http://www.computerandvideogames.com/317905/dead-island-review-3/10-in-edge/

It seems that Edge really did not like this game one bit. Complaints include the high number of bugs, the lack of original ideas and a poor melee system.

Now Edge are known for being unforgiving and harsh with their scores, but I was wondering if anyone here agrees with them (I'm guessing not). I've only played a couple of hours so far but the game really doesn't seem to be a 3/10.

You should've posted this here.

You should've posted this here.

"Game doesn't seem to be arbitrary number"? Odd. They just didn't like it, is a more succinct way to put it. So the editors of Edge and you have to fight to the death.

The job of a reviewer is to review a game objectively, someone can not like a game but still see its strengths and praise them. That's why Jeff is da man! The Giantbomb crew are about the only reviewers i trust nowadays.

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

The job of a reviewer is to review a game objectively, someone can not like a game but still see its strengths and praise them. That's why Jeff is da man! The Giantbomb crew are about the only reviewers i trust nowadays.

I'm not really sure you can totally review a game objectively - but I do read a multitude of reviews before I try/buy a game.

On that note, I appreciate a review more if they're able to provide the Pros and Cons for a game. Focusing on just one of those makes it too biased, even if having very little in either column is a possibility.

@TheDudeOfGaming: Nope, it's not. You review a game after your own experience. Jeff reviews games subjectively, as do all reviewers.

Edge is usually appropiately harsh (one of the very few), but I can't say I agree with all of their complaints. I think the game is mostly an unpolished piece of shit, but the melee system is fucking genius. I love that. The only thing that keeps me playing.

@TheDudeOfGaming: Yeah it does sound like they focussed too much on the bugs that they experienced. I don't have the game yet, but from the stuff I'm hearing, it seems like a decent game for what it is, despite the glitches.

The game is horribly broken. So I'm not very suprised.

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

The job of a reviewer is to review a game objectively, someone can not like a game but still see its strengths and praise them. That's why Jeff is da man! The Giantbomb crew are about the only reviewers i trust nowadays.

I like Giantbomb's reviews because they don't pretend to be anything but their opinions. Did MK vs DC deserve 4/5 stars? Hell no, but if you're a big fighting game/MK fan? Maybe.

Edge's reviews are always 100% objective, which is why they're always so harsh. The rate a game based on the story, gameplay mechanics and technical issues.. Which is why Dead Island scored so low. It's an enjoyable game that's broken to the point of being nearly unplayable.

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

The job of a reviewer is to review a game objectively, someone can not like a game but still see its strengths and praise them. That's why Jeff is da man! The Giantbomb crew are about the only reviewers i trust nowadays.

To my mind, an in-depth critique of something might strive for some form of objectivity whereas a review is a pure expression of opinion. You just need to learn how to relate to their opinions. I would also say that there is no way to judge a piece of entertainment objectively, for games you can judge the technical qualities of the graphics and amount of bugs, but anything else is a matter of pure opinion.

For me, the fact that they consider the melee to be poor means I will pay no attention to the review. I feel the exact opposite; that this game has the best melee fighting of any first person game I've ever played. Difference of opinion, it's a mother fucker.

I wonder what score they gave to Fallout 3 and New Vegas, since they too had an enormous amount of bugs.
 
Edit: 7/10 and 6/10. That's what I though. Double standards.

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

The job of a reviewer is to review a game objectively, someone can not like a game but still see its strengths and praise them. That's why Jeff is da man! The Giantbomb crew are about the only reviewers i trust nowadays.

I like Giantbomb's reviews because they don't pretend to be anything but their opinions. Did MK vs DC deserve 4/5 stars? Hell no, but if you're a big fighting game/MK fan? Maybe.

Edge's reviews are always 100% objective, which is why they're always so harsh. The rate a game based on the story, gameplay mechanics and technical issues.. Which is why Dead Island scored so low. It's an enjoyable game that's broken to the point of being nearly unplayable.

They seem to focus on the technicalities more so than any other review I've read on this game.   It's not an invalid argument either, the game had a very botched launch, especially on PC(they reviewed the xbox version so consider this point invalid i guess), and it is full of jankyness from stuff I've seen in gameplay videos.   The score does seem exaggerated, or the guy just didn't like it at all ( which it looks like, since he doesn't like the melee combat, which is a big part of the game).

''Please visit our website :( "

obligatory - REVIEWS ARE OPINION

The job of a reviewer is to review a game objectively, someone can not like a game but still see its strengths and praise them. That's why Jeff is da man! The Giantbomb crew are about the only reviewers i trust nowadays.

Oh yeah? Well here is my review of The Edge: ppppppppppppppppppphhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt!

Fuck you and your fucking Joshua Tree.

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

i hate Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2, but I'd still give those games a 9/10 and 8/10 respectively.

Huh? So what would you give a game you love? 11/10?

I would give the game a at least a 7, I've been having fun and it's exceeded my expectations. Yeah, it does have an amount of jankiness with the bugs, but they've since patched the important one which was online play. I haven't lost my save yet, so maybe I'll feel different, but the game is fun and actually looks pretty decent (it has it's highs and lows which balance each other out).

I didn't really have much issue with what the article summed up about the Edge review, like the respawning items. True, I was surprised by that fact, but for the most part you're deaths and weapon repairs balance out relootable items because they're costly and you only find a certain amount of money at a time. Most of the stuff you find you can't use yet because you don't have the mod for it and if your farming respawning loot you're playing it wrong because going through the missions and areas normally is good enough.

As for the story and original ideas, it's no worse than Borderlands and I would probably argue felt more appropriate than the missions found in Borderlands. Borderlands had the humor though, I give it that. As for the melee combat, I found it satisfying and competent to any other first person melee combat. Sure the walkers take no real strategy, but fighting Thugs is pretty satisfying breaking their arms and dodging attacks.

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

The job of a reviewer is to review a game objectively, someone can not like a game but still see its strengths and praise them. That's why Jeff is da man! The Giantbomb crew are about the only reviewers i trust nowadays.

Wait a minute, weren't you guys arguing that GB reviews are merely the opinion of the reviewer and not at all objective? Oh, I forgot, that only applies to reviews that don't say what you want to hear.

People don't seem to understand that objectivity and opinion can coexist in the same review. A good reviewer should be able to accurately breakdown what a game is in objective terms, and then give their subjective view on whether or not those parts come together to make an enjoyable experience. Being able to acknowledge strengths and weaknesses despite overall feelings on a game is an important part of professionalism.

@TheDudeOfGaming: I know people have already said it, but I'm gonna say it again. None of the GiantBomb reviews are objective in the slightest. They are all opinion pieces, and very often their scores are swayed in a positive or negative direction depending on the personal opinions/emotions of the reviewers.

As I always say, the point of reviews in most media (for me) is finding a reviewer that shares similar tastes to yours, because different people will always see a movie/game/book differently. I, for example, disagree with Jeff on probably 80% of his reviews, I don't think he is a bad reviewer. There may be a lot of readers of that fellow's reviews who would agree that, for them, the game is a 3/10. In which case, he is doing a service to those who share his taste in games.

Find a reviewer, in whatever media it may be, that generally has similar tastes to yours, and give their reviews more weight. I don't concern myself with Jeff's reviews because I already KNOW that I don't have the same taste in games. Instead I find reviewers who more closely share my tastes, and pay more attention to them. Even then, I don't let their opinion dictate mine, it's just a nice starting ground.

I am constantly amazed by how seriously people on gaming forums take review scores.

Sounds about right to me. People seem to give games a break just because they have a huge environment, nice to see that someone doesn't fall for that.

And for those who are confused, game reviews are not ment to be objective.

Isn't edge the gamestop publication?  If so, there's an irony there.

@NekuSakuraba said:

Broken to the point until nearly being unplayable? Really? I've played a couple of hours on PC and haven't noticed that many bugs.

You =/= the rest of the world. Don't assume that because you didn't have problems after playing "a couple of hours", the game isn't so ful of bugs it's nearly broken for many, many people.

@TheDudeOfGaming: The only difference between you and a "professional" reviewer is the paycheck they get for it. I don't think it's possible to review any piece of work and not be subjective about it. Reviews by nature are the person's own personal opinions therefor it's subjective.

Also, I wouldn't put my trust in jeff, or any of the GB crew for that matter. While I respect him very much Jeff is very well known for his "I dislike it therefor it's shit" attitude for games he didn't even play or played so little of. Look at his attitude towards Demon's Souls. While I am not going to say the game is perfect and it has it's faults like any other game but to outright come out and say that the game is crap is just wrong.

@NekuSakuraba said:

Broken to the point until nearly being unplayable? Really? I've played a couple of hours on PC and haven't noticed that many bugs.

You =/= the rest of the world. Don't assume that because you didn't have problems after playing "a couple of hours", the game isn't so ful of bugs it's nearly broken for many, many people.

@mfpantst said:

Isn't edge the gamestop publication? If so, there's an irony there.

You're confusing Edge with Game Informer.

I've never agreed with Edge. I'd give Dead Island a 9/10 if I could review it.

@nintendoeats said:

Fuck you and your fucking Joshua Tree.

Henry Rollins, is that you?

It's dumb that they compared industry standards as being unoriginal. Pretty bad writing if you ask me.

Should I be angry with rage about this?

3 / 10 ?

Oooh, edgy.

Edge generally favour ludology/gameplay over narrative or player agency, hence they shit all over a game that many people find broken/buggy. Not surprising, but I'd expect a better written review at least -- they seem to be on the turn with their review staff recently.

The writer does bring up one good point though, the abundance of food/water for you to pick up in front of people asking you to get it for them as they're struggling to survive. That is a poor conflict between gameplay/plot. Aside from this, the whole solipsist side-quests thing, where every NPC is a static person who asks you, effectively the centre of the Island & universe, to fetch or kill everything for them...

@mfpantst: I agree with you that GB offers a broad range of review types. That's why I value their opinion but I wouldn't go as far as to out my trust in them. That's why I like their QL as they offer the gamers a glimpse into the game that would otherwise be missing from a review. My problem with Jeff is that many gamers, mostly the young ones, seem to be idolizing his opinions as sacred. These gamers will deny themselves an experience that they might enjoy. They come out and say "well Jeff disliked it and he says it[s shit so it[s gotta be shit". It's like it doesn't dawn on him that a lot of people idolize him to the point of blind worship.

Number rating is worthless without the accompanying text.

EDGE is one of the last few outlets that still use the 1-10 scale for rating games. Everywhere else you look, it's like only 7-10. 8-10 for the games with a bigger budget.

If I was a reviewer, then I'd have given Borderlands 5/10 because that's what I think the game deserves. Dead Island, from what i've seen, looks far worse.

No, the numbers will mean something in metacritic and such. as for my one off impression, thats too low. From what I have seen and heard and read, I would go bla blah bla and give it a 6/10...maybe a 7.5 even because of the good in it. with a sad sad note that with patches the game will start to truly shine. But that is after the review, ubfortunately

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

The job of a reviewer is to review a game objectively, someone can not like a game but still see its strengths and praise them. That's why Jeff is da man! The Giantbomb crew are about the only reviewers i trust nowadays.

Are you kidding me?

The logic you use on the other posts are of same confusion from me.

We might as well give up reviews and have a buy guides..

@zaglis said:

''Please visit our website :( "

Edge don't have a website.

I don't see why people complain every time a game they like gets a bad review from Edge. Yes, the Fallout games also got very poor reviews from them and Skyrim is likely to as well. Their reviews have always been harsh on technical issues, if a game technically has a lot of short comings, it's going to lose points - not just be praised because other elements are good. Honestly, I'd love to see more reviewers take this approach. Just because a game is fun to play doesn't negate other issues it might have

I mean, Fallout 3 may have been a great game, but the amount of problems it had alone should have stopped it from getting high scores. Stop pandering to the audience.

@WinterSnowblind said:

@zaglis said:

''Please visit our website :( "

Edge don't have a website.

But...

Wait, what?

I would give the game a 3/10, too.

Video games are entertainment, and Dead Island is boring. That is basically the worst thing a game could ever be, and Dead Island does it in spades.

@zaglis: Sorry, that was poorly worded on my part. They have a website, but they're actually a magazine publication. So yeah, I guess you could go to their website after hearing about the review, but you're not going to find it on there. So the excuse "they're doing it to increase traffic!" doesn't really work against them.