Very interesting article on Edge review scores

I think the style of reviewing used by Edge is much fairer than everywhere else. Places where 75 is an average, that gives you only 25% of scores to show satisfaction and whopping 75% of scorelines to convey a below average, mediocre or bad game. It hardly seems fair. A 7 is a very decent game, an 8 is a very good game, a 9 is a great game and a 10 is a generation defining classic. Whereas in most places you get high scores thrown about with little distinction between them because it would be a percieved insult to give a massive franchise anything below a 9.

Edge is one of the only places which gets it absolutely right.

[QUOTE="tok1879"][QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

LOGIC IS NOT MY FRIEND? Seriously, take a freaking science or statistics class.

"Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level and crime levels have increased sharply.

Hence, atmospheric CO2 causes crime."

How is that logical? That is EXACTLY what the blog is doing and exactly what the person I quoted was doing.

Just because two data sets have correlating trends does NOT mean that they are linked.

KingsMessenger

Please explain what is wrong with my statements? Honestly? I am just dying to hear what you have to say.

I think the style of reviewing used by Edge is much fairer than everywhere else. Places where 75 is an average, that gives you only 25% of scores to show satisfaction and whopping 75% of scorelines to convey a below average, mediocre or bad game. It hardly seems fair. A 7 is a very decent game, an 8 is a very good game, a 9 is a great game and a 10 is a generation defining classic. Whereas in most places you get high scores thrown about with little distinction between them because it would be a percieved insult to give a massive franchise anything below a 9.

Edge is one of the only places which gets it absolutely right.

Chemical_Viking

It sounds good on paper but the data they presented makes it suspect that EDGE is biased. There's a trend that on average they deliver worse scores to the PS3. While SOME scores like LBP was perfect, the data underlines how there's a large gap between the difference in scoring between the 360 and Sony, much bigger then it should it, were it simply mere coincidence.

[QUOTE="tok1879"][QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

LOGIC IS NOT MY FRIEND? Seriously, take a freaking science or statistics class.

"Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level and crime levels have increased sharply.

Hence, atmospheric CO2 causes crime."

How is that logical? That is EXACTLY what the blog is doing and exactly what the person I quoted was doing.

Just because two data sets have correlating trends does NOT mean that they are linked.

KingsMessenger

Please explain what is wrong with my statements? Honestly? I am just dying to hear what you have to say.

[QUOTE="Chemical_Viking"]

I think the style of reviewing used by Edge is much fairer than everywhere else. Places where 75 is an average, that gives you only 25% of scores to show satisfaction and whopping 75% of scorelines to convey a below average, mediocre or bad game. It hardly seems fair. A 7 is a very decent game, an 8 is a very good game, a 9 is a great game and a 10 is a generation defining classic. Whereas in most places you get high scores thrown about with little distinction between them because it would be a percieved insult to give a massive franchise anything below a 9.

Edge is one of the only places which gets it absolutely right.

Cevesun

It sounds good on paper but the data they presented makes it suspect that EDGE is biased. There's a trend that on average they deliver worse scores to the PS3. While SOME scores like LBP was perfect, the data underlines how there's a large gap between the difference in scoring between the 360 and Sony, much bigger then it should it, were it simply mere coincidence.

There is always a percieved bias in almost everything and it's very rarely true. I've never noticed a particular bias in Edge and I've been reading it for years. If there was, I wouldn't buy it.

I agree that he shouldn't have come to a full conclusion like, as I would have been reluctant to do so. I'ld have let everyone used the vital organ in their skull to come to their conclusions. But can you explain to me how the data is useless or insignificant? And if YOU were to conduct a test like this, how exactly would you go about it, sir?tok1879

I wouldn't that how. There is no viable way for proving anything beyond a correlation. The ONLY way you could even CLAIM anything beyond that is if you have a bias of your own, which would influence your interpretation of the data and would void the entire interpretation anyway.

Also, as I said before, unless you can isolate the THOUSANDS of other factors, then there is NOTHING to this claim. Ask anyone who has EVER done critical reviews for a magazine, like it or not, the day that you get the review copy in DOES influence the score a game gets. When you are facing a deadline and you are stressed beyond belief, you tend to score things lower. And that is just one possible factor. There are thousands of additional factors.

That is just the FIRST problem with this.

There are also the factors of why he created this in the first place(fanboyish bias of his own). Plus the specific nature of EDGE as a magazine and how they treat their scoring of games. And I could continue on for hours, but I think that I am done.

[QUOTE="Cevesun"]

[QUOTE="Chemical_Viking"]

I think the style of reviewing used by Edge is much fairer than everywhere else. Places where 75 is an average, that gives you only 25% of scores to show satisfaction and whopping 75% of scorelines to convey a below average, mediocre or bad game. It hardly seems fair. A 7 is a very decent game, an 8 is a very good game, a 9 is a great game and a 10 is a generation defining classic. Whereas in most places you get high scores thrown about with little distinction between them because it would be a percieved insult to give a massive franchise anything below a 9.

Edge is one of the only places which gets it absolutely right.

Chemical_Viking

It sounds good on paper but the data they presented makes it suspect that EDGE is biased. There's a trend that on average they deliver worse scores to the PS3. While SOME scores like LBP was perfect, the data underlines how there's a large gap between the difference in scoring between the 360 and Sony, much bigger then it should it, were it simply mere coincidence.

There is always a percieved bias in almost everything and it's very rarely true. I've never noticed a particular bias in Edge and I've been reading it for years. If there was, I wouldn't buy it.

Yet another EDGE topic about how EDGE is bias and yet all it takes into account is the bloody score.

The magazine is for reading, not for numbers and statistics. When other publications are as complete and professional as EDGE is, perhaps then I will give them a chance, but since they arent, and I enjoy actually reading the articles I will stick with it.

I have disagreed with them a number of times, but their reviews are informative, well written and professional. If they are displaying a pattern, then that is all it is.

You guys need to stop getting so bent out of shape over the sodding numbers.

[QUOTE="tok1879"] I agree that he shouldn't have come to a full conclusion like, as I would have been reluctant to do so. I'ld have let everyone used the vital organ in their skull to come to their conclusions. But can you explain to me how the data is useless or insignificant? And if YOU were to conduct a test like this, how exactly would you go about it, sir?KingsMessenger

I wouldn't that how. There is no viable way for proving anything beyond a correlation. The ONLY way you could even CLAIM anything beyond that is if you have a bias of your own, which would influence your interpretation of the data and would void the entire interpretation anyway.

Also, as I said before, unless you can isolate the THOUSANDS of other factors, then there is NOTHING to this claim. Ask anyone who has EVER done critical reviews for a magazine, like it or not, the day that you get the review copy in DOES influence the score a game gets. When you are facing a deadline and you are stressed beyond belief, you tend to score things lower. And that is just one possible factor. There are thousands of additional factors.

That is just the FIRST problem with this.

There are also the factors of why he created this in the first place(fanboyish bias of his own). Plus the specific nature of EDGE as a magazine and how they treat their scoring of games. And I could continue on for hours, but I think that I am done.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="tok1879"] Too late. I have. And i repeat. LOGIC iS NOT YOUR FRIEND!! Do I see a straw somewhere in that quote?tok1879

Please explain what is wrong with my statements? Honestly? I am just dying to hear what you have to say.

Wow you completely missed the point of my CO2 comment... Amazing. I thought it was obvious, but you proved me wrong.

What I was TRYING to show was that just because you can correlate two data trends does not make them inherently linked. Just because EDGE tends to give PS3 games lower scores do NOT mean that there is any sort of bias there. Could be some other factor that is not at all related to bias. Hence my example of the day they receive the review copy from Sony. That is just one possible explanation.

Also, I wasn't challenging his data set. His data set is perfectly valid. What I am challenging is the assumptions made from said data sit. There is not one single valid assumption that anyone can make from his data outside of the fact that there is a CORRELATION between games being on the PS3 and them receiving lower scores from EDGE than the overall Metacritic score. But that in itself is a useless and insignificant little fact.

I don't why some people on this thread is rejecting the statement made by the article. It has solid numbers to back up the premise. But worse of all I don't get why people would defend EDGE at all.

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Explain how please? Also if I was a fanboy and wrote the 360 has an extremely high fail rate does that somehow not make it true?

Espada12

Wow that's some logic you got there, it's not as though metacritic is a collection of everyone else scores.....

the thing is that its already been said that edge scores games differently than every other site/magazine... therefore since Metacritic is a collection of said sites/magazines, it wouldnt be a fair measuring stick

fact is, IF edge was biased against the ps3, then how did they score some ps3 games higher than metacritic?

point is, edge just has different tastes

If they are scoring PS3 games lower due to stress, that too is a bias. Again, bias itself isn't a particular cause, don't confuse it with something prejudice (which is a particular form of bias). It is a description of a pattern of behavior that could have a wide variety of causes. DerekLoffin

From the article, it is implied to be a prejudice, which is what I am addressing here. He states that EDGE has "bias to give Xbox 360 exclusives higher scores and PS3 exclusives lower scores."

That implies a preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment, which implies a prejudice.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

The data isn't flawed to be honest. It maybe a fanboy blog but doesn't make it any less true.

tok1879

It is inherently flawed given the scoring system employed by EDGE. Sometime as simple as the week that a game is scored could drop the scores from EDGE because they do not have a single scoring criteria beyond "Whatever you feel like giving it."

For all we know, Sony could send review copies to PS3 exclusives towards the end of the magazine cycle when the EDGE reviewers are under a lot more stress and would be more easily aggravated.

Also, all this proves is a correlation, not a causation. Until you can prove a causal link between the platform and the score, all you have here is an ultimately insignificant trend. The meat behind a review in EDGE is what is written. Can't say that for a number of other review sources, but it IS the case for EDGE.

As much as I deslike Edge, comparing their scores to Metacritic is flawed.

Metacritic does not add all scores and then devides that number by the number of sources. They have their own system. So it's not really an average in the strict sense of the word.

And, as someone else said, with so few examples, it could simply be coincidence.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] If they are scoring PS3 games lower due to stress, that too is a bias. Again, bias itself isn't a particular cause, don't confuse it with something prejudice (which is a particular form of bias). It is a description of a pattern of behavior that could have a wide variety of causes. KingsMessenger

From the article, it is implied to be a prejudice. He states that EDGE has "bias to give Xbox 360 exclusives higher scores and PS3 exclusives lower scores."

That implies a preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment, which is implies a prejudice.

[QUOTE="IronBass"]As much as I deslike Edge, comparing their scores to Metacritic is flawed. Metacritic does not add all scores and then devides that number by the number of sources. They have their own system. So it's really an average in the strict sense of the word. And, as someone else said, with so few examples, it could simply be coincidence.Hahadouken

the 360 was underrated too... guess theyre biased towards the 360 as well then

N4g? sorry no won't be giving it hits, wish I could read the article though *as long as its not an n4g article*

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] If they are scoring PS3 games lower due to stress, that too is a bias. Again, bias itself isn't a particular cause, don't confuse it with something prejudice (which is a particular form of bias). It is a description of a pattern of behavior that could have a wide variety of causes. DerekLoffin

From the article, it is implied to be a prejudice. He states that EDGE has "bias to give Xbox 360 exclusives higher scores and PS3 exclusives lower scores."

That implies a preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment, which is implies a prejudice.

with that logic, since 360 games were underrated as well... then they must be biased towards the 360

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] If they are scoring PS3 games lower due to stress, that too is a bias. Again, bias itself isn't a particular cause, don't confuse it with something prejudice (which is a particular form of bias). It is a description of a pattern of behavior that could have a wide variety of causes. DerekLoffin

From the article, it is implied to be a prejudice. He states that EDGE has "bias to give Xbox 360 exclusives higher scores and PS3 exclusives lower scores."

That implies a preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment, which is implies a prejudice.

A bias, when used in the context that HE USED it, means a prejudice.

The other context it could be used would be for me to say that "the week that the games got reviewed on introduces a bias to his data set."

It implies nothing relating to EDGE or their integrity as a publication. So either he has proven absolutely NOTHING about EDGE(which is what I am saying to begin with), or he is ignoring statistically significant variables which thereby invalidates any conclusions that he came to with his data set.

The control subject was the same for both platforms, and the PS3 was criminally underrated by EDGE. What's to debate? Whether or net MC is flawed, the same control variable was used for both comparisons. It is valid.Hahadouken

If we want talk about validity, the very fact that we are talking about subjective scores make all kind of comparisons invalid, because of the beautiful "I have a different tastes".

Secondly, the sites that review 360 and PS3 exclusives are not the same.

PS3: The Official Magazine and PSFocusdid not review Halo ODST, did they?

So no, the control subject is not the same. The metascore for 360 exclusives is not calculated with the exact same sources as PS3 exclusives, making all comparisons flawed.

[QUOTE="Cevesun"]

[QUOTE="Chemical_Viking"]

I think the style of reviewing used by Edge is much fairer than everywhere else. Places where 75 is an average, that gives you only 25% of scores to show satisfaction and whopping 75% of scorelines to convey a below average, mediocre or bad game. It hardly seems fair. A 7 is a very decent game, an 8 is a very good game, a 9 is a great game and a 10 is a generation defining classic. Whereas in most places you get high scores thrown about with little distinction between them because it would be a percieved insult to give a massive franchise anything below a 9.

Edge is one of the only places which gets it absolutely right.

Chemical_Viking

It sounds good on paper but the data they presented makes it suspect that EDGE is biased. There's a trend that on average they deliver worse scores to the PS3. While SOME scores like LBP was perfect, the data underlines how there's a large gap between the difference in scoring between the 360 and Sony, much bigger then it should it, were it simply mere coincidence.

There is always a percieved bias in almost everything and it's very rarely true. I've never noticed a particular bias in Edge and I've been reading it for years. If there was, I wouldn't buy it.

You can't say that. "Very rarely true," unless you can prove it which no one can. Yes there will always be percieved bias and whether it's true or not, however we need results written down in a timely fashion in order to progress as human beings. If all we did was argue about who was right and wrong, nothing would get done. Humanity isn't perfect, and so we can't be perfect in anything we do. The best we can do is provide statistical data. Then we go from there.

EDGE idenitifes as unique in the aspect that it rates games on the 1-10 scale. In that, it can hide any bias it wishes to display without it being obvious. With as much proof as we can use, the data shows what system they lean towards on average.

The denial by 360 fans is pathetic, we had a poster do some charts on this, he didn't use "flawed stats" he picked the highest rated exclusive on both systems, your the ones with flawed logic and blind folds on. Open your eyes.

Eddie-Vedder

correlation not causation. That is all I have to say. Prove causation and THEN you can claim that EDGE is biased against the PS3.

N4g? sorry no won't be giving it hits, wish I could read the article though *as long as its not an n4g article*

WilliamRLBaker

[QUOTE="IronBass"]As much as I deslike Edge, comparing their scores to Metacritic is flawed. Metacritic does not add all scores and then devides that number by the number of sources. They have their own system. So it's really an average in the strict sense of the word. And, as someone else said, with so few examples, it could simply be coincidence.Hahadouken

There are numerous other distracting variables that were not accounted for when creating the data set, so by default no valid conclusions can be assumed based on this data.

[QUOTE="Hahadouken"]The control subject was the same for both platforms, and the PS3 was criminally underrated by EDGE. What's to debate? Whether or net MC is flawed, the same control variable was used for both comparisons. It is valid.IronBass

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

From the article, it is implied to be a prejudice. He states that EDGE has "bias to give Xbox 360 exclusives higher scores and PS3 exclusives lower scores."

That implies a preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment, which is implies a prejudice.

ogvampire

with that logic, since 360 games were underrated as well... then they must be biased towards the 360

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

The denial by 360 fans is pathetic, we had a poster do some charts on this, he didn't use "flawed stats" he picked the highest rated exclusive on both systems, your the ones with flawed logic and blind folds on. Open your eyes.

KingsMessenger

correlation not causation. That is all I have to say. Prove causation and THEN you can claim that EDGE is biased against the PS3.

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

The denial by 360 fans is pathetic, we had a poster do some charts on this, he didn't use "flawed stats" he picked the highest rated exclusive on both systems, your the ones with flawed logic and blind folds on. Open your eyes.

correlation not causation. That is all I have to say. Prove causation and THEN you can claim that EDGE is biased against the PS3.

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

The denial by 360 fans is pathetic, we had a poster do some charts on this, he didn't use "flawed stats" he picked the highest rated exclusive on both systems, your the ones with flawed logic and blind folds on. Open your eyes.

KingsMessenger

correlation not causation. That is all I have to say. Prove causation and THEN you can claim that EDGE is biased against the PS3.

The way you're going about this is wrong. You care more about your image then actually proving whether or not the data is accurate. Even if God himself stated there was no bias, you'd fight it to your grave. Prove me wrong.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

The denial by 360 fans is pathetic, we had a poster do some charts on this, he didn't use "flawed stats" he picked the highest rated exclusive on both systems, your the ones with flawed logic and blind folds on. Open your eyes.

Eddie-Vedder

correlation not causation. That is all I have to say. Prove causation and THEN you can claim that EDGE is biased against the PS3.

the only thing it proved was that on average, EDGE scores games lower than most other sites... something we already knew

answer me this then: IF EDGE was biased towards the ps3, then how did they score several ps3 exclusives higher than the metacritic score?

[QUOTE="tok1879"][QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

Please explain what is wrong with my statements? Honestly? I am just dying to hear what you have to say.

KingsMessenger

Wow you completely missed the point of my CO2 comment... Amazing. I thought it was obvious, but you proved me wrong.

What I was TRYING to show was that just because you can correlate two data trends does not make them inherently linked. Just because EDGE tends to give PS3 games lower scores do NOT mean that there is any sort of bias there. Could be some other factor that is not at all related to bias. Hence my example of the day they receive the review copy from Sony. That is just one possible explanation.

Also, I wasn't challenging his data set. His data set is perfectly valid. What I am challenging is the assumptions made from said data sit. There is not one single valid assumption that anyone can make from his data outside of the fact that there is a CORRELATION between games being on the PS3 and them receiving lower scores from EDGE than the overall Metacritic score. But that in itself is a useless and insignificant little fact.

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] No, it states what exactly it shows, a bias. A bias is a bias. It is you assuming that the only cause he is allowing for it is prejudice when he said nothing of the sort. I would say it could well be due to prejudice as a chief suspect, but I wouldn't say that was the conclusion made because it wasn't. If you want to counter this argument at this point, you got no choice but to start some number crunching of your own. DerekLoffin

with that logic, since 360 games were underrated as well... then they must be biased towards the 360

Have you ever actually bothered to READ EDGE? Or are you basing everything you say on scores that EDGE really doesn't care about(they tried to stop giving games scores altogether).

EDGE is not biased. Anyone who isn't a fanboy that has actually bothered to read the magazine can tell you this. But whatever... I give up. You guys can keep on with your conspiracy theories and put on your tinfoil hats, but I can't even begin to express how poorly founded most of your assumptions are.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

From the article, it is implied to be a prejudice. He states that EDGE has "bias to give Xbox 360 exclusives higher scores and PS3 exclusives lower scores."

That implies a preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment, which is implies a prejudice.

KingsMessenger

A bias, when used in the context that HE USED it, means a prejudice.

The other context it could be used would be for me to say that "the week that the games got reviewed on introduces a bias to his data set."

It implies nothing relating to EDGE or their integrity as a publication. So either he has proven absolutely NOTHING about EDGE(which is what I am saying to begin with), or he is ignoring statistically significant variables which thereby invalidates any conclusions that he came to with his data set.

Dude lol? NOTHING is perfect there are always flaws, but that doesn't mean you completly disreagard what's presented. Soooo much denial.Eddie-Vedder

And all of a sudden, you're starting to make sense. But you still failed with your CO2 example as it seemed to me like you were presenting a straw argument. And your excuse for the day they receive review copies doesn't make much sense either. That said, i could help you out with a possible explanation. Perhaps they don't enjoy the ps3 controller as much as they do that of the 360 resulting in a less enjoyable experience. Or maybe the XMB interface is too cluttered for them. I agree though that i wouldn't have come to that conclusion that directly. But the data is there, and it shows that they score ps3 games much less than they do for 360 games on average. And unless you can come up with how the data is flawed, how else can one prove the bias without having them confess to it?tok1879

You can't prove a bias. Not just because it doesn't exists. But also because there is no way to isolate it within any data set.

Feel free to continue with your conspiracy theories, but I suggest you actually try to read their magazine and then come back and tell me it is biased.

[QUOTE="Hahadouken"][QUOTE="IronBass"]As much as I deslike Edge, comparing their scores to Metacritic is flawed. Metacritic does not add all scores and then devides that number by the number of sources. They have their own system. So it's really an average in the strict sense of the word. And, as someone else said, with so few examples, it could simply be coincidence.ogvampire

the 360 was underrated too... guess theyre biased towards the 360 as well then

The data in the article is correct, yes, but data is still just data. Honestly, I think it's just a coincidence. Edge have praised Ps3 plenty, not just in the review section either.angelkimne

obviously

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="ogvampire"]

with that logic, since 360 games were underrated as well... then they must be biased towards the 360

KingsMessenger

Have you ever actually bothered to READ EDGE? Or are you basing everything you say on scores that EDGE really doesn't care about(they tried to stop giving games scores altogether).

EDGE is not biased. Anyone who isn't a fanboy that has actually bothered to read the magazine can tell you this. But whatever... I give up. You guys can keep on with your conspiracy theories and put on your tinfoil hats, but I can't even begin to express how poorly founded most of your assumptions are.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] No, it states what exactly it shows, a bias. A bias is a bias. It is you assuming that the only cause he is allowing for it is prejudice when he said nothing of the sort. I would say it could well be due to prejudice as a chief suspect, but I wouldn't say that was the conclusion made because it wasn't. If you want to counter this argument at this point, you got no choice but to start some number crunching of your own. DerekLoffin

A bias, when used in the context that HE USED it, means a prejudice.

The other context it could be used would be for me to say that "the week that the games got reviewed on introduces a bias to his data set."

It implies nothing relating to EDGE or their integrity as a publication. So either he has proven absolutely NOTHING about EDGE(which is what I am saying to begin with), or he is ignoring statistically significant variables which thereby invalidates any conclusions that he came to with his data set.

i love how logic and 'facts' are such fickle things in sw

once again, IF edge was biased towards the ps3, then how did they score several ps3 games higher than the metacritic average?

i would love to know why this 'fact' is ignored

N4g? sorry no won't be giving it hits, wish I could read the article though *as long as its not an n4g article*

WilliamRLBaker

[QUOTE="angelkimne"]The data in the article is correct, yes, but data is still just data. Honestly, I think it's just a coincidence. Edge have praised Ps3 plenty, not just in the review section either.88mphSlayer

obviously

2006, 2006, 2006, 2007.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="ogvampire"]

with that logic, since 360 games were underrated as well... then they must be biased towards the 360

KingsMessenger

Have you ever actually bothered to READ EDGE? Or are you basing everything you say on scores that EDGE really doesn't care about(they tried to stop giving games scores altogether).

EDGE is not biased. Anyone who isn't a fanboy that has actually bothered to read the magazine can tell you this. But whatever... I give up. You guys can keep on with your conspiracy theories and put on your tinfoil hats, but I can't even begin to express how poorly founded most of your assumptions are.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] Technically they are, but they are showing a much more extreme bias against PS3. Bias isn't something you can generally escape, we all have it in built in us to certain extents. In this particular case, Edge is showing a strong bias against PS3, and if we were to use their multiplatform as an benchmark, a bias towards 360, although all 3 types are biased low. Hahadouken

Have you ever actually bothered to READ EDGE? Or are you basing everything you say on scores that EDGE really doesn't care about(they tried to stop giving games scores altogether).

EDGE is not biased. Anyone who isn't a fanboy that has actually bothered to read the magazine can tell you this. But whatever... I give up. You guys can keep on with your conspiracy theories and put on your tinfoil hats, but I can't even begin to express how poorly founded most of your assumptions are.

CONCLUSIONS MADE BASED ON STATISTICS ARE NOT VALID UNLESS YOU CAN ISOLATE THE VARIABLES AND PROVE A DIRECT CAUSATION. THESE STATISTICS DO NOT DO THAT.