starcraft said:
With madden the issue was that the PS3 version had half the framerate of the 360 version, which was significant. But then there are things like RSV2 where the difference is neglibible. I've never gone around saying that tiny differences were significant. But the Sony fanboys were all over it when IGN gave CoD4 a .1 higher score on the PS3. The thing is, all scores are relative. Thats why a game that got 10 ten years ago might get a 2 these days on graphical grounds alone. If GTAIV PS3 is the current pinacle of sandbox gaming, then by definition the Xbox version cannot get the same score if there is any discernible difference.
|
The pinnacle of sandbox gaming? By that logic neither version should have gotten a 10, as R* could've gotten rid of the framerate dips and other problems in both versions given enough time.
A "10" doesn't necessarily equate to "couldn't be better." Into today's world of 7-10 reviewing, a 10 simply means "really damn good," especially so in IGN's case.
And I don't really see how 30fps (which isn't really that bad) could be considered much worse than more frequent frame dips and texture pop, ala GTA.
Also, Call of Duty 4 received identical scores on both platforms from IGN, so I'm not sure why Sony fanboys would've freaked over that. :P
Anywho, my point was that both sides are guilty of making a big deal out of stuff like this, and then damage controlling like crazy when it happens to the other side (like what you're doing right now :P).







