blizzid said:
You keep saying that, but it's blatantly false. The truth is there isn't a single game that fits that description. You listed two "examples" in your earlier post, but both games scored mid-80s on both systems. There is only one game where you could even try to make that argument: The Orange Box. However, it didn't score lower on the PS3 because it was released later; it scored lower because reviewers thought it was an inferior version. (I realize some owners of the PS3 version think the reviewers are wrong about that, but that's not the issue.) There are some games released later on PS3 that scored a bit lower, but none of them scored 90+ on the 360. Yep. Bioshock could eventually be the first one. We'll see. That said, most of your other points have some merit. Some of the high-rated 360 games have multiplatform sequels, which reduces the value of the earlier versions. Some are XBLA games, which are a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison. Then there's the big one, which you didn't mention: many are console exclusives - also available on the PC - and not true exclusives. That last one is important for anyone who plays games on a high-end PC, but doesn't matter much to the majority of gamers. I think he didn't mention it, because it's a bit off topic. *looks at title* It's all about 360 vs. PS3. You could add it in general, but since you can't play these games on the PS3 the whole "high-end PC"-thing doesn't matter. If you go through the Metacritic/GameRankings lists and manually remove multiplatform games, downloadable games, and games with multiplatform sequels, you'll find that 360 still has a higher-rated list of console exclusives. If you then remove PC ports, the list of true exclusives is pretty comparable between the two. Be my guest and look at my last post on the first page. I only listed games which aren't on both the 360 and PS3. I removed XBLA/PSN titles and games with multiplatform sequels (but just sport games and GHII, cause their basically the same game every year) |
