Jump to content

Edge #348 | Cover story - Cyberpunk 2077


Recommended Posts

757027194_Edge348.thumb.jpg.4e2b7dd9078e2b12720c789ec2229409.jpg

Reviews:

 

Ghosts of Tsushima - 6

Desperados 3 - 8

Disintegration - 5

Valorant - 8

Ninjala - 7

West of Dead - 6

Creaks - 8

Little Orpheus - 5

Monster Train - 8

Bird Alone - 7

 

 

The making of - Control

Time extended - Half Life: Decay

The long game - Pokemon sword and shield

 

My first time making an Edge topic so if I there is anything else you want to know, just let me know.

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kevvy Metal said:

Did they give the Ghost of Tsushima review to someone who would blatantly dislike it?

A 6 out of 10 is above average. Maybe they just....didn't like it as much as some others? Not everything is a conspiracy. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 minutes ago, mdn2 said:

A 6 out of 10 is above average. Maybe they just....didn't like it as much as some others? Not everything is a conspiracy. 

 

Edge's commitment to not naming its reviewers does make it a lot harder to gauge how close their opinion is likely to fall to your own. Other than that though, I do enjoy the idea that games should only be given to reviewers who'll like them. Definitely the best way to ensure an engaging and thought-provoking range of opinions on a title.

 

(in fairness the games media brings that expectation on itself through the fact that it, well, largely does seem to pick its reviewers in that way - and thus leads to the treatment of variance of opinion on most any games as being 'controversial' rather than, well, normal; and to the idea that the 'best' games journalist isn't one who can bring expertise and analysis to a piece, but rather the one most entrenched in a game's genre and willing to accept any genre foibles as Inevitable and Good.

 

That, and the industry's ongoing commitment to the importance of scores [and to, Edge-excepted, reserving anything under a 7 for games that are fundamentally broken and/or low budget], so games reviews become treated as sources for simplistic quantitative rather than qualitative analysis (see e.g. metacritic) and lo, the 'objectively correct' review is conceptualised.

 

Love it.)

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I haven't yet played the game, obviously. I haven't read the review, obviously... but I can probably guess at the complaints which for me will all be moot points likely for me.

 

Incredible! :lol:

  • Upvote 9
  • Empathy 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kevvy Metal said:

I'm sure the review is for people who dislike this type of game, who probably wouldn't be interested in playing it in the first place. 

 

As Wiper mentioned there, I prefer games that are reviewed by people who are at least interested in that sort of thing in the first place.

That's a leap and a half.

 

FWIW, I love a good open world action game, and I've just done a 3/5 review of this. It's precisely because I've appreciated BotW, MGSV, Horizon and Witcher 3 so much in the last 5 years that I have a decent understanding of where the genre has moved to in that time, and where GoT falls short. And I was hoping I would really like it (that generally tends to be the case when I'm about to play something for dozens of hours), but it was only quite good.

  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kevvy Metal said:

 EDIT : Or was it actually sarcasm? Eurgh.

 

Yeah, sorry, that was possibly not the best worded. But no, I don't think reviews should be automatically handed to people who are specifically likely to like a game, judging by its design, as offering a wide range of perspectives is exactly what makes reviews worthwhile! Sometimes I want to read a review by someone I expect to share my opinion of a game, sometimes I want to see other sides. Usually both. Having reviews limited to a single perspective both makes them less interesting, and makes it harder to tell when a game has genuinely wide appeal, as opposed to a game which is a solid example of a well-defined genre for which assigning reviewers who'd like it was easy.

 

But, again, Edge doesn't help itself through its refusal to offer a byline, and, well, its insistence on using scores, both of which nudge it towards the idea of the 'objective review'. Definitely a good way to get people riled up.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, SteveH said:

My first time making an Edge topic so if I there is anything else you want to know, just let me know.

 

 

Watch out Mr Do is gonna get you. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wiper said:

I don't think reviews should be automatically handed to people who are specifically likely to like a game, judging by its design, as offering a wide range of perspectives is exactly what makes reviews worthwhile!

 

I think finding someone who "cares" about a game is more important than handing a review to someone who will "like" it, because they're likely to have better knowledge of the expectations that fans of the genre/series may have. (Look at the fun we had trying to split coverage of the GotY awards and how nobody wanted Gears 5 ;) )

Link to post
Share on other sites

People want different things from open world games. RDR2 got a 10 right? That's insane to me, given its clunky controls and poor combat. I'd much rather play Ghost of Tsushima instead, because that seems to have fun gameplay at least. But I'm not gonna buy it anytime soon as open world games burn me out real quick. The only one I completed this gen is Spider-Man, because it's pretty short and has super fun traversal and combat. Even BotW didn't hold my interest long enough.

Making of Control should be a fun read and I'm interested in what Edge thinks of Cyberpunk. Another open world, but the immersive sim style elements have me interested.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find I have a 20-30 hour attention span for most games, and that's only if they've actually grabbed me. When I look back at all the titles I never got around to finishing, the list is almost entirely open world games and RPGs. I genuinely don't understand how some people can bounce from one to another, it exhausts me just thinking about it.

 

The only Assassins Creed game I ever actually finished was the original. It's funny how it got slated for a lack of content at the time, because that's probably the only reason I saw the credits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edge have made it pretty clear that an Open World game that doesn't push the boat out in any real way is gonna get a mediocre score. But if you're someone who enjoys Open World games and doesn't mind that it's not really doing anything new (me) then a 6/10 should be a sign that you'll probably enjoy this game. If you're someone who isn't really that into Open World games and will only pick one up if it's doing something different and unique then a 6/10 should be a sign that you should probably avoid this game. 

 

Seems to me the review and score has done its job.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SteveH said:

 

Ghosts of Tsushima - 6

 

 

Yikes, if that's the general score from other respected outlets then that explains the tweet from Neil Druckman on this yesterday explaining how much he loves the game.   Seemed very PR like to me.

  • Empathy 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.