So, correlation is the newly adopted Edge defence? Might I remind you that correlation is a side effect of causation? And that correlation without causation over a large data set or large time period tends to disappear? Of course, even if it's causation, it does not automatically mean bias. Maybe the PS3 reviewers are harsh, and had they been given 360 games to review they would have given them lower scores too. That is certainly possible. Just ask yourselves - What is THE MOST PROBABLE explanation of the data. Can you give something which is more plausible than bias?
Very interesting article on Edge review scores
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Do you understand that it is a factor to some whether a game was worthy of being purchased? tok1879
A completely backwards and ignorant attitude. I don't think a numerical scoring system is a valuable scoring system. I wish reviewers would just use a "Highly Recommended" "Recommended" "Not Recommended" scale. Then use their review to expand upon their opinion, justify their opinion and then allow their readers to make their own opinion.
Do you know the score they award affects the metacritic average? tok1879
Yeah. I don't think Metacritic should matter either.
Do you know that some companies actually pay bonuses to devs if they get over a chosen metacritic score? tok1879
I know this as well. Doesn't make it that significantly. I mean, it encourages developers to make better games. But better sales also encourages developers to make better games. And there are plenty of other ways to incentivise quality work... Using Metacritic is just one way. If Metacritic wasn't around, they would just come up with a different way.
People worry about scores too much. If a game is good, it speaks for itself. Giving a number to say how good it is doesn't really work...
Can you give something which is more plausible than bias?KiZZo1Different reviewers?
If it was bias, why would they give Little Big Planet a 10/10? Or award the ps2 'hardware of the decade'? Or give Sony runner-up 'developer of the decade'?So, correlation is the newly adopted Edge defence? Might I remind you that correlation is a side effect of causation? And that correlation without causation over a large data set or large time period tends to disappear? Of course, even if it's causation, it does not automatically mean bias. Maybe the PS3 reviewers are harsh, and had they been given 360 games to review they would have given them lower scores too. That is certainly possible. Just ask yourselves - What is THE MOST PROBABLE explanation of the data. Can you give something which is more plausible than bias?
KiZZo1
So, correlation is the newly adopted Edge defence? Might I remind you that correlation is a side effect of causation? And that correlation without causation over a large data set or large time period tends to disappear? Of course, even if it's causation, it does not automatically mean bias. Maybe the PS3 reviewers are harsh, and had they been given 360 games to review they would have given them lower scores too. That is certainly possible. Just ask yourselves - What is THE MOST PROBABLE explanation of the data. Can you give something which is more plausible than bias?
KiZZo1
Could be something as simple as the EDGE staff liking Xbox 360 exclusives more because of the way they are designed. I mean, Halo 3 and Killzone 2 aren't similar games when you get down to how they approach making an FPS. Maybe the reviewer just so happens to prefer the Halo 3 style of design. That isn't a "bias" against the PS3. That is just down to personal preference. It could explain a fair amount of the difference given that this applies to more than one pair of exclusives between the two systems...
As for the correlation does not equal causation thing... The data set really is not that large. It is 30 pieces of data for each of the two platforms. A fair number. But not large enough to even rule out a purely coincidental occurance. I mean, take some time and flip a coin 30 times. Then do it again. And then again. Then come back here and try to tell me that all 3 times your data was very close to the 1:1 distribution that you would expect. You might be able to say that. But then again, you might not. In fact... I would bet money on you having at least one set of data that would be closer to a 2:1 distribution. I mean, pure bad luck could be the factor lowering PS3 scores with such a small data set. But there isn't much chance at getting a larger data given the relatively small number of exclusives that come out overall.
[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.
If you don't read the reviews then you have no right to complain about the scores. I can't even begin to put it any simpler than that.
[QUOTE="KiZZo1"]If it was bias, why would they give Little Big Planet a 10/10? Or award the ps2 'hardware of the decade'? Or give Sony runner-up 'developer of the decade'? Because bias is not a rule, it is a pattern, and outliers neither a pattern make nor break. Try again.So, correlation is the newly adopted Edge defence? Might I remind you that correlation is a side effect of causation? And that correlation without causation over a large data set or large time period tends to disappear? Of course, even if it's causation, it does not automatically mean bias. Maybe the PS3 reviewers are harsh, and had they been given 360 games to review they would have given them lower scores too. That is certainly possible. Just ask yourselves - What is THE MOST PROBABLE explanation of the data. Can you give something which is more plausible than bias?
samusarmada
[QUOTE="KiZZo1"]Can you give something which is more plausible than bias?IronBassDifferent reviewers? Which in itself is a bias. If the PS3 reviews are reviewing far more harshly than the 360, then Edge as a whole is bias.
[QUOTE="tok1879"]
A completely backwards and ignorant attitude. I don't think a numerical scoring system is a valuable scoring system. I wish reviewers would just use a "Highly Recommended" "Recommended" "Not Recommended" scale. Then use their review to expand upon their opinion, justify their opinion and then allow their readers to make their own opinion.
[QUOTE="tok1879"] Do you know the score they award affects the metacritic average? KingsMessenger
Yeah. I don't think Metacritic should matter either.
Do you know that some companies actually pay bonuses to devs if they get over a chosen metacritic score? tok1879
I know this as well. Doesn't make it that significantly. I mean, it encourages developers to make better games. But better sales also encourages developers to make better games. And there are plenty of other ways to incentivise quality work... Using Metacritic is just one way. If Metacritic wasn't around, they would just come up with a different way.
People worry about scores too much. If a game is good, it speaks for itself. Giving a number to say how good it is doesn't really work...
Well then, looks like you agree with me. So I welcome you to the REAL world where the number scores awarded by Edge or any other reviewers that contribute to metacritic actually do matter.[QUOTE="KiZZo1"]If it was bias, why would they give Little Big Planet a 10/10? Or award the ps2 'hardware of the decade'? Or give Sony runner-up 'developer of the decade'? Dude, just because it snowed in Florida doesn't make it the norm.So, correlation is the newly adopted Edge defence? Might I remind you that correlation is a side effect of causation? And that correlation without causation over a large data set or large time period tends to disappear? Of course, even if it's causation, it does not automatically mean bias. Maybe the PS3 reviewers are harsh, and had they been given 360 games to review they would have given them lower scores too. That is certainly possible. Just ask yourselves - What is THE MOST PROBABLE explanation of the data. Can you give something which is more plausible than bias?
samusarmada
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="tok1879"][QUOTE="IronBass"] That was the point he was trying to make. That the score is not important in comparison to the full review.KingsMessenger
If you don't read the reviews then you have no right to complain about the scores. I can't even begin to put it any simpler than that.
Dude, in the real world the number awarded for the reviews matter. Nobody is arguing about the written review here, we're arguing the NUMBERS. If it didn't matter, they might as well just give all the games they review a random number.[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"][QUOTE="tok1879"] 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.tok1879
If you don't read the reviews then you have no right to complain about the scores. I can't even begin to put it any simpler than that.
Dude, in the real world the number awarded for the reviews matter. Nobody is arguing about the written review here, we're arguing the NUMBERS. If it didn't matter, they might as well just give all the games they review a random number.EDGE wanted to get rid of 'scores' altogether... so yeah, they dont care about the number at the end
Dude, in the real world the number awarded for the reviews matter. Nobody is arguing about the written review here, we're arguing the NUMBERS. If it didn't matter, they might as well just give all the games they review a random number.[QUOTE="tok1879"][QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]
If you don't read the reviews then you have no right to complain about the scores. I can't even begin to put it any simpler than that.
ogvampire
EDGE wanted to get rid of 'scores' altogether... so yeah, they dont care about the number at the end
Yet they still have that number, and they are still showing a noticeable bias when assigning it.[QUOTE="ogvampire"][QUOTE="tok1879"] Dude, in the real world the number awarded for the reviews matter. Nobody is arguing about the written review here, we're arguing the NUMBERS. If it didn't matter, they might as well just give all the games they review a random number.DerekLoffin
EDGE wanted to get rid of 'scores' altogether... so yeah, they dont care about the number at the end
Yet they still have that number, and they are still showing a noticeable bias when assigning it.what this article is saying is that Edge gives lower scores to all videogames on average, but the ps3 gets even lower scores than the average
but remember this: the article didnt include PC or Wii... so for all we know, EDGE could very well be EVEN MORE biased against those 2 than the ps3
so hold your witchhunt until we can actually get a FAIR 'statistical' graph
Yet they still have that number, and they are still showing a noticeable bias when assigning it.[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="ogvampire"]
EDGE wanted to get rid of 'scores' altogether... so yeah, they dont care about the number at the end
ogvampire
what this article is saying is that Edge gives lower scores to all videogames on average, but the ps3 gets even lower scores than the average
but remember this: the article didnt include PC or Wii... so for all we know, EDGE could very well be EVEN MORE biased against those 2 than the ps3
so hold your witchhunt until we can actually get a FAIR 'statistical' graph
So, you're defending edge by saying they may be even worse 360 fanboys than the article could imply? I find this defense puzzling.[QUOTE="ogvampire"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] Yet they still have that number, and they are still showing a noticeable bias when assigning it. DerekLoffin
what this article is saying is that Edge gives lower scores to all videogames on average, but the ps3 gets even lower scores than the average
but remember this: the article didnt include PC or Wii... so for all we know, EDGE could very well be EVEN MORE biased against those 2 than the ps3
so hold your witchhunt until we can actually get a FAIR 'statistical' graph
So, you're defending edge by saying they may be even worse 360 fanboys than the article could imply? I find this defense puzzling.omfg... they aren't xbox 360 fanboys. Get over yourself. Seriously.
[QUOTE="ogvampire"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] Yet they still have that number, and they are still showing a noticeable bias when assigning it. DerekLoffin
what this article is saying is that Edge gives lower scores to all videogames on average, but the ps3 gets even lower scores than the average
but remember this: the article didnt include PC or Wii... so for all we know, EDGE could very well be EVEN MORE biased against those 2 than the ps3
so hold your witchhunt until we can actually get a FAIR 'statistical' graph
So, you're defending edge by saying they may be even worse 360 fanboys than the article could imply? I find this defense puzzling.is this article not trying to prove that Edge is biased towards the ps3... arent people here claiming that edge is biased towards the ps3?
im trying to say that you cannot come to a conclusion with limited data
So, you're defending edge by saying they may be even worse 360 fanboys than the article could imply? I find this defense puzzling.[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="ogvampire"]
what this article is saying is that Edge gives lower scores to all videogames on average, but the ps3 gets even lower scores than the average
but remember this: the article didnt include PC or Wii... so for all we know, EDGE could very well be EVEN MORE biased against those 2 than the ps3
so hold your witchhunt until we can actually get a FAIR 'statistical' graph
ogvampire
is this article not trying to prove that Edge is biased towards the ps3... arent people here claiming that edge is biased towards the ps3?
im trying to say that you cannot come to a conclusion with limited data
None of which would be changed if they gave wii and pc games straight 1s or 10s, or scores in perfect match with meta every time. It would just add yet another bias to their biases, but wouldn't lessen or increase any anti-ps3 bias (although it would increase the pro-360 bias). So, again, why did you even bring it up, as it is a rather silly defense. At best it changes nothing, at worse it makes Edge seem even more biased.So, you're defending edge by saying they may be even worse 360 fanboys than the article could imply? I find this defense puzzling.[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="ogvampire"]
what this article is saying is that Edge gives lower scores to all videogames on average, but the ps3 gets even lower scores than the average
but remember this: the article didnt include PC or Wii... so for all we know, EDGE could very well be EVEN MORE biased against those 2 than the ps3
so hold your witchhunt until we can actually get a FAIR 'statistical' graph
KingsMessenger
omfg... they aren't xbox 360 fanboys. Get over yourself. Seriously.
Way to miss the point.[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] So, you're defending edge by saying they may be even worse 360 fanboys than the article could imply? I find this defense puzzling.DerekLoffin
omfg... they aren't xbox 360 fanboys. Get over yourself. Seriously.
Way to miss the point.his defense was horrible. But the PS3 fanboy persecution complex is just getting annoying at this point. For the LAST time, they ARE NOT OUT TO GET YOU. Enough with the conspiracy theories.
So, you're defending edge by saying they may be even worse 360 fanboys than the article could imply? I find this defense puzzling.[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="ogvampire"]
what this article is saying is that Edge gives lower scores to all videogames on average, but the ps3 gets even lower scores than the average
but remember this: the article didnt include PC or Wii... so for all we know, EDGE could very well be EVEN MORE biased against those 2 than the ps3
so hold your witchhunt until we can actually get a FAIR 'statistical' graph
ogvampire
is this article not trying to prove that Edge is biased towards the ps3... arent people here claiming that edge is biased towards the ps3?
im trying to say that you cannot come to a conclusion with limited data
Explain to me how the data is limited.
Way to miss the point.[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]
omfg... they aren't xbox 360 fanboys. Get over yourself. Seriously.
KingsMessenger
his defense was horrible. But the PS3 fanboy persecution complex is just getting annoying at this point. For the LAST time, they ARE NOT OUT TO GET YOU. Enough with the conspiracy theories.
Again, way to miss the point. That reply was not meant to be serious. It was meant to be a WTF reply as it made no sense. I think you need to calm down and take things a bit less seriously.[QUOTE="ogvampire"]
[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] So, you're defending edge by saying they may be even worse 360 fanboys than the article could imply? I find this defense puzzling.Espada12
is this article not trying to prove that Edge is biased towards the ps3... arent people here claiming that edge is biased towards the ps3?
im trying to say that you cannot come to a conclusion with limited data
Explain to me how the data is limited.
they didnt include PC or Wii....
i bet you if the comparison was Edge review scores between the ps3 and Wii or PC... there may not be that much of a difference and noone would think they are biased
[QUOTE="ogvampire"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] So, you're defending edge by saying they may be even worse 360 fanboys than the article could imply? I find this defense puzzling.DerekLoffin
is this article not trying to prove that Edge is biased towards the ps3... arent people here claiming that edge is biased towards the ps3?
im trying to say that you cannot come to a conclusion with limited data
None of which would be changed if they gave wii and pc games straight 1s or 10s, or scores in perfect match with meta every time. It would just add yet another bias to their biases, but wouldn't lessen or increase any anti-ps3 bias (although it would increase the pro-360 bias). So, again, why did you even bring it up, as it is a rather silly defense.At best it changes nothing, at worse it makes Edge seem even more biased.yes... if you think this graph proves that they are biased, they may be more 'biased' towards other platforms if this data was not limited
my point is that people are saying that edge is biased towards the ps3 specifically
Again, way to miss the point. That reply was not meant to be serious. It was meant to be a WTF reply as it made no sense. I think you need to calm down and take things a bit less seriously. DerekLoffin
I think this thread is beyond the point of rational conversation and it needs to be closed. My response is perfectly justified given the previous 200+ posts.
None of which would be changed if they gave wii and pc games straight 1s or 10s, or scores in perfect match with meta every time. It would just add yet another bias to their biases, but wouldn't lessen or increase any anti-ps3 bias (although it would increase the pro-360 bias). So, again, why did you even bring it up, as it is a rather silly defense.At best it changes nothing, at worse it makes Edge seem even more biased.[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="ogvampire"]
is this article not trying to prove that Edge is biased towards the ps3... arent people here claiming that edge is biased towards the ps3?
im trying to say that you cannot come to a conclusion with limited data
ogvampire
yes... if you think this graph proves that they are biased, they may be more 'biased' towards other platforms if this data was not limited
my point is that people are saying that edge is biased towards the ps3 specifically
And I'm sure they'd be more than willing to add more ammunition to the table to discredit Edge if they were given yet more platform biases. Again, I don't see how this helps Edge in any way. It just makes them that much worse.
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="Eddie-Vedder"]
[QUOTE="ogvampire"]
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
ogvampire
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?
Ya that's not the thread, the one I'm talking about had actuall charts, I'll search for a couple of mins and get back to you.
[QUOTE="samusarmada"][QUOTE="KiZZo1"]If it was bias, why would they give Little Big Planet a 10/10? Or award the ps2 'hardware of the decade'? Or give Sony runner-up 'developer of the decade'? Dude, just because it snowed in Florida doesn't make it the norm. But if they were biased against Sony, why would they bestow upon them two of their most prestigious honours?So, correlation is the newly adopted Edge defence? Might I remind you that correlation is a side effect of causation? And that correlation without causation over a large data set or large time period tends to disappear? Of course, even if it's causation, it does not automatically mean bias. Maybe the PS3 reviewers are harsh, and had they been given 360 games to review they would have given them lower scores too. That is certainly possible. Just ask yourselves - What is THE MOST PROBABLE explanation of the data. Can you give something which is more plausible than bias?
tok1879
[QUOTE="tok1879"][QUOTE="samusarmada"] If it was bias, why would they give Little Big Planet a 10/10? Or award the ps2 'hardware of the decade'? Or give Sony runner-up 'developer of the decade'?samusarmadaDude, just because it snowed in Florida doesn't make it the norm. But if they were biased against Sony, why would they bestow upon them two of their most prestigious honours? What makes me laugh about any conspiracy theorist is that they ignore any evidence that disproves their theory and concentrate entirely on the pieces that support them. Its like saying evolution isn't real by only examining 1 animal.
[QUOTE="samusarmada"][QUOTE="tok1879"] Dude, just because it snowed in Florida doesn't make it the norm.blue_hazy_basicBut if they were biased against Sony, why would they bestow upon them two of their most prestigious honours? What makes me laugh about any conspiracy theorist is that they ignore any evidence that disproves their theory and concentrate entirely on the pieces that support them. Its like saying evolution isn't real by only examining 1 animal. So, where is this disproving evidence? *looks around*, nope, don't see any. I see people using the faulty argument that singular instances of non-pattern behavior disproves the pattern, but that's it, and that's faulty logic. Patterns are patterns, they aren't unbreakable rules.
[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"][QUOTE="samusarmada"] But if they were biased against Sony, why would they bestow upon them two of their most prestigious honours? DerekLoffinWhat makes me laugh about any conspiracy theorist is that they ignore any evidence that disproves their theory and concentrate entirely on the pieces that support them. Its like saying evolution isn't real by only examining 1 animal. So, where is this disproving evidence? *looks around*, nope, don't see any. I see people using the faulty argument that singular instances of non-pattern behavior disproves the pattern, but that's it, and that's faulty logic. Patterns are patterns, they aren't unbreakable rules.
we have shown you the disproving evident but all you repeat is something about a 'pattern'
[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"][QUOTE="samusarmada"] But if they were biased against Sony, why would they bestow upon them two of their most prestigious honours? DerekLoffinWhat makes me laugh about any conspiracy theorist is that they ignore any evidence that disproves their theory and concentrate entirely on the pieces that support them. Its like saying evolution isn't real by only examining 1 animal. So, where is this disproving evidence? *looks around*, nope, don't see any. I see people using the faulty argument that singular instances of non-pattern behavior disproves the pattern, but that's it, and that's faulty logic. Patterns are patterns, they aren't unbreakable rules.
please just stop.
the burden of proof in statistics lies on the person presenting the evidence. He didn't prove anything. So stop acting like he did. Without proof this is nothing more than an odd coincidence that could be caused by any number of factors. Could it be a bias? Yes. Is it definitely a bias? No. Would a non-fanboy think that it is honestly a bias? Eh... Debatable. The statistics are suspicious, but nothing beyond that.
/thread
So, where is this disproving evidence? *looks around*, nope, don't see any. I see people using the faulty argument that singular instances of non-pattern behavior disproves the pattern, but that's it, and that's faulty logic. Patterns are patterns, they aren't unbreakable rules.[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"] What makes me laugh about any conspiracy theorist is that they ignore any evidence that disproves their theory and concentrate entirely on the pieces that support them. Its like saying evolution isn't real by only examining 1 animal.KingsMessenger
we have shown you the disproving evident but all you repeat is something about a 'pattern'
Yeah I keep repeating it because you apparently don't understand this very very simple concept, and that bringing up a few counter instances in no way shows the pattern isn't true (particularly when the analysis included them). But, go ahead, keep repeating the same faulty argument. I'm sure you'll continue to be very convincing to someone out there. I will just keep repeating the error in that thinking.[QUOTE="ogvampire"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] So, where is this disproving evidence? *looks around*, nope, don't see any. I see people using the faulty argument that singular instances of non-pattern behavior disproves the pattern, but that's it, and that's faulty logic. Patterns are patterns, they aren't unbreakable rules.Eddie-Vedder
we have shown you the disproving evident but all you repeat is something about a 'pattern'
Wtf are you talking about? All you and fellow lems have shown is denial.if they were biased against sony, why would they give them awards? or have the ps3 on the cover 3-4 different times?
So, where is this disproving evidence? *looks around*, nope, don't see any. I see people using the faulty argument that singular instances of non-pattern behavior disproves the pattern, but that's it, and that's faulty logic. Patterns are patterns, they aren't unbreakable rules.[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"] What makes me laugh about any conspiracy theorist is that they ignore any evidence that disproves their theory and concentrate entirely on the pieces that support them. Its like saying evolution isn't real by only examining 1 animal.KingsMessenger
please just stop.
the burden of proof in statistics lies on the person presenting the evidence. He didn't prove anything. So stop acting like he did. Without proof this is nothing more than an odd coincidence that could be caused by any number of factors. Could it be a bias? Yes. Is it definitely a bias? No. Would a non-fanboy think that it is honestly a bias? Eh... Debatable. The statistics are suspicious, but nothing beyond that.
/thread
Why should I stop. I keep hearing this same tired (and incorrect) counters that need to be shot down. You want me to stop, then get some actual evidence to back you up. All I've seen from the opposition so far is fingers in the ears denials with nothing to support those denials. I'll grant you that we don't know the cause of the bias, but the bias is definitely there.Wtf are you talking about? All you and fellow lems have shown is denial.[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"][QUOTE="ogvampire"]
we have shown you the disproving evident but all you repeat is something about a 'pattern'
ogvampire
if they were biased against sony, why would they give them awards? or have the ps3 on the cover 3-4 different times?
Your either trying to hard or just not trying at all. What awards are you talking about? What cover stories are you talking about? They are a gaming mag aren't they? They can't complelty ignore 1 of the 3 major platforms this gen can they?[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] So, where is this disproving evidence? *looks around*, nope, don't see any. I see people using the faulty argument that singular instances of non-pattern behavior disproves the pattern, but that's it, and that's faulty logic. Patterns are patterns, they aren't unbreakable rules.DerekLoffin
please just stop.
the burden of proof in statistics lies on the person presenting the evidence. He didn't prove anything. So stop acting like he did. Without proof this is nothing more than an odd coincidence that could be caused by any number of factors. Could it be a bias? Yes. Is it definitely a bias? No. Would a non-fanboy think that it is honestly a bias? Eh... Debatable. The statistics are suspicious, but nothing beyond that.
/thread
Why should I stop. I keep hearing this same tired (and incorrect) counters that need to be shot down. You want me to stop, then get some actual evidence to back you up. All I've seen from the opposition so far is fingers in the ears denials with nothing to support those denials. I'll grant you that we don't know the cause of the bias, but the bias is definitely there.We don't KNOW that the bias is there. So please stop pretending that we do.
Seriously. All we have here is a bunch of statistics that prove NOTHING. They suggest one possible answer, but they don't offer sufficient evidence to make any sort of assumption that said answer is correct. Also, what the hell sort of evidence do you want? The scores are the scores. The cause of the scores could have NOTHING to do with a "bias."
PS - I think you don't really understand the definition of bias. So here it is for you
1. an oblique or diagonal line of direction, esp. across a woven fabric.
2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
3.Statistics. A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.
4.Lawn Bowling
a. a slight bulge or greater weight on one side of the ball or bowl.
b. a the curved course made by such a ball when rolled.
5.Electronics. the application of a steady voltage or current to an active device, as a diode or transistor, to produce a desired mode of operation.
6. a high-frequency alternating current applied to the recording head of a tape recorder during recording in order to reduce distortion.
In the context used, the definition that was implied is #2. It wouldn't be #3 because favoring some outcomes over another when making the data set have anything to do with EDGE being biased? Seriously.
so, is EDGE prejudiced? Who knows... Maybe. But this sure as hell doesn't prove it.
[QUOTE="ogvampire"][QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] Wtf are you talking about? All you and fellow lems have shown is denial.Eddie-Vedder
if they were biased against sony, why would they give them awards? or have the ps3 on the cover 3-4 different times?
Your either trying to hard or just not trying at all. What awards are you talking about? What cover stories are you talking about? They are a gaming mag aren't they? They can't complelty ignore 1 of the 3 major platforms this gen can they?Edge gave sony the 'best developer of the decade' award plus a couple more
also, look at page 5 of this thread to see the ps3 edge covers
"They can't complelty ignore 1 of the 3 major platforms this gen can they?"
IF they were biased they would....
[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"][QUOTE="samusarmada"] But if they were biased against Sony, why would they bestow upon them two of their most prestigious honours? DerekLoffinWhat makes me laugh about any conspiracy theorist is that they ignore any evidence that disproves their theory and concentrate entirely on the pieces that support them. Its like saying evolution isn't real by only examining 1 animal. So, where is this disproving evidence? *looks around*, nope, don't see any. I see people using the faulty argument that singular instances of non-pattern behavior disproves the pattern, but that's it, and that's faulty logic. Patterns are patterns, they aren't unbreakable rules. The evidence is in the review text itself. Read each of their reviews and they explain why they gave each game their respective scores every time. Let's look at the PS3 exclusives and the EDGE scores and if you read their reviews it's clear why they gave each score: 1. Uncharted 2 M96% E9/10 - An EDGE 9/10 is a very, very high accolade for them to give so I doubt anyone had any qualms about this score. 2. Littlebigplanet M95 E10/10 - Well they gave it a 10. 3. MGS4 M94 E8/10 - They talked about the highly overly condensed nature of the story, that "Raiden's story alone could be split into another game." They gave MGS4 the same score they gave MGS3, and on metacritic both games have the same score as well. 4. God of War 3 M93 E8/10 - Well they gave it the same score they gave God of War 1, which is only one point higher on metacritic than GOW3. 5. Killzone 2 M91 E7/10 - EDGE said they gave the game such a score because of its design cliches in set pieces and its weak story and characters. Bare in mind that even though they gave it a 7, that still means they thought it was a good game. They hardly thought it was bad. 6. Demon's Souls M89 E9/10 - They gave it higher than the metacritic. 7. Ratchet and Clank M89 E8/10 - This was the same score they gave to R&C Up Your Arsenal, which is at 91 on metacritic. 8. Uncharted 1 M88 E8/10 - Given that the sequel is seen as the far superior game, it would make sense for this version to receive one point less than their review for UC2, no? 9. Ninja Gaiden Sigma M88 E8/10 - They gave the xbox original a 9/10. Does a one point deduction not seem to make sense for a last gen port? There are more exclusive titles to list naturally, but unlike raw data, this actually explains why the games were scored this way. Looking at how EDGE scored the previous games in the series almost all of these scores make sense. It's hard to understand the notion of high profile games getting scores like solid 8's and 7's but the same thing happened with Gears 1, Mass Effect 1 etc.
Why should I stop. I keep hearing this same tired (and incorrect) counters that need to be shot down. You want me to stop, then get some actual evidence to back you up. All I've seen from the opposition so far is fingers in the ears denials with nothing to support those denials. I'll grant you that we don't know the cause of the bias, but the bias is definitely there.[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]
please just stop.
the burden of proof in statistics lies on the person presenting the evidence. He didn't prove anything. So stop acting like he did. Without proof this is nothing more than an odd coincidence that could be caused by any number of factors. Could it be a bias? Yes. Is it definitely a bias? No. Would a non-fanboy think that it is honestly a bias? Eh... Debatable. The statistics are suspicious, but nothing beyond that.
/thread
KingsMessenger
We don't KNOW that the bias is there. So please stop pretending that we do.
Seriously. All we have here is a bunch of statistics that prove NOTHING. They suggest one possible answer, but they don't offer sufficient evidence to make any sort of assumption that said answer is correct. Also, what the hell sort of evidence do you want? The scores are the scores. The cause of the scores could have NOTHING to do with a "bias."
PS - I think you don't really understand the definition of bias. So here it is for you
1. an oblique or diagonal line of direction, esp. across a woven fabric.
2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
3.Statistics. a systematic as opposed to a random distortion of a statistic as a result of sampling procedure.
4.Lawn Bowling
a. a slight bulge or greater weight on one side of the ball or bowl.
b. a the curved course made by such a ball when rolled.
5.Electronics. the application of a steady voltage or current to an active device, as a diode or transistor, to produce a desired mode of operation.
6. a high-frequency alternating current applied to the recording head of a tape recorder during recording in order to reduce distortion.
In the context used, the definition that was implied is #2. It wouldn't be #3 because how could a sampling procedure has anything to do with EDGE being biased? Seriously. The only way #3 would be used in the context of this entire article is that I could say that a bias was introduced to his data when he failed to account for all of the other variables that could have effected the review scores.
so, is EDGE prejudiced? Who knows... Maybe. But this sure as hell doesn't prove it.
Perhaps you should take a closer look at definition 3, or go look up systemic bias.[QUOTE="samusarmada"][QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] So, where is this disproving evidence? *looks around*, nope, don't see any. I see people using the faulty argument that singular instances of non-pattern behavior disproves the pattern, but that's it, and that's faulty logic. Patterns are patterns, they aren't unbreakable rules.DerekLoffinThe evidence is in the review text itself. Read each of their reviews and they explain why they gave each game their respective scores every time. Let's look at the PS3 exclusives and the EDGE scores and if you read their reviews it's clear why they gave each score: 1. Uncharted 2 M96% E9/10 - An EDGE 9/10 is a very, very high accolade for them to give so I doubt anyone had any qualms about this score. 2. Littlebigplanet M95 E10/10 - Well they gave it a 10. 3. MGS4 M94 E8/10 - They talked about the highly overly condensed nature of the story, that "Raiden's story alone could be split into another game." They gave MGS4 the same score they gave MGS3, and on metacritic both games have the same score as well. 4. God of War 3 M93 E8/10 - Well they gave it the same score they gave God of War 1, which is only one point higher on metacritic than GOW3. 5. Killzone 2 M91 E7/10 - EDGE said they gave the game such a score because of its design cliches in set pieces and its weak story and characters. Bare in mind that even though they gave it a 7, that still means they thought it was a good game. They hardly thought it was bad. 6. Demon's Souls M89 E9/10 - They gave it higher than the metacritic. 7. Ratchet and Clank M89 E8/10 - This was the same score they gave to R&C Up Your Arsenal, which is at 91 on metacritic. 8. Uncharted 1 M88 E8/10 - Given that the sequel is seen as the far superior game, it would make sense for this version to receive one point less than their review for UC2, no? 9. Ninja Gaiden Sigma M88 E8/10 - They gave the xbox original a 9/10. Does a one point deduction not seem to make sense for a last gen port? There are more exclusive titles to list naturally, but unlike raw data, this actually explains why the games were scored this way. Looking at how EDGE scored the previous games in the series almost all of these scores make sense. It's hard to understand the notion of high profile games getting scores like solid 8's and 7's but the same thing happened with Gears 1, Mass Effect 1 etc. That again doesn't disprove a bias, all it proves is that they are valuing said issues more than the the norm of value of the general reviewing populous, and in particular when the title is on PS3, and less so when the title is on 360 (unless you want to accuse the general reviewing populous as being pro-Sony, in which case I invite you to bring up the evidence of such). Biases need not be without reason, but those alone don't disprove a bias exists.
so an arbritrary number at the end of a review proves a bias... but the actual review doesnt prove a bias
interesting...
Considering we have repeatedly said that this discussion is on the scores, and not the written reviews, and that you just cluing into this now... If I need to repeat it yet again, I will, this is about the SCORES and how they are biased, NOT THE WRITTEN REVIEWS (although they too may be bias, we can't tell from this particular analysis).so an arbritrary number at the end of a review proves a bias... but the actual review doesnt prove a bias
interesting...
ogvampire
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment