MerinTB i have read the whole of the review you offered. Here is what i think of it. It is well written but offers nothing in regards to the game itself. Its overblown with lore and what you encounter here and there as if i cant experience them for myself. No mention at all for the important parts of the game, good and bad. Their only "complain" was the unbalanced difficulty setting. Where was their report that i could kill a room full of enemies with only my 2 mages staff attack (or even 1 mage and 1 archer)? Where was the mention that combat gets in far too many places overly and artificially long for no apparent reason? The skills themselves that 1 skills can rule them all (cone of cold)? This is only from the combat perspective of the game. The invisible walls maybe? The utterly dreadfull secondary characters voice acting (and this i believe is objective enough for everyone to agree)?
Is it well written? Yes it is. Does it offer proper knowledge about the games mechanics and gameplay? Not really. I read it whole and i knew nothing of the game apart from what i experience while playing it for the first 20 hours or so. Too much space for things that i dont really need or care about to learn from a review.
Edge's review of DA:O (5/10), are they competent at reviewing RPG's?
Débuté par
RetrOldSchool
, déc. 14 2009 03:48
Retour en haut
#52
Posté 14 décembre 2009 - 09:10
gotthammer
-
- Members
- 1 237 messages
My two cents:
Just something I'd like to throw around about reviews and whatnot.
As someone who used to review games, and the occasional guide article, (used to be a contributing writer for GamesMaster Philippines...before it went kaput
), the IDEAL is to be Objective. You want to state the pros and cons of the game, describe it's features, sound like a competent reviewer, etc.
Of course, there are other factors. Depending on the magazine, not all the writers are 'permanent' writers (e.g., I'm a freelance contributor: I'm LUCKY if I get to write about anything for an issue), so that may affect the quality (of course, you could also blame the editor, layout person, etc. In my case, I only submitted the article + screens; I never got around to do layout, for instance, and I've been annoyed with how some of my stuff has come out).
There are also time and space issues: sometimes a writer has lots of time...sometimes not (or the writer procrastinates ). As for space: there's always a min/max number of words per article...so not everything that will want to be said, will be said. What goes into, or out of, the article, may depend on these and other factors (did the reviewer play the game enough? is the reviewer competent? was the review written using a beta of the game? did the reviewer write under the influence? what was the reviewer's mood? 
)
Of course, and I'm NOT trying to defend/offend any particular review/reviewer here, there's also bias.
Example: When I reviewed Dawn of War, as a Warhammer 40,000 tabletop player, I was quite enthusiastic. Was I fair? I could only hope so, but I'm pretty sure some of that enthusiasm trickled into that review.
I'm not saying the magazine/reviewer is right or wrong, just that there might be some things to consider.
Just something I'd like to throw around about reviews and whatnot.
As someone who used to review games, and the occasional guide article, (used to be a contributing writer for GamesMaster Philippines...before it went kaput
), the IDEAL is to be Objective. You want to state the pros and cons of the game, describe it's features, sound like a competent reviewer, etc. Of course, there are other factors. Depending on the magazine, not all the writers are 'permanent' writers (e.g., I'm a freelance contributor: I'm LUCKY if I get to write about anything for an issue), so that may affect the quality (of course, you could also blame the editor, layout person, etc. In my case, I only submitted the article + screens; I never got around to do layout, for instance, and I've been annoyed with how some of my stuff has come out).
There are also time and space issues: sometimes a writer has lots of time...sometimes not (or the writer procrastinates
). As for space: there's always a min/max number of words per article...so not everything that will want to be said, will be said. What goes into, or out of, the article, may depend on these and other factors (did the reviewer play the game enough? is the reviewer competent? was the review written using a beta of the game? did the reviewer write under the influence? what was the reviewer's mood? )Of course, and I'm NOT trying to defend/offend any particular review/reviewer here, there's also bias.
Example: When I reviewed Dawn of War, as a Warhammer 40,000 tabletop player, I was quite enthusiastic. Was I fair? I could only hope so, but I'm pretty sure some of that enthusiasm trickled into that review.
I'm not saying the magazine/reviewer is right or wrong, just that there might be some things to consider.
Modifié par gotthammer, 14 décembre 2009 - 09:11 .
#53
Posté 14 décembre 2009 - 09:12
montana_boy
-
- Members
- 267 messages
Having to lock down the initial Edge review thread because of personal attacks on the reviewer was understandable. But there is something else at work here that should be pointed out. An outsider wrote the Edge article. Now what the heck could I mean by “outsider”, stick with me here.
When I peruse the DAO forums I read gamers comments running from highly critical to highly favorable. But underlying all the “talk” something else is happening and the best way I can explain it is “Family.” We are all gamers expressing our views and sharing our experiences. With very, very few exceptions everybody is polite, helpful and funny. But above all we are gamers that love talking to others about the games we play.
When an article is published, that many of us see as completely off the mark, mean spirited and downright bitter, it seems to many of us that our “Family” is being attacked, that the writer is not part of us. We come to the defense of an organization (Bioware) that has played a big part in providing hours and hours of entertainment for many years. A company that has always given us a fine product in exchange for the dollars we willingly give them. In effect we feel that WE are being attacked. It is OK that we fight and bicker among ourselves but when an outsider jumps in we circle the wagons.
I think this is as it should be.
Viva la Bioware
Ps/ hope this doesn’t sound to maudlin
When I peruse the DAO forums I read gamers comments running from highly critical to highly favorable. But underlying all the “talk” something else is happening and the best way I can explain it is “Family.” We are all gamers expressing our views and sharing our experiences. With very, very few exceptions everybody is polite, helpful and funny. But above all we are gamers that love talking to others about the games we play.
When an article is published, that many of us see as completely off the mark, mean spirited and downright bitter, it seems to many of us that our “Family” is being attacked, that the writer is not part of us. We come to the defense of an organization (Bioware) that has played a big part in providing hours and hours of entertainment for many years. A company that has always given us a fine product in exchange for the dollars we willingly give them. In effect we feel that WE are being attacked. It is OK that we fight and bicker among ourselves but when an outsider jumps in we circle the wagons.
I think this is as it should be.
Viva la Bioware
Ps/ hope this doesn’t sound to maudlin
#54
Posté 14 décembre 2009 - 09:18
Calerion
-
- Members
- 21 messages
The person who wrote the review didn't say what were the problems (gameplay and so on...) of the game, instead the reviewer bashed the game because of it's lore, dungeons and voice actors... it's quite obvious, that the person who wrote this review has NEVER played rpg games. The review didn't contain any constructive criticism, so it was kinda a worthless review, if it had even one constructive criticism about the game, even a 2/10 would have been ok.
Modifié par Calerion, 14 décembre 2009 - 09:29 .
#55
Posté 14 décembre 2009 - 10:04
planktonization
-
- Members
- 3 messages
I read Edge magazine (as well as several others) and the quality of their reviewing (including RPG reviews) is generally excellent. They have run several articles of late where they have scrutinized the simplistic notion of trying to capture the quality of a video game in a single score slapped at the end of the review. I disagree with the score they gave DA:0 too - but much of what the reviewer says is not without merit.
#56
Posté 14 décembre 2009 - 10:24
Drosera
-
- Members
- 9 messages
I think the 5/10 is as laughable than the 9 or 10/10 some reviewer had given.
I like DAO but let's face it it's not a masterpiece. I give him 7.5/10. I own most of the bioware game so i can say i am not some kind of troll or Bioware hater.
2 Big Flaw plague this game:
- Like it or not the senario is unispired, i enjoy the story but let's face it, there is not many twist and it's not original. For somoene who is not a fantasy fan it can be very boring.
- The design (i am not talking about the graphic) like the story is also unispired. We got what something like a few 1000 years of architecture and what we got ? some kind of castle, a few ruin (that looks like crap), the tower hurt my eyes, the town are even worst than usual, NWN2 had greater nature design and dynamique (yes that's how bad DAO exterior/nature are),....
I don't mind the graphic but DAO miss that little something that would make it special.
So when edge magasine use word like banality, clumsy, sparse charm,...
I can understand their point of view.They are just too harsh. It's neither a 5 or a 9, the truth is between and it vary for everyone.
I like DAO but let's face it it's not a masterpiece. I give him 7.5/10. I own most of the bioware game so i can say i am not some kind of troll or Bioware hater.
2 Big Flaw plague this game:
- Like it or not the senario is unispired, i enjoy the story but let's face it, there is not many twist and it's not original. For somoene who is not a fantasy fan it can be very boring.
- The design (i am not talking about the graphic) like the story is also unispired. We got what something like a few 1000 years of architecture and what we got ? some kind of castle, a few ruin (that looks like crap), the tower hurt my eyes, the town are even worst than usual, NWN2 had greater nature design and dynamique (yes that's how bad DAO exterior/nature are),....
I don't mind the graphic but DAO miss that little something that would make it special.
So when edge magasine use word like banality, clumsy, sparse charm,...
I can understand their point of view.They are just too harsh. It's neither a 5 or a 9, the truth is between and it vary for everyone.
#57
Posté 14 décembre 2009 - 10:36
CBGB
-
- Members
- 328 messages
I'm... amazed.
I can believe some people don't like DAO. Some people don't like Chinese food, either. If this isn't your thing, no worries.
But the Edge attacks the very things done with particular skill, like the voice acting. Even reviewers who disagree about other elements found much to praise in the excellent voice acting.
There's really no pleasing everyone.
I can believe some people don't like DAO. Some people don't like Chinese food, either. If this isn't your thing, no worries.
But the Edge attacks the very things done with particular skill, like the voice acting. Even reviewers who disagree about other elements found much to praise in the excellent voice acting.
There's really no pleasing everyone.
#58
Posté 14 décembre 2009 - 10:43
MerinTB
-
- Members
- 4 688 messages
Fair enough, Sam. You read it and though it was well written but that it didn't offer what you need from a review. I accept that.
Where I disagree with you is I believe that the review did give details of what the game is like, gameplay and story and structure-wise.
Following is a summary of the first half of the review.
- first off it starts with some flavor text and praise
- next it discusses the beginning of the game, the 6 origins, and how different players will experience different things even playing the same origin
- the reviewer explains the combat, in detail
- - the difficulty levels and what they should represent (and somewhat fail to)
- - the real time with turn-based aspects
- - the pause function to give commands
- - a good description of how Combat Tactics works
- the leveling up system
- - there are specializations at 7 and 14
- - - examples of those specializations
- - how party members get boosts based on your relations with them
- goes back to the combat
- - specifically address the difficulty scale flaws
- - talks about different sizes and kinds of combat (many enemies, one big boss, etc.)
- back to the origins
- - humans are dominant in the world
- - elves as second class citizens, former slaves
- - about the dwarves
- - - casteless
- - mages
- - - demons attracted to possessing mages
- - - blood magic
- beginning hours of play
- - differences in origins
- - how the origins act as tutorial
- - arrival of Duncan
- - recruitment
- Ostagar
- - stuff that is even more spoiler territory than above stuff I've listed
That's about the first HALF of the review.
Sam, you said it "offers nothing in regards to the game itself." The above is FULL of details of how the game works, how it is played, what happens at the beginning, the origins system, etc. That's the first half. The last third of the review or so goes into the details of the world and the lore.
About all the quotes from the Edge review that we saw were generic complaints - "dialog is bad" "story is bad" "too much combat" "too linear" - those are not specifics, they are general complaints. If the reviewer has said "The dialog is atrocious - here are some lines: X, Y, Z" then I'd see what the reviewer at Edge meant.
What I have to go on is what the other guy posted the review said - and his analysis saying -"Overall, the DA review (and blurb under screen shots) concentrates on
the writing and voice acting, as well as some details such as the blood
splattering on the party in fights. There's no mention of rogues,
mages, warriors, spells, weapons, anything particularly relevant to
playing the game at all."
Sam, what I saw from the Edge review were generic criticisms. What I saw from the PC Gamer review were detail descriptions of game play, combat, lore, origin stories - positives of the game, and, yes, negatives. 3 negatives in particular he lists, two nitpicks being the reverse "The Jerk" and his experience with the relationships in the party camp being clumsy.
Thank you for reading it, Sam. I'll read the Edge review if it ever comes up, and give it the benefit of the doubt (as much as I can) but I am going in expecting it to be exactly like all the reviews that made me, in general, stop reading game magazines.
The PC Gamer review gets into details about the problems. When the reviewer discusses the difficulty settings problems, it's not an off-hand remark and a cynical insult - it's over two paragraphs of explaining what the problem is. When the reviewer talks about even a nit-picky thing, the human noble being able to have a dark skin tone while his whole family stays light skinned, he gives a paragraph to explain why this nitpicky problem is still something that should be addressed.
Where I disagree with you is I believe that the review did give details of what the game is like, gameplay and story and structure-wise.
Following is a summary of the first half of the review.
- first off it starts with some flavor text and praise
- next it discusses the beginning of the game, the 6 origins, and how different players will experience different things even playing the same origin
- the reviewer explains the combat, in detail
- - the difficulty levels and what they should represent (and somewhat fail to)
- - the real time with turn-based aspects
- - the pause function to give commands
- - a good description of how Combat Tactics works
- the leveling up system
- - there are specializations at 7 and 14
- - - examples of those specializations
- - how party members get boosts based on your relations with them
- goes back to the combat
- - specifically address the difficulty scale flaws
- - talks about different sizes and kinds of combat (many enemies, one big boss, etc.)
- back to the origins
- - humans are dominant in the world
- - elves as second class citizens, former slaves
- - about the dwarves
- - - casteless
- - mages
- - - demons attracted to possessing mages
- - - blood magic
- beginning hours of play
- - differences in origins
- - how the origins act as tutorial
- - arrival of Duncan
- - recruitment
- Ostagar
- - stuff that is even more spoiler territory than above stuff I've listed
That's about the first HALF of the review.
Sam, you said it "offers nothing in regards to the game itself." The above is FULL of details of how the game works, how it is played, what happens at the beginning, the origins system, etc. That's the first half. The last third of the review or so goes into the details of the world and the lore.
About all the quotes from the Edge review that we saw were generic complaints - "dialog is bad" "story is bad" "too much combat" "too linear" - those are not specifics, they are general complaints. If the reviewer has said "The dialog is atrocious - here are some lines: X, Y, Z" then I'd see what the reviewer at Edge meant.
What I have to go on is what the other guy posted the review said - and his analysis saying -"Overall, the DA review (and blurb under screen shots) concentrates on
the writing and voice acting, as well as some details such as the blood
splattering on the party in fights. There's no mention of rogues,
mages, warriors, spells, weapons, anything particularly relevant to
playing the game at all."
Sam, what I saw from the Edge review were generic criticisms. What I saw from the PC Gamer review were detail descriptions of game play, combat, lore, origin stories - positives of the game, and, yes, negatives. 3 negatives in particular he lists, two nitpicks being the reverse "The Jerk" and his experience with the relationships in the party camp being clumsy.
Thank you for reading it, Sam. I'll read the Edge review if it ever comes up, and give it the benefit of the doubt (as much as I can) but I am going in expecting it to be exactly like all the reviews that made me, in general, stop reading game magazines.
The PC Gamer review gets into details about the problems. When the reviewer discusses the difficulty settings problems, it's not an off-hand remark and a cynical insult - it's over two paragraphs of explaining what the problem is. When the reviewer talks about even a nit-picky thing, the human noble being able to have a dark skin tone while his whole family stays light skinned, he gives a paragraph to explain why this nitpicky problem is still something that should be addressed.
#59
Posté 14 décembre 2009 - 10:59
Dolomite808
-
- Members
- 76 messages
There is a reason I stick to my GameInformer. I've yet to play a game that they reviewed where I thought their score was not fairly spot on. This one included. Well worth the ~9/10.
#60
Posté 14 décembre 2009 - 11:18
Fredescu
-
- Members
- 59 messages
Before I start, I'm the first person that agrees with the idea that an examination of the review text is more important than the score at the end. I think there is plenty of analysis going on in this thread and the previous one about that, so I'm going to focus on the scores just because I've seen a lot of incomplete data about it. It is my contention that Edge are out of touch with WRPG fans, and have a history of not understanding what makes a good WRPG.
WRPG review scores, ordered by difference from the mainstream press:
Dragon Age
Edge 5/10
Metacritic 91%
Difference 41%
The Witcher
Edge 5/10
Metacritic 86%
Difference 36%
Arcanum
Edge 5/10
Metacritic 81%
Difference 31%
Temple of Elemental Evil
Edge 4/10
Metacritic 71%
Difference 31%
Morrowind
Edge: 6/10
Metacritic 89%
Difference 29%
Diablo 2
Edge 6/10
Metacritic 88%
Difference 28%
Diablo
Edge 7/10
Metacritic 94%
Difference 24%
Fallout 3
Edge 7/10
Metacritic 91%
Difference 21%
Mass Effect
Edge 7/10
Metacritic 91%
Difference 21%
Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines
Edge: 6/10
Metacritic: 80%
Difference 20%
Fallout
Edge 7/10
Metacritic 89%
Difference 19%
There are some incredible games listed there, from classics to modern games, that many wrpg fans would have played and loved.
Below this point, I don't have too many problems. Some are a little high even, but they're inline with the rest of the mainstream press. Sometimes you can't take reviews out of the context of the hype surrounding the games at release and the way they felt when they were new.
Baldur's Gate 2
Edge 8/10
Metacritic 95%
Difference 15%
Knights of the Old Republic 2
Edge: 7/10
Metacritic 85%
Difference 15%
Oblivion
Edge 8/10
Metacritic 94%
Difference 14%
Jade Empire
Edge: 7/10
Metacritic 81%
Difference 11%
Neverwinter Nights 2
Edge 8/10
Metacritic 84%
Difference 4%
Knights of the Old Republic
Edge 9/10
Metacritic: 93%
Difference 3%
Neverwinter Nights
Edge: 9/10
Metacritic: 91%
Difference 1%
You might then say, so what? Edge have their own review scale unlike most other sites that will score between 7 and 10 as long as the game is playable. To that, I ask you to look at this list of Edge review scores of popular action games.
Halo - 10/10
Halo 2 - 9/10
Halo 3 - 10/10
Halo ODST - 9/10
Gears of War - 8/10
Gears of War 2 - 9/10
Grand Theft Auto - 8/10
Grand Theft Auto 2 - 8/10
GTA III - 8/10
GTA Vice City - 8/10
GTA San Andreas - 9/10
GTA IV - 10/10
Uncharted - 8/10
Uncharted 2 - 9/10
Devil May Cry - 8/10
Devil May Cry 2 - 6/10 *
Devil May Cry 3 - 8/10
Devil May Cry 4 - 8/10
Ninja Gaiden - 9/10
Ninja Gaiden II - 8/10
Metal Gear Solid - 9/10
Metal Gear Solid 2 - 8/10
Metal Gear Solid 3 - 8/10
Metal Gear Solid 4 - 8/10
* with a 68% metacritic score, this drop is in line with its general critical reception.
Edge have no problems falling into line with the mainstream press when it comes to popular action games. To use an example, GTA IV received a lot of backlash from gamers with regards to it's record breaking high scores. Many saw it as simply not as fun as previous games in the series, and of contemporary games of the same formula. If Edge were really the type to pull no punches and provide an alternate opinion, that was their opportunity.
I'm not saying that Edge don't have a right to their opinion. They can review how they want. If you're the type of gamer that lists Dragon Age, The Witcher, Diablo 2, Mass Effect, and so forth among your favourite games, you can safely ignore the opinion of Edge. They either don't understand what you enjoy about games, or they don't care.
WRPG review scores, ordered by difference from the mainstream press:
Dragon Age
Edge 5/10
Metacritic 91%
Difference 41%
The Witcher
Edge 5/10
Metacritic 86%
Difference 36%
Arcanum
Edge 5/10
Metacritic 81%
Difference 31%
Temple of Elemental Evil
Edge 4/10
Metacritic 71%
Difference 31%
Morrowind
Edge: 6/10
Metacritic 89%
Difference 29%
Diablo 2
Edge 6/10
Metacritic 88%
Difference 28%
Diablo
Edge 7/10
Metacritic 94%
Difference 24%
Fallout 3
Edge 7/10
Metacritic 91%
Difference 21%
Mass Effect
Edge 7/10
Metacritic 91%
Difference 21%
Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines
Edge: 6/10
Metacritic: 80%
Difference 20%
Fallout
Edge 7/10
Metacritic 89%
Difference 19%
There are some incredible games listed there, from classics to modern games, that many wrpg fans would have played and loved.
Below this point, I don't have too many problems. Some are a little high even, but they're inline with the rest of the mainstream press. Sometimes you can't take reviews out of the context of the hype surrounding the games at release and the way they felt when they were new.
Baldur's Gate 2
Edge 8/10
Metacritic 95%
Difference 15%
Knights of the Old Republic 2
Edge: 7/10
Metacritic 85%
Difference 15%
Oblivion
Edge 8/10
Metacritic 94%
Difference 14%
Jade Empire
Edge: 7/10
Metacritic 81%
Difference 11%
Neverwinter Nights 2
Edge 8/10
Metacritic 84%
Difference 4%
Knights of the Old Republic
Edge 9/10
Metacritic: 93%
Difference 3%
Neverwinter Nights
Edge: 9/10
Metacritic: 91%
Difference 1%
You might then say, so what? Edge have their own review scale unlike most other sites that will score between 7 and 10 as long as the game is playable. To that, I ask you to look at this list of Edge review scores of popular action games.
Halo - 10/10
Halo 2 - 9/10
Halo 3 - 10/10
Halo ODST - 9/10
Gears of War - 8/10
Gears of War 2 - 9/10
Grand Theft Auto - 8/10
Grand Theft Auto 2 - 8/10
GTA III - 8/10
GTA Vice City - 8/10
GTA San Andreas - 9/10
GTA IV - 10/10
Uncharted - 8/10
Uncharted 2 - 9/10
Devil May Cry - 8/10
Devil May Cry 2 - 6/10 *
Devil May Cry 3 - 8/10
Devil May Cry 4 - 8/10
Ninja Gaiden - 9/10
Ninja Gaiden II - 8/10
Metal Gear Solid - 9/10
Metal Gear Solid 2 - 8/10
Metal Gear Solid 3 - 8/10
Metal Gear Solid 4 - 8/10
* with a 68% metacritic score, this drop is in line with its general critical reception.
Edge have no problems falling into line with the mainstream press when it comes to popular action games. To use an example, GTA IV received a lot of backlash from gamers with regards to it's record breaking high scores. Many saw it as simply not as fun as previous games in the series, and of contemporary games of the same formula. If Edge were really the type to pull no punches and provide an alternate opinion, that was their opportunity.
I'm not saying that Edge don't have a right to their opinion. They can review how they want. If you're the type of gamer that lists Dragon Age, The Witcher, Diablo 2, Mass Effect, and so forth among your favourite games, you can safely ignore the opinion of Edge. They either don't understand what you enjoy about games, or they don't care.
#61
Posté 14 décembre 2009 - 11:22
Dolomite808
-
- Members
- 76 messages
6/10 for Diablo II !?!?!?!?!
What were they smoking?!?!
What were they smoking?!?!
#62
Posté 14 décembre 2009 - 11:47
addiction21
-
- Members
- 6 066 messages
Dolomite808 wrote...
6/10 for Diablo II !?!?!?!?!
What were they smoking?!?!
I Dunno but I want some.
#63
Posté 14 décembre 2009 - 11:56
Statue
-
- Members
- 249 messages
Edge magazine likes to mark harshly so it can perpetuate its claim to being more tech savvy, cutting edge, and sophisticated than other game magazines. Daft really, cos readers aware of that tend to just add two points on to all their scores to adjust for their bah humbugging - that adjustment generally makes the scores consistent with other magazines, so at least they are normally consistently tight-assed.
That 5/10 is a bit extra harsh though and doesn't seem to be merely consistent with their typical tight-assed-ness, and smells a bit weird even to my Edge-accustomed nose.
I would have imagined they'd be harsh because the engine and game design isn't massively innovative (they are generally punitive if a game isn't innovative or envelope-pushing in its genre). I could even imagine them being harsh about some of the more noticable gameplay issues from the unpolished side of the mechanics system. Those might have reasonably given credence to some harshness, to give them their typically harsh mark. But not only is the harshness of 5/10 even more harsh than those issues would usually warrant, but also the justification for the low score is not in the review predicated upon those kind of understandable issues, but instead the venom is aimed primarily at writing and dialogue (which stand up well compared to plenty of writing and dialogue in other games).
I'm calling BS on their review - and not just my normal "BS, that score has been adjusted by -2 for Edge's self-importance and elitism", but "BS WTF?!". I could think of plenty of convoluted conspiracy-based theories as to what could have motivated that atypically harsh score, but as Napoleon is alleged to have said, "never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence".
They do have good covers though, nice and thick. 7.5/10.
EDIT:
OMG just noticed that TOEE 4/10 score. That is as close to rude as a review score can get. Think you're on to something with that score list Fredescu - Edge don't appear to rate RPGs at all well. Seems like they could benefit from an RPG appreciator on their review team.
That 5/10 is a bit extra harsh though and doesn't seem to be merely consistent with their typical tight-assed-ness, and smells a bit weird even to my Edge-accustomed nose.
I would have imagined they'd be harsh because the engine and game design isn't massively innovative (they are generally punitive if a game isn't innovative or envelope-pushing in its genre). I could even imagine them being harsh about some of the more noticable gameplay issues from the unpolished side of the mechanics system. Those might have reasonably given credence to some harshness, to give them their typically harsh mark. But not only is the harshness of 5/10 even more harsh than those issues would usually warrant, but also the justification for the low score is not in the review predicated upon those kind of understandable issues, but instead the venom is aimed primarily at writing and dialogue (which stand up well compared to plenty of writing and dialogue in other games).
I'm calling BS on their review - and not just my normal "BS, that score has been adjusted by -2 for Edge's self-importance and elitism", but "BS WTF?!". I could think of plenty of convoluted conspiracy-based theories as to what could have motivated that atypically harsh score, but as Napoleon is alleged to have said, "never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence".
They do have good covers though, nice and thick. 7.5/10.
EDIT:
OMG just noticed that TOEE 4/10 score. That is as close to rude as a review score can get. Think you're on to something with that score list Fredescu - Edge don't appear to rate RPGs at all well. Seems like they could benefit from an RPG appreciator on their review team.
Modifié par Statue, 15 décembre 2009 - 12:04 .
#64
Posté 15 décembre 2009 - 12:04
JaegerBane
-
- Members
- 5 441 messages
MidgardSerpentZ wrote...
"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.
Midgard, it appears that you're trying to defuse ad hominen attacks by using others in defence. The fact it has been around for 15 years simply means that it sells. It doesn't mean, under any circumstances, that it's somehow more 'correct' than others. Ultimately, people are judging the review based on what the review says, rather than harping on about how old the magazine is. It's practically irrelevant.
PC Zone, for instance, has been around for 17 years, and that gave the DA:O 94%. Does this mean that PC Zone's review is somehow 'better'? By your logic, apparently it does.
Yes, some people are waving pitchforks rather than actually reading the review. But that doesn't mean anyone who calls into question Edge's prestige is running a smear campaign..
"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.
The point is that these scores are intended to give an idea as to where the game fits in the grand scheme of things. That's why they're scored. When the magazine in questions hands out top grades for solid, but nonetheless also-ran games like MW2, but hand out mediocre scores for games like DA:O - games that the rest of the media rave about, that win awards - then ultimately all this yakking about different opinions and whatnot means d1ck.
Yes, reviewers can disagree. But it isn't a case of opinion when the vast bulk of reviewers review a game in the 90s and one reviewer giving it 50%. It's a case of the minority reviewer either trying to make some sort of statement (which ultimately no-one really cares about, as they're reading reviews to judge the game, not listen to some sap whinge about the game industry) or a case of the reviewer just not knowing what he's talking about, in which case the magazine deserves all the abuse they get.
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.
That's patently not what people are saying. The point is that they are dozens of publications saying this.
#66
Posté 15 décembre 2009 - 05:41
RetrOldSchool
-
- Members
- 280 messages
VanDraegon wrote...
Nice post Fredescu.
Dito, thanks for the post Fredescu, that's basically my feeling with the whole thread from the start, but you really nailed it!
#67
Posté 15 décembre 2009 - 05:50
sleepy__head
-
- Members
- 173 messages
Dolomite808 wrote...
6/10 for Diablo II !?!?!?!?!
What were they smoking?!?!
For a game that was PLAGUED with spammers, scammers, hackers, cheaters, botters, rmt'ers I think 6/10 is generous. The blatant utter disregard of Blizzard for the integrity and policing of BNet would cost them many more points in my book. And don't get me started on those absurd drop tables where you have a 1 in 1,020,305,506 chance of finding a particular rune or unique.
#68
Posté 15 décembre 2009 - 06:23
devSin
-
- Members
- 8 929 messages
So maybe you can argue with Diablo II, but there surely isn't a planet in this whole Universe where NWN warrants a 9/10 on the same scale as all those other games...
I mean, really. ;-)
I mean, really. ;-)
#69
Posté 15 décembre 2009 - 07:28
RetrOldSchool
-
- Members
- 280 messages
Fredescu wrote...
Edge have no problems falling into line with the mainstream press when it comes to popular action games. To use an example, GTA IV received a lot of backlash from gamers with regards to it's record breaking high scores. Many saw it as simply not as fun as previous games in the series, and of contemporary games of the same formula. If Edge were really the type to pull no punches and provide an alternate opinion, that was their opportunity.
I'm not saying that Edge don't have a right to their opinion. They can review how they want. If you're the type of gamer that lists Dragon Age, The Witcher, Diablo 2, Mass Effect, and so forth among your favourite games, you can safely ignore the opinion of Edge. They either don't understand what you enjoy about games, or they don't care.
(on a side note, according to what I can tell, Edge gave JE for Xbox 7, Metacritic score is 89 for that
)very well written and basically what I was getting at at the beginning and later in the thread. If your stance as a magazine is to be a harsh critic, then let everyone taste that! GTA IV was a great example! I can feel like all reviewers fell in the hype trap with it and while I love the game I agree that it in many ways was inferior to GTA:SA, but I cant remember reading any reviews really knocking the game about that.
Halo ODST is a perfect example of a niche game. DA:O is a bit of a niche game in the sense that if you dont like RPG's you wont like it (most probably), but even if you like FPS games you basically have to be really into Halo (not only a FPS fan), in order to love Halo ODST.
But if you (like me) enjoy FPS games and think Halo 1 was a good game for that time (and for the FPS genre, making co-op campaign and vehicle battle almost an industry standard), but feel that the sequels have been ok, but nothing spectacular (not when comparing to MW 1&2 as FPS games), then ODST is even less impressive.
So I will, as Fredescu suggested, safely ignore Edge's RPG reviews when checking Metacritic from now on
#70
Posté 15 décembre 2009 - 07:54
spernus
-
- Members
- 334 messages
RetrOldSchool wrote...
(on a side note, according to what I can tell, Edge gave JE for Xbox 7, Metacritic score is 89 for that
very well written and basically what I was getting at at the beginning and later in the thread. If your stance as a magazine is to be a harsh critic, then let everyone taste that! GTA IV was a great example! I can feel like all reviewers fell in the hype trap with it and while I love the game I agree that it in many ways was inferior to GTA:SA, but I cant remember reading any reviews really knocking the game about that.
Halo ODST is a perfect example of a niche game. DA:O is a bit of a niche game in the sense that if you dont like RPG's you wont like it (most probably), but even if you like FPS games you basically have to be really into Halo (not only a FPS fan), in order to love Halo ODST.
But if you (like me) enjoy FPS games and think Halo 1 was a good game for that time (and for the FPS genre, making co-op campaign and vehicle battle almost an industry standard), but feel that the sequels have been ok, but nothing spectacular (not when comparing to MW 1&2 as FPS games), then ODST is even less impressive.
So I will, as Fredescu suggested, safely ignore Edge's RPG reviews when checking Metacritic from now on
Edge probably has their own conception of what make a game great,good or mediocre(so this extend to genre as well).
It's a magazine that has a strong bias toward console gaming,so it's really not out of the left field to suspect that they do not like wrpg all that much(a genre born on PC which is different from jrpg which were born on console).Perhaps they tend to prefer the jrpg approach in term of gameplay/narrative just like Destructoid does? To this day,there is still a lot of console gamers/jrpg fanboys who can't adapt to wrpg for multiple reasons.
I still remember when I played my first wrpg which was KOTOR.The massive dropoff in term of production value from Final Fantasy or most jrpg was a shock.The lack of over the top animation/attacks or the lack of grinding(which I perceived as game length) were also turnoff.Last but not least,it took me quite a bit of time to digest western artstyle which is usually average/mediocre(before the Xbox,95% of my games were japanese).
#71
Posté 15 décembre 2009 - 08:57
RetrOldSchool
-
- Members
- 280 messages
spernus wrote...
RetrOldSchool wrote...
(on a side note, according to what I can tell, Edge gave JE for Xbox 7, Metacritic score is 89 for that
very well written and basically what I was getting at at the beginning and later in the thread. If your stance as a magazine is to be a harsh critic, then let everyone taste that! GTA IV was a great example! I can feel like all reviewers fell in the hype trap with it and while I love the game I agree that it in many ways was inferior to GTA:SA, but I cant remember reading any reviews really knocking the game about that.
Halo ODST is a perfect example of a niche game. DA:O is a bit of a niche game in the sense that if you dont like RPG's you wont like it (most probably), but even if you like FPS games you basically have to be really into Halo (not only a FPS fan), in order to love Halo ODST.
But if you (like me) enjoy FPS games and think Halo 1 was a good game for that time (and for the FPS genre, making co-op campaign and vehicle battle almost an industry standard), but feel that the sequels have been ok, but nothing spectacular (not when comparing to MW 1&2 as FPS games), then ODST is even less impressive.
So I will, as Fredescu suggested, safely ignore Edge's RPG reviews when checking Metacritic from now on
Edge probably has their own conception of what make a game great,good or mediocre(so this extend to genre as well).
It's a magazine that has a strong bias toward console gaming,so it's really not out of the left field to suspect that they do not like wrpg all that much(a genre born on PC which is different from jrpg which were born on console).Perhaps they tend to prefer the jrpg approach in term of gameplay/narrative just like Destructoid does? To this day,there is still a lot of console gamers/jrpg fanboys who can't adapt to wrpg for multiple reasons.
I still remember when I played my first wrpg which was KOTOR.The massive dropoff in term of production value from Final Fantasy or most jrpg was a shock.The lack of over the top animation/attacks or the lack of grinding(which I perceived as game length) were also turnoff.Last but not least,it took me quite a bit of time to digest western artstyle which is usually average/mediocre(before the Xbox,95% of my games were japanese).
A valid point, I have always been a console gamer (a lot of my favorite games ar JRPG's like FF VII, Xenogears, Persona 4 etc) and even though I never really had any problem adapting to the WRPG style, I always felt WRPG being a little inferior to JRPG's (BG & BG 2 being exceptions) until KOTOR
.
In defence of Edge I saw that they scored the latest Star Ocean a 5 and Magnacarta 2 a 4.
(Still cant grasp how one can bash DA:O for VO, story, cutscens and dungeons and like Eternal Sonata, Lost Odyssey and Fable though
)
#72
Posté 15 décembre 2009 - 09:14
Fredescu
-
- Members
- 59 messages
Reviews are usually done prior to the release of the actual game. I wasn't online with Diablo II day 1, but I'm sure it took some time to devolve into what you're describing. I doubt it was like that prior to release. I could be wrong.sleepy__head wrote...
For a game that was PLAGUED with spammers, scammers, hackers, cheaters, botters, rmt'ers I think 6/10 is generous. The blatant utter disregard of Blizzard for the integrity and policing of BNet would cost them many more points in my book. And don't get me started on those absurd drop tables where you have a 1 in 1,020,305,506 chance of finding a particular rune or unique.
Oops, I only looked up the PC version which got 81. I forgot the Xbox one came first.RetrOldSchool wrote...
(on a side note, according to what I can tell, Edge gave JE for Xbox 7, Metacritic score is 89 for that ../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png)
#73
Posté 15 décembre 2009 - 10:32
Sam -stone- serious
-
- Members
- 235 messages
Fredescu wrote...
Before I start, I'm the first person that agrees with the idea that an examination of the review text is more important than the score at the end. I think there is plenty of analysis going on in this thread and the previous one about that, so I'm going to focus on the scores just because I've seen a lot of incomplete data about it. It is my contention that Edge are out of touch with WRPG fans, and have a history of not understanding what makes a good WRPG.
WRPG review scores, ordered by difference from the mainstream press:
Dragon Age
Edge 5/10
Metacritic 91%
Difference 41%
The Witcher (non enhanced edition)
Edge 5/10
Metacritic 86%
Difference 36%
Arcanum
Edge 5/10
Metacritic 81%
Difference 31%
Temple of Elemental Evil
Edge 4/10
Metacritic 71%
Difference 31%
Morrowind (xbox version)
Edge: 6/10
Metacritic 89%
Difference 29%
Diablo 2
Edge 6/10
Metacritic 88%
Difference 28%
Diablo
Edge 7/10
Metacritic 94%
Difference 24%
Fallout 3
Edge 7/10
Metacritic 91%
Difference 21%
Mass Effect
Edge 7/10
Metacritic 91%
Difference 21%
Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines (the full of bugs V.1)
Edge: 6/10
Metacritic: 80%
Difference 20%
Fallout
Edge 7/10
Metacritic 89%
Difference 19%
Baldur's Gate 2
Edge 9/10 (can be considered 10 as they said once the crushing bugs were fixed)
Metacritic 95%
Difference 15%
Knights of the Old Republic 2
Edge: 7/10
Metacritic 85%
Difference 15%
Oblivion
Edge 8/10
Metacritic 94%
Difference 14%
Jade Empire
Edge: 7/10
Metacritic 81%
Difference 11%
Neverwinter Nights 2
Edge 8/10
Metacritic 84%
Difference 4%
Knights of the Old Republic
Edge 9/10
Metacritic: 93%
Difference 3%
Neverwinter Nights
Edge: 9/10
Metacritic: 91%
Difference 1%
You might then say, so what? Edge have their own review scale unlike most other sites that will score between 7 and 10 as long as the game is playable. To that, I ask you to look at this list of Edge review scores of popular action games.
Halo - 10/10
Halo 2 - 9/10
Halo 3 - 10/10
Halo ODST - 9/10
Gears of War - 8/10
Gears of War 2 - 9/10
Grand Theft Auto - 8/10
Grand Theft Auto 2 - 8/10
GTA III - 8/10
GTA Vice City - 8/10
GTA San Andreas - 9/10
GTA IV - 10/10
Uncharted - 8/10
Uncharted 2 - 9/10
Devil May Cry - 8/10
Devil May Cry 2 - 6/10 *
Devil May Cry 3 - 8/10
Devil May Cry 4 - 8/10
Ninja Gaiden - 9/10
Ninja Gaiden II - 8/10
Metal Gear Solid - 9/10
Metal Gear Solid 2 - 8/10
Metal Gear Solid 3 - 8/10
Metal Gear Solid 4 - 8/10
* with a 68% metacritic score, this drop is in line with its general critical reception.
Edge have no problems falling into line with the mainstream press when it comes to popular action games. To use an example, GTA IV received a lot of backlash from gamers with regards to it's record breaking high scores. Many saw it as simply not as fun as previous games in the series, and of contemporary games of the same formula. If Edge were really the type to pull no punches and provide an alternate opinion, that was their opportunity.
I fixed your list of some wrong scores (like baldurs gate 2) and added some info as to the versions that got scored as such for greater clarity because the list in itself without knowing the scoring system and versions of games reviewed can be quite missleading.
Edges scoring system.
5 = mediocre
6 = competent
7 = very good
8 = excellent
9 = outstanding
10 = revolutionary
You can take a 10 as you percieve a game to be. Its either revolutionary within its genre or revolutionary as a game in itself meaning that it -will- get the design of games forward. Of course only one aspect does not warranty a 10. The whole package has to be exceptional in order to recieve a 10. This is of course the most debated score with every publication, Edge is not different in this regard.
I'm not saying that Edge don't have a right to their opinion. They can review how they want. If you're the type of gamer that lists Dragon Age, The Witcher, Diablo 2, Mass Effect, and so forth among your favourite games, you can safely ignore the opinion of Edge. They either don't understand what you enjoy about games, or they don't care.
Thats quite a big assumption you got there. I love the Witcher, but i would not dare score the non enhanced version greater than 5. Let me clarify, i LOVE the ENCHANCED edition. The original can go drown in lake somewhere for all i care. Diablo 2. I love Diablo 2. I am not stupid enough however to rate it more than 7 and thats because i fell in love with it. Why? Because the game has some severe problems, especially at its release. Stupid inventory system is what takes the lions share in terms of stupidity. Mass effect is one of my favourite games of the decate and yet i would not dare put it above an 8. Why must i misslead people because of my love for the game? We have a very short and plain storyline with non interesting side quests with barren planets everywhere with few creatures and enemies and.....i can go on. Jsut because i happen to LOVE the game to bits will not stop me from judging it as objectively as i am able. Sure some love will probably be pourned in and it will garner an extra score point maybe (maybe) but i am not blinded and just gp about and call it the best game ever made.Dragon age.....well, i have said how i feel about it....no need to go through this again.
In the end i see a great deal of difference in the way we percieve reviews and review scores. MerinTB seems to like learning about lore, skills, the world and whatnot from a review. MerinTB for the record all these parts you listed is something that i dont want/ care/ need to learn about from a review and i am not bashing you on this as it seems its more of a kind of taste. For me all these are something for me to discover and i feel i dont learn anything of "matter" for the game itself like its mechanics, balance issues, style of gameplay and the like.
Fredescu, you take the end scores far too absolute to be of any real value to a gamer. A true game sits and reads the whole review. i bet that if you read the neverwinter nights review (9/10) you would not want to play the game at all. Even high scoring games have more to say if you read the review as a whole than blindly following "oh look its a 9, i am off to buy it then".
P.S. Bear in mind that i have been a reader of Edge for over 13 years and thus i am very familiar with its scoring and review system. I tried to clarify to the best of my ability what the system is like in Edge and yes i do not -always- agree with Edge. Just this particular review for DAO happened to just nail it on the head of what i think about it as well. Nothing more and nothing less.
#74
Posté 15 décembre 2009 - 11:06
Fredescu
-
- Members
- 59 messages
Nope, I don't, and I even said so at the start of the post. Keep rushing to the defense of Edge though.Sam -stone- serious wrote...
Fredescu, you take the end scores far too absolute to be of any real value to a gamer.
#75
Posté 15 décembre 2009 - 11:09
Sam -stone- serious
-
- Members
- 235 messages
Fredescu wrote...
Nope, I don't, and I even said so at the start of the post. Keep rushing to the defense of Edge though.Sam -stone- serious wrote...
Fredescu, you take the end scores far too absolute to be of any real value to a gamer.
You said so but you didnt follow it and you even closed your post with "you can safely ignore Edge for this and that" which means what? Or is it me who is reading it wrong?
