A 20min install doesnt sound that bad when it completely eliminates all load times in the actual game. I dont know how it ran on other people's PS3s but on mine the screen would turn black for less then a second and then you would be right back in the action which I feel many completely over looked. In DMC4 in particular the load difference is a lot bigger then many give it credit.

Yea you may be right about Oblivion and Bioshock, but I feel these late releases brought more then enough to at LEAST get them the same average score as the 360 versions. Oblivion looked better, played better, as well as came with all the expansions the 360 version had standard for PS3. Bioshock looks on par with the 360 version, some textures being better while others being worse, but it still made up for it with extra content that was exclusive to it. Did it deserve to get .2 percent lower then the 360 version? No.

Then their is stuff like the PS3's blurriness debacle. I frequently test these theories out at my gamestop. Assassin's Creed was boasted to be blurry and darker on PS3 then the Xbox version. I had the two games ran at the same time on two different LCD TVs and the blurriness that I constantly see in these comparison videos simply does not exist. The game looks just as crisp on the PS3. And as for the whole darker thing. Every game that I have seen that is shown as darker on the PS3 then 360 has had a brightness option. I can simply go into the menu and adjust it and they look COMPLETELY Identical.

As for the Orange Box I did read quite a few articles on how the 360 version was vastly superior to the PS3 one. Yet when it comes to word of mouth, every single person that I KNOW that played it for PS3 says that alot of those issues simply did not exist for them at all.

As for Fallout 3. The PS3 version had a few issues supposedly, I watched my friends play it for PS3 and saw nothing wrong. Come to find out, the 360 version has the same ratio of graphical issues if not more. It depends mostly on system to system basis. Also the 360 version has some game breaking issues as well, ones that the PS3 version lacks. So Not only did the PS3 version not deserve to be marked lower then the 360 version, it deserved to be HIGHER. Yet IGN only partially corrected their mistake by making the scores even now.

I personally like to use N4G's average review score listings as the norm. Theirs is better then Metacritic because they are not too picky about which to accept so everyone has a fighting chance. They dont purposely find the worst reviews out their for a game so the score does not look too good. I mean look at Little Big Planet on Metacritic. According to N4G there are over 30 sites available for LBP that gave it a pure 10/10. Out of those 30 MC has only used about 4. And they purposely saught out the reviewers that gave it like an 8 instead of the countless ones that gave it 9+. N4G has clocked Resistance 2 as a 9.4 with 11 reviews so far. GOW2 has a 9.2 so far with over 35 reviews at the moment.

Sorry to go a bit off topic, but a 20 minute install isn't bad if you can control when you do it.  When I buy a console game I want to play it right from the get go, not look at a progress bar for 20 minutes. 

I would much rather deal with load times for my first playthrough and then just install it later when I'm not waiting to play the game.

A lot of people need to look at this "out of 10 / not an average" to see what it implies. Every site has some variation on how they rate their games, and I think there is a lot of flexability because games have gotten more complex and specialized. Not every game is the same, and a factor in one game (like sound) can be less crucial in another (like presentation). And no one review system can fully accomodate one game. I'm sure there are factors in both of these games that don't quite fall into the five factors used by IGN that justified the 9.5 for both games. And these are games that belong to different systems so there might be a slight variance in the relativity of the reviews. Some people will take the shallow approach by seeing just the numbers and run with it. I would be smart and better to look beyond that. At the end of the day, both games are getting props of worthiness, and there really isn't anything substancial to argue about.

@twesterm
to each his own I guess but I do applaud for Capcom's decision to have an install that is so effective. I personally like the install happening first, that way when I am playing I am not to be interupted for whatever reason. Its kind of a get it over with now to save time later thing.

screw PC, where's my cookie?

we need controversy, otherwise what will happen to sites like this? those poor fanboyz... what will they b*tch about?

won't someone please think of the children?!

THE CHILDREN!

So anyway, straw poll: who has played both betas? and what do you think of them? which is better?

best answer gets a trophy/achievement in the shape of a golden cookie.

I think scores is relevant for the given plateform only :

- When a Mario Galaxy get a 9,99, it doesn't mean it is better than LBP ... just that it is worth a 9,99 on the Wii.

But yeaaa, Gears of War 2 is probably better

Zim,

I was itching to reply to Sony fanboy forevercloud3000s' misleading post but you got it spot on.

People have to remember IGN have seperate editorials for each gaming machine, it's not one team reviews all.

I think IGN should institute a "sum of the parts" factor. Average the "technical" scores and +/- up to one point for the game being greater than the "sum of the parts" factor.

Then they would have to justify the differences in scores as evidenced by Fable 2 and R2's higher than their average scores.

Problem solved.

This is completely untrue. The PS3 version has a worse frame-rate at parts of the game, and the game partially freezes when you're connected to the internet and a user logs on. It's confirmed by several websited, including IGN, Gamespot, and Official Playstation Magazine.

Don't take IGNs review retraction as an admission that the PS3 version is equal. They just removed a specific complaint so the review would be able to be valid after the patch.

The assertion that Fallout 3 deserves to be rated higher on the PS3 than 360 is utter anecdotal nonsense. One website says the game runs fine on the PS3, 40 others say it is not only the worse version, but a particularly bad version of the game.

You're a Sony fan. Sometimes being a big fan of something, makes you think things are unjust, when they aren't.

Sometimes, fans just accept it, like in this thread:

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=46965

Give it a glance before you reply.

It is personal preference, and I understand wanting to play the games as soon as posible.  I personally do not see if from a time vs. time issue.  If I need to wait 20 minutes for an install, you won't see me sitting on my couch doing nothing.  I'll be about doing something else so my time isn't wasted.  So the whole of the game would be a better expereince, and it saves on ware and tear on the optical disc drive.