185 réponses à ce sujet

[Foxd1e]

damn this sam guy is still glorifying edge and dissing dragon age after weeks? just drop it man it's over just let it be

very sorry sam stone! It wasn't you who deserved my wrath your name was familiar at the wrong time thats all it was more blind edge fanatics namely purple chair and the hurr

OP you are an idiot the last thread wasn't locked it got old, I could post in it right now if I wanted to but im certainly not bumping it, this discussion is old and stale, let it sink.
the only edge threads that were locked were the ones asking about the weapon:blink:

Modifié par Foxd1e, 15 décembre 2009 - 11:25 .

[Fredescu]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...
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?

Unpatched Witcher, Mass Effect, and Diablo II aren't among your favourite games, so the statement is not aimed at you. I don't have to consider review scores to be absolute to conclude that a publication is safe to ignore based on them.

[Sam -stone- serious]

Fredescu wrote...

Sam -stone- serious wrote...
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?

Unpatched Witcher, Mass Effect, and Diablo II aren't among your favourite games, so the statement is not aimed at you. I don't have to consider review scores to be absolute to conclude that a publication is safe to ignore based on them.

Mass effect is. Diablo 2 is despite its problems. Witcher? Yeah, i dont see how anyone can like a game with 5 min loading times between big areas and 1.5 - 2 min loading times between outside and inside huts and houses and invisible walls that prevented you from moving freely even in plain straight up spaces and a combat system that you couldnt connect blows due to these invisible walls.

I still would not score the games higher objectively though and how can you be so certain as to why someone has to ignore a publication considering what you said? What if someone does not like sugar coating things and tell things of how they are instead plastering unreal scores despite their reviews not being any different than that of Edges? 

Oh wait i get it. Outside a games box art "IGN scored the game a 9.2" . Yeah i can see the "advertisment". Go and read the IGN  review. Tell me if the review reflects upon that 9.2. 6 or lower is more like it the way i read it.

[Chezdon]

Uh oh, another Edge thread!



Well I was reading the last thread, and went to reply but it got locked.



If they gave Diablo 1 a 7/10 then to me their opinion is invalid.



$0.02

[RetrOldSchool]

Foxd1e wrote...

OP you are an idiot the last thread wasn't locked it got old, I could post in it right now if I wanted to but im certainly not bumping it, this discussion is old and stale, let it sink.
the only edge threads that were locked were the ones asking about the weapon:blink:

http://social.biowar.../9/index/433346

Oh I guess I am an idiot , the padlock-icon next to the thread and the fact I can't post in it (and obviously other persons) must be a browser related issu ethen? 

[RetrOldSchool]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...

I still would not score the games higher objectively though and how can you be so certain as to why someone has to ignore a publication considering what you said? What if someone does not like sugar coating things and tell things of how they are instead plastering unreal scores despite their reviews not being any different than that of Edges? 

Oh wait i get it. Outside a games box art "IGN scored the game a 9.2" . Yeah i can see the "advertisment". Go and read the IGN  review. Tell me if the review reflects upon that 9.2. 6 or lower is more like it the way i read it.

I think you and me are reading reviews differently. The DA:O review for Xbox 360 got 8,7 and I can agree that if you focus on the negative things they say about it, then yes, a lower score would be appropriate. 7-7,5 (now that is acording to the IGN score, they don't have the same 1-10 as Edge) could probably be a guess from reading the review, however quotes like this makes you understand that the reviewer really liked the game, but still took the time to apply som constructive criticism (rather than the bashing the Edge quotes were):

"Incredibly deep and expansive, Dragon Age: Origins is one of those titles that can easily swallow up dozens of hours of play and keep you coming back for more. The fact that BioWare chose to include downloadable content, including a new character and side quest, on launch day proves that they have an extensive plan for supporting the game. Couple that with the fact that each character can be developed in radically different ways, and you have an adventure that earns its own place among BioWare's expansive RPG collection. While the visuals are a bit underwhelming and the difficulty is a bit easier on the consoles, this is still a great title. This is the kind of adventure that fantasy RPG fans have been hoping that BioWare would deliver – a game with a ton of re-playability and an incredibly vivid world that is the start of an impressive franchise. "

The thing is, you can truthfully enjoy a game AND recognize it faults. So I consider not mentioning faults and giving a high score to a flawed game is worse than recognizing flaws and giving a high score (with a conclusion as in the IGN article cited above).

And if you go to my original post you'll see that the DA:O review was not the whole reason for some of us stating that Edge can't be trusted with RPG reviews. What strikes me is that they gave much higher scores to games with even bigger problems with VO, story and dungeon crawling and the fact that they gave 3 of the most critically acclaimed RPG's (JE, ME & F3) so low scores comparing to Eternal Sonata etc.

After that I feel that I can't trust them in reviewing RPG's since I disagree with that, especially if Edge is so truthful and never sugarcoat, then it's very hard for me to understand 10 for GTA IV and Halo 3 and 9 for Halo ODST...

[SheffSteel]

Thanks, Fredescu.

In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, I think you've demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that Edge's review scores for western RPGs are generally too low.

(Some people prefer to stick with their unreasonable doubt. That's their prerogative.)

[Sam -stone- serious]

Retroldschool we agree very much but there is one difference. Despite the end of IGNs review the rest of their review was full of major flaws that they did point out. This in itself should remove marks from the game, in short to be reflected on the end score. The other difference is that you want to know why a game such as Eternal Sonata got the score it did as compared to the some of the titles you mention. Thats not for me to say since i have not played the game or care to play it but the review does represent the end score which i think is of more importance. Same deal with GTA4 and HALO and the other game. You read their review and you feel that the game does have quite many merits and in the end it does reflect upon the end score.



IGN and Eurogamer on the other hand have reviewed the game, bashed it, mangled it, smashed it because the flaws presented in the review are severe enough to deduct a hefty ammount of points from the end review. Why was this not reflected upon their review? A 9 means that the game is a masterpiece with few faults which obviously this is not the case. Maybe its just me but i want my reviews to not misslead me between end score and review. I want to see scoring deductions upon flaws. I am fairly aware that a 5 from edge can very well be an 8 from another publication but a 9 from such an underwhelming review is just missdirection to say the least.

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

EDGE SUCKS OK they give all the good games crappy reviews

mass effect,halo 3,zelda, u name it all 7 outa 10 they are the most difficult most unpleasd game community ever what they say dosent matter they are like the simon cowell of game reviews

[SheffSteel]

An alternative view of the Eurogamer review is

- it didn't "bash" "mangle" or "smash" the game, but offered a fair criticism of it within the context of an 8/10 score

- it did not think that the flaws were severe enough to deduct a hefty amount of points.

Or did you not consider the possibility that you might be wrong?

[Sam -stone- serious]

SheffSteel wrote...

An alternative view of the Eurogamer review is
- it didn't "bash" "mangle" or "smash" the game, but offered a fair criticism of it within the context of an 8/10 score
- it did not think that the flaws were severe enough to deduct a hefty amount of points.
Or did you not consider the possibility that you might be wrong?

I did actually several times as i have said before. You say its a fair review, i agree but it does not look like an 8 to me and by reading at the comments below it seems i am not the only one who thinks that which does not really make me wrong. It does not make you wrong either but its deffinately a very split view we have between us which in itself should prove that the game is balancing in the love it or hate it affair. I believe there is a reason we read either glowing reviews or downright harsh ones.

[SheffSteel]

Reviewers have to earn their pay too. Probably they don't get much work if they write reasonable, measured criticism. People like to see passionate and interesting prose.

[interesting03]

This is the Edge on NWN2(PC)

score 80%



"There’s scope to build everything from a two-hour co-op dungeon crawl to a 100-hour purple-prosed epic. It’s that breadth that makes NN2 as much of an essential purchase as genre fans could ask for. [Christmas 2006, p.88]"



Now if they could give that bug addled, lackluster storyline and forgettable npcs rpg mess an 8/10 for the toolset alone. DA:O(PC) deserves at least an 8.5. I don't understand why they would review the sub-par console port of a decent PC rpg with a fantastic toolset(DA:O toolset> NWN2 toolset).

[thebogle5]

interesting03 wrote...

This is the Edge on NWN2(PC)
score 80%

"There’s scope to build everything from a two-hour co-op dungeon crawl to a 100-hour purple-prosed epic. It’s that breadth that makes NN2 as much of an essential purchase as genre fans could ask for. [Christmas 2006, p.88]"

Now if they could give that bug addled, lackluster storyline and forgettable npcs rpg mess an 8/10 for the toolset alone. DA:O(PC) deserves at least an 8.5. I don't understand why they would review the sub-par console port of a decent PC rpg with a fantastic toolset(DA:O toolset> NWN2 toolset).

Fer real! I played Baulders Gate, Planescape, and NWN 1 a million times. I couldn't make it through a single playthrough of NWN 2.. Dragon Age? I'm on my 4th playthrough. I think its a great game. And if some a**hole wants to be a hater, go play a sports game.

Nerd!

[RetrOldSchool]

Sam -stone- serious wrote...

Retroldschool we agree very much but there is one difference. Despite the end of IGNs review the rest of their review was full of major flaws that they did point out. This in itself should remove marks from the game, in short to be reflected on the end score. The other difference is that you want to know why a game such as Eternal Sonata got the score it did as compared to the some of the titles you mention. Thats not for me to say since i have not played the game or care to play it but the review does represent the end score which i think is of more importance. Same deal with GTA4 and HALO and the other game. You read their review and you feel that the game does have quite many merits and in the end it does reflect upon the end score.

IGN and Eurogamer on the other hand have reviewed the game, bashed it, mangled it, smashed it because the flaws presented in the review are severe enough to deduct a hefty ammount of points from the end review. Why was this not reflected upon their review? A 9 means that the game is a masterpiece with few faults which obviously this is not the case. Maybe its just me but i want my reviews to not misslead me between end score and review. I want to see scoring deductions upon flaws. I am fairly aware that a 5 from edge can very well be an 8 from another publication but a 9 from such an underwhelming review is just missdirection to say the least.

I definitely understand where your coming from, though my view is quite different. I don't think a reviewer should by default deduct a certain amount of points from the overall score of a game based on flaws. There should be deductions, (partly why I cant see Halo 3 and GTA IV score 10) but the final score should reflect the overall worth the reviewer thought the game had. 

A game with a lot of flaws can still be a great game and vice versa. To me its more important that the conclusion matches the score. In IGN they also point out good things in the review too:
"The plot of Dragon Age is extremely rich with details that unfold over dozens of hours of play"
"The character creation reveals more of Dragon Age's depth and flexibility."
"Dragon Age provides a ton of customization without a level cap, so it's possible to take two characters with the exact same background and develop them in completely different ways."
"Dragon Age frequently presents you with options that can radically change events -- opening up separate side quests while closing others off. Certain choices have longer-lasting impacts on the world, and some can even alter the overall story. "
"When you have a well-balanced party of characters working together, you can effectively create combos that can decimate your opponents, like casting a spell to freeze approaching monsters and having your warriors smash the creatures into pieces. Battle within the game is frequently a brutal affair, with spells rocketing towards their intended target and clashing swords bouncing off shields and enemies. Even more striking is the attention paid to kills and critical hits, and watching heads get lopped off, or beasts getting impaled are fantastic touches."

To me there is no bashing being done,only honest crticism (that I believe Bioware will take to heart, like they seem to have done with ME2). To me the review is a favorable one, but it does point out the flaws, but in the end the reviewer really liked the game. 

Another take is that Edge's score to me doesnt match the harshest of the quotes. Calling a promise of a sequel a threat is something that should warrant a 3-4 score, since 5 is mediocre/passable. You dont dislike a mediocre game enough to hate the thought of a sequel. A more correct approached would be "I sure hope they get it right for a sequel" for a mediocre game.

That said, I still believe that in order for a magazine/site to be considered real good in my eyes in rating RPG's, I think consistency is the key word. Yep, IGN scored DA:O 8,7. but they scored 

I think Fable 2 is the only game that left me feeling cheated. I still think that scoring ME, JE & F3 equal to Eternal Sonata and Lost Odyssey is ludicrous and scoring NWN2 and Fable 2 above those games is equally crazy. Scoring DA:O 5 (with quotes that makes you think its even lower) is the nail in th coffin IMO.

Modifié par RetrOldSchool, 15 décembre 2009 - 08:01 .

[Sam -stone- serious]

I guess then that its a difference of viewpoint between us. Still however i believe that for all the games you feel you need to know as to why they got this big scores i suggest you look into a site you "trust" (and i use that as lightly as possible) and find out since all the games you mention have been praised and uplifted equally much on average from the written and electronic press.



As a last note, what Edge says about the prospect of a sequel as a threat is made within the context of the review itself. To him i assume its threat because he believes he will probably be exposed to another excessively cliche and closed environment. I assume as such since our views happen to coincide i can see his fear. Is it really a good idea to cut out a developer like that before he even tries his hand on a sequel and try to right the wrongs? I personally dont think its a good idea but on the other hand its not some unknowns we are talking about here and in this respect i do understand even if i dont agree.

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

wow edge gave dragon age a 5......and then they gave boyanetta a 10......

edge most be full of mentally reatarded idiots to think that

[gingerbill]

never heard of edge , and if they gave DA 5/10 then i am glad . You would have to be mental to rate DA as a 5/10 RPG , especially compared to there ratings for other RPG's .

[Shallina]

Edge is a bit harsh with DAO since that game is almost bug free and work fine, and is enjoyable.

BUT !

class blance completly stupid make all the combat gameplay unfun. Just play the mage, just kill the mage... Combat gameplay is stupid. so the gaming part wich is around combat gameplay is bad.

Char animation aren't good either, the leg movement are bad. Women and men share the skeleton for animation, for men it's OK since it's a man one, but for women they look really bad beceause of it. Many shortcut for texturing and landscape so it can run on the small RAM of the XBOX360.

That game is rated so low mainly beceause of the console port. They ported the game and cut to many thing so they could port it. But in doing this they changed something that could have really be awesome into something average. And the class balance problem is a real issue for the enjoyment of the game. It's not a book , it's a game, it's meant to be played, not read. If you put wariors and rogues as playable characters they have to be on part with the mage.

When I see the score on the various game given by the edge, I completly agree with them, looks like they are the only one left that gives score on software merits and not on the money they got paid.

Modifié par Shallina, 16 décembre 2009 - 04:39 .

[Darpaek]

You know, if you really want to talk about this topic - if you dig around, there's a 20 page thread on it that's still open. Post to your heart's content. This stupid review doesn't deserve a new thread every couple of days.

[themaxzero]

Edges scoring system.

5 = mediocre
6 = competent
7 = very good
8 = excellent
9 = outstanding
10 = revolutionary

Halo 3 - 10/10
Halo ODST - 9/10
Gears of War - 8/10
Gears of War 2 - 9/10
GTA San Andreas - 9/10
GTA IV - 10/10

I have no problems with harsh reviews. But anyone who says GTA 4, Gears of War, of the Halos are revolutionary are insane. There is no other word.

How can DAO be bagged as generic yet Halo 3 be considered revolutionary? I mean it boggles the mind.

There is a double standard at Edge.

To him i assume its threat because he believes he will probably be
exposed to another excessively cliche and closed environment.

BUT HALO 3 WAS REVOLUTIONARY!

Modifié par themaxzero, 16 décembre 2009 - 08:52 .

[Trajan60]

I agree with Edge's review as they're one of the few critics in gaming that haven't yet sold out and gotten in bed with developers. Edge actually gives an honest opinion instead of one that just fellates the same devs that throw advertising dollars at them.

[adam_nox]

When checking edge scores, give ps3 exclusives +3, rpgs +2, and xbox exclusives -2, if you want to see accurate ratings.

[adam_nox]

Trajan60 wrote...

I agree with Edge's review as they're one of the few critics in gaming that haven't yet sold out and gotten in bed with developers. Edge actually gives an honest opinion instead of one that just fellates the same devs that throw advertising dollars at them.

no they fellate halo and bill gates.  They may not be influenced by ad revenue, but they are certainly horribly biased.