Edge scores.

[mid]

Oh, and if somebody 'defends' Edge, it may just be because they haven't found a molehill to make a mountain of, not because of some misguided sense of blind loyalty. Just thought I'd mention it.

Thats where I'm from, cartainly. The likes of Saurian etc may be up in arms because VF4 Evo has been slighted, and I kind of recognise that there is a very deep game in there, but my stack of VF games at home is testimony to the idea that "this time I'll get my head around it, honest" rather than any enjoyment I've ever got from the series. Calibur (and indeed the original PS title) have reasonably intuitive controls, while anything past a basic kick or punch takes far too much hard work to remember where it is. The much slighted Tekken series has become so popular because its the easiest to understand by far with its 'button for a limb' layout.

(oops, edit - forgot to finish my point). So, while I appreciate that for the 'hardcore' fighting game fan its underappreciated, you really can't just review shmup games for shmup fans, fps games for fps fans, fighters for figher fans etc without regard for just how painfully difficult it is for newbies to gain entrance. Maybe the tutorial this time is as good as it should be, and I'm all wrong here, but the work needed to find the depth in VF4Evo looks too much for me, so I'll be with SC2, where its fun all the way.

As for them being inconsistent by subsequently slating games they gave high scores, or vice versa, I think thats just called hindsight. I came out of my first showing of Titanic thinking it was the best film ever, so its easily done.

[BdeB]

Oh, and if somebody 'defends' Edge, it may just be because they haven't found a molehill to make a mountain of, not because of some misguided sense of blind loyalty. Just thought I'd mention it.

Thanks for that eloquently put reminder against the wave of negativism that seems to wash over this thread. I heartily agree.

In addition, I believe that Edge raises the most debate because of the way they are, and are actually admired for it. Alot of the more 'teenager' magazines are called rubbish and things are left at that. Edge raises debate, which is the whole point of the magazine.

[metal_mutley]

I agree with BdeB, EDGE produces the 'best' reviews, but we have to bear in mind Concept's criticisms of them when reading. They are written by different people, so there's bound to be inconsistency. In some mags the 'woyt?' section will say what each reviewer is playing, c.f. EDGE again posts a single (and small) list.

But like I said before, even when certain other prestigious publications review things, they often don't say who's doing it.

And Concept, it is the relative grade that's important, so SH3s score is important largely in its comparison to other survival horror games. It is less relevant, though, in comparison with other genres, because that reflects the personal tastes of the magazine.

[H-Man]

There is simply no other video games publication that competes with Edge at the mo (by a long way [imo of course ]). The articles are good, reviews (which I generally agree with) well written.

It's easy to get in a huff when a game you love doesn't get the mark you feel it deserves.

'oh but they didn't get it ......... it's really deep' blah blah blah so what?

Maybe they didn't 'get it' just as I'm sure all of us 'don't get' games other people love.

RTCW got 6/10. I have played it online everyday for the past two years - for me it's up there with Golden Eye, Halo and Counter Strike. Of course many 1000's of ppl would think me crazy for liking this game, but hey - they just don't 'get it'

[chrisp]

Okay, how about if edge used IOO?

EDGE doesn't even view itself through 'our', because that assumes a semblance of individuality. Instead it seems to go reference itself abstract-style as an object or an item, detaching itself from a notion of individualism. Hence the Edge in place of 'we' or 'our'. EDGE wraps itself into a single entity knowingly.

Sure they debate scores internally, and the more controversial or remarkable the game or score the greater the debate, surely. Such debate is not likely to be so fierce for, say, Silent Hill 3 as it was for Halo.

That's why in my last post I said: "You can't blame EDGE's journalists that much, simply because as they say themselves, there isn't enough time to fully examine and analyse each release."

From what you've said though, your main problem is with the scores and the mono-entity that decides them.

No... My main problem is a lack of information on who reviews what. I am not really all that concerned with the scores, even though I openly tend to disagree with a lot of them.

I consider this to be the lesser of two evils. Where reviews are seen as solely the opinion of a single person, they could come to the review of SH3 and completely blast the review of the prequel.

Not really. If I knew who was doing the reviewing I'd be more forgiving because there would at least be an explanation for the frequent inconsistency of the reviews in EDGE.

This isn't EDGE's practice and nor should it be. It presents itself as a biased, but informed collection of reviewers.

Informed? Well, that's down to personal opinion yet again, I suppose. But there are those who would debate against that...

As for EDGE representing itself as a collection of reviewers. As I've said, that's just what it doesn't do. The magazine de-personalises itself by neglecting to focus on who is actually doing the reviewing. We are led to believe it's always a whole, that the reviews are calculated objectively according to the greater good of the magazine's identity.

I note the similarity with another highly respected (and just as opinionated) newspaper, The Economist. They don't name their hacks either, but have consistent editorial standards and lines to take. I disagree with a lot of the conclusions etc that are made, but still consider the articles to be of the highest standard and generally well balanced.

It's not the articles or columns I generally have problems with.

Your problem is that EDGE take a line on certain games, and the score makes that line all the more obvious. But the text of the reviews belies this.

No... My problem is I don't know who's doing the reviewing so it makes the scoring contradictory, in that it is presented as objectively constant in contrast to rather subjective text.

In it, you can read certain facts about games and the reviewer's subjective likes and dislikes. This is balanced at the end with a score that is largely unnecessary, which was the point of their experiment.

But you can't... You can take the likes and dislikes of an interpretation based on a game, but you can't take the likes and dislikes of the author of said interpretation, because such information isn't provided.

It would make the borg harder to resist, though, if they didn't score games.

I would also prefer the need for scores to be dropped. But EDGE need them, because to put it bluntly, they keep the publicity and discussion surrounding the magazine rolling in.

'They said they liked it'
'How much? More than Biohazard?'
'They didn't say. Damn them!'

I quite frankly couldn't give a flying puck-duck how they compare one series in comparison to another.

Right. Time to get some sleep.

WRONG. It refers to itself as "Edge", "we", "us" and "our" in every issue.

[nips]

Crisp is right. They constantly refer to themselves as 'we', 'our' and 'us'. But EDGE is most common, I have found. But to be honest, I think that they have found a very nice balance between being personal and professional.

Their "Out There" section is one of my favourites, as it is very personal. They talk about stuff that I find interesting, they refer to themselves as EDGE, but they put a personal and usually humerous stance on it: EG, No 3, "The Joy of Tech." (Issue #124)...

They never have a personal reference, but the magazine has a personality, more than I felt it did before, and I think that it is better for it. Just take a look at the "Points of Review." (Issue #124) to see thier personal concerns as a magazine...

Take what you want from the magazine. I don't really lend much weight to the reviews personally, they simply are a guidline, not the be-all and end-all...

And hey, no matter what your pesonal opinion, they had the GBA(SP) scoop before the internet forums were filled with the word; "MEGATON!!"

[Concept]

Crisp is right. They constantly refer to themselves as 'we', 'our' and 'us'.

EDGE refers to itself in third person far in advance of 'we' 'our' and 'us'. The only time it does with any significant extent is usally in the letter pages. Absurdly, in its recent reviewing article EDGE referred to its own writers as "EDGE reviewer", "EDGE employee" etc.

This simply underlines my viewpoint that EDGE goes to lengths to treat its writers as part of a greater whole in the face of recognising individualism, even when that is staring it in the face.

But EDGE is most common, I have found. But to be honest, I think that they have found a very nice balance between being personal and professional.

So, if you don't use third person you're not being professional? Is being personal or acknowledging individual opinion a sign of a lack fo professionalism? Hmm...

Some of you have said those that 'defend' EDGE shouldn't be considered loyalists. Well try looking at it from the other way around to. Those that criticise EDGE don't necessarily hate the magazine either.

[Popo]

Final Fantasy 8... ...monumentally duff

You brute, take that back

Keiron Gillen (I think) points out in their reviews feature something that I would agree with 1,000,000% - you can review a game based on two things; based on its technical merit (i.e. is the game technically flawed, have the developers brought the whole together successfully, does the game engine succeed at what it set out to do, etc.), or you can review it based on how much you enjoyed it.

FOR EXAMPLE, I find playing Gran Turismo incredibly boring, but I can see that technically, the game is accomplished - the engine is smooth, fair and incredibly well thought out, the graphics were groundbreaking and the concept about which the game hinges is almost visionary and trend-setting.

On the other hand, I find many technical flaws in Gundam Federation vs. Zeon in a moderately sluggish control system, often dated graphics and a weak narative-led single player game, but god help me if smashing up robots isn't incredible fun.

What I find to be the real debate is, should magazine reviews incorporate either one or the other of these paradigms, or both at the same time?

[JU!]

I don't take all of EDGES reviews to heart on score i read what they have to say, then compare it with what peeps say on here n in Games tm then judge for myself. VF4EVOs score is a way they have made a brialliant game look bad, purely beacuse the Evolution of it ws not big enuff for there liking. They way they reviw though does make sum games look bad because of there reasoning that the game must fit certain criteria.

I do like EDGE reveiws and for the most part they provide a good insight into a game, unlike in most magazines, as well EDGEs writers seem to be very compatent at what they do, but as described above the preference of the writer never seems to come through in EDGE which in sum ways is good, because games are not over egged, one thing that EDGE does not seem to do much imo with the exception of Halo. I like the way Fukimatsu (Sorry bout spelling) reviews getting 4 people who are biased to a particular genre then creating an overall score from this.

[Tom Salter]

Thats where I'm from, cartainly. The likes of Saurian etc may be up in arms because VF4 Evo has been slighted, and I kind of recognise that there is a very deep game in there, but my stack of VF games at home is testimony to the idea that "this time I'll get my head around it, honest" rather than any enjoyment I've ever got from the series. Calibur (and indeed the original PS title) have reasonably intuitive controls, while anything past a basic kick or punch takes far too much hard work to remember where it is. The much slighted Tekken series has become so popular because its the easiest to understand by far with its 'button for a limb' layout.

(oops, edit - forgot to finish my point). So, while I appreciate that for the 'hardcore' fighting game fan its underappreciated, you really can't just review shmup games for shmup fans, fps games for fps fans, fighters for figher fans etc without regard for just how painfully difficult it is for newbies to gain entrance. Maybe the tutorial this time is as good as it should be, and I'm all wrong here, but the work needed to find the depth in VF4Evo looks too much for me, so I'll be with SC2, where its fun all the way.

As for them being inconsistent by subsequently slating games they gave high scores, or vice versa, I think thats just called hindsight. I came out of my first showing of Titanic thinking it was the best film ever, so its easily done.

This is where I feel Famitsu have got it right. For instance, if I had reviewed VF4 Evo, it wouldn't have got a ten. Having a panel of reviewers, with different tastes and likes is a great method of reviewing. I feel Edge gave PN03 justice by trying this approach, and hope they do it more.

[Afterbirth]

Has anyone noticed that when Sony portrayed the PS/PS2 consoles to the 20+ clubbers, the magazines then geared themselves (and articles) towards the same people. They seem to change to appeal, and some became immature in text/article as a result. It was funny when Zero did it, and less so PC zone, now i find it ****.
Edge has never done that. Its just been Edge. It simply attracts a mature audiance. That why i feel the other mags are so poor.
They try and be funny, but its dull. Prehaps its my age.

[Popo]

VF4EVOs score is a way they have made a brialliant game look bad

Sorry to bring this up again, but they gave it a seven (distinguished) and said "as close to the Naomi 2 version as you could hope for on PS2".

[nips]

But EDGE is most common, I have found. But to be honest, I think that they have found a very nice balance between being personal and professional.

So, if you don't use third person you're not being professional? Is being personal or acknowledging individual opinion a sign of a lack fo professionalism? Hmm...

No not at all...

The rest of my post indicates how I believe that they are able to add a personal opinion which is often humerous which subsequently makes the magazine more enjoyable and personal. But they are also very formal and professional in thier manner which is summed up simply through their referal to themselves in the third person (among may other things).

I find the third person perspective very good, as it is a method of distancing yourself from the product or topic in question whilst still indicating the inclanation of the magazine in general.

The balance of professionalism and personalism is not necessarily a direct result of the perspective in which the magainzine referes to itself. But I believe it to be a contibutory factor as it makes the overall review or discussion of the topic in question atleast appear more well-rounded and by extension more professional.

[Streets Of Rage]

all this ever comes down is some people with a chip on their shoulder about certain review scores, same games too silent hill series and vf4 evo, i played silent hill1 at release and it bored me, maybe i didnt get it but my score for it would have been low, as uve all been saying its the opinion of the reviewer, on here allan gave vf4 evo 10/10 and im sure many disagree with him but it doesnt make it wrong, i agree with edge on the final fantasy 8 score as i enjoyed the game immensely, its all personal opinion and drudging up the same old games reviews in edge as points to complain about is dragging on a bit IMO of course

[Ady]

[This is where I feel Famitsu have got it right.

Pah! Famitsu dish out high scores like they were going out of style.

Best system? Try Zzap! 64/Crash in the 80s. They also had several reviewers on the same game but their insights were more critical and trustworthy, not just blind, gushing praise.