|
Do you think EG is biased? I personally don't, I just believe they're more honest and slightly more critical than a site like IGN and their "WOW GRAPHICS + EA = 9/10". I could see how it could be perceived as a bias especially by rampant fanboys who will not be told wrong. I personally think the reviewers here do a great job of putting across their opinion, instead of just "Here is the game, here is what you do, the graphics are good". Perhaps therein is where the problem lies. Maybe people are too used to the "Official Magazine Of Console X" reviews of "THIS IS A GREAT TITLE BY THE PEOPLE WHO FUND US" and can't perceive that someone may not like a title for personal reasons (helloooo, Kameo review). I'm usually more persuaded to buy/not buy titles from comments on the forum, rather than outright reviews, but it's the reviews that usually spark the "Should I get this or not?" thought in my brain. Maybe EG should do what Edge did a while back, and experiment with a few reviews without scores. Just the text of the review, and let the people make their own judgement based on that. Anyway, just my two penneth worth. |
The Assumed EG Bias
-
-
MrWorf 64,193 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 20 years agoNot biased as such, but they're love for all things sony always seems to come out in their writing... :/ They're just more enthusiastic about Sony products I think. But not actually biased. :/ -
I don't think they're biased. Wrong sometimes, yes. But not biased.
EG's reviews aren't quite like 'normal' print mag or web-site reviews. They have a touch of 'reader review' about them as opposed to the usual 'professional' shine - you get the idea that the guy playing the game is a guy who likes playing games as opposed to someone who just plays and reviews games because he gets paid to do it.
Does that mean that the reviewer's personal preferences come through more often? Yes. And so, it would seem, does his levels of excitement. Your average IGN has someone who can get excited about everything so if IGN's excited it doesn't mean anything. If you see what I mean.
Shall I ramble some more? -
Mike_Hunt 23,524 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 19 years agoI think they're passionate about games. Which, and let me be frank here, is just f*cking disgusting. Seriously, what makes them think that we want their opinion on anything? When will they realise that no one actually cares what they think? I mean, who wants to read a review and find out what someone actually thought of a game, pah! Give me dull, meaningless statistics about polygons over how much enjoyment you're likely to get out of a game any day!
The sooner the EG boys are replaced by emotionless robots the better in my opinion.
[MH] -
I think the reporting around the original xbox launch a few years ago was pretty pro-everything that's not an xbox.
Seems fine now. -
Blerk wrote:
I don't think they're biased. Wrong sometimes, yes. But not biased.
Definitely not biased I don't think. Don't think they're ever 'wrong' either. If it's the reviewer's genuine opinion then he (or she) can't be wrong even if i disagree with them. I'd disagree with their GTA reviews but wouldn't say that those reviews are in any way incorrect - I just have a (wildly) different opinion.
But the comments on the forum are at least as persuasive for me. Wouldn't have gone near The Movies without the thread here. Glad I did buy it too - it's a fantastic game. Sucking up all of my free time at the mo. -
EddieBear 560 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 16 years agoOne things for sure: if they did do reviews without scores, there'd be a hell of a lot less 'better than halo'or 'Another 8 from EG' comments. On the other hand, there'd be a damn sight more comments complaining about the lack of a score!
I'd quite like to see them try it, as it forces people to make up their own minds about the games. It also requires people to read the article and then comment, rather than simply scrolling down, looking at the mark, and posting complete drivel on the basis of the score.
It seems though, that with the new reader ratings stuff that EG is placing more value on the scoring of games. So I doubt we'd see a 'no score review' any time soon. -
We have Nintendo droids with cattle-prod attacks in our office: you try standing up to them. -
jozz 4,871 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 16 years agoThey cut the mustard alittle thin, I feel (if that makes any sense what-so-ever). Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It just means that if EG give a game a 7/8 then the game is usually pretty good.
Compared to IGN (ah another reference) who give the high scores to the company who pays most for advertising or whatever. True crime: New York city=7.8 for god sake.
I guess a biase will only become apparent when they give a 'Console Y' game an inflated review even though the majority of other reviewers gave it terrible scores and not the other way around. That just means they are taking a fault personally, most likely for a valid reason. After all when you buy a game you will take it just as personally.
My warped logic could be wrong though...
Edited by jozz at 11:50:19 23-11-2005 -
Salaman 24,162 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 17 years agoNah, they're not stupid. You don't toil for years to build up a good site known for it's independent reviews and then shoot yourself in the foot by going "Sony is the Roxxxorz!11"
I'm amazed you're even asking the questions. Steer clear of the fanboys for the next 3 days, go read at least 2 reviews each day without going in the comments section and get a enema.
You'll be fine again in no time.
That'll be £60 then please. -
Xerx3s 23,970 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 17 years agoUnless EG says something like "S0ny f0r th3 w!n!" or "m$ $uxx0rz", i cant believe that EG is biased. A bit unfair at most, but atleast they aint soft. ;p -
p3rks 1,097 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 17 years agoFurbs wrote:
I'd love to see it too. Look at the Kameo review. Its 200 posts talking about the score, not the game.
or replace the 'out of 10' with a reccomendation of whether to buy or not, a sort of "Buy if you liked x, y and z", "Must buy" or "Dont even bother renting this" etc...
You get a nice succinct wrap-up for the review, but none of the score related BS. -
HarryB 7,630 posts
Seen 10 months ago
Registered 18 years agoi only come here to cost them money by using bandwidth on the forums...hahahaha...hahaha
nah they are quite good but they often slate xbox related stuff a bit too much -
Teeth 7,987 posts
Seen 10 years ago
Registered 18 years agoI can't understand people that say there's a bias towards Sony at this site when clearly if there is any bias it's toward Nintendo, and bloody rightly so too if you ask me, I should say so, cor blimey what. -
On an unrelated note, it appears the time/post issue was just fixed. -
technos 1,345 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 16 years agoGremmi wrote:
Why? The numbers are there for one reason; to give a sense of quantity words can't.
Maybe EG should do what Edge did a while back, and experiment with a few reviews without scores. Just the text of the review, and let the people make their own judgement based on that. -
technos wrote:Why? The numbers are there for one reason; to give a sense of quantity words can't.
The theory goes that if it's a decent review, you won't even need to look at the score to know it. Edge did a very successful test of this a while ago, and most people managed to anticipate what the score would be. Remember that unlike most review sites, it's a score based on the opinion of the reviewer, as opposed to an attempt to summarise a general view.
I still reckon a trial/experiment would be interesting, at any rate. -
technos 1,345 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 16 years agoGremmi wrote:
That's awesome. Oh wait! I'm having a psychic moment now!! I anticipate 90% of all EG reviews will score games at 8/10. Wow!
The theory goes that if it's a decent review, you won't even need to look at the score to know it. Edge did a very successful test of this a while ago, and most people managed to anticipate what the score would be.
Gremmi wrote:
You can trial this all you want though, the score is still below the text.
I still reckon a trial/experiment would be interesting, at any rate. -
AHiFi 1,667 posts
Seen 1 month ago
Registered 16 years agoI just read the news and have a glance at the forums. I don't really like EG's reviews as I don't agree with them. -
technos 1,345 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 16 years agoWell, it's not my fault most of them don't know how to write. -
-
Rauper: Any thoughts on a no-score experiment?
EDIT: Curses! Beaten by Furbs!
Edited by Gremmi at 12:39:47 23-11-2005 -
Technos: Just out of interest, if you think the reviews are badly written and the scores are lousy, why do you read them? -
Mike_Hunt 23,524 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 19 years agorauper wrote:
I was really impressed until I noticed the Xbox filter.
bias by numbers
[MH] -
ralphwolfenstein 1,038 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 19 years agoIf you need a mark out of ten to tell you how good a game is, you're a moron. That's what the words are for...
In the good old days, Melody Maker used to use thee scores for records - Essential, Recommended or nothing at all. They got it bang on...
EG are clearly not 'biased' if by biased you mean they have an 'agenda' - it's a ludicrous accusation. Nor are they in anyone's pocket - even more ludicrous
As individuals, they can occasionally betray preferences, and sometimes I struggle to explain their rationale for certain scores - e.g.
Halo (reviewer is pussy, played on Easy)
Conker: Live and Reloaded (reviewer reviewed bonus content instead of actual game)
Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath (reviewer hates games, hates self and probably hates life)
But that said, you get an argument, a grown-up opinion, and a proper subjective review (like a review should be). If you read the site regularly you get to know the reviewers’ idiosyncrasies (like life-hatage), and you can adjust the ‘score’ accordingly
Subjectivism is all very well for an independent site like NTSC-UK I guess, but if I were an advertiser on the ‘UK’s largest games site’ I would probably want to see more evidence of a clear, consistent scoring policy, given that the vast majority of EG readers are not the vocal forumites here, but common or garden gamers who want a reliable mark out of ten… Those Xbox scores are case in point...
As a gamer though, I like the site the way it is -
Rankin 2,931 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 19 years agoBill Door wrote:
That's because PES rocks and FIFA sucks
Especially if the review hardly mentions the game, eh?
The only bias I ever see is the Pro Evo bias. That game gets mentioned more in FIFA reviews than FIFA normally does O_o
.gif)
-
If you need a mark out of ten to tell you how good a game is, you're a moron. That's what the words are for...
I've said it before, I say it again: The final score doesn't need to correlate 100% with the written review, and often doesn't. It's there to complement the review, to put things in perspective, and to make clear how good and bad elements described in the written review are weighed against each other. Now you could say the written review should make all this clear, but that's a very theoretical approach. Not having scores is a cheap cop-out. -
ralphwolfenstein wrote:
Well, if you need the words at all, you're already there.
If you need a mark out of ten to tell you how good a game is, you're a moron. That's what the words are for...
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
