it really hasnt been proven because the narrative shift's to "(all of)edge isnt biased" when someone questions the uk thing, and goes back to "but edge isnt a person and they dont need to be consistent " when its about game scores.
and its not in line with the average because people also conveniently ignore the argument that edge scores much lower than average when it comes to Sot(which is objectively true)
so much dissonance . cant have it both ways.
I'm sorry but it sounds like a conspiracy theory.
They have scores in line with the average, and they have scores in line with the average. The issue that people have with the "lower than average" is due to tons of games being rated on a 7 to 10 scale, when Edge doesn't do that.
Again, for what you're claiming ("they give UK games a better score!") is just wrong, whether you want to talk about Edge itself or its reviewers. They don't care much about the nationality of a developer.
They criticize GoW for being too long, but the same criticism was not made about GTAV's badly-written slog of a campaign, and RDR2 won't get marked down for it either...
Yeah yeah "not all reviews are written by the same person", "they're not relative", blah blah.
GTA was not only single player, and neither will RDR2 (how do you know this one will have a slog of a campaign btw?).
Do they actually say this? Because if they do that's nonsense. Games shouldn't be able to hide behind the post release GaaS defence when they're being sold for $60 as full retail priced games. If the game was free to play, sure, there would be merit to that defence or leeway, but as is it simply doesn't make sense.
Not exactly, I probably wasn't clear (sorry, english is not my first language).
It is implied that it will get fixes because it is a service game, but nothing saying "oh it will become a great game". They really like the game as is, but also know it's missing not only content but also mechanics. But they like it, like many people out there.
