I'm starting to think PS3 games aren't held to the standard that 360 games are. Official Xbox magazine gave GTA4 a 9.5 while the PS3 guys all got 10s. Dark Sector, Army of two, DMC4 and a few others are scoring from 5/10 to 7/10 on 360 but getting 8/10-10/10 on PS3? Seems weird. It's not a system bashing thread so just go put your thumb back in your ass if you aren't going to respond with some type of intelligent reply.

The question is: Do 360 owners have too high of expectations?

Are the PS3 versions of these games really that much better than the 360 versions? I don't think so. Most of the time we are reading how the "edge" goes to the 360 version. But why is a game like for example Army of Two getting a 5/10 in OXM and getting considerably higher reviews from other publications and critics such as Official Playstation Magazine? Are 360 owners so spoiled that they couldn't give a 10/10 to GTA4 because it might look better to say "It's a 10 on PS3 because they don't have any triple A games"?

The games are basically the same and consistently get lower scores on 360. It makes me think that the reviewers score games a little high on PS3 to help falsely hype games.

Are 360's critics expecting more out of the 360?

Expectations drive all reviews. Cutting edge games from yesteryear are often uninteresting and uninspired games by todays standard as a result of expectational changes.

Here's a simple reason for your observation. The Xbox 360 has a greater library of games, therefore expectations are necessarily higher. Therefore you see a superior library leading to slightly reduced reviews for newer game.

It undoubtedly has nothing to do with reviewers deliberately trying to hype certain games. 1% increases over another consoles release are not going to have any statistically significant effect on sales.

Xbox has a greater library of games as well as greater games. so obviously expectations are higher. I'm sure sony will catch up sooner of later on quality games but until then . . .

That’s really interesting and unfair to say the least. There seems to be a lot of debate over the validity of review scores these days with people being payed to give favourable reviews and all this bias that seems to be going around.

My opinion is like yours, people expect more from the 360, maybe it’s seen as a more promising console and people expect it to have better games then it does, or maybe they just have realistic expectations and the ps3 reviewers are a little on the ‘in the clouds’ side of things when it comes to review scores. The fact that it has a huge library shouldn’t be affecting the scores but if it is then it’s just showing even more corruption in the reviewing industry. I really think that the 360 reviewers are either more down to earth then the ps3 reviewers, or they run the games through a harder reviewing process and review the game for all that it is. The ps3 reviewers might even want to push the popularity of their favourite system with greater scores. Kind of like the way supermarkets get competitive with food prices. But we can speculate until the wii looses its popularity and may never come close to nailing the real reason.

So I think I settle on the idea that there is more bias towards giving the ps3 higher scores to boost its popularity, a bit of a conspiracy. The same way teachers give their favourite students slightly better marks and the teachers who play no favourites give even marks. To get it right the same person who rates the 360 version needs to have a meeting with the person who rates the ps3 version so they can discus realistic scores based on the pros and cons of the game being on each system.

Huge variances between reviews of the same game on different platforms.

The systems are different. Different controllers, different online play, and different execution on most games.

Every major game on both systems has noticeable differences. Even games people equate to being the same, like CoD4, have different online systems (the 360 is P2P, while the PS3 is Server/Client).

I think the scores are very close, and reflect the minor differences.

No. Rethorics, rethorics. You could just as well have put the question this way "Do PS3 owners have such a lack of games that they over-rate the few that are released on their console?".

Another pointless thread by Rock_on_2008.

Half of my 360 game library completely destrorys every game available on my PS3 and has a couple of AA computer ports to spare before it breaks into the second, better half.

So yeah, I'd say that reviewers are a bit more hesitant to give games amazing scores who game mostly on a 360, than reviewers who game on the PS3 and are just looking for something to justify the console.

That said, this is flamebait, but since I'm a Wii fanboy and gotta put up with KoW, you Sony fanboys can hear the truth from me, from time to time, and it's not gonna hurt my feelings none too much.

Rock on, you couldn't be more happier a few weeks ago that that the ps3 version scored a fraction higher than the 360 version but it's got nothing to do with the differences in quality between the versions.

Look, if the same guys at the OXM worked for OPM they would still have given the same game on ps3 a 9.5, it's all about who reviews the game.

But you could be right, i've played Army of 2, and that game is average at best.
I think your looking into this too much.

Sorry but I'm kinda confused as to why a larger games library means lower scores. Greater games library means nothing about how you review games, if a game is good, it's good, end of, and saying because there are more good games means you review with a lower score makes little sense.

If a game should be reviewed on it's own terms not in comparison to other games on a machine.