7 and DA:O was scored 5 by Edge, so I don't really knock the indiviual scores of the below examples but I use them as reference since I (and basically all reviewers except Edge) believe these games to be inferior to JE, ME, FO3 and DA:O. The games are from 2007-2008, but so is ME and FO3, while DA:O is 2009. I still think it's fair to compare though, since the RPG genre hasn't been revolutionized since 2007. Bare with me:

Eternal Sonata:
Edge score: 7
(To me in general ES is a highly overrated game, since most reviewers score it 7-8, I'd say more like a 6 or even 5)
They go on about bad writing, bad VO and confined dungeon crawling in DA:O?
Have they ever played Eternal Sonata? Some of the worst VO's ever, the most linear and boring dungeon crawls, no possibility to choose where to go (except if you start a new game+ after finishing). Plus the story and conversations are so insanely convoluted. And about cut scenes? As in most JRPG's cutscenes are lengthy and common, but in ES they're also borderline ridiculous. I like JRPG's but ES was garbage.

Lost Odyssey
Edge score: 7
I enjoyed LO for what it is, an old school JRPG but this game is also filled with over acted cut scenes, VO ranging from good to really bad, plot ranging from well made to convoluted and a 90's dungeon crawler gameplay (complete with random encounters).

NWN2
Edge score: 8
Now I can't say I hated NWN2, but to me that game is very "meh". Niether characters, gameplay or story is more than par. I don't see NWN2 having anything that DA:O doesnt do better, except the stronghold.

Fable 2
Edge score: 9
IMO Fable and Fable 2 are the most overrated games of Xbox and Xbox 360. Sub par as a hack-n-slash, sub par as a sandbox game, sub par as an RPG, but even if you enjoy Fable 2, you have to admitt that the same issues that Edge claims plague DA:O also plagues Fable2:
The VO's are so-so, ranging from good to horrible (especially the repeated villager chatter), the character models are ugly, especially the faces up close, the story is less than forgettable and the character progression and skillcustomization is next to none (you will be a jack-of -all trades since the game forces you to be it if you want to get XP multipliers etc).

Conclusion:
JE, ME, FO3 and DA:O are 4 games that have recieved almost universal critical acclaim but according to Edge they are all only as good or less than Eternal Sonata and Lost Odyssey and according to Edge both NWN2 and Fable 2 are a lot better. Tom me that's laughable.

I can see people not agreeing on my indiviual thoughts of those games, but I can't really see a lot of people really thinking JE, ME, FO3 = ES & LO

[Magic Zarim]

Please, give this a rest already. That other thread was locked for a reason. This is a sure way to have a mod come in here and let you know:



Mod: Disapproves (-100)

[SheffSteel]

Compare Edge ratings to metacritic and gamerankings scores.

General correlation -> null hypothesis

Discrepancy -> go ahead and comment

[RetrOldSchool]

Magic Zarim wrote...

Please, give this a rest already. That other thread was locked for a reason. This is a sure way to have a mod come in here and let you know:

Mod: Disapproves (-100)

 though I think the thread got locked since it became a flame war between one user and a bunch of others, the discussion kind of went from the subject to just being a bashing of his person. If this thread is kept free of that and stays on subject I don't see any reason to lock it.

[RetrOldSchool]

SheffSteel wrote...

Compare Edge ratings to metacritic and gamerankings scores.
General correlation -> null hypothesis
Discrepancy -> go ahead and comment

I really like your end-reader agreement, but I'm not sure I totally got your post (sorry for being slow )

[Magic Zarim]

True enough. Well let me add my opinion on european game reviewers:



The Edge: Never heard of 'em. Must be a UK thing.

EuroGamer: Acts all big like they're the next nest thing after sliced bread. Clueless on gamereviewing. Sound like The Edge is much like EuroGamer.

[Sarodin]

TBH I'm not surprised. Edge are a poor quality magazine review wise who have actually forgotten how to properly review any sort of game in my opinion.

[th3warr1or]

Fable 2
Edge score: 9
IMO Fable and Fable 2 are the most
overrated games of Xbox and Xbox 360. Sub par as a hack-n-slash, sub
par as a sandbox game, sub par as an RPG, but even if you enjoy Fable
2, you have to admitt that the same issues that Edge claims plague DA:O
also plagues Fable2:
The VO's are so-so, ranging from good to
horrible (especially the repeated villager chatter), the character
models are ugly, especially the faces up close, the story is less than
forgettable and the character progression and skillcustomization is
next to none (you will be a jack-of -all trades since the game forces
you to be it if you want to get XP multipliers etc).


I disagree with your 'negatives'. Fable 2's character models(assuming you weren't a She-Hulk), the AI models were gorgeous, and the faces were actually better than most. At least it the art direction was intentional.

The voice acting was superb(Ron Glass, Stephen Fry, Julia Sawalha) voicing the 3 main supporting characters.

The story on the other hand was forgettable, and the customization was basically nothing...

[SheffSteel]

Eternal Sonata:
Edge score: 7
Metacritic score: 80%

Lost Odyssey
Edge score: 7
Metacritic score: 78%

NWN2
Edge score: 8
Metacritic score: 82%

Fable 2
Edge score: 9
Metacritic score: 89%

Dragon Age:Origins
Edge score: 5
Metacritic score: 86-91% depending on platform

Conclusion: Edge is pretty much right on the nail, except in this review. Putting it another way, this review score is very much out of keeping with the other scores above. There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support the hypothesis that Edge is unqualified to review RPGs. (Note that I have stripped out the subjective text).

[Astorax]

I'd suggest, rather than just looking at the numbers, examine what they said they didn't like about it. That's often very telling. A few reviews I've read that didn't like DA:O specifically talk about how it was too long.



A lot of game reviewers want a nice package they can blow through in 10-15 hours of play (a weekend at most) so they can get on with their reviewing of other things. If it takes longer than that, they often mark it down because either a) they never finish so don't experience the full story, or are more console style gamers that are just used to and prefer shorter games.

[Skellimancer]

Not this again! lock please.

[Sam -stone- serious]

What strikes me as odd is that Edges written review is no different than IGNs, Games Radar, Eurogamer and other such sites. The only true difference is the end score which begs the question Is Edge just plain honest about its end score which seems to represent the rest of their review or is it the other sites liars since their reviews match more or less that of Edge but go about tagging the game 90's yet its evidently clear from their reviews that it is not what they think of the game.

So here is another question? Were these scores of these large sites as such to "avoid" the "wrath" of an angry mob? Were they paid by EA to slab a 9 at the end of their review because they know that almost nobody reads a review and just take the score for what it is? 

Is the end score really so powerful that people fail to see the obvious similarities between one another with the one in Edge? I fail to find the proper answer.

Modifié par Sam -stone- serious, 14 décembre 2009 - 05:43 .

[MerinTB]

The previous thread (to which I admit my taking Sam to task was exceedingly long-winded) has quotes from the Edge's review of DAO.

Those quotes are the reason I don't buy game magazines anymore - most of them use such over-the-top hyperbolic language just to try and seem cool to immature macho guys who think it is cool to bash everything, even the stuff they like.

A lot of the reasoning for the low score for DAO are a long list of subjective and opinionated points, few of which can even be stretched to be called objective game analysis.

You would have to compare the actual reviewer of that game to see how he reviewed other games, but I think one of the things that his review was so off-base was the idea that combat was a series of dungeon crawls that outstayed their welcome and that the plot was excessively linear. DAO, to me, is one of their most open-ended, non-linear games to date. Is it more linear than Oblivion or Fallout 3 - yes, in the sense that Bethesda designs their games to allow you to go anywhere in the gameworld you like BUT it keeps certain events from happening until other events happen- Bioware just tends to keep you from being able to VISIT certain places until other events happen. If wandering the area of DC where the big final Fallout 3 battle is about to take place just to fight random monsters is your thing, more power to you. My frustration with that in F3 is that I was max level long before the finish of the game - something Bioware takes into balance consideration. My second playthrough of F3 I was level 30 well before finishing the main campaign let alone the add-on mod ending (which I never completed as, when max level, a lot of gameplay in an RPG becomes boring, especially a story-light, combat heavy game like Fallout 3.)

And again I put forth that a game magazine which reviews all game systems with a circulation under PC Gamer, let alone under the circulation of every other game system magazine, cannot be the premiere or authority. It becomes a minority opinion.

It was also mentioned that Edge should be considered a European thing. I suggest that most game magazines sell in Europe; that PC Gamer is a British magazine that I've known of for years, have bought and has a higher circulation; and that the Official XBOX Magazine has a UK Edition that has over double the circulation of Edge.

It's a niche magazine for a niche reader.

SheffSteel is right in her analysis of those game reviews at least - Edge seems to be towing the line on the meta-review level. That DAO score, however, seems to be written by someone with a hate or RPGs or of Bioware.

Does someone know the reviewer of that article? I know that Edge much of the time doesn't credit articles in its magazine, attributing some of them to just Edge and not the person who wrote them.

EDIT - Sam -stone- serious, I promise to play nice this time if you do?  We'll keep our posts small and critical of the game and the game review/reviewing magazine, and not each other or other posters, cool?

Modifié par MerinTB, 14 décembre 2009 - 05:46 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

There always that guy in the crowd that says up when everyone else says down. They do it for no better reason than to get everyone to pay attention to them. Edge is a fairly poor site that gets lost easily in the crowd. How do they stand out (and sell their ads)... They decide to be the guy that say blech when everyone else cheers. DailyRadar used to be really good at this schtick. Maybe now it's Edge's turn.

[Sam -stone- serious]

I am cool MerinTB.



I still cant shake the feeling that all other afformentioned sites put the final score there just for defense and did not represent their true review. These sites have a HUGE reader base and i would not "blame" them if they did what they did for fear of their site space to be filled by angry fans.



Edge on the other hand as you said has selected people reading it. Still a big amount but selected non the less and thus had no fear of being virtually lynched by an overblown income of angry fans. At least their final score does represent what is being said in their review. The question is why did the other sites avoid their true marks considering that all of them reviews (Edge's included) were more or less quite similar.

[Sam -stone- serious]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

There always that guy in the crowd that says up when everyone else says down. They do it for no better reason than to get everyone to pay attention to them. Edge is a fairly poor site that gets lost easily in the crowd. How do they stand out (and sell their ads)... They decide to be the guy that say blech when everyone else cheers. DailyRadar used to be really good at this schtick. Maybe now it's Edge's turn.

Bear in mind that its only because of the final score that its getting such attention. If there were no scores at all i highly doubt we would be here talking about it at all.

[Calerion]

You again don't you have an life?! Okay everybody, stop arguing with this man, he is our prophet! He tells us to worship The Edge, the best thing in the world... right Sam-somebody!

Only Edge matters, the most epic and known game magazine there is and it can't be wrong! Are you happy Sam-prophet?

Modifié par Calerion, 14 décembre 2009 - 06:35 .

[RetrOldSchool]

SheffSteel wrote...

Eternal Sonata:
Edge score: 7
Metacritic score: 80%

Lost Odyssey
Edge score: 7
Metacritic score: 78%

NWN2
Edge score: 8
Metacritic score: 82%

Fable 2
Edge score: 9
Metacritic score: 89%

Dragon Age:Origins
Edge score: 5
Metacritic score: 86-91% depending on platform

Conclusion: Edge is pretty much right on the nail, except in this review. Putting it another way, this review score is very much out of keeping with the other scores above. There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support the hypothesis that Edge is unqualified to review RPGs. (Note that I have stripped out the subjective text).

true with the average of those titles and I do think (even though some of those scores are a bit too high in my op) those scores are pretty fair.

However with the Edge review of DA:O in they were very negative of:
-VO
-Story
-Cutscenes
-Linear dungeon crawling

And when comparing DA:O back to back with those above, they are all far worse when it comes to all of that (except VO, both Fable 2 and Lost Odyssey had both good and bad VO, even though Fable 2 IMO had more bad since most non-main-story-related NPC was sub par, especially the villagers, your wife etc).
So if that was their main gripes with DA:O then they (or atleast the reviewr) really must hate the above games.

But only the DA:O review is not something I consider enough to warrant an outcry agains Edge, but when pairing this with the scores they gave JE; ME and F3 I have to admitt I'm starting to wonder about the overall quality of their RPG reviews.

JE edge: 7
meta: 89

ME: edge 7
meta: 91

F3 edge 7
meta: 93

DA:O edge 5
meta 86 (for the xbox)

So that's what I base my thesis on 

[Calerion]

I suggest that this thread gets locked, because the champion of Edge isn't going stop his "holy crusade".
By the way I agree with the other posters, atleast they are not some worshippers of some unknown magazine.

Modifié par Calerion, 14 décembre 2009 - 06:45 .

[Seifz]

Calerion wrote...

I suggest that this thread gets locked, because the champion of Edge isn't going stop his "holy crusade".

I don't see the need for a third multi-page topic on this review, anyway.  The text of the review still isn't freely available on Edge Magazine's website, so there's not much to discuss.

[RetrOldSchool]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...

What strikes me as odd is that Edges written review is no different than IGNs, Games Radar, Eurogamer and other such sites. The only true difference is the end score which begs the question Is Edge just plain honest about its end score which seems to represent the rest of their review or is it the other sites liars since their reviews match more or less that of Edge but go about tagging the game 90's yet its evidently clear from their reviews that it is not what they think of the game.

So here is another question? Were these scores of these large sites as such to "avoid" the "wrath" of an angry mob? Were they paid by EA to slab a 9 at the end of their review because they know that almost nobody reads a review and just take the score for what it is? 

Is the end score really so powerful that people fail to see the obvious similarities between one another with the one in Edge? I fail to find the proper answer.

I can agree to an extent that a lot of reviewers are far too forgiving, maybe too industry friendly, I dont know. But I dont remember IGN or any other site having any quote nearly as harsh as Edge, Edge wrote that the promise of a sequel was more of a threat. IGN AU was more critical than IGN US, but they were still pointing out that tne positives outshines the negatives so their review felt pretty honest to me (even though I didnt agree with it) and their worst quotes were nowhere near Edge's. And I think their final scores reflected their reviews pretty good.

[Bibdy]

Edge obviously don't have any reviewers that like RPGs. And all the more sad for them, if they want to be a gaming magazine that gets taken seriously.

[Calerion]

It seems that Edge favors only hack and slash and fps games, theodore making the magazine... kind of amateurish ( Sorry Sam-stone-something, I didn't meant to insult your God).

[MidgardSerpentZ]

This has gotten so out of hand. I'd say a 5 is too low, but DA is definitely not without it's faults. I've gotten to love the game once I got into it, so the faults don't bother me as much. I once saw a review rating Dead Space a 5, which was pretty surprising to me, but not something that would keep me awake at night. There are a zillion reviews out there, there's bound to be a few very different opinions on the same matter, some directly opposite of yours. There's this annoying fanboy mentality, where people go out of their way to 'get even' with Edge by trying to drag all other kind of unneccesary crap in there. 








"Oh, I don't even know that magazine, they're nothing!"
Edge is one of the few game magazine out there that has been around for over 15 years, they must be doing something right. And no, I'm not an Edge employee, if anyone was looking for a cheap shot.  

"Look, they gave some lame jrpg a 9, lol, that proves they know ****!"
Again, different games, different reviews, very likely 2 different people reviewing. People are making these laughable drawn-out correlations between dozens of other rpgs, like there's some concrete formula between all these different scores that will make perfect sense. 


You know, whenever there is some top 100 best games ever, there are ALWAYS people who are going to say that's the worst list ever, no matter what there would be on the list. Their top 100 list, would be someone else's worst list. 



There's a dutch magazine that gave DA a perfect 100. According to some people on here they must be the most qualified magazine ever.

Oh, and I don't think a 7 for ME is completely unreasonable by the way, although I'd personally rate it higher. 

Modifié par MidgardSerpentZ, 14 décembre 2009 - 06:57 .

[Sam -stone- serious]

RetrOldSchool wrote...

I can agree to an extent that a lot of reviewers are far too forgiving, maybe too industry friendly, I dont know. But I dont remember IGN or any other site having any quote nearly as harsh as Edge, Edge wrote that the promise of a sequel was more of a threat. IGN AU was more critical than IGN US, but they were still pointing out that tne positives outshines the negatives so their review felt pretty honest to me (even though I didnt agree with it) and their worst quotes were nowhere near Edge's. And I think their final scores reflected their reviews pretty good.

Well the first reviews i ever read of the game was IGN US and Eurogamers. Both of them reviews felt like a developer of the game either spit into the reviewers coffee or he slept with his wife or somesort yet when i reached to the end of each review i saw a 9 at IGN and an 8 at Eurogamer where they obviously did not felt that way.

Why hasnt anyone touched those reviews? I can agree that Edge's may seem quite harsher and despite me agreeing with them to the letter (or almost to the letter) i still feel IGNs (US) and Eurogames were no better either and worst still have misslead their readers. It is clear that their end score acts like some sort of self defense.

I have no doubts that there are reviews out there that speak of the game like it is the second coming of Jesus Christ or something but at least their reviews does reflect upon the end score. You read the review and you expect it to be at 90+.

What happens with the rest of them though? Is the fear of fans this great that they went so far to mangle the game (personally speaking for good reason) in their 2-3-4 page review and yet it got a 90+? Sorry but it does not compute. Something fishy is going on.

Modifié par Sam -stone- serious, 14 décembre 2009 - 06:58 .