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

slowmo on 30 September 2010
Reasonable said:

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.


That's blatantly not true, the only bias shown is they're more likely to base the main review around the 360, they do not rate the game any better based on platform. 

@OP - You're the problem, instead of generalising you should look to find a set of reviewers that you trust as not every reviewer can review to your specific tastes.



Around the Network
Reasonable on 30 September 2010
slowmo said:
Reasonable said:

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.


That's blatantly not true, the only bias shown is they're more likely to base the main review around the 360, they do not rate the game any better based on platform. 

@OP - You're the problem, instead of generalising you should look to find a set of reviewers that you trust as not every reviewer can review to your specific tastes.


I disagree, but in a frienfly manner.  By general bias I mean that yes, away from work etc. a 360 is more likely to be their main machine or will be the machine they use as the benchmark if they are a male game reviewer in the US - I'd be very surprised if a PS3 was their main machine and I think this is a compliment to the 360's position in the US market now.

In the US the 360 is clearly more dominant and you can see this in many aspects of how it is reported on - both in the gaming press and outside of that.

However, as I said, I personally don't find it is a problem.  No doubt last gen many reviewers had a PS2 as their main console but also enjoyed Halo etc on Xbox.

It's very, very hard not to have a general bias with regards to just about everything - the only issue would be if it was a genuine concern which I don't think it is.



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

zgamer5 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.

wow at the rage. you dont seem to understand the point of this. leave this thread.



Being in 3rd place never felt so good

starcraft on 30 September 2010
wfz said:
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.

I'm here till Saturday.  Tickets for the full show $10.



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

Severance 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.


You are wrong, Sony updates actually go in on a more strict checking then MS's updates, thats why some updates got delayed in the past.



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

- Wasteland - The Mission.

Around the Network
Doobie_wop on 30 September 2010
slowmo said:
Reasonable said:

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.


That's blatantly not true, the only bias shown is they're more likely to base the main review around the 360, they do not rate the game any better based on platform. 

@OP - You're the problem, instead of generalising you should look to find a set of reviewers that you trust as not every reviewer can review to your specific tastes.

I don't want reviews catering to my tastes, I just want reviews to be consistent with their PS3/360 review releases. Like I mentioned earlier, if the PS3 version of a game is superior, it usually goes by unnoticed and the same score is given to both versions in a copy and paste review. This isn't something that's done on purpose, it's just that the reviewers favoured console, gets in the way of their final multi-platform review. My favourite sites like Giant Bomb and Joystiq, openly admit to playing the game on a specific platform and they rarely ever play the PS3 version. This is was ok a few years ago, but it doesn't cut it these days.



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

mchaza on 30 September 2010

also wouldn't off this been the same years back when the PS2 was absolute complete dominance over its competitors for 5 years (gamecube and xbox), all the reviewers would of had a PS2 and could of had bias opinions. 



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

Severance on 30 September 2010
mchaza said:

also wouldn't off this been the same years back when the PS2 was absolute complete dominance over its competitors for 5 years (gamecube and xbox), all the reviewers would of had a PS2 and could of had bias opinions. 


actually no , at that time a lot of reviews talked about how the xbox version of the game is much better and is graphically better.

while the PS2 one had issues.



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

- Wasteland - The Mission.

Lyrikalstylez on 30 September 2010
mchaza said:

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 





d21lewis on 30 September 2010
mchaza said:

also wouldn't off this been the same years back when the PS2 was absolute complete dominance over its competitors for 5 years (gamecube and xbox), all the reviewers would of had a PS2 and could of had bias opinions. 


Even then, it was pretty accepted as fact that almost all mult-plats were better on the Xbox.  Nowadays, most reviewers state that unless there is a drastic difference between the versions, there is just one universal review.  A half second screen tear or a framerate chug isn't a game killer.  Most people-not all, but most-won't notice or won't care.  Is it possible to like Sony too much?  Reading some of your posts make me wonder.