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

Forums - Gaming - PSP and PS3 games - are they really that bad?

JDWolf36 on 05 June 2007

Just a quick observation would do this for all the games but well not that bored the DS's top 5 games according to metacritic average score 89.4 and user score of 8.98 or 89.8 the PSP metacritic score 88.2 and user score of 7.66 or 76.6 take that for what you will.

The same test on the Wii and PS3 produced this Wii metacritic score of 84.8 and user score of 8.3 on the PS3 metacritic score of 86.4 and a user score of 7.88. I mean these just seemed a little off to me so thought I'd list them also the PS3 seems to have Motostorm listed twice as well as downloadable games in their top 21.



Around the Network
llewdebkram on 05 June 2007
ssj12 said:
llewdebkram said:
Dallinor said:
The Wii also has the most games rated below 50% on any of the next-gen consoles.

But of course these games are all amazingly fun, all critics are usless, forum posters know more then critics, and your average gamer will give a Wii game a better score then any professional reviewer.

bleh...it's just pointless talking to Wii fanboys.

What actually makes a 'professional reviewer' ?

I've looked and looked and in amongst the articles about A levels, university degrees and 7 years of training to be a doctor I cannot see anywhere:

WANTED: Person wanted to sit on arse playing computer games all day. Must be semi literate and consider themselves a professional even though all they are doing is getting paid for doing what many unemployed do all day.

Anyone of us can be a reviewer it takes virtually no talent, only an opinion.

 


 you fail at research...

IGN's Requirements are a B.S. to M.S. degree in journalism at least. 


and of course journalists and renowned worldwide for their expertise in gaming.

Next time I see an article in 'the sun' newspaper about huge breasts or who's shaging who I must remember that a 'professional' told me so it must be accurate.

 

 



KruzeS on 05 June 2007
I'm not going to dispute Metacritic as I think that's just silly. Yeah, some reviews may biased, but that's a fact of life. Also, the Metacritic average is a weighted one, and more obscure reviewers get less weight. It's a complicated system, but it kinda works, and to me it's more useful as a score than any one review (reading a couple of reviews, and watching gameplay footages are much better, obviously, but sometimes a score is helpful in finding out whether a game is worth checking in the first place). Even better would be a game IMDB, but that only works with thousands of reviewers, so meh. With that out of the way I will say a couple of things.

Looking at just green/non-green can be deceptive. If instead of putting the bar on 75 if you put the bar on 70, for the Wii you'd have 22 games and 27 for the PS3 - clearly not as impressive. This is just one example, I don't know if the same holds true for the DS. I'm not even arguing that the PSs are in the lead, just that looking a such a clear cut statistic as green/non-green with so few games can be deceptive.

Also, and this has been said, reviews are written for a targuet audience, and apart from maybe reviews from the Times and newspapers alike, that's usually "core" gamers. That's not bad if you're a such a gamer (you should always look for a reviewer that agrees with you), but may put down some otherwise very fun games you may not like. It should be no news that, apart from the price issue, in all likelihood, the PS3 can appeal more to some in this crowd, is it?

Other things that may contribute to this on the PS3 list are: good 360 ports, great downloadable content (including what I think is a free demo?), the presence of an import version (which lacks multiplayer yet is slightly better scored than the version with it - statistics, it happens!), etc. Again, these are all good things to have - ports can be as good games as any others, downloadable content is great (specially when free), and you can actually play imports on the PS3. But it does skew results a bit.

Anyway, I'll pull a Sony and say "we'll know better when more games come out". Fair enough?


Reality has a Nintendo bias.
JSF on 05 June 2007

Fact of the matter is that most Wii games did suck. The Nintendo ones are typically good, but the third-party ones were mailed in. Third-party developers didn't really think the Wii had a chance and did not focus on making their games better. That will probably change now. There were stories recently about at least two development houses admitting to and apologizing for their crappy first generation Wii games.



JSF on 05 June 2007

By the way, from my regular readership of these sites, here are, in my opinion, their general biases and tendencies.

EGM/1-Up - anti-Sony/pro-Microsoft, especially certain editors (has gotten better and more neutral lately)
Kotaku - anything by Luke Plunkett is anti-Sony/pro-Microsoft
Gamespot - pro-Microsoft
GamePro - pro-Sony



Around the Network
Cryoakira on 05 June 2007

Lastly, the single greatest issue that I think people fail to take into account is the natural generational divide and the aging of the marketplace. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, the "MTV Generation" is all grown up and has money to burn. The significance here is that today's 30-somethings with the wads of disposable cash all have one thing in common -- they grew up on Nintendo. The generation behind them, the so-called "Generation Y," which grew up on Sony's platforms does not have the general purchasing power (yet), but more importantly, does not have that same sense of brand loyalty.

This is the distinguishing characteristic that has decided this console war so far. Nintendo has produced a cheap console that not only appeals to the same core of gamers that launched Nintendo-mania in the 80s, but that cores' parents as well -- the Baby Boomers.

Sony has produced a console targeted squarely at the market segment least equipped to afford it, the technophiles of Generation Y.

Sadly, quality of games really has nothing to do with it. 


/agree with you on the first points, but not on this one.

The Nintendo Generation hasen't any specific brand loyalty. Otherwise, they woulden't have shifted to PS1 like they did.

Same goes for revenu. I'm 32 and I have less money and time to spend in video games than during the previous decade because I now have a house to pay, a baby to take care of and so on.

IMO, the Wii success is not really a matter of old fans coming back to Nintendo (otherwise, Zelda would have had a far bigger success, instead of these relatvily low sales). I really believe Nintendo is conquering a new market of ppl that never really played video game.

Wiisport is really fun but in term of concept, it's mostly going back to the Pong era, to the stuff gamers loved a long time ago. Newcomers are discovering them today thanks to the wiimote, and that's what's making its success.



HappySqurriel on 05 June 2007

Being a game which is considered "good" by critics is not necessarily the same thing as being a good game or a game with wide appeal.

In general game reviewers represent a very narrow demographic and their tastes reflect this; you're probably not going to see many puzzle games on reviewers' game of the year lists. The unfortunate thing is that many/most gamers do not share their tastes and (in particular on portable systems) favour games which reviewers generally dislike.

The PSP and PS3 have much larger libraries of games which appeal to the same demographic as reviewers whereas the Wii and DS have larger libraries of games which appeal to casual or non-gamers; sales demonstrate that the Wii and DS games have a wider appeal inspite of not being as well reviewed.



Gballzack on 05 June 2007

It pleases me to see people relying on something more than just reviewers to decide their gaming experience for them.

On a side note: Gamespot may own Gamefaqs but the two have different sets of reviewers. "Don't give me this whole, Gamespot owns Gamefaqs so they're the same when listed as the same source". How many of those 58 sources listed are owned by the same company or even owned by one another? By your logic that list should only be a third as long. I can point out at least six owned by Sony alone. So don't act like its justified to claim ignore Gamefaqs just because its owned by Gamespot when Metacritics has included every other little variant and deviation of each reviewer regardless who owns them. There's really no excuse for them not to include Gamefaqs as its own seperate source as it does its own seperate reviews and features independent user reviews.

If reviews really mean this much to Sony fans, they can have them, we'll gladly be satisfied with having the sales and fanbase.



ckmlb on 05 June 2007
Gballzack said:

Look at the list of sites Metacritic uses... They're all pro-Sony. Seriously, just look at the list. I've seen this exact same argument used before on other forums and each and every time its been called out on the basis that it uses Metacritic as a source. Face it, the closest thing you're going to ever get to an objective source is the game sales.

An honestly if the Quality over Quantity argument didn't work for the N64 and GC, why do you think its going to work for the PS3 and PSP?

Shame on you Davygee, shame on you, you should have known better than to try something like this.


How are game sales an objective way of rating how good a game is? This is ridiculous....

Pro-Sony? Yes, everyone is out to get Nintendo... you sound very fanboy ish.

Spiderman 3 did really well in sales so it's great game then right? 



Thanks to Blacksaber for the sig!

ckmlb on 05 June 2007
omgwtfbbq said:
davygee said:
 

The bottom line is that there is a larger selection of better rated games on both the PSP and PS3 than the DS or Wii.

The bottom line is most people don't care, because they've played the exact same games on the PS2.

 


 Yeah, everyone wants to play Wii sports.... why are you buying Zelda and Mario games then??



Thanks to Blacksaber for the sig!