PS3 News: PSXE Rebuttal To Edge's R2 Review: Get Over Yourselves - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

PSXE Rebuttal To Edge's R2 Review: Get Over Yourselves

Update: 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

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (80 posts)

sabitrulz
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 9:52:06 PM
Reply

agree ben,it seems like macroshafts money is now goin 2 game critix's pockets.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Deleted User
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 1:11:31 AM

QUIT being a DAMN fanboy all the time!!!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

wasim
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 1:14:52 AM

EDGE/1up/Gamespot/Gametrailers

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

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 6:29:41 AM

where the hell is my fanboy-be-gone spray? Shit man, fanboys suck ass no matter what side they reside on....

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

djjake
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 6:49:34 AM

wasim, ign uk gave a poor score of 8.5 or something, the more recent reviews seem to be getting worse...

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

bearbobby
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 3:45:18 PM

@ djjake

Dude, an 8.5 is NOT a poor score. A 6.0 is a poor score.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 9:52:50 PM
Reply

Yeah! You're not allowed to RENT here anymore!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Schmitty
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 9:53:48 PM
Reply

...rawr

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PilarVIRUS
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 10:08:11 PM
Reply

To tell you something that's why I don't go to that site because one I think that their full of themselves and they suck. Personally R2 isn't my kind of game but it doesn't... I mean, yeah.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ghostfather
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 10:10:16 PM
Reply

R2's single player wasn't great but the coop and competitive online modes add up to an 8 at the VERY VERY least on their own

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

FreQaZoiD
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 10:22:56 PM
Reply

I agree with you Ben. I never have given the Edge (formerly next-gen.biz) reviews much merit and this is just another example of a critic thinking they are "experts" just because they write for a magazine. They are exactly that... writers NOT gamers or experts.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tatsujin
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 10:30:27 PM
Reply

Well, they don't know how to review games.. This should imply two things on the consumer; 1.) Edge sucks at reviews
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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 10:52:04 PM

Tatsujin, of course it will score under a 9.6, because someone will try to make a name for themselves, its how it works nowadays unfortunately

Last edited by aaronisbla on 11/27/2008 10:52:28 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 10:50:27 PM
Reply

I wouldn't have mind if they gave some reasons/ evidence as to why t scored the way it did, the whole "no innovation" excuse sounds a bit like a cop out answer.

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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ghostfather
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 10:56:08 PM

ya you are right. Seeing as Edge does not think R2 is innovative, they must be playing a bunch of 8 player co op FPS' that no one else knows about to justify that claim.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Buckeyestar
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 10:54:55 PM
Reply

While I myself don't care at all for FPS games and have no intention of playing R2, I understand that a great many others truly enjoy the game. However a review is one thing and one thing only . . . an opinion. If I were to do a review, I would likely laud many of the features yet score it low simply because it's a FPS. I don't take reviews so seriously as to get upset when a game scores low. I DO defend a game I love when others say it's worthless, because if it were truly worthless then I wouldn't enjoy it. A review is an opinion, everybody has one and they're not always going to jive.

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ghostfather
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 10:59:50 PM

A review may be an opinion yet they are also called game journalists, which in my understanding journalists should be unbiased. Therefore giving a game a low score because you do not like the genre is extremely biased and unprofessional.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Buckeyestar
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 11:12:33 PM

That illustrates the point exactly. Just as I shouldn't mark it lower because I don't like the genre, they shouldn't mark it lower just because it isn't "innovative" by their standards.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Joe_III
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 2:30:05 AM

But you should mark it lower if you don't like the genre. You absolutely most definitely should.

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

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 11:00:19 PM
Reply

Those type of reviews just insult gamers and are obviously given just to shock people and cause this kind of uproar. Nowhere is it written that a game must innovate to be considered good, no one cared when Gears2 and Halo 3 failed to do anything new. Any site or mag that has to defend its reviews over and over again is farked up from the get-go.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jed
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 11:26:24 PM
Reply

Many of the comments posted on the "excuse" article. There are now facts in the whole review. They didnt like the 60 person multiplayer, but why?

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 11:39:16 PM

Yup, just like it briefly became "cool" to hate on GTAIV and Final Fantasy VII. This was engineered on the lunatic fringe and it must stay there. They knew damn good and well that it would invite criticism and Ben continues to have the clearest view of gaming journalism I've had the pleasure to read.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

wasim
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 1:17:25 AM

EDGE MS diccriders reviewers

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

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 1:32:11 AM

What are you smokin' boy?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 3:06:39 AM

keep that up wasim and you will be gone by the weekend man. Seriously, its possible to love the ps3 without always resorting to bashing other companies.

Thats not what this website is about

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

chicko1983
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 11:36:00 PM
Reply

I dont know why a reviewer would ever give a numerical score to anything. There will always be some people who will never agree with whatever score is given, because the score is subjective to the reviewer only.
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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Aftab
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 12:28:22 AM

It's one thing to give a thoughtful opinion, and it's quite another thing to dissemble.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

chicko1983
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 9:48:24 AM

@Aftab:
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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Aftab
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 12:42:31 PM

If all opinions are subjective, then why are you arguing with mine for? That is like saying, "Truth does not exist". If the statement is true, then it contradict's itself.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

chicko1983
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 4:15:39 PM

I am not saying that "truth does not exist".

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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Aftab
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 6:34:43 PM

Well, I'll put it this way. Where would you rather get your news from? FoxNews, or CNN. Or would you avoid the news altogether, like you claim to do with reviews?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

chicko1983
Sunday, November 30, 2008 @ 3:02:33 AM

Haha, its a review of a game Aftab. You are getting mixed up with what "critical review" and "standard reporting" in journalism is.

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Aftab
Sunday, November 30, 2008 @ 5:25:11 PM

Ofcourse they are different. But they share common criteria by which their reputation is affected: "credability", "reliability", so forth.
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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Dealnightfire
Thursday, November 27, 2008 @ 11:48:04 PM
Reply

I would respect the score Edge gave R2 if it made sense. They gave Halo 3 a perfect score, according to metacritic. I thought Halo 3 was a great game but it was in no way innovative at all. It was very well polished but it added nothing new substance wise. So I don't understand why one game gets trashed (R2) for being just a better version over its predecessor and one game is praised for being a better version over its predecessor.

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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Arvis
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 4:32:23 PM

The site/magazine has no definite editorial guidelines; in other words: their whole system is FUBAR from the ground up.

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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 12:12:23 AM
Reply

I miss the Gaming magazine days...
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?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Aftab
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 12:22:39 AM
Reply

Edge gave 6/10 to R2 for lack of innovation. Yet, according to their 9/10 rating of Gears2 on metacritc, they weren't nearly as harsh on that game. Then that kid's article says anyone who says otherwise is a fanboy, and wonders why they have to face negative commentary. I'm sorry, he didn't win my sympathy. So, it sees to me they're in the business of nabbing negative attention over the internet.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

somethingrandom
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 1:20:00 AM
Reply

Not innovative? NOT INNOVATIVE? In any other game have you seen the see-through-wall ability of the Auger? The burst fire of the Marksman (or the secondary fire)? The tagging of the bullseye? The explosive secondary fire of the Magnum? The shoot-through-wall ability of the Auger? The flare-like secondary fire of the LAARK? The invisibility of the Chameleon? The zombie-like Chimera that sprint at you? The V7 Splicer? Need I go on? NOT INNOVATIVE MY ASS!!!

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

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

The_Benny
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 9:28:16 AM

As Joe says below, some of that isn't necessarily as innovative as it might seem. Perfect Dark on the N64 had a sniper rifle that allowed you to see and shoot through walls, seeing players as sort of thermal images, and from what I can recall both the film Eraser and an episode of Deep Space Nine had such things (but obviously aren't games, where it has to really work).

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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 1:39:15 AM
Reply

Personally I see reviews as just opinions though they should include some facts such as sound output and average framerate etc..

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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Joe_III
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 2:12:42 AM
Reply

@Ben
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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Vivi_Gamer
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 2:13:15 AM
Reply

Ha, WHAT A RIOT! still doesnt put me off getting it today, bu looking at the other gams that get 6/10, i think R2 is at a higher standard.........

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

FLYING_APE
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 4:08:41 AM
Reply

I give R2 a solid 8.5/10.0

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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wage SLAVES
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 4:11:17 AM
Reply

What a slap in the face...R2 was a bottomless pit of fun. I DONT want innovation with certain games, Modern Warfare 2. I can see it not being someones cup-o-tea but like Joe said above "if its a good game, it deserves a good score no matter what."

They (Edge) are, again, like Joe describes, just for entertainment purposes, apparently COMEDY...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

GuernicaReborn
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 5:03:42 AM
Reply

Wow... I hope edge sees this and replies to it, how do you think they would react? I'd love to know if you get a reply from the site and/or the author of the review. Maybe you could post it as an update to this?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

TheRaPtuRe
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 6:03:57 AM
Reply

R2 is a remarkable game imo
Fantastic, so much mun!
It exceeded my expectations.
It was like half life crossed with bioshock

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Godslim
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 6:04:36 AM
Reply

i actually think it should get 7 or 8 really its just not that great compared to the cod 4 and waw which set the standard....ok i havent played the singleplayer whihc i reckon will be great but the mutilplayer to me just doesnt live up to the hight of cod4 or waw :( though still 6 out of 10 is a bit stupid!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

jonny_bolton
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 6:59:05 AM
Reply

I only played the Beta, and I really didn't like it. If that's the summation of the game I won't be spending £40 on it. Anyway that's my opinion. I'll see how I feel when it goes platinum...
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

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

pavlovic
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 8:49:47 AM
Reply

If R2 scored a 6 because the lack of innovation, I should ask why Gears 2 scored a 9?

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

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

The_Benny
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 10:00:13 AM

I thought the same thing, that there are several critically acclaimed sequels that aren't known for innovating. According to Metacritic Edge rated Gears 1 at 8 and the sequel at 9, but the sequel didn't really innovate at all outside of adding the Horde mode.

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

CH1N00K
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 9:27:15 AM
Reply

Hmm, I seem to remember Ben catching some flak when he didn't give GTAIV a 10 out of 10 like everyone else. Sure he didn't cut it down to a six (which in my honest opinion, that is a bit low) Who knows what Edge's reasons are behind it? Could it have been money? Maybe they had a sponsor of the site threatening to pull out because they didn't have enough readers..they needed to do something to show that they have people readingand reacting to their site. Maybe they just didn't like the game. In the end, the people who actually bother to read reviews will do their homework and decide for themselves. One thing I've learned from spending time in the Video game sections, is that there are a lot of people who don't know that sites like these exist, and don't have a clue what they are buying except for what the sales clerk told them. In the end is one bad review going to make a difference? Not enough to put Sony or Insomniac out of business. I bought the game, as did quite a few others. I enjoyed it and have played it quite a bit, I've convinced a few of my friends to buy it so we can play online together. And you know what? They agreed 100% with my review, and they've told their friends.

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

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Reccaman18
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 9:38:26 AM
Reply

Edge's scoring system sucks. All they say at the bottom is a number out of another number. They give no indication as to why its like that. Even IGN tells you what the game had good, v.s what it didnt have. Like graphics were such and such, and sound was such and such. Thats why I love this site. At least if a game gets a bad rating, I can at least see why.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

JPBooch
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 9:53:28 AM
Reply

I guess having monsters the size of buildings a kick ass coop and a 60 player competitive multiplayer isn't innovative. What planet are these people on?

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

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

The_Benny
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 10:37:15 AM

Actually, if you read the Edge review they specifically criticise all those things (especially the multiplayer), suggesting that they mainly did them for bragging rights over the competition, then had to find ways to make them workable. They essentially say that:

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 10:44:56 AM

1) The giant bosses are a staple of the game, and nothing we've seen in FPSs before. The mere fact they're not mentioned immediately eliminates the review from eligibility, IMO. As for the two-weapon aspect, it requires a form of strategy that was unheard of in the original, and if you simply look around, you'd realize the developers place weapons in certain areas that would never leave you high-and-dry. The only part of this I agree with is the NPCs focusing entirely on you, which WAS annoying.

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.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

The_Benny
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 11:07:44 AM

Well that's fair enough then. All I can go on is what the review said, which seemed to cover each of those points. I'm still a month or two off of playing the game myself.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

GamerKid123
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 10:24:35 AM
Reply

Stuff EDGE, i'm sticking with good ol' PSXE.
I want proper reviews.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tatsujin
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 10:32:52 AM
Reply

Btw Ben, nice article... show Edge who runs the game! lol

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fabi
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 10:35:50 AM
Reply

@Ben - You should warn people on being PS3 fanboys, the same way you do with 360 fanboys. It's annoying to read those **** riding Sony comments.

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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 10:47:08 AM

Yes, of course. The single-player campaign was the best of the year in FPSs.

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 3:39:08 PM

*cough* Sora *cough*

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Arvis
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 4:52:52 PM

If games were scored strictly on single player, Halo 3 should have averaged out to a 5/10 or so.

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

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

The_Benny
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 5:44:39 PM

That's not quite it though, Arvis. They rated the previous Halo and Gears games highly anyway, whereas they didn't think much of the first Resistance. So their thinking seems to be more:

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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 8:40:58 PM

I can find issues with every part of the game, too; the most anal critics all can. The problem is that said critics can't distinguish between RELEVANT issues and those that likely wouldn't impact the fun factor for 99.99% of all gamers on earth. I guess that's what I'm driving at.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

The_Benny
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 10:36:49 PM

I agree, sorry if that wasn't clear, I'm just trying to understand the logic of it. It genuinely seems odd that most sites could point out an issue or two with the game but could see that the whole outweighed that flaws, whereas Edge apparently can only see flaws that outweigh the whole.

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.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

somethingrandom
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 10:40:57 PM

Keep up the good work Ben!!

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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

shaydey77
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 11:11:59 AM
Reply

'With little reference to the content of the review, many struck out against the supposedly insolent 6 out of 10 score, awash with accusations of bias toward the Xbox360 (yet conveniently forgetting it gave ‘LittleBigPlanet’ 10 out of 10 the previous month.'

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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

dillonthebunny
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 11:21:10 AM
Reply

I didnt want R2 just yet.. I only preordered it to get the beta from PLAY, it was always my intention to cancel it.

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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Vivi_Gamer
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 5:37:00 PM
Reply

after playing 3 chapters its quite clear edge is talking out of there arse, i think its brilliant, Theonly beef i have is though predator camo chimeras, thats pretty damn cheap when they come up behind you and i also find when i throw a grenade over a barrier or wall, it bounces back at me! other than that its brilliant, a good challenge just like R1. 8/10 - so far.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

AntDC
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 5:46:02 PM
Reply

Innovative? Innovative!? What a joke. What score did they give GTAIV? Now tell me, how is that game innovative? Seriously. Maybe Edge should be more consistant with their reveiws instead of being such douche bags.

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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Aftab
Friday, November 28, 2008 @ 7:54:10 PM
Reply

What prevents most organisations of journalism from making irresponsible reports, or endorsing them, is their audience. If they lose their perceived credability, they'll lose their audience. Now it so happens with pseudo-journalists at Edge, they've found profit in baseless negative attention. They'll get internet traffic both ways: kudos from their fans, and even more from the provoked commentary of those whom they incited. Now, by doing so, are they going to affect sales? Are they going to interfere with the reward and revenue Insomniac deserves for their consistent output of quality over the years? I don't think so. But if they don't recieve a build of Killzone2, Gran Tursimo 5, or God of War 3 in time to put out a review, I'm sure they'll figure out why. And I wouldn't be surprised if they put out a review anyways, despite not playing the game, which probably was the case, here.

Last edited by Aftab on 11/28/2008 7:55:08 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Digby
Sunday, November 30, 2008 @ 2:17:51 PM
Reply

I bought R2 to play at home with a friend. I game online, but play many games with real people at my house. When co-oping on R2, only the main profile gains game exp. and levels up, not the secondary character. Not to mention, I can't even get level progress to save or get a continue after we die. I get stuck going back to the main menu and starting all over again. Sure the game may have great potential, but I returned it because of that flaw. So I'd give it a 6 or 6.5 myself. So could all of the fan-boys stop crying. I love Sony, but Gears is better.

Last edited by Digby on 11/30/2008 2:19:44 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Aftab
Monday, December 01, 2008 @ 2:13:13 PM

And that's fine. But if you were a professional reviewer, and you did the samething, not even playing most of the game before giving it a 6, and admitted that, you'd probably lose your job at most places. And btw, the article wasn't about whether Gears was better or not. Not the best thing to say after calling others, "fanboys".

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

creepypete
Sunday, November 30, 2008 @ 3:06:08 PM
Reply

It's not the critics JOB to have YOU agree with him, it is however his job to tell you what he likes and dislikes in a game, whether you agree with him or not. Man, I am so tired of fanboys not hearing what they want so the bellyache an complain........you do realize that game critiques are completely subjective?

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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Aftab
Monday, December 01, 2008 @ 2:27:07 PM

This is true, but that wasn't in question. What was in question was the sincerety of the review. If he's giving a game a 6, especially without stated reasons, and just about every other established and credible site is giving 9's to, then ofcourse something fishy is going on. And I beg to differ about all critics being subjective. Colors, texture, resolution, and framerate are not merely subjective. Number of levels, level diversity, and on-screen assests is not merely subjective. Responsivesness in controls is not merely subjective. So they're plenty of things to evlauate objectively. So a critic need not be "completely sujective". But don't worry. You won't lose your "right of free speach".

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

cadpig
Sunday, November 30, 2008 @ 5:30:42 PM
Reply

Point taken, creepypete and agreed upon. The only problem i have is with the not innovative charge that a few game reviewers make. Then they take points away because of it.
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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lordnicon
Sunday, November 30, 2008 @ 6:40:43 PM
Reply

The power of suggestion is truly an interesting thing. I miss the days where the power of a critic seemed a little more limited. I miss that gut feeling so many of my friends and I had that led us to try games that could very easily turn out to be very bad games. Some of my favorite games were games that reviewers would have torn to pieces.

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.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Daedusian
Monday, December 01, 2008 @ 12:11:49 AM
Reply

Ben I truly hope your words have been heard by many, especially to those who have read and agreed/disagreed with the so-called 'reviewer' at EDGE on R2. You make a lot of sense and it really shows not only the intelligence that you have but also your overall take on the world, that many of us lack today. And this is what every journalist should have, so I thank you. But anyways, my rant...

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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Robertson99
Monday, December 01, 2008 @ 11:42:11 AM
Reply

Oh dear, I was so shocked when i heard of this review. I live in the UK so I only got the game last friday, so I've been reading the reviews to get myself even more hyped up than I was for it...anyway...I've just completed it for the second time and there are still bits in the game, like the first time that you see San Fransico, that I just can't help but stop and admire. This game is not just a game, it's a work of art. There are going to be games in the future that use Resistance 2 as a basis for how a game should be!!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Aristophanes
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 @ 2:52:52 PM
Reply

I don't understand why Edge is receiving so much flak over giving the game a slightly lower score than every other outlet. I can't remember this happening when 80% of critics failed utterly to give fair and balanced reviews of that last Sonic game (which, although 50% crap, was treated like Sonic 06, which was SO many orders of magnitude worse - wtf??). I can't remember this happening when Halo 3 received a 70% score from GameCritics.

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

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

Are you getting Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor?
Yup, I'm nabbing this one now.
Yes, but I'm waiting for a while.
Maybe...not sure yet.
No, not interested.

Previous Poll Results