Quantcast
IGN's Lost planet 2 PS3/360 comparison contradicts there review

Forums - Gaming Discussion - IGN's Lost planet 2 PS3/360 comparison contradicts there review

scottie said:
Barozi said:
scottie said:
Barozi said:
scottie said:
thelifatree said:

 

So you're saying that it's fair that the PS3 version of LP2 got a lower score and that the 360 version of FFXIII didn't because framerate is more important than graphics? (that isn't a rhetorical question by the way, I'm just checking that I understood you)


In which case, I would say that that is completely a matter of personal opinion. I agree that framerate is more important for me, but for many others it is not. Which is why I stated that all that this event shows is that reviews are subjective.

 

that changes neither of the facts that framerate is considered a graphics issue by all major reviewers, nor the fact that Leo-j raised this point because he perceived inconsistency in the review system, rather than as a way to troll

Framerate IS more important than graphics. That's not subjective at all.

And yes FFXIII on the 360 might deserve a bit lower score, BUT a lower resolution doesn't change the gameplay, but heavy framerate drops do.

 

Reviews should NEVER be subjective. Every review is a bit biased, no question about that, but they should be kept as unbiased and objective as possible and therefore more informative for their readers. If they are subjective, they're worthless.

 

I hate to simply say 'no' but no. Some people would enjoy a game more if it had good resolution and effects, than if it had a high framerate. In something like a turn based rpg I may even agree with them. Some people prioritise graphics over gameplay btw, and nothing you say will convince them otherwise. Hence, subjective.

 

The claim that a review should be in any way objective is hilarious. Historians study at university for years - and the actual history that they learn is completely unimportant. What they actually are there to learn is to produce objective works. Only one person in the entire world has ever produced a completely objective history book, which was described as "the only real history book in the world, and so dull as to be completely unreadable" The purpose of a review is to entertain, more than to inform. Making it objective will make it boring, and thus worthless. A reviewer is incapable of presenting an objective review, so they should acknowledge their writing as subjective and present it as such.

We're talking about graphical issues here and in that case everything that is below HD standards (720p, 30FPS) is bad. However framerate drops are far worse than a below HD resolution[1]. (Already explained why)

If you read reviews only because you want to get entertained, so be it, but don't expect others do the same[3]. Reviews are meant to help consumers buy the games they would like and they probably never heard of or at least don't have many informations about them. In that case a personal opinion from a stranger is completely worthless[2]. Like I said before it's not possible to completely hide the personal bias, so reviews are always a bit flawed, however they get even more flawed when the author only talks about his personal opinion.

1 - Yes, that is your opinion. Other people have different opinions, hence subjective

 

3 - I wouldn't take it on myself to expect anything, that would require me to be able to predict the future. However, I am great at predicting the past and present, and I know for sure that this is what occurs currently. 

 

2 - Something we can agree on :) The only way a review can have worth is if it is objective, or if you know the reviewer. Maybe that's why the only reviews I read are from VGChartz staff. What exactly was your point again?

To keep it short (because I wanna continue playing FFXIII)

1 - The issue is you think it's an opinion.

3 - People who only want to be entertained shouldn't take reviews too serious anyway and especially shouldn't complain about certain reviewing methods. Don't ruin it for those persons who actually need help in gaming purchases.

2 - Which point do you mean ? That bad framerate is worse than bad graphics or that purely subjective reviews have no validity contrary to objective ones ?



Around the Network

bloody ign



Being in 3rd place never felt so good

tuscaniman said:
scottie said:
tuscaniman said:
Why do you guys trust a post by Leo J? In the review it states nothing about the PS3 version looking inferior. It states the PS3 runs worse. It has framerate drops and pauses. Nothing in the review states it is worse. Leo stop trying to make it seem like the world is out against the PS3. I've already commented about you doing this in another thread and you created a thread to try to do it again. If you want to read the review yourself here is the link. http://ps3.ign.com/articles/108/1088085p1.html Second paragraph talks about the 360 and PS3 versions.
P.S. The game got a 6 on the 360 and a 5.5 on the PS3. Why are we even wasting time on this game that obviously is not good.

 

In what sense are framerate drops NOT a graphics issue? The only two aspect of graphics that I care about are having a solid framerate and decent draw distance

Leo created this thread to make it seem IGN was bias towards the 360 and that they state that asthetically the PS3 graphics are worse than the 360 when they mention nothing about that. They mention framerate. Framerate is a performance issue, not a graphical issue in the sene that Leo tried to make it sound.

The original article came from Gametrailers, and um, sorry if it seems like I am trying to say IGN hates the ps3, because that was never my intention



 

mM

yea. the PS3 version looks more solid.



MARCUSDJACKSON said:
yea. the PS3 version looks more solid.

....no its not you can tell from the video, the PS3 version has no aliasing, has more screen tearing looks like maybe 10% more, and is running sub 20 FPS maybe even lower.



Around the Network
disolitude said:
Yeah yeah...everything 360 is terrible. PS3 FTW! Lets move on...


Sarcasm?

 

 

BAZINGA!



tuscaniman said:
scottie said:
Barozi said:
scottie said:
Barozi said:
scottie said:
thelifatree said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dude give it up you don't know what you're talking about. Framerate issues are more important than graphical fidelity. If you can't play the game it doesn't matter how good it looks therefore framerate outweighs asthetics. If you can prove to me there is someone who would rather play a game that gets 1 frame per second but looks photorealistic over a game that doesn't look as well but runs 30fps then I will apologize and say you are correct. Good luck trying to find that person.

 

Wow, spectacular. I can provide stupid examples that have nothing to do with the actual topic. graphical fidelity is obviously more important than framerate. If you can prove to me there is someone who would rather play a game that displays in a resolution of 1 pixel by 1 pixel but has a great framerate over a game that doesn't have quite as good a framerate but runs in 1080p then I will apologise and say you are correct. Good luck trying to find that person.

 

I'm done with this discussion. Ciao



kowenicki said:
pizzahut451 said:
themanwithnoname said:
*yawn* Just another typical BS PS3 conspiracy theory. Have any of you actually played the game? Yeah, that's what I thought. This is no different than the crappy "Edge is biased!" threads we get five times a year.

nobody is talking about the quality of the game. people are talking about incredible bias that is coming from IGN when they give 2 diffrent scores for a game.


on IGN UK they both have a rather crappy 68... identical scores.

on IGN US there is a 5/100 difference (5%)

incredible bias?

Or 0% diffrence on Final Fanatsy 13 score???(except for IGN US, those guys are really biased towards PS3) I hate it how they give sepreate scores for a game only if PS3 version is inferior.



I believe your more bias than ign will ever be, but there ya go.



 

 

i tried the demo on both and looked and ran the same imo

mabey ps3 version drops frames and 360 version has less sharp visuals, but end of day the game is a massive letdown



...not much time to post anymore, used to be awesome on here really good fond memories from VGchartz...

PSN: Skeeuk - XBL: SkeeUK - PC: Skeeuk

really miss the VGCHARTZ of 2008 - 2013...