Edge Magazine reviews Bionic Commando (amongst other things).

[A-J]

Reviews:
Bionic Commando [6]
Demigod [7]
Star Ocean: the Last Hope [5]
Major Minor's Majestic March [3]
Space Invaders Extreme 2 [9]
X-Men Origins: Wolverine [6]
Dynasty Warriors Strikeforce [5]
Ninja Blade [5]
Flock [6]
The Dishwasher: Dead Samurai [8]
Phantasy Star Portable [4]
Balance Of Power: 21st Century [4]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=360373

[Stu]

Was never EVER gonna top Bionic Commando: Rearmed for last year.

Anyone can feel free to be uber-predictable and ammend that to say the original game of course!

[James]

Ouch for Bionic Commando. Double ouch for Star Ocean =( BUT WHO CARES I'LL GET BOTH ANYWAY!

[Sevket]

I wasn't expecting anything good from Bionic Commando anyway. Money saved

[Mr. Spencer]

How can Bionic Commando score lower than Killzone 2?

[A-J]

Ouch for Bionic Commando. Double ouch for Star Ocean =( BUT WHO CARES I'LL GET BOTH ANYWAY!

ditto

[Stu]

How can Bionic Commando score lower than Killzone 2?

Because they've probably played both and think one is better than the other.

[A-J]

the correct answer is because bionic commando is not solely powered by the Cell Processor.

[Mr. Spencer]

Because they've probably played both and think one is better than the other.

Foolishness!

As a representative of Sony Computer Entertainment, I was merely gauging everyone's responses to such a display of anti-Sony propaganda. I'm sure that head office will be very pleased to hear that support for Sony's video game software is alive and well here on THIA. The fact that people questioned my doubting of Killzone 2, a flagship title of the illustrious PlayStation 3, only made possible by the power of the Cell Broadband Engine Architecture.

Your words bring me satisfaction, and I am sure they will please my superiors.

[U and S]

Edge almost always give very low review scores. I'd not base how good the game is solely on their review.

[Carnivol]

Actually, I think now might be a good time to point out something I kinda feel like saying a bit too often;

People seem to forget that not all game reviews are done like:

"Buy this fucking game"
and
"This game is shit"


There are inbetween steps too. A points may be deducted from the overall for various reasons. And this is why I pretty much always get a bit pissy when I see someone give a game a "perfect score" (Seriously, a 10/10 game has to be so damn perfect in my book... unfortunately, I'm having a hard time finding games where I may justify even giving something like 8/10. A lot of games seem to get a couple of extra "hype points" too.)


Anyway, will be interesting to see what Edge writes about it when/if I can get my hand on a copy of that issue.

Also, I think your thread title is a tad bit... lacking and misleading, A-J :p

+You missed the most important part of what's in the latest issue of EDGE it seems:

Time Extend:
Maximo: Ghosts To Glory (PS2)

[Mr_Zombie]

I'd not base how good the game is solely on their review.

No, you should definitely not base how good the game is solely on their score. EDGE is one of those magazines that understand that there are scores in the middle of the scale that need to be used. And it's pretty shocking when EDGE or Eurogamer, among others, use scores like 7/10, 6/10 or even 5/10 to score good games because other magazines/sites habituate gamers, that good game should at least get 8/10, and, as Carnivol have written, a very good game should be scored 9-10/10, which is wrong.

What matters is what they've said about the game, not how they've scored it.

[Carnivol]

I don't think it's "wrong" that people rate a game 5/10, but without the information explaining why they've rated it on the "middle" makes it a pretty pointless number and people jump to conclusions.

Basically, I'd say that anything that's below 5 should be considered bad in general, while at 5 and up, you kinda get into the zone of good games, but might not appeal to everyone, etc...

But then again, you have those who also review games with scores individually based on what type of game they are too (Like how someone will give a sports game a perfect score, which doesn't exactly mean that every single gamer on the planet will enjoy it, no matter how realistic the ball physics are and the player AIs and what-so-ever.) I don't think this is a wrong way of doing it either, but the text in the review (and the contents of the game) is still more important than that score.


In the case of Bionic Commando, people who've got a 360 with a Gold account, go give the multiplayer demo a spin. I saw a short preview of the demo on Kotaku kinda "missed a lot" with the demo. Complaining about lack of tactics, lack of cover, and a few other things (I wonder what that lack of tactics means. If he refers to squad stuff, you wont exactly see that in a demo with a small map and fast paced gameplay that most of all resembles stuff like Unreal, Quake 3 and such. Which is basically keep on killing or be killed. Lack of cover makes it seem like the person who wrote the text didn't have the vivid imagination to use the terrain to his advantage and create his own cover "on the fly". If you walk around instead of swinging, there's plenty of obstacles you can hide behind. A lot of people walk into a trap there by cutting corners and walking right into the fist of someone hiding behind something. You can also quickly turn any ledge into cover by just attaching your hook to a surface and jumping off the ledge too.)