So apparently Edge magazine gave The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings 06/10

[Hiphophippo]

You don't need to be a fanboy.

but you obviously are.

i played the witcher 2 for about 20 hours, and i was bored Sh**less. and thought it was a very poor game all round.

I honest dont give a shit about this game. I just said it was actually very good. My problem is that a "respected" games magazine is so biased.

Everyone is biased. Don't be ridiculous. He wasn't as moved by the game as you are. That's it. Story ends there.

FIN

 

[Susan Arendt]

Do you have any actual issues with the review? Claims that they make which counter your own experience? In other words, is there anything in the review - besides the score - that you can point to and say "No, this is wrong?" Or are you really, truly, just saying that you had fun for 20 minutes in the middle of the game, therefore Edge is biased?

I really wish the Escapist would do away with the score system, like these guys. By now, a score system is utterly meaningless, especially when people (like the OP) draw conclusions from the numbers alone instead of reading the whole review.

We didn't use a score system for years, but were pretty much forced into adopting scores in order to survive. The bottom line is, PR won't give you the time of day if you don't do scores (and therefore aren't on Metacritic), and to be competitive, you need PR to give you the time of day. We don't like it any more than you do, which is why we try to make our written reviews as helpful and insightful as possible.

 

[RA92]

We didn't use a score system for years, but were pretty much forced into adopting scores in order to survive.

Well, I can sympathize.

I loved The Witcher 2, yet I was bewildered by the animosity Tito faced. Sure he gave it a mediocre score, but in the review itself he said that it's a game that he would play over and over again. Yet people judged his entire review and the game itself based solely on the scoring system. There's a reason why reviewers go for an in-depth review, something that can't be replicated by a simple scoring system.

Once again, I understand why you have to do this. It's just that... the whole system's messed up.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Having played this game for only 20 mins at a friends house halfway through the story I can honestly say its amazing.

I'm glad you don't do game reviews.

 

[Kahunaburger]

We didn't use a score system for years, but were pretty much forced into adopting scores in order to survive.

Well, I can sympathize.

I loved The Witcher 2, yet I was bewildered by the animosity Tito faced. Sure he gave it a mediocre score, but in the review itself he said that it's a game that he would play over and over again. Yet people judged his entire review and the game itself based solely on the scoring system. There's a reason why reviewers go for an in-depth review, something that can't be replicated by a simple scoring system.

Once again, I understand why you have to do this. It's just that... the whole system's messed up.

This cuts to the heart of the issue, I think. A lot of people got mad because he gave Witcher 2 a 3 and Dragon Age 2 a 5, but I think that anger completely misses the point: regardless of what scores anyone hands out, people will be playing Witcher 2 10 years from now - for reasons you can see in the review. You probably can't say the same for Dragon Age: 2.

Much like how a reviewer giving Planescape: Torment a lower score and justifiable criticism for having bugs, a clunky interface (which it does) and questionable combat mechanics (which it also does) doesn't change the fact that over a decade later, the storytelling ability of that game is still worth the price of admission.