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

Forums - Gaming - IGN.com Reviews Bayonetta - MAJOR Score Difference!

binary solo on 22 December 2009

At this point in the console cycle, with a growing number of multiplat titles that perform almost identically on both consoles there really is no excuse for a game such as this to be so badly gimped on one console.

If the differences are as large as IGN describes then it's really not an acceptable situation.

Multiplat games with serious performance problems on one console ought to get really hammered by reviewers. In fact I'd say IGN went easy on Bayonetta PS3 with an 8.2. It should have been sub 8. When a reviewer says things like "very disappointing" and "a lot of problems" and "excessive slowdown and load times" and "unacceptable" then either the reviewer is guilty of exaggerating (possible) or the game is only worthy of a



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

Around the Network
CommonMan on 22 December 2009
V-r0cK said:
libellule said:
funny the PS3 owners not buying the game despite the 8.2 score ..

Not me im still buying it. 

Its IGN and pulling the same stuff they said about the Orange Box.  Any PS3 owner that has a copy of the Orange Box for PS3 knows that the PS3 port wasnt even near as bad as what IGN claimed it to be.

And since when does a game around 8.2 not get sales?  Assume the 360 didnt even have this game, and that the PS3 version is the only version/exclusive, would the 8.2 score really make people lose interest in it?  Some are quick to decide just cause of one reviewer, and blindly putting their decision on IGN alone making many of you PS3 owners turn away simply because "the 360 version is better".  Did you not forget Famitsu gave the PS3 version 38/40? But no, only IGN score seems to matter right? 

Dont let a single reviewer decide your game choices, if you played the PS3 demo and liked it then IGN's got nothing on you, if you didnt like the demo well thats good, you decided on your own cause you actually played it and sample the PS3 version.  If you want reviewers/scores to decide your gaming decisions at least wait for like an overall metacritic score.


Good point, on Metacritic there are 2 other reviews for the PS3 version, one is a 95 the other is a 90.



No one in the world ever gets what they want, and that is beautiful.

Dno on 22 December 2009
CommonMan said:
Dno said:
CommonMan said:
BMaker11 said:
 

For companies to only have "limited assets/resources" everytime it comes to PS3 development.....they sure have put out a lot of PS3 games this generation.

I mean, if these companies were so crippled by "limited assets", why would Valkyria Chronicles be exclusive? Why was The Club equal on both platforms? Why is Yakuza 3, Kenzan, and 4 exclusive to PS3? Resonance of Fate? AvP? Alpha Protocol? Hell, the first game they made for this generation of consoles was Virtua Fighter 5, and that was PS3 exclusive at the time of release. If Sega was so broke, and their assets are so limited....why are they even making PS3 games???!!!!

/sarcasm

So what you're saying is that there could never be an alternate reason for an unequal port, that the only reason is that the devs are "lazy"? Money could never have anything to do with it, nor could dev time or time that personnel are available? Do you have a counter argument or are you just "owning" me as Dno said?

i think what he was trying to say is "lazy" is about 80% of the reason. prolly not the full reason but a lot of it. with all those games under segas belt its kind of shocking that they floped this game up.

the other 20% being ps3 is much different to program for.

Thanks for answering my question in a pleasant manner. I guess the biggest question I have is what does "lazy" mean? I just don't get it, I mean if they're putting it on the other machine, what makes it look or play less well? I guess I don't understand the process well enough. I just think that it seems weird that so many publishers would put out something that they can't be proud of. It doesn't make any sense to me. I feel that money has to have something to do with it, it almost always has something to do with anything.

well let me clear that up.

Lazy port on PS3 = did not take the time or money to get to know or learn to use PS3's Tech. HOWEVER companies want to charge full price for it. when this is going up aginst monster action titles like GOW3, DMC4, Dantes inferno, Darksiders, undercharted 2, killzone 2, and other titles that run perfectly why would i think the dev is anything but lazy? in the 1st year of games i understood but now 3-4 years into PS3's life and with games looking better then any other system theres no excuse sorry......

now if not one company or at least most companies fuck up ps3 titles then we can blame it on the hardware but thats not the case... in fact some titles run better on ps3 then xbox....



Dno on 22 December 2009
binary solo said:
At this point in the console cycle, with a growing number of multiplat titles that perform almost identically on both consoles there really is no excuse for a game such as this to be so badly gimped on one console.

If the differences are as large as IGN describes then it's really not an acceptable situation.

Multiplat games with serious performance problems on one console ought to get really hammered by reviewers. In fact I'd say IGN went easy on Bayonetta PS3 with an 8.2. It should have been sub 8. When a reviewer says things like "very disappointing" and "a lot of problems" and "excessive slowdown and load times" and "unacceptable" then either the reviewer is guilty of exaggerating (possible) or the game is only worthy of a <8 score and possibly even a <7. Doing a poor job at porting a game should be an automatic 2 points off any review IMO.

The game certainly isn't worth buying a 360 for, and I was unlikely to buy it for PS3. I'm pretty much certain not to buy it now.

I'm also somewhat surprised at the 360 score, there were some global criticisms that for me would put the better version of the game into the 9.0 range. 9.5 is a score for a game that is tight in every way, with basically no discernable flaws. I do like that IGN give a non-averaged overall score, but it does throw up some incongruities some times. Seriously, an 8.0 for presentation and the game still merits a 9.5? If that was the case then I'd be expecting the elements that the game does very well to score 10's to counter balance that one relative flaw (not that an 8 is bad, 8/10 is still good, just not great/amazing).

Enjoy the game 360 folks.


great post you beat me to it >.<



Zer0John on 22 December 2009

they have been paid... lol



Favourite Games:

PS: Final Fantasy IX, Final Fantasy VII. PS2: Resident Evil 4, Shadow Hearts Covenant, Final Fantasy X, Silent Hill 4, Soul Calibur III. PS3: Metal Gear Solid 4, Heavy Rain, Valkyria Chronicles, Uncharted 2, Mototstorm PR, God of War III, Modern Warfare 2. Xbox: Suteki, Fatal Frame II DC, Jade Empire. 360: Dead Rising, Lost Odyssey, Dead or Alive 4.

Around the Network
XiaoMay on 22 December 2009

Well, these reviews are STUPID...

Bayonetta on PS3 has less score in GRAPHICS, LASTING APPEAL and this kind of stuff just because of lags ???

Dont make me laugh



Try Rage Of Bahamut ! Free trading card and RPG game on ITunes / Android. Use Code : Laa49998 

And get free  rare card.  Enjoy !

 

DsoulsGatherer09 on 22 December 2009
V-r0cK said:
I'm still going to get the game for PS3 cause its still fun.

Im sure IGN is just full of BS like how bad they said the Orange Box on PS3 was compared to the other systems but when i played it it was just as good as when i first played it on PC. Im sure the 360 version is better but not drastically.

the guy who reviewed this game is on the playstation 3 team, he loves the ps3 and sony, but knows how to rate games, its not IGN its about the editors who work there



=o

Catlana on 22 December 2009
binary solo said:
At this point in the console cycle, with a growing number of multiplat titles that perform almost identically on both consoles there really is no excuse for a game such as this to be so badly gimped on one console.

If the differences are as large as IGN describes then it's really not an acceptable situation.

Multiplat games with serious performance problems on one console ought to get really hammered by reviewers. In fact I'd say IGN went easy on Bayonetta PS3 with an 8.2. It should have been sub 8. When a reviewer says things like "very disappointing" and "a lot of problems" and "excessive slowdown and load times" and "unacceptable" then either the reviewer is guilty of exaggerating (possible) or the game is only worthy of a <8 score and possibly even a <7. Doing a poor job at porting a game should be an automatic 2 points off any review IMO.

The game certainly isn't worth buying a 360 for, and I was unlikely to buy it for PS3. I'm pretty much certain not to buy it now.

I'm also somewhat surprised at the 360 score, there were some global criticisms that for me would put the better version of the game into the 9.0 range. 9.5 is a score for a game that is tight in every way, with basically no discernable flaws. I do like that IGN give a non-averaged overall score, but it does throw up some incongruities some times. Seriously, an 8.0 for presentation and the game still merits a 9.5? If that was the case then I'd be expecting the elements that the game does very well to score 10's to counter balance that one relative flaw (not that an 8 is bad, 8/10 is still good, just not great/amazing).

Enjoy the game 360 folks.


The final grade from reviewers is influenced alot by the amount of enjoyment that they got out of the game. Quoting him "Overall, Bayonetta is gorgeous, stylish, entertaining and deliciously unique. To say that it is my favorite action game yet is an understatement." He was simply very impressed by the game on the 360. The reviewer at 1UP comments are along the same lines ( http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3177422 ). The 1up review has an actual breakdown of the differences between the versions as well.

Edit: I just noticed the 100 from Edge (360). I never thought I would see Edge give anything a 100.



V-r0cK on 22 December 2009
DsoulsGatherer09 said:
V-r0cK said:
I'm still going to get the game for PS3 cause its still fun.

Im sure IGN is just full of BS like how bad they said the Orange Box on PS3 was compared to the other systems but when i played it it was just as good as when i first played it on PC. Im sure the 360 version is better but not drastically.

the guy who reviewed this game is on the playstation 3 team, he loves the ps3 and sony, but knows how to rate games, its not IGN its about the editors who work there

so who was the one that reviewed the Orange Box for PS3?



DsoulsGatherer09 on 22 December 2009
V-r0cK said:
DsoulsGatherer09 said:
V-r0cK said:
I'm still going to get the game for PS3 cause its still fun.

Im sure IGN is just full of BS like how bad they said the Orange Box on PS3 was compared to the other systems but when i played it it was just as good as when i first played it on PC. Im sure the 360 version is better but not drastically.

the guy who reviewed this game is on the playstation 3 team, he loves the ps3 and sony, but knows how to rate games, its not IGN its about the editors who work there

so who was the one that reviewed the Orange Box for PS3?

Hilary Goldstein, and hes on the xbox360 team.



=o