But but! Metacritic dosent matter!
Aiemond said:
For once I believe we agree on something. Metacritic is shit and always have been. The review system is totally broken and is made up by "journalist" (translation fanboys) of the industry. |
Ha, well thats nice to know.

The problem with Metacritic is that one version of a game might have reviews from magazines and websites that the other version doesn't.
All of a sudden, everyone hates Metacritic. Can't say I'm surprised. Hypocrisy is prevalent when it comes to reviewing. Not from the reviewers, but from the gamers. Ahh well, that's very nice for the PS3.
Just find a review site which reflects your personal feelings about games.
For many years EDGE magazine was bang on the money for me. Its lost it entirely in the last couple of years so now I only trust Gamespot. They are consistently more accurate in reviews when compared to my tastes.
IMHO of course
I actually like the scores that Metacritic and Game Rankings provide; by including a bunch of reviews you *tend* to normalize the score. I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with me, just stating my reasons for liking these sites.
The trick however is that as more reviews are added, the score should be more normalized; and here is where the linked article tends to be a little misleading...for example, Prototype on the PS3 was reviewed by 48 sites, and received a score of 80. Prototype on the 360 was reviewed by 78 sites and recieved a score of 78.
Given the idea of normalization, I would posit that prototype is more of an 78 game, regardless of what platform it is on and NOT that the PS3 version was "reviewed" better, as this site claims... That however would not support what the author was trying to prove I'd guess.
That being said, if games across platforms were reviewed by approximately the same number of sites and one normalized to a higher score, I would be the first to acknowledge that it was a better reviewed game, regardless of platform.
| hoffness said: The comparison is not very reliable between systems that have the same game because often the scores they get from 3rd party reviewers (IGN, 1UP, etc.) are exactly the same. The only difference is often how the official XBOX and PS reviewers score the game, and that basically apples and oranges. If the reviews were from exactly the same sources it might mean something, but they are not. |
Pretty much.
Congrats PS3.
360 fans loved Metacritic last year, they hate it this year. Go figure.
LULZ
On quite a few of the games though, PS3 version has less reviews than the 360 version.
This has to be taken into consideration.
Examples-
Prototype (360) : 78 Average from 78 reviews.
Prototype (PS3) : 80 Average from 48 reviews.
Street Fighter 4 (360) : 93 Average from 77 reviews.
Street Fighter 4 (PS3) : 94 Average from 60 reviews.
Resident Evil 5 (360) : 85 Average from 82 reviews.
Resident Evil 5 (PS3) : 86 Average from 68 reviews.
![]()
| Carl2291 said: On quite a few of the games though, PS3 version has less reviews than the 360 version. This has to be taken into consideration. Examples- Prototype (360) : 78 Average from 78 reviews. Prototype (PS3) : 80 Average from 48 reviews. Street Fighter 4 (360) : 93 Average from 77 reviews. Street Fighter 4 (PS3) : 94 Average from 60 reviews. Resident Evil 5 (360) : 85 Average from 82 reviews. Resident Evil 5 (PS3) : 86 Average from 68 reviews. |
This.
I think it would be more fair if both platforms had the same amount of reviews.
But who cares, really? 1 point? 2 points? It's all about preference. The PS3 pad makes no difference to me in fighting games because I have an arcade stick. The 360 has better online - to me - even though I have to pay for it versus it being free. If the PS3 version was $10-$20 cheaper though I would have to pick it over the 360 unless It was a serious online game.
It's just that simple.