Network now...BLOG
What Are Reviews Good For?
Thom Dinsdale is an independent blogger. Contrary to erroneous reports on some linking sites, this article is not a "response" by Edge and has not been authored by anyone representing Edge.
How do consumers use the work of critics in their own decision making and why do they show such hostility to poor reviews?
Last weekend turned out to be an interesting one for those interested in the culture of game reviewing. Whilst Keith Stuart of the Guardian Gamesblog was questioning whether reviewers really cared about (or even understood) innovation when critiquing games, Edge-Online published a review that gave ‘Resistance 2’ a quite controversial but perhaps not surprising 6 out of 10.
Keith Stuart’s column responded to the lukewarm critical reception received by Mirror’s Edge since its release, professing that reviewers should look beyond the rudiments of graphics and gameplay when a game attempts to push beyond the confines of genre and convention. “If it were a movie, Mirror's Edge would be critically lauded by the specialist film press – it would be considered a forward-thinking masterpiece. Sure, it's dangerous to compare two such different media, but there are key similarities – one is the way in which critics should be able to deconstruct the experience on offer and draw from it undeniable values that outweigh concerns about basic construction.”
This leads on to Edge’s review of ‘Resistance 2’, which criticised the game largely for its lack of innovation and improvement since the franchise’s first instalment. 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.
There seems to be an existential angst gripping the current culture of games reviewing. There is little clarity as to what the point of games reviews is, or even whether there needs to be such clarity. Reviewing games is no easy task, speaking from experience, and finding that finely tuned tipping point where a review explores the critical and artistic merits of a title whilst still discussing its utility to the gamer is complex and ultimately impossible. Furthermore the culture of videogame critiquing is not hardly as developed as that of cinema and, as Stuart rightly points out, the points of comparison between the two are so few and far between that the amount one can learn from the other is limited at best.
What is also unclear and unhelpful to games reviewers is the lack of clarity in what role reviews play in the consumers’ decision making process. Common sense would dictate that a review is something prospective consumers may use to inform their own judgement of a title before making a discion on whether to invest or not. The fact that major reviews are published before the launch of a major title would attest to this. The reality, it seems, is far more complex.
Glossing over the comments left by readers of the ‘Resistance 2’ review many of the most hostile are from those who have already played the title. Too much stock should never be put in the opinions of those hid conveniently behind a keyboard, however Insomniac’s franchise is a huge part of the PlayStation 3’s exclusive portfolio. It isn’t too much to assume that PS3 owners would have a lot invested emotionally in the success of the title. As such, reading positive reviews could very well be one way in which consumers can justify their choice of brand and product. The accusations of bias directed at Edge would seemingly enforce the idea that this is about more than just the title itself but the console to which it belongs and the alleviation of cognitive dissonance. In many ways, a bad review is not just commentary on a supposedly poor title but a poor consumer and decision maker.
Ultimately, it is no one’s place to dictate how game reviews are best used. However, as marketing communications tools it seems they have a role to play in the informing and enforcing of product decisions along with the remedying of social angst (no doubt a topic for extensive research). What does this mean for reviewers? Perhaps it adds a little context to their own opinions and perhaps it should remind them that they are not just speaking to prospective gamers but also those looking to reconcile their own experiences and feelings with the general consensus. While it is a great shame to see gamers who have bought too heavily into the marketing hype knee-jerk in reaction to a poor review rather than discussion the issues raised, the biggest danger facing reviewers is that they should too see the lack of precedents as a challenge rather than an opportunity.
If the content of the review was the same but the number at the bottom had been a 9 instead of a 6, how many of you would ranting away in this comments section?
I agree the review wasn't the best I've ever seen but it wasn't completely awful either. It's just it didn't say what a lot of you wanted it to say so you've got your knickers in a twist. Theres maybe one or two posters here who have managed to communicate their difference of opinion with the review without resorting to accusations or barely literate diatribes.
And even with the article above I don't believe many of you read/comprehended it, as you've mostly played out the type of insecure ranting that was mentioned.
Reviews in EDGE do not exist to reinforce your purchasing habits. They offer the reviewers opinion (which like you they are perfectly entitled to). If that opinion differs from yours it does not somehow devalue your own, so please do not feel the need to mount a rage inspired defense of it.
This is, perhaps, the most accurate, cognitive "comment" I have witnessed on cognitive dissonance, fanboyism and I sir am glad you are a member of the community. I whole-heartedly concur.
Now having read the entire review and magazine (sorry, Edge takes a while to arrive at Portugal's stands), plus most of the comments, I futher insist on my point:
Edge editorial policy is in need of some reapreciation... specially on reviews and scoring criteria.
I don't oppose to "innovation" being a factor about the review and a game's score. But if so, this should be observed in all reviews.
I remember that Super Mario Galaxy got a 10. It's a great game, we all agree. But it's just Super Mario N64 polished (I fail to see how gravity and floor/ceiling puzzles are innovative... we've all seen that before).
If Edge insists on seeing games through a thicker lense, as a more mature media, I'm fine by that. But on that case, Gears of War2 couldn't be seen as Schindler's List. It's clearly Bruckheimer: a mere blockbuster.
PS: regarding this article, I fail to understand the mention about LBP's 10 score. "Fanboyism defense" should be backed by facts, not lame observations.
Edit: Just remembered this one... God Of War 2 also got a 6, if I do remember correctly, and a 1 page review, just like Resistance 2.
God of War 2, one of the greatest examples of videogame blockbusters to date (along with the Halo series and Gears of War, probably).
Edge score incoherence is nothing new.
Honestly I bought EDGE from issue 2 for many years and watched it very very slowly inflate its own ego. EDGE used to be a good magazine. I wont comment on this Resistance2 fiasco, if EDGE believed in its reviews it wouldn't have published any INDEPENDENT bloggers write up. By the way, I just read the guys 19 and a student. Oh my god.
Consequently, this write is on Edge's site and will represent EDGE despite what they say. Seriously EDGE and independent blogger, Get over yourselves. You used to be a decent read way back in the early years.
did you seriously just criticize someone for being a 19 yr old student?
Please shurrup re: Gears vs. Resistance...Thanks...Nuff Said!
Reviewers often miss out / fail to report on important aspects of games in their reviews. Local Co-op is a big plus for me and a major factor in a game purchase...I just got burned by COD:WAW with its terrible design decisions applied to split-screen mode in the local co-op (it's unplayable even on a 38" screen.)
I've read a lot of reviews of the game and nobody mentioned this aspect whatsoever.
I haven't seen one review of Left4Dead that mentions its great guest option for online splitscreen (two players on-line with just one gamertag). Features like this elevate games from try-to-buy for me and rarely if ever get a mention in reviews.
I guess my point is that a lot of reviewers fail to give an accurate description of what a product offers to consumers in their reviews.
GTA4 and Far Cry 2 have made me extremely wary of game-reviews and taught me to take 'em all with a pinch of salt...
I suggest the Fanboys do the same.
BTW; Gears 2 = Brilliant
Yes Thom, all your facts are coherent and racional.
Yet, the point is, Edge gave a poor review to Resistance 2 mainly because it lacks innovation.
On the other hand, NGai writes an article about how "Co-operative games may turn out to have been the most important development of 2008."
Read it?
He explains how the innovative and massive Resistance 2 multiplayer really doesn't work well, but "if Insomniac can find a way to mix things up more it has the template for something both unique and special in the world of consoles".
Unique and special.
Opposed to the Gears of War 2 multiplayer, wich "is completely straightforward", writes NGai.
Straight. Tried and tested. Equal to others.
Conclusion:
Gears 2: Excellent review. A straightforward game. Nice blockbuster. More of the same, nothing new. Score lowered because lacks innovation? No.
Resistance 2: Average review. A straightforward game. Nice blockbuster. More of the same, innovative multiplayer. Score lowered because lacks innovation? Yes.
All glued together, I fail to see an editorial guideline.
Edge allways had one. Right now, I find it missing.
Edge is my magazine of choice (call me an Edgeboy!). And I believe you guys failed on this one.
I generally never pay attention to reviews because there is no consistency. Reviewers rate the game as a standalone but do not rate it against it's peers. As a standalone game you feel that R2 is a 6 but you are then telling me I should seriously consider that R2 is only slightly by a split hair better than HAZE?
Another thing that kills me is how reviewers may slam, or complain about X game not being innovative enough and penalize the game. They will then turn around and shout to the rooftops about how they love Y game when it provides no innovation at all. Where is the consistency? You can't seriously complain about how one game doesn't innovate but then don't hold the other to the same standard.
I am not just speaking about the R2 and GW2 fiasco, I see this all the time with various games. Someone complain about an action/adventure genre game not having online multiplayer and subtracts 1 point but then they give another action/adventure genre game +2 points for having a horribly broken online multiplayer piece tacked on.
In the end, reviews aren't good for anything to me because they are not consistent and nothing is ever held to the same standards.
If Edge thinks that Gears of War 2 is a 9/10 and Resistance 2 is a 6/10 then that is fine by me. I don't really think that a bias does exist within Edge as I don't really see what benefit having one would bring to a multi format journalist or publication. The score that the game received isn’t the underlying issue here anyway.
What I object to is the actual content of Edge's Resistance 2 review, and although I can see why the reviewer has taken a detached & apathetic approach to reviewing Resistance 2 when the game proved to be a big disappointment for him, I do expect more informative content on a major release from a publication costing £4.50 per issue, especially when there are so many other free gaming websites around.
I suspect that the review process for Resistance 2 has been rushed and it is probably no coincidence that October and November have seen so many big releases in such a short period of time. The reviewer has probably played the game for 10 minutes and based the review on first impressions. This simply isn’t good enough coverage for a flagship title.
I have always respected Edge magazine and I have bought the magazine since the 16 bit days, but after this review I have to say that I will strongly consider keeping my £4.50 in future and going elsewhere.
LOL SteeMonkey. "They are the best. This is a fact." Do you know the definition of a fact?
Now I understand why you don't think 6 out of 10 is off base! Did you play resistance 2? I didn't think so.
The reason people are so angry about this review is that everyone knows that Edge is a far more serious and proffesional magazine than any other gaming publication. Edge are proffessionals. They are the best. This is a fact. So when Edge give a poor score to a game, particularly a Failstation 3 game, the fanboys kneejerk into incoherant rants about Edge's bias.
If Edge genuinly thinks the 360 is better than the Failstation, why should they hide that?
If Edge loved Gears 2, but thought Resistance 2 was medicore, why should they say otherwise? To keep whining fanboys happy?
Edge have given their opinion on a game. They didnt think much of it. Big Deal. I can imagine that Millions of people around the world wont like Resistance 2. Are they going to recieve hatemail for thier views?
From experience, yes I think Gears 2 was overated by Edge, but thats just my opinion. It holds no weight beyond my self. I like Gears 2, but I dont think its great.
From my experience, I think Edge got it about right with Resistance 2. Its just another shooter. Its not as good as the Orange Box, which lets face it, is now 4 years old.
I dont understand the mentallity of attacking Edge because you dont agree with something they said. I have just spent about 50 hours in Fallout 3. I think it is outstanding on every level. Edge gave it 7/10. Am I angry? Of course not. I read the review and I agree with it 100% and I can see why they gave it the score they did. I am just prepared to overlook its failings because it is largely an enthralling game.
In closing, Resistance is an average game. Deal with it.
A textbook case when it comes to fanboys. Failstation? Atleast, the PS3 owners arent sending there 360 every week to get it fixed, that unreliable piece of garbage. (yeh i own one)
Furthermore, considering you called Resistance 2 average, clearly demonstrates you lack the intelligence for your opinion to even read. Take a look at IGN a far superior source of reviews, and they're ps3 and 360 team created a vid explaining why they agreed R2 is better than Gears 2. Now thats an opinion, debatable, but 6 out of 10 is not an opinion its pure BS.
Professionlism comes from consistency, from reviews being fair, not being justified every other day because a hord of fanboys and obviously common gamers who see the game has gone without merit deserves better.
Really ironman tetsuo? Explain the review for Gears 2 then.
Not even attempting to hide bias is an increasing epidemic in journalism. Gamers want evidence that they made a good console decision. Game reviewers are gamers. Voters want to justify their choice. Evening news anchors are voters. Tech reviewers are pc/mac owners. We all have bias. The difference is, journalists have a responsibility to hide their bias. A lot of them aren't even trying any more.
As FPS sequels go, R2 is pretty innovative. If you'd played R1 and R2, you'd know that there is almost nothing that has been carried over from the first. That's not because the first got terrible reviews and only moved 10k copies. Beyond changes from the original, the co-op mode is innovative for the full genre.
It's lazy and edge should be embarrassed to have it on their site.
I only stated that 6/10 from Edge was in no way a bad score, and it really isn't.
I'll even go as far to say I’ve enjoyed some low scoring games more so than those which scored higher, but I would never feel that somehow I was enjoying the "wrong thing", which seems to be the basis for all the flames.
Are non-biased reviews even possible?
A writer/reviewer pulls on past experiences in order to evaluate the present, which means to be truly unbiased one would have to harbour no memories or influences prior to playing, and unless you work for Skynet, I doubt that's even possible.
The purpose of a review is to inform, but not to inform wholly. If I’m really unsure about a game I’m thinking of purchasing I will not read one article, I’ll search out several, and from the biases the different writers exhibit I can align my own feelings towards those which feel more in tune with the way I think. If I find a review that doesn't match my perspective I will not berate the reviewer, instead I will just discard it and move on to the next.
In the end, the review relates only to the writer that penned it and then it's up to you as a reader to decide whether you would feel the same way. 6/10 in this case is accurate, because that's how much the writer felt it was worth, but value is very dependant on the user and some things which annoy some bring others much joy. Arguing that the reviewer should have given it a higher score is like demanding someone enjoy cake more than they actually do because everyone else loves cake and thus cake must be the best.
I'd much prefer it if the scores were dropped all together. Adding a solid numerical value to something as fluid as one person's preference to another’s seems pointless to all bar marketing teams and those too rushed to read the words printed above it.
To actually answer your question concerning the Gears review.
Unless both the RfoM2 and GoW2 were reviewed by the same person, comparing the scores is worthless.
The non-Edge readers in this comments section defending R2 with such ferociousness seem to be unaware of Edge's policy on review scores.
If you’re coming from a website where 7/10 equals a "bad game" (with 60% of the scale unneeded) I think you may need reminding/informing that a 6/10 in Edge has always meant “above average”, and that if you're a fan of the genre you will “enjoy” the product, but if it's not your usual cup of tea then don't make this game your first foray. How is this unreasonable?
I have bought many 6/10 games reviewed in Edge because I understand how the scores work (I’ve read the magazine for over 10 years) and I’ve enjoyed (mostly) all of them. But I would never get so offended over a score as to become frothed at the maw.
Is it Edge’s fault that (practically) everyone else in the industry uses a score system that makes no numerical sense?
Keep up the good work Edge!
P.S.
When will some realise that bad use of grammar and spelling will do more to undermine your own opinion more so than its actual content. In other words, I’d be more inclined to agree with someone’s supposedly “informed” musings if they could only be bothered to go that extra step and spell check it first.
Here here.
I read the Resistance 2 review & was left slightly p1ssed off at the laziness displayed by the reviewer on a major Ps3 release .
Not the 6/10 score, but I have no idea how he arrived at that.
I mean the style was borderline insulent. The only thing I took away from the article was that the reviewer was obviously apathetic towards it. I personally as a paying customer was none the wiser as to whether I should buy the game.
To be honest I found it a tiny bit disrespectful to people who pay for the magazine and done so in good faith looking for an informative, and by usual Edge's standard, a definitve Resistance 2 critique.
I'm still finding this reaction from PS3 gamers quite staggering, i can only assume that the fact that "reading positive reviews could very well be one way in which consumers can justify their choice of brand and product" and the "role to play in the informing and enforcing of product decisions" has a large number of Playstation owners feeling very unsteady about their choices. If you truly love this game then why do you need Edge to agree with you? Isn't that fact that you enjoy it enough?
If the cause of this outburst is indeed an underlying feeling that the PS3 isn't delivering quite what Sony promised then surely the anger would be better directed at them rather than Edge for stating an opinion about one game, after all LBP did get a 10, doesn't that make you happy?
Maybe you're reading too much into this. It's not about the PS3 and being unsteady, it's about the numbers at the end of any review. Do we need them, or not.
ps. I know that many people are complaining about the Resistance 2 review, but if you're right they should be complaining about the Valkyria Chronicles review score (a seven) even more. That won't happen of course, because that game isn't that overyped and doesn't deliver your typical male power fantasy (so "normally" people won't complain about it).
P.S. I totally agree with salaya
If you read the R2 review it is completely without merit, not once does the reviewer justify his opinions about the game not once does he add examples to his claims he just states his opinions when in fact thats not what were looking for as gamers, I mean who cares wut your OPINION is on a specific game you dont come to the table w a preconcieved idea who the hell are you we want facts this is this bc of this not this is this bc I dont like it. If that was the case then alot of reviews would be garbage like edges, wut if someone gave LBP or Halo low scores just bc they didnt like that type of game. The point is facts are needed in reviews not opinions, where were the details on the graphics or gameplay maybe details on AI or the multplayer they were all nonexistent edge your reviewer sux tell him to check out some other more reliable reviewers and jot down some notes on how its done make sure he doesnt THINK to much the he might mess that one up also.
Pleasure reaped from any item, be it game, sound, art or the written word, is never a 'fact' so much as a subjective impressoin for reasons that are, at best, still wary in the minds of most anyone. The best any critic can do at this level of reviewmanship is to tell you a structural set of facts -- features, if you will -- and what the net result of pleasure was for their own individual experience. It's the latter part that differentiates the modern critic from the back of the game's box.
Edge reviews are a joke period. Thats the bottomline, ask all any users on the gamespot forum, gametrailers, there will be abusive language towards Edge, simply there stuff is BS. I dont care if LBP got a 10 and neither does the ps3 community who saw the same BS with MGS4. Both MGS4 and R2 are sequels intertwined with the ps3, high profile games that fanboys rant about. Where as LBP is a new IP that doesnt appeal to fanboys or the hardcore gamer. I'm not a fanboy, considering i own both consoles and give the credit that is deserved when giving my opinion.
The point here is a game thats good and is an achievement when it comes to multiplayer and its unique weapons, scores a 6 out of 10, obviously people are going to be angry when a good game goes without a deserving score. And every other day, theres an article coming out from Edge on why there review is controversial and why they chose to give it that score (considering their arguments are pure hypocrisy when it comes to other games, i.e Gears 2 any big improvement over Gears 1?), you guys had a article about why u gave MGS4 an 8 out 10 (yeah we are still laughing at you considering its going to be Game of the Year 2008, your stuff is pure comedy). I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY SITE JUSTIFYING THERE REVIEWS.
Edge's intentions maybe biased or pure BS, THEY ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY OR AN AUTHENTIC SOURCE OF GAMING UNTIL THERE REVIEWS ARE MORE PROFESSIONAL. KEEP JUSTIFYING EDGE.
Something to note: Famitsu's scores are VERY different from Gamespot's. Why?
Because Famitsu is Japanese, and the Japanese have different tastes. One could make the same argument in this case. While it might seem like Europeans like the same games Americans do, that is simply not true.
I find EDGE's reviews to be extremely interesting, for what it's worth.
Oh dear, your educated 'sources' are gamespot and gametrailers...
Also I'm not sure who told you that extensive use of capitals makes your argument more convincing, but they were lying.
A review of anything, be it game, book, movie or whatever is purely a statement of opinion (or should that be OPINION?) You are of course entitled to your own opinion and forums such as this exist for you to express it, particularly if you feel inclined to do so due to the difference between your opinion and the person writing the review. However all im seeing above is you complaining that you don't like EDGEs Resistance 2 review because your friends at Gamespot told you it was rubbish. Perhaps you should be asking why Gamespot are so inclined to rate games so highly - could it possibly be the fact that their business model is entirely reliant on ad revenue from the very companies who's products they are reviewing? Of course not.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2007/nov/30/gamespotedito...
more ad hominem attacks.
either support your claims, people, or kindly quiet down. It's blatant fanboyism and unclear thinking such as this that will always weigh down the industry, criticism, and the art!!
And to be clear, I am not saying I support their review of Resistance 2 -- I haven't played it myself -- but if you guys can't explain with evidence and proper argument (i.e. without ad hominem attacks! please avoid logical fallacies!) why Resistance is, in fact, better than 6/10, then what good are your opinions?
@ OmegaVader: yeah i don't care about LBP, it's a good game it did deserve the 10 out 10, and honestly i don't care if you ignored my opinion, but you read it anyways. I'm focusing on the fact that they gave a game a score of 6, citing "lack of innovation and improvement since the first one" as the reason. Yeah they are right in one way it didn't really do anything new, but you're an idiot if you can't see the many improvements they made to the game. I'm just saying that citing "lack of innovation" is a stupid reason since once again Gears 2 is basically the same game i played 2 years ago, and Halo 3 was the same game i played 4 or 5 years ago. They are good games, but they didn't do anything "innovating".
It's not about innovation, it's about coherence and gameplay. (If the reviewer refers to the "lack of innovation and improvement since the first one" then I fear in this regard he or she got wrong its own intentions.) It's more simple than that. If Gears 2 does its job better that Resistance 2 then it's the better game and it gets better score. If Halo 3 is a coherent package and a flawless experience, it doesn't matter how inventive it is etc. LBP didn't get a ten for its innovation, it deserved it for it's "stagecraft magic", because it is a "transcendent" gaming experience (to quote the LBP review).
I really don't know how to respond to you beligerent types. It's just "I know they said this and that but -- NO NO NO NO MY WAY OR THEY SUCK!" from you guys.
I noticed you pulled the same examples again but still can't pick apart their reviews in a manner that supports your claims. I think people need evidence of thought from you before they're willing to consider your argument.
I also wish everyone else here would stop with the ad hominem attacks. Attacking a person or publication's character does not refute any points they make. It's unproductive. Either point out where they're wrong and why, with support, or calm down and think things over until you can. Otherwise, stop screaming! And really, any accusation of bias evaporates with their review of LBP anyway.
P.S. I'd like to add that the Halo series is probably the most overhyped franchise in gaming history. But I say that as a PC gamer, where shooters reign supreme, and whenever a console shooter is translated to the platform -- including Halo 1 & 2 -- it always receives inferior scores relative to natives. That said, I suspect Resistance is just as mediocre and overhyped. If Halo has any upper hand, it's probably because Halo has a ridiculous sheen courtesy of its production values that simply can't be matched.
so let's see here, i learned that you know who am since i'm apparently beligerent i should just tell you to F off, but since you say the same boring stuff everytime you post, i'll comply and give you the reasons on why the review is stupid, and why you need to get over yourself. The reviewer didn't like the fact that the multiplayer modes didn't really have any objectives. Co-Op has randomly generated objectives, Skirmish is basically defending a beacon or person. In skirmish, all you need to know is what to do i.e. defending beacon or person, you don't need a reason on why you're doing it. Who would honestly care when they are playing multiplayer, i doubt someone is going to sit there and ponder "Why am i doing this?" when they are asked to defend a person or beacon. Co-Op, i kind of understand that he didn't like the fact that there were no real objectives, but i don't it should have been marked down a lot for it. Since the objectives are randomly generated, nobody should be surprised that they're really not that complex or that detailed. The last four paragraphs of the review talked about how difficult the reviewer found the game, the game can be hard but not as frustratingly hard as the reviewer is making it out to be. The way he made it seems was that the game was Ninja Gaiden like hard, which is ridiculous. He didn't like the fact that you only get to carry two guns during the game, instead of all of them like in the last game, it makes you strategize more on which guns you should take into the next battle. Serously the game got a 6/10 because he didn't like the fact that the game didn't have any real objectives in MP, the SP was "hard", and he didn't like the fact that you could only carry two guns. Yep it definitely earned a 6/10. And your suspiscions are wrong, R2 is not mediocre or overhyped.
I'm glad you made a more fervernt effort (despite yet another initial ad hominem attack -- you really need to stick to the topic rather than throwing baseless insults) but your end point is "he marked the game down for x, y, z, -- but he's just wrong!.' At this point, i think the best you can do is say "I disagree" because you havent' really argued why the game is worth any more, just that you're fine with the things the reviewer found wrong. It's a situation to agree to disagree, not act as if your opinoin is somehow worth more. Maybe you'll get your own podium to stand at as the critics here do, but not so long as you hold such rage... at least be content in knowing other reviewers elsewhere who are just as loud and indeed much louder will balance the field and help reinforce your beliefs.
and all console shooteres are mediocre and overhyped o_0. I'll admit to a PC bias when it comes to shooters -- console shooters are just inherently handicap'd.
I'd be cautious before assuming that defenders of R2 are justifying their purchase. As a gamer, if I'm not enjoying a game (no matter how big or hyped - I did this to Metroid Prime when it was my main GC game, and Ninja Gaiden, which in my opinion was rubbish), I'll stop playing it and trade it in - there are too many great games out there to waste time on the bad ones. Now, in this context, I started playing R2 yesterday and I'm having a blast - online coop that's more fun than online CoD4 (in fact, my best online experience ever, and as I'm getting into it, something that seems surprisingly deep as well - maybe Edge didn't have time to get more than it's feet wet, so didn't appreciate the depth available), and a campaign that is more than competent and (at least for the first couple of hours - haven't got further yet) well above a '6', even on Edge's (granted, sketchy and inconsistent) standards.
When I read the '6' for the review, I get the same feeling I have when I've read _many_ Edge reviews, which is that Edge is trying to be 'Edgy' to get people to pic up the mag, rather than present a clear picture of what's going on. This is also the best possible explanation of the inconsistency in Edge's reviews - an inconsistency that on many occasions has been the difference between me purchasing and not purchasing the hardcopy mag. I've played a lot of games where Edge's reviews have seemed to have been of another game, while other games that Edge have lauded have been 'meh' - an issue I rarely get with other mags and gaming sites. So before you think gamers are knee-jerking to a justifiably poor review, I'd take a long, hard look at the inconsistency in Edge's work going back a number of years, and check the source of the issue isn't there. I would definitely not go sledging readers who have to endure a very inconsistent approach to game reviews - I'm within a hair's width of abandoning Edge to the list of 'too rubbish to be worth bothering reading' gaming sites, and it's not because I think you have a bias towards one publisher/console/genre over another, it's because I think you don't consistently provide a quality product, and there's better and more consistent material out there. I absolutely wouldn't recommend any of my friends purchase a game based on an Edge review - they're just too inconsistent and, at times, plain misleading.
As far as I also think that the R2 review is a bit out of proportion ( a seven or eight would be fine), I don't agree with the inconsistency accusation. Edge is consistent, but it's not the consistence you'd expect from a games mag. It's more like the one OmegaVader mentions below with reference to literary an film criticism. Edge doesn't care if the product worth your money, it can't be amazed by graphical, technical excellence, or numbers. The reviews seek excellence (in general), genre coherence, and gameplay -- whatever that means in a particular case.
As I leaf through the last five volumes of the magazine I can see a pattern. It's not some recent phenomenon and it's not about trying to be edgy.
If I had to wager, I'd say nine out of ten readers are looking for reinforcements of their beliefs, values and opinions. This is hardly unique to game purchases alone -- we, as thinking feeling minds look for this in everything, from politics to religion to ideology and art.
That said, I think video game criticism fails where cinematic and literary criticism suceed heartily. While the video game journalist attempts to explain why a game is or is not worth your hard-earned dollars, we're talking to each other like broke penny-pinchers who are simply looking for the most cost-effective experience of pleasure. And indeed, most of us are; $60 for a new title is quit the dent in one's wallet! Nonetheless, criticism should week to move beyond this.
True literary criticism, true cinematic criticism, is not interested in whether the item which is being reviewed is worth your ten or what have you dollars, rather, they are interested in theory: what makes a literary or cinematic work aesthetically pleasing, and why? Literary theory is something that is quite old and well developed now, and for its short lifespan of a century, cinematic theory grew quite quickly and refined itself to the degree of a fine wine. Gaming has made no such developments in its thirty-odd years of existence, Perhaps it is because gaming has taken time to come into its own, from the archaic blips and bleeps of the 70's to the more unique aesthetics of today, we're finally moving from technology to design only in recent years. As gaming becomes more common place, indie developers are able to deliver content via digital distribution and bigger studios take more risks, we can finally reach an era of true aesthetic delight. But as far as game criticism is concerned, theory must first be developed. We must break beyond the 'this works this doesn't who knows why' thinking that most reviewers utilize, beyond the 'is this worth X dollars?' economic thinking, and really investigate what truly makes a game, what is being said, what is being conveyed, and what is gaming as an art.
No reviewer or critic today thinks as such. I think there is a lot to learn, contrary to others, from the criticism of other mediums of art. We need to elevate game criticism to an entirely new level, an 'elitist' level, but one of true comprehension of the subject matter at hand, one in which we can finally dignify ourselves with understanding, with which comes meaning in the burgeoning art form we so enjoy.
I agree 100% with your analysis.
However, I disagree with there being a need to change all this. One thing very pleasant about reading video game journalism as opposed to about other artforms, is all of which you stated.
The true difference between video game journalism or cinematic criticism lies in emphasis. A game review could not, and should not, be able to simply analyze the story-telling aspect of the artwork. There just isn't enough material for that. No ensemble of actors, no 300 pages of script and often there's not even any ambition to invoke the kind of feelings movies try to. Instead, games are pieces of engineering.
The technical details gain more emphasis, and the subjective matters like "how it touched me" are left out. A result of this is more profane and down-to-earth journalism. As the quite average and not-so-deep person I am, it's easier for me to relate to that form of writing than that of literary critics. This doesn't exclude personal and emotional writing -- it simply decreases its significance when comparisons are to be made.
Well, there will always be the room for more economical criticism, as is still the case in cinema -- most of the stuff you read in newspapers or off rottentomatoes.com aren't discussing theory, it's not 'real' criticism as far as anyone into the 'artsy-fartsy' stuff is concerned.
But gaming shouldn't be limited to only that sort of criticism if it wants any real artistic appeal, any justified depth. And it's not impossible. Bringing out '300 pages of a script' or what not is missing the point I made -- I'm not saying video games are like movies or books, but that they should have critical theories as equally refined as cinema and literature. Such theory would of course be significiantly different, moving from '300 page scripts' to interaction and immersion. There's a lot to be philosophically explored here, things that are not found in other mediums, in the same way those mediums ahve things you can't find in gaming.
I believe, though, that the story-telling capabilitites of gaming will increase significantly in the years to come as we become more refined in our gaming aesthetics. We're holding ourselves back with the economic crticisims -- they'll never die out, nor should they, but we must open up new kinds of criticism to help advanced the form as a whole.
You make some great points there but dont you think that videogames should avoid being so closely compared to other forms of art?. Unlike films and music which are purely subjective to the audience, videogames are interactive by nature, requiring objective examination? things can quite simply be broken in a videogame.
Ah, be careful now. I never claimed video games were or should be considered close to other forms of art. Rather, I said criticism should be as well developed and conceived -- right now, it's simply lacking, an utter vacuum.
Also, that video games are more explicitly interactive does not, I feel, make it more 'objective' -- quite the contrary, I believe it makes it more subjective. Consider that the aritst, author, or musician has most control over what you experience and how you experience, whereas creators of games have to surrender some of the control, if not all of it to you. It could very well be argued that it becomes so fantastically subjective, if too much control is conceded, as to render the game not art at all, but rather, just a tool set. Think the difference between a Sim title like Spore and an adventure game like The Longest Journey.
But all that is just fawning at the cusp of what could be a true critical theory of game. It needs to be taken further -- much further.
So you say that the game has not improved since the last one, yeah right sure it hasn't. Did Gears 2 or Halo 3 improve over Gears and Halo 2 respectively. No they didn't, i should know since i have Gears 2 and have played Halo 3 alot. Gears 2 beefed up the story mode, added horde mode, and bumped up the number up from 8 players to 10. While R2 had a pretty good sized story mode for a fps, 8 player co-op, and bumped up 40 player to 60. And from what i recall Halo 3's story mode was still as short as ever and it still kept the same amount of players. I am def. not biased since once again i've played all three and have R2 and Gears 2, but i would pick R2 over Gears 2 and Halo 3 anyday because it's more fun to play. I think that either you are taking favors from MS or you don't know how to review games.
I think you missed the author's point about how no one addresses the points raised against Resistance 2, and instead flame away with harsh and overly generalized contradictions. It would be better to explain away their points, rather than use ad hominem attacks such as "you are biased." If they were biased, they would've lambasted Little Big Planet, as is pointed out here...you're ignoring such things, and as such, your opinion should probably be ignored as well until you agree to engage in discourse.
So what were the points against Resistance 2? Or, to be more precise: what were the points against Resistance that you couldn't use against Gears 2 or Halo 3? The main difference between R2 and the other two is that R2 has a 60 player online game that has no lag. If lag is not an issue, then the mistake Insomniac did with Resistance was increasing the number of players. I can only assume that MAG is going to score the first negative number ever.
The single player in Resistance 2 was not the best there is; it was quite mediocre, in fact. But I never had to throw the controller in frustration like I did when playing the first Gears. And there were no copy-paste maps like there were in Halo. As a result, I had much more fun while playing R2 campaign than I ever had when playing Gears of Halo.
Online co-op has already been mentioned: it is well thought out and super fun. And 60 player skirmish is also great, even if the other competitive multiplayer modes are not the most innovative ones there are.
If, as Mr. Dinsdale suggests "a review is something prospective consumers may use to inform their own judgement of a title before making a discion on whether to invest or not", I can't say the review of Resistance 2 did a very good job. The single player campaign is a minor part of the whole package, with the co-op and competitive multiplayer modes keeping the gamer busy for months to come. The review made some obscure references to R2 being larger than the first Resistance and at the end there was the number. By reading the reviews I might actually make the mistake of thinking Gears 2 is a better game, and thus more worthy of my purchase.
I've found most people believe Gears of War 2 to be the better game anyway, not just Edge. I must admit my own interest lies in that before Resistance 2 (though it doesnt help that I don't own a PS3 and am still looking for a reason to justify the $400 price tag).but a game designed from the ground up for a console will always take my preference than a console shooter (and I include Halo on that -- abandoning the PC platform was foolish).
In any case I'm glad you've laid out specific reasons for your beleifs rather htan the flaming of others here. I am still a bit curious as to how the game actually plays, though. all these features are rather meaningless if the gameplay mechanics themselves are boring, which I find to be the case of any console shooter for the most part.