IGN....R2 vs GEARS 2 Comparison!

[Kantor]

forevercloud3000 said:
I feel IGN has in a manner of speaking, "punked" out on letting viewers know which they think is better. Over the years IGN has gone from beeing one of my favorite sites to one of the most biased I have ever seen. They would give what would seemingly be an equal game for PS3 and 360 a lower score on PS3's part.

It probably has been said before but why is it when a PS3 version of a game has a small hitch it gets a lower score then it's 360 counterpart(Orange Box, Fallout) but when the 360 version is technically inferior maybe even having game breaking glitches it will still maintain the same score(Oblivion, Bioshock, Devil May Cry 4)?

The good thing is that over the last month or so IGN has been trying to gain back their fanbase by beeing as non bias as possible. But to what extent? The sacrafice of giving a game what it deserved so not to incite controversy. This is what I feel happened with Fallout 3, and now the two big exclusives for the two systems.

I personally think R2 is the better game by far, that is my opinion. Yet I believe IGN might have thought Gears was. Yet to turn a new leaf they have evaded debate on whether one is better then the other by giving them the same score.

The only constant truth here is that BOTH of these games will be magnificent in their own right :)

The Orange Box was completely destroyed by EA, although it was better than IGN made it out to be.

Fallout apparently has game-crashing bugs, noticable slowdown and inferior graphics. I thought they were being nice by making it a 0.2 difference. Gamespot made it a 0.5.

Oblivion and BioShock were both ports released a year after the 360 version. IGN has expectations that if a port takes a year to make, they will change something significant. Both are amazing games, all versions are amazing, but faults cannot be forgiven so easily when they are repeated a year later.

IGN clearly did not prefer Gears. Why do I say this? Because, despite them giving Gears better aspect scores (Presentation etc.), they gave Resistance 2 the same score? Why? Because they enjoyed it. The final score is, as they have said multiple times, NOT an average of the individual aspect scores, because many games are more than the sum of their parts, some are less, and sound is not as important as gameplay in a game.

IGN remains my favourite review site. They were the only major reviewer to give Tools of Destruction and Uncharted the scores they deserved, and now Resistance 2. All three have a metascore of 89.

TOD got 9.4

Uncharted got 9.1 (but was PS3 game of the Year 2007)

Resistance 2 got 9.5

I say IGN are FAR from biased. In fact, I respect the fact that they notice differences between multiple versions of a game and point them out. As for DMC4... I'm not sure actually. Never played the 360 version. Hated the PS3 version. It seemed like a poor attempt at Ninja Gaiden.

Note that I am not bashing the PS3. I am defending IGN. Would I bash my only 7th gen console?