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

thranx on 30 September 2010

I retract my earlier statement. Perhaps you are just an audiphile and really are into graphics. If that is your focus you need to find sites that look more into that. Big gaming sites review games for the average gamer who do not really care about little things they will not notice. Go to some more technological orientated sites.



Around the Network
Xenostar on 30 September 2010
reidlosdog said:
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.


Yes the 360 servers have gone down many times once they went down for 2 weeks over the Christmas period the year modern warfare came out. 

I certainly cant remember PS3 servers ever going down other than for scheduled maintenance which has never been more than a day, and we've been told about it in advance.



Muffin31190 on 30 September 2010
billy.amick said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:

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


You cant use Metacritic for something like this especially considering how many 360 fan magazines are included in the rankings. 

The issue is now that most reviews use a 10 to 20 point scale which would require something huge to be different or wrong for a lower score and that is rare

Buddy theres probly the same amount of PS fan magazines out there ... just sayin



mchaza on 30 September 2010

Its sad but most reviewers are American and they are MS fanboys because they couldn't afford the PS3 when it came out and defended its less superior console and when they now know that it was in Fact cheaper to get the PS3 they are continuing the fanboyness to protect there precious console 



Of Course That's Just My Opinion, I Could Be Wrong

Ping_ii on 30 September 2010

Unless your annoyed at swaping disc its a small difference between ps3 and 360.

PPL has got to stop bragging or whining about this minor difference on multiplatform games, if you wants technical showcase go for exclusives it shows what the system is capable of look @ god of war,Uncharted,kz2,gears etc.

Altho Im guessing ps3 is the lead platform for castle vania probly why it's performing slightly better on ps3.



Around the Network
Ping_ii on 30 September 2010
DirtyP2002 said:

What about Dead Rising 2?
PS3 version has massvie tearing and requires a HDD install. Still the same score.

What about Red Dead Redemption?
PS3 version looks way worse than the Xbox 360 version. Still the same score.

What about Resident Evil 5?
PS3 version looks worse than the Xbox 360 version. PS3 scored even higher.

 

Most of the multiplat games still look better on Xbox 360.

No it doesn't.

tho I agree minor difference thats why reviewers don't score down the other version.



Nsanity on 30 September 2010
Luney Tune said:

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

 


This is true.



Nsanity on 30 September 2010
Ping_ii said:
DirtyP2002 said:

What about Dead Rising 2?
PS3 version has massvie tearing and requires a HDD install. Still the same score.

What about Red Dead Redemption?
PS3 version looks way worse than the Xbox 360 version. Still the same score.

What about Resident Evil 5?
PS3 version looks worse than the Xbox 360 version. PS3 scored even higher.

 

Most of the multiplat games still look better on Xbox 360.

No it doesn't.

tho I agree minor difference thats why reviewers don't score down the other version.


http://www.lensoftruth.com/

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/archive.php?platform=digitalfoundry&type=face-off



Ping_ii on 30 September 2010
Nsanity said:
Ping_ii said:
DirtyP2002 said:

What about Dead Rising 2?
PS3 version has massvie tearing and requires a HDD install. Still the same score.

What about Red Dead Redemption?
PS3 version looks way worse than the Xbox 360 version. Still the same score.

What about Resident Evil 5?
PS3 version looks worse than the Xbox 360 version. PS3 scored even higher.

 

Most of the multiplat games still look better on Xbox 360.

No it doesn't.

tho I agree minor difference thats why reviewers don't score down the other version.


http://www.lensoftruth.com/

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/archive.php?platform=digitalfoundry&type=face-off

wats that???? lens of truth and eruogamer so?

http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=5454

here's the comparison it says 360 has SLIGHT advantage on graphics now SO MUCH WORST ON PS3  which is what that guy said, it also says there that 360 has screen tearing.

every thing else is equal performance,loading,control.



Reasonable on 30 September 2010

I don't think it's a huge problem.  Sure, particularly with US based sites/reviewers you can tell that, as the 360 is the more dominant platform in the region, their general bias leans to it, but for the most part it evens out I think.

Most decent sites seem to review/test both and in most cases seem to note any issues on either side - be it PS3 port issues a'la something like Bayonetta or 360 port issues a'la somthing like FFXIII.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...