Network now...MAGAZINE
Review: Resistance 2
Resistance 2 is every bit the product of Resistance: Fall of Man’s mentality: it’s OK to do things by the numbers so long as those numbers are bigger than everyone else’s.
That means more players in multiplayer (60, up from 40), more weapons in the arsenal, more storeys on the bosses, more enemies on the screen, and more options on the menus. More, more, more. Has any thought been given to why, beyond the obvious marketing cachet? Yes, but only in retrospect. “We have these numbers, now what do we do with them?”
For the most part, attempts to justify them feel equally like damage limitation. Multiplayer Skirmish matches split teams into smaller squads before assigning micro-objectives within the battle, promoting intimacy, role and a vital modicum of clarity. A revised co-op mode forgoes a retread of the singleplayer campaign for eightplayer communal grinding, its maps doling out enemies and waypoints apace, awarding XP for every followed instruction and accurate shot. Those big numbers again.
It’s partially successful, though often in the rather cynical capacity you’d expect of a token-harvest like Phantasy Star Online or Bounty Hounds. The real object of the mission is seldom found within, but in the statistical handouts that occur afterwards. And while the first game’s maps deserved the benefit of the doubt – going from Ratchet & Clank to an FPS wasn’t as neat a transition for Insomniac as many seemed to think – the failure to improve them is telling.
In singleplayer, the story of Lieutenant Nathan Hale continues, his slow surrender to the blood of the Chimera doing little to stop those last vestiges of personality get wrung out before your eyes. Last time he could carry numerous weapons, making him a walking laboratory of novel, experimental firepower. Now he’s limited to a combination of two, which can leave him ill-equipped for the game at its worst. And here we find another chimera, of Serious Sam and Call of Duty’s veteran difficulty, overpopulated, devoid of pity and lacking common sense.
However many good guys and bad guys are on the battlefield, however many lines of sight are in play, the second you pop a toenail over that perimeter you’re a bullet magnet. Not just bullets, either, but the wild range of beams, fireballs and energy pellets that make fighting the Chimera such a chore.
What’s the tactic for beating two 20-foot brutes that charge headlong in your direction, firing weapons that defy range, ammo and cover? You tell us. Logic suggests the homing rounds of the Bullseye or the precision bursts of the Marksman – but the rules are rarely defined, let alone adhered to.
The halfway point sees a second wind of sorts, the Trophy for 1,000 kills hurtling by, the impression of a world under siege growing as each backdrop – the Chicago level, especially – becomes more than just a distant spectacle. Much more? Not really. Enough to really matter? Never.
6/10
I have to say that this review is like most of the Edge Reviews I've seen over the last 12+ Months - over complicated.
They seem to waffle on about the subject, when the review could have been more conceise and to the point (and in plain english). For some reviews its best to have your dictionary ready too.
For this reason I cancelled my subscription. I keep hoping it will return to its glory days (I keep checking this site and the magazine in WH Smith, but still no improvement).
Here's hoping.
I know this may be changing the subject of you people below, but doesnt it look like they're praising the Xbox and 'slagging' off the PS3..?
I got Resistance 1 & 2 and I think they're both great. R2 probably is one of the best graphic'd game I've ever played, and I only have a HD monitor!
also 2 things:
1 - L.o.l - having too much stuff is bad??
2 - A game being challenging is bad??
also I cant stand the way EDGE never talks about the positive aspects of the games! Why review something if all you have to say about it is: its bad, too much game, too hard...etc... I'm not a 'newb' before anyone criticizes, but I have some possitive feelings for the games I hate, do EDGE have any for any games?? :S!
For all those critisising recent EDGE reviews, and those that think the mag has lost its direction..(i am one) then please note that they there is a notice in the present issue that they are currently looking for review writers I would but full time work and family. Some of you guys seem pretty level headed.. This is an opportunity to salvage EDGE and maybe restore some of its previous rep.
Hmm it's interesting if N'gai wrote this (littlewilly stated below "its N'gai btw"), personally he's one of my favourite reviewers but this is not his sort of game. He's happier with the likes of Super Stardust HD, Desktop Tower Defence, or Rock band (Edge issue 184, p120). Don't be guttered about the review, he was probably just sad he had to spend his time playing Resistance when he could be honing his speed thrashing on Rock Band, poor guy.
The timing couldn't have been better for controversy either this review being a nuke that might as well have been dropped by Fenix on the ps crowd while they cry in unison "Oh no you di n't! Damn boy you better watch your mouf!". Well it's been done, suck it up buy the game and enjoy fragging with 59 other people.
I wonder if PC gaming would blow your mind...
that slate is a bloody good article might I add. And if you like your gaming culture and journalism, and want to read more, it has some good references. I aslo recomends Joystiq very whole-heartedly. Those guys are funny and are seriously dedicated. Let not there efforts go to waste
Edge purports to be intelligent yes? And it takes itself very seriously yes? But this review has an overriding sense of terrible self interested vomit that wastes our money as subscribers reading a REVIEW, yes? I am glad we have that sorted. Here is a quote from someone who clearly has similar negative views about the game, but is plainly cleverer, just to prove my point and also give some context to why the demographic may want to give the game a 6 too, once they have thought about it. It's N'Gai Croal btw. He spoke about it in the same issue...
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss in the FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAILGet Slate RSS FeedsRSSShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Single PageSINGLE PAGE
Yahoo! BuzzFacebook FacebookPost to MySpace!MySpaceMixx MixxDigg DiggReddit RedditDel.icio.us del.icio.usFurl FurlMa.gnolia.com Ma.gnoliaSphere SphereStumble UponStumbleUponCLOSE
" 'Insomniac built a separate co-op campaign for up to eight players, modeled after raids in massively multiplayer online games. ... [Its] approach is at once the most intriguing and the least fully fleshed out, mainly because it appears to have been designed with just a single strategy for success: soldiers out front, spec ops in the middle, and medics bringing up the rear. Whether the enemy AI or the encounter design is to blame I can't be sure, 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.'
So, yes, when I referred to Resistance 2 as a "staggering work of heartbreaking mediocrity" that I'm still struggling to explain, it wasn't based solely on the campaign."
-Extract from "Slate's year end gaming club", where N'Gai and other bigs email each other and get a good discussion going.
http://www.slate.com/id/2206243/entry/2206454/
It saddens me that someone who is paid to review this game fails to mention some very obvious fantastic aspects about it.
The pacing for one. The game constantly shifts gears to keep boredom at bay. The bodysnatchers level is a perfect example. It starts out as a slowpaced earily themed setting that effectively raises tension and than changes to this frantic Left 4 dead style scenario that really gets your heart racing.
Another great example is the frantic shootout on the forest road that slows down brilliantly to a scene where you are cautiously crossing the woods, stalked by cloaked "predator" style chimera.
Gears of War is one of the few other games out there to effectively shift pacing like that.
Another highlight of the game is it's weaponry. The exploding bullet magnum for instance, is as simple a concept as it is brilliant. It opens up a world of tactical possibilities. Especially in the chicago level where you are rushed by great numbers of enemies.
Overall the game isn't without flaw. for instance, I can relate to the bulletmagnet theory of the reviewer. I found that to be an annoyance as well. Sometimes enemies will even run past your fellow soldiers to take a swing at you like they hold a personal grudge against you.
I agree that's rediculous but it's not a gamebreaking flaw, not even close.
To sum up the good parts about R2 I'd say:
- Solid technical performance
- Great pacing
- Fun to use weapons
- Decent length singleplayer
- VERY well developed multiplayergame, innovative gametypes and rocksolid performance
- High overall production values
I may not be a professional reviewer but I'm 35 years old and have been a gamer since the late 80's and I'm pretty sure I can recognize quality when it stares me in the face.
Rating this a 6 is pretty silly.
WOW. I had to create this account just to comment cuz is it just me or is the reviewer trying to justify his rating by saying the game has too much? too many people online, too many guns, too many enemies? how does that make a game bad?
The annual blockbuster FPS is dragging on a bit. In particular, Gears of War and Resistance are too similar for my liking:
- Post-9/11 hysteria (the Chimeras/aliens/terrorists/whatever invade America)
- Large structures destroyed by titanic beasts (such as the beast that destroys the tower in Resistance 2).
- Mankind itself in peril.
- A fascist/militaristic regime is mankind's last defense against the outside threat (in Gears of War, they go even further with this theme and put you into the role of an ex-con with a machinegun/chainsaw)
No matter how well these games play, I'm getting a bit tired by the basic formula and themes in these games - at least BioShock went with an art-deco setting and a very good storyline that drew on numerous literary references.
It doesn't help allay my suspicions that these games are being rolled off an assembly line by the recent confirmation of a 'Resistance 3' hot on the heels of Resistance 2's launch.
This review is written so badly and arrogantly, it's almost laughable. How did you get this job? Your texts are a chore to read and are not very informative on the actual game. You are in the wrong line of business.
I've created an account just to post a comment, after seeing the backlash from other sites and journalists aout this review score. Giving a low score because it lacks innovation is rediculous. Edge gives Gears 2 a 9 when all it really is s Gears 1.5. Gears 2 has less innovation over Gears 1 than R2 does over R1. R2 looks completely different to R1, while Gears 2 looks like its an add-on pack to Gears 1. Don't get me wrong, I love Gears and would have it on any console and the same would have gone for R2, I would have bought it for 360. But lets face it, R2 an exclusive on 360 would have gotten a higher score from Edge.
This is what you get when Future Publishing hires local newspaper journalists to write for their magazines. I remember when PSW editors produced their c.v.'s (resume's) in one issue and none of them had previous for game journalism. Edge editors aren't gamers and probably watch their children play these games while they take notes.
GAH!
a) 6/10 is not a bad score for any game. If after reading the review I think I could enjoy the product I’d still buy it even if it was rated at 4/10 (and I have done in the past!)
b) the reviewer is allowed to state his/her own opinion, if it doesn't match yours then it is in no way an attack on your values it is just an indicator that you both approach your entertainment from different angles. Find another reviewer that does echo your own tastes and stick with them, the creator of this review will not mind at all.
c) saying RfoM2 would score higher on the 360 is pure speculation invented to give your post mythical weight.
Summary
Do you not think it strange how you can attack a review by saying it is just unfounded tosh penned with bias when you're own post contains biased unfounded tosh?
U has a point. But do you not think the review was badly written aswell? It didn't even give that sense of the game that would let you give it your own rating and decide for yourself. That's what I take issue with, even if the reviewer giving a score that the demographic he is writing for would completely disagree with doesn't matter for some reason, the review still fails.
Why give the reviewer such bad comments? If you like this sort of game buy it and make your own mind up. You dont have to let Edge decide for you.
I've played it and i thought it was excellent, its a no brainer shooter but damn good fun and the multiplayer is a blast. If this reviewer didn't understand it, then so what.
*Duck tapes beeping, flashing light box to pipe bomb and throws it as far as he can*
DIE (fanboy) ZOMBIES DIE!!! 8@
Alternate quip (couldn't decide which to use): FETCH!!! 8@
J1M.
Metacritic score 87 out of 100 magazines that brought it down 2 biased half assed reviews from variety and edge magazine NICE !!!
Have you bought shares in this game, why does met critics score mean so much to you?
Has the score of 87% dissuaded so many people it's becoming hard to find a 60 player online match??
Are people not allowed to express a personal taste when it isn't the popular one?
Would you prefer we lived in a totalitarian state where you could tell us all how to think and behave?
how is 87% not a great score? if 87 out of 100 people liked something would I feel the need to find the missing 13% and whip them within an inch of their life until they "changed" their own opinion, or would I just make up my own mind and then get on with my life?
...now where's that cat-o-nine tails got to...
lol yeah thats good and all but the review was really uninformative and silly too. Very biased when the unnamed EDGEMAN is supposed to be writing for us. This is just EDGE's audience complaining that the service was bad. Metacritic point not that important. We just gonna whip our EDGE back into shape if you don't mind
Resistance 2 is not a particularly good game.
People now realize that Resistance 1 was not a particularly good game either...The only reason why the first Resistance game sold well was because the Playstation 3 had such a disappointing lineup of games at its launch, with Resistance being the only one that received attention.
One thing is for sure: Resistance 2 will probably make fans of the original Resistance happy, because it is essentially the same game, but with "more" of it.
However, Resistance still has plenty of flaws because it lacks the gameplay foundation needed for success. Killzone 2 has this same problem, which is why it didn't deserve a sequel. Resistance is never going to be in the same league as games like Call of Duty, Orange Box, or Left 4 Dead.
As a long-time fan of FPS games (as in Wolfenstein and Doom - the originals), and someone who's played CoD4 (and 3), both R6Vs, GRAW2 and a slew of others, I found Resistance1 to be both a good game and refreshingly different but in a subtle way that perhaps some folk didn't quite get. I suspect that this reviewer of R2 suffers the same fate - I'm an Aussie, and the game only came out yesterday, so have only been able to put two hours into the game so far, so these comments should be taken with a grain of salt, but I found the first hour of the campaign enjoyable - not mind-blowing, but no-where near a 6, mind - and the online coop was literally the most fun I have had online other than when I'm playing my brother at something. Assuming the competitive stuff is simply derivative of CoD4, then it is very hard to see how anyone who has played the game can give this a 6, given what edge gives other games (I think MSPRs 7 is harsh by 1 as well, but a 6 for R2 given the logic presented in MSPRs review is just plain inconsistent). In some cases, a 6 may be appropriate, _but_, on its own standards Edge has been inconsistent (and hasn't 'got it', either). Given this, how can it not expect a slew of angry readers!
Uhmm... Killzone 2 is the sequel to Killzone 1 and will be released on the PS3 in 2009.
This Resistance sequel definitely seems like a game that's interesting for fans of the genre though - while games like Gears of War 2 and Dead Space seem like they're appealing to gamers in general.
In my opinion though, the other games you mention are good - but do not appeal beyond their genre, like Resistance and its sequel.
Im sorry but this review is completely off base ive beaten R2 and found it to be an excellent game at least worth a 9 and judging by many other reveiews many feel the same way. This reveiewer obviously has no concept of this game and by his lack of detail and explanations of his opinions it seems he hasnt even played it the truth is the graphics are well done excpescially for the amount of action onscreen little to no slowdown also , the enemy AI is amazing thats one of the first things i noticed about the game this game has some of the best ai ive seen from taking cover throwing grenades, flanking positions and even running when they see there losing all at the right times this also goes for your teamates who fight and kill and get killed realistically this game fully immersed me into this great battle if you want to read a more SPOT ON reveiew read the one at IGN this one is frankly garbage
After reading this review, I must say that again Edge has proven to be the best source for game reviews. They have proven time after time to have sharp analysis and well-thought out views of games and they have since the days of Next Generation (both print mag and online).
I am troubled by many of the comments that follow this sincere opinion of Resistence 2, to the point that I had to create an account and speak my mind. I normally stay out of the flame wars and console bashing of most video game websites, but the fact that Edge of all people was compelled to include all of these posts to appear unbiased made me feel as though I should input my two cents.
This is a magnificent review. To those who say that this review is incoherent and lacks substance, let me help you out.
"Resistance 2 is every bit the product of Resistance: Fall of Man’s mentality: it’s OK to do things by the numbers so long as those numbers are bigger than everyone else’s."
....Translation....
In the case of Resistance 2, bigger does not always mean better.
"And while the first game’s maps deserved the benefit of the doubt – going from Ratchet & Clank to an FPS wasn’t as neat a transition for Insomniac as many seemed to think – the failure to improve them is telling."
....Translation....
We foregave Insomniac's uninspired, boring level design in Resistance: Fall of Man (Insomniac being new to the FPS genre, being a launch title with short development window, the competition was not so fierce when FoM was released, etc.), but in today's video game marketplace this poor level design does not cut it.
"In singleplayer, the story of Lieutenant Nathan Hale continues, his slow surrender to the blood of the Chimera doing little to stop those last vestiges of personality get wrung out before your eyes."
....Translation....
Nathan Hale is boring, lifeless and what little personality he had to begin with disappears as you proceed through the game.
"Last time he could carry numerous weapons, making him a walking laboratory of novel, experimental firepower. Now he’s limited to a combination of two, which can leave him ill-equipped for the game at its worst."
....Translation....
The one man arsenal feeling of Resistance: Fall of Man that made the gunplay of the original game so much fun, is no longer present. Limiting Hale to two weapons, as in CoD 4 and Halo, removes the rush of being a one man army and leaves the player ill-equipped for some of the more difficult sections of the game.
"And here we find another chimera, of Serious Sam and Call of Duty’s veteran difficulty, overpopulated, devoid of pity and lacking common sense."
"However many good guys and bad guys are on the battlefield, however many lines of sight are in play, the second you pop a toenail over that perimeter you’re a bullet magnet."
....Translation....
Poor enemy A.I..
"What’s the tactic for beating two 20-foot brutes that charge headlong in your direction, firing weapons that defy range, ammo and cover? You tell us. Logic suggests the homing rounds of the Bullseye or the precision bursts of the Marksman – but the rules are rarely defined, let alone adhered to."
....Translation....
The game aspires to be many things, but never finds its identity. Players are forced into doing what the developers want them to do to complete the game. The game relies on trial and error on behalf of the player to find the predetermined passage to victory.
To wrap things up, I would like to say that I have been a gamer for over 20 years and have owned nearly every console ever sold. There is no fanboyism, or bias here in this post. I enjoyed Resistance: Fall of Man, foregave it for all of its shortcomings and heavily anticipated its sequel. I preordered and purchased Resistance 2 on day one and was thoroughly disappointed. Perhaps my expectations were too high, but I found it a chore to play through and the multiplayer left me wondering if 60 really is greater than 30 (or 4, 8, 12, or 24 for that matter). The fact that the game does nothing to innovate the genre could have been overlooked if the gameplay was enjoyable. Suffice it to say this title does not hold up to the current wave of FPS on the market.
The fact of the matter is that since the release of Fall of Man, there have been a number of fantastic shooters that put this game to shame. Resistance 2 is trying to compete in this heavily contested genre by rehashing the same game, but making everything bigger (i.e. increasing the number of players, enemies, scope of the war). In the pursuit of increasing the numbers, Insomniac lost sight of what gaming is all about; fun.
I would like to finish up by commenting on the Left 4 Dead vs. Resistance 2 debate by saying that, whether you like it or not, Edge hit the review and the scores right on the mark for both games. Edge should be applauded for not buying into the hype like most other gaming publications and giving readers their honest, sincere opinions whether they are popular or not.
Well said Glockwerk, couldn't agree with you more!
If you have to translate the review, doesn't that show that the review is poorly written? This review is an example of why I generally don't really put much stock into Edge reviews. They tend to throw a lot of flowery paragraphs together to push the point that they are targeting adults, and in the process often forget to get to the point and actually review the game. The Gears 2 review they just published is just as bad as this one, with a lot of sentences stringed together to show off the author's mastery of the English language, but without a lot of discussion of the game itself. That doesn't mean they don't make specific points about the game, but their reviews as a whole tend to avoid direct discussion of the game.
That said, I generally agree with some of the points they make about the single player game. The trial and error level design is annoying. Nathan Hale, as in the first game, is pretty bland. I still think its a fun game overall though.
Regarding their assessment of the multiplayer game, I'm not even sure what they're trying to say. They don't like the xp aspect of it? The don't like the maps? I personally find the multiplayer in Resistance 2 to be a blast, and the real reason to own the game. But I can't actually find anything to disagree or agree with in this review, because they don't really say anything about why they don't like the multiplayer.
No, that does not mean that the review is poorly written. I believe that most people didn't even pay the review any attention, they simply saw the score and thought "ZOMG 6/10!!!!????? EDGE SUX!!! THEY H8 PS3!!". This review is well written and it contains everything that a competing site has, but Edge makes no bones about writing their reviews for an educated, mature audience. If I want to read paint by number reviews, where the review consists of one paragraph about the background to the game (introduction), one paragraph about the single player, one paragraph about graphics, one paragraph about sound, one paragraph about multiplayer, etc... I would read a different site. The reason I subscribe to Edge and read their site is due to their willingness to do something different and often times unpopular. I believe that their reviews are descriptive and succinct. The reason I provided the "translation" is to show people that said that this review is "incoherent" or "doesn't say anything" that the writer did indeed touch on all of their issues with the various modes within the game and they explain their reasoning for their score.
The review is certainly well written; that doesn't make this a good review though. The reviewer makes a lot of comments about why he doesn't like the game, without actually explaining why he doesn't like the game. There are implications and suggestions, but frankly, video game reviews are not a place for subtlety in writing.
Lets face it, reviews are really only good for two types of people. People who want to defend/flame their console of choice, and people who are on the fence about buying a game. IMO reviews should be directed at the latter, and in that case, the reviews need to provide specifics as to why a game is good or why its bad. A lot of EDGE reviews, incluidng this one, don't provide that.
@Glockwerk
Bro, sometimes there's no point trying to rationalize in these forums. I get you though, well put.
I also agree with your opinion of edge/next generation. I used to subsribe to Next Generation and thought it was one of the best video game magazines. It definitely had a more mature audience in mind. I actually have a bunch of old Next Generations at home, like the one where they claimed Mario 64 was the best video game ever.
OK, I don't get it...
How comes a lot of you compare Resistance 2 with Left 4 Dead? They are two totaly unrelated titles.
Left 4 Dead is built around gameplay while Resistance 2 is built around cinematic moments. Both have their highs and lows but they both seem to be adequate at their respective field of expertise. The big difference is that Resistance looks like it's not at all original, we have seen the same battles being fought only with less enemies, while Left 4 Dead seems like a totally fresh idea.
Bottom line: Resistance 2 feels like nothing more than a sequel, meaning that if you didn't like the first one, you will find nothing interesting here either. (or at least that is what I get from the review)
If you play R2 coop, its similar in theme to L4D, e.g., you have a team of people and must work together to survive. Run off by yourself or fail to do your part in either game and you're dead, and you've probably wiped your team too. I'm not sure its a good comparison, as I haven't spent much time with L4D, but with regards to the general concept of the multiplayer aspects they're fairly similar.
The weird part here is not the score. I could care less about that. The weird part is the review is fairly devoid of substance. It seems more like an essay on numbers than a game review. I'm not sure if the reviewer just decided that they didn't like the game before playing it, but focusing on the number of [insert aspect of game], seems like a poor way to review the game. Graphics? Sound? Multiplayer? It seems more like prose practice then a review.
I also have to agree with kissgz, I've been gaming my whole life since atari and Valkyria Chronicles was one of the better games I've played in a good long while. It was original, deep, and satisfying. Perhaps EDGE needs better reviewers. I doubt highly that any mandate has been handed down from the editors as far as a system preference for ratings.
I've been enjoying Left 4 Dead, and it's pretty cool. But as far as depth of play it's a kiddie pool.
I'm nearly finished the single player and think the review is justified. What's more it didn't even get into the many technical let-downs that are evident in the game.
- In order to achieve the scale they had to really cut down on the details. Indoor environments and objects are extremely basic.
- All the shooting mechanics changed from the first game to become a Call of Duty 4 clone - and a spongy one at that. Shooting is bascially a spray and pray excercise. Precise skill is neither possible nor necessary.
- Unkillable and unreacting enemies that are swimming but ten feet away? That's a B-rate solution through and through. For shame.
- Every time you see a big monster you know that there will be a large weapon somewhere nearby. You're conditioned to think this way one hour into the game.
- Your allies The Sentinels chew up valuable screen time justifying their existance and then once in battle they are never targeted. Then they're gone and you're alone again, so I have to ask what's the bloody point? Hale should have stayed solo. The team is pure fat and could have been cut out.
This game could have been good but it seems like it was really rushed. Perhaps Insomniacs schedule is starting to show with the end result being tarnish on their pristine reputation. Unless the co-op blows me away I'll be trading this one in. This is the first Insomniac game that I can handle not being in my collection.
I dont understand what all the fuss is about... Edge are notorious for giving realistic scores (Halo 3 not withstanding lol), so to give Resistance 2 6/10 seems fair. Afterall, it is little more than an above average shooter, hence its above average score.
Edge has also stated on numerous occasions that the score does not matter as it is a subjective opinion of the reviewer, which is why the scores are written in huge panels, but as a tiny little figure at the end of the review, which is the important bit.
Edge have basicly said the game is more of the same, except the numbers have all gone up when it comes to multiplayer, enemies on screen etc. Can someone please tell me what Resistance 2 does that no other game has done better before? Exactly.
No doubt Resistance 2 is a good game. People will enjoy playing it. But its not the kind of game that will go down in history as a true all time great ala Half Life, so why should it recieve a score that says otherwise? 9's and 10's are reserved for groundbreaking, genre defining games, not run of the mill shooters like Resistance.
Are Edge anti Playstation? Hardly... I dont understand how anyone can say that. It is a known fact that the PS3 is lacking in AAA titles, where as the Xbox360 is not, so the Edge's scoring of games reflects this.
You gotta laugh at the fanboys though, critisizing the reviewing standards of Edge - Easily the most adult and thought out Gaming magazine on the market.
I understand that everyone has an opinion, but I dont understand why it appears Edge arent allowed to have one of their own... Could it be the naysayers know full well of the quality of Edge, that when there favourite game doesnt get 10/10, they have to attack the magazine, rather than look at the games failings themselves?
However, Fallout 3 - 7/10? Grrr!!! I am canceling my subscription to your subpar magazine!!!! :P
Edge are the only magazine that gives, or at least try to give an unbiased view of computers games and consoles across the board, without favouritism or brand loyalty. Unlike some other magazines where there is a definite hidden agenda. In my view, if people are just looking at percentage and scores to satisfy their purchase they deserve all they get when an over hyped, turns out to a pile of manure.
I trust edge because their more than a games magazine. They cater more for the actual games industry rather than rampant consumerism and marketing. A lot of magazines I have read are just an advertiser and games reviews are just and extension of this. Edge are independent unlike the official magazines and that makes a world of difference to me. It's the differences between reading the Sun or the Guardian, obviously the later giving you a more in-depth perspective and a more intelligent and informed opinion.
Edge see all formats for the merits and shortfalls, there is no favouritism at Edge, they about the industry and all it encompasses including but not exclusive to iphones, coin-ops, consoles of various descriptions, old schools games and how all these games and technologies have shaped the gaming world that we so love. Not to mention all those articles helping those who wish to pursue a career in games development. Edge have always been most helpful to me and thus I have never cancelled that subscription I took years ago.
If you're after a "YES" mag !!! Edge isn't it!!! go read C&VG if you want that.
Although I have to disagree with you about fallout 3, I thought it was excellent but that's just one man's opinion.. A little slow granter, but once you get into its one of the best RPG's I have played, certainly in keeping with the Morrowwind and Elderscrolls. Certainly a bit more grown up that Final Fantasy.
I can certainly see, how looking at the 9/10 score. I found that review desceptive because it assumes that you're already an RPG head andwould already be looking because of this. This is a little misleading because this isn't the case, if don't like, or haven't had much experience with the RPG genre or the other games Bethesda have produced then you're in for a shock, Fallout3 build so much on what went before it.
I think most of the people here aren't too concerned about the actual number, I've played it a fair amount and while its decent I was disappointed, anywhere from a 6-8 would be perfectly acceptable. Between the single player, co-op, and multiplayer it's a solid if unspectacular game. The problem several people have raised is that the just reviewed Left 4 Dead got a 9, this is a game with no depth, just unlimited ammo and unlimited enemies. It seems odd to give a flat thoughtless shooter a 9, but only give Resistance a 6.
I don't see the problem either - 6/10 isn't necessarily a bad score. To be fair, it does sound solid if not spectacular and the fact that they have taken the line of "more is better" as opposed to implementing true innovation is a perfectly valid criticism and one that I'd be interested in reading about. I have disagreed with so many reviews in Edge but they have always prompted debate about the same issues that I encounter when playing the game. Compare this to the review of CoD: World at War - both got the same score, both probably solid shooters and well worth a play through when I get the chance. So they haven't turned out to be the revolution of video gaming that you hoped for. So what? Surely that's better than being promised that a game is awesome by a journalist who writes a glowing review after being promised future exclusive access by the game's developers. I think it was in Games TM a few months back (the only other games publication I read) when they did an article about the lack of independence in gaming journalism. It was worse than I had previously thought. The insight from the owner of Metacritic into the bullying tactics of gaming PR execs was also very interesting to read, if very depressing.
To be fair, this isn't the best review that I've ever read in Edge and it does seem a little rushed. However, in an issue that includes reviews for Gears of War 2, Fallout 3 and Little Big Planet, I can understand why Resistance 2 wasn't given as many words as it would usually.
Basically the computer games market is a tough crowd in which to prompt intelligent discussion, especially on the Internetz. I think you do a good job. Looking forward to you putting up the Fallout review so that I can argue why you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Bugs be damned, I love it.
Edge's reviews have always been able to shine a different light on a particular game and while this opinion might differ from other reviews, it certainly creates perspective. It still looks like their reviews are not paid/PR-influenced opinions and by putting them online this way, with people actually being capable of commenting on them, players can look at both the article and its replies and get some potential insight. This might help them decide between purchasing a title or leaving it alone.
However, a 6 is definitely not very high comparing them to other recently reviewed games with better scores despite their lower appeal. But then again, I haven't agreed on every Edge score ever since the first Halo got a 10.
I've played the single player campaign through, and based on it alone, it's definitely worth more than a six. It's not perfect by any means, but it's a decent shooter-on-rails. Apparently the multiplayer is better, and the co-op is the best there is at the moment. Can't wait to get to them.
What really bugs me is that Edge Magazine gave Halo 3 a perfect ten and Gears of War 2 got a nine. Neither of these games completely reinvented the shooting genre, and if Gears 2 is anything like the first game, it's boring and frustrating as hell. And the multiplayer is broken.
So, I'm not going to compare Edge scores to other publications, because it just doesn't work that way. But it really looks like some franchises get a fairer treatment than others. Maybe Resistance 2 shouldn't have tried to do anything new, since more of the same seems to pay off better.
This is probably why EDGE never used to give scores at all. For some bizarre reason, everybody focusses on them. Why? Fable 2 got 9s and 10s from various publications, but if you don't like that particular genre that score is meaningless to you anyway. The review is what matters - that's what tells you how the game plays, what the story and narrative is like, why you might want to buy it, not the number at the end of the text. What makes even less sense is when people have already determined what score they think a game should get, despite never having played it themselves, and then proceed to moan at volume when a reviewer gives a differing verdict.
And although EDGE capitulated and started using scores after a few years, it's notable that their scores make more sense than most. While you have places like Eurogamer who give out 9s and 10s like candy to the point where it's hard to tell when a game is truly great, in reality 5/10 should mean 'middle-of-the-road', not 'crap' like so many people seem to think. So when EDGE do give out a high score it should mean a lot more, it should indicate that a game is particularly special.
By that logic, 6/10 isn't bad by any definition, just 'somewhat above average'.
I have always been of the opinion that games that are genuinely innovative and give the player some new get high marks and those that are re-hashes or re-skins usually sliding into the above average score, please somebody correct me if that's not the case. Sometimes you get the woefully bad, this always makes for interesting reading. But by no means are reviews, whether they be in Edge or which online/offline magazine you prefer. Are the be all and end all, they're a guide. Sometimes you just need to find out for yourself.
You are right though, it would be better if they didn't score them at all and you just read the article about a certain game and you made your own mind up . I have always found that although reviews give you a good idea about what a games about. It's all about what YOU think of it personally that matters.
For examples, I've just bough Mirror's Edge, which received a fairly average score, I could see what Edge were saying, it is linear it is repetitive, been done before, not "true" Parkour etc etc. But I found it to be quite challenging and even though it may not "flow" like we'd all hoped it would. It still personally find it very innovative and regardless of what score it got it I still have had tonnes of fun playing it and don't regret spending a little cash on it.
thats weird ign gave it a 9.6 out of 10 and alot of reveiewers gave it a 9 or better this is the lowest ive seen for this game.
I was a little surprised to see a 6/10 for this, but hey, I've not played it yet so who am I to comment. I recently got a copy of Resistance: FOM and have really enjoyed it. It's a little long and gets a bit of a drag but overall its been a fun little romp. If the sequel is roughly the same if not a little bit better then I think a 6/10 could be a fair score. EDGE are notoriously low scorers and I'm pleased they are. If it wasn't for EDGE I would have probably gone out and bought loads more turkey games had I not seen opinions in EDGE first. But on the flip side I may have missed some quality titles too. I respect their opinions more than any other publication out there, but that's all they are, opinions. It makes me laugh to see people get so worked up over these scores. It's as though EDGE have just given your Mum 6/10 for her baking skills. If you take these scores as opinions and just get on with your life and buy the games you want then what do they matter?? Not sure if I'll get this game yet or not. I left it 2 years to get the first one so I'm sure I might pick it up when it comes down to £19.99 too. I'm sure it'll be fun, I'll enjoy it, but I'm sure it's probably not to the standard of 8,9 and 10/10 games, but i could be proved wrong.
Im' ok with 6/10, the only thing I don't understand is this:
Is RE2 better or worse then RE1?
With a score like that, it makes me think it is actually a worse game. How much did Edge gave to RE1? 4/10?
The same thing is happening with Motorstorm 2. It is a much better and complete game then Motorstorm 1 but it has worse reviews and scores. Can someone please explain me this line of thinking?
The review backs up my initial impression. Seems like an average game to me. When I was making cuts to my list of games to buy this month, this one was easy to strike off. I had a little go at an expo, and it just wasn't as exciting to play as Gears of War 2 or Killzone 2. I know a lot of PS3 owners wanted this game to get a 9/10 or 10/10 so they can feel like their console claimed a victory this year, but the game is what it is.
There are quite a few reviewer that begs to differ, unless you know that you and this particular reviewer have the same taste I think you shouldn´t pay to much attention to his rant.
I remember the times when I took pride in buying paper copies of Edge. Those times are gone. Sensational review scores that for sure will draw hits to their site.
It's hardly sensational is it? I've read Edge for years and they've always given games a slightly lower score than your average gaming magazine. 6/10 in edge is not a bad game in my opinion, it's average, and it's these scores that make me trust them more when they do give out a 9. I do however, feel that edge-online is not up to the quality of the magazine.
The reviews in the paper-magazine are identical to the online versions as far as I can tell, unless they have changed that recently, I can´t tell because I stopped buying the paper-version because of the kind of rants as this review examplifies.
You are right that they are just one opinion, but I think you are wrong if you think their opinon represent has some kind of extra quality attached to it.
Edge used to stand for quality, but seriously, they are no longer much better than any random blogger you´ll find on the internet. The quality of the writing has really suffered over the last few years I don´t know if the online version is to blame, the income from ads are important for sure, but it is really sad if it´s the reason behind superficial controversial rants like this.
I'm referring to the overall quality of content, not just the reviews, so in that respect we're in agreement.
Maybe it's the instancy of the internet, but if articles can be thrown up almost instantly maybe they're not undergoing such a thorough editorial process. I've noticed articles here that have been "pulled" before, why check stuff thoroughly if you can just do a Ministry of Truth on it and make it disappear.
You say yourself Edge used to stand for quality, so I don't understand why you say it's wrong to think their opinion has extra quality attached to it. This seems like a contradiction to me.