EDGE #305

PostEDGE #305 by **HSH28** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:27 pm

FEATURES
Found (Rime)
Collected Works: Eugene Javis
Avant Garde (Annapurna)
The Making Of...Destruction Derby
Studio Profile Fireproof Games
Time Extend Catherine

HYPE
Prey
Middle-Earth: Shadow of War
Dirt 4
Injustice 2
Steamworld Dig 2
Sparc
Heaven's Vault
Shakedown Hawaii
Mr Shifty
War Groove
Gravel

PLAY
Nier: Automata - 8
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands - 4
Persona 5 - 8
For Honor - 8
Halo Wars 2 - 7
Night in the Woods - 8
1-2-Switch - 6
Snipperclips: Cut it Out, Together! - 8
Super Bomberman R - 4

PostRe: EDGE #305 by **jawafour** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:56 pm

I rarely get too excited about individual reviews nowdays; there are so many out there that you usually get a wide spread of verdicts for any particular game.

But... Wildlands getting 4 whilst 1 2 Switch gets a 6? And For Honor gets 8? Edge still trying to be oh-so Edge :lol:

.

PostRe: EDGE #305 by **jiggles** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:59 pm

EDGY #305

PostRe: EDGE #305 by **HSH28** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:24 pm

jawafour wrote:But... Wildlands getting 4 whilst 1 2 Switch gets a 6? And For Honor gets 8?

Not sure what issue you have with For Honor, but as far as 1-2-Switch getting a better score than Wildlands I think its down to 1-2-Switch doing what it sets out to do. Its an effective introduction to the Switch Joy-Con controllers...granted its overpriced, but at least it works and its pretty unique.

PostRe: EDGE #305 by **jawafour** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:30 pm

I've not played 1 2 Switch but, based upon reading other reviews, I think it's fair to say that, at £35, it delvers only brief entertainment. Great to play for ten minutes with a few pals and a beer or two but little beyond that.

I'm keen to read up on how Edge decided upon 4 for Wildlands. I've only played the open beta but I really enjoyed it; it didn't feel like a below-average game to me.

Edit: Just looked at Metacritic and the Wildlands reviews range from 25% to 90%, with virtually everything in-between. It's certainly proving divisive!

PostRe: EDGE #305 by **AndyXL** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:57 pm

I don't understand how Konami messes up Bomberman so badly.

It should have been an AAA multiplayer on Switch, which was designed for games like that.

Such a waste....

PostRe: RE: Re: EDGE #305 by **Death's Head** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:59 pm

AndyXL wrote:I don't understand how Konami messes up Bomberman so badly.

It should have been an AAA multiplayer on Switch, which was designed for games like that.

Such a waste....

Rushed for launch?

PostRe: EDGE #305 by **Floex** » Sun Mar 26, 2017 12:29 pm

jawafour wrote:I've not played 1 2 Switch but, based upon reading other reviews, I think it's fair to say that, at £35, it delvers only brief entertainment. Great to play for ten minutes with a few pals and a beer or two but little beyond that.

I'm keen to read up on how Edge decided upon 4 for Wildlands. I've only played the open beta but I really enjoyed it; it didn't feel like a below-average game to me.

Edit: Just looked at Metacritic and the Wildlands reviews range from 25% to 90%, with virtually everything in-between. It's certainly proving divisive!

Hmm, not sure I agree with your assement. If that 10 minutes of gameplay is pure fun then what is the issue? I'd rather have an hour of fun than spend 40+ hours in a broken down mess.

PostRe: EDGE #305 by **Preezy** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:13 pm

I think based on everything I've seen of 1-2 Switch so far, it should have been bundled in with the Switch ala Wii Sports.

PostRe: EDGE #305 by **OrangeRKN** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:21 pm

I've spoken to a couple of people in person who have played it and they are both very positive.

I'm not convinced how much price should factor in to a game review

PostRe: EDGE #305 by **Moggy** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:26 pm

OrangeRakoon wrote:I'm not convinced how much price should factor in to a game review

I know what you mean, but I think value for money should come into it. If two equally (however you judge equal!) good 40 hour+ games are released, one for £1 and one for £40, should the price not have a baring on the score?

PostRe: EDGE #305 by **Jamo3103** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:34 pm

I quite like what I've played of 1-2 Switch, it's a lot of fun with friends and makes creative use of the HD rumble. It also manages to do what Wii Sports did and be easily accessible to non-gamers, although perhaps not quite to the same extent as Wii Sports, what with the tutorial videos and having to take the wrist straps on/off. I paid around £25 for it thanks to vouchers and prime discount and I've certainly not had anywhere near my moneys worth out of it yet, however if it makes regular multiplayer appearances when I have friends round then I'd imagine that by the end of the Switch life cycle I'll have had decent value for money.

I really do think it should have been a pack-in title though.

PostRe: EDGE #305 by **OrangeRKN** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:42 pm

Moggy wrote:
OrangeRakoon wrote:I'm not convinced how much price should factor in to a game review

I know what you mean, but I think value for money should come into it. If two equally (however you judge equal!) good 40 hour+ games are released, one for £1 and one for £40, should the price not have a baring on the score?

Depends what you're using the score for. Considering price will most likely drop as time goes on, if you were factoring in cost then presumably the score you would give a game would need to go up after every price cut or during every sale. By all means factor in cost in the body of the review when informing the reader on whether it is worth a purchase or not, but if you're keeping a long term record of scores (and you probably are? Look at the lists of all time high scores across magazines and websites and especially metacritic) then the price isn't so much of a factor - and accounting for it might actually skew what should otherwise be a fair comparison.

PostRe: EDGE #305 by **Moggy** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:59 pm

OrangeRakoon wrote:
Moggy wrote:
OrangeRakoon wrote:I'm not convinced how much price should factor in to a game review

I know what you mean, but I think value for money should come into it. If two equally (however you judge equal!) good 40 hour+ games are released, one for £1 and one for £40, should the price not have a baring on the score?

Depends what you're using the score for. Considering price will most likely drop as time goes on, if you were factoring in cost then presumably the score you would give a game would need to go up after every price cut or during every sale. By all means factor in cost in the body of the review when informing the reader on whether it is worth a purchase or not, but if you're keeping a long term record of scores (and you probably are? Look at the lists of all time high scores across magazines and websites and especially metacritic) then the price isn't so much of a factor - and accounting for it might actually skew what should otherwise be a fair comparison.

As I said, I know what you mean. A quality game is quality no matter the cost.

But at the same time, value for money is also an important part of whether you recommend somebody purchase something or not. Should reviewers be reviewing for their readers at the time of review, or should they be keeping an eye on whether future generations should play it?

PostRe: EDGE #305 by **more heat than light** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:51 pm

I think if it's a short game or has limited replay value then the review should mention that, but it shouldn't affect the score. I'd always rather play an hour of great game than 20 hours of dross. Games such as Limbo or Portal are short experiences but were rightly scored very highly.

EDGE #305

Who is online

Affiliates