Since weaker and more powerful platforms co-exist game ratings have not only been dependent on the actual game itself but also the platform the game is running on. For instance in the past quite a few c64 games scored higher in multi-platorm mags than the Amiga version which offered near identical or slightly better gameplay combined with much better graphics and sound. The main reason for this, the games pushed the lower specced hardware to its limits, often amazed reviewers a game like for instance Turrican would even be possible on the platform like the c64. What do you think about if a Wii-game would be ported identical onto the PS3 platform, should the game receive a lower ranking as the PS3 can push for far more game complexity, much better graphics and sound or should this identical game be ranked the same? The reason I ask is because there are many people who are directly comparing Wii and PS3 reviews, which IMO doesn't make much sense. IMO the PS3 version would deserve a lower score considering it would else for instance have made more sense to just make it a PS2 game and use the PS3's backwards compatibility. This discussion is meant as food for thought and to poll people's perspectives on the issue.

If you notice many reviewers have stated in thier reviews on some consoles reflect if the the game if "Truly next-gen" Which i feel is bull as readers only want to know if the game is any good or bad.

IMO the game rating problems also exists (or will) between the XBox 360 and PS3 to a lesser extend. The problem is that the PS3 is fundamentally a much more powerful platform, but games developers have to learn how to address the multi-processor nature of the PS3.

For instance the original Oblvion is a better game on the PS3 compared to the XBox 360 version with improved graphics, more content and improved loading times. But IMO it's not a genuine PS3 game as there are occasional framerate issues like the XBox 360 version has, which should really be a non-issue considering the hardware specs but the game engine doesn't yet tap into the power of the SPEs, which offers by far the bulk of the platform's procssing performance advantage the platform offers over the XBox 360 and instead of providing 5.1 audio they could have pushed for 7.1 qualtiy audio like in Resistance and Motorstorm.

I think in course of time the specs difference could introduce review problems. Initially Amiga games were rated like Atari ST games, but as game engines advanced to take advantage of the Amiga's custom chips in due time releasing an Atari-ST identical Amiga version would result in much lower scores as there were other Amiga games available which pushed the hardware much more impressively.

So when game engines advance and many PS3 games become more impressive should this impact review scores if the game is identical on both the XBox 360 and PS3?

@ grimygunz

I both agree and disagree. For example releasing 480p games for the PS3 I would consider to be unacceptable, while IMO for the Nintendo Wii and PS2 it's not. Likewise having a game with NES style graphics on the Nintendo DS I don't consider to be acceptable, nomatter if it's an as good of a game as Super Mario 3 (and this while I'm much more forgiving with regard to handhelds).

MikeB said: Since weaker and more powerful platforms co-exist game ratings have not only been dependent on the actual game itself but also the platform the game is running on. For instance in the past quite a few c64 games scored higher in multi-platorm mags than the Amiga version which offered near identical or slightly better gameplay combined with much better graphics and sound. The main reason for this, the games pushed the lower specced hardware to its limits, often amazed reviewers a game like for instance Turrican would even be possible on the platform like the c64. What do you think about if a Wii-game would be ported identical onto the PS3 platform, should the game receive a lower ranking as the PS3 can push for far more game complexity, much better graphics and sound or should this identical game be ranked the same? The reason I ask is because there are many people who are directly comparing Wii and PS3 reviews, which IMO doesn't make much sense. IMO the PS3 version would deserve a lower score considering it would else for instance have made more sense to just make it a PS2 game and use the PS3's backwards compatibility. This discussion is meant as food for thought and to poll people's perspectives on the issue.

 RE4 Wii edition got lower scores than the GC/PS2 versions, 91.4% vs 95.8%/95.7% on gamerankings, due to it being out for a couple of years already, even though the reviews state it is the definitive version, thanks to the controls (even the gamepad control is optional).

 So it does support your theory.

 Even the GC Twighlight Princess has a higher overall score on gamerankings, 95.6% vs 94.3%.

@ LordTheNightKnight

Makes sense, I think both are roughly the same on both platforms right? But the Wii is many years younger, so expectations are higher.

If it would for example be possible for the Wii to run Super Stardust HD (1080p) or Oblivion and look and play just as well as on a PS3 with a PAL or NTSC screen connected I would be very impressed and it would deserve much praise and higher scores despite being better played on a PS3 with a HDTV connected.

I like Oblvion for the PS3 very much, but I am not as forgiving as I would be with a Wii version with regard to occasional framedrops. This is why I think the game is generally is a bit overrated on the PS3. I understand the reasoning for this though, the XBox 360 version received great scores with less pleasing visuals and more gameplay issues.

MikeB said: @ grimygunz If you notice many reviewers have stated in thier reviews on some consoles reflect if the the game if "Truly next-gen" Which i feel is bull as readers only want to know if the game is any good or bad. I both agree and disagree. For example releasing 480p games for the PS3 I would consider to be unacceptable, while IMO for the Nintendo Wii and PS2 it's not. Likewise having a game with NES style graphics on the Nintendo DS I don't consider to be acceptable, nomatter if it's an as good of a game as Super Mario 3 (and this while I'm much more forgiving with regard to handhelds).

 Actually, a 480p game on the PS3 wouldn't be that bad. The thing is that even though the Cell+RSX is more powerful than the Xenon+Xenos, the PS3 has only about 80% of the RAM of the 360. This is based on the fact that the PS3 has 512MB of RAM, which includes the System RAM, the Texture buffer, and the Frame buffer. The 360 has 512MB of RAM, which only includes the System RAM and Texture buffer. The Frame buffer is set aside in 10MB of RAM. However, that RAM is high speed EDRAM, which if the speed were balanced with size, would be about 96-128MB of RAM, or about 25% more RAM than the PS3 has.

 Hence the PS3 may have to shortchange the Frame buffer to have as much system and texture memory as a 360 game. Why is the Frame buffer important? It controls the fourth wall. Texture memory holds the graphics (textures, polygons, shading, mapping, lighting, etc.), but it can't "see" the fourth wall. The Frame buffer does. It controls framerate, depth (as in knowing which pixel in a line of sight to show), anti-aliasing, and everything else that the player is supposed to see, even if everything else is still in the memory.

 Now a higher resolution actually adds more work to the frame buffer, since many of its duties require it to actively scan every pixel. Anti-aliasing is an example. It looks at every pixel to see a jaggie, then blend it in. Yet another is seeing which textures are off screen, so the Texture buffer doesn't have to fully render what is unseen. This was used in Resident Evil 4, Twilight Princess, and Final Fantasy XII to achieve the high detail on the textures. However, that process also has to scan every pixel to see what is showing on the screen. That actually left too little room for anti-aliasing, and also made those games run at 30fps.

 Those games were just on 480p systems.* Imagine how much more work 720p and 1080p would need. This is why the 360 has an advantage. If the PS3 needs as much from the Frame buffer, the System memory or Texture buffer would have to be cut into.

 Howeve, if the screen resolution was just 480p, that would free up a lot of space on the system, as the System memory and Texture buffer would be relatively untouched.

 Then again, both Sony and Microsoft apparently require 720p minimum on their systems. Also it's likely developers will optimize the systems' RAM to run almost the same eventually, so this may become a non-issue soon, but for now, it is there.

 

 

 *Now before you bring up the Xbox, the Xbox used standard speed RAM. The Frame buffer and Texture buffer on the PS2 and GC are also high speed EDRAM, which means their memory was as large, or alsmost as large, as the Xbox's. The Xbox's main advantage was flexibility in its memory, but in an identical situation, it would likely have to sacrifice anti-aliasing and 60fps.

@ LordTheNightKnight

IMO much more relevant is that the PS3 can move around data much faster and comes supplied with a harddrive by default, which can be used to cache large amounts of data if needed, like virtual memory on a PC. In addition technically speaking the Blu-Ray drive is more suitable to stream data when needed due to sustained reading speeds (easily predictable).

MikeB said: @ LordTheNightKnight The thing is that even though the Cell+RSX is more powerful than the Xenon+Xenos, the PS3 has only about 80% of the RAM of the 360. IMO much more relevant is that the PS3 can move around data much faster and comes supplied with a harddrive by default, which can be used to cache large amounts of data if needed, like virtual memory on a PC. In addition technically speaking the Blu-Ray drive is more suitable to stream data when needed due to sustained reading speeds (easily predictable).

 That's why I stated it will likely become a non-issue eventually.