nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Keep Calm And Discuss Retro Generally!

CiDeRmAn

And so it begins!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82E7vhtLxNs

And a link to past glories!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

DinoRex

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It kind of does make a little sense though. You have to remember that at the time Ultima Underworld was released just before Doom and did have complex character interactions despite being a first person game which made it seem more advanced at the time. The reviewer was just crap and failed to recognise that Doom was trying to be Gauntlet in 3D and not a RPG in 3D and failed to realise the games big strenght, it was just loads of fun. Edge magazine, putting pretention before fun in gaming since 1993 :P

That's the problem. They also seem to be judging Mario Kart for not being Gran Turismo. The fact that it's one of the most fun games ever made seems to be lost on them.

valleyoftheunos

a5y wrote: »

I'm not sure but I think it's some humility from EDGE. No one has ever seen it before.

It reads to me as the opposite, they never concede that they were wrong about more than minor issues and never go so far as to say outright that their initial score or impression was not correct.

Edge is a fine publication in certain aspects but their reviews are so far out of whack with most other Media Outlets and my own opinions that I don't bother with it at all anymore.

Retr0gamer

Edge have this reputation for me as being overly harsh to many smaller titles, which is fine and all when they bring up points to support it. My problem is how inconsistent they are about since they have a habit of getting caught up in the hype train just like any other publication and hand out silly scores to big AAA titles with plenty of flaws that in other reviews they would have nitpicked at like crazy.

then there's the unwillingness to admit they might have got it wrong. Nobody is infallible, certainly not Edge but they seem to be hanging on to this notion that any review in Edge is the view of the entire publication which is nonsense because it's obviously the opinion of only one reviewer. It's just a mean spirited way to not give their freelancers a byline so that the publisher can pay them the minimum by reducing competition.

[Deleted User]

a5y wrote: »

Must be nice working at EDGE. When I'm wrong I'm plain wrong. But when Edge are wrong, its because their opinion is controversial.

When history has proven that you were clearly wrong, the best thing you can do is accept your mistake with grace and not try to wriggle out of it with a caveat...but then that's not very typical of the guys at Edge.

They've never been afraid to engage in a little revisionism and selective editorializing based on popular opinion either...

Exhibit A: Edge's opinion of Street Fighter III third strike (a game which is regarded as one of the deepest, most competitive, and most fan-revered fighting games of all time) in 2000, a short while after it was released:

"Even the most devout afficianado would agree that little has changed between chapters, save minor tweaks to the fighting system...In light of such token modifications, it will be down to the series’ familiar formula to secure its success...At heart, Street Fighter III 3rd Strike is Street Fighter by any other name"

Exhibit B: Edge's opinion of Street Fighter III third strike in 2007 (AFTER the rest of the world had hailed it as one of the deepest, most competitive, and most fan-revered fighting games of all time):

"[The...]parrying system, in particular...allows for incredibly free-flowing and exciting matches between skilled players...The last mainline Street Fighter game is, from a competitive point of view...the series’ best...third Strike’s complex techniques conspire to make the game the deepest contemporary 2D fighter yet created"

That is all.

CiDeRmAn

martineatworld wrote: »

Thought I'd share a very decent deal if ye haven't seen it....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056714626

New games going for as low as 12.50 if you bulk buy.

After checking on the site, this includes 3ds games, so MK7, Mario 3D and Zelda:OOT brand new for under 15 quid? Yes please.

Thanks for this, just picked up Driver, MW3, Mass Effect 3 and Starfox 64 for 60!
You are a gent!

a5y

Love how in "A" they put words in other people's mouths or outright tell them what their opinion should be, and "B" is so full of unnecessary needlessly used multi-syllabic adjectives I suspect acute thesaurus poisoning.

Yeah, their prestige is looking a bit Emperor's New Clothes. Maybe the non-review articles are finely written, thoughtful and convincing, but I can't trust them to consistently recognise fun so that wipes out a large swath of their relevance to my interests.

Retr0gamer

It would be much better if they gave the writers bylines then I'd know if it was a reviewer I can trust. Like Eurogamer everytime I see a review by Dan 'Mega man 2 6/10' Whitehead I know to completely ignore his opinion or how I can always trust a review of an RPG by Kat Bailey.

DinoRex

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Thanks for this, just picked up Driver, MW3, Mass Effect 3 and Starfox 64 for 60!
You are a gent!

€20 for Duke Nukem Forever? I'd be crazy not to!

CiDeRmAn

Hmmm, so Edge hating is the new thang 'round here is it?

I reckon part of the problem is that Edge reviewers all write as "Edge" or rather as the voice of the magazine.
The issue here is that review are seated in informed opinion and, like it or not, no opinion is homogeneous, that is people are subjective beasts, even when they try hard to be objective.
As a result and Edge review of SFIII followed, some time later, with another differing, contradictory review/in depth piece is not something that must be condemned.
Rather we should recognise, at worst, that the initial reviewer was not best suited to the game in question.
We could also argue that the finer points of the game only became apparent with a longer term play of the game, revealing depth that was not readily apparent to a gaming populace who were more familiar with previous members of the series.

The issue of the scores themselves rattles on.
As Edge have said, 7/10 is not a below average score, no 4/10 is below average.
A 7/10 game has many fine points and for fans of a genre or subject matter it may turn out to be a great purchase but it does have flaws, and these account for the score.
An 8/10 game is probably a must have for most, 9/10 is reserved for excellence and the legendary 10/10 is for those titles that define a genre, that maybe transcend even that.

Following from that is that indie games, smaller independent titles may have, due to financial constraints, have rougher edges, things that bigger budgets can smooth over.
The core gameplay, the innovation may be there, warranting a good score, but the other issues may drag the score down.
A bigger budget game does not guarantee a great score but they often have polish and, while fail to add to a genre, will be a viable purchase for many, so we may see 7 and 8/10's more commonly there.

The thing is, people themselves should perhaps not rise up in such righteous indignation.
GamesTM have been ripping off Edge for ages, reviewing games some 2 weeks after Edge and scoring them almost the same, but I fail to hear the same heated commentary aimed towards that publication.

At least we can all agree that, outside of the contentious issue of reviews, the magazine provides a mature approach to gaming as both a hobby and lifestyle, and this is readily apparent when we look at alternate options on the newsagent shelves, with glorified comics aimed at selling whatever advertiser bought the cover and the best review score, insulting us and what we love.

CiDeRmAn

DinoRex wrote: »

€20 for Duke Nukem Forever? I'd be crazy not to!

They had the big box edition, with all the goodies, of Duke for a fiver not so long ago...

I looked for it but it had found a victim already.

DinoRex

johnny_ultimate

A handful of off-the-mark reviews over almost twenty years of publication does not a bad magazine mark. In the four or five years of reading Edge, there's been about two or three reviews I've violently disagreed with - Halo 3 stands out, but even that was relatively well articulated if, unusually for the magazine, on the hyperbolic side. Indeed, several of the 'controversial' reviews they cite in that article - Dragon Age, Fallout 3 - I'd actually fully agree with: hugely flawed games where the problems got drowned out in a sea of unbalanced praise. I fully disagree with retr0's assessment that they're generally easier on the AAA titles - the opposite, if anything. Along with gamecentral (another source I'd trust for unbiased opinion), their reviews are typically lingering around the bottom percentile of metacritic lists.

Edge, unlike the vast, vast majority of other gaming publications actually critiques games rather than just idiotically reviewing a 'product' (I can't read an Official Magazine, because the reviewers' motivations are never clear). They go a layer deeper than others, and since the 1990s have certainly tightened their editorial standards something fierce. Their Gunstar review reads nothing like a current review of theirs, IMO.

I'm just crazy like this, but I love criticism that is just a little more than ticking off boxes - graphics, music, gameplay, story. There's increasingly few sources I can get that for gaming (film is a little better off, although not as much as I'd like) and Edge is one. Yes, their SFIII review is incorrect, but like an MMORPG a fighting game is a challenging thing for an individual reviewer to approach before the enthusiast community get their hands on it and take it apart. As said in the article, the review also came at a time of general apathy towards fighting games following Capcom's endless revisions - they're not defending their reviewer at the time, but placing it in a complex context. Meanwhile, their reviews of subsequent fighting games have been on the button. They got their SFIII review wrong, have admitted as such since, and it stands out as a rare misjudgement in a mountain of generally solid, consistent reviews. Plus, it was sixteen years ago. You just need to take film as an example where the most respectable critics were wildly off the mark first time around, with several timeless classics taking decades to be appreciated as such. I'm not saying that SFIII took decades to gain appreciation, but having an individual review assess its impact pre-release is occasionally not going to be an accurate representation of its actual reception.

Edge also has the benefit of previews that actually engage with the game in question rather than just reading like a press release. Superb columnists, In-depth features and articles on game design. It's proper, engaged criticism where most sources just ask 'should you buy it?'. Of course they've had some reviews that didn't gel with consensus, and in fewer cases still got it wrong. That's out of twenty-thirty reviews every single month since the mid-90s, but otherwise they've made gaming journalism a more intelligent place where the writers delve deeper than 98% of their competitors.

[Deleted User]

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Hmmm, so Edge hating is the new thang 'round here is it?

I reckon part of the problem is that Edge reviewers all write as "Edge" or rather as the voice of the magazine.....

I've never liked edge, mostly for the reasons outlined, chiefly because often i get the impression that their reviewers don't know anything about the titles or genres they are reviewing, or have any affection for them, but also because i don't get any sense of personality at all from the magazine. People trust people, not faceless publications. If i know that a certain reviewer knows his or her stuff because a game they reviewed well which i subsequently bplayed turned out to be very enjoyable, i'm likely to trust that reviewer's opinion in future. With edge you don't get that. the best you get is a review occasionally matching up to your game experience.

With the level of choice available in the game mag business, that's not enough to get my customer loyalty or my money.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Rather we should recognise, at worst, that the initial reviewer was not best suited to the game in question. We could also argue that the finer points of the game only became apparent with a longer term play of the game, revealing depth that was not readily apparent

No to split hairs here, but with the initial review of that game, the reviewer cited the opinions of "the most devout afficionadoes" and so on to back up baseless and wholly incorrect opinions on the game and pass them off as fact (which they weren't even at that time).

Although that game wasn't very commercially successful (at the time), gameplay-wise it was respected from day 1 by high level players for it's complex mechanics, and edge passing off it's poorly suited reviewer's ill informed opinion as fact, only for it to be revised once popular opinion had evolved and showed them up as incorrect is just symptomatic of how the magazine operates on a larger scale, and why i don't like it. Half the time their reviewers don't know what they are on about.

If i read an article from a reviewer i know is into fighting games, and who has given accurate reviews of many games i know in the past, and he says a game is just more of the same, with no new innovations, then I'll consider that to be accurate, but with edge, because their reviews are never accountable to a specific writer, it's as likely to be a mile off as it is to be accurate.

CiDeRmAn

Deleted User wrote: »

....with edge, because their reviews are never accountable to a specific writer, it's as likely to be a mile off as it is to be accurate.

I'm sorry but that statement is complete tosh.

In a handful of situations, out of all the reviews they have published, the opinion was incorrect, in many peoples opinion.
But to suggest that, on average, their reviews are erroneous because the reviewer can't be held accountable for his/her published work, nonsense.
And, yes, that is what you are implying, that the reviews that appear in Edge are as likely to be a mile off because there is no byline announcing the author.

And that is simply wrong, wrongity wrong, with a degree from Wrong-ville university, and with a great job lined up, in Wrong Town, being wrong for a living.

And as for trusting people, not faceless publications, I bought magazines for years that published the name or picture of the reviewer next to the review. Time and time again, in these mags, the game that gets the big advertising spread, double page, inside the cover, is the game that gets the big score, so I won't base may faith just because they choose to publish the name or picture of someone next to the text.

I never get the impression that the reviewer knows nothing of the genre title they are reviewing, ever.
In fact I learn more about genres I know nothing about from reviews of games I'll never buy. The reviewers opinion is then, typically, confirmed by the conversations here with fans of said genres.

And the magazines personality is Edge, authoritative, informed and mature. That is the personality they exude, regardless of who is doing the writing.
I have a feeling that if you cannot be part of this you don't write for them.
There are plenty of big bucks titles that get poor scores so I don't believe there is any case of their reviews being paid off either, so I trust them and, I must say, in the 16 years I've been reading them I have seldom been steered wrong.

When everyone else was gushing over the Gran Tursimo series Edge told it like it was, that it was beautiful but sterile, becoming a car collecting exercise and instead directed players onto fresher grounds, like Burnout Paradise or PGR4 and Forza 3.

[Deleted User]

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I'm sorry but that statement is complete tosh...that is simply wrong, wrongity wrong, with a degree from Wrong-ville university, and with a great job lined up, in Wrong Town, being wrong for a living....

There's no need to be facetious. I was just expressing an opinion. Disagree with it if you want, but Im not going to debate with you if you if that's how you intend to do it.

I would have expected a forum mod to be a little more curteous.

o1s1n

Ah jaysus, since when did people start getting their knickers in a twist around these parts? It's really ruining my buzz.

Comments like that should always be treated as if in jest. A good retort is to tell Ciderman that Need for Speed on the 3D0 sucks donkey balls.

valleyoftheunos

o1s1n wrote: »

Ah jaysus, since when did people start getting their knickers in a twist around these parts? It's really ruining my buzz.

Comments like that should always be treated as if in jest. A good retort is to tell Ciderman that Need for Speed on the 3D0 sucks donkey balls.

Its been getting a bit tetchy recently all right!!!:eek::eek:

Retr0gamer

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Rather we should recognise, at worst, that the initial reviewer was not best suited to the game in question.

Which is in fact a massive problem. When I was reviewing games I never took on Sports games or genres I had no interest in or didn't know anything about because I wasn't qualified to review them or else wouldn't be able to give it an unbiased review. What Edge basically did was give their review to somebody that was unqualified to review the games which is bad journalism. If they had given the reviewer a byline then maybe from reading this persons reviews we could tell whether this guy knew anything about fighting games but since there's no byline we can't make that connection.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I'm sorry but that statement is complete tosh.

In a handful of situations, out of all the reviews they have published, the opinion was incorrect, in many peoples opinion.
But to suggest that, on average, their reviews are erroneous because the reviewer can't be held accountable for his/her published work, nonsense.
And, yes, that is what you are implying, that the reviews that appear in Edge are as likely to be a mile off because there is no byline announcing the author.

And that is simply wrong, wrongity wrong, with a degree from Wrong-ville university, and with a great job lined up, in Wrong Town, being wrong for a living.

And as for trusting people, not faceless publications, I bought magazines for years that published the name or picture of the reviewer next to the review. Time and time again, in these mags, the game that gets the big advertising spread, double page, inside the cover, is the game that gets the big score, so I won't base may faith just because they choose to publish the name or picture of someone next to the text.

You're getting it completely wrong there. Because you don't know who is reviewing the game you aren't sure that you can trust the views of the person reviewing then game. People have different opinions, tastes and knowledge about cetain subjects and if they have these similar to yours you find you can trust them. On other websites I know which reviewers I can trust and which I can't. With Edge it's a lottery. If it really was the view of the magazine then fine, but it really isn't because for that to be true they would need the opinions on the game from multiple people were quite obviously the reviews are based on the opinions of one anonymous writer whose knowledge, experience and bias are totally unknown. Whereas I can trust a review from Jeremy Parish or Kat Bailey on the genres they have knowledge in or can completely dismiss the ramblings of the muppets on Giantbomb on anything that isn't a big AAA game, and even then I wouldn't look to their views.

Would you trust film publication if you didn't know if Robert Ebert or Cosmo Lansman was writing the reviews.

I've also heard some very bad stories about how the publishers of Games TM and Edge have been using the lack of a byline to screw over a lot of writers.

DinoRex

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Its been getting a bit tetchy recently all right!!!:eek::eek:

It's almost like people aren't reading the first two words of the thread title!

The Last Bandit

Everyone just needs to relax and play some Superman 64..

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Whereas I can trust a review from Jeremy Parish or Kat Bailey on the genres they have knowledge in or can completely dismiss the ramblings of the muppets on Giantbomb on anything that isn't a big AAA game, and even then I wouldn't look to their views.

Jeremy Parish gave FFXIII an A- (Edge a much more deserving 5/10), which is ludicrously incorrect on any number of levels. Same with Halo ODST. Doesn't mean I dismiss him entirely.

You can handpick a handful of reviews from any reviewer or publication and they're going to be off. Just because SFIII, Gunstar and a handful of other reviews weren't agreeable, that doesn't mean the magazine is devoid of worth. As Ciderdude stated, it's an authoritative, mature style, and that is simply the editorial style Edge has chosen to go with. It may not be perfect, but I don't think it diminishes its worth. Elsewhere, they provide six or seven individual writers with a monthly column to make distinctive, individual observations. They are not entirely against the concept of bylines, they simply think that the publication should stand behind reviews.

And anyway: DinoRex > SFIII.

CiDeRmAn

Firstly, I am entitled to an opinion as much as the next guy, even if it is someone with a poor opinion, like Retr0, despite being cursed with mod-hood here.
Secondly I was, in part, being light hearted, we can have a difference of opinion here without drama.

The whole point of this thread, this forum is for fun, enjoyable, insightful debate, and few if no personal insults.
Aside from a few morons who crawled out from beneath a rock to post crap here we do pretty well.

The matter of Edge magazine has been the source of good natured, often me against the unwashed, debates and arguments, with a certain 6/10 forming the acidic, ulcerative core of the hate for some......

So, when we get Edge 'fessing up to poor decisions what do we do?
Well, some immediately smell blood in the water and go "HA! told you they were sh1te!", and then go on to lay into every thing that the magazine printed that they disagreed with.
Perhaps they feel this vindication about, say SFIII, means that every other area of dispute is somehow also down to Edge being wrong and they being right.

No, don't think so, not in every case any how.

To be honest, if people can't have a laugh about this maybe we should, indeed, just move on to another topic.... or bounty, or maybe a snickers... damn, I'm hungry now!

valleyoftheunos

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Firstly, I am entitled to an opinion as much as the next guy, even if it is someone with a poor opinion, like Retr0, despite being cursed with mod-hood here.
Secondly I was, in part, being light hearted, we can have a difference of opinion here without drama.

The whole point of this thread, this forum is for fun, enjoyable, insightful debate, and few if no personal insults.
Aside from a few morons who crawled out from beneath a rock to post crap here we do pretty well.

The matter of Edge magazine has been the source of good natured, often me against the unwashed, debates and arguments, with a certain 6/10 forming the acidic, ulcerative core of the hate for some......

So, when we get Edge 'fessing up to poor decisions what do we do?
Well, some immediately smell blood in the water and go "HA! told you they were sh1te!", and then go on to lay into every thing that the magazine printed that they disagreed with.
Perhaps they feel this vindication about, say SFIII, means that every other area of dispute is somehow also down to Edge being wrong and they being right.

No, don't think so, not in every case any how.

To be honest, if people can't have a laugh about this maybe we should, indeed, just move on to another topic.... or bounty, or maybe a snickers... damn, I'm hungry now!

no way I just spent the last 10 minutes picking effing pieces of desiccated coconut out of my teeth after eating one with my lunch. Don't make the same mistake I did.

CiDeRmAn

Deleted User wrote: »

There's no need to be facetious. I was just expressing an opinion. Disagree with it if you want, but Im not going to debate with you if you if that's how you intend to do it.

I would have expected a forum mod to be a little more curteous.

That quote is me having a laugh, I was posting from my phone so I couldn't include something like this as well....
Mr._Wrong.jpg

I can debate just fine but I generally post here for kicks and giggles and, mostly, enjoy reading other peoples opinions, especially when they differ from mine, it's the only way to learn!
No sense surrounding myself with people who agree all the time!

So, I respect your point of view, I will moderate this thread to ensure that you are allowed the time and respect due to air your point of view.

But I will reserve the right to poke fun at your point of view, in a non personally insulting manner, if I disagree and it makes me laugh a bit.
And you can do the same right back, I won't mind!

[Deleted User]

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Nice to know that a forum mod can't express an opinion, didn't read that in the handbook!...Next time I'll just report myself, to me!...Lighten up people!

When did i say i had any problem with you or anyone else expressing an opinion? Disagree with me all you want, just don't be facetious about it. I've seen people infracted for less on other (albeit stricter) forums. Nobody wants a situation where they can't say boo here, and i like that things in A&R are nicely relaxed, but a modicum of respect, even when disagreeing with someone as vehemently as you did, would be nice.

And by the way, your "lighten up" comment would have been better appreciated had it not come immediately after your own sarcastic repost to my objection.

In the interest of general peace and quiet on the thread, let's say no more on the matter. I'm now "lightening up" as requested...

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You're getting it completely wrong there. Because you don't know who is reviewing the game you aren't sure that you can trust the views of the person reviewing then game...On other websites I know which reviewers I can trust and which I can't. With Edge it's a lottery.

This is precisely the point that i was making about Edge. My "a mile off" comment was, of course, an exaggeration, and i regret posting it now, but the point remains; i don't think their reviews generally are as trustworthy, informative, or objective as they could be because of the lack of a system of accreditation for their writers.

Retr0gamer

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Jeremy Parish gave FFXIII an A- (Edge a much more deserving 5/10), which is ludicrously incorrect on any number of levels. Same with Halo ODST. Doesn't mean I dismiss him entirely.

In this case I've the same taste as Jeremy Parish and think his review of FFXIII was spot on and had a good idea I'd enjoy it because I share similar tastes in RPGs. As for his Halo reviews, I knew I could dismiss it because I know Jeremy is a big Bungie fanboy since he never had FPS experience since he used a Mac instead of a PC for years. These are assumptions I can't come up with about reviewers in Edge magazine.

A review is a personal opinion and taking the identity of that person away from the review significantly lessens the reviews worth to me when I know nothing about the persons tastes or knowledge on the subject. Not all of Edges reviews are wrong and you can also say that ones personal opinion is wrong either. However I find it impossible to tell if I can take an opinion seriously if I don't know who is making it. You can say that reviews shouldn't be buyers guides but you know what, that's all we have to go on sometimes and I'd rather read a review I trust.

From talking to some freelancers it seems the real reason for the lack of bylines is so the publisher doesn't have to pay as much as they do for the bylined opinion pieces or end up dealing with contracts.

CiDeRmAn

Retr0gamer wrote: »

As for his Halo reviews, I knew I could dismiss it because I know Jeremy is a big Bungie fanboy since he never had FPS experience since he used a Mac instead of a PC for years. These are assumptions I can't come up with about reviewers in Edge magazine.

I like him already!

CiDeRmAn

facetious (fəˈsiːʃəs)

— adj
1. characterized by levity of attitude and love of joking: a facetious person

That's me, to a tee.....

Unless I have been unlucky in flirting with my wife then I am an...

ass·hole [as-hohl] Show IPA
noun Vulgar .
1.
anus.
2.
Slang .
a.
a stupid, mean, or contemptible person.

Retr0gamer

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Unless I have been unlucky in flirting in the workplace then I am an...

I hope your wife doesn't read this forum!

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

In this case I've the same taste as Jeremy Parish and think his review of FFXIII was spot on and had a good idea I'd enjoy it because I share similar tastes in RPGs. As for his Halo reviews, I knew I could dismiss it because I know Jeremy is a big Bungie fanboy since he never had FPS experience since he used a Mac instead of a PC for years. These are assumptions I can't come up with about reviewers in Edge magazine.

A review is a personal opinion and taking the identity of that person away from the review significantly lessens the reviews worth to me when I know nothing about the persons tastes or knowledge on the subject. Not all of Edges reviews are wrong and you can also say that ones personal opinion is wrong either. However I find it impossible to tell if I can take an opinion seriously if I don't know who is making it. You can say that reviews shouldn't be buyers guides but you know what, that's all we have to go on sometimes and I'd rather read a review I trust.

From talking to some freelancers it seems the real reason for the lack of bylines is so the publisher doesn't have to pay as much as they do for the bylined opinion pieces or end up dealing with contracts.

But I do trust Edge's reviews 99% of the time (like Parish, I'm weary of their Halo bias) because as a publication they have very high writing standards, and approach games from a design-orientated perspective (you can't forget that developers are one of their core readerships). An Edge review very rarely reads as anything other than an Edge review - not a trait I'd like every publication to suddenly embrace, but one that Edge has honed and refined admirably. Sure, I am equally fond of individual reviewers, but Edge's editorial style IMO works wonders for their own particular approach, and think it's a far more considered editorial style than a mere excuse for ****ing over writers.

I just think Edge have carved themselves a niche of considered, intelligent criticism in a journalistic scene often devoid of that. There are plenty of other sources I check for reviews and opinion, but Edge in my experience are amongst the most reliable. Misjudgements are rare, and the vast majority hit the mark or at least sensibly articulate an opinion the readers are free to disagree with. A few particularly off-the-mark reviews from a decade ago do little to sour my opinion of the smartest, most in-depth contemporary games magazine of the moment.