By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Final Fantasy XIII Gamerankings score

fighter on 10 March 2010
aragod said:
perpride said:
aragod said:
perpride said:
aragod said:
Pretty much any multiplatform game comming out on Xbox and either PC or PS3 is gimped by Xbox's capabilities. Be it either power or content limitations.

FFXIII had content cut out, Lost Odyssey 2 is having problems, GTA IV had them, now L. A. Noire can't fit on discs. And Microsoft is to blame, other platform owners are screwed because of this, since developers must deliver the same for everyone.

The worst impact it had on PC owners, many Xbox console exclusive titles come out on PC aswell, but they can't hold a candle to PC exclusive titles. Xbox is 5 years old, so this has to be expected, but games like Dragon Age Origins or Mass Effect are suffering from this.

is this a joke post? Gimped by Xbox's capabilities? Is that why 90% of multiplatform games run better on the 360?

If you'd care to notice, the main reason is Xbox's incapability to force HDD standart which would allow mandatory instalation so there wouldn't be single DVD limitations to games where it's not possible to swap discs on the go (sandbox, free exploration, racers). It has very little to do with the basic power.

And multiplatform games run better on Xbox, because developers don't bother optimizing the code for PS3 architecture.

I bolded the part of your post which is just completely untrue. No multiplatform game is "gimped" by Xbox's capabilities. Unless you have proof, don't make stuff like that up. In fact, many people try and say the opposite and claim that multiplatform games are "gimped" by the PS3. Both groups are lying.

When has multiple CD's/DVD's for a game ever been a problem in the past? The answer is never.

Also, forcing HDD installs would be completely STUPID for Microsoft considering the arcade version of the 360 never came with a hard drive. That would be like a slap in the face of anybody who ever bought their console without a hard drive. And on a side note, why would MS force installs when so many people complain about the fact that Sony does it?

Yes, the disc limitation is a major problem, like it or not, it's a FACT, not opinion, FACT. When you have non linear game, you must cut content out to fit on one double layer DVD, that is a huge drawback and limitations to system with instalation capabilities. The Xbox arcade version is the exact problem, why this gimp is happening, you can't have game with mandatory install.

This isn't true, if the game is non linear or sandbox, you are screwed.

PC games are gimped by beeing released on consoles, not only Xbox, but PS3 also. Dumbed down for both controls and performance. And the gap will be only getting bigger as the time progress, until the new console generation. Don't believe that? Arma 2 or Battlefield 3 says hi. Streaming content from discs can't outperform HDD installations and beeing limited to one disc only highlights that.

And all those developers bitching about it now (like I said, FFXIII, Lost Planet 2, GTA IV, now L. A. Noire) just support this statement.

 

Lost Odyssey : 4 dvds

Final Fantasy 13 : 3 dvds

 

Had SE estimated an additional DVD was required they would have included it.

 

So much for "fact" lol

 

 

 



Around the Network
sanadawarrior on 10 March 2010
BMaker11 said:
sanadawarrior said:
perpride said:
BMaker11 said:
perpride said:
chenguo4 said:
SaviorX said:
perpride said:
keeping the game as a PS3 exclusive would be a RETARDED move on Square's part IMO.

Why? Sony is nowhere near the position they were the last two generations. With PS1 and PS2, Sony dominated the market. Their consoles were like the Wii of this generation. This generation, however, PS3 ended up being a HUGE disappointment compared to its predecessors. And I don't mean just hardware sales. Software sales for many PS3 games are extremely disappointing imo.

Square keeping Final Fantasy XIII exclusive would virtually outcast the 38 million people who own Xbox 360's around the world. Bringing the game to 360 was an AMAZING decision because it more than doubles the number of people who have access to playing the game. Which do you think Square cares more for? Stupid biased reviews bringing their game down to an 83/8.3 on game rankings/meta critic, or the possibility of selling millions more? We all know critics and reviewers have been putting down JRPG's recently anyways.

When all is said and done, Final Fantasy XIII 360 should be a million seller by itself. This enough warrants the fact that Square brought it over. I for one am proud of them, and the game has not only met my expectations, it has shattered them in every way possible. It easily ranks in the top 5 games of the series, third only to Final Fantasy VII and XII. It is now my second favorite game this generation, only behind MGS4.

It is funny you say that...I have heard many times before that porting a game to another console for the sake of 1-1.5 million copies is not worth it.

 

Not to mention you're also assuming htose 38 mil 360 owners dont overlap with the 32.5 mil ps3 owners. If the game was ps3 exclusive, they honestly wouldn't be losing that many sales, consdering 1) this overlap and 2) how many people would buy a console for FF13.

 

And back on topic of the scores. It's a fantastic game and I don't see how it's any more linear than FFX, which got amazing reviews. I think the thing that bugs reviewers the most is that there are no towns, and that takes a lot out of an RPG experience, and unnecessarily speeds up the pacing quite a bit.

could you guys please explain what makes you more qualified than Square Enix to make such statements? It's their game, if they decided to go multiplatform, I believe their reason is damn good.

Keeping Mass Effect 2 exclusive to the Xbox 360 IS a RETARDED move by Bioware. They own the IP and can do whatever they want with it, but they're ignoring 32.5M potential customers. A PS3 version would probably be a million seller. 

Now, using your logic, is Bioware's decision a "damn good" one?

I think Bioware is taking a completely different approach than Square Enix, and I can respect that. If they believe their game will do better as an exclusive, so be it. But they already used my logic which is why you see the game appearing on PC. And I'm almost certain that they have some sort of exclucivity deal or they would bring Mass Effect over to PS3. Either way, if there's one thing this generation has proved to us, it's that going multiplatform is a good idea  (ie., Resident Evil 5, Devil May Cry 4, etc.,)

Actualy I think the decision to not put ME2 on PS3 has more to do with not being able to put the first one on there because it was published by Microsoft than any sort of "it will sell better" logic. Not having the first game kills alot of the personalization of the second game, and would also lock out a full paragon play through of the trilogy because new characters are treated as having chosen the renegade path.

#1 NGII was published by Microsoft, and that ended up on the PS3. This is what happens when the dev owns the IP, not MS, which brings me back to my second point, Bioware owns the IP. And have said they can do anything they want with it. 

So I don't see any exclusivity deal that would block a PS3 ME2. 

@perpride

They also put Dragon Age on the PC and 360.....and PS3. But don't try to bring the PC into this, because you're one of the people that when we talk about exclusives, you exclude the PC when PS3 fans say "it's not exclusive to Xbox, it on PC!". But hey, it seems like you're another "Keep the 360 exclusives exclusive, and multiplat all the PS3 exclusives" kind of person. If a company makes a former exclusive go to multiple platforms, it's a "damn good decision", but when you just said "mulitplatform is a good idea", you also respect a 3rd party devs choice to make a game, that for all intensive purposes should be multiplatform (given the status that it's from EA now, who multiplats everything, and Bioware have on multiple occassions said how they own the IP and can do whatever they want with it), exclusive. What kind of hypocrisy is that?

Perhaps the language was different with the Mass Effect deal. I'm sure Microsoft was not taken by surprise with the EA buyout and perhaps took measures in the contract to keep the first one off of the PS3. If not then it is pretty damn stupid of Bioware to not release both games on PS3.



je21an on 10 March 2010

No I think that is not a bad idea, the only thing is that in the global market are born a great variety of games, and maybe better than Final Fantasy.



Cuban cigars

aragod on 10 March 2010
fighter said:
aragod said:
perpride said:
aragod said:
perpride said:
aragod said:
Pretty much any multiplatform game comming out on Xbox and either PC or PS3 is gimped by Xbox's capabilities. Be it either power or content limitations.

FFXIII had content cut out, Lost Odyssey 2 is having problems, GTA IV had them, now L. A. Noire can't fit on discs. And Microsoft is to blame, other platform owners are screwed because of this, since developers must deliver the same for everyone.

The worst impact it had on PC owners, many Xbox console exclusive titles come out on PC aswell, but they can't hold a candle to PC exclusive titles. Xbox is 5 years old, so this has to be expected, but games like Dragon Age Origins or Mass Effect are suffering from this.

is this a joke post? Gimped by Xbox's capabilities? Is that why 90% of multiplatform games run better on the 360?

If you'd care to notice, the main reason is Xbox's incapability to force HDD standart which would allow mandatory instalation so there wouldn't be single DVD limitations to games where it's not possible to swap discs on the go (sandbox, free exploration, racers). It has very little to do with the basic power.

And multiplatform games run better on Xbox, because developers don't bother optimizing the code for PS3 architecture.

I bolded the part of your post which is just completely untrue. No multiplatform game is "gimped" by Xbox's capabilities. Unless you have proof, don't make stuff like that up. In fact, many people try and say the opposite and claim that multiplatform games are "gimped" by the PS3. Both groups are lying.

When has multiple CD's/DVD's for a game ever been a problem in the past? The answer is never.

Also, forcing HDD installs would be completely STUPID for Microsoft considering the arcade version of the 360 never came with a hard drive. That would be like a slap in the face of anybody who ever bought their console without a hard drive. And on a side note, why would MS force installs when so many people complain about the fact that Sony does it?

Yes, the disc limitation is a major problem, like it or not, it's a FACT, not opinion, FACT. When you have non linear game, you must cut content out to fit on one double layer DVD, that is a huge drawback and limitations to system with instalation capabilities. The Xbox arcade version is the exact problem, why this gimp is happening, you can't have game with mandatory install.

This isn't true, if the game is non linear or sandbox, you are screwed.

PC games are gimped by beeing released on consoles, not only Xbox, but PS3 also. Dumbed down for both controls and performance. And the gap will be only getting bigger as the time progress, until the new console generation. Don't believe that? Arma 2 or Battlefield 3 says hi. Streaming content from discs can't outperform HDD installations and beeing limited to one disc only highlights that.

And all those developers bitching about it now (like I said, FFXIII, Lost Planet 2, GTA IV, now L. A. Noire) just support this statement.

Lost Odyssey : 4 dvds

Final Fantasy 13 : 3 dvds

Had SE estimated an additional DVD was required they would have included it.

So much for "fact" lol

Lost Odyssey was typo, I ment Lost Planet 2.

Good job on ignoring the point, I'd suggest reading atleast that red highlighted text so next time you won't make a fool of yourself.



MY HYPE LIST: 1) Gran Turismo 5; 2) Civilization V; 3) Starcraft II; 4) The Last Guardian; 5) Metal Gear Solid: Rising

perpride on 10 March 2010
BMaker11 said:

#1 NGII was published by Microsoft, and that ended up on the PS3. This is what happens when the dev owns the IP, not MS, which brings me back to my second point, Bioware owns the IP. And have said they can do anything they want with it. 

So I don't see any exclusivity deal that would block a PS3 ME2. 

@perpride

They also put Dragon Age on the PC and 360.....and PS3. But don't try to bring the PC into this, because you're one of the people that when we talk about exclusives, you exclude the PC when PS3 fans say "it's not exclusive to Xbox, it on PC!". But hey, it seems like you're another "Keep the 360 exclusives exclusive, and multiplat all the PS3 exclusives" kind of person. If a company makes a former exclusive go to multiple platforms, it's a "damn good decision", but when you just said "mulitplatform is a good idea", you also respect a 3rd party devs choice to make a game, that for all intensive purposes should be multiplatform (given the status that it's from EA now, who multiplats everything, and Bioware have on multiple occassions said how they own the IP and can do whatever they want with it), exclusive. What kind of hypocrisy is that?

NOT AT ALL!!! Dude you must have me mistaken for CGI-Quality!!! I'm a HUGE fan of multiplatform games. I think it's an amazing idea for developers to open their game up to a wider audience, no matter what console.

If you check my post history, you will see that I'm a huge fan of:

Gears for PS3.

Mass Effect for PS3.

MGS4 for 360.

No More Heroes for HD.

No joke, I'm a huge fan of going multiplatform, especially in the current climate of the industry.



Around the Network
perpride on 10 March 2010
aragod said:
fighter said:

perpride said:

I bolded the part of your post which is just completely untrue. No multiplatform game is "gimped" by Xbox's capabilities. Unless you have proof, don't make stuff like that up. In fact, many people try and say the opposite and claim that multiplatform games are "gimped" by the PS3. Both groups are lying.

When has multiple CD's/DVD's for a game ever been a problem in the past? The answer is never.

Also, forcing HDD installs would be completely STUPID for Microsoft considering the arcade version of the 360 never came with a hard drive. That would be like a slap in the face of anybody who ever bought their console without a hard drive. And on a side note, why would MS force installs when so many people complain about the fact that Sony does it?

Yes, the disc limitation is a major problem, like it or not, it's a FACT, not opinion, FACT. When you have non linear game, you must cut content out to fit on one double layer DVD, that is a huge drawback and limitations to system with instalation capabilities. The Xbox arcade version is the exact problem, why this gimp is happening, you can't have game with mandatory install.

This isn't true, if the game is non linear or sandbox, you are screwed.

PC games are gimped by beeing released on consoles, not only Xbox, but PS3 also. Dumbed down for both controls and performance. And the gap will be only getting bigger as the time progress, until the new console generation. Don't believe that? Arma 2 or Battlefield 3 says hi. Streaming content from discs can't outperform HDD installations and beeing limited to one disc only highlights that.

And all those developers bitching about it now (like I said, FFXIII, Lost Planet 2, GTA IV, now L. A. Noire) just support this statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really? It's a fact? Then how come Nintendo and Microsoft, using DVD's, have both been more successful than Sony? How come 360 has the highest number of 90+ games on metacritic if 360 games are gimped?

GTAIV was gimped on 360? Really? Last time I checked, it was on par if not better than the PS3 version. And it's a sand box. And it's huge. And it has extras over the PS3 version. And it's the highest rated game of all time. So yeh.... you have no argument...you're complaining about something that has NOTHING to do with anything. Multiple CD's has NEVER been an issue before. AGAIN, here's a quote from your first post:

"Pretty much any multiplatform game comming out on Xbox and either PC or PS3 is gimped by Xbox's capabilities."

WRONG!!! You want to talk about facts? 90% of multiplatform games look better on 360. As sad as that sounds, welcome to the real world.



Tridrakious on 10 March 2010
Wonktonodi said:
Tridrakious said:

Right now Final Fantasy XIII on the PS3 (with 19 reviews) has a 83.13%. Which makes it the worst reviewed (main line) Final Fantasy game (not including re-releases).

The 360 version has a 79.25% (with 8 reviews).

 

Does anyone agree that putting the 360 into the focus of development of this game was a bad idea?

I don't think the putting it on the 360 was the bad idea I think the problem is that with so many other final fantasy games out there plus rereleases since the last one reviewers are comiming into a game like ff13 expecting something and when it's not there they review it down for it.  Or they expect something they didn't like to be gone and if it's still there they'd lower the review for it as well.  Plus how many reviews did the other games get?  I'm sure there will be many more reviews of 13 than most the other main story initial realease final fantasys combined when all is said and done.  With a game like this I'm betting if it weren't called final fantasy and got rid of many of the expectation that wen't along with it it would have rewieved higher but would sell less. 


I will say that I personally believe that Final Fantasy has lost that "magic" it once had. We get 5 Final Fantasy titles released a year, at minimum.

All the ports and re releases. It may have affected a few reviewers opinions of XIII.

Although I also believe that many American reviewers are thinking about how much this game was chopped up.



Icyedge on 10 March 2010
perpride said:
aragod said:
fighter said:

perpride said:

I bolded the part of your post which is just completely untrue. No multiplatform game is "gimped" by Xbox's capabilities. Unless you have proof, don't make stuff like that up. In fact, many people try and say the opposite and claim that multiplatform games are "gimped" by the PS3. Both groups are lying.

When has multiple CD's/DVD's for a game ever been a problem in the past? The answer is never.

Also, forcing HDD installs would be completely STUPID for Microsoft considering the arcade version of the 360 never came with a hard drive. That would be like a slap in the face of anybody who ever bought their console without a hard drive. And on a side note, why would MS force installs when so many people complain about the fact that Sony does it?

Yes, the disc limitation is a major problem, like it or not, it's a FACT, not opinion, FACT. When you have non linear game, you must cut content out to fit on one double layer DVD, that is a huge drawback and limitations to system with instalation capabilities. The Xbox arcade version is the exact problem, why this gimp is happening, you can't have game with mandatory install.

This isn't true, if the game is non linear or sandbox, you are screwed.

PC games are gimped by beeing released on consoles, not only Xbox, but PS3 also. Dumbed down for both controls and performance. And the gap will be only getting bigger as the time progress, until the new console generation. Don't believe that? Arma 2 or Battlefield 3 says hi. Streaming content from discs can't outperform HDD installations and beeing limited to one disc only highlights that.

And all those developers bitching about it now (like I said, FFXIII, Lost Planet 2, GTA IV, now L. A. Noire) just support this statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really? It's a fact? Then how come Nintendo and Microsoft, using DVD's, have both been more successful than Sony? How come 360 has the highest number of 90+ games on metacritic if 360 games are gimped?

GTAIV was gimped on 360? Really? Last time I checked, it was on par if not better than the PS3 version. And it's a sand box. And it's huge. And it has extras over the PS3 version. And it's the highest rated game of all time. So yeh.... you have no argument...you're complaining about something that has NOTHING to do with anything. Multiple CD's has NEVER been an issue before. AGAIN, here's a quote from your first post:

"Pretty much any multiplatform game comming out on Xbox and either PC or PS3 is gimped by Xbox's capabilities."

WRONG!!! You want to talk about facts? 90% of multiplatform games look better on 360. As sad as that sounds, welcome to the real world.

Your as much wrong you know. The fact nintendo and microsoft have success has nothing to do with DVD vs blu-ray advantages in games. Im not saying blu-ray offer big advantages or any advantages at all. But success is not in a direct relation to capacity advantages, theres many other factors. Also, most recent multiplatform games perform the same on PS3 (dragon age, borderland, darksiders...), when it performs worst it is directly related to the port. As we see right now with FFXIII on 360, same thing happened many time in the past on PS3.

Your basic idea of blu-ray not needed for games is defendable, but youll need better example to demonstrate that. Maybe by evaluating the amount of content found in most PS3 exclusives games VS most xbox 360 exclusive games, would make a good point. For the parts about 90% of multiplatform looking better, your prolly referencing to the PS3 first or second year, where a lot of port wasnt very good. But this is not true anymore for recent multiplatform (some rare case AKA bayonetta). Even if it would still be the same thing, it is a terrible example to prove anything related to the power of each console using multiplatform games. Obviously you need to evaluate exclusive game, if not, I can say things like : "final fantasy XIII prove that PS3 is superior to 360" but its not true. No hate here, only reflection.

 



perpride on 10 March 2010
Icyedge said:
perpride said:
aragod said:
fighter said:

perpride said:

I bolded the part of your post which is just completely untrue. No multiplatform game is "gimped" by Xbox's capabilities. Unless you have proof, don't make stuff like that up. In fact, many people try and say the opposite and claim that multiplatform games are "gimped" by the PS3. Both groups are lying.

When has multiple CD's/DVD's for a game ever been a problem in the past? The answer is never.

Also, forcing HDD installs would be completely STUPID for Microsoft considering the arcade version of the 360 never came with a hard drive. That would be like a slap in the face of anybody who ever bought their console without a hard drive. And on a side note, why would MS force installs when so many people complain about the fact that Sony does it?

Yes, the disc limitation is a major problem, like it or not, it's a FACT, not opinion, FACT. When you have non linear game, you must cut content out to fit on one double layer DVD, that is a huge drawback and limitations to system with instalation capabilities. The Xbox arcade version is the exact problem, why this gimp is happening, you can't have game with mandatory install.

This isn't true, if the game is non linear or sandbox, you are screwed.

PC games are gimped by beeing released on consoles, not only Xbox, but PS3 also. Dumbed down for both controls and performance. And the gap will be only getting bigger as the time progress, until the new console generation. Don't believe that? Arma 2 or Battlefield 3 says hi. Streaming content from discs can't outperform HDD installations and beeing limited to one disc only highlights that.

And all those developers bitching about it now (like I said, FFXIII, Lost Planet 2, GTA IV, now L. A. Noire) just support this statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really? It's a fact? Then how come Nintendo and Microsoft, using DVD's, have both been more successful than Sony? How come 360 has the highest number of 90+ games on metacritic if 360 games are gimped?

GTAIV was gimped on 360? Really? Last time I checked, it was on par if not better than the PS3 version. And it's a sand box. And it's huge. And it has extras over the PS3 version. And it's the highest rated game of all time. So yeh.... you have no argument...you're complaining about something that has NOTHING to do with anything. Multiple CD's has NEVER been an issue before. AGAIN, here's a quote from your first post:

"Pretty much any multiplatform game comming out on Xbox and either PC or PS3 is gimped by Xbox's capabilities."

WRONG!!! You want to talk about facts? 90% of multiplatform games look better on 360. As sad as that sounds, welcome to the real world.

Your as much wrong you know. The fact nintendo and microsoft have success has nothing to do with DVD vs blu-ray advantages in games. Im not saying blu-ray offer big advantages or any advantages at all. But success is not in a direct relation to capacity advantages, theres many other factors. Also, most recent multiplatform games perform the same on PS3 (dragon age, borderland, darksiders...), when it performs worst it is directly related to the port. As we see right now with FFXIII on 360, same thing happened many time in the past on PS3.

Your basic idea of blu-ray not needed for games is defendable, but youll need better example to demonstrate that. Maybe by evaluating the amount of content found in most PS3 exclusives games VS most xbox 360 exclusive games, would make a good point. For the parts about 90% of multiplatform looking better, your prolly referencing to the PS3 first or second year, where a lot of port wasnt very good. But this is not true anymore for recent multiplatform (some rare case AKA bayonetta). Even if it would still be the same thing, it is a terrible example to prove anything related to the power of each console using multiplatform games. Obviously you need to evaluate exclusive game, if not, I can say things like : "final fantasy XIII prove that PS3 is superior to 360" but its not true. No hate here, only reflection.

 

I completely agree with your first paragraph. In fact, that's pretty much what I was trying to say. The storage medium on the consoles have almost no relations to game quality. Anything a Blu Ray can handle, you can put on several DVD's.

As for the second paragraph...are you serious? Have you seen any head to head comparisons recently? Look at the multiplatform game library that PS3/360 share and tell me which one clearly has the better version of games. You say it was mostly at the beginning of PS3's life cycle. That's somewhat true, but not entirely. Every head to head I've ever seen, up to last month's version, puts 360 ahead in multiplatform titles.

Also, for anyone in this thread still thinking Square made a stupid decision bringing the game to 360, you should look at what Brett posted in the news section today. If you are lazy, I will tell you. If we only count PS3 sales, FFXIII had less fw sales than FFXII. But when you add in the 360, FFXIII is on track to have a better sales openning week than FFXII was. According to the owner of this site, that is clearly because it is multiplatform: http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=7369&mp=1



Icyedge on 10 March 2010
perpride said:

I completely agree with your first paragraph. In fact, that's pretty much what I was trying to say. The storage medium on the consoles have almost no relations to game quality. Anything a Blu Ray can handle, you can put on several DVD's.

As for the second paragraph...are you serious? Have you seen any head to head comparisons recently? Look at the multiplatform game library that PS3/360 share and tell me which one clearly has the better version of games. You say it was mostly at the beginning of PS3's life cycle. That's somewhat true, but not entirely. Every head to head I've ever seen, up to last month's version, puts 360 ahead in multiplatform titles.

Also, for anyone in this thread still thinking Square made a stupid decision bringing the game to 360, you should look at what Brett posted in the news section today. If you are lazy, I will tell you. If we only count PS3 sales, FFXIII had less fw sales than FFXII. But when you add in the 360, FFXIII is on track to have a better sales openning week than FFXII was. According to the owner of this site, that is clearly because it is multiplatform: http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=7369&mp=1

Ok great to read that! I always read review, borderland and dragon age both have good points on PS3. Darksiders runs the same, thats the name I have on top of my heads. Im sure we can find more, but yes, 360 has more multiplatform that runs best overall. My point was that port are getting better and better and that 90% is not true anymore. My other point was that we cannot evaluate the power of a console based on a multiplatform games, im sure we agree on that. On another note, great that it sells that much, it will encourage them to make great games.