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

Forums - Gaming - IGN's Lost planet 2 PS3/360 comparison contradicts there review

XGamer0611 on 12 May 2010

Does it matter if the game is trash anyway? Consistency is something that is missing in the world today. I stopped reading IGN reviews ages ago. The hell with the bias against the PS3. IGN reviews for all games have been horrid. They have given out low scores to games that are better then their reviewers said. I find it shocking that a publication like IGN is so well renowned when their reviews are complete garbage.



Now Playing: Crysis 2

Last Finished: BulletStorm

Online IDs: PSN: computermaximus, XBL: computermaximus

Around the Network
Machiavellian on 12 May 2010

Lets be honest, exactly how many multiplat games are superior on the PS3 compared to the 360. I know from personal experience that you can barely count them on one hand and even then, it was very minor. Only the FFXIII on a graphical point but the gameplay were the same and none of the graphical issue would mean anything if you only played the 360 version.

Bayonetta is the same, if you never played the 360 version then the game played the same but you would not know it did not look as good as the 360 version unless someone told you.

When a game has framerate problems that effect gameplay. when the framerate problems cause the experience of the game to be lessen where issues happen and you die, then its a serious problem and should be marked for it.

 

I am not trying to justify IGN reviews but I can see them marking the game down more if there is a lot of studdering and framerate issues on the PS3 end and not on the 360 it probably should be marked down.  One game not looking as good as another game really means nothing if you only play on one system.  If this was the case there are plenty mult-plat games that looked better on the 360 and the PS3 was not marked down for that from any review.



Barozi on 12 May 2010
scottie said:
thelifatree said:

however the fact being, if I recall most reviewers Gamespy, Here, IGN, Gamespot, Games Radar... for FFXIII those reviewers said even though it was 576P on xbox it did not detract from the gameplay and recieved an equal score... etc, whereas this does because framerate detracts from gameplay  in a lot of people's opinion, the score the score was dropped in this case.

I'm not saying it's correct, but a lot of revieweres did it, atleast the ones that I go to. Also Bayonetta had the problem as this apparently does and was rated the same way. However, like you said graphics should be reflective of both performance, technical and artistic. But, a lot of review sites tend to not follow that rule... which is a problem with their reviewers.

So you're saying that it's fair that the PS3 version of LP2 got a lower score and that the 360 version of FFXIII didn't because framerate is more important than graphics? (that isn't a rhetorical question by the way, I'm just checking that I understood you)


In which case, I would say that that is completely a matter of personal opinion. I agree that framerate is more important for me, but for many others it is not. Which is why I stated that all that this event shows is that reviews are subjective.

 

that changes neither of the facts that framerate is considered a graphics issue by all major reviewers, nor the fact that Leo-j raised this point because he perceived inconsistency in the review system, rather than as a way to troll

Framerate IS more important than graphics. That's not subjective at all.

And yes FFXIII on the 360 might deserve a bit lower score, BUT a lower resolution doesn't change the gameplay, but heavy framerate drops do.

 

Reviews should NEVER be subjective. Every review is a bit biased, no question about that, but they should be kept as unbiased and objective as possible and therefore more informative for their readers. If they are subjective, they're worthless.



Severance on 12 May 2010

why does anyone give a damn about IGN ? Gamespot explained why the PS3 one is inferior, and they did it professionally without this crap biased bullshit.

the game freezes at times, but it does look more textured, and the game is crap anyways so why bother?



I live for the burn...and the sting of pleasure...
I live for the sword, the steel, and the gun...

- Wasteland - The Mission.

Mummelmann on 12 May 2010

Who cares about Lost Planet anyway?



Around the Network
Severance on 12 May 2010
Mummelmann said:
Who cares about Lost Planet anyway?

Xxain



I live for the burn...and the sting of pleasure...
I live for the sword, the steel, and the gun...

- Wasteland - The Mission.

scottie on 12 May 2010
Barozi said:
scottie said:
thelifatree said:

 

So you're saying that it's fair that the PS3 version of LP2 got a lower score and that the 360 version of FFXIII didn't because framerate is more important than graphics? (that isn't a rhetorical question by the way, I'm just checking that I understood you)


In which case, I would say that that is completely a matter of personal opinion. I agree that framerate is more important for me, but for many others it is not. Which is why I stated that all that this event shows is that reviews are subjective.

 

that changes neither of the facts that framerate is considered a graphics issue by all major reviewers, nor the fact that Leo-j raised this point because he perceived inconsistency in the review system, rather than as a way to troll

Framerate IS more important than graphics. That's not subjective at all.

And yes FFXIII on the 360 might deserve a bit lower score, BUT a lower resolution doesn't change the gameplay, but heavy framerate drops do.

 

Reviews should NEVER be subjective. Every review is a bit biased, no question about that, but they should be kept as unbiased and objective as possible and therefore more informative for their readers. If they are subjective, they're worthless.

 

I hate to simply say 'no' but no. Some people would enjoy a game more if it had good resolution and effects, than if it had a high framerate. In something like a turn based rpg I may even agree with them. Some people prioritise graphics over gameplay btw, and nothing you say will convince them otherwise. Hence, subjective.

 

The claim that a review should be in any way objective is hilarious. Historians study at university for years - and the actual history that they learn is completely unimportant. What they actually are there to learn is to produce objective works. Only one person in the entire world has ever produced a completely objective history book, which was described as "the only real history book in the world, and so dull as to be completely unreadable" The purpose of a review is to entertain, more than to inform. Making it objective will make it boring, and thus worthless. A reviewer is incapable of presenting an objective review, so they should acknowledge their writing as subjective and present it as such.



Barozi on 12 May 2010
scottie said:
Barozi said:
scottie said:
thelifatree said:

 

So you're saying that it's fair that the PS3 version of LP2 got a lower score and that the 360 version of FFXIII didn't because framerate is more important than graphics? (that isn't a rhetorical question by the way, I'm just checking that I understood you)


In which case, I would say that that is completely a matter of personal opinion. I agree that framerate is more important for me, but for many others it is not. Which is why I stated that all that this event shows is that reviews are subjective.

 

that changes neither of the facts that framerate is considered a graphics issue by all major reviewers, nor the fact that Leo-j raised this point because he perceived inconsistency in the review system, rather than as a way to troll

Framerate IS more important than graphics. That's not subjective at all.

And yes FFXIII on the 360 might deserve a bit lower score, BUT a lower resolution doesn't change the gameplay, but heavy framerate drops do.

 

Reviews should NEVER be subjective. Every review is a bit biased, no question about that, but they should be kept as unbiased and objective as possible and therefore more informative for their readers. If they are subjective, they're worthless.

 

I hate to simply say 'no' but no. Some people would enjoy a game more if it had good resolution and effects, than if it had a high framerate. In something like a turn based rpg I may even agree with them. Some people prioritise graphics over gameplay btw, and nothing you say will convince them otherwise. Hence, subjective.

 

The claim that a review should be in any way objective is hilarious. Historians study at university for years - and the actual history that they learn is completely unimportant. What they actually are there to learn is to produce objective works. Only one person in the entire world has ever produced a completely objective history book, which was described as "the only real history book in the world, and so dull as to be completely unreadable" The purpose of a review is to entertain, more than to inform. Making it objective will make it boring, and thus worthless. A reviewer is incapable of presenting an objective review, so they should acknowledge their writing as subjective and present it as such.

We're talking about graphical issues here and in that case everything that is below HD standards (720p, 30FPS) is bad. However framerate drops are far worse than a below HD resolution. (Already explained why)

If you read reviews only because you want to get entertained, so be it, but don't expect others do the same. Reviews are meant to help consumers buy the games they would like and they probably never heard of or at least don't have many informations about them. In that case a personal opinion from a stranger is completely worthless. Like I said before it's not possible to completely hide the personal bias, so reviews are always a bit flawed, however they get even more flawed when the author only talks about his personal opinion.



BxN on 12 May 2010

Typical IGN bullshit tbh.





scottie on 12 May 2010
Barozi said:
scottie said:
Barozi said:
scottie said:
thelifatree said:

 

So you're saying that it's fair that the PS3 version of LP2 got a lower score and that the 360 version of FFXIII didn't because framerate is more important than graphics? (that isn't a rhetorical question by the way, I'm just checking that I understood you)


In which case, I would say that that is completely a matter of personal opinion. I agree that framerate is more important for me, but for many others it is not. Which is why I stated that all that this event shows is that reviews are subjective.

 

that changes neither of the facts that framerate is considered a graphics issue by all major reviewers, nor the fact that Leo-j raised this point because he perceived inconsistency in the review system, rather than as a way to troll

Framerate IS more important than graphics. That's not subjective at all.

And yes FFXIII on the 360 might deserve a bit lower score, BUT a lower resolution doesn't change the gameplay, but heavy framerate drops do.

 

Reviews should NEVER be subjective. Every review is a bit biased, no question about that, but they should be kept as unbiased and objective as possible and therefore more informative for their readers. If they are subjective, they're worthless.

 

I hate to simply say 'no' but no. Some people would enjoy a game more if it had good resolution and effects, than if it had a high framerate. In something like a turn based rpg I may even agree with them. Some people prioritise graphics over gameplay btw, and nothing you say will convince them otherwise. Hence, subjective.

 

The claim that a review should be in any way objective is hilarious. Historians study at university for years - and the actual history that they learn is completely unimportant. What they actually are there to learn is to produce objective works. Only one person in the entire world has ever produced a completely objective history book, which was described as "the only real history book in the world, and so dull as to be completely unreadable" The purpose of a review is to entertain, more than to inform. Making it objective will make it boring, and thus worthless. A reviewer is incapable of presenting an objective review, so they should acknowledge their writing as subjective and present it as such.

We're talking about graphical issues here and in that case everything that is below HD standards (720p, 30FPS) is bad. However framerate drops are far worse than a below HD resolution[1]. (Already explained why)

If you read reviews only because you want to get entertained, so be it, but don't expect others do the same[3]. Reviews are meant to help consumers buy the games they would like and they probably never heard of or at least don't have many informations about them. In that case a personal opinion from a stranger is completely worthless[2]. Like I said before it's not possible to completely hide the personal bias, so reviews are always a bit flawed, however they get even more flawed when the author only talks about his personal opinion.

1 - Yes, that is your opinion. Other people have different opinions, hence subjective

 

3 - I wouldn't take it on myself to expect anything, that would require me to be able to predict the future. However, I am great at predicting the past and present, and I know for sure that this is what occurs currently. 

 

2 - Something we can agree on :) The only way a review can have worth is if it is objective, or if you know the reviewer. Maybe that's why the only reviews I read are from VGChartz staff. What exactly was your point again?