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

Forums - Gaming - Reviewers have got to get rid of their 360 hard on

Doobie_wop on 30 September 2010

The 360 released in 2005, it's also has the most social online network on consoles and multi-platform games performed better on the console from 2006 to 2008. The combination of these things mean that the majority of game reviewers have the 360 as their primary platform and when it comes to reviews, they most likely play and review the 360 version and then copy and past the review into the PS3 section of their site. This may have been fine 2 years ago, but these days it just doesn't cut it. Multi-platform games are more likely equal or even better on the PS3 these days, but it's never noted in any of the reviews on game sites. 

The reviews have started to come out for Castlevania: Lords of Shadows and I've noticed that few reviewers have mentioned that the game suffers from frame rate drops. After reading around, I've found out that the PS3 version runs flawlessly and the frame rate problems are exclusive to the 360.

The same thing happened with Darksiders earlier in the year, the PS3 version was flawless, but the 360 version suffered significant frame drops and had to be patched later on. Split/Second also went through the same thing this year.

With more and more games being developed on the PS3 and then later ported to the 360, I'd expect reviewers to be aware of the differences between the two versions instead of only playing their preferred console and then base their score on that experience. 

Thoughts?



Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

Around the Network
--OkeyDokey-- on 30 September 2010

They do play both versions. Compare the Metacritic scores of Bayonetta, The Orange Box and Fallout 3.



starcraft on 30 September 2010

Reviewers can not be held responsible for the Xbox 360 having the best games.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

reidlosdog on 30 September 2010
Doobie_wop said:

The 360 released in 2005, it's also has the most social online network on consoles and multi-platform games performed better on the console from 2006 to 2008. The combination of these things mean that the majority of game reviewers have the 360 as their primary platform and when it comes to reviews, they most likely play and review the 360 version and then copy and past the review into the PS3 section of their site. This may have been fine 2 years ago, but these days it just doesn't cut it. Multi-platform games are more likely equal or even better on the PS3 these days, but it's never noted in any of the reviews on game sites. 

The reviews have started to come out for Castlevania: Lords of Shadows and I've noticed that few reviewers have mentioned that the game suffers from frame rate drops. After reading around, I've found out that the PS3 version runs flawlessly and the frame rate problems are exclusive to the 360.

The same thing happened with Darksiders earlier in the year, the PS3 version was flawless, but the 360 version suffered significant frame drops and had to be patched later on. Split/Second also went through the same thing this year.

With more and more games being developed on the PS3 and then later ported to the 360, I'd expect reviewers to be aware of the differences between the two versions instead of only playing their preferred console and then base their score on that experience. 

Thoughts?

The reason for the low frame rate is because of the lack of updates on Xbox 360, so that Microsoft can phisically test the update itself, then put it onto the market place.  Yes, they charge, but more the reason to make sure you DON'T f*** up the update.  Has the 360 online server ever gone down?  No.  Can PS3 say the same?  Getting the constant swarm of updates PS3 has, they tend to not test if the update will effect old or new systems, which tends to bring forth things were consoles can't log on, or can't play for an entire day.



V:  And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence.

reidlosdog on 30 September 2010
--OkeyDokey-- said:

They do play both versions. Compare the Metacritic scores of Bayonetta, The Orange Box and Fallout 3.


To follow up on that comment, Proof:

 

http://www.metacritic.com/search/all/fallout3/results

 

Copy and paste this.  don't click please.



V:  And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence.

Around the Network
Falcon204 on 30 September 2010

Stop having a cry!!!! It's still the same game! Just like how fallout 3 was superior on x360, it was still the same game and even though the graphics weren't identical on both platforms, there were minor differences that didnt make the experience any worse. Same situation here so get over it.



My Eyes!!! The Goggles Do Nothing!!!

--OkeyDokey-- on 30 September 2010
starcraft said:

Reviewers can not be held responsible for the Xbox 360 having the best games.




wfz on 30 September 2010
starcraft said:

Reviewers can not be held responsible for the Xbox 360 having the best games.


I laughed so hard when I read this. It is impossible to refute your post.



LordMatrix on 30 September 2010
Doobie_wop said:

The 360 released in 2005, it's also has the most social online network on consoles and multi-platform games performed better on the console from 2006 to 2008. The combination of these things mean that the majority of game reviewers have the 360 as their primary platform and when it comes to reviews, they most likely play and review the 360 version and then copy and past the review into the PS3 section of their site. This may have been fine 2 years ago, but these days it just doesn't cut it. Multi-platform games are more likely equal or even better on the PS3 these days, but it's never noted in any of the reviews on game sites. 

The reviews have started to come out for Castlevania: Lords of Shadows and I've noticed that few reviewers have mentioned that the game suffers from frame rate drops. After reading around, I've found out that the PS3 version runs flawlessly and the frame rate problems are exclusive to the 360.

The same thing happened with Darksiders earlier in the year, the PS3 version was flawless, but the 360 version suffered significant frame drops and had to be patched later on. Split/Second also went through the same thing this year.

With more and more games being developed on the PS3 and then later ported to the 360, I'd expect reviewers to be aware of the differences between the two versions instead of only playing their preferred console and then base their score on that experience. 

Thoughts?

I think its just your own hard on with another said company you should be worried about. They play each version so no need to act like they tortue poor ol PS3.



 How our favorite systems are just like humans and sometimes have issues finding their special someone...

Xbox 360 wants to Kinect &  PS3 wants to Move!  Why are both systems having such relationship problems?  The reason is they both become so infactuated with desire while watching the Wii as it waggles on by. They simply want what they can't have.

 Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

Luney Tune on 30 September 2010

360 Darksiders did not suffer any frame drops. It shipped with vsync disabled, and the result was *higher* average frame rates at the expense of tearing. The developer later enabled vsync with a patch, and the patched version is identical to the PS3 version, meaning lower frame rates but no tearing.  http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/xbox-360-vs-ps3-face-off-round-24?page=2 

Split Second performs better on the 360: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-xbox360-vs-ps3-round-26-face-off?page=1