PSXE Rebuttal To Edge's R2 Review: Get Over Yourselves
Resistance 2Update: Just to clarify, the response we link to in this article was not made by an Edge employee; he's just an independent blogger. Officially, Edge has made no response to the R2 review. ...well, now we think they really should, after the Internet went ballistic. Granted, it's a misinterpretation, but obviously people still have a lot to say on the subject.
Original Story:
This is a subject that I've been paying close attention to over the years, and it seems to have finally come to a head. Some of you may or may not be aware, but Edge Magazine gave the recently released Resistance 2 a score of 6 out of 10...which, as you can see, contrasts drastically with our analysis. Obviously, a 6 is especially low; a statistical out-lier that has gained plenty of attention.
In response, Edge has issued an article entitled, "What Are Reviews Good For?", which we ask you to read right now. We're not about to toss up a direct rebuttal without paying respect to the initial argument, and there are many points worth viewing in that piece. Read it, process it, and then let me begin with this- there's a clear implication in the wording of that article that says most reviewers don't understand what "innovation" is, and how this should have a direct impact on a critical review. Secondly, it claims at the end that "it is no one's place to dictate how game reviews are best used." Thirdly and lastly, there's the insinuation that because the typical PlayStation 3 owner's expectations for Resistance 2 were quite high, it would stand to reason that they inject a certain amount of bias into their personal view. At their core, each of these thoughts have merit, and we won't deny the sliver of inherent truth that courses beneath the surface of each relatively complex theory.
But my response, which may or may not resound with the majority of gamers, is that much of that long-winded reply seeks to vindicate the source of the problem while ignoring those who would feel the direct impact of a review. This "yeah, it's good, but it's not innovative!" argument began as legitimate, escalated to trendy, and has now become a complete and total dodge amongst the elitist critics. It's a dodge for a variety of reasons, but chiefly because they can use it to override every positive aspect of a product. I know what innovation is. Most all of us do. We also firmly understand the purpose of video games, and we can analyze more than one significant facet of any given production. The purpose of video games is to entertain, and there are many, many things that affect that entertainment, and it is the critic's job to determine the game's ultimate entertainment factor. Granted, everyone has different personal tastes - which is what makes it difficult - but critics should be able to discern quality from crap.
It's no one's "place" to dictate how game reviews are best used? Of course it is; it's every consumer's place. Your job as a video game reviewer does not exist to feed your own ego; it doesn't exist so you can expound on the most random minutiae of any given game just 'cuz you can spot it. It exists for one reason and one reason only, as does any entertainment review: to serve the consumer. We are trying to advise gamers out there whether or not they should spend their hard-earned money on a particular title. Yes, we have to talk about things like clipping in graphics, sound imbalances, control "wonkiness," storyline flaws, presentation issues, and all of that, but the bottom line always remains the same. Edge, don't hide behind this high-and-mighty, "oh, it's so hard to review games; you just don't understand" mentality. Just knock it off. It's not that hard, and to imply otherwise is a self-serving escapist philosophy that is designed to illicit sympathy from outsiders. I'm not buying it for a second, and nobody else should, either.
Now, about that whole bit concerning PS3 owners making excuses for R2 because they couldn't stand the fact their expectations might've been dashed. Edge uses this reason to attribute for the slew of hostile responses they received for their R2 review, and we don't doubt they're correct to a certain point. We also don't believe hostility is a functional or effective method of refuting a point of view, so we're certainly not condoning all those who sent nasty letters to the magazine. However, this is yet another way of saying, "see, if your expectations didn't make you biased, you'd see the truth...which is our side of things." Or, and we're just tossing this out there as a potentially viable explanation, there are plenty of gamers who had a blast with R2, and felt like blasting your review for saying they wouldn't. If they had listened to you, they likely wouldn't have bought the game - yeah, just more of the same in comparison to Fall of Man, right? - and in turn, would've been most disappointed in missing out on one of this generation's most enjoyable and entertaining games.
In the end, you want to know the prime differences between our review and Edge's? First, we actually tell you why the scores landed as they did; we actually gave concrete in-game examples. Secondly, we correctly determined that the vast majority of all "scorable" and immediately relevant factors in the game (control, sound, gameplay, graphics, variety, etc.) were superior. And thirdly and lastly, we decided that it would be in the consumer's best interest that R2 was worth a purchase. ...and thus far, we've learned that the great majority of consumers agree with that assessment, which means that same majority doesn't agree with Edge's. That, right there, is why your review is wrong. You heard us. Wrong. Get over yourselves, and please remember that you work for the public (it's really nothing more noble than that); not to feed what is apparently an ever-growing and never-sated ego.
Related Game(s): Resistance 2
11/27/2008 Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (80 posts)
Deleted User
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 1:11:31 AM
0 up, 3 down
wasim
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 1:14:52 AM
are all MS diccriders
I think SONY should ban EDGE from reviewing PS3 games
R2 got 9.5 from IGN and 9 from Gamesradar, eurogamer and even hater Gamespot
4 up, 1 down
aaronisbla
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 6:29:41 AM
0 up, 1 down
djjake
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 6:49:34 AM
0 up, 1 down
bearbobby
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 3:45:18 PM
Dude, an 8.5 is NOT a poor score. A 6.0 is a poor score.
3 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 9:52:50 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
PilarVIRUS
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 10:08:11 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Ghostfather
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 10:10:16 PM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
FreQaZoiD
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 10:22:56 PM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
Tatsujin
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 10:30:27 PM
Reply
and 2.) Do not, in any way, read, buy or even look at an Edge magazine... Cuz dey jus full of shyt!
But no seriously, they are full of shit.
Not that im a PS3 fanboy (And I now consider myself an official PS3 fanboy) But Resistance 2 is an AMAZING game... let alone how good Killzone 2 is, I want to see the score they give Killzone 2, because in my opinion (Just from playing the Beta) it goes no where close to going under a 9.. infact, it should get a 9.6+ on every review. If they even go as far as saying its an 8... I will personally shank the reviewers.
1 up, 0 down
aaronisbla
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 10:52:04 PM
Last edited by aaronisbla on 11/27/2008 10:52:28 PM
0 up, 0 down
aaronisbla
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 10:50:27 PM
Reply
Also didn't like how they pretty much lumped every negative comment into the fanboy pile, which isn't the case all the time. I think for them to imply that they knew what they are doing and to say that others don't ( in so many words ) is a smack to other professional reviewers.
Its been a long time since i played a sequel that has truly brought innovation to the table, most bring the same stuff, and in a lot of cases, thats just fine with me.
Now we wait for someone to come in this section to bash Ben's rebuttal
0 up, 0 down
Ghostfather
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 10:56:08 PM
0 up, 0 down
Buckeyestar
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 10:54:55 PM
Reply
On the other hand, I do have a problem with giving a game a lower score because it isn't "innovative". Not every game is going to be innovative, plenty of them are just going to be pure entertainment and should be enjoyed as such. Not every movie that comes out is Oscar worthy (though I have some issue as to what the Academy deems "Oscar worthy") and might only be light summer popcorn fare, but that's fine. I have greatly enjoyed many movies that were dismissed as such, and I've enjoyed many games that plenty of people dismiss as not being innovative or some other excuse as to why I shouldn't be enjoying it. If I enjoy it and want to continue playing/watching it, then that is all that matters.
Reviewers shouldn't put themselves on a pedestal as the judge and jury as to what we should play or watch. They are not infallible and often don't share our opinions. While I do consult reviews, I really only use them to judge how much more likely I might enjoy the game. I truly love Saints Row 2 and Tomb Raider Underworld, but don't care at all for Grand Theft Auto 4 or Halo. And I'm not letting reviews tell me otherwise.
In the end, always remember that reviews are only opinions and shouldn't be granted any more weight than that.
0 up, 0 down
Ghostfather
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 10:59:50 PM
1 up, 0 down
Buckeyestar
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 11:12:33 PM
0 up, 0 down
Joe_III
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 2:30:05 AM
As a matter of fact, you will most likely do so despite how hard you try not to. But that's not a bad thing.
Your job as a reviewer is NOT to make a review for everyone -- that's impossible. It's to write reviews based completely on your subjective experience. That way those who have agreed with you previously and trust you have a better idea of whether they want to pick it up or not.
Last edited by Joe_III on 11/28/2008 2:30:35 AM
1 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 11:00:19 PM
Reply
4 up, 0 down
Jed
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 11:26:24 PM
Reply
The only reason they give for not liking resistance 2 is because they didnt like resistance 1.
Then they say that we wanted the game to be good, and thet is why we think it is good. Remember what happened with HAZE? It was really hyped up, it was supposed to be really good. In reality it sucked, and everybody agrees on that. Nobody sent hate mail to the people that gave haze a bad review.
They did get a lot of people to go to their site, and that means they will get more advert money. Which is probably what they set out to do in the first place. Or they had the whole "I'm cool because I disagree" idea.
0 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 11:39:16 PM
1 up, 1 down
wasim
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 1:17:25 AM
Banjo - 7/10
flop gaiden 2 - 8/10
Halo 3 - 10/10
R2 - 6/10
HS - 6/10
God Of war - 6/10
EDGE and MS both should be banned
stupid BOT above
quit posting in PSXEXTREME
go to your RROD websites
2 up, 1 down
aaronisbla
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 3:06:39 AM
Thats not what this website is about
0 up, 1 down
chicko1983
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 11:36:00 PM
Reply
If a review does contain a score, why does anyone who disagrees with it get all upset? People need to respect other people's opinions a bit more and also learn to trust and make their own opinions.
1 up, 0 down
Aftab
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 12:28:22 AM
0 up, 0 down
chicko1983
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 9:48:24 AM
I havent read the review, I dont read reviews before I play a game, but if you dont agree with his view, so what?
Who is the person who judges what is a "thoughtful opinion"? The author of the review may not think you have a "thoughtful opinion" - it is all subjective.
If you are not sure about a purchasing a game before playing - hire it first and make your own judgement.
0 up, 1 down
Aftab
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 12:42:31 PM
1 up, 0 down
chicko1983
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 4:15:39 PM
I am saying: why does it matter if your opinion of a game differs to someone elses? If you like the game, play it.
I am also saying: what gives you the right to think that your view of the game is correct and his isnt and vice versa? Everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
N.B. I am saying the plural of "you" here, not directing it solely at Aftab
For example, Aftab and I differ in our view of respecting other peoples opinions, and that is totally fine with me.
Last edited by chicko1983 on 11/28/2008 4:18:41 PM
0 up, 0 down
Aftab
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 6:34:43 PM
0 up, 0 down
chicko1983
Sunday, November 30, 2008 @ 3:02:33 AM
P.S. I get my news mainly from newspapers - The Australian and The Age. But for t.v. news I watch SBS World News in Australia. A free to air news service which covers news from the all over the world. Good stuff and fairly informative, you can check it out on the web if you are in America and I recommend it.
0 up, 0 down
Aftab
Sunday, November 30, 2008 @ 5:25:11 PM
I don't have time or money to play every game for myself. That is why reviews are important to me. They can bring to my attention a game worth getting or save me from playing a doozy. That's why credability is important, because my time and money is at stake, not anyone's "freedom of speech/expression". Now in the case of Edge's R2 article, the danger isn't that I, or anyone really, have been mislead. There are enough reviews out there to indicate R2 is a title worth checking out. The danger is that media does affect things like sales and so forth in the long run. While they can't destroy the success and reputation of a company, as the proof is in the pudding or the product, they can hurt it. Consequently, this can affect whether we see more of this company's product, or more of that kind of game... So well-publicised sources affect the public consciousness, affect sales, affect revenue, affect the reward that some talent should deserve to get. So if a publication group decides to disparage against a product, not for the sake of helping consumers, not for the sake of encouraging great products in the industry, but wholly for the sake of negative attention and self-promotion, then I don't think I'd be out of line by complaining. Now you may ask, how do I know whether Edge is actually guilty for those things? Or if I did, how would I be able to prove that? The fact of the matter is, without repeating what has been said in the previous comments about the disparity in scores between other comparable titles, which I know you are not interested in hearing about, anyways; I'll put this way. In general, when someone makes ingenuous comments frequently enough, you'll figure it out for yourself. You won't need a supreme court hearing to do that.
Last edited by Aftab on 11/30/2008 5:27:33 PM
0 up, 0 down
Dealnightfire
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 11:48:04 PM
Reply
I don't know if they are biased but something is going on and its wrong. A review should let me know if I'm going to have fun and how the game runs. I would never review a RPG because they are not my thing and it would be a biased review.
1 up, 1 down
Arvis
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 4:32:23 PM
Oh, and they really do hate the PS3 (LBP review score aside) and wanted to get more hits. Easy way to accomplish this: trash one of the PS3's best titles. And their plan has officially worked. They certainly wouldn't use a 360 exclusive to achieve such ends because M$ has the resources to end their little operation entirely. And anyone who thinks that that isn't a real possibility is delusional.
-Arvis
0 up, 0 down
Scarecrow
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 12:12:23 AM
Reply
During those days most magazines were fair9(except for EGM).
Anyway the only multiplatform websites I trust are Gamepro.com and GameInformer.com
EDGE is garbage
And how much innovation do you need in a sequel.
What they wanted to travel every city in the US in the game?
1 up, 0 down
Aftab
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 12:22:39 AM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
somethingrandom
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 1:20:00 AM
Reply
BTW, Ben the picture you used is Resistance 1. See the health bar, icons for shields (not numbers like in R2), and England style buildings? (I know my Resistance, lol)
Last edited by somethingrandom on 11/28/2008 1:21:33 AM
2 up, 0 down
The_Benny
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 9:28:16 AM
I'm pretty sure Perfect Dark Zero had a weapon that made you invisible (if that's what the chameleon does). Indeed, reading about the interesting secondary fire modes of Resistance reminds me very much of Perfect Dark, which always tried to do that with their guns.
None of that necessarily makes the Edge review more valid though. Without having played R2 I can't make that call, but it does seem rather out of whack with every other review out there.
Last edited by The_Benny on 11/28/2008 9:28:54 AM
0 up, 0 down
Gabriel013
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 1:39:15 AM
Reply
I believe reviewers should be true to themselves and give honest opinions rather than just going with the crowd. A reviewer shouldn't be harrassed simply because they don't agree with the opinions of every other reviewer.
Last edited by Gabriel013 on 11/28/2008 1:41:53 AM
0 up, 0 down
Joe_III
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 2:12:42 AM
Reply
When are the forums coming back? It's been like a month.
@somethingrandom
See thru wall weps are a pretty old idea, the beef to actually render it properly is new...Anyways.
As indie movie critics will lambast all the top-selling feel good movies, so will indie game critics hate on the popular titles. Take that with Ben's accurate comment that we choose how to use the reviews provided, and you will see why most places only go to a few sites for their info.
For reviews that cater more towards my tastes and for conversation with somewhat intelligent gamers (before the forums closed), I come here. For in depth, higher minded articles, I like Edge. Its the same with TV. If I want an action movie, I watch Starz. If I want a thinking movie, I switch to Sundance. There's enough room for everyone to get along, and there's plenty of consumers to go around.
Aside from that, the article is right in some respects. Just because they gave R2 a low score, does not mean that they are fanboys for another console/platform/series/etc. And people who stubbornly reply in that fashion without responding to the actual review proves themselves to be that way. Shout outs to Sora and wasim, btw.
Also, to be fair, I kind of doubt that the reviewer is the same one who reviewed Halo 3 and GoW2. But you don't know for sure because they hide all the reviewers behind the same username. Which is a punk move.
Obviously not all the staff/bloggers on the site agree. If you look at Mr. Croal's poignant post on co-op, titled Why Co-Op Makes all the Difference, you'll see that he praises R2's co-op. I personally prefer campaign co-op to be the actual campaign, but I will take it just about any way I can get it.
And the innovation in R2 is somewhat questionable. We had this exact conversation on some news topic when Ben's review for R2 came out. Yes, it's bigger, but is a larger scope inherently innovative? No, it's not. BUT, if its a good game, it deserves a good score no matter what. And the main caveat to that is if it feels fresh(ish) and fun to those who play it.
That said, please do not bypass word filters by misspelling swear words. And if you are spelling them wrong because you don't know better, go read a book.
1 up, 0 down
Ultimadream
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 2:13:15 AM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
FLYING_APE
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 4:08:41 AM
Reply
Ben or Arnold have you played the level sometime after chicago when your inside some chimera tower. That level has incredible graphics. Everything is shiny and has lights reflecting off everything. It looks very futuristic
Last edited by FLYING_APE on 11/28/2008 4:09:52 AM
0 up, 0 down
Wage SLAVES
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 4:11:17 AM
Reply
They (Edge) are, again, like Joe describes, just for entertainment purposes, apparently COMEDY...
1 up, 0 down
GuernicaReborn
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 5:03:42 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
TheRaPtuRe
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 6:03:57 AM
Reply
Fantastic, so much mun!
It exceeded my expectations.
It was like half life crossed with bioshock
0 up, 0 down
Godslim
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 6:04:36 AM
Reply
1 up, 1 down
jonny_bolton
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 6:59:05 AM
Reply
On a side note though, will there ever be any PS3 games that have offline multiplayer with AI bots like Timesplitters 2? I mean COD4 and 5 have splitscreen but the levels are so huge there's no point with just 4 players. Developers seem to have forgotten that people have real friends, not just online "buddies"...
Last edited by jonny_bolton on 11/28/2008 7:04:29 AM
1 up, 0 down
pavlovic
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 8:49:47 AM
Reply
I am not saying that GeoW2 is not a good game, but it doesn't innovate anything.
Both games are incredible fun, but not "innovative".
Yesterday, before this updated, I saw the Edge's review and I was really estranged. I thought that they reviewed another game. With flows and everything, but it's an amazing game.
And of course the reviews are usefull to get a general picture of a game, knowing that those are one person point of view, but if I read generally favorable reviews scoring a game above 8.5 and suddenly one review appears scoring a 6, I would read it to see their points, but it shouldn't affect your buying/renting decision
1 up, 0 down
The_Benny
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 10:00:13 AM
They rated Halo 2 at 9, with the Metacritic snippet specifically saying it doesn't innovate at all, playing it safe to excellent effect. Halo 3 earned a 10, saying that while it's nothing new it does it all perfectly, with the concept and execution being the future.
The obvious answer to this is that they genuinely didn't think much of Resistance: Fall of Man (they gave it a 7 because it is (in their words): "a crisp and powerful piece of software, but not quite as robust a videogame"). So whereas Gears and Halo are mainly playing it safe with something they already perceived as excellent, Resistance is playing it safe with something they didn't think that much of to begin with, in their opinion doing little more than ramping up the amount of everything simply to say that they were able to do what their competitors haven't yet.
That doesn't quite seem to tally with most other reviews, of course, but doesn't make their position that unreasonable.
0 up, 0 down
CH1N00K
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 9:27:15 AM
Reply
Anyone can put a review on the internet. It's up to us who read it to decide whether the author is worth listening too. And those that aren't will eventually fade away. The funny thing I've been finding myself doing when I check out reviews lately is that I'll breeze through the reviews and pay more attention to the comments from the readers who posted. They are the ones who are in the trenches, playing the game. I find out the reasons why a multitude of people like or dislike a game and base my results on that.
But that's just me, you do what you want, I'm going to go play R2...AGAIN!! Because it's that good...lol
PS. I did read the review and the article...Now I know why I've never been on the Edge site as far as I can remember. The Journalistic style does leave a bit to be desired. Sure they are informative to a certain extent but lack the information to back up their statements. I give Edge a umm..5/10..and I'm being generous..lol
Last edited by CH1N00K on 11/28/2008 9:38:28 AM
1 up, 0 down
Reccaman18
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 9:38:26 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
JPBooch
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 9:53:28 AM
Reply
Complete and utter bias review.
A review should be a direct extension of the quality of the game for the genre. R2 is not flawless but hardly average. The game is a solid 9 by anyones standards except for these morons.
Last edited by JPBooch on 11/28/2008 9:53:43 AM
2 up, 0 down
The_Benny
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 10:37:15 AM
1) While the giant bosses don't get much of a mention (outside of their initial jab at making things larger for the sake of it), they do seem critical of restricting you to two weapons in the campaign as it leaves you ill-prepared for certain parts. They also criticise the way all enemies apparently focus on you as soon as you enter the area, ignoring all other allied NPCs in favour of firing everything at you exclusively.
2) The co-op removes itself from the main story and becomes more about grinding bonuses and advancements than about people progressing through a campaign together. They also criticise the maps, saying that they weren't great in R:FoM and haven't really improved here.
3) 60 player skirmishes are too big to be practical, so they're split into teams with their own objectives, both to discourage large, chaotic brawls and to give the players a clear objective.
So to a certain extent they found problems with everything the game did new and were unimpressed with the things it didn't change.
0 up, 0 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 10:44:56 AM
2) Not sure what they're saying in co-op. It plays like a co-op campaign. And the maps kick ASS. MUCH better than in Fall of Man.
3) They're only talking about the Skirmishes in 60-player. The Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, and Power Core matches all work beautifully, as they do on any map with any number of players.
This is my point. They don't bother to cover the entire game.
2 up, 0 down
The_Benny
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 11:07:44 AM
0 up, 0 down
GamerKid123
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 10:24:35 AM
Reply
I want proper reviews.
2 up, 0 down
Tatsujin
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 10:32:52 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Fabi
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 10:35:50 AM
Reply
R2 was fun, but I must admit I wasn't impressed at all. I'm not much of an online player, so when you throw all that out the window. I would probably give the campaign a 7/10.
But I understand that for someone who loves online, the co-op and 60 player battles will probably make that score jump up to a 8, or 9.
Can you guys that really love the game honestly say that all multiplayer aside, the campaign itself was excellent?
Like I've said before, as great as the Leviathan looked, never did I feel like I was truly interacting with it. It felt more like I was on a rollercoster and I could do only what the script wanted me to do.
It was a decent experience, but not even close to being GOTY like some people on here have said.
And is it just me not being able to figure it out, or is there no 4 player split screen action?
I would rather play with real friends, nothing beats that. I hate this damn trend of taking that out of games...
Last edited by Fabi on 11/28/2008 10:37:05 AM
0 up, 1 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 10:47:08 AM
As for the other comment, I don't know what you're talking about...only wasim clearly issued a post in this thread that can be considered fanboyish. Wasim, by the way, needs to cut the sh** with the Sony flag-waving.
0 up, 0 down
Arvis
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 4:52:52 PM
And that's really the issue here: the disparity Edge shows in the standard they hold games to depending on the console it is on.
Halo 3: no innovation = 10/10
Gears2: no innovation = 9/10
Resistance 2: some innovation = 6/10
You can't argue with the numbers. There is a clear bias, and their excuses for it are nebulous and flimsy.
-Arvis
1 up, 0 down
The_Benny
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 5:44:39 PM
Halo 3: Little innovation in content, but lots in "concept and execution" = +1 point over Halo 2
Gears 2: Little innovation, but takes everything good about Gears and cranks it up a notch = +1 point over Gears
Resistance 2: Little innovation over the weak Resistance, except for making the sizes/amounts of everything larger = -1 over Resistance
Nobody else seems to agree with that though. Looking at Metacritic, some reviews are dismissive of the story or feel Hale has changed into a generic character. Some don't much like the campaign but like the story itself. Some miss a proper co-op campaign. Some feel it has lots that's great about it but doesn't do enough to stand out. Some have said it doesn't innovate but is overall a great experience. In each case, for every negative they found a large selection of positives.
Edge seem to be the only ones to have found issues with every single part of the game.
Last edited by The_Benny on 11/28/2008 5:46:18 PM
0 up, 0 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 8:40:58 PM
0 up, 0 down
The_Benny
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 10:36:49 PM
From reading reviews pretty much everybody is saying that R2 improves on every aspect of Resistance, save for maybe being able to co-op the main campaign and the weapon limit (but even then it's not universal criticism, and they happen for valid reasons). Logic would suggest that at worst that would result in R2 receiving the same score as the original, not a point lower. Which isn't to say that the Edge reviewer is wrong - it's just their opinion, after all - but it is quite at odds with everybody else.
0 up, 0 down
somethingrandom
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 10:40:57 PM
Anyway:
I actually really do miss the proper co-op campaign and the vehicle driving. I'm kind of annoyed when three titans are all coming for me and ignoring allies. I'm also confused at the offline co-op. You can only have two people, so you are either missing out on ammo, firepower, or the ability to heal (you can still survive if you are both medics). I still love the game of course.
BTW, Gears2 did not look ONE LICK better than R2. I played it at my friends house, and he even has a better TV than me.
1 up, 0 down
shaydey77
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 11:11:59 AM
Reply
Um..the full content of game clearly wasnt there so how could they refer to it??
Secondly putting in the word CONVENIENTLY seems as if they are intent on trying to enrage fanboys and non-fanboys alike. One score does not make you biased or unbiased. Its like i said ages ago somewhere here...If something isnt wrong why do they need to publish articles like this to defend it?
Last edited by shaydey77 on 11/28/2008 11:12:27 AM
0 up, 0 down
dillonthebunny
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 11:21:10 AM
Reply
But with CoD5 and the mighty KZ2 I forgot about it, and only realised when PLAY sent me an email saying that it had been shipped.
Anyway, just played the first few chapters, been online DM's and what not... theres no way you could class this as a 'just above avg' game theres just no way.
Ive been reading the Edge mag on and off for years, its a quality print rather than subject matter if you know what I mean. Its quite expensive, it always was for a games mag and really only ever covered yesterdays Retro games and Xbox with a bit of Sony and nintendo thrown in for fun.
The main problem with Edge is that if full of people my age who can get over how great it all used to be.
The Magazine has carved its way in to the industry by giving overly harsh scores and telling its readers that 2D is better than 3D, and by telling you that unless you like PacMan and own ceratin microsoft products... you really shouldnt be gaming. Thats the Edge mag, thats it in a nutshell.
Im not a fanboy (well, no more than most here) but I have read many MANY issues where you just sit there and think "wtf"...some are well written, some are not. some can be in praise of the Wii or PS3, but overall you get this sense that they all think Gabe Newell is a god.
I dont give a monkeys if they gave LBP 10/10.. we know its a top game, but seriously! Im not saying they were wrong either, some of their reviews are spot on, but it seems far FAR more political when reviewing certain games that if given a harsh score the world will pop up and say "hey.. The Edge mag, wow"
In actual fact everyone is saying the opposite.
I used to read about 6-8 gaming magazines a month, every month for years. now I dont, I just cant anymore.. the information is just too biased.
I collect my information from the net, because I can read what the Edge say as well as OPSM or PSXE or IGN.
But The Edge is so minor that it doesnt even blemish any opinion of mine, but it does amaze me how the internet have reacted to this rag, its just weird!
Maybe the Edge mag is more highly regarded than I thought, maybe im wrong and the Edge is Right?
It all comes down to opinion, something the Edge dont believe in because they dont discuss they tell people.. or so they like to think.
But after this outburst and recaction from the net, I wonder if their postion is as how they think it is.
Last edited by dillonthebunny on 11/28/2008 11:23:56 AM
0 up, 0 down
Ultimadream
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 5:37:00 PM
Reply
1 up, 1 down
AntDC
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 5:46:02 PM
Reply
BTW I'm not saying GTAIVs a bad game, because it's great, but how is it innovative, say compared to the like of San Andreas? I just think the word innovative has been tossed around a bit carelessly lately.
1 up, 1 down
Aftab
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 7:54:10 PM
Reply
Last edited by Aftab on 11/28/2008 7:55:08 PM
0 up, 1 down
Digby
Sunday, November 30, 2008 @ 2:17:51 PM
Reply
Last edited by Digby on 11/30/2008 2:19:44 PM
0 up, 0 down
Aftab
Monday, December 01, 2008 @ 2:13:13 PM
0 up, 0 down
creepypete
Sunday, November 30, 2008 @ 3:06:08 PM
Reply
If you don't like the way a site or a mag reviews games then move on to another until you find one that you agree with............dam... I don't agree with this critique, but I will never tell someone that their opinion is any less important than mine.
1 up, 0 down
Aftab
Monday, December 01, 2008 @ 2:27:07 PM
0 up, 0 down
cadpig
Sunday, November 30, 2008 @ 5:30:42 PM
Reply
You can't expect a game reviewer to change their score because you disagree with it and still expect independence.
Digby, i wouldn't say Gears 2 is better than Resistance 2. Just different from each other. Both has some great Man'o Man moments of greatness.
Last edited by cadpig on 11/30/2008 5:33:53 PM
0 up, 0 down
Lordnicon
Sunday, November 30, 2008 @ 6:40:43 PM
Reply
I wont say that this is an indicator of my age considering im only in my 20's, but I really do miss the days when paper based publications were the main forum for criticism. There are too many aspects of magazines that I feel are a benefit to go into detail about. I will say however that with the emergence of major online game sites and expanded web space, the instantaneousness of information (i feel) almost makes us A LITTLE callous and perhaps jaded. We are allowed so much more time to peruse this abundance of information that perhaps we grant it more power than we did before.
Not only that but the internet also has no filter. Fanboyism CAN receive a major boost when given a platform to preach from and a like-minded community to thrive off of. On the other hand, we are given a much greater diversity of opinion (however you view that).
One last thing I would like to comment on is this apparent absence or decline of game rentals. In a world where money does not grow on trees, decision-making on where to put your money is critically important. It seems today that we often view renting (at now higher prices) a waste of money and perhaps a bane to us in the case that a game we might have bought we no longer feel the need to buy because we got so far while renting it. This can be a tricky dilemma, but I remember renting giving me the opportunity to truly test the words of critics. If a game was worth more than a 7 day experience then i knew it was worth buying or not (most of the times, but not always).
There are so many aspects to be considered that analyzing gaming by the effects of critics is very hard.
1 up, 0 down
Daedusian
Monday, December 01, 2008 @ 12:11:49 AM
Reply
It is VERY disappointing to know such people are out there. The 'review' for R2 was just horrible. Absolutely horrible and it saddens me. Not for the fact that I guess you could call me a geek (but really..everyone who plays a video game is) but because of people who are, plain and simple, a waste (when it comes to their occupation). He does not make one point, ONE, to why the game is so lackluster and it is why it disappoints me greatly. The same goes for Variety. They offer no explanation to why the game downright sucks.
And it's a shame because there really are people out there who read this crap and nothing else, so they therefore base their opinion off of one (lousy) review. This then creates an endless wave of ignorant people who cannot comprehend the true meaning of what a reviewer should say, and so they take the easy route and stick with them.
And this guy at EDGE is just so overwhelmingly negative about the game he cannot even come up with something positive. He mentions NOTHING of the game except for, "oh, it's got 60 player and... oh some co-op... but it sucks because it offers nothing new." No actually there's ALOT more to it than that buddy.
I could go on and on, but I am really too steamed over this to add anything else... and I have to get to bed lol.
Last edited by Daedusian on 12/1/2008 12:30:28 AM
0 up, 0 down
Robertson99
Monday, December 01, 2008 @ 11:42:11 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Aristophanes
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 2:52:52 PM
Reply
Stop whining and suck it up, stop being so fanboyish and reactionary and recognise for the love of god that, if you are going to buy and love the game (and most of you will), NO review matters. Not even PSXtreme's review. The game's going to sell well regardless of how Edge scores it, which ultimately makes PSXtreme's articles on the matter a total waste of all our time.
Last edited by Aristophanes on 2/10/2009 2:53:43 PM
0 up, 0 down
sabitrulz
Reply
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 9:52:06 PM