I find it kind of odd that Edge skewers criticism of their KZ2 review in their columns, and then publishes a reader article that defends them. Seriously, if you're going to defend yourself, just publish an article/editorial explaining your views or or add an update to the KZ2 review. This indirect defense of yourself makes it seem like you're either: (a) embarassed, (b) just trying to get more hits; or (c) all of the above.

That said, I don't actually think Edge is biased against the PS3. I think the site, as a whole, is decent, but their reviews stink in general. There is a complete lack of consistency in their reviews. The KZ2 review just happens to be a glaring example of that inconsistency.

The fact that we don't know who reviewed it makes it more important for Edge to have a consistent review policy. The editor in chief needs to recognize that KZ2 is being slammed for things that are more or less standard in FPS games, e.g., a cliched story, and have the reviewer provide some kind of explanation about why other games have been given a pass for the same failing.

If they actually named the reviewers, you could identify which reviewers you tend to agree with and which ones you don't. By simply saying "Edge staff" or whatever, you can't do that, and that makes it more important for Edge to have some consistency between reviews.

Your comments actually illustrate why I think the Edge review stinks. The text of the Edge review doesn't get into much specifics why they like or dislike the game, other than the fact that they really hate the characters and story. Their review is actually vaguely positive; they seem to like the game generally, and mention a few positives here and there (e.g., good AI). But overall, the review is just a bunch of fluff with very little specificity or analysis. The review is well written from a grammatical perspective, but its not informative at all. I think that's why a lot of people are getting so worked up about the score; there is little in the review that explains how they get that number.

I don't actually care about the score itself; as I said, I think Edge's review is actually positive. But your mini-review explains gives me more insight into whether I'd like the game or not than the Edge review, and it is only one paragraph, as opposed to Edge's three pages. Edge tries too hard to sound intelligent in their reviews, but forgets to actually review.

It's up to the player? Are you serious? Whether or not a story is good or bad is also up to the player, but they spend a page of their review explaining how the story stinks. This is a review, they should be giving an opinion and analysis of the gameplay. The controls are central to the gameplay, there should be some time spent saying whether they're good or bad, especially since its well known that KZ2 controls are somewhat different from most FPS games out there.

As for the comparing games, its only valuable if you give some context, i.e., what parts you're comparing. This review compares KZ2 to other games with practically no context. "[Killzone 2's] action rivals any in Stalker or COD4." How are readers supposed to know what parts of COD4 that Edge is talking about? The control schemes? The set pieces? I can come to vague conclusions about what Edge is talking about here, but the comparison lacks any analysis.

I actually think the text of the review is very positive, notwithstanding the somewhat low score. But someone reading this view with the simple question of, "is KZ2 fun?" will come away with a vague "yes" answer, but without much explanation on why its fun. The lack of any explanation and analysis of basic gameplay is what makes this a poorly written review.

I'll jump in here: the review is missing any analysis or opinion on the controls. It tells you what the basic controls are in terms of the cover system, but does the system work well? Are the controls tight or are they slow? Given that this is a hot topic, I'm surprised there's no analysis of it at all. The review also doesn't say much about the actual gameplay; it compares the gameplay to COD4 and Stalker, but it doesn't actually elaborate other than to say the AI is good. The only thing they really go in depth on is why the story stinks.

This review is typical for Edge. Technically well written and flowery, but lacking decent analysis of basic gameplay.