IGN Reviews soulCalibur4:PS3 version feels quicker and more polished

[Skeeuk]

ZenfoldorVGI said:

Skeeuk said:

ZenfoldorVGI said:

Skeeuk said:

Zucas said:
So if the PS3 version feels better and whatnot... why give them the same score. I hate that they give some of the PS360 games the same score and then tell which version is better in some areas. It's just hypocritical to what they are trying to do.

Anyways not a bad score. 8.7 was around where I expected the game to get. Sounds like a fluid fighter.

 

if the 360 version was quicker and more polished, they would have bumped the ps3 score down.

ps3 version has way better controlls for this type of game, so its obvious i will be buying ps3 rendition.

darth vader > yoda

 

What is up with all these consipracy theories against the PS3 lately?

its usually the case with ign.

regarding the game, i thought it may have recived higher scores, but as it pans out i dont think it will be quite AAA, in fact i dont think fighters of this kind will reach AAA they are not as big as they used to be. still 8.7 is a good score and the game is well worth getting.

 

 

Yeah, but just look at some of the games lately that didn't pull off AAA because they were supposedly "derivitive."

 

The World Ends With You

Final Fantasy IV

Uncharted

Rachet and Clank Future

Core Crisis

Persona 3: FES

Elite Beat Agents

 

If you don't have the budget of a Gears of War, GTAIV, or MGS4, it's hard to even get ranked AAA today.

Just look at that EC list at how many 360 games have ranked over a 9. Not many, especially lately.

With games like Galaxy, MGS, Brawl, Bioshock, and GTA coming out rarely but surely, it's getting harder and harder to score really well with games that are only given normal development cycles, because those games are just so much bigger and better than we've grown to expect.

However, that doesn't mean that some games(like the ones I listed) aren't REALLY, really good.

 

When MGS4 can only pull off a 92.5, that just puts that much more emphasis on where games that fall in the upper 80's range of reviewers stand in relatively quality.

A few people might claim they are "dissapointed" with a 8.7, but these people are probably living in the past, and they don't realize how the review system has evolved over this current generation. 8.7 is, in a word, wtfbbqwin for a game with such relatively small hype and consideration, imo.

 

yes i agree some people think that if a game gets an 8 lets say, it somehow isnt a good game when in fact it is.

i would say 7 or over is a good game worth getting, but it depends most of all on your own personal review of the game.

i recently went into my local asda, as was stuck in choosing battlefield or ferrari challenge, after a while i thought sod it il buy ferrari challenge, and took it back after 5 mins because my heart was more set on battlefield. then a few days later i got hold of ferrari cahllenge through a trade and paid £20 on top.

battlefield has got better reviews than ferrari challenge but i play ferrari challnge much more, in fact im on it all the time, its simply superb they way they have set the game up, everytime you win a ferrari it feels like a true acomplishment. lol its the first game ive seen with a built in top-trumps game(to those who know what that is)

so an 8.7 for SC means its a very very good game. and i advise people not to turn thier noses away from a game simply on the fact that it didnt get a 9/10