Edge- Hunted: The Demon's Forge Review

Edge: "Like a horse swishing its tail with futile persistence, Hunted never manages to rid itself of bugs. If you’re standing over a weapon drop when your partner triggers a cutscene, the heads-up weapon comparison hovers clumsily above as it plays out.

Your character occasionally refuses to scoop up clearly visible health potions. And close-range enemies neatly lined up in your aiming reticule will fail to register your shots with annoying regularity. Despite the cloud of bugs pestering its flanks, the grafted DNA in its cells and co-op play’s baffling lack of drop-in/drop-out functionality, Hunted delivers an improbably fun gallop."

[BiggCMan]

So, same score as inFAMOUS 2?? HA, what a bunch of idiots. One only needs to look at all the other scores to see how ridiculous EDGE magazine is nowadays.

[Miths]

Actually I've quite been enjoying the PC version of Hunted. I've been enjoying inFamous 2 even more though, so I naturally think it's utter ridiculous to give either of them a 6.
Personally I would probably give Hunted a 7.5 or 8, and inFamous 2 a 9.

[firelogic]

lol, hunted is equal to infamous 2 in Edge's eyes. Fantastic.

[coolbeans]

You guys do realize the 2 scores mentioned (inFamous 2 + Hunter: DF) are given by 2 different reviewers, right?

[Pintheshadows]

Yeah, but as a so called "publication" that should not be a factor. It is a magazine supposedly working towards the same goal. Most professionals sit and discuss scores at decent magazines like PC Gamer so they are in agreement. Edge doesn't seem to bother.

I can tolerate that argument for websites but NOT for a £5 magazine.

[coolbeans]

Sure most professionals will discuss pros and cons, but that doesn't mean that a singular reviewer is going to conform to the opinion of the group. I'm sure Roger Ebert, Malkin, etc. will constantly discuss recent releases with their newspaper editor(s) and fellow critics alike; that doesn't mean you'll see their opinions change on a dime in order to follow the "mob mentality" of the rest of the reviewers.

For crying out loud, Ebert has constantly given rotten ratings for a ton of movies with a great tomatometer averages, such as "Dead Poets Society".

Shouldn't Edge be commended for their scores being so much different than the average IF the written portion doesn't contain any definitive fallacies in their opinion?

[Pintheshadows]

I see where you're coming from but Edge trying to be Edgy (pun intended) is making them look bad. They gave the Witcher 2 a 6 which is completely out of touch. It may be different to other publications opinion but it has gone to an extreme. The other extreme would be giving every half decent game a 10.

My main problem however is the consistency of the written portion (the important bit) of their reviews.

For example. In their Infamous 2 review they referred to people that would enjoy the game as "fanboys" repeatedly. They called Prototype a "far superior game". They did not once mention the technical success Infamous 2 is. They actually managed a Halo reference and called the combat "fundamentally bad". If you have played Infamous 2 you will know that isn't the case. Turning Point had fundamentally bad combat.

With Edge, what journalistic integrity they had has been hung, drawn, quarted, wrapped in foil, prodded with a fork and lobbed into shark infested waters.

You'll rarely see me rant like this but their review of the Witcher 2 made them come across as immature. I have had the pleasure of playing it through at my friends house whilst he is working in Dubai (i'm cat sitting) and frankly it is the best RPG I have ever experienced. I include the likes of Morrowind, Planescape Torment and Baldur Gate in that comparison. I know it's my opinion but to give it a 6 is a travesty. Especially when they also given Brink a 6. I know they are different genres but that is misguided to the XTREME.

[coolbeans]

Fair enough (unlike the plethora of fanboys here). After stating my last point a dozen times, someone finally points out the WRITTEN portion that could be wrong rather than focusing solely on the score. Allow me to respond to your criticism with an "empirical eye" (teacher came up with that statement):

"They called Prototype a 'far superior game'".

I see almost all posters state X game is far superior to Y game. What makes it so wrong for a reviewer to post a strong opinion like that?

"They did not once mention the technical success inFamous 2 is."

Perhaps it's not that big of a technical success in comparison to RDR was last year or other open-world games.

"They actually...called the combat 'fundamentally bad'..."

I'll admit that I haven't played inFamous 2 yet so I can't comment on that personally. Does this statement make his opinion WRONG or just an opinion you strongly disagree with? I have seen complaints about the gameplay aspect from other reviewers, although nothing extreme like "fundamentally bad".

[Pintheshadows]

You make good points. Calling Prototype a "far superior game" is over the top. I personally prefer Infamous but I thought Prototype was good. If they had said we prefer Prototype over Infamous that is them being objective which they should be.

With regards to the technical side of Infamous 2 I don't mean they didn't praise it. They didn't mention anything about it. At all. In a game review. That is a pretty big mis step and it felt like they just wanted to avoid saying anything positive about it.

With regards to calling the combat "fundementally bad" my jaw almost dropped. As I said Turning Point had fundementally bad combat in that it was completely broken. Infamous 2s combat may not be perfect but calling it "fundementally bad" and then not backing that statement up is a lie. Strong word I know but ask anyone who has played the game.

The worst bit for me is that about a year ago Edge came out and said that if Infamous 2 is better than Crackdown 2 we will eat our hats. Integrity compromised.

A few other things to note. They heavily panned Infamous 2 story but praised Crackdown 2 even though it had no story. They criticised the environment of Infamous 2 but praised Crackdown 2 despite the fact that it was exactly the same as the first game.

I could go on but Edge is a bad joke. I'm actually more annoyed with the Witcher 2 review as at points they were pretty much making up criticisms. It made me feel sick.

Good discussion btw.

[coolbeans]

Very good discussion. I'm still hesitant in presuming any bias on Edge since I'm ignorant when it comes to inFamous 2, but you certainly put up a well-made arguement against their review tactics.

You're basically the first poster on here that has comprehensively stated flaws in a review by looking at the written material; and I've been asking n4g users to post that for a looonnnng time. Major bubbles for that :)

[callahan09]

Coolbeans, are you making an assumption that they were not reviewed by the same person? Edge reviews don't attribute the review to a single individual. They all just say "by Edge Staff." By that regard the "individual opinions" argument is totally invalid when talking about Edge. They publish reviews as though the organization is some kind of hive mind, they don't break it down by staff member, they just say "This is Edge's opinion."

[coolbeans]

That seems like a rash conclusion if you ask me. Of course, the reviews have to follow a certain guideline; but to assume that they're in some underground bunker planning out review scores like a "hive mind" just doesn't seem logical imo.

I have been wrong before however.