Comparing PS3 graphics to X-Box 360 graphics without "Eurogamer"

[Kantor]

Parasitic said:

Kantor said:

I don't object to Halo 3 getting a 10 (I would give it a 9, myself, on their scale), but how can they then give MGS4 an 8? They review it after playing it for a few days, so replay value should hardly come into it.

 

 

Well a 9 for Halo 3 does sound about right.

Anyways, I'm not sure what part of MGS4 they were reviewing so it's hard to tell what they thought. When it comes to SP/MP, both the games are pretty much the opposite. Halo3 is known for it's online play, while MGS4 is known for it's campaign. If the game was reviewed for a few days, MGS4 might look like a more attractive choice. If it was reviewed for a full month, it's likely that they'll be playing much more Halo3.

In short, reviewers really need to split campaign/online reviews.

I should probably stop being lazy and give MGO another chance. It took me about 2 hours to get it up and running the first time - first, the MGO update was taking it's sweet ass time (over an hour to finish), then there was the hassle of creating an account. Finally I entered a game, and had lag so bad that I was lucky to get one kill. I decided to practice CQC on teammates and some of them raged so hard......even when I only held them for about 5 secs....

The worrying thing here is that they did split up the campaign and online reviews, since they are technically different games.

MGS4: 8/10. THIS is what I disagree with.

MGO: 7/10

And then the idiot who reviewed MGO had the audacity to say that you should average the scores and get 7.5/10 for the whole package... sigh.

I've just about managed to forgive them for that, and that would change if I did more than glance and laugh at their graphics comparisons which always mysteriously manage to favour the 360, with their talk of 5 fps drops being game breaking, and jaggies being hideous, and pop-in, and such.