How can people possibly use metacritic as a credible source for unbiased reviews? They list every possible pro PS3 mag, website or anything else pro PS3 in the average. So of COURSE it'll seem like edge is biased. It couldn't possibly be because pro PS3 sites or mags overscore PS3 exclusives. That couldn't possibly be it.. :roll:
Very interesting article on Edge review scores
This topic is locked from further discussion.
If this were a case of just a few scattered ps3 exclusives scoring lower, then I wouldn't pay much attention, but there is quite a repetition going on here that is way to obvious to ignore. Look at that chart! :o
It's actually hard to argue with the blog, to be honest. The point of the blog is, there isn't a tangible fact vs. opinionaspect when it comes to Edge's reviews. Period. It would be expected that opinion can vary, but there is always some sort of readable sense in it. Egde giving PS3 games near CONSISTENTLY lower scores than 360 isn't just coincidence. It's fact. I never trusted Edge (FFX six and FFXIII 5?) but this puts the nail in the coffin.
[QUOTE="Xalaten"]I think one thing that CAN be said is that someway, somehow, Edge reviewers are out of touch with the majority of other reviewers.88mphSlayer
well that would be an interesting point if that made any sense
reviewing isn't about doing what everybody else is doing, it's about giving the game sitting in front of you a score
Picked at random, out of a hat? The thing about video games compared to other mediums is it's not just a score you dole out based on "the experience" like watching a film. Maybe YOU love big robots, so you think Gundam is the best game on the market. Big ass robots, breaking ****, 10/10. What an experience. The problem is that the portions of the game that can be viewed objectively, like the technical graphics, sound, controls, gameplay, presentation of a game have a huge impact on the overall quality of it. These things are not subjective. There is no argument to be made for sub-par framerate, screen tear, audio glitches... those are not artistic choices made to the game, they are technical flaws and should be addressed accordingly, and CONSISTENTLY. It's not "well I liked Shadow of the Colossus so excuse the garbage framerate". No. People need to know they may like the game a lot, but it may give them migraines if they play it. It's irresponsible in this kind of industry to base heavily weighted reviews on how some guy was feeling today. Gears doesn't get knocked too much for the joke of a story, ridiculously 1-dimensional characters, etc., because the core game is very well made, the controls are tight, there are not a lot of technical flaws, and the gameplay works really well on a technical level. Bullets hit who they are supposed to. Appropriate damage is done. Video game reviewing is not just a passive "hmm I liked that" experience. There is a lot more responsibility than that to let consumers know whether these products are worth the money. A great game like the Total War games or Dawn of War can be rendered an unplayable mess with technical issues. On the same token, a game like Oblivion overcomes the technical shortcomings because of the sheer volume of interesting content. Enough with the "it's just some guys opinion" nonsense, you all know that isn't true. Video game DEVS take their Metacritic rating very seriously, whether you want to believe it or not. A 90+ MC is something that is displayed on box wrappers, used as a selling feature of a game. Forget how you feel about aggregate scores for a second and realize that yes, MC is the standard of the industry. Downplaying of MC is a losing battle. ;)A good way to measure a site's objectivity is how close they come to that metacritic average. I can't believe the gaul of some posters saying that there is a conspiracy theory at work in this article. It's one site. The real conspiracy theory is the one assumed by the people who argue against the article: You would have to argue that there is a MASSIVE conspiracy of pro-sony sites jacking up the meta critic average in Sony's favor. INSANE! Edge has been proven biased, end of story (PS, they didn't pull the numbers that they wanted to. Read the article)GunSmith1_basic
Precisely.
Do pro-360 sites and publications not exist? Of course they do. Metacritic weighs certain sites more heavily than others when comprising the average. "SonyFanSite" does not have as much credibility as GS, EG, IGN, 1UP, GT, GB, etc.How can people possibly use metacritic as a credible source for unbiased reviews? They list every possible pro PS3 mag, website or anything else pro PS3 in the average. So of COURSE it'll seem like edge is biased. It couldn't possibly be because pro PS3 sites or mags overscore PS3 exclusives. That couldn't possibly be it.. :roll:
xsubtownerx
There are pro 360 sites and mags overscoring 360 exclusives too, and all of that is in the 360 average. So there's no real point in saying this.How can people possibly use metacritic as a credible source for unbiased reviews? They list every possible pro PS3 mag, website or anything else pro PS3 in the average. So of COURSE it'll seem like edge is biased. It couldn't possibly be because pro PS3 sites or mags overscore PS3 exclusives. That couldn't possibly be it.. :roll:
xsubtownerx
The only information that can be determined within those given parameters is that PS3 games on average have scored lower at Edge relative to meta scores than 360 games (within that given subset). The data set is really small to prove that Edge reviews PS3 gamers lower. To further infer that Edge is biased based on that information is going a step too far. What you can more conclusively determine from all the graphs is that edge tends to deviate from average scores quite often.
Bottom line from the chart:
Edge reviews top PS3 exclusives more harshly, and gives lower scores, versus the industry. It's implausible to claim that every other website out there is pro-Sony and Edge is the only true source. It is plausible to claim, given the chart, that Edge scores PS3 exclusives lower. Frankly, any site that gives MGS4 a 8/10 isn't worth reading anyways.
[QUOTE="88mphSlayer"][QUOTE="Xalaten"]I think one thing that CAN be said is that someway, somehow, Edge reviewers are out of touch with the majority of other reviewers.Hahadouken
well that would be an interesting point if that made any sense
reviewing isn't about doing what everybody else is doing, it's about giving the game sitting in front of you a score
Picked at random, out of a hat? The thing about video games compared to other mediums is it's not just a score you dole out based on "the experience" like watching a film. Maybe YOU love big robots, so you think Gundam is the best game on the market. Big ass robots, breaking ****, 10/10. What an experience. The problem is that the portions of the game that can be viewed objectively, like the technical graphics, sound, controls, gameplay, presentation of a game have a huge impact on the overall quality of it. These things are not subjective. There is no argument to be made for sub-par framerate, screen tear, audio glitches... those are not artistic choices made to the game, they are technical flaws and should be addressed accordingly, and CONSISTENTLY. It's not "well I liked Shadow of the Colossus so excuse the garbage framerate". No. People need to know they may like the game a lot, but it may give them migraines if they play it. It's irresponsible in this kind of industry to base heavily weighted reviews on how some guy was feeling today. Gears doesn't get knocked too much for the joke of a story, ridiculously 1-dimensional characters, etc., because the core game is very well made, the controls are tight, there are not a lot of technical flaws, and the gameplay works really well on a technical level. Bullets hit who they are supposed to. Appropriate damage is done. Video game reviewing is not just a passive "hmm I liked that" experience. There is a lot more responsibility than that to let consumers know whether these products are worth the money. A great game like the Total War games or Dawn of War can be rendered an unplayable mess with technical issues. On the same token, a game like Oblivion overcomes the technical shortcomings because of the sheer volume of interesting content. Enough with the "it's just some guys opinion" nonsense, you all know that isn't true. Video game DEVS take their Metacritic rating very seriously, whether you want to believe it or not. A 90+ MC is something that is displayed on box wrappers, used as a selling feature of a game. Forget how you feel about aggregate scores for a second and realize that yes, MC is the standard of the industry. Downplaying of MC is a losing battle. ;)when i took a year and a half of art classes in college, it was required to review eachother's works and the class would gather and everybody would judge eachother's works instead of simply having the teacher review everybody's by himself, the point being looking at other's works would give us insight into our own
when you judge art of all things, there was always a question of "what is subjective" and how much does it really count? ie: how could a student learn to improve their craft if they couldn't understand what was needed to improve? what you learned was how to objective look at subjectivity just as much as you look at technical merit, as in is there a central design? themes? does it work cohesively or is the work confused? similarly you have to judge a work based on what it's trying to do... similarly such objective looks at subjectivity can be applied to many aspects of a game simply because a game includes many elements of different arts such as music, audio, graphic design, and writing
if a game such as MGS4 is technically sound but horribly written in an objective manner, the reviewer has to mention this if it inhibits the enjoyment a consumer could get out of it
if a game such as Killzone 2 is technically brilliant but has mediocre design in its campaign, the reviewer has to mention this
a game is many parts coming together, how a reviewer judges whether a part can fail the experience is the subjective part of reviewing, not whether or not somebody likes giant robots
just another example using GTA4, this game got many 10/10's, and lets be honest it is a technically sound game, the themes are all there, the graphic design works, the engine works really well, there's not THAT many bugs, the missions are fun, etc., but inevitably 2 things brought down the experience for a lot of gamers: how the story ends, and the buddy system... a game designer would want to know if those things are killing his game, a gamer would want to know those things exist before buying a game, so i don't see how a reviewer could objectively ignore real faults in a game simply because it's technically sound
as it is, imo a lot of people should just go read the Edge reviews and objectively look at whether there is reason in their madness, or whether they truly are biased
[QUOTE="88mphSlayer"][QUOTE="Xalaten"]I think one thing that CAN be said is that someway, somehow, Edge reviewers are out of touch with the majority of other reviewers.Hahadouken
well that would be an interesting point if that made any sense
reviewing isn't about doing what everybody else is doing, it's about giving the game sitting in front of you a score
Picked at random, out of a hat? The thing about video games compared to other mediums is it's not just a score you dole out based on "the experience" like watching a film. Maybe YOU love big robots, so you think Gundam is the best game on the market. Big ass robots, breaking ****, 10/10. What an experience. The problem is that the portions of the game that can be viewed objectively, like the technical graphics, sound, controls, gameplay, presentation of a game have a huge impact on the overall quality of it. These things are not subjective. There is no argument to be made for sub-par framerate, screen tear, audio glitches... those are not artistic choices made to the game, they are technical flaws and should be addressed accordingly, and CONSISTENTLY. It's not "well I liked Shadow of the Colossus so excuse the garbage framerate". No. People need to know they may like the game a lot, but it may give them migraines if they play it. It's irresponsible in this kind of industry to base heavily weighted reviews on how some guy was feeling today. Gears doesn't get knocked too much for the joke of a story, ridiculously 1-dimensional characters, etc., because the core game is very well made, the controls are tight, there are not a lot of technical flaws, and the gameplay works really well on a technical level. Bullets hit who they are supposed to. Appropriate damage is done. Video game reviewing is not just a passive "hmm I liked that" experience. There is a lot more responsibility than that to let consumers know whether these products are worth the money. A great game like the Total War games or Dawn of War can be rendered an unplayable mess with technical issues. On the same token, a game like Oblivion overcomes the technical shortcomings because of the sheer volume of interesting content. Enough with the "it's just some guys opinion" nonsense, you all know that isn't true. Video game DEVS take their Metacritic rating very seriously, whether you want to believe it or not. A 90+ MC is something that is displayed on box wrappers, used as a selling feature of a game. Forget how you feel about aggregate scores for a second and realize that yes, MC is the standard of the industry. Downplaying of MC is a losing battle. ;)This might be the most intelligent post I've seen on System Wars. Congratulations! I totally agree, gaming as a medium isn't all just "this is my opinion". I don't like Fallout 3, but I think the game has a lot of things going on for it for those that like the genre. Same with sports games, I don't like them but many are superbly made and targeted toward a specific group. Great post.
[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]There are pro 360 sites and mags overscoring 360 exclusives too, and all of that is in the 360 average. So there's no real point in saying this. How so? If I'm not mistaken, there are more pro PS3 sites and mags out there than there are for the 360. I could be wrong of course.How can people possibly use metacritic as a credible source for unbiased reviews? They list every possible pro PS3 mag, website or anything else pro PS3 in the average. So of COURSE it'll seem like edge is biased. It couldn't possibly be because pro PS3 sites or mags overscore PS3 exclusives. That couldn't possibly be it.. :roll:
idontbeliveit
Bottom line from the chart:
Edge reviews top PS3 exclusives more harshly, and gives lower scores, versus the industry. It's implausible to claim that every other website out there is pro-Sony and Edge is the only true source. It is plausible to claim, given the chart, that Edge scores PS3 exclusives lower. Frankly, any site that gives MGS4 a 8/10 isn't worth reading anyways.
CStheGreat
except that they gave lower scores for 360 and multiplatform games as well
so the bottom line from the chart is:
edge reviews games more harshly, and usually gives lower scores versus the industry.
If your Soley looking at Numbers from Edge reviews, Your doing it wrong. Read there reviews that is the main reason people care about edge because IMO they are best written reviews around and they can Justify there points very well.
[QUOTE="88mphSlayer"][QUOTE="Xalaten"]I think one thing that CAN be said is that someway, somehow, Edge reviewers are out of touch with the majority of other reviewers.Hahadouken
well that would be an interesting point if that made any sense
reviewing isn't about doing what everybody else is doing, it's about giving the game sitting in front of you a score
Picked at random, out of a hat? The thing about video games compared to other mediums is it's not just a score you dole out based on "the experience" like watching a film. Maybe YOU love big robots, so you think Gundam is the best game on the market. Big ass robots, breaking ****, 10/10. What an experience. The problem is that the portions of the game that can be viewed objectively, like the technical graphics, sound, controls, gameplay, presentation of a game have a huge impact on the overall quality of it. These things are not subjective. There is no argument to be made for sub-par framerate, screen tear, audio glitches... those are not artistic choices made to the game, they are technical flaws and should be addressed accordingly, and CONSISTENTLY. It's not "well I liked Shadow of the Colossus so excuse the garbage framerate". No. People need to know they may like the game a lot, but it may give them migraines if they play it. It's irresponsible in this kind of industry to base heavily weighted reviews on how some guy was feeling today. Gears doesn't get knocked too much for the joke of a story, ridiculously 1-dimensional characters, etc., because the core game is very well made, the controls are tight, there are not a lot of technical flaws, and the gameplay works really well on a technical level. Bullets hit who they are supposed to. Appropriate damage is done. Video game reviewing is not just a passive "hmm I liked that" experience. There is a lot more responsibility than that to let consumers know whether these products are worth the money. A great game like the Total War games or Dawn of War can be rendered an unplayable mess with technical issues. On the same token, a game like Oblivion overcomes the technical shortcomings because of the sheer volume of interesting content. Enough with the "it's just some guys opinion" nonsense, you all know that isn't true. Video game DEVS take their Metacritic rating very seriously, whether you want to believe it or not. A 90+ MC is something that is displayed on box wrappers, used as a selling feature of a game. Forget how you feel about aggregate scores for a second and realize that yes, MC is the standard of the industry. Downplaying of MC is a losing battle. ;)everything you just mentioned is covered by EDGE. In their text review. Their score is just the reviewer's gut reaction to his experience.
But lord knows that is a foreign concept to System Wars which is so preoccupied by god damn scores that it NEVER bothers to read reviews. Unlike websites like IGN which basically summarize a game in the text review and then use their freaking "score" to critique everything else, EDGE actually WRITES a critique. They actually use the text of the review to give their readers an OUTSTANDING idea of what the game is, what it does well, what it does wrong, and overall impressions of the game. They just use the score reflect the reaction of the reviewer. They don't color up their scores with BS "objective" nonsense. You CANNOT quantify features like graphics, gameplay or presentation and have the number actually MEAN anything. That is the inherent problem with EVERY score. What makes a game like Metro 2033 a 7.5 in graphics and a game like MW2 a 9.0 in graphics? Specifically when you get down to comparing the games side by side and you see that Metro 2033 CRUSHES MW2 graphically. What makes one game a 9.2 in gameplay and another game a 9.0? Scores are useless to begin with. If you want to know how good a game is, find a freaking attention span somewhere and READ a 2 page review. Takes at most 5 minutes.
But that isn't what this thread is about so I will leave it at that.
Also, the only reason Metacritic is the "standard of the industry" is because people are so obsessed with instant gratification nonsense that they can't be bothered to form their own opinions. So they waste their time looking at "numbers" that reflect other peoples opinions. Numbers that have absolutely no context and no structure. You can say it is a "losing battle" to downplay Metacritic, but the people who actually WRITE the reviews... well lets just say I have never met a single one who feels that Metacritic is a truly valid way to guage how good a game is. It is good at giving you a general idea(it is outstanding at letting you know "This game is good. This game is bad"), but you cannot take the metascore and say "this game is a 92. And this game is an 86." You CANNOT look at a Metascore and say "This game is better than this game because it has a higher Metascore."
But somehow you are going to try to make the argument that such a use of metacritic is actually valid. And honestly, I could care less. Feel free to over emphasize the value of substanceless numbers that are "aggregated" without regard to any attention to the specific content or overall impression of the review...
Picked at random, out of a hat? The thing about video games compared to other mediums is it's not just a score you dole out based on "the experience" like watching a film. Maybe YOU love big robots, so you think Gundam is the best game on the market. Big ass robots, breaking ****, 10/10. What an experience. The problem is that the portions of the game that can be viewed objectively, like the technical graphics, sound, controls, gameplay, presentation of a game have a huge impact on the overall quality of it. These things are not subjective. There is no argument to be made for sub-par framerate, screen tear, audio glitches... those are not artistic choices made to the game, they are technical flaws and should be addressed accordingly, and CONSISTENTLY. It's not "well I liked Shadow of the Colossus so excuse the garbage framerate". No. People need to know they may like the game a lot, but it may give them migraines if they play it. It's irresponsible in this kind of industry to base heavily weighted reviews on how some guy was feeling today. Gears doesn't get knocked too much for the joke of a story, ridiculously 1-dimensional characters, etc., because the core game is very well made, the controls are tight, there are not a lot of technical flaws, and the gameplay works really well on a technical level. Bullets hit who they are supposed to. Appropriate damage is done. Video game reviewing is not just a passive "hmm I liked that" experience. There is a lot more responsibility than that to let consumers know whether these products are worth the money. A great game like the Total War games or Dawn of War can be rendered an unplayable mess with technical issues. On the same token, a game like Oblivion overcomes the technical shortcomings because of the sheer volume of interesting content. Enough with the "it's just some guys opinion" nonsense, you all know that isn't true. Video game DEVS take their Metacritic rating very seriously, whether you want to believe it or not. A 90+ MC is something that is displayed on box wrappers, used as a selling feature of a game. Forget how you feel about aggregate scores for a second and realize that yes, MC is the standard of the industry. Downplaying of MC is a losing battle. ;)[QUOTE="Hahadouken"][QUOTE="88mphSlayer"]
well that would be an interesting point if that made any sense
reviewing isn't about doing what everybody else is doing, it's about giving the game sitting in front of you a score
KingsMessenger
everything you just mentioned is covered by EDGE. In their text review. Their score is just the reviewer's gut reaction to his experience.
But lord knows that is a foreign concept to System Wars which is so preoccupied by god damn scores that it NEVER bothers to read reviews. Unlike websites like IGN which basically summarize a game in the text review and then use their freaking "score" to critique everything else, EDGE actually WRITES a critique. They actually use the text of the review to give their readers an OUTSTANDING idea of what the game is, what it does well, what it does wrong, and overall impressions of the game. They just use the score reflect the reaction of the reviewer. They don't color up their scores with BS "objective" nonsense. You CANNOT quantify features like graphics, gameplay or presentation and have the number actually MEAN anything. That is the inherent problem with EVERY score. What makes a game like Metro 2033 a 7.5 in graphics and a game like MW2 a 9.0 in graphics? Specifically when you get down to comparing the games side by side and you see that Metro 2033 CRUSHES MW2 graphically. What makes one game a 9.2 in gameplay and another game a 9.0? Scores are useless to begin with. If you want to know how good a game is, find a freaking attention span somewhere and READ a 2 page review. Takes at most 5 minutes.
But that isn't what this thread is about so I will leave it at that.
Also, the only reason Metacritic is the "standard of the industry" is because people are so obsessed with instant gratification nonsense that they can't be bothered to form their own opinions. So they waste their time looking at "numbers" that reflect other peoples opinions. Numbers that have absolutely no context and no structure. You can say it is a "losing battle" to downplay Metacritic, but the people who actually WRITE the reviews... well lets just say I have never met a single one who feels that Metacritic is a truly valid way to guage how good a game is. It is good at giving you a general idea(it is outstanding at letting you know "This game is good. This game is bad"), but you cannot take the metascore and say "this game is a 92. And this game is an 86." You CANNOT look at a Metascore and say "This game is better than this game because it has a higher Metascore."
But somehow you are going to try to make the argument that such a use of metacritic is actually valid. And honestly, I could care less. Feel free to over emphasize the value of substanceless numbers that are "aggregated" without regard to any attention to the specific content or overall impression of the review...
Yes, there is an objective viewpoint, and it has to appear in the review as well. If a reviewer isn't able to sum up the review in a score, then just dump the score. It's simply a sign of bad judgement when a score doesn't correlate with the review itself. People can't underestimate scores. I feel many overemphasize them, but their importance is obvious. Reviews aren't supposed to be a gut reaction from a reviewer, they are theses of a game's qualities and faults, how they tie together and stand in the medium of today. I love Kingdom Hearts, I give it a 10, but I know as much as the next guy that if I would be making a review for the masses, it would score much lower. It has many flaws others would overlook. Metacritic isn't being used here as an indomitable truth of a game's qualities. It is used here to see how Edge's scores compare. And they are incredibly unbalanced when it comes to consoles. One thing is being harsh, but they are noticeably more harsh to the PS3 than the 360 or multiplats. That's just apparent from a glance.
A person that reviews for fun, like me, is allowed to make some personal decisions on a score. But a professional reviewer is supposed to be able to gauge which game is good, which is bad, which to buy, which to ignore. If the reviews are only based on the opinion of one person (and the text is molded thusly), then they're doing their job wrong.
Correlation=/= Causation
-Snooze-
People just love that claim. But it's just that: a claim. I don't remember the exact quote, but Emilie du Châtelet said: "If there is much evidence to support it, and nothing that goes against it, then it must be the truth." That's just that. This article definitely insinuates that there is some bias present. Then it is up to others to try and prove the opposite. There is absolutely nothing that says this isn't biased. Sometimes, correlation isn't causation, but there are cases where correlation does indeed represent causation. This is one of those cases.
Ever since that guy had those charts everyone on system wars know how biased Edge is, I mean rating 360 exclusives the same as everyone else and yet PS3 exclusives are underrated by 9.61?? Pretty obvious. Edge does write well though.FIipModeThis. It's pretty odd that EDGE on average gives PS3 exclusives harsher scores. Very odd indeed.
Here is FACTS for those that don't understand those fancy graphs.
---------
Avg. score from Edge for the top 30 multiplatform games = 80%
Avg. score from meta for the top 30 multiplatform games = 87%
Avg. score from Edge for the top 30 360 exclusives = 79%
Avg. score from meta for the top 30 360 exclusives = 81%
Avg. score from Edge for the top 30 PS3 exclusives = 67%
Avg. score from meta for the top 30 PS3 exclusives = 82%
Number of multiplatforms scored 9 or higher by Edge = 10
Number of 360 exclusives scored 9 or higher by Edge = 11
Number of PS3 exclusives scored 9 or higher by Edge = 3
Number of multiplatforms scored by Edge the same or higher than the meta = 5
Number of 360 exclusives scored by Edge the same or higher than the meta = 12
Number of ps3 exclusives scored by Edge the same or higher than the meta = 4
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.
KingsMessenger
funny how the the day of the week doesnt affect 360 scores or that none of the 360 games are sent towards the end of the magazine cycle. and you say the number doesnt matter but the 360 exclusives seem to be spot on. lol really? really?!?
Here is FACTS for those that don't understand those fancy graphs.
---------
Avg. score from Edge for the top 30 multiplatform games = 80%
Avg. score from meta for the top 30 multiplatform games = 87%
Avg. score from Edge for the top 30 360 exclusives = 79%
Avg. score from meta for the top 30 360 exclusives = 81%
Avg. score from Edge for the top 30 PS3 exclusives = 67%
Avg. score from meta for the top 30 PS3 exclusives = 82%
Number of multiplatforms scored 9 or higher by Edge = 10
Number of 360 exclusives scored 9 or higher by Edge = 11
Number of PS3 exclusives scored 9 or higher by Edge = 3
Number of multiplatforms scored by Edge the same or higher than the meta = 5
Number of 360 exclusives scored by Edge the same or higher than the meta = 12
Number of ps3 exclusives scored by Edge the same or higher than the meta = 4SolidTy
Yet people continue to point and laugh and call people names for seeing the obvious truth that something fishy is going on with Edge and the PS3.
[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]
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.
karsa-orlong
funny how the the day of the week doesnt affect 360 scores or that none of the 360 games are sent towards the end of the magazine cycle. and you say the number doesnt matter but the 360 exclusives seem to be spot on. lol really? really?!?
without accurate data, who is to say that MS doesn't ship review copies during more favorable times of the month? A purely coincidental event like that could be statistically relevant.
I was just giving an example of one possible distracting variable. There are plenty of other things I could have brought up, but I used that because it was simple and easy to understand. To put it simply, data that does not account for distracting variables, and does not do anything to isolate the test variables is not data that can be used to form any sort of concrete conclusions. As I and a number of other people have said, correlation does not prove causation. That was my point.
[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]
Correlation=/= Causation
calvinsora
People just love that claim. But it's just that: a claim. I don't remember the exact quote, but Emilie du Châtelet said: "If there is much evidence to support it, and nothing that goes against it, then it must be the truth." That's just that. This article definitely insinuates that there is some bias present. Then it is up to others to try and prove the opposite. There is absolutely nothing that says this isn't biased. Sometimes, correlation isn't causation, but there are cases where correlation does indeed represent causation. This is one of those cases.
I could claim that Because the number of pirates(sea-pirates...) has decreased at the same time that Global Warming has increased, the two are directly related and that lack of pirates causes global warming. Now, it is impossible to disprove that statement. You cannot categorically prove that lack of pirates doesn't increase global warming unless you were to increase the number of pirates in the world and see global warming continue to go up. There are however, other, more relevant factors that cause global warming.
When dealing with statistics, it is up to the person making the claim to prove causation. Unless they can prove causation, all that is provable is correlation. But a correlation is not a valid basis for any sort of concrete conclusions.
And if anyone shows that the data does not prove causation, then that invalidates any sort of causal conclusions made based on the data until the data is restructured to accurately prove causation.
Yes, there is an objective viewpoint, and it has to appear in the review as well. If a reviewer isn't able to sum up the review in a score, then just dump the score. It's simply a sign of bad judgement when a score doesn't correlate with the review itself. People can't underestimate scores. I feel many overemphasize them, but their importance is obvious. Reviews aren't supposed to be a gut reaction from a reviewer, they are theses of a game's qualities and faults, how they tie together and stand in the medium of today. I love Kingdom Hearts, I give it a 10, but I know as much as the next guy that if I would be making a review for the masses, it would score much lower. It has many flaws others would overlook. Metacritic isn't being used here as an indomitable truth of a game's qualities. It is used here to see how Edge's scores compare. And they are incredibly unbalanced when it comes to consoles. One thing is being harsh, but they are noticeably more harsh to the PS3 than the 360 or multiplats. That's just apparent from a glance.
A person that reviews for fun, like me, is allowed to make some personal decisions on a score. But a professional reviewer is supposed to be able to gauge which game is good, which is bad, which to buy, which to ignore. If the reviews are only based on the opinion of one person (and the text is molded thusly), then they're doing their job wrong.
calvinsora
EDGE has said repeatedly that they would like to do away with their scores altogether. However, people have demanded that EDGE continue scoring games, for some reason...
Also, who is to define what a score should be? I mean, EDGE's text review does everything that you claim a review should do. That content is there. Their readers get EXACTLY what they should from the review. Why does the score need to do the same? Why can't the score simply be the reviewers opinion of the game?
Why is the score so important? Honestly, I don't think that it is. I can make my own decision on whether I want a game or not, and giving me some number that defines "how good a game is" doesn't make sense. There is no way that a number, in itself, can accurate capture all of the nuances of a game. That is why I read reviews. I see what is written. I think about what is written. And then I draw my own conclusions on whether or not I want a game. EDGE agrees with me on this. They worry about writing a good, informative review. And then they don't worry about the scoring at all. They don't want their readers to just look at a score and think that is good enough. They want their readers to actually understand what they are getting before they purchase a game.
[QUOTE="calvinsora"]
[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]
Correlation=/= Causation
KingsMessenger
People just love that claim. But it's just that: a claim. I don't remember the exact quote, but Emilie du Châtelet said: "If there is much evidence to support it, and nothing that goes against it, then it must be the truth." That's just that. This article definitely insinuates that there is some bias present. Then it is up to others to try and prove the opposite. There is absolutely nothing that says this isn't biased. Sometimes, correlation isn't causation, but there are cases where correlation does indeed represent causation. This is one of those cases.
I could claim that Because the number of pirates(sea-pirates...) has decreased at the same time that Global Warming has increased, the two are directly related and that lack of pirates causes global warming. Now, it is impossible to disprove that statement. You cannot categorically prove that lack of pirates doesn't increase global warming unless you were to increase the number of pirates in the world and see global warming continue to go up. There are however, other, more relevant factors that cause global warming.
When dealing with statistics, it is up to the person making the claim to prove causation. Unless they can prove causation, all that is provable is correlation. But a correlation is not a valid basis for any sort of concrete conclusions.
I could prove that the lack of sea-pirates doesn't cause global warming. First, global warming didn't start to appear until the world became heavily industrialized. Two, there is no statistical, factual or hypothetical reason for a lack of pirates to affect the heat of the world. It wouldn't be the lack of pirate ships, since there are still many, many ships, wooden, steel and more, on the sea every day. Then it is just down to the people on the ships, but them causing global warming is impossible (need I list why?). Then one could say it was due to the weapons they used, but there are even more weapons shot today as well. Ergo, the lack of pirates in the sea doesn't cause global warming. But that isn't the point. There isn't only nothing that doesn't disprove the bias, there is strong evidence to back it up. Even if there was no way to disprove that the lack of pirates caused global warming, there would still be nothing that supported that idea other than the fact that they aren't on the sea anymore, but that happened a while ago, before the problem even became apparent.
I'm not saying that Edge doesn't write well, or that it isn't a good read. But there is seriously something wrong with such a divergence between 360, multiplat and PS3 game scores, in favor of the first two. There is not only a slight divergence, there's a BIG divergence, as Solid Ty pointed out. That's the core component of the matter.
How can people possibly use metacritic as a credible source for unbiased reviews? They list every possible pro PS3 mag, website or anything else pro PS3 in the average. So of COURSE it'll seem like edge is biased. It couldn't possibly be because pro PS3 sites or mags overscore PS3 exclusives. That couldn't possibly be it.. :roll:
There are pro 360 sites and mags overscoring 360 exclusives too, and all of that is in the 360 average. So there's no real point in saying this. How so? If I'm not mistaken, there are more pro PS3 sites and mags out there than there are for the 360. I could be wrong of course. I don't think that's the case. Why would there be? I scrolled down on metacritic for two games, PS3 and 360 exclusives, and there seemed to be about an equal amount of "pro" sites/mags for their respective console.I could prove that the lack of sea-pirates doesn't cause global warming. First, global warming didn't start to appear until the world became heavily industrialized. Two, there is no statistical, factual or hypothetical reason for a lack of pirates to affect the heat of the world. It wouldn't be the lack of pirate ships, since there are still many, many ships, wooden, steel and more, on the sea every day. Then it is just down to the people on the ships, but them causing global warming is impossible (need I list why?). Then one could say it was due to the weapons they used, but there are even more weapons shot today as well. Ergo, the lack of pirates in the sea doesn't cause global warming. But that isn't the point. There isn't only nothing that doesn't disprove the bias, there is strong evidence to back it up. Even if there was no way to disprove that the lack of pirates caused global warming, there would still be nothing that supported that idea other than the fact that they aren't on the sea anymore, but that happened a while ago, before the problem even became apparent.
I'm not saying that Edge doesn't write well, or that it isn't a good read. But there is seriously something wrong with such a divergence between 360, multiplat and PS3 game scores, in favor of the first two. There is not only a slight divergence, there's a BIG divergence, as Solid Ty pointed out. That's the core component of the matter.
calvinsora
My point was that just because a claim is made, that doesn't make it true. And statistics, without regard to distracting variables, is entirely useless. There is a reason why scientific experiments are closely controlled. If you were to prove string theory, but you failed to isolate even ONE variable that could have skewed your data set, then you would not get credit for proving string theory. Why? Because you didn't "prove" anything. You just stumbled upon a set of data that happens to suggest string theory. But until you isolate the significant variables, your data WILL not be accepted by the scientific community. The same principle applies to statistics. There are rules and a clearly defined structure for statistics. It ensures that data is as accurate is possible. But, no matter how much data you have, if you don't get rid of all of the distracting variables, then your data set is not going to "prove" anything. At best it will suggest that there is a relationship between two(or more) things. The cause of said relationship would not be "provable" with that data set. When you get down to data that is extremely refined but unable to isolate all variables, then you can start making basic assumptions. But even then you cannot really accurately claim a causal relationship...
[QUOTE="calvinsora"]
I could prove that the lack of sea-pirates doesn't cause global warming. First, global warming didn't start to appear until the world became heavily industrialized. Two, there is no statistical, factual or hypothetical reason for a lack of pirates to affect the heat of the world. It wouldn't be the lack of pirate ships, since there are still many, many ships, wooden, steel and more, on the sea every day. Then it is just down to the people on the ships, but them causing global warming is impossible (need I list why?). Then one could say it was due to the weapons they used, but there are even more weapons shot today as well. Ergo, the lack of pirates in the sea doesn't cause global warming. But that isn't the point. There isn't only nothing that doesn't disprove the bias, there is strong evidence to back it up. Even if there was no way to disprove that the lack of pirates caused global warming, there would still be nothing that supported that idea other than the fact that they aren't on the sea anymore, but that happened a while ago, before the problem even became apparent.
I'm not saying that Edge doesn't write well, or that it isn't a good read. But there is seriously something wrong with such a divergence between 360, multiplat and PS3 game scores, in favor of the first two. There is not only a slight divergence, there's a BIG divergence, as Solid Ty pointed out. That's the core component of the matter.
KingsMessenger
My point was that just because a claim is made, that doesn't make it true. And statistics, without regard to distracting variables, is entirely useless. There is a reason why scientific experiments are closely controlled. If you were to prove string theory, but you failed to isolate even ONE variable that could have skewed your data set, then you would not get credit for proving string theory. Why? Because you didn't "prove" anything. You just stumbled upon a set of data that happens to suggest string theory. But until you isolate the significant variables, your data WILL not be accepted by the scientific community. The same principle applies to statistics. There are rules and a clearly defined structure for statistics. It ensures that data is as accurate is possible. But, no matter how much data you have, if you don't get rid of all of the distracting variables, then your data set is not going to "prove" anything. At best it will suggest that there is a relationship between two(or more) things. The cause of said relationship would not be "provable" with that data set. When you get down to data that is extremely refined but unable to isolate all variables, then you can start making basic assumptions. But even then you cannot really accurately claim a causal relationship...
Well, I can't really argue with that in itself. I still find it highly suspect, and it at least proves a fertile ground for more inspection.
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]
Here is FACTS for those that don't understand those fancy graphs.
---------
Avg. score from Edge for the top 30 multiplatform games = 80%
Avg. score from meta for the top 30 multiplatform games = 87%
Avg. score from Edge for the top 30 360 exclusives = 79%
Avg. score from meta for the top 30 360 exclusives = 81%
Avg. score from Edge for the top 30 PS3 exclusives = 67%
Avg. score from meta for the top 30 PS3 exclusives = 82%
Number of multiplatforms scored 9 or higher by Edge = 10
Number of 360 exclusives scored 9 or higher by Edge = 11
Number of PS3 exclusives scored 9 or higher by Edge = 3
Number of multiplatforms scored by Edge the same or higher than the meta = 5
Number of 360 exclusives scored by Edge the same or higher than the meta = 12
Number of ps3 exclusives scored by Edge the same or higher than the meta = 4W1NGMAN-
Yet people continue to point and laugh and call people names for seeing the obvious truth that something fishy is going on with Edge and the PS3.
I think the typical knee jerk reaction is to point fingers at gamers for not accepting PS3 scores (perhaps throw the word fanboy in the claim to deter anyone from listening), or defending Edge's use of the 10 scale. As we can see in the post above, EDGE's use of the 10 scale actually doesn't vary too much from Metacritic average on 360 exclusives.
So, Multiplatform and 360 exclusives are pretty close to Meta, especially 360 exclusives. However, PS3 exclusives struggle at EDGE.
Something is off at EDGE, it's just a shame it took all these years up till 2010 for this to be exposed. Meanwhile, anyone that noticed anything prior were ridiculed, and even now there is a fierce resistance about this information.
Something is amiss, but we probably will never get the full story, ever.
As far as the variables involved, the end result is what we are looking at here, and that's what I posted above.
Instead of arguing about the factor's involved, I have a different approach or rather, two questions to ask :
- How many end results (EDGE's SCORES) will it take to convince anyone?
- How many years will it take for some folks to understand something is amiss at EDGE?
Of course, we know that EDGE staff has most likely stumbled onto this information/stats/charts/graphs about their scores now, so perhaps now they can begin to rectify this mess EDGE are in over the next 5 years. Perhaps they won't, in the meantime, we have data we can clearly look at.
Edge is biased and it's obvious - now statistically. What significance level you wanna use on those results?
LOL. Fanboy upset his favortie games aren't getting good scores. ZzzZzZZZzzZ nothing to see here.
Every review site is biased, you can't avoid it because humans aren't robots.
[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]
Here is FACTS for those that don't understand those fancy graphs.
---------
Avg. score from Edge for the top 30 multiplatform games = 80%
Avg. score from meta for the top 30 multiplatform games = 87%
Avg. score from Edge for the top 30 360 exclusives = 79%
Avg. score from meta for the top 30 360 exclusives = 81%
Avg. score from Edge for the top 30 PS3 exclusives = 67%
Avg. score from meta for the top 30 PS3 exclusives = 82%
Number of multiplatforms scored 9 or higher by Edge = 10
Number of 360 exclusives scored 9 or higher by Edge = 11
Number of PS3 exclusives scored 9 or higher by Edge = 3
Number of multiplatforms scored by Edge the same or higher than the meta = 5
Number of 360 exclusives scored by Edge the same or higher than the meta = 12
Number of ps3 exclusives scored by Edge the same or higher than the meta = 4SolidTy
Yet people continue to point and laugh and call people names for seeing the obvious truth that something fishy is going on with Edge and the PS3.
I think the typical knee jerk reaction is to point fingers at gamers for not accepting PS3 scores (perhaps throw the word fanboy in the claim to deter anyone from listening), or defending Edge's use of the 10 scale. As we can see in the post above, EDGE's use of the 10 scale actually doesn't vary too much from Metacritic average on 360 exclusives.
So, Multiplatform and 360 exclusives are pretty close to Meta, especially 360 exclusives. However, PS3 exclusives struggle at EDGE.
Something is off at EDGE, it's just a shame it took all these years up till 2010 for this to be exposed. Meanwhile, anyone that noticed anything prior were ridiculed, and even now there is a fierce resistance about this information.
Something is amiss, but we probably will never get the full story, ever.
As far as the variables involved, the end result is what we are looking at here, and that's what I posted above.
Instead of arguing about the factor's involved, I have a different approach or rather, two questions to ask :
- How many end results (EDGE's SCORES) will it take to convince anyone?
- How many years will it take for some folks to understand something is amiss at EDGE?
Of course, we know that EDGE staff has most likely stumbled onto this information/stats/charts/graphs about their scores now, so perhaps now they can begin to rectify this mess EDGE are in over the next 5 years. Perhaps they won't, in the meantime, we have data we can clearly look at.
not really... unless someone does a comparison of OTHER sites top 30 games scores vs. metacritic, this really has no context
for all we know, 'statistics' like this could show that just about every site would have you believe they are biased towards something
also, they didnt include the Wii... for all we know, EDGE could have even lower than average numbers for the Wii than the ps3
anyway, there are too many missing factors for these graphs to prove anything other than Edge giving lower than average scores to all games in general
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]
[QUOTE="W1NGMAN-"]
Yet people continue to point and laugh and call people names for seeing the obvious truth that something fishy is going on with Edge and the PS3.
ogvampire
I think the typical knee jerk reaction is to point fingers at gamers for not accepting PS3 scores (perhaps throw the word fanboy in the claim to deter anyone from listening), or defending Edge's use of the 10 scale. As we can see in the post above, EDGE's use of the 10 scale actually doesn't vary too much from Metacritic average on 360 exclusives.
So, Multiplatform and 360 exclusives are pretty close to Meta, especially 360 exclusives. However, PS3 exclusives struggle at EDGE.
Something is off at EDGE, it's just a shame it took all these years up till 2010 for this to be exposed. Meanwhile, anyone that noticed anything prior were ridiculed, and even now there is a fierce resistance about this information.
Something is amiss, but we probably will never get the full story, ever.
As far as the variables involved, the end result is what we are looking at here, and that's what I posted above.
Instead of arguing about the factor's involved, I have a different approach or rather, two questions to ask :
- How many end results (EDGE's SCORES) will it take to convince anyone?
- How many years will it take for some folks to understand something is amiss at EDGE?
Of course, we know that EDGE staff has most likely stumbled onto this information/stats/charts/graphs about their scores now, so perhaps now they can begin to rectify this mess EDGE are in over the next 5 years. Perhaps they won't, in the meantime, we have data we can clearly look at.
not really... unless someone does a comparison of OTHER sites top 30 games scores vs. metacritic, this really has no context
for all we know, 'statistics' like this could show that just about every site would have you believe they are biased towards something
also, they didnt include the Wii... for all we know, EDGE could have even lower than average numbers for the Wii than the ps3
anyway, there are too many missing factors for these graphs to prove anything other than Edge giving lower than average scores to all games in general
It's been done, someone from SW did this same thing for EDGE, IGN, Gamespot, Eurogamer and GT if I recall correctly, and the stats showed EDGE = Bias, everyone else only had small deviations, nothing that stood out, EDGE was the real shocker by a huge ammount. If you search "EDGE biased" or somehting on SW you'll probably find the thread.[QUOTE="ogvampire"]
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]
I think the typical knee jerk reaction is to point fingers at gamers for not accepting PS3 scores (perhaps throw the word fanboy in the claim to deter anyone from listening), or defending Edge's use of the 10 scale. As we can see in the post above, EDGE's use of the 10 scale actually doesn't vary too much from Metacritic average on 360 exclusives.
So, Multiplatform and 360 exclusives are pretty close to Meta, especially 360 exclusives. However, PS3 exclusives struggle at EDGE.
Something is off at EDGE, it's just a shame it took all these years up till 2010 for this to be exposed. Meanwhile, anyone that noticed anything prior were ridiculed, and even now there is a fierce resistance about this information.
Something is amiss, but we probably will never get the full story, ever.
As far as the variables involved, the end result is what we are looking at here, and that's what I posted above.
Instead of arguing about the factor's involved, I have a different approach or rather, two questions to ask :
- How many end results (EDGE's SCORES) will it take to convince anyone?
- How many years will it take for some folks to understand something is amiss at EDGE?
Of course, we know that EDGE staff has most likely stumbled onto this information/stats/charts/graphs about their scores now, so perhaps now they can begin to rectify this mess EDGE are in over the next 5 years. Perhaps they won't, in the meantime, we have data we can clearly look at.
Eddie-Vedder
not really... unless someone does a comparison of OTHER sites top 30 games scores vs. metacritic, this really has no context
for all we know, 'statistics' like this could show that just about every site would have you believe they are biased towards something
also, they didnt include the Wii... for all we know, EDGE could have even lower than average numbers for the Wii than the ps3
anyway, there are too many missing factors for these graphs to prove anything other than Edge giving lower than average scores to all games in general
It's been done, someone from SW did this same thing for EDGE, IGN, Gamespot, Eurogamer and GT if I recall correctly, and the stats showed EDGE = Bias, everyone else only had small deviations, nothing that stood out, EDGE was the real shocker by a huge ammount. If you search "EDGE biased" or somehting on SW you'll probably find the thread.searched around:
i only found this thread... claiming EDGE is biased towards PC games and ps3 games
i havent found anything regarding someone doing a similar 'study' of game reviews
would you happen to have a link to the thread you mentioned?
[QUOTE="calvinsora"]
Yes, there is an objective viewpoint, and it has to appear in the review as well. If a reviewer isn't able to sum up the review in a score, then just dump the score. It's simply a sign of bad judgement when a score doesn't correlate with the review itself. People can't underestimate scores. I feel many overemphasize them, but their importance is obvious. Reviews aren't supposed to be a gut reaction from a reviewer, they are theses of a game's qualities and faults, how they tie together and stand in the medium of today. I love Kingdom Hearts, I give it a 10, but I know as much as the next guy that if I would be making a review for the masses, it would score much lower. It has many flaws others would overlook. Metacritic isn't being used here as an indomitable truth of a game's qualities. It is used here to see how Edge's scores compare. And they are incredibly unbalanced when it comes to consoles. One thing is being harsh, but they are noticeably more harsh to the PS3 than the 360 or multiplats. That's just apparent from a glance.
A person that reviews for fun, like me, is allowed to make some personal decisions on a score. But a professional reviewer is supposed to be able to gauge which game is good, which is bad, which to buy, which to ignore. If the reviews are only based on the opinion of one person (and the text is molded thusly), then they're doing their job wrong.
KingsMessenger
EDGE has said repeatedly that they would like to do away with their scores altogether. However, people have demanded that EDGE continue scoring games, for some reason...
Also, who is to define what a score should be? I mean, EDGE's text review does everything that you claim a review should do. That content is there. Their readers get EXACTLY what they should from the review. Why does the score need to do the same? Why can't the score simply be the reviewers opinion of the game?
Why is the score so important? Honestly, I don't think that it is. I can make my own decision on whether I want a game or not, and giving me some number that defines "how good a game is" doesn't make sense. There is no way that a number, in itself, can accurate capture all of the nuances of a game. That is why I read reviews. I see what is written. I think about what is written. And then I draw my own conclusions on whether or not I want a game. EDGE agrees with me on this. They worry about writing a good, informative review. And then they don't worry about the scoring at all. They don't want their readers to just look at a score and think that is good enough. They want their readers to actually understand what they are getting before they purchase a game.
How is the score so important? Really? Did you just ask that? Do you understand that it is a factor to some whether a game was worthy of being purchased? Do you know the score they award affects the metacritic average? Do you know that some companies actually pay bonuses to devs if they get over a chosen metacritic score?How is the score so important? Really? Did you just ask that? Do you understand that it is a factor to some whether a game was worthy of being purchased? Do you know the score they award affects the metacritic average? Do you know that some companies actually pay bonuses to devs if they get over a chosen metacritic score? tok1879If people actually read the reviews, the scores would be far less important that they are.
[QUOTE="tok1879"]How is the score so important? Really? Did you just ask that? Do you understand that it is a factor to some whether a game was worthy of being purchased? Do you know the score they award affects the metacritic average? Do you know that some companies actually pay bonuses to devs if they get over a chosen metacritic score? IronBassIf people actually read the reviews, the scores would be far less important that they are. The magic word "IF."
The magic word "IF."tok1879That was the point he was trying to make. That the score is not important in comparison to the full review.
[QUOTE="tok1879"]The magic word "IF."IronBassThat was the point he was trying to make. That the score is not important in comparison to the full review. But the score matters. Not everyone reads the reviews, and it affects some people's purchasing decision. The score also affects their metacritic average which is also factored into a whole bunch of other decisions.
[QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="tok1879"]The magic word "IF."tok1879That was the point he was trying to make. That the score is not important in comparison to the full review. But the score matters. Not everyone reads the reviews, and it affects some people's purchasing decision. The score also affects their metacritic average which is also factored into a whole bunch of other decisions. The written content of an EDGE review does correlate to the score they give the game.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment