Edge 213 scores

[rmoxon]

GTA 4 was basically the same as GTA 3 in regards of mission structure. I mean you go there and do that. The chase missions were poor. What is the point of chasing someone if at one point they going to stop and you can't get close to them? The buying of properties and making money from that which was in Vice City was not even included. I'm hoping Rockstar buck up their ideas regarding the structures of the missions in GTA 5.

One of the most annoying things for me in GTA, and a few of the games that try to imitate it, are the parts where you simply have to drive miles to either get to missions or to get to a place during a mission. The majority of people wont have learnt the city, they will be simply staring at the map and driving directly to their destination and by the time you get there you have almost completely zoned out and forgot what you are even doing. If Oblivion and Fallout 3 can help you skip those mind numbing sections I dont see why GTA cant give you an option to skip them too. Though having said that it would mean the games would probabaly only last about 3 hours becuase such a large chunk of them is actualy doing nothing but driving from point A to B.

[Prototype]

One of the most annoying things for me in GTA, and a few of the games that try to imitate it, are the parts where you simply have to drive miles to either get to missions or to get to a place during a mission. The majority of people wont have learnt the city, they will be simply staring at the map and driving directly to their destination and by the time you get there you have almost completely zoned out and forgot what you are even doing. If Oblivion and Fallout 3 can help you skip those mind numbing sections I dont see why GTA cant give you an option to skip them too. Though having said that it would mean the games would probabaly only last about 3 hours becuase such a large chuck of them is actualy doing nothing but driving from point A to B.

To be fair I usually used to get in Romans Taxi. Which usually resulted in the taxi driver calling Niko names and stuff. And I killed him at the end of the ride.

[Family Fry]

So why bother reading , much less posting in such threads ?

Meh.
Why don't you tell me?
I will come back later to agree or disagree

[Charlie]

Did you read the ODST review? In what way was it rushed? I know the score was influenced.

http://www.edge-online.com/features/review-halo-3-odst?page=0%2C0

Seems like Edge, Halo loving as always. What game scored a 6? I'm lost.

Edge: "Thanks to Microsoft?s restrictive review process, we were forced to play with an eye fixed on finishing the campaign quickly ? running from place to place without exploration, and passing checkpoints without taking time to defeat every enemy in an area."

What game scored a 6? I'm lost.

No game scored a 6. I was merely saying moaning about a review process is one thing, moaning because the reviewer doesn't share your opinion about a game is quite another.

[Prototype]

Edge: "Thanks to Microsoft?s restrictive review process, we were forced to play with an eye fixed on finishing the campaign quickly ? running from place to place without exploration, and passing checkpoints without taking time to defeat every enemy in an area."



No game scored a 6. I was merely saying moaning about a review process is one thing, moaning because the reviewer doesn't share your opinion about a game is quite another.

If they were rushed into it, they could have shown Microsoft and given it a low score. Or held back the review.

They marked it high because it's called Halo. Same Edge who gave Yakuza 3 a six, moaning it's similar to the first two games which they loved. But Halo 3 in terms of single player or even multiplayer was hardly a step up from 1 or 2. And still ended up with a 10. Halo 2 did multiplayer better than 3, and the maps were much better and had more balance. I'd be surprised if Halo Reach doesn't get a 10, but then again they might need something to talk about and give it a 9 to rattle a few cages.

[Wools]

With EDGE my two favourite reviews are the Doom one, where they mark it down because you can't speak to the monsters, and the brilliant GTA3 review where they awarded it a 6, then tried to claim it was a misprinted 8 a few issues later when they realised they'd missed a sales and cultural phenomenon.

To be fair, the entire review read as a game that was high scoring and the 6 at the end completely threw the text out of the water.

They mentioned that the score was wrong and Edge have never retracted a review number in their history.

[Charlie]

I'd be surprised if Halo Reach doesn't get a 10, but then again they might need something to talk about and give it a 9 to rattle a few cages.

I wish I could tell you to stop being absurd and how on earth would a game receiving a 9 instead of a 10 rattle anybody's cages. But I know from these threads that, somehow, people do moan when a game receives 1 mark less than they feel it deserves.

[Dazzyman]

*sigh* Because a great review isn't necessarily one that you agree with.

This should be posted at the beginning of every Edge and Games TM thread. Some people just don't get it and end up making this forum look like Gamefaqs.

Oh I get it Brats and its got nowt to do with it being like Gamefaqs. I just dont hold Edge in high regard anymore and alot of people I know still do but they come to me when their unsure and ask what I think right or wrong. Alot of PS3 friends cancelled or came close to cancelling when FFXIII review came out with Edge. I just asked them to wait abit longer for the press to break with it and judge for themselves as I dont think any game this gen deserves 50% (and Ive bought over 200) we just dont get that bad a game anymore. Every single one of them adores it and is on bended knees glad they didnt listen to the review right or wrong. Had one friend cancelled because of the review then paid thru the nose the Saturday to buy it and finds it his fav FF right or wrong all because of a review score.

And I have to same same with Yakuza 3. I just think each month they throw a lot of people that can only buy one game a month and I think their out of touch with what the masses like and enjoy now. Examples like Borderlands is another game they just didnt get or understand and I had alot of friends join a month later as the review put them off. Same with the 5/10 for DAO. Should we really be giving 50% and 60% to any game of that quality? When you have examples of that its better to do away with scores all together.

Their also very subjective on how they feel about their review scores. They always had an ethos that a sequel should never be scored highly unless its revolutionary but they then pan certain ones for this but not others. Weirdly 2 of the biggest games of last year what I found disapoiinting but still good where L4D2 and MW2 as they felt just skin jobs more of the same but nothing new.

Reviewers have agendas, you can get comped, paid adverstising for copy and so on. They have to make money or they wouldnt be in business and so called contreversail scores have always been part of their makeup to cause debate, web clicking and purchasing the issue to see what all the fuss is about.

I personally wish they would go back to old Edge where games where reviewed a month after (like PC ones where) so they could get proper reviews of them as majority now have online MP. Your missing large chunks of a game when you play in a office even on a closed LAN compared to net code etc... Its very difficult to judge games like MAG, MW2, Halo and so on days or weeks before its release as their all under controlled circumstances.

Their a review and subjective at the end of it all and we all have different tastes no matter what one mans 10/10 for Halo is another mans 1/10 and you have to have a popular balance of the general public.

I just think that anyone that relies on just one print or online review for a game in this day and age is daft and we shouldnt give such power and weight to one person thats on a deadline. Thats why I will contine to tell my friends every month not to rely on just Edge as they get it wrong like everyone else.

[Jebus]

I dont think any game this gen deserves 50% (and Ive bought over 200) we just dont get that bad a game anymore.

Not sure about that though, did you try Rogue Warrior at all?

To be fair, I'm being facetious as that is an anomaly and most titles are of a higher quality.

I have a problem with most reviews nowadays as they almost never use the scale that they are constrained to. How many games get below 5/10 nowadays? It's a pointless scale if you never use the entirety of it.

Worse still is the fact that an awful lot of people just skip the three pages of text to see the x/10 score the reviewer has given, which is utterly pointless. Why bother seeing a review score if you've absolutely no context of how they came to that score!

I'd abolish scores if I could, you should be able to read the review and from that, garner whether you feel it's worth your money or not.

If I trusted review scores for that kind of thing, well, I'd hate to think of the games I'd missed out on.

I think that we as "hardcore gamers" (Yuck!) need to remember that the general casual players might well be swayed by a review in a publication such as Edge and that is perhaps why sometimes we get "outraged" by a low score for a game we love.

[Eight Rooks]

I just asked them to wait abit longer for the press to break with it and judge for themselves as I dont think any game this gen deserves 50% (and Ive bought over 200) we just dont get that bad a game anymore.

That's quite possibly the daftest thing on the internet I've read in years.

Although at the same time it is kind of gratifying to actually see someone put down in print what I've always believed - that most of the net nowadays genuinely believes that pretty much every game ever released is sunshine and kittens and la-la-la, I am not listening, I am having fun shooting things, whee!

Funny how neither books, music nor films can get away with this nonsense, eh? Guess that's the power of interactivity. 'It's the same meaningless teen angst poorly acted melodramatic bull**** I've been playing for the past fifteen years! But it's me doing it! Whoohoo!'

[Brad]

I have a problem with most reviews nowadays as they almost never use the scale that they are constrained to. How many games get below 5/10 nowadays? It's a pointless scale if you never use the entirety of it.

The entire scale is used though. 5 and below are reserved for atrocities that still occur even today. The previously mentioned Rogue Warrior, mobile Suit Gundam Crossfire and The Golden Compass (I've played those last two) are the reason we need the entire range. Dazzy did go a bit over the top but I think his point is that 99% of games come in over that 50% mark. The are below that is reserved for the kinda crap I just listed.

[Jebus]

So why use a scale as large as out of 10 then?

I like x/5 personally, at least it feels more useful too me!

To the average joe, a 4/5 looks far better than a 7/10...

[Wools]

I just think each month they throw a lot of people that can only buy one game a month and I think their out of touch with what the masses like and enjoy now. Examples like Borderlands is another game they just didnt get or understand and I had alot of friends join a month later as the review put them off. Same with the 5/10 for DAO. Should we really be giving 50% and 60% to any game of that quality? When you have examples of that its better to do away with scores all together.

Reviewers have agendas, you can get comped, paid adverstising for copy and so on. They have to make money or they wouldnt be in business and so called contreversail scores have always been part of their makeup to cause debate, web clicking and purchasing the issue to see what all the fuss is about.

Their a review and subjective at the end of it all and we all have different tastes no matter what one mans 10/10 for Halo is another mans 1/10 and you have to have a popular balance of the general public.

I just think that anyone that relies on just one print or online review for a game in this day and age is daft and we shouldnt give such power and weight to one person thats on a deadline. Thats why I will contine to tell my friends every month not to rely on just Edge as they get it wrong like everyone else.

I'm not sure if a magazine has to be in touch with everyone or to be considerate about the everyman, because no one can be.

Sight & Sound publish the credits for all major films as it feels its readership would like to know which creative artists contributed to the film. Empire don't compile a credits list as it does not feel its readership wants that, likewise, it reviews both the independent and art house films Sight & Sound cover along with more mainstream fare. Despite the differences, both magazines cover a particular audience and both have a place in the marketplace.

All the other examples of games you've mentioned like Borderlands are subjective in quality and do have flaws, which could justify the score Edge gave the game.

As for your friends taking the Edge score for gospel, then that's a personal decision but very short-sighted. I think most people do have a large amount of respect for Edge but also take other magazines, friends recommendations and first play impressions on here and a host of other publications to base their buying decision on. If you use a few sources for opinions, then you can form a well rounded idea if you want to buy the game or not.

As such, I can't understand you're ire for Edge when it's people taking their word as gospel, which I think we've established, not many people round here do!

[Dazzyman]

I think some need to look at themselves for spouting fanboy etc.. Ive always been very open that branding means nowt. You do get rattled easily on here and attack if you disagree with someones post. Take a chill pill lads their just games pml! Noone ate your family for making their own comments or isnt that allowed Im sure Ive said much worse Eight Rooks anyway in last 15yrs.

No I didnt Jebus Even I spot a turkey a mile away heh.

FullSpectrumWarrior gets what I mean. 99% of stuff out their is more than fine this gen theirs no justification for saying their dire 50% games with the ones I previously mentioned like FFXIII and DAO. Yea you get a turkey now and again but you spot it months before its released you dont need a review for that one with the likes of Shellshock 2 and Rogue Warrior. Bar has been raised massivly this gen though used to get countless games last gen Id sit and regret dropping notes on last one I had that buyers remorse was Red Faction 2 and it was still solid to play.

Worst Ive come across out of my 200 was AC1, and Star Wars Force Unleashed and Id still give a 6 to 7 for both of them their ok nowt special but not baby eaters.

Rose tinted is great but should we really be judging next gen stuff on games last gen and onwards over and over to compare and then mark down like FFXIII but then ignore if for key titles (cough cough Halo, GTA). Dig some of these old classics out and try them again you will be suprised how much they date and how clunky they can be.

Times move on games change and alter or just come out with nicer graphics and sound with same gameplay. Long as you enjoy it does it really matter.

[Flabio]

Thing is, FF13 doesn't shape up that well when compared to other JRPGs this generation either...